800 tt vs. Speed 12

Discussion in '2000 Hennessey Viper Venom 800TT' started by bmwm3gtr200, May 8, 2003.

  1. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Maybe I am mistaken. I have seen the purple one, with the new front end, the older show car, and another purple one with the older front end. The purple one with the older front end maybe a fake though, my brother is a graphic artist and he can do some crazy stuff. You ever wonder what a McLaren F1 looks like jacked up?

    As for the press release, I believe Peter Wheeler said he drove the Speed 12 home and then knew, maybe after the press release. A friend is borrowing my issue of Evo with the article in it, but it seems you have the issue, so could you maybe check to see if he says when he drove it? It is the Power issue I believe #052 that has it in it. I think page 106 I think. Anyways, doesn't he say that it was then when he finally drove it home that it was too insane? So it wasn't until he drove it that the project was scraped, and that likely was very early on it seems. That would explain why there wern't that many cars made, maybe two at most.

    Isn't that is the issue with the F1 cars from the 80's in it. I have some killer information on the BMW engine. In the series that ran on Speedvision called M POWER, they had an interview of one of the engineers that designed BMW's F1 engine. In that interview he said that the engine hit the hp limit of their dyno with something like 1000 rpm I believe he said left to go. Many F1 engineers have said that with those engines a 100-200 rpm increases was on average 100-200 bhp more. With 1000 rpm left on the tack that is at least 500 bhp. BMW's dyno was rated to 1400 bhp, so you add on 500 bhp, and you get 1900 bhp. I believe the Renault engine hit the hp limit on their dyno also. Renaults dyno was rated to 1500 bhp.
     
  2. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Yeah, but if it had some tires on it that could handle it's power, it would destroy the 800 tt.
     
  3. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    There is not a difference in power at the crank, and the flywheel. Or is my book on how to dyno your car wrong? It also says that crank dynoing is very rare, and virtually unpracticed any more due to the extreme forces applied to the crank.

    As for the McLaren F1's engine being 10 years older than the S2000's engine here is something for you to ponder on. Many people in the BMW circle have a theory about the McLaren's V12, it is the same as the on ein the 850csi. Not realy, it is bored and stroke, and has a new intake on it. But it is rumored that the rest is the same, same timing, cam designe, everything else. What do you think about that? So that would make the engine in the McLaren how old? 20 years? The engine in the S2000 is what, 8 years old? That makes the McLaren's engine 12 years older. That is going from it's orignal design/ major redesign.
     
  4. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    "None of them seem to have had the same dyno done are their engine as the one used by TVR."

    And none of them seem to be getting the hp numbers TVR is publishing. Some of them WAY DOWN on power.
    In any event, it sounds like you're saying there's no way to accurately correlate TVR *factory* hp numbers with real-world, proven dyno ratings. Is this correct? In other words, an 800-hp factory rating for a TVR is not the same as an 800-hp rating from another manufacturer? That's *exactly* what those TVR owners have discovered. Coincidence?



    "The dyno system TVR uses seems to be standard industry practice also. Strip the engine down and give it a bench dyno."

    The thing is, when owners of other makes of cars dyno their cars, they often get the same results the factory publishes. In some cases less (as in the older Mustang Cobra), in some cases more (Viper, SRT-4, SVT Cobra, Nissan Skyline, etc.)


    "So what ever it gets on the dyno should be correct."

    Whatever it gets on the dyno should be the same as what the factory publishes. It's not.


    "The other conclusion is that TVR has some quality control issues to work out."

    LOL, that's putting it mildly!



    "It seems that there are at a few TVR's out there that get or exceed the power claims."

    Really? Which ones? The ex-dealer and ex-factory cars?


    "TVR is also likely going off of the highest number that they have gotten. Since their engines are hand built, they likely are getting a large variation between the best engine, and the average engine."

    Industry norm is to take an average, and allow for around 5% on either side (low/high). Can you explain why so many Cerbera 4.5's are dyno'ing as much as 70 hp low? That's simply a huge gap, and none to date have dynoed at the factory rating.


    "There was also some talk about a conversion kit that would get the cars up to snuff. What exactly does that conversion do if you know off hand?"

