Most powerful diesel production car in the world

[JNasty4G63]

Do some research next time before you bash a fully capable off-road vehicle...

First off, I didn't "bash" anything. I said that it was a perfectly acceptable offroad vehicle. Just that it isn't quite a Wrangler in terms of just SHEER offroadability. Thats all, don't get all hot ass about it.

I know what a "Power Wagon" is, and has. But, do you quite know what a Rubicon has when it comes to offroad design and equipment??? Lets just see. And, I'll use the Regular Cab Power Wagon to give it a fighting chance....

- Rubicon vs. Power Wagon -

Low Range = 4:1 - 2.72:1 (Rubicon)
F & R Diffs = 4.11 Dana 44 - 4.56 (Power Wagon, but not Danas)
Crawl Ratio = 73.3:1 - 37.2:1 (Rubicon, by a lot)
Tires = 31" MT/Rs - 33" All-Terrain T/A (Rubicon)
Wheelbase = 93.4" - 140.5" (Rubicon, by a lot)
Total Length = 156.1" - 229.7" (Rubicon, by a lot)
Track (widest) = 59.5" - 69.5" (Rubicon, by a lot)
Total Width = 68.2" - 79.5" (Rubicon, by a lot)
Approach Angle = 44.9* - 35* (Rubicon, by a LOT)
Departure Angle = 33.9* - 26.5* (Rubicon)
Breakover Angle = 25.4* - 25.5* (Power Wagon, barely)
Ground Clearance = 10.3" - 8.4" (Rubicon, even with bigger tires on the PW)
Engine, HP/TQ = 190/235 - 345/375 (Power Wagon, that was a freebie)
Fuel Economy (City/HWY) = 15/19 - 15/19 (Draw, even with a 25yr old engine in the Jeep)

Hmm...something tells me that the PW has everything and more than your Rubicon

Still think that last statement is true????

Should I go on??? You can see, looking at almost every spec and feature that matters offroad, the Jeep is either tops, or very close and respectable. The Power Wagon does have a Hemi, which is nice. But, I can't say that 345hp really means much at 3mph. And, it does have a standard winch, which is a nice standard feature. But, those are very available from Mopar, and can be ordered ON a new Jeep, so I don't really consider that much.

Again, I didn't ever say that your Power Wagon was BAD offroad. But you have to remember, the Wrangler was built to do JUST THAT!! Its shorter, narrower, has better ground clearance, better offroad angles, Mud Terrain tires, a better transfer case, better axles aside from ratio, and even gets the same fuel economy. So, you can see where I'm coming from. Your truck is a good truck, no doubt. But, its a truck that was CONVERTED and ADAPTED to be better offroad. The Wranglers, especially the Rubicon, is built with that, and that alone, in mind.

Hilg

***edited for cleanup on list***

 

[the Interceptor]

When I said comfortable I meant leg room because the mega cab has more leg room than the Q7 in the 2nd row of seats.

I just wanted to add that in the Q7, you can move the seats in the 2nd row back. So, you can create more than enough legroom if you sacrifice the 3rd row. Just fold it down, and you have a perfectly comfortable, luxury five-seater with a huge boot.

 

[=V8 Power=]

I know what a "Power Wagon" is, and has. But, do you quite know what a Rubicon has when it comes to offroad design and equipment??? Lets just see. And, I'll use the Regular Cab Power Wagon to give it a fighting chance....

Well in your other post you acted like you didn't know what was on it by saying you "doubted it had front or rear lockers."

Also I have been in both vehicles. They are both very nice for offroad. The Rubicon since it has a shorter wheelbase is more capable in some circumstances.

But for outdoors activities the PW is a clear choice for most people. Where I hunt, I see maybe 1 or 2 jeeps at the most. However I see on average 10 pickup trucks. Thats becuase a jeep just can't be as versitile as a PW or even a regular truck for that matter.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Well in your other post you acted like you didn't know what was on it by saying you "doubted it had front or rear lockers."

No, I understand full well what a Power Wagon is. But, I just didn't think you really understood HOW capable a Wrangler is. There is debate as to which is a better locker, air or electric. I prefer air, and not just because my Rubi came with them. But, thats neiter here nor there.

