Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine?

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
g-force_addict
g-force_addict
0
Joined: 18 May 2011, 00:56

Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine?

Post

How will be the 2000 hp+ world's next fastest supercar (capable of beating the Veyron and its 1500 hp successor) engine be like?

* More than 16 cylinders?
18 cyl? arranged in 3 rows of 6 cyl each i.e. like a V-12 with a bank in between.

* 15 Liters displacement or more?

* 10,000 or 15,000 rpm redline?

* 50 pounds+ of turbo boost pressure?

* Nitrous oxide or nitromethane boosted?
BTW would it be legal for a production car?

MadMatt
MadMatt
125
Joined: 08 Jan 2011, 16:04

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

Where on earth did you get these ideas? Are you even living on earth? Are you awake or are you in a fantasy? Not even sure your questions are serious.

Firstly, why would there be a 2000+ bhp supercar (I think they are called hypercar at that stage)? Society is trying to save petrol, reduce CO2 emissions, so for sure there will always be powerful cars, but not in the way we knew it before the P1/LaFerrari/918.

Future is in electricity although I don't really like this because you don't know where this electricity is coming from (could be coal power plants which is far from optimal to stay polite). I think having electric motors is the way forward. But let me go back to your questions.

"More than 16 cylinders?": NO. You don't need 16 cylinders to achieve 2000+bhp. You could do it with 6. But for the sake of a road car, if you decide to go with 16, that will be way enough. But what about the powertrain (gearbox, diffs, driveshafts)?

"15ccm or more?": Again, NO. You can achieve this amount of power with 3liters engines, and in case of 1980s F1, half that capacity. Although it was not really close to 2000bhp, with today's technology we could achieve that power, that is for sure. Let's not forget engines were limited by FIA regulations.

"10krpm or 15krpm redline?": Although you might need this amount of rpm on a small capacity engine, how can you achieve 15krpm with a 15L engine? I don't even think it is physically possible. Again for road, having a screaming engine is not really a good thing in cities where the average inhabitant will complain as soon as you go over 5000rpm. Plus you will have the green party on your ass with this amount of rpm.

"50+lb of boost pressure?": Well, you might need that, that's for sure, I don't see anything wrong with having high boost pressure. Well, you might need high octane fuel which, on an environmental side of things is not really prefered. See these small commercial engines (VW TSI engine, Ford EcoBoost engine), they are all twin-charged with rather high boost.

"Nitrous": Do I even need to answer? Will you carry a 300L reserve for that or will you have to return to your dealer twice a day for your injection of drug, sorry I mean N2O. You get the point I guess.

Have you ever tried the new hypercars from McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche? What makes you think it is not enough? If you are just attracted by numbers, why not getting your Skyline GTR modified by some Russian tuners and walk away with that power number you want?

:)

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

MadMatt wrote:Have you ever tried the new hypercars from McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche? What makes you think it is not enough?
Ever heard of a certain Koenigsegg 1:1?

1350 horses on 1350kg´s of weight.
The big dogs might do certain hybrid cars but it´s not stopping some other manufacturers to completely disregard that.
If the power can be somewhat usable there´s really nothing stopping those kinds of horsepower outputs.

The P1, 918 and LaFerrari is in a division below it when it comes to speed.

Just get this, Mr, Koenigsegg thinks the car can do 0-400km/h in 20 seconds. A Bugatti Veyron does that in 55,6 seconds.
And not only that, it produces similar downforce levels of the P1. So it can do corners as well.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

Oh and just as i left F1T, stumbled upon this one, supposedly into production 2016.

The Nemesis RR, 2,000 horsepower 9 liter twin turbo insanity.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

Writinglife
Writinglife
2
Joined: 29 Nov 2012, 11:09

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

There's a very very good reason why 2000bhp should be a target.

It's simply progress. Humanity's need to go further, faster and higher.

What would Henry Ford have said if you told him you have a 200bhp engine. He would have thought you were insane.

My philosophy is this. If it looks impossible, it's worth trying. Who knows what breakthrough you might make on that next leap forward. We've said goodbye to supersonic passenger flights, we've said goodbye to Space Shuttles, we've said goodbye to too many things that didn't have a replacement. We, as humanity, cannot be afraid to keep pushing the limits. If the thing drinks a gallon of petrol every 2 seconds, they'll realise they have to look at other sources of propulsion. When the Mclaren F1 was released, did you ever expect the next generation of cars to have electrical propulsion?