    Not off hand. But the factory offers the Red Rose upgrade package, which probably includes things like better intake, wilder cams, maybe porting. The one known Red Rose Cerbera 4.5 independently dynoed made 400 hp. A good boost up from his baseline of around 350, but still less than even the standard published hp rating for a regular non-Red Rose spec Cerbera 4.5.


    "As for the press release, I believe Peter Wheeler said he drove the Speed 12 home and then knew, maybe after the press release."

    Ummm...wouldn't it make more sense to drive a car FIRST, and THEN issue a press release saying you'll build one or two per month? Seriously. This is not just a minor technicality. It's a public safety and corporate litigation issue. It sounds like major oversight on their part...or is it?

    Yes, that's the issue of Evo with the Turbo-era Formula One cars. And the 1900-hp figure is highly dubious. For the BMW team, Rosche has been quoted through the years as to how much their dyno was capable of, and each article seems to have a different power limit. See the one below, for example, where he says their dyno could only read 1200 hp.


    "There is not a difference in power at the crank, and the flywheel. Or is my book on how to dyno your car wrong? It also says that crank dynoing is very rare, and virtually unpracticed any more due to the extreme forces applied to the crank."

    Well, if your book says that crank dynoing is very rare, then...there must be some difference between flywheel dynoing and crank dynoing, no? Point is, if TVR can get away with quoting power figures when their engines are stripped of all ancillaries (most definitely NOT industry norm nowadays, and has not been so for many decades now), why not go the extra yard and test from the crank?


    "As for the McLaren F1's engine being 10 years older than the S2000's engine here is something for you to ponder on. Many people in the BMW circle have a theory about the McLaren's V12, it is the same as the on ein the 850csi."

    And those people would be WRONG in their theory. Do you have this book called Driving Ambition (see below, right)? If so, then you would know that the McLaren F1 engine is a totally unique, built to order engine. Built from the ground up when Paul Rosche's first engine (based on the improved V12 production unit) simply wasn't up to Gordon Murray's standards. It is not featured anywhere else in the BMW lineup.

    [And what makes you think I'm *outside* of the BMW circle? Remember, I proved your theory that I was ignorant about traction control wrong once. I can prove your other theories wrong too.]
     
  5. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    But it doesn't, so it won't. Simple, no?
     
  6. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    The tires are not the problem - it's the fact that there are no weight on the rear wheels.

    There are a bunch of street legal tires that could handle a lot more power (or should I say torque) than the Speed 12.
     
  7. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Firstly I have yet to see enough proof that TVR is over rating their engines. The only power figures I have seen thus far to prove they are, are rolling road dynos. These show the power at the wheels, and if you do some math they are right about what they should be. AT 25% driveline loss the 4.5 should get 322.5 bhp. That is the about what people were getting on the rolling dyno. Some of the power posts said that there ratings were corrected to horsepower at the flywheel, but the only way to do this properly is test the efficency of the drivetrain. That is not a test any of those people of had done likely to their cars. Not only that, but when taking the power at the wheels, you loose some power between the tires and the drum they run on. This power loss is often not figured back in when estimating the flywheel horsepower from the results of a rolling road dyno. I will once again say this though, flywheel horsepower ratings based off of rolling road dyno results are too wide in their accuracy to be considered accurate in their figures. If you do not feel this way, then the law must be wrong. I did a little research(My moms a lawyer), and found some laws on advertising pertaining to cars. It was determined in a previous case that if an engine is making less power than the company claims, it must be proven on the same dyno, or a simialr dyno if the orginal is not available, that the engine is making less power than the claim. The reason for this is stated as estimates being too inaccurate.

    Did you read everything in the forums that you posted the links for? If so you would have found a post in their that said he knew of several 4.5's getting the claimed power figure, or more than the claimed.

    Hey, read what I wrote, I already told you why they do not use crank dynos anymore, they are too harsh on the crank! Not because it gives too high of power ratings, just that it is too harsh on the crank.

