Bugatti Veyron Engine

davalav

Pro Tuner
Points
387
Location
Essex, England
Car
Mini Cooper S R56
I am watching 'How the Bugatti Veyron' is made.

The bloke narrating the film, mentioned the engine actually produces 3000BHP!

2000BHP is lost to heat energy!

Can someone please explain how this amount of energy can be lost to heat? I know of general losses through componants is common on normal performance engines.

A few dragsters use Supras with the 2JZ engine, and lets say they make 1000bhp at the wheels, at the crank is 1500bhp. Due to componant losses, the crank figure is different to the wheel figure, but are only losing 500bhp.

How can the Bugatti lose 2000bhp through heat?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not quite as bad as you think. He's reporting the general low thermodynamic efficiency of all internal combustion engines. 33% efficiency is actually pretty good.

What he means is that if ALL the energy contained in the fuel was converted into motive power then it would achieve 3000bhp. To achieve this would mean that the engine would be totally frictionless; there would be no hysterisis losses due to compression and expansion, no pumping losses etc etc.

In the same way a Fiesta 1.4 TDCi would produce 192bhp if it was 100% efficient.

Physics is a bit of a sod but that's the way it is.
 
Thanks for the explanation.

If I understood correctly, as its a huge engine (16 cylinders) the thermodynamic efficiency is greater then a 2.olitre for example?

Imagine how much more efficient an engine would be if friction was somehow countered and reduced!
 
I guess if that could happen there would be no need for tuning, remaps etc.
My own car would be making around 480 bhp as standard.
 
Even if the laws of physics didn't apply... you could still tune the theoretical 100% efficient engine to make more power by increasing the quantity of fuel ;)

Oh how I wish engines where even remotely close to 100% efficient. I'd be somewhere close to or if not north of 2000hp!
 
Imagine how much more efficient an engine would be if friction was somehow countered and reduced!

It was this very reasoning back in the day when a product called "Slick 50" was being heralded in various car magazines as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Tried some in my Cortina GT if memory serves me correctly, not sure I noticed any difference in power output, but I do remember the engine turning over much quicker before it fired up.
 
Slick50 is very good at blocking oilways within the engine. Teflon, the registered trademark for PTFE (polytetrafluoroetyhlene) - is a SOLID. Slick50 contains PTFE particles suspended in basic mineral engine oil.

DuPont industries was approached by Slick50's makers to supply Teflon for use in an engine additive.

DuPont declined, stating that PTFE had no place in a mass flow lubrication system such as that in car engines.

Slick50 approached the Federal Courts on the basis that DuPont had acted unlawfully and that it's decision to not supply PTFE to Slick50 was considered to contravene 'restriction of trade' laws.

Slick50 won. The product was launched. And when problems occurred Slick50 pointed it's finger at - you guessed it - DuPont!!!

Nice!!!

Back to the topic in hand . . . .

Why do you think that engines with less cylinders are becoming popular with car makers?

Simple: fewer components means less things to create friction. Plus assembling a V6 of 1.2 litre capacity is going to be costly due to te small size of such components, not just the sheer volume of them.

Turbochargers do go some way to making use of waste exhaust gases, which again is why turbocharging is a popular means to supplement engine power without adding more cylinders and capacity. It wouldn't matter however if the exhaust gases were stone cold, turbocharging would still work.

Other than combustion heat, there is always the parasitic pumping loss due to thermal hysterysis. If you take a cylinder full of air and compress it the temperature goes up. Decompress it and the temperature goes down. But as low as the original temperature before the first compression happened. I think this has the highly memorable name adiatbatic expansion.

Sadly we have to accept that nature is what it is. Science is just our way of explaining what happens naturally. Science is also a mechanism which we can use to work around the compromises imposed upon us by nature.
 
I'm such a crap teacher... Even when I know what I'm going on about, I usually end up confusing everybody with my explanations!

I have the same issue at work Rob with my men, apparently they go off after one of my explanations and have a sit down to let it sink in!