Some of the car designers are the very brightest minds out there, so let them do what they've been born to do. Push the envelope and smash the records time and time again.

MadMatt
MadMatt
125
Joined: 08 Jan 2011, 16:04

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

I disagree. The Koenigsegg is fast, but as I always said, in a straight line. Never heard of lap times with this car, I wonder why.

Not to mention your concept car, SectorOne. I thought you would come up with something better than that. How many times have we heard rumours and other ideas only existing on computers. Even I did a hypercar in 3D so for sure I can say it has 2000bhp, it won't make it real.

Plus I don't see your point. The 1:1 has got a lot of power yes, but is barely faster than the P1 with much more power. So maybe they have to think of a better way to put the power down?

Rather than paying £5m I would rather get an old Toyota Supra, go to some tuner, spend £100k and walk away with the fastest Supra ever that would smoke any mass (or "mass", like the 1:1) production car on the planet.

I don't see the point in this thread if social/economical aspects are ignoed. It is not morally ok these days to design a 10L car, unless you are living in the prehistoric america...

g-force_addict
g-force_addict
0
Joined: 18 May 2011, 00:56

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

MadMatt wrote:Where on earth did you get these ideas? Are you even living on earth? Are you awake or are you in a fantasy? Not even sure your questions are serious.

Firstly, why would there be a 2000+ bhp supercar (I think they are called hypercar at that stage)? Society is trying to save petrol, reduce CO2 emissions, so for sure there will always be powerful cars, but not in the way we knew it before the P1/LaFerrari/918.
:)
There would always be some rich folks willing to pay millions of dollars for bragging rights.
Some of them would disregard political correctness of heavy gas guzzlers to keep said bragging rights.
Biofuels may come handy. If I'm not mistaken Koenigseggs can actually make more power if ethanol is used.

MadMatt wrote:"More than 16 cylinders?": NO. You don't need 16 cylinders to achieve 2000+bhp. You could do it with 6. But for the sake of a road car, if you decide to go with 16, that will be way enough. But what about the powertrain (gearbox, diffs, driveshafts)?:)
If they decide to build a much bigger engine based from existing engines to use the same cylinder heads, cylinders, connecting rods, etc. then for example they can take a 12 cylinder engine, add another 6 cylinder bank to increase displacement by 50% and voila you got 18 cylinders.

Drivetrain sturdiness will pose a HUGE challenge.
Maybe they will even get back to front engine layout to have space to mount the oversized gearbox and differentials required to handle such enormous amount of power? After all this required sturdiness will make the car relatively heavy thus it may become a top speed oriented GT/luxury cruiser instead of focusing on mid engine handling. The Bugatti Veyron already has some of these traits.

MadMatt wrote: "15ccm or more?": Again, NO. You can achieve this amount of power with 3liters engines, and in case of 1980s F1, half that capacity. Although it was not really close to 2000bhp, with today's technology we could achieve that power, that is for sure. Let's not forget engines were limited by FIA regulations.
:)
Take LaFerrari, F12 or FF 6.3L V-12 make it a W-18 as previously said and you got 9.45L. Make it a W24 by adding two banks of 6 cylinders each and you got 12.6L displacement.
It would be relatively easy to get 2000 or even 2500 hp+ from a 12.6 L engine.
If you want you can keep Greenpeace at bay by deactivating some 6 cylinder banks for rush hour traffic driving.

MadMatt wrote: "10krpm or 15krpm redline?": Although you might need this amount of rpm on a small capacity engine, how can you achieve 15krpm with a 15L engine? I don't even think it is physically possible. Again for road, having a screaming engine is not really a good thing in cities where the average inhabitant will complain as soon as you go over 5000rpm. Plus you will have the green party on your ass with this amount of rpm.
:)
I agree with you.
It is either a small high revving engine or a low rev big one.
As for noise it looks like turbos are a must. Not only they make more power but they also work to reduce noise levels somewhat.

MadMatt wrote: "50+lb of boost pressure?": Well, you might need that, that's for sure, I don't see anything wrong with having high boost pressure. Well, you might need high octane fuel which, on an environmental side of things is not really prefered. See these small commercial engines (VW TSI engine, Ford EcoBoost engine), they are all twin-charged with rather high boost.
:)
I Agree.
A 10L+ engine can make enormous amounts of power without high boost pressures or high octane fuels.
Such a big displacement engine would also have less turbo lag.