    About it making more sense to drive ti first then decide, what make more sense isn't always true. Peter Wheeler said that when he drove it he knew within the first 300 yards it was too crazy. He also later says in that article something to the affect of, "If anyone ever comes to me wanting a Speed 12, I can usually talk them out of it one way or another." This soes not sound like a man ready to release a press statement saying they will make the car. AT the time of that release everything was likely going fine. I highly doubt the test driver's were complaining about the power. He was also the first person to drive it on public roads(He is the big cheese and all). So his drive would ahve been the first time TVR would be able to know about it's road behavior for sure. Since we do not know when he drove it though, the most likely conclusion(You seem to think those are the best) is that Peter Wheeler drove it after the press release.

    As for teh engine in the McLaren and the one in the 850csi, the heart of the engine, and car, is the block. The code name for the block in the 850csi is S70, and the code name for the McLaren's engine is S70/2. Why do you think this is? Maybe because they have the same block, just bored and stroked. I will also post all of the other parts that are shared between the McLaren's V12 and the 850csi's V12 once I find my magazine with the article in it. I believe it was either a Car or and Evo, so since you seem to get Evo, and maybe Car also, you may want to check yours for the article. I believe it was in one of their side notes, or an editorial. I can not remember for sure. Anyways, I believe the cam and the timing are the same for the two engines, and I believe pretty much the rest is changed. I am not sure about the crank.

    Now about the F1 engine, I realy don't give a flying hoot what you got to say about that. I have my information, I heard it straight from the mouth of a person who know a hell of a lot more about the engine, and what it was capable of than you do. As for the dyno readings, F1 is very secretive, and they rarely give out anymore infromation than they have to. They often under rate parts capabilities and the cars performance. Heck, there weren't any "official" pictures of the engine until it went on display in BMW's museum. Still to this day, there are no pictures of that ever so famous engine with it's turbo attached to it. The same thing can be said about any F1 spokeperson, they often change their information from hour to hour, day to day, week to week, month to month, and year to year. The numbers they give out today are usually replaced mby new ones a week later. BMW was making 900+ bhp, then 950+ bhp, then about 920 bhp last year with their engine, that is pretty consistant informatino if you ask me.
     
  8. #83 Guibo, May 29, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    “Firstly I have yet to see enough proof that TVR is over rating their engines. The only power figures I have seen thus far to prove they are, are rolling road dynos. These show the power at the wheels, and if you do some math they are right about what they should be.”


    What are you, blind? Look at that dyno pic again. It shows coast down measurements to account for driveline loss. But in case you can’t figure it out, here’s the same guy posting his same info at another date. (See the pic below, left.)
    Engine output: 353 bhp Wheel output: 257 bhp. Drag output (drivetrain loss): 96 bhp. 96 bhp out of 257 bhp = 37.3% drivetrain loss! Just look at the blue line that mirrors exactly the red line, except at a precisely lower level throughout the entire rev range. That’s the wheel hp, the red one being the engine (crank) hp. And that’s not even a stock Cerbera 4.2, but one that has sports exhaust, and aftermarket filter. A stock Cerbera 4.2 is supposed to be making 360 hp, and this mildly modified one is still short 7 hp from a bone stock Cerbera.

    You want more? Fine. Take a look at these:

    http://www.achieve-stylish-living.co.uk/images/cerb-dyno1.jpg
    That’s a Cerbera 4.5, making 275 hp at the wheels. 361.2 bhp at the crank. That’s 60 horses LESS than a Cerbera 4.5 is supposed to be making. 86-ish horses sapped through drivetrain losses = 31.3% drivetrain loss. Want another one? OK!

    http://www.dannylt.com/cerbera/dyno/PreRedRose.JPG
    Engine output: 349 bhp. Output at the wheel: 263 hp. Again. 86 hp sapped through the drivetrain = 32.7% drivetrain loss! That’s 71 horses less than it’s supposed to be making.


    “AT 25% driveline loss the 4.5 should get 322.5 bhp.”

    25%? What the hell happened to your 90+% drivetrain efficiency number? Now you’re saying it’s only 75% efficient? Are you saying that’s 322.5 bhp at the crank? Or at the wheels?

    Let me know if you want to discuss Hennessey 800TT dyno numbers. Or bone stock Viper and SRT-4 numbers. It’ll really open your eyes.


