Specs are wrong

Discussion in '2006 Weineck Cobra 780 cui Limited Edition' started by ch1c4n3, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. This is for ch1c4n3 - Quote: "Look at the power and torque figures, if the car was producing 1298lbft at 5600rpm then the power would be:
    1298*5600/5252 = 1384hp
    which is 284 more than the peak claim and 1400rpm lower down."

    If your calculation is correct, care to explain how the dodge power wagon concept has 250hp and 780lbs of torque?
  2. I bet you that such a massive bore and stroke and relatively high compresion pretty much defies the 100lbs rule
  3. That's some engine! I only wonder how reliable it is. But alas, this wasn't meant to be an everyday car. If it'd rain, you'd get wet and worse, how can you ever get all that power down in the wet without ending up backwards?
  4. Specs gotta be wrong. It'll probably be the other way
    round. 1298hp and 1100ft/lbs. Makes more sense. Then you
    have about 101hp/l which is feasable with an engine like
    this running at 7000rpm and about 86 ft/lbs per liter,
    which is also not so bad considdering it's a high revving
    machine. Having said that, I wonder if these rpm's are right.
    A F430, for instance, has a pretty highstrung engine and makes
    about 8000-8200 rpm with a 4.3 l V8. This engine is 3 times
    bigger and still can make 7000-8000 rpm? I wonder.

  5. In response to: Senior Member - 441

    There is no way it generates 1300 lbs/ft of torque from a N/A 12.6L engine. Thats more that 100lbs per liter, which is only possible from forced induction engines. Even the engine from the Enzo (and I hope people don't think that Weineck can build a better engine than Ferrari) only makes 485 lbs/ft from 6 liters. That works out to about 81 lbs per liter. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, someone tell me what other car in the world makes 100 lbs per liter. I bet you can't.
    Look at the Zonda C12f 7.3L with 780ft/lbs =106ft/lbs per liter or look at Ryan falconer engines he builds NA V8's that build more than 100ft/lbs per liter. And maybe I am wrong but it seems like everybody is surprised that a very high power engine is making more torque than Hp. Yes once you get into this kind of range its hard and yes torque is a part of the equation in figuring out HP but it happens all the time.
  6. we are talking NA here. the S7 that makes 700ft.lbs is twin turbo
  7. Even 1100ft-lb is a bit exaggerated figure for torque out of an engine like this. It's probably less than 1000 ft-lb in reality.
  8. What about formula 1's. I'm not sure because its very hard to find information on them but, don't they produce around 250-290lb/ft from 2.4L engines that are NA.
  9. Mercedes CL 65 AMG : 5980 cc , 737,6 ft lbs .... so ? ... 123,3 lbs per litre
  10. the CL 65 is a twin turbo. . .

    and yah, Formula 1 cars make over 100 ft/lbs per liter
  11. yes specs are definitely wrong. Weineck Cobra 780 CUi power is ok. 1100 hp@7000 rpm but i think someone made mistake with torque. Torque should be more like 1300 Nm@5600 rpm not 1300 lb-ft !!! 1300 Nm = about 959 lb-ft. Previous version of Weineck cobra - 618 CUI had 891 hp when naturally aspirated. with NOS it had 1200 hp@7100 rpm and 1450 Nm = 1069 lb-ft. So how less powerfull version could have more torque ??? (the engine rpm are almost the same)
  12. You are wright. most torque from 1000 ccm (naturally aspirated engine) is :

    Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - MEP 14.3 bar, 114 N·m (84 ft·lbf)/litre (370 N·m (273 ft·lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 CSL

Share This Page