Building A looper Beast

[Dabull1919]

I don`t know the math but 270hp from a 100ci engine has to be more hp per cubic inch than the 300hp S3000 from Merc at 153cubes. Then you say that 300hp may be possible! Call it greed or whatever but as a racer/motor builder with a good imagination I can`t help but wonder how much hp could be made from this same design only stretched to something like say 150ci. Simple math say`s that at 270hp or 45hp per cylinder based on 100ci would come to 405hp from 150ci. There have been claims of 400hp from the 153ci Merc by some builders w/o nitrous but I hear 370 is more realistic. 405 from an inline is crazy and falls in no mans land but some day some kid will read this thread and do it.

DB

[Fastjeff57]

Kinda hard to bore and stroke a 99 cube motor out to anything meaningful.

Jeff

[R Austin]

I don`t know the math but 270hp from a 100ci engine has to be more hp per cubic inch than the 300hp S3000 from Merc at 153cubes. Then you say that 300hp may be possible! Call it greed or whatever but as a racer/motor builder with a good imagination I can`t help but wonder how much hp could be made from this same design only stretched to something like say 150ci. Simple math say`s that at 270hp or 45hp per cylinder based on 100ci would come to 405hp from 150ci. There have been claims of 400hp from the 153ci Merc by some builders w/o nitrous but I hear 370 is more realistic. 405 from an inline is crazy and falls in no mans land but some day some kid will read this thread and do it.

DB

I guess I don't know what you are trying to say in this post. If you are insinuating that this level of power is not possible you have to remember that this would have to be considered the Indy car engine of outboards. The S3000 is surly capable of producing this kind power per cubic inch. 400+ HP is possible with enough mods. However, what bass boat or weekend hot rod nut would what something this temperamental with limited life and use. The Indy car engines are limited to 132 cubic inches and produce in the 700 HP range. That is 5+ HP per cubic inch. At 12,000 RPM. I wonder what the Indy engine builders of the 50's or 60's would have said to the guy that suggested 700 HP from 132 cubic inches was possible.

The Quincy built Looper engine easily produced 3+ HP per cubic inch.

The numbers seen on the dyno support the 271 HP output. HP = RPM X TORQUE / 5252. I saw 178#, corrected, at 8000 RPM which calculates to 178 X 8000 / 5252 = 271 HP. The torque number seen on my dyno needs to be divided by 2 to reflect the 2:1 chain ratio. Is 300 HP possible? I believe it is because the torque number marched right up while the RPM increased to 8000. Typically the torque will peak and then fall off as the RPM is increased. I did not see that, because I did not allow above 8000 RPM, only drops in torque with the changes in fuel flows. The formula for HP has the RPM and TORQUE at the same level of value. We all know that it is easier to increase RPM than TORQUE.

If I raised the RPM to 9000 with a modest drop in TORQUE of 10# we then have 168 X 9000 / 5252 = 288 HP. Or I could get crazy and raise the RPM to 10,000 and have a drop in TORQUE of 20# and realize 158 X 10000 / 5252 = 301 HP. Even a modest drop of TORQUE of 10# at 9500 RPM results in 168 X 9500 / 5252 = 304 HP.

My challenge to 300 HP will be an increase in RPM being limited by exhaust. Exhaust is the limiting factor of RPM. HP increases until the lose of TORQUE exceeds the increased value of RPM. That is yet to be explored. I remember back in the day before all the servo controls in model airplanes the throttle was a slide valve on the exhaust pipe to choke off the exhaust to limit the RPM. We will explore those possibilities on the next runs with the Gen 3 Quincy extensions. Risks are destruction of the engine. If you are a Jennings believer, then you know that with this bore and stroke, the limit for usable life is 8000 RPM. Then I guess that is not quite true with the numbers being produce with 10,000 RPM V6's.

For now I will try the pipe extensions and rewrite the fuel map. I am sure that at this level of power it will be an acceptable ride for my age.





Repairing dyno currently.

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

I guess I don't know what you are trying to say in this post. If you are insinuating that this level of power is not possible you have to remember that this would have to be considered the Indy car engine of outboards. The S3000 is surly capable of producing this kind power per cubic inch. 400+ HP is possible with enough mods. However, what bass boat or weekend hot rod nut would what something this temperamental with limited life and use. The Indy car engines are limited to 132 cubic inches and produce in the 700 HP range. That is 5+ HP per cubic inch. At 12,000 RPM. I wonder what the Indy engine builders of the 50's or 60's would have said to the guy that suggested 700 HP from 132 cubic inches was possible.

The Quincy built Looper engine easily produced 3+ HP per cubic inch.