    “That is the about what people were getting on the rolling dyno. Some of the power posts said that there ratings were corrected to horsepower at the flywheel, but the only way to do this properly is test the efficency of the drivetrain.”

    No, they said the rolling road accounts for drivetrain efficiency, and indeed the power graphs I linked you to show it.


    “That is not a test any of those people of had done likely to their cars. Not only that, but when taking the power at the wheels, you loose some power between the tires and the drum they run on. This power loss is often not figured back in when estimating the flywheel horsepower from the results of a rolling road dyno.”

    Then why do stock Vipers, SRT-4’s, Mustang Cobra R’s and SVT Cobras make *more* hp than the factory states? BMW’s are in line with factory numbers as well.
    Are you saying those people are lying? That the numbers are fictitious?


    “I did a little research(My moms a lawyer), and found some laws on advertising pertaining to cars. It was determined in a previous case that if an engine is making less power than the company claims, it must be proven on the same dyno, or a simialr dyno if the orginal is not available, that the engine is making less power than the claim. The reason for this is stated as estimates being too inaccurate.”

    Bingo!!! Now you’re getting the idea. That’s partly why those owners don’t want to sue TVR over this issue. If they take their cars to TVR to prove their claim, TVR will pull the engine out of their car, strip it of ancillaries, and take a gross crank/flywheel reading. Voila! Their 350 bhp engine (rated by most rolling road dynos, ie. dynos used to rate nearly everything in the industry, and particularly true in the aftermarket industry), is now magically making the claimed 420 horses. Lawsuit? They haven’t got a case! TVR horses are not the same as other companies’ horses. Thanks for proving my point.


    “Did you read everything in the forums that you posted the links for? If so you would have found a post in their that said he knew of several 4.5's getting the claimed power figure, or more than the claimed.”

    As I said before, show me where. We’ll discuss that on a case by case basis, just like I’ve done up there. Be warned, though, because it’s well known ex-dealer and ex-factory cars sold to the public can make more power than regular customer TVR’s. Deceptive marketing? You don't say!


    ”Hey, read what I wrote, I already told you why they do not use crank dynos anymore, they are too harsh on the crank! Not because it gives too high of power ratings, just that it is too harsh on the crank.”

    In other words your question (is there a difference between flywheel and crank dynos?) is answered. Still doesn’t avoid the fact that TVR tests their engines stripped of ancillaries, which is the practice of the motor industry, PRE-70’s. They don’t do that anymore. Well, excepting TVR of course.


    “About it making more sense to drive…AT the time of that release everything was likely going fine. I highly doubt the test driver's were complaining about the power. He was also the first person to drive it on public roads(He is the big cheese and all). So his drive would ahve been the first time TVR would be able to know about it's road behavior for sure. Since we do not know when he drove it though, the most likely conclusion(You seem to think those are the best) is that Peter Wheeler drove it after the press release.”

    Are you for real?! What kind of car company issues a press release saying they WILL BUILD a car to customer order without having first tested it? And one that has this type of power to weight ratio w/o any sort of driver aids? TVR engineers are supposed to know from racing experience that a car with kind of power to weight ratio, and without racing slicks for traction, might be a recipe for disaster. And yet they continued to advertise it in their official literature 1-2 years *after* the press release? It took them 1-2 years to get around to actually test their prototype? LOL! They were supposed to have started building them starting in ’00, remember? It took them nearly 3 years to go from "we're going to start making them" to "Good, god. It's too dangerous"? All the while advertising it as a car you can actually buy? Hmmm...I love your fantasyland.


    ”As for teh engine in the McLaren and the one in the 850csi, the heart of the engine, and car, is the block. The code name for the block in the 850csi is S70, and the code name for the McLaren's engine is S70/2. Why do you think this is? Maybe because they have the same block, just bored and stroked.”

