Topic: List of Automotive Superlatives

[Arthur Dent]

Some interesting stuff to be found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_superlatives

[porridgehead]

Wow. Lotsa inerestin' tidbits there! Many a dollar could be made in bar bets with some of that stuff. Who woulda guessed a 1975 Fleetwood was longer than a Bugatti Royale? Not me.

[Allan L]

Typical Wikipedia unchecked rubbish

Just read it to 6-cylinders and the following examples leap out

Largest 4 in line: 3.2 Pontiac
What about all those Edwardian and Vintage cars then? e.g. 4398 cc for the 4½ Bentley to quote a totally obvious one that is not the biggest.

Smallest V4: 903 cc Lancia Ardea
What about Zaporozhets at 887cc?

Smallest 6 in line: 1.5 litre Alfa 6C
What about all those thirties buzz-boxes like the 1089cc MG Magna?

Largest 6 in line: 5.0 litre Hudson Hornet
What about all sorts of inter-war jobs like the six cylinder Bentleys (6.5 and 8 litre)

Like I said, rubbish

[Ultra]

Indepth automobile knowledge is most accurate when the source is AutoPuzzles.com

[porridgehead]

Well, in their defense, they did include the disclaimer that, aside from the automotive firsts, they were restricting the cars to post WWII because "there was a lot of seriously weird shit created before then."

Of course, that doesn't explain everything, but at least they put a pre-war section down at the bottom that accounted for some of your notations.

Largest pre-war Straight-4 - 21.5 L (21495 cc) - 1912 Benz 82/200 (Wow. Just freaking wow.)
Largest pre-war Straight-6 - 21.1 L (21112 cc) - 1905 Panhard et Levassor 50 CV
Largest pre-war Straight-8 - 12.8 L (12763 cc/778 in³) - 1929 Bugatti Royale

[Allan L]

Well, in their defense, they did include the disclaimer that, aside from the automotive firsts, they were restricting the cars to post WWII because "there was a lot of seriously weird shit created before then."

OK so I didn't read the disclaimer and also it seemed to be a bit USofA biassed too.
I just looked at what they tabled, and for instance their "smallest straight six" was in 1925, their V12 and V16 were pre war (Great war even) so it looked as if they were teenage anoraks whose idea of old is pre Gulf War.

[Ultra]

so it looked as if they were teenage anoraks whose idea of old is pre Gulf War.

 

[porridgehead]

I guess I'm a little more forgiving. I think they could be twenties anoraks who at least have heard of Vietnam and could possibly identify the correct continent where it's located. Maybe.

I view wikipedia as a nice place to start. Mostly harmless.

I'm still boggled at the thought of a 5.375 liter piston.

[Ultra]

I view wikipedia as a nice place to start. Mostly harmless.

Me too.

I'm still boggled at the thought of a 5.375 liter piston.

It sweeps an area larger than a gallon of milk.  I doubt this was a revving beast.

[porridgehead]

I can't imagine it to be a long stroke either, at least proportionally. It's gotta be fairly lengthy any way you cut it unless you have a piston the size of a trash can lid.

Betcha it goes "WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM" and registers on seismographs everywhere.

[Arthur Dent]

A lot of the really old engines redlined at 800rpms or so. They'd have massive (by modern standards) bore and stroke but the tech wasn't there to make them spin any faster - so if you wanted more power you just made it bigger. Sure it there was some incompletely burned fuel go out the tail pipe caused by large bore but so what? Emissions regulations were decades away. Most engines used an over rich mixture to help with cooling as well. A really brilliant book is Driving Force by Jeff Daniels - highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Driving-Present-Future-Development-Engine/dp/1859608779/ref=sr_1_1/002-8534776-4663259?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176225074&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Driving-Force-Present-Future-Development/dp/1859608779/ref=sr_1_3/701-7939634-5611563?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176224651&sr=8-3

[Boxer2500]

I can't imagine it to be a long stroke either, at least proportionally. It's gotta be fairly lengthy any way you cut it unless you have a piston the size of a trash can lid.

Betcha it goes "WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM" and registers on seismographs everywhere.

Did you ever hear an old single cylinder tractor engine?

[porridgehead]

Did you ever hear an old single cylinder tractor engine?

Yeah, but I don't think I've ever heard a 5 liter single cylinder tractor engine. Bet that makes a racket too. 

[Allan L]

Yeah, but I don't think I've ever heard a 5 liter single cylinder tractor engine. Bet that makes a racket too. 

Over here we had the Field Marshall, a single 165.1 × 228.6 mm  (6½ × 9 inches) which is 4890cc or near enough 5 litres for most of us (or 299 cu.in.).
Two-stroke diesel, CR 16:1, rated output 40 b.h.p. @ 750 rpm.

[Ultra]

Yeah, but I don't think I've ever heard a 5 liter single cylinder tractor engine. Bet that makes a racket too. 

Over here we had the Field Marshall, a single 165.1 × 228.6 mm  (6½ × 9 inches) which is 4890cc or near enough 5 litres for most of us (or 299 cu.in.).
Two-stroke diesel, CR 16:1, rated output 40 b.h.p. @ 750 rpm.

That C.R. is pretty high.  With that big of a cylinder, they probably had no choice.

[porridgehead]

Diesel's tend to have a CR between 15 and 20 in order to raise the temp of the air/fuel mixture to the point of ignition. So it's not that high.

Still, it's a damn big piston, a damn long stroke and a damn low rev limit.

Don't get to see too many of those things around the Boston area. Pity, that.