MadMatt wrote: "Nitrous": Do I even need to answer? Will you carry a 300L reserve for that or will you have to return to your dealer twice a day for your injection of drug, sorry I mean N2O. You get the point I guess.
:)
Nitrous oxide or nitromethane would only be an enhancer.
During normal driving you just use gas/ethanol/biodiesel but for high speed runs the N briefly doubles the power output.
Rich folks who can afford these hypercars (yes I agree that the correct term is actually hypercars not supercars) can have their Waylon Smithers (from the Simpsons cartoon) handle the hassles of having said hypercars well fed with Nitrous even if they have to import it directly from a distant city or foreign country. Said rich guys already have people whose only job is to take care of their classic car collections.

MadMatt wrote: Have you ever tried the new hypercars from McLaren, Ferrari and Porsche? What makes you think it is not enough? If you are just attracted by numbers, why not getting your Skyline GTR modified by some Russian tuners and walk away with that power number you want?
:)
Reliability.
I actually know some guys at the local racetrack who had their rice burners modded to 1000 hp+ and basically they have to overhaul the engine every other high speed run.
Again IMO a 10L+ engine could reliably make 2000 hp+.

Writinglife wrote:There's a very very good reason why 2000bhp should be a target.

It's simply progress. Humanity's need to go further, faster and higher.

What would Henry Ford have said if you told him you have a 200bhp engine. He would have thought you were insane.

My philosophy is this. If it looks impossible, it's worth trying. Who knows what breakthrough you might make on that next leap forward. We've said goodbye to supersonic passenger flights, we've said goodbye to Space Shuttles, we've said goodbye to too many things that didn't have a replacement. We, as humanity, cannot be afraid to keep pushing the limits. If the thing drinks a gallon of petrol every 2 seconds, they'll realise they have to look at other sources of propulsion. When the Mclaren F1 was released, did you ever expect the next generation of cars to have electrical propulsion?

Some of the car designers are the very brightest minds out there, so let them do what they've been born to do. Push the envelope and smash the records time and time again.
Well said. Thanks you.
Remember they once said 'Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.' — Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1830 ROFLMAO this beats Earth is flat ignorancy.
http://www.skygod.com/quotes/predictions.html

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

I think the point you are missing Matt, is that super cars, unapologetically, have no point.
Not the engineer at Force India

g-force_addict
g-force_addict
0
Joined: 18 May 2011, 00:56

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

g-force_addict wrote: Remember they once said 'Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.' — Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1830 ROFLMAO this beats Earth is flat ignorancy.
http://www.skygod.com/quotes/predictions.html
"Landing and moving about on the moon offers so many serious problems for
human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them."
-- Science Digest, 1948

"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible,
commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development
of which we need waste little time dreaming."
-- Lee De Forest, 1926

"Television won't matter in your lifetime or mine."
-- R.S. Lambert, Canadian Broadcaster, 1936

"The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars is not
for the near future, in spite of many rumours to that effect."
-- Harper's Weekly, 1902

"The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the wealthy;
and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of
course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
-- Literary Digest, 1899

"Railroad Carriages are pulled at the ENORMOUS SPEED OF 15 MPH by engines
which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and
snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to the crops,
scaring the livestock, and frightening women and children. The Almighty
certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck
speed."
-- Martin Van Buren

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895

"Radio has no future."
-- Lord Kelvin

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin

"Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if
not utterly impossible."
-- Simon Newcomb, Director, U.S. Naval Observatory, 1902

"Aerial flight is one of that class of problems with which man will never
be able to cope."
-- Simon Newcomb, 1903

"The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across
the Atlantic carrying innumerable passengers in a way analogous to our
modern steam ships. . . it seems safe to say that such ideas are wholly
visionary and even if the machine could get across with one or two
passengers the expense would be prohibitive to any but the capitalist who
could use his own yacht."
-- William Henry Pickering, Astronomer, 1910


"A popular fantasy is to suppose that flying machines could
be used to drop dynamite on the enemy in time of war."
-- William H. Pickering, Director, Harvard College Observatory, 1908

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de
Guerre

"The aeroplane is the invention of the devil and will never play any part
in such a serious business as the defence of a nation."
-- Sir Sam Hughes, Canadian Minister of Defence, 1914

"The [flying] machines will eventually be fast; they will be used in
sport but they should not be thought of as commercial carriers."
-- Octave Chanute, 1910