    BFD. It may be based on the same block DESIGN (a 60-degree highly tuned V-12), but other than that, it doesn’t mean it’s the same block at all. First of all, the 850CSi is SOHC, with 2-valves per cylinder. The McLaren’s engine is DOHC with 4 valves per cylinder, and featured VANOS continuously variable inlet valve timing . So right there, we know your claim that they have “the same timing, cam designe, everything else” is BS. You can’t just take an 850CSi block and swap it with F1 heads (or vice versa) and expect it to work. You couldn't time it right.
    Other differences: The McLaren F1’s block was built from scratch with minimum dimensions in mind. That led to very thin cylinder-to-cylinder wall thicknesses. As little as 3mm between cylinders. [That takes care of the length requirement.]
    12 individual coils (by TAG electronics), one for each cylinder.
    2 injectors for each cylinder (one aided by air injection for further atomization).
    12 individual throttle valves.
    Nearly straight-shot carbon fiber induction system.
    Magnesium valve covers, to save weight.
    The other major difference: the McLaren F1’s engine is dry-sump, with 4 scavenging pumps, 1 pressure pump, and the appropriate design in the block required for this type of plumbing. This allowed to the crank to be lower in the engine (as well as helping it to maintain oil pressure under high cornering forces). [That takes care of the height requirement.] The 850CSi is wet-sump.
    So, you’ve fallen for the same fallacy as those who believe it’s indeed the same engine. It’s not.

    Now, I’m going to ask you a second time: Do you have the book Driving Ambition: the Official Story of the McLaren F1? Yes or no? It really shouldn’t be that hard to answer.


    ”Now about the F1 engine, I realy don't give a flying hoot what you got to say about that. I have my information, I heard it straight from the mouth of a person who know a hell of a lot more about the engine, and what it was capable of than you do.”

    Would that person happen to be Paul Rosche? I posted an article with words by Paul Rosche himself. Go ahead. Take a look at it again. It’s not *I* who’s giving that 1200 hp figure. It’s Paul Rosche. Notice how it says:
    “According to year, regulations, and race/practice specification, peak power could truly be quoted between the initial 550 or so to “…more than 1,200 in qualifying form,” grinned ROSCHE [NOT GUIBO]. “Our dynos cannot read any higher!”


    “Heck, there weren't any ‘official’ pictures of the engine until it went on display in BMW's museum. Still to this day, there are no pictures of that ever so famous engine with it's turbo attached to it.”

    Really? WTF is this? (See below, right.) Looks like a pretty damn big turbo attached to a BMW Formula One engine to me.
     
  9. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    LOL, I got this one off of an official BMW website. No pictures to this day, huh? Riiiiiight!

    Before you make grand statements like that again, you might want to refer to your gospel (that issue of Evo with the Cerbera Speed 12). On page 92, they have a pic of the BMW F1 engine with its turbo staring right smack in your face.
     
  10. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    it's all over the internet, you just have to have the time and patience to search for it.
     
  11. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Nope, not a professor at all. As mentioned, most of this is available on the internet. Or in books. And contrary to what bmwm3gtr200 might believe, I'm not exactly outside of the "BMW circle".
     
  12. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    OMG UR IGNORANT
     
  13. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Who's ignorant!?
     
  14. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    they're pretty even the speed 12 has the higher top speed but the TT has acceleration
     
  15. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    tvrs are shit
     
  16. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Top speed doesn't matter.
    Name a place you'd go faster than 350 km/h
     
  17. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    good point...
     
  18. #93 bmwm3gtr200, Jun 14, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    Right off the bat, sorry about the absense. Buisness picked up at my company, and I haven't had very much free time lately.

    Anyways, I haven't been able to find that magazine issue yet, but I did find a website, http://www.e31.net/modelle_e.html , that shows you nice and simply that the engine in the 850CSi is the same one as in the McLaren F1 minus a few new technologies. There is no changing the fact that the engine in the McLaren F1 was derived from the engine in the 850CSi.

    As for teh TVR bit. If you are going to do the math on things for us do it right. When you look at driveline efficentcy you do not use the amount of power at the wheels, but rather at the flywheel. So the TVR is actually getting 24.64%(86/349). Lets say they are getting the claimed amount of 420 bhp, that is 20.48%(86/420). Or we can use the 96 hp loss, 27.20%(96/353). Or the claimed amount of 420, 22.86%(96/420).

