WHO THE **** WANTS 8 LITERS???

Trucker · Newbie

WHO THE **** WANTS 8 LITERS???

Wolf · Rehab Dropout...

Trucker wrote:

PUTTING 8 LITER ENGINES INTO OFFROAD CARS IS A GOOD WAY TO GET SOMEBODY KILLEDALSO WHO COULD AFORD IT WOLFS SUGGESTION IS STUPID.

Not my suggestion! Im Wolf (Garry Myers), Big Mick is wolf2214, its his suggestion!

trav184 · Regular Poster

i rekon its an awesome idea, they run it in the states and nobody gets hurt.......but only for the naturaly aspirated guys

was 145 once · Regular Poster

BRING IT ON

Boyd · Powerhouse Poster

if nothing else it would put the turbo guys on their toes. might even interest some people to build a trophy truck (or import one)

go for it, if you want class one to be the least restricted class then why not.

Renegade · Forum Addict

A restriction keeps some semblance of sanity in the whole sport and gives an upper limit that is theoreticaly even at the top end.

Should you allow unlimited capacity it would then give the guy with the biggest budget open slather on the championship.

As it stands now, all the top guys are running effectively very similar vehicles and the racing for outright at the Natinal level is getting closer and better. Any promoter would give his back teeth to have tight racing.

ringo · Forum Addict

it probably wouldn't work

the car classes would want to go to 8 litres as well, more cost, classes 2 and 3 would be majorly uncompetitive (complaints) and others would not be able to afford this sort of engine- less numbers. right now i believe we have the right formula with 6 litres as it is cheaper than 8 litres and with the engines at where they are now, are more reliable. with bigger angines you need bigger everything else. biggest point against going to 8 litres, poor fuel economy and the cost associated with it

the only positive i can see would be that it would put the turbo guys on their toes

if all this could be taken into consideration and a good solution put out than 8 litres, bring it on

Boyd · Powerhouse Poster

for the 8 litres to work it would have to be for NA only.

ringo · Forum Addict

true

trav184 · Regular Poster

it will cost a hell of alot less to get big horsepower out of a big block than a small block....... u can get 8 litre stock chevs with more power(out of the crate) than a $60,000 small block i think the idea is killer and the best way to push our sport to the next level..........

just my $0.02

obr184 · Forum Junkie

Boyd wrote:

for the 8 litres to work it would have to be for NA only.

Why do you say this?

ringo · Forum Addict

you could get a bigger engine turboed, more possibility for power is what i think he is saying

Boyd · Powerhouse Poster

like what ringo says, you can then use a bigger motor to turbo allowing for alot more power again. using the 1.7 rule it would allow up to 4.7ltr turbo motor where as now it is only 3.5ltr. what would a toyota 4ltr v8 turbo motor go like??

just my 0.02 cents, i just thought that the 8ltr rule would be good because it would allow cheap big horsepower crate motors (cheaper than the equivilent in small block anyway).

forum menace 2 · Newbie

Trucker,

Theres nothing wrong with putting 8 liters into a Buggy or Truck, they do it in America. Hows this for an idea, 7 liters for turbos, 8 liters for NA

obr184 · Forum Junkie

so saying this about turbos do you all agree(you must from what you are saying) that the 1.7 rule is not right???

ringo · Forum Addict

a move to 8 litres would need to show a revision of the 1.7 rule, a bigger engine turboed would create phenomonal power and that needs to be put into perspective with the power verses a big block

does anyone have any figures for a turbo motor to compare with that of a non turbo? that would put it into perspective and tell whether or not the 1.7 rule needs to be revised

obr184 · Forum Junkie

ringo wrote:

a move to 8 litres would need to show a revision of the 1.7 rule, a bigger engine turboed would create phenomonal power and that needs to be put into perspective with the power verses a big block does anyone have any figures for a turbo motor to compare with that of a non turbo? that would put it into perspective and tell whether or not the 1.7 rule needs to be revised

Regarding turbos as I posted on another subject.......

Have a look at this formula. There is no way our x 1.7 rule is fair.

run some numbers through the formula and you can see the amount of cfm of air required for both types of engine. CFM is a direct proportion to the power that is to be made considering that O2 is the volatile gas we are trying to get to the cylinder to burn carbon in the fuel......

From the examples below you can see that at 15 psi a turbed 3L engine induces more air than a 5.7L engine(therefore a 3.3 induces more than a 6l, therefore a 3.5 is going to induce more again) . Don't let the carb fool you....it is just a way of quantifying the cfm and the same runs over to a throttle bodied engine. So much for the 1.7 equivalence.........

Formula == Equivalent capacity of turboed or supercharged engine when comparing it to a naturally aspirated engine.

To solve the CFM air flow requirements of an engine for carburettor sizing.
OR
How big is an induction boosted engine when compared to a normally aspirated engine?

The below formula is for 4 stroke only.

(CID * RPM) / (1728 * 2) * (% boost pressure + 1)

Example:
Atmosphere is 14.7 PSI
A boost of 9 PSI would be (9 / 14.7) or 0.612 or 61% of 1 atmosphere

Lets try an example engine:
Engine = 3 litre or 183 cubic inches
RPM = 7,000

183 * 7,000    = 1,281,000 CIM
1,281,000 / 1728 = 741.3 CFM
741.3 / 2               = 370.65 CFM [for 4 stroke]
370.65 * 1.61       = 596.74 CFM

The correct carby for this engine would be a 600 CFM carby in draw through mode.

As above but with 15 PSI boost:
15/14.7 = 1.02
+ 1 = 2.02

from above 370.65 * 2.02 = 748.7

A 750 CFM carby is needed.

To size a carby for normally aspirated 350 Chevy @ 7,000 RPM

(350 * 7,000) / (1,728 * 2)
2,450,000 / 3,456 = 708.9 CFM

A 709 CFM carby is needed.