The numbers seen on the dyno support the 271 HP output. HP = RPM X TORQUE / 5252. I saw 178#, corrected, at 8000 RPM which calculates to 178 X 8000 / 5252 = 271 HP. The torque number seen on my dyno needs to be divided by 2 to reflect the 2:1 chain ratio. Is 300 HP possible? I believe it is because the torque number marched right up while the RPM increased to 8000. Typically the torque will peak and then fall off as the RPM is increased. I did not see that, because I did not allow above 8000 RPM, only drops in torque with the changes in fuel flows. The formula for HP has the RPM and TORQUE at the same level of value. We all know that it is easier to increase RPM than TORQUE.

If I raised the RPM to 9000 with a modest drop in TORQUE of 10# we then have 168 X 9000 / 5252 = 288 HP. Or I could get crazy and raise the RPM to 10,000 and have a drop in TORQUE of 20# and realize 158 X 10000 / 5252 = 301 HP. Even a modest drop of TORQUE of 10# at 9500 RPM results in 168 X 9500 / 5252 = 304 HP.

My challenge to 300 HP will be an increase in RPM being limited by exhaust. Exhaust is the limiting factor of RPM. HP increases until the lose of TORQUE exceeds the increased value of RPM. That is yet to be explored. I remember back in the day before all the servo controls in model airplanes the throttle was a slide valve on the exhaust pipe to choke off the exhaust to limit the RPM. We will explore those possibilities on the next runs with the Gen 3 Quincy extensions. Risks are destruction of the engine. If you are a Jennings believer, then you know that with this bore and stroke, the limit for usable life is 8000 RPM. Then I guess that is not quite true with the numbers being produce with 10,000 RPM V6's.

For now I will try the pipe extensions and rewrite the fuel map. I am sure that at this level of power it will be an acceptable ride for my age.

Then maybe it was not the beast on the dyno. Did anyone see it.

Current 500CC VRP and GRM PRO engines are claiming 160HP out of 30 cubic inches. It would seem reasonable to assume that Dick's engine could pull at least 2 1/2 to 3HP out of 99 Cubic inches. Possibly the long inline 6 cyl crank would limit the RPM as the VRP and GRM are 4 cyl horizontally opposed and very short and compact, but 300 HP does not seem out of line unless there is something there I am not thinking about.

[Fastjeff57]

For heaven's sake don't break this work of art trying to get 300 hp! That would be a real tragedy after all the work you put into it.

I, for one, and damn impressed and would love to see her run on the water.

Jeff

[wolfgangb]

Well said gentlemen!
I would also suggest to optimize the motor and stay away from the full potential 10000 rpm. Yes - drag racers exceed that number, but these are V6s and I really wonder how long the precious Mercury "gold" rings last.
Mr Austin: congratulations for achieving this significant milestone in the lofty world of designing and building this one of a exotic kind beast.

Your fuel consumption numbers are no less impressive: a gallon a minute corresponds to the crossflow Twister II consumption with only some 170hp, as well as the Mercury 2.5 ROS (280XS) with some 280 to 300hp. (I own one - not yet raced - waiting for my STV to come back from the epoxy shop - and yes I am a 70 years old fool).
The next problem will be to find a lower unit which will stay together with the wind-up and let go of the 6 il crank.

Good luck and kind regards, Wolfgang.

[Dabull1919]

Mr Austin maybe I wrote it wrong. My intent was purely complementary and I believe what you post. That's whats wrong with the written word, You can`t see the persons excitement when he speaks. I am in awe of your project and have been from the start and certainly mint no disrespect at all. What you have built and what it has done as well as what it will do is extremely impressive. I guess if I`m guilty of something it would be thinking out loud.

DB

[ClayT]

Any gustimate on the parasitic loss from the chain and associated dyno stuff? You may be closer to 300 than you think!

OT: When you say 'Beast', I think of The Beast of Turin.
Four cylinders, 28.5 liters, 1900 RPM, and about the same HP as you're getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TV2l6TOuGA

[wolfgangb]

Any gustimate on the parasitic loss from the chain and associated dyno stuff? You may be closer to 300 than you think!

OT: When you say 'Beast', I think of The Beast of Turin.
Four cylinders, 28.5 liters, 1900 RPM, and about the same HP as you're getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TV2l6TOuGA

Very valid point you are stating here - losses could well be 10 to 15%. What temperature is the oil running at? Is there a defoamer in the oil tank? On the water dynos we used massive surface cooling towers for the water, which could get quite warm when running full load (no computer dynos in the `60s and `70s).
Rgds, Wolfgang

[Powerabout]

where is the load cell, on the pump or reduction?