The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: TAB on October 11, 2010, 06:45:50 AM

Title: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: TAB on October 11, 2010, 06:45:50 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: crusader rabbit on October 11, 2010, 07:17:52 AM
Motors are so much less expensive both to build and to maintain.  Motors have a known way to get turned on--and it's the same way each time.  Once you get your motors properly tuned, they do what you want them to do each time you want them to do it.  Motors don't disappoint.  Motors don't care if you hang out with other motors.  You can leave your motors alone for weeks at a time, and they will turn on for you at the touch of a button.  Motors will never ask you if their butt looks big coupled to this tranny.  Motors will never take half your sh!t and move out if they catch you hanging with a newer motor.

Definitely, I go with the motors.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: red364 on October 11, 2010, 10:38:38 AM

and it's the same way each time.  




Sounds pretty boring right there!!     ::)
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: ellis4538 on October 11, 2010, 10:58:03 AM
Either set...ooops, I mean pair are going to cost you a lot and get you in trouble!   LOL

JMHO

Richard
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: tt11758 on October 11, 2010, 12:29:47 PM
I wouldn't mind revving all 3 of them.    ;D









I'll be in the corner if anybody asks.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 11, 2010, 12:59:12 PM
Nice huffers......   8)


Quick query: Which one will come closer to generating enough energy to pull a vacuum on an onion sack?



What?................. Oh......OK....How's the corner Tom?
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Badgersmilk on October 11, 2010, 02:34:39 PM
She looks to have a few miles on her to me...  Probably even been turned over a few times. 
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: billt on October 11, 2010, 03:17:08 PM
When Eddie Hill was competing in NHRA Top Fuel racing back in the late 80's and early 90's, I saw an interview with him. The interviewer asked him how much the motor was worth in his Top Fuel dragster. He said from the top of the supercharger to the bottom of the oil pan he had right around $75,000.00 in it. I'm guessing that with inflation factored in today that amount would be closer to $100,000.00. I knew a lot of women that came cheaper than that!  Bill T.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Timothy on October 11, 2010, 04:13:32 PM
Pretty pair but I'll take the blower in the middle regardless of the extended costs...

Yes, corners in my future too!
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: twyacht on October 11, 2010, 05:07:06 PM
I would make a remark about how much are they bored out?, but there is a good and growing group in the corner, so I'll just be on my way,...with some beer and nachos.... ::)

Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: alfsauve on October 11, 2010, 05:15:16 PM
UH (he says innocently) where's the "pair".   I see the two engines, but I only see one lady.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: TAB on October 11, 2010, 08:56:36 PM
When Eddie Hill was competing in NHRA Top Fuel racing back in the late 80's and early 90's, I saw an interview with him. The interviewer asked him how much the motor was worth in his Top Fuel dragster. He said from the top of the supercharger to the bottom of the oil pan he had right around $75,000.00 in it. I'm guessing that with inflation factored in today that amount would be closer to $100,000.00. I knew a lot of women that came cheaper than that!  Bill T.


To give you a idea on the kind of money we are talking about here.  The blowers with out any pulls or a snout are $9200 each, from PSI.

Each pully is about $500 each, you need 2, the snouts are about $1200 for just the housings, the shafts are another $500.   So for just the blowers you are looking at about 14k for blower and the other "stuff" needed.  Some where in the ball park of 25k for just the stuff hung off the motor.  Not including exhast systems, which are another 5k as they are for a boat.     They are 100k each easy.  I would not be shocked if its close to 150k each.

Something else to think about, these motors are basicly rebuilt after every race.  Throw away everthing but the block and heads.  That is assuming you didn't break anything.  Topfuel cars you have to throw every thing away but the block/heads after every run.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: CJS3 on October 11, 2010, 08:59:14 PM
  Once you get your motors"Lady Friends" properly tuned, they do what you want them to do each time you want them to do it.

You just have to know how to do a proper tune up.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: fightingquaker13 on October 11, 2010, 09:48:22 PM
When Eddie Hill was competing in NHRA Top Fuel racing back in the late 80's and early 90's, I saw an interview with him. The interviewer asked him how much the motor was worth in his Top Fuel dragster. He said from the top of the supercharger to the bottom of the oil pan he had right around $75,000.00 in it. I'm guessing that with inflation factored in today that amount would be closer to $100,000.00. I knew a lot of women that came cheaper than that!  Bill T.
Yeah, but how much did it cost to get rid of them? ;D
FQ13 Paging Mr. Woods  ;D
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Pathfinder on October 12, 2010, 08:21:00 AM
Yeah, but how much did it cost to get rid of them? ;D
FQ13 Paging Mr. Woods  ;D

You can still recycle the motor parts, probably get something in return. When was the last time you got paid to unload the other pair?