They now use an expression between them all to explain the puzzled look on their faces "I've just been boffinated by the doc" :oops:........:lol:
 
Slick50 is very good at blocking oilways within the engine. Teflon, the registered trademark for PTFE (polytetrafluoroetyhlene) - is a SOLID. Slick50 contains PTFE particles suspended in basic mineral engine oil.

DuPont industries was approached by Slick50's makers to supply Teflon for use in an engine additive.

DuPont declined, stating that PTFE had no place in a mass flow lubrication system such as that in car engines.

Slick50 approached the Federal Courts on the basis that DuPont had acted unlawfully and that it's decision to not supply PTFE to Slick50 was considered to contravene 'restriction of trade' laws.

Slick50 won. The product was launched. And when problems occurred Slick50 pointed it's finger at - you guessed it - DuPont!!!

Nice!!!



But then the FTC, (our Federal Trade Commission) finally stepped in and sued Slick 50's socks off! As Dupont stated: Teflon has NO place in any automotive engine!

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...slick-50-are-false-and-misleading-ftc-charges

And http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog...-or-magic-elixir-part-3b-crankcase-additives/ in 2012
 
Last edited:
www.polydyn.com .
www.polydyntx7.com .
Slick50 didn't do good research science. Polydyn came behind them with a better product, but Slick50 left the consumer market with the acrid stench of ruined engines in their nostrils.
[Please note: the links are provided as informational - they should not be construed as advertising or endorsement.]
 
Slick 50 is probably ok for manual transmissions /gearboxes and non LSD diffs.BUT NOT IN YOUR MOTOR.[/QUOTE

If Slick50 works as it's makers claim ie. coating moving parts with very very slippery PTFE particles then surely this is going to have a serious negative impact upon the synchromesh cones/rings in a manual 'box.
 
I am not in a position to dispute any of the Slick50 claims myself, but, it has been going an awfully long time, pretty sure I have used it once in one of my old cars. After a little research I found this on the net http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-...-lubrication/56-the-truth-about-slick-50.html
I draw your attention to Chapter 16 - In Conclusion it made for a very interesting read to wile away my Friday morning :)
 
Blue Coral, Slick 50's manufacturer, was sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 1997.

Previously DuPont industries, the inventor of PTFE, declined to sell it to Slick 50, stating that PTFE was not suitable and served no purpose for use in liquid suspension as an engine lubricant.

Slick 50 approached the Federal courts with a claim to the effect that this was a 'restriction of trade'. The courts agreed and thus Slick 50 was born.

Whether the products have changed I have no idea. But I am confident that the chemists working for Castrol, Shell, Mobil etc to name a tiny few, are probably pretty skilled when it comes to such things as engine lubrication. These companies have also been go for an awful long time.
 
But I am confident that the chemists working for Castrol, Shell, Mobil etc to name a tiny few, are probably pretty skilled when it comes to such things as engine lubrication. These companies have also been go for an awful long time.

Agreed :)
 
I dispute none of the facts. I'd just like to present an idea that emerged in industrial production; planned obsolescence. Basically, something is designed to work so well, last so long, and then become more expensive to own&repair than to replace so that the mfgr. can sell you a newer, better one and help keep them in business (and more profitable than their competitors). So yes, automakers don't want their engines to blow up or seize, because warranties aren't profitable, and lawsuits and bad PR are less so. By the same token, making a super-efficient, super-quality car that lasts on average 15+ years isn't either. If they sell less cars than the factory up the tracks they may not do so well come Christmas holiday.
So in light of this, why bother with additives? Isn't HDi mostly, if not completely right?
Mostly, in my estimation. Yet only the most exclusive, prestigious automakers through economics to the wind and make machines that exploit the full potential of their initial blueprints. Most automakers in mass production, even the ones producing high-quality products, round some corners on quality to get a little more profitability. And petroleum companies produce products that meet API and/or gov't. agency requirements, but are not necessarily optimized for particular designs or use patterns, much the same way that engine ECMs are programmed for the wide general case and not optimized for a particular engine and driver. My stance is that the right additive in a particular car can fill out those corners to add performance and, in addition to the essential preventative maintenance, help protect your purchase against 'regularly scheduled breakdown'.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top