    Once again, I do not accept flywheel numbers that are corrected. I have read many articles, and it is in my dyno book aswell, that there is a large margine of error. I have read as high as -25% inaccuracy in the corrected number. I have also spoken to my friends uncle who makes dragracing engines. He has both a bench dyno(New edition to his shop four years ago), and a wheel dyno(Purchased four months ago). I asked him some questions about this loss, and he said that the corrected number is usually +/-15% correct, and that the only times he has seen the corrected number be the same as what he got on the actual bench dyno was with a Mustang he had done up for a customer.

    Once again, industry standard is to strip the engine and dyno it. They do not leave anything on it that is not needed to run the car. The only times they may leave things like the A/C on is if the customer does not have the option of getting A/C on the car or not. Not only that, but I can give you a real life example that proves you "idea" of industry standard wrong. I am also going to use an industry standar setting company, BMW. If you look at the stock e46 M3 engine it gets between 438-443 bhp(Depends on who's numbers you trust more). The M3 CSL was getting 350 bhp with some treaking, and a less restrictive intake. Now, seeig how the stock e46 M3 has A/C, then according to your industry standards, the M3 CSL, with no A/C option at that point the engine would be dynoed with out an A/C system on it. So the engine would be getting about 10-15 bhp more to the flywheel then(Trust me on those numbers I have owned three BMW's myself, '85 318i, '88 323i, and a '89 318i. I made two of them into racecars, and heavily cusomized the other one, I know what the dyno numbers are). That means at least 348-358 bhp just from the removal of the A/C.

    I have a ton more examples I can get ready for you if you would like. Just say the word I and I can have a list of 10 cars that all show this, as soon as I get two hoods made and a fender for a buddies dirt bike. I could make a bigger list than that, I just don't want to spend that much time handing you information you can find yourself.

    As for the engine, and that turbo deal, I hav e afew things to ask you about. Firstly could you please post a link for the picture of the BMW F1 engine you found on their website? I have checked all of BMW's website numerous times(My favorite manufacturer) and have never seen that picture there. I also have checked the bmw-motorsport website, and bmw-films websites for that picture, no luck. I also believe you are looking at the wrong engine there. From what I have read, the differnce between the '81-'82 BMW F1/prototype F1 turbo engine, and the one that won the championship in '83 is the addition of another 1/4 turn to the turbo tubbing to let the air slow down more(Makes it denser!). They also continued tweaky the engine of course, and adding new ideas. I believe you have a picture of the earlier version there, not the later version which has yet to have any official photos released of it with the turbo on it(Many unofficial photos exist though). The picture in Evo is missing many vital parts, and does not hav the somplete turbo on it. But you seem to have missed the reason why I was stating there were no official photos, and that was to show that there is still very much secrecy going on. It is not uncommon for numbers in F1 to change over time to reflect the truth more accurately. He has in later interview sated higher numbers than those you quoted, and everyone back the new that the race spec engines were making more power than they were saying. The qualifying engines were a differnet story though, nobody keeps quiet when they max out a dyno.

    Now, where the hell do you get me saying the 450R has 90% driveline efficency? I said the TVR Cerebra Speed 12 has 90% driveline efficency, a number that is easily achieved using the right parts(i.e. Tripple plate clutch, custom transmission made to fit "tighter" than a regualar tansmission, the replacement of many materials with more resistance to twisting...).

    As for the press release, do you have the official TVR litterature talking about them producing it 1-2 years afterwards? Not only that, but many times with supecars they get delaided. Take any of the following for example, McLaren F1, Porsche 959, Ferrari F40-60, and countless others. It is also not uncommon for a company scrapping the bottom of their pockets already to not update websites and catalogs anymore than once a year some times even two or three years, heck even more.

    Do I have 'Driving Ambition: The Official Story of the McLaren F1, no. I didn't feel like wasting my money, I sprung for the limited edition of the true official McLaren F1 book, written by Doug Nye for McLaren themselves, it's title is 'McLaren.'. I do not like to open it up very often though, it cost me $500, so I just read it cover to cover once. I only quote it every now and again.

    Peace in the middle east
     
  19. #94 Guibo, Jun 14, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    http://www.e31.net/modelle_e.html...