"The director of Military Aeronautics of France has decided to discontinue
the purchase of monoplanes, their place to be filled entirely with
bi-planes. This decision practically sounds the death knell of the
monoplane as a military instrunent."
-- Scientific American, 1915

"As far as sinking a ship with a bomb is concerned, you just can't do it."
-- Rear Admiral Clark Woodward, 1939

"Even considering the improvements possible...the gas turbine could hardly
be considered a feasible application to airplanes because of the
difficulties of complying with the stringent weight requirements."
-- U. S. National Academy Of Science, 1940

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will be
obtainable."
-- Albert Einstein, 1932

"Fooling around with alternating currents is just a waste of time. Nobody
will use it, ever. It's too dangerous. . . it could kill a man as quick
as a bolt of lightning. Direct current is safe."
-- Thomas Edison

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment
Corp., 1977 [DEC went on to founder in the PC market.]

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as
a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay
for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment
in the radio in the 1920s

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
You're crazy."
-- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill
for oil in 1859

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

"Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for
future improvements."
-- Julius Frontenus, 10 A.D.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/stoopid.lis

Lycoming
Lycoming
106
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 22:58

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

Tim.Wright wrote:I think the point you are missing Matt, is that super cars, unapologetically, have no point.
Well, ideally, they should still be profitable. Though they don't necessarily even have to tick that box.

Greg Locock
Greg Locock
235
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 00:48

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

Perhaps those who can afford them will move away from endless tedious rehashes of the Lamborghini Countach, which might free up the engine packaging a bit.

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

MadMatt wrote:I disagree. The Koenigsegg is fast, but as I always said, in a straight line. Never heard of lap times with this car, I wonder why.
"the" koenigsegg? Which one are you talking about? The 1:1 is brand new so it´s not a surprise it lacks laptimes.

The Koenigsegg CCX had the top spot at Top Gear for a very long time.
There´s plenty of laptimes if you know where to look.
MadMatt wrote:Not to mention your concept car, SectorOne. I thought you would come up with something better than that. How many times have we heard rumours and other ideas only existing on computers. Even I did a hypercar in 3D so for sure I can say it has 2000bhp, it won't make it real.
The point you are missing is there´s absolutely no reason why hypercars won´t reach 2,000 horsepower.
Whether it´s electrical or regular horses, it is a goal that isn´t too far out.
MadMatt wrote:Plus I don't see your point. The 1:1 has got a lot of power yes, but is barely faster than the P1 with much more power. So maybe they have to think of a better way to put the power down?
Barely faster then a P1?
Have you really looked at the data?

Neither the P1 nor the LaFerrari or 918 has any chance in a straight line test.
When the P1 reaches 300km/h the Agera 1:1 is already sniffing on 400 clicks. It´s not even a competition.
MadMatt wrote:Rather than paying £5m I would rather get an old Toyota Supra, go to some tuner, spend £100k and walk away with the fastest Supra ever that would smoke any mass (or "mass", like the 1:1) production car on the planet.
Still a supra at the end of the day. It´s gonna be built by semi-pros, things braking down all the time and be loud as F.
MadMatt wrote:I don't see the point in this thread if social/economical aspects are ignoed. It is not morally ok these days to design a 10L car, unless you are living in the prehistoric america...
Of course it is. A couple hypercars with 2000 horsepower has zero effect on the environment due to their numbers.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

Lycoming wrote:
Tim.Wright wrote:I think the point you are missing Matt, is that super cars, unapologetically, have no point.
Well, ideally, they should still be profitable. Though they don't necessarily even have to tick that box.
The Bugatti Veyron is made at a famous loss.

VW's justification: other brands go F1 racing, we build a hypercar.
Not the engineer at Force India

User avatar
1158
39
Joined: 06 Mar 2012, 05:48

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

I realize I'm being pedantic but boost is meaningless. 2 turbos can achieve the same manifold pressure and have drastically different air flow values.

50psi is not needed. I make over 500whp on a 1.8 liter engine at 23 psi. This is on a relatively small T3/T4 hybrid, max flow is under 60 lb/min. 2 larger turbos on a 7 liter engine would be able to reach 2000, especially if we are talking flywheel vs wheel hp.

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
93
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 04:51

Re: Tech details of 2000 hp+ world's fastest supercar engine

Post

2000 hp is surely a tyre limitation and not a engine limitation.