Sorry if this is irrelevant to the site but my professor showed me this morning when i was complaining about setting a 14" clutch(approx 145lbs) into a freightliner lol this one has a little bigger parts but to me its awesome and MASSIVE!!! check it...
The Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World
Barks better than it bites......
REPOST!
But... Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cjriojas:if you're weather man is a 5 gallon bucket, YOUUUUUUUUUUU might be a redneck
danger_ranger83: I see now why it cost so much to get a harness made... FML
2boostedSilverado: I like Casey's rear end, I want to chat with him about it
We went over this in my diesels class, pretty impressive! Now, fathom this... I've worked the last two summers as a co-op at a 2,200 MW base load coal-fired power plant... that's around 3,000,000 hp! I love my major!
Last edited by bartjo06; 11-12-2009 at 10:21 PM.
2001 GMC Sierra SL ECSB - Project
2012 Honda Civic Si - DD
2009 GMC Sierra SLT ECSB - Sold
School Sox
Cool thing is Mr. Diesel himself envisioned these size engines
from the start as the main purpose of designing the diesel engine
even did the calculations for them.
Diesel was originally invented to replace steam engines.
Seen how big some of the largest steam engines got in their hay day ?
2002 Tahoe 4.8 - soon to be turbo'd - SOLD
1989 Mustang - LX Vert - 351W-TT - 2inches of dust covering it
2012 Raptor - 497rwhp at 10psi
If you aint breaking - you aint going fast enough
We need to get a hold of this transmission builder, lol
Nelson Performance
FastestTruckList.com
NP on Facebook
Youtube Channel
'94 Chevy Truck: 8.9 et, 408 twins
Me too! went and helped out at a halliburton station for a couple weeks and they had twin 1200 Hp V10 diesels on their bearcats MASSIVE and suprisingly simple and easy to work on regardless of size all these things seem to be the sameOriginally Posted by bartjo06
....but then again i dont think i would ever drive one...rattle, dirty, black smoke, loud, and heavy.... but ill work on em for that money!!!!
yeah i know a couple guys off this site that would be lined up tonight!! haha
If I remember right, the USS Missouri put out a total of 224,000HP from her 4 steam turbine engines. 56,000HP per engine. This engine LOOKS enormous, but I'd judge it would fit nicely in modern ship enginerooms. It looks longer than our engineroom was on the Missouri, but we also had a dedicated boiler room for each engine room. You don't need a boiler for this motor, so you could knock out the bulkhead and combine the two rooms together. Due to its' low operating RPM, you might also get rid of the Reduction Gear (essentially a rear axle gear in trucks, but the size of a small 2-story house)....but maybe not.
The supposition in the article that "Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design" is incorrect. BIG ships like multiple propellers. For a tighter turning radius, you can use the propellers in addition to the rudders to turn the ship. Ship propellers are numbered from Port (left) to Starboard (right). In a 2-propeller setup, the port propeller would be #1 and the starboard would be #2. For a hard turn to Port then, the Helmsman would likely ring up hard Port rudder, a stop on propeller #1 and full ahead on propeller #2. This is called putting a "twist" on the ship. You would NOT want to reverse on propeller #1 except in emergency situations due to gear backlash in the Reduction Gears.
In addition, the greater surface area of multiple propellers allows for more propulsion......much like a wider tire. Too little propeller surface area, and the propeller will cavitate under power and not provide much forward momentum, like smoking the rear tires......basically the ship will do a burnout LOL.
Due to this, I'd think that the most common configuration of these engines in large container ships would be two of the smaller motors.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of fuel consumption our steam turbines produced, so can't say with any certainty if the fuel consumption of that Diesel motor is good or bad. I do know that we carried a 30-day fuel supply at all times, and that was a LOT of fuel. I learned a whole lot about steam turbine impeller design, and it's basically identical to turbo/supercharger impeller design and pretty efficient.
We also had 2 diesel engines as emergency backups. I only saw them a couple times, but they were about 6ft tall and 5ft wide and about 25-30ft long. They were inline motors, but I don't remember their HP or even how many cylinders they had.
TLDR version: These motors are nice, but I see more of a demand for 2-4 of the smaller ones rather than one of the largest one.
Last edited by DigitalBoy0101; 11-13-2009 at 02:03 PM.
'02 Avalanche 1500 Z-71, BFG All-Terrains, K&N FIPK, Superchips tuner (Nelson eventually), 750-watt Alpine stereo W/ JL midgate Stealthbox.
'88 Mustang GT, 400HP on motor, T-56 6-speed, 3.73s, 150HP NOS
'89 K5 Blazer 1500, blown motor and transmission. Another project some year.
'95 Polaris 600XCR snowmobile, pipes, heads, bored carbs.
Seems a waste to me. 2 to 4 smaller seems smarter. I still don't understand why they use heavy fuel oil. Container ships and oil tankers pollute the world more than all the US cars combined. Makes no sense.
99RCSB Broke because I wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on my truck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