    Where does it say the McLaren’s engine was derived from the 850CSi? I’m showing it was derived from the one-off M8. Speaking of which, I’ll quote from “Driving Ambition”:

    "Paul [Rosche] then told Gordon [Murray] that his Motorsport people were improving BMW’s flagship production 5-liter V12, perfecting 48-valve heads to be fitted to it.
    On October 25, 1990, Gordon visited Munich. The hopped-up production V12 would not do: ‘Too big and heavy. Definitely not for us. Then Paul asked ‘What do you really want?,’, so I told him: big displacement in the smallest possible overall package-size – absolutely no more than 600mm long – revving to around seven-five – 550-plus bhp – maximum weight 250kg – rigid enough to work as a load-bearing structural member – dry-sump lubrication to minimize overall height and avoid surge in high-G cornering.
    ‘And Paul simply said ‘We’ll do a new engine.’”

    Now, did Paul Rosche say, “We’ll adapt this engine”? Did he say, “Well modify this engine?” No, he said “We’ll do a NEW engine.” What part of NEW don’t you understand? He couldn’t simply modify the M8 engine (because that’s what it was, NOT the 850CSi engine as you erroneously stated), because it was WAY out of spec for the kind of engine he wanted. They started from a clean slate. So you have your website, and I have mine:

    “Starting from a clean sheet of paper, Rosche and his team designed and developed a superb, all- aluminium 6.1-litre, 48-valve V-12, and it was a huge success right from the start.”
    http://www.runeb.org/www_docs/Jexoticasite/frames/mclarenf1.htm

    “The engine has no relationship with any existing engine it used. It was developed by the Motorsport department exclusively for McLaren.”
    http://autozine.kyul.net/classic/mclaren.htm#F1

    “…the result is the McLaren F1.
    It is powered by a custom 6.1-liter V-12, hand-built by BMW Motorsport…purpose-built to McLaren’s specifications, the engine is unique. It has no parts in common with either the 5.0 or 5.6-liter ‘cooking’ V-12’s from the 750i and the 850Ci…slice this engine in half, and you’d get something suspiciously like the new 3 liter M3 engine.”
    Roundel, August 1993
    [Speaking of which, why would the 850CSi be called the 850CSi? Shouldn’t it be called the 856CSi?]

    “The 6.1-liter, 627 hp BMW-built V12, a custom-made item for this car, barks wildly as soon as you tramp on the throttle…The F1 wasn’t compromised in its design, nor its execution. Where other makers will cut corners and costs, Murray spent money as if it were going out of fashion.
    Consider that Murray opted for hollowed, quilled driveshafts made from the finest steel. They cost $1300 each.
    To get a perfect feel for the seat runners, McLaren devised its own runner design machined from solid metal. Where most cars make do with casting, Murray specified machined or fabricated parts; even the throttle pedal is made from six pieces of titanium. Ball joints are specific to this car.
    And so on, and so on. The cost went up by using a bespoke engine. Rumor has it that the exhaust headers on the V12 cost more to make than a complete 850CSi engine. Murray could have saved money by making the chassis conventionally, but insisted on a carbon fiber monocoque.”
    AutoWeek, July 4, 1994

    So damn near everything in the car is custom fabricated. From the ball joints, to throttle pedal, to the transmission, to the gear shift knob (fabricated in resin and replicated from the prototype African blackwood, honed down to the gram for proper weighting). Why on earth would he use an off-the-shelf BMW engine? And one that already proved itself incapable of meeting his minimum dimension and weight requirements?


    “…But the Japanese declined, feeling that they could not spare the capacity to develop such a project. So Murray then turned to BMW Motorsport and his old friend Paul Rosche, who had provided the engines to the Brabham team while Murray was in charge. Rosche enthusiastically accepted. Starting from a clean sheet of paper, Rosche and his team designed and developed a superb, all-aluminum 6.1-liter, 48-valve V-12, and it was a huge success right from the start.”
    Road & Track, November 1994
    REPEAT: “STARTING FROM A CLEAN SHEET OF PAPER, ROSCHE AND HIS TEAM *DESIGNED*…”

