W9 Engine (3L,500+hp) - Them crazy Swedes at it again.

kekekeke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
873
http://www.atomracing.se/6M.html
2002409959446026160_rs.jpg


W-9 technical data

* 9 cylinder four-stroke engine in W formation with 3 cylinder rows.
* Cylinder volume: 2977 cm? ( 182 in?)
* Bore: 90 mm
* Stroke: 52 mm
* Max rpm: 12500
* Compression: 12,7:1
* W-angle: 60?-0?-60?
* Fuel: Ethanol, E85
* Head layout: 4-valve, 20? included valve angle
* Dimensions: LxWxH, 434x623x448mm (17,1x24,5x17,6 ")
* Weight: 118 kg ( 262 lbs) complete with exhaust system
* Max torque (est.): 380 Nm ( 280 lbs-ft)@ 7200 rpm (bmep: 15,7 bar ; 228 psi)
* Max power (est.): 526 hp@ 10700 rpm (bmep: 14,6 bar ; 211 psi), dimensioned for Tri-Turbo 1005 hp

Nice write-up here
http://www.atomracing.se/6M.html

Actual MSc thesis publication here
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1617/2006/099/LTU-EX-06099-SE.pdf
 
eb118_engine.jpg


W18 FTW :p

they've been experimenting with W engines before, but basically they suck. they can't do nothing a V can't do either, and they're A LOT more complex and expensive to make
 
That's a hell of a short-stroke high-rev. I like the 3 bank W layout, it seems a natural thought to keep the length of the unit down.
 
the torque figure doesnt look to hot.... only 280lbs-ft? i would of expected over 300
 
That's a hell of a short-stroke high-rev. I like the 3 bank W layout, it seems a natural thought to keep the length of the unit down.

yeah its not that much bigger than an F1 engine. theyre in 39-40mm arent they?
 
they've been experimenting with W engines before, but basically they suck. they can't do nothing a V can't do either, and they're A LOT more complex and expensive to make

except they?re not as long, which makes it easier to improve weight distribution...
 
380nm is a lot for 3 litres...
It's said that a really good sports car engine should make about 100nm/litre...

Even the M5 with it's 5 litre V10 only develops 510nm or something around that...

I think it's a cool idea and I would LOVE to hear that engine...must sound really unique...
 
Its running on ethanol, and look at the compression. No wonder it makes that power...you can get those figures out of a 4-banger.
 
380nm is a lot for 3 litres...
It's said that a really good sports car engine should make about 100nm/litre...

Whoever said that was a fucking idiot. Seriously, I'm sick to shit of people banging on about HP/L.

Nobody fucking cares about HP/L. Nobody who isn't a complete fuckwit, anyway.
 
Well, no...:p

I've read that in a couple of magazines, it's kind of fact... :)

And I do care about HP/L...:p
 
And I do care about HP/L...:p

Well, then you're a moron. Simple as that. I'm not going to sugar-coat it for you.

But, hey, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. If you can accurately explain exactly why HP/L is an important figure when it comes to "sports cars," I might downgrade you from Utter Fuckwit status.
 
Last edited:
except they?re not as long, which makes it easier to improve weight distribution...

I was about to say as well. They are much more efficient as far as size goes. Basically a W12 which is only slightly larger than V8. And since the extra size comes from intake and exhaust components, it's a bit more flexible layout-wise.

9 cylinders feels just plain weird, though. :?

I wonder how it sounds like?
 
Whoever said that was a fucking idiot. Seriously, I'm sick to shit of people banging on about HP/L.

Nobody fucking cares about HP/L. Nobody who isn't a complete fuckwit, anyway.

First of all he said Nm/l which is Newton meters, which is something completely different. Secondly its a very important number if you want to measure how sophisticated an engine is, look at these numbers in the past and nowadays.
 
HP/L does make a good engine as a matter of fact. An 8 liter engine that produces 200bhp is frankly lazy. If you can get over 100bhp/litre from an engine, you're doing well. It requires a lot more design work than 50bhp/litre. Furthermore, smaller engines with high power outputs are much more economical on fuel and burn it better too. Whilst obviously, a 500bhp 3 litre will still burn as much fuel when producing 500bhp as a 8 litre with the same power, when it's revving less, it will burn less fuel as it produces less power.

Furthermore, more efficient engines that are smaller are much lighter which helps handling greatly and will increase the cars performance.

I would honeslty say you're being the Fuckwit BerserkerCatSplat. Look at the power/litre for engines over the past 50 years and you'll see it increasing steadily. There is a big push now more than ever to acheive higher bhp/litre figures due to increasingly strict emissions regs, so embrace it. If you don't you'll have to accept significantly underpowered cars!
 
HP/L does make a good engine as a matter of fact. An 8 liter engine that produces 200bhp is frankly lazy. If you can get over 100bhp/litre from an engine, you're doing well. It requires a lot more design work than 50bhp/litre.

"More design work," in this case, also means more complexity. Which also means "more shit to break." To get more N/A HP from a smaller engine, you also need to run higher compression, which puts much more stress on the reciprocating assembly. Which, again, hurts reliability and drives up the price as they have to use stronger components.

Furthermore, smaller engines with high power outputs are much more economical on fuel and burn it better too. Whilst obviously, a 500bhp 3 litre will still burn as much fuel when producing 500bhp as a 8 litre with the same power, when it's revving less, it will burn less fuel as it produces less power.

I'm sorry, did you just tell me that a small engine needs to "rev less?" The problem here is that you don't seem to understand power curves. Let's look at the S2000 vs the Z06, for instance. The S2000 is 120HP/L, but its torque curve is extremely peaky due to the small displacement. Let's be honest here - when you're cruising along, it's torque that matters. The Z06 will produce most of the torque low down in the rev range and keep a linear band from there on - thus, you don't need the engine at high revs to cruise. Since your revs are low, so is your fuel consumption. The S2000, on the other hand, needs to be high in the rev range to produce useable torque, and more revs = more gas. Need proof?

S2000 (2.0L)
MPG (city)
20
MPG (highway)
26
MPG (combined)
22

Corvette Z06 (7.0L)
MPG (city)
18
MPG (highway)
28
MPG (combined)
21

So, as we can see, with a large displacement engine you can make almost three times the power and still get almost exactly the same gas mileage as the car with the high HP/L. There is no practical benefit to having high HP/L. None.

Furthermore, more efficient engines that are smaller are much lighter which helps handling greatly and will increase the cars performance.

Wrong. Engine materials and complexity will generally add more weight than displacement, as displacement carries zero mass value. An iron-block I6 such as the 2JZ will weigh more than an aluminum-block V8 like the LS7, and adding dual overhead cams adds weight as well.

I would honeslty say you're being the Fuckwit BerserkerCatSplat. Look at the power/litre for engines over the past 50 years and you'll see it increasing steadily. There is a big push now more than ever to acheive higher bhp/litre figures due to increasingly strict emissions regs, so embrace it. If you don't you'll have to accept significantly underpowered cars!

Explain how HP/L affects emissions, I'd love to hear it.
 
Top