JCB beats diesel land speed record @ 330mph (using engines from a JCB!)

maidhc

BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/5273540.stm

and here:
http://www.jcbdieselmax.com/html/home.php

The most amazing thing is that it is really a publicity stunt for their new agricultrual/construction JCB444 engine. Here they bored and stroked two of them, and upped the power from about 90/100hp standard to 375hp each. However max torque (1500 Nm) is still down at 2k RPM! Power was transferred using clutch packs from a 3CX!

You really have to admire such a tiny company for doing such fantastic things. Three cheers for Joseph Cyril Bamford!

unkel

A world record beaten. That's more than enough said

Of course they would beat it. Very hyped story imho. With a turbo diesel engined car they were a just a touch faster than a N/A petrol engine was more than 70 years ago!

TheBazman

I must say I struggle to get too excited about this one. If you think of something like a regular twin turbo diesel engine like the BMW 535d. I would imagine that if the limiter was taken off that this would push 200 mph (maybe I'm wrong?) Does 330mph sound phenomenal given its specifically designed for the task?

Cryos

unkel wrote:

A world record beaten. That's more than enough said

Of course they would beat it. Very hyped story imho. With a turbo diesel engined car they were a just a touch faster than a N/A petrol engine was more than 70 years ago!

What you didnt mention is that that N/A car took years to build, that diesel JCB engine was popped out modified and in the car in something like 4 months.

Besides you do know that the likes of audi are looking at putting all the cars they have in motorsport over to TDi.

maidhc

unkel wrote:

Of course they would beat it. Very hyped story imho. With a turbo diesel engined car they were a just a touch faster than a N/A petrol engine was more than 70 years ago!

...yes, but the engines powering it are fairly standard low revving eninges taken from a JCB 3CX backhoe loader that does 40km/h flat out. The whole point of the exercise is to convince people JCB can make as good if not better engines than the Perkins units previously fitted to JCB's machinery.

Aidan1

Exactly, this is a PR stunt to show off their 'new' engines*. JCB has never been an engine manufacturer before, mainly using Perkins engines (and Cummins etc). This is a polite way of giving their former supplier the finger, and showing the world that they can actually make these things reliable. Theres no doubt but that this record won't last long, the TDi tech Audi used to win Le Mans (and other GT endurance races) this year is far ahead of what JCB are using (unsurprisingly).

In terms of getting horsepower from big diesels, its entirely possible to get a lot more out of them than JCB are trying to. Tractor pullers regularly run slightly modified ag engines into the thousands of hp. Ok, so the engines don't last very long, and they often use water injection but still ...

*rumour has it that the design was purchased from a Japanese company though.

el tel

I read that the previous record has stood for 35 years at 235.7 mph. I'm sure this record will be contested pretty frequently now - can you imagine how quick the vehicle would have been with an engine like the Audi R10's. In fact, it's quite possible that the Audi R10 might even have been capable of coming close to the old record.

unkel

Aidan1 wrote:

This is a polite way of giving their former supplier the finger

Ah I wasn't aware of that agenda. What's that story about having bought the engines from Japan? Honda or Toyota?

Aidan1 wrote:

showing the world that they can actually make these things reliable

Speed doesn't necessarily prove that the engines are reliable

maidhc

unkel wrote:

What's that story about having bought the engines from Japan? Honda or Toyota?

I never heard of the Jap link, but it would be Yanmar, Iseki or Kubota I suspect.

Aidan1

Speed doesn't necessarily prove that the engines are reliable

The fact that they can consistently run engines (producing 100hp normally) at 335hp 'shows' that the engines are robust. And thats what this is, a 'show'. Lets be honest, just what percentage of the parts are likely to be the same as in a new 3CX?. Its a PR stunt, not an engineering study.

As for the Japanese connection, it falls very definitely into the class of 'rumour'. JCB are saying that the engine is all theirs. Whoever designed it, its supposed to be quite good though.

maidhc

Aidan1 wrote:

Lets be honest, just what percentage of the parts are likely to be the same as in a new 3CX?. Its a PR stunt, not an engineering study.