    “Those fortunate few who actually had an opportunity later to ride in – and even fewer to drive – one of the cars simply ran out of superlatives.
    If anything, a counter-balancing note was required, but the best that critics seemed to be able to devise involved disbelief at such a premium price – while for the real student of the over-praised yet woefully un-informed there was quite a prominent television pundit who declared the F1 a ‘rip-off’ since it was powered by merely a ‘hot-rod version’ of BMW’s production V12 engine.
    This was never true, but the source was considered unworthy of challenge.”
    [Sounds like your kind of source, bmwm3gtr200]
    From Driving Ambition: the Official Inside Story of the McLaren F1
    Written by…DOUG NYE with Ron Dennis and Gordon Murray

    Speaking of which, why would you buy a book and barely crack it open? Isn’t the point of a book to read it? To gain knowledge from it? To bask in the glory of the images within? You sound like one of those collectors who buys a Ferrari to keep in his garage or museum, never to see the light of day after having been trailered home from the dealer with single or double digits on the odometer. Maybe if you opened that book, you’d see the truth. Instead of relying on internet webpages (which contradict your very statements anyway, LOL).
    “Waste of money”? This edition only costs $50, and is one of the best $50 I’ve ever spent on any book. Period. I thought you were a fan of the McLaren F1, and if you can afford a $500 edition (which you barely ever look at), you really can’t be speaking of wasting money, now can you?


    “If you look at the stock e46 M3 engine it gets between 438-443 bhp(Depends on who's numbers you trust more).”

    What the hell?! Are you on crack? Show me where a stock E46 M3 makes between 438-443 hp. A mere 5-hp difference can come down to variations in dynos, not the "who's numbers you trust more" bit. You can get a difference of 5-hp (and more) from simply dynoing the car with the hood up or down.


    As for the Formula One Turbo engines, here’s the source for that image I posted (take note of the year, 1983):
    http://www.bmw.com/eheritage/COM/en/1983/motorsport/media4/RF3133_1.jpg
    I thought you were the hardcore BMW fan. How did you miss that?

    And you obviously missed the fine print in the pic I posted earlier. Here it is again (LOOK at the print in the lower left corner):
    http://speed.supercars.net/cboardpics/2003-4-29/434661b.jpg

    You’re just grabbing at straws here and splitting hairs. It’s annoying as hell, and anyone who’s seen yours posts here knows you’re nothing more than windup artist. I hardly ever see you in the BMW E30 M3 forum or the McLaren F1 forum, for that matter. These are some of your favorite models, so why so insistent on talking to a bunch of 12-year-olds (or however old you said we were) in the 800TT forum? I don’t get it.

    About the TVR dyno thing, I’ll address that in a moment. Lord knows this post is already as long as hell. Let’s get this out of the way first. But since you’re unwilling to accept that you were wrong about the 850CSi engine (same valvetrain, timing, etc, LOL!), I don’t see that happening anytime soon. And that's when it's time to end this thread.
     
  20. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    OK, one more.

    Q: "Was there ever an 8-Series with an F1 motor?"
    A: "No, that was a completely different engine, based on a production engine. We had a project at one time in our 850 coupe to make a special version, but we stopped this project."
    George Gondos interviewing Paul Rosche, Roundel May 1995

    REPEAT: "NO, THAT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENGINE..."

    Sounds a bit like the M8 (NOT 850CSi) he's referring to, eh? If we are to believe your version of events, that the McLaren F1 derived its engine from the production 8-Series, then Rosche would've said (at the very least): "Yes, there was an 8-Series with an F1 motor. It was in our project 850 coupe, and we adapted that engine for use in the McLaren F1."

    BUT, he doesn't say that. In every passage directly related to this subject, Rosche has always said the engine for the F1 was all new. He has NEVER said it was derived from a production engine. All other articles mentioned thus far indicate the engine in the F1 is unique, bespoke, designed from a clean sheet of paper.
     
  21. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    can there posts any bloody bigger...!?
     
  22. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    It could be. But that's why I'm leaving the dyno stuff for later. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  23. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    cant the hennessey viper 1000 TT do 0-60 in 1.97? with slicks?
     
  24. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    That was the Lingenfelter Vette.
     
  25. Re: 800 tt vs. Speed 12

    it doesn't matter, it was never a road car, you cant compare the 2
     

Share This Page