Yes ma'am, corner it is. Any beef sticks left?
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: jaybet on October 12, 2010, 11:10:48 AM
I volunteer to do compression tests.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 12, 2010, 11:17:29 AM
I volunteer to do compression tests.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: ellis4538 on October 12, 2010, 04:04:02 PM
Never got paid to "unload the other pair" but it sure was cheaper than keeping them!  LOL

Richard
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: billt on October 12, 2010, 05:08:14 PM
How long would engines like that last hours wise, if you took really good care of them, and didn't beat the crap out of them?   Bill T.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Timothy on October 12, 2010, 05:25:51 PM
How long would engines like that last hours wise, if you took really good care of them, and didn't beat the crap out of them?   Bill T.

One of these engines can burn 20 gallons a fuel in about 12 seconds.  When they run them, like TAB said, they rebuild them as well as the clutch assembly.  So, figure about five minutes in staging and about 4-5 second runs.

It was only in the last ten years or so that they actually found out how much horsepower they could develop with top fuel engines because there were no dynos capable of measuring the numbers.

They estimated several thousand and it turned out to be about 7000 horsepower.  I've seen interviews with top fuel crew chiefs that say though they will build the motors, they would never drive one!
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: billt on October 12, 2010, 05:59:28 PM
I used to work at a place that built R.C. Model Airplane engines. They were not supercharged, but did run on Nitromethane and Alcohol mixed with Castor Oil for lubrication. The largest one we made at the time was a .60, or 6/10ths of a cubic inch. It produced close to 5 Horsepower!   Bill T.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Pathfinder on October 12, 2010, 07:03:50 PM
I used to work at a place that built R.C. Model Airplane engines. They were not supercharged, but did run on Nitromethane and Alcohol mixed with Castor Oil for lubrication. The largest one we made at the time was a .60, or 6/10ths of a cubic inch. It produced close to 5 Horsepower!   Bill T.

And now some of the large scale planes use gas engines from weed whackers. IIRC the displacement is 3+ inches
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: TAB on October 13, 2010, 12:15:56 AM
The average life span of offshore race motors is about 20 hours.   Basicly a test run or two and the race.

As I said top fuel its not even a 1/4 mile before they need to be rebuilt.

As to fuel used, a 1500 hp blower motor will burn about 150 gallons a hour at WOT. 
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Solus on October 13, 2010, 10:46:40 AM
The average life span of offshore race motors is about 20 hours.   Basicly a test run or two and the race.

As I said top fuel its not even a 1/4 mile before they need to be rebuilt.

As to fuel used, a 1500 hp blower motor will burn about 150 gallons a hour at WOT. 

Engines replaced after 20 hours of hard use......

I wonder how that compares....I guess we need that Spreadsheet after all....
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 13, 2010, 01:12:39 PM
NHRA Top Fuelers were approaching 8000 hp (1000 per cylinder for a 500 cid engine!!!!) but due to safety issues and monetary issues for destruction of engines, they have tried to slow them down some, and even shortened the track distance to 1000 feet instead of 1/4 mile.
Still, depending on the altitude and conditions of the various tracks around the US, they still tune them to between 5000 and 7000 horses. More horsepower doesn't always get the job done..... clutch management is usually the rule of the day in drag racing.

Every engine gets torn down and checked after every run, but many parts are reused if they fall within acceptable parameters (especially if the racing team is on a greatly limited budget) Tim Wilkerson once said he reused everything but the plugs and oil if it wasn't broke.......and he has been a contender for the last few years despite the budget constraints.


http://www.nhraonline.com/anatomy/topfuel.htm

Below is a pic of a Champion N1032Y spark plug that came from Tony Pedregon's funny car (same engines as Top Fuel cars) at Gainesville the year he won the NHRA championship. This one is in surprisingly good shape since some of them have the tips burned completely off after a run.

http://www.autopartsdealer.com/champion_spark_plugs_spark_plugsstock_1002s_n1032y-p1237674-p.html
Price for a 'garage pack' of 24.... ;D

2nd pic is a top fuel head and headers.
3rd pic is Del Worsham's crew working on his funny car at Gainesville, Fl.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: ellis4538 on October 16, 2010, 03:03:43 AM
Just got this in an e-mail...interesting info!

DEFINITION OF ACCELERATION

   
One top fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows of stock cars at the Daytona 500.
 
It takes just 15/100ths of a second for all 6,000+ horsepower of an NHRA Top Fuel dragster engine to reach the rear wheels.
 
Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
 
A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster's supercharger.
 
With 3,000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition.
 
Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
 
At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry: methodology and technology by which quantities of reactants and products in chemical reactions are determined) 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture of nitro methane, the flame front temperature measures 7,050 deg F.
 
Nitro methane burns yellow... The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.
 
Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
 
Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After halfway, the engine is dieseling from compression, plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1,400 deg F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.
 
If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.
 
In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph (well before half-track), the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.
 
Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.
 
Top fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.
 
The redline is actually quite high at 9,500 rpm.
 
Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimate $1,000.00 per second.
 
