108,920 HP 12 cylinder engine
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=174108
Printed Date: 01 February 2026 at 3:01pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 108,920 HP 12 cylinder engine
Posted By: WGP guy2
Subject: 108,920 HP 12 cylinder engine
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:46pm
|
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/ - http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/ Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.) Length: 89 feet Height: 44 feet Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken. It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them. The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.  |
Replies:
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:51pm
|
that is beautifull, wonder what they start it with. ------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here. |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 12:57pm
|
^hand cranking it
------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 1:01pm
|
Holy crap
------------- 
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 1:22pm
|
They should totally drop that into a VW bug. Best sleeper ever. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 1:23pm
|
How many MPG does it get?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 1:34pm
|
By the looks of it, each cylinder would use a few gallons of fuel for every rotation.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6.
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 2:31pm
|
Old. ------------- 
http://paintballchat.org - Paintball Chat I'm at work, Leave me alone!!! |
Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 4:26pm
|
This is older than the internet itself
------------- |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 4:33pm
.01 |
Man Bites Dog wrote:Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 4:49pm
At the most fuel efficant time for the big 14 cylinder one it uses 1660 gallons of heavy oil per hour. They have to keep it running at all times or else it takes too much fuel and effort to start up. So when its not in use its running on two cylinders. ------------- |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 5:12pm
Fixed. ------------- 
|
Posted By: xXK1CK1NVV1NGXx
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 5:17pm
I have a bigger engine in my truck. 
------------- <Sig violation, Section 1> |
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 5:18pm
|
I laughed. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 5:35am
|
if only with were a stick shift....
------------- X |
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 10:11am
|
Gotta get us one of them for the mustang project.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tical2.0
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 10:16am
|
thats pretty badass.
------------- 
|
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 10:28am
Someone else used to have that sig, was it panda man ? I can't remember. -------------
|
Posted By: Tical2.0
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 10:48am
-------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 10:50am
Again, not until you've seen it. ------------- ? |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 11:10am
No. Old is old is old. Same with reposts, whether you've seen it does not change the fact it is old or a repost. What determines this is the actual age of whatever has been posted and how many times it has been posted previously. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jordanpischke
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 11:10am
|
I have seen this before and I am pretty sure it was when someone posted it on here awhile ago and people were saying it was old then. ------------- 
|
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 11:36am
| It is old and it was posted on here. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:06pm
But if I haven't or can't recall having seen it, and the novelty of the post if new to me, how is it old (to me?) ------------- ? |
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:15pm
|
Honestly people, the OMG OLD/OMGZ REPOST crap is stupid. We don't care if you've seen it before and think it's old. I haven't seen it before. It's new to me. If it's old news then don't even bother replying and bumping it up to the top of the list. -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:19pm
| How about this. You open a thread and see that it is something you've seen before, and instead of posting "old!", you just close the thread. Maybe making useless comments like telling us something is old should be counted as spam and therefore strike able? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:29pm
What a novel concept. But, I guess for some reason, mentioning every time that they've seen something already makes them feel better about themselves? I don't know, I can't really find a legitimate reason for it. ------------- ? |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:39pm
Or maybe the useless reposted material should be counted as spam and therefore strikeworthy? -------------
|
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 12:59pm
|
Did you guys not see that I recommended that already ???
-------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 1:00pm
No I didn't, sorry. What we stated bears repeating anyway. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 1:37pm
Ah ha. So anything that you've seen already counts as useless spam regardless of anyone else? My, you DO have a rather high opinion of yourself don't you? ------------- ? |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:04pm
No, but it is apparent that you do. I was merely pointing out the stupidity behind wgp's idea. Why would we tell people to search before posting, to avoid reposting old topics, if you are going to come in and say it is ok because a few people haven't seen it yet? -------------
|
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:09pm
|
Nobody uses the search. I'm glad that they don't. most stuff that is posted gets the OLD/REPOST stamp when I haven't seen it before. And had they used the search I never would have seen it. Sometimes I think people say old/repost just because even if they never seen it before.
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:12pm
 -------------
|
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:13pm
|
how about it's not a big deal? HV, when everyone pairs up with HP instead of you, it's time to give up. ------------- X |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:32pm
I agree that it isn't a big deal. People will still say old/repost and there will still be people who haven't seen old stuff. Welcome to the internet. I see more people saying this thread is old than those whining because they are behind the times. I haven't seen this before. I haven't posted saying it is old. I'm just making a note of the selfish behavior taking place in this thread. WGP, how hard is it to simply pass over the OLD! posts which seem to offend you so much? Reb, news flash, the world doesn't revolve around you. It doesn't revolve around me either. HP, lurk moar. I'm so tired of telling you this but you don't seem to get it. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:41pm
So........every time I think I have something that might be neat to post, I should search for the topic first, just to make sure someone like you doesn't scream "OLD!" Then what if I DO search, find the topic, and have a comment that I'd like to add? Then, the smart money is on you screaming "OMG DON'T BUMP OLD THREADS N00B!" ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:44pm
Feel better now? You managed to ruin my day with that piece of ground breaking information. ------------- ? |
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:47pm
|
Lurk moar is all you ever have to say. Who didn't see that one coming. So I'm behind the times just because I haven't seen something on the Internet before you? Excuse me for having a life that consists of more than the Internet alone. -------------
|
Posted By: Rustic
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:52pm
Wait.......isn't this the SAME idea that you just said was 'stupid?' Alter it slightly: "HV, How hard is it to simply pass over the old posts which seem to offend you so much?" I thought it sounded familiar. But because WGP had the idea, it was stupid. You have the same idea, and its an entirely different matter. cool. ------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 2:58pm
If it is relevant to the thread I fail to see why anyone would "scream" at you. Also, if you can't figure out how to post in an old thread, why are you a mod? If the thread is older than a few months I'd probably make a new one and I would start by mentioning the age of the topic. Why are you so worried about what people say on an internet forum? Also if I mistakenly created a duplicate thread I'd apologize for the mixup and request it be locked or change the topic entirely. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:02pm
|
lol.
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:04pm
Uhh, if I found it stupid, why would I turn around and suggest basically the same thing? I didn't say ignoring posts was stupid. What I found stupid was the mention of making it strikeworthy to post OLD. If you took the time to read my post quoting him you'd see that. -------------
|
Posted By: Rustic
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:11pm
|
In defense of myself, you did suggest that 'reposting' should be 'spam' and strike worthy. If that's not a dumb idea, we should get right on letting Rambino and Reb know that they should start axing the new players who want to know what marker to use. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:33pm
Sarcasm, ever heard of it? -------------
|
Posted By: Rustic
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:39pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:48pm
Truth. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 3:56pm
I'm not sure what you even tried to say. |
Posted By: Styro Folme
Date Posted: 15 March 2008 at 7:00pm
And now i'm lost on for who is arguing over what. I think i'm just against everyone on this one. ------------- X |