It is no worse than Ferrari (or Renault...) running an F1 car or Audi winning the LeMans.

I am sure it will help sell JCBs though, and convince people the powerplant is a good one.

Cryos

unkel wrote:

Speed doesn't necessarily prove that the engines are reliable

This is true for petrol engines, diesel engines are a completely different game, Volkswagen Proved this when they done the line of Diesel Engined racing cars.

Simpsons VW Golf TDi MK4 developed 235BHP this was on the VW TDi PD engine (golf iv from 98 to 01), the engine as standard only developped problems around 175000 miles and died at 185000 Miles. The Tuned engine Had problems around 110000 Miles and died at 135000 Miles.

If you put it in comparison for example, one of the most suscessfull Engines from Opel (in the Corsa GSi Nova GTE) tuned with new engine management and all (8v engine) developed around 140bhp, the engine must be rebuilt nearly every year or it will crap itself.

I have a GTe Rallycross Car myself and am building a Polo TDi Rallycross Car.

If they worked even harder on that engine they would get alot more power out of it, As such Diesel engine Tune-ing is in its infancy.

maidhc

Blitz wrote:

This is true for petrol engines, diesel engines are a completely different game, Volkswagen Proved this when they done the line of Diesel Engined racing cars.

I really wouldn't agree. There has been a number of reasons why diesels normally live longer than their petrol equivalents. These include:
a) A stronger engine
b) Lower running speed
d) Lubricity of diesel fuel

There is as such nothing inherently special about diesels that makes them more reliable. If you increase the power of an engine and not correspondly increase the strength of its component parts it will implode, be it petrol or diesel. It is of course fair to say that diesels are generally of a heavy construction and can take more power before falling apart.

I would tend to agree with Unkel that this stunt doesn't prove that these engines are good for 10k hrs, but it is a very impressive feat to use to tractor engines to power a car to 300mph using some stock parts. I don't think you can read into it any more than that.

Cryos

maidhc wrote:

I really wouldn't agree. There has been a number of reasons why diesels normally live longer than their petrol equivalents. These include:
a) A stronger engine
b) Lower running speed
d) Lubricity of diesel fuel

There is as such nothing inherently special about diesels that makes them more reliable. If you increase the power of an engine and not correspondly increase the strength of its component parts it will implode, be it petrol or diesel. It is of course fair to say that diesels are generally of a heavy construction and can take more power before falling apart.

I would tend to agree with Unkel that this stunt doesn't prove that these engines are good for 10k hrs, but it is a very impressive feat to use to tractor engines to power a car to 300mph using some stock parts. I don't think you can read into it any more than that.

I was basing it on the provision that ye know about diesel engines.

maidhc

Blitz wrote:

I was basing it on the provision that ye know about diesel engines.

I know plenty about diesel engines. I have (I think:) ) 9 of them fitted to everything from JCBs to cars ranging from 40 to 3 years old, having 6 to 3 cylinders and ranging from 7.5L to 1.8L in capacity!

Cryos

maidhc wrote:

I know plenty about diesel engines. I have (I think:) ) 9 of them fitted to everything from JCBs to cars ranging from 40 to 3 years old, having 6 to 3 cylinders and ranging from 7.5L to 1.8L in capacity!

Like meself so!

Revelation Joe

unkel wrote:

A world record beaten. That's more than enough said

Of course they would beat it. Very hyped story imho. With a turbo diesel engined car they were a just a touch faster than a N/A petrol engine was more than 70 years ago!

They used two fairly standard JCB turbocharged engines at 5 litres each and a total output of 1500hp
I assume the petrol car you are referring to is George Eyston's 'Thunderbolt' which ran at 312mph in 1937...but that car had two supercharged Rolls-Royce V12 engines of 36.5 litres each and an output of 4700hp!
But it wasn't N/A...

A bit of a difference I think you'd agree?

The record for a N/A internal combustion petrol vehicle stands at 409mph (1.16 x JCB), the 'Goldenrod' set this in 1965 with 4 x 6.9 litre (2.76 x JCB) fuel-injected Chrysler V8 Hemis with a total output of 2400hp (1.6 x JCB)

Del