The current top fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.428 seconds for the quarter mile (11/12/06, Tony Schumacher, at Pomona, CA ). The top speed record is 336.15 mph as measured over the last 66' of the run (05/25/05 Tony Schumacher, at Hebron, OH).
 
Putting all of this into perspective:
 
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter 'twin-turbo' powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a top fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and pass the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment.
 
The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds, the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.
 
Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1,320 foot long race course.
 
...... and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!


Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: MikeBjerum on October 16, 2010, 08:14:07 AM
All this talk of gallons per run, gallons per hour, seconds between overhauls, etc. etc. etc. ...

Has anyone done the math on a week of chores around the house, an evening out on the town, a weekend of honey do's, and all the tools to do it as compared to in the words of Ron White "the dispute over whether I am staying on the FULL eight seconds.

Just askin  :-\
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 16, 2010, 12:21:14 PM
Just got this in an e-mail...interesting info!

DEFINITION OF ACCELERATION

   
One top fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows of stock cars at the Daytona 500.
 
It takes just 15/100ths of a second for all 6,000+ horsepower of an NHRA Top Fuel dragster engine to reach the rear wheels.
 
Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
 
A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster's supercharger.
 
With 3,000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition.
 
Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
 
At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry: methodology and technology by which quantities of reactants and products in chemical reactions are determined) 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture of nitro methane, the flame front temperature measures 7,050 deg F.
 
Nitro methane burns yellow... The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.
 
Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
 
Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After halfway, the engine is dieseling from compression, plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1,400 deg F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.
 
If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.
 
In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph (well before half-track), the launch acceleration approaches 8G's.
 
Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence.
 
Top fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.
 
The redline is actually quite high at 9,500 rpm.
 
Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimate $1,000.00 per second.
 
The current top fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.428 seconds for the quarter mile (11/12/06, Tony Schumacher, at Pomona, CA ). The top speed record is 336.15 mph as measured over the last 66' of the run (05/25/05 Tony Schumacher, at Hebron, OH).
 
Putting all of this into perspective:
 
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter 'twin-turbo' powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a top fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and pass the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment.
 
The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds, the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him.
 
Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1,320 foot long race course.
 
...... and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!

It's a beautiful thing to witness up close.
As my good friend and his dad both said (almost simultaneously) after I took them to see their first Top Fuel run, "Damn! That was sudden!"

 8)
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Solus on October 16, 2010, 12:32:38 PM
Just got this in an e-mail...interesting info!

DEFINITION OF ACCELERATION


That, Ellis, is simply amazing.  Last time I was so impressed with something like this was reading the similar writeup for the SR71 Blackbird.

It is dangerous to be standing next to that thing when it is doing fine.....voltage like that and hydrogen being extracted from the atmosphere are awesome phenomena.....and if something goes south, all hell breaks loose.

As a kid I used to be awestruck by the sheer powerful presence of a diesel locomotive engine pulling into the station next to me....the rumble and the shaking ground.....somehow I think being that close to one of these would do more and I'm not a kid anymore either.

To me, this is one of the striking examples of the greatness of the human spirit. ...pushing everything to the very edge or past and then riding it with as much control as can be mustered.   With folks like these doing things like this, we'll never become Pringles.

Let's hear it for the crazy wild ones who forge ahead where ever possible.....and maybe not so possible at the start.  (as Philw says in his signature)


I need to see if these guys run at the local strip.  Haven't been there in 35 years......it is time.

 
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 16, 2010, 01:11:18 PM

I love this stuff. The exhaust fume will bring tears to your eyes when they switch over from methanol to nitromethane.  ;D

Here's the UPS dragster a few years back testing at our area track (35 miles from me).
(http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd352/pegleg45/SGMPPrints73.jpg)
(http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd352/pegleg45/SGMPPrints74.jpg)


Take this, Al Gore:




Watch this one up to the 2:28 mark when they 'seat' the clutch....  ;D



Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: TAB on October 16, 2010, 05:15:40 PM
All this talk of gallons per run, gallons per hour, seconds between overhauls, etc. etc. etc. ...

Has anyone done the math on a week of chores around the house, an evening out on the town, a weekend of honey do's, and all the tools to do it as compared to in the words of Ron White "the dispute over whether I am staying on the FULL eight seconds.

Just askin  :-\
'

lets see what have I done to this house so far...

skimed out repainted int  $5k

inlayed hardwood floor $10kl

bathroom $35k

block wall fence $20k

I won't even count the nickle and dime stuff.


Its a easy 100k since we have been married.

Then again, I did some of those things out of me being bored/ anal.
Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: Solus on October 16, 2010, 08:45:18 PM
You have more in your bathroom than I have in my house, TAB.

Title: Re: Which is a cheaper pair??
Post by: TAB on October 16, 2010, 09:00:38 PM
Thats how much I would have charged.  only  about 12k in material.  Alot of which was left over/change order stuff from other jobs.


It was featured in the local magazine a few months back.   Part of artical on how small biz owners that do high quality work can't stay in biz do to bad econ/ over regulated.  The author was a client...