The one thing I didn't mention before, which the Power Wagon does have over my Rubicon is the electric front sway bar disconnect. That feature is very nice, and does help greatly with articulation. But the problem it has, as I've said before, is you're taking a truck and adapting it. Disconnect the front sway, and you get an RTI of 655, which is pretty good. But, connect it back up, and that drops to 460, which is just so so.

A stock Rubicon, with no electric disconnect, has an RTI of 550. So, just a little lower, even without electric disconnect. The problem, for the Power Wagon that is, comes from the new JK chassis '07 Rubicon. It now comes with a front electric disconnect, and when disconnected, it will give an RTI of 832. That is a lot. Again showing how being built specifically to do that helps.

RTI, by the way, if you didn't know is an articulation index. You have a ramp at 20* which you drive one side of the vehicle up to the last point in which all 3 other tires are still on the ground. You take the distance it gets up the ramp, divided by its wheelbase, and then multiply that by 1000. It gives you a very good measure of how well a vehicle and traverse awkward situations. So again, a good number by the Power Wagon, but its beaten easilly by the new Rubicon.

Also I have been in both vehicles. They are both very nice for offroad. The Rubicon since it has a shorter wheelbase is more capable in some circumstances.

Again, not to knock your Power Wagon, but I can only seem to think of but a few situations where a Wrangler might not be able to do something a PW could. In certain spots, having a wide track can pay off if your dealing with wide muddy ruts. And, the Power Wagon, thanks to its actual door seals, does have a higher water fording capability. But, a Wrangler is smaller in basically every dimension, yet has more ground clearance, better weight distribution, better tires, and a much better offroad drivetrain with its 4:1 low range and extra low gearing for great creeping. A truck can only be so good with its long wheelbase and basically no weight over the rear wheels. They are capable, just not as capable as a Wrangler.

But for outdoors activities the PW is a clear choice for most people. Where I hunt, I see maybe 1 or 2 jeeps at the most. However I see on average 10 pickup trucks. Thats becuase a jeep just can't be as versitile as a PW or even a regular truck for that matter.

No, a PW is the clear choice for YOU, not most people. I like to go hiking, camping, and ride my mountain bike at least twice a week. I can do all of those just fine with my Wrangler. If I did hunt, then sure, a truck would be the better choice. I sure as hell don't want a dead buck in the back seat. But, you can't just say that "most people" would prefer a truck.

Just like you did with the Q7 that started this thread, not everyone has the same needs and wants as you. You like to hunt, trucks are good for that. You apparently are big on towing stuff, trucks are good for that as well. But, you can't just throw a blanket over every other truck/suv and say they are all worthless if they don't have "real 4-wheel drive" and can't "tow 16,000lbs" like your big work trucks can. Not everyone NEEDS that. You just need to understand people have many different needs, and there isn't ONE perfect vehicle for everyone.

Hilg

 

[=V8 Power=]

RTI, by the way, if you didn't know is an articulation index. You have a ramp at 20* which you drive one side of the vehicle up to the last point in which all 3 other tires are still on the ground. You take the distance it gets up the ramp, divided by its wheelbase, and then multiply that by 1000. It gives you a very good measure of how well a vehicle and traverse awkward situations. So again, a good number by the Power Wagon, but its beaten easilly by the new Rubicon.

Seriously after all the debating I have been doing with people, did you think I wouldn't know what an RTI ramp is?

At least you actually understand off-roading, there are so many people on this foum that don't get it. Also did you realize were fighting over the same company here?

 

[JNasty4G63]

Seriously after all the debating I have been doing with people, did you think I wouldn't know what an RTI ramp is?

That was more of a general consensus statement. It wasn't directed RIGHT at you, like I thought you didn't know anything about it. I was just describing it for other people reading who might not know. As odd as it may seem, given the last few posts, we aren't the only people reading things here.

Also did you realize were fighting over the same company here?

Well, they might be from the same parent company, but that wasn't my point with this discussion. You came in here with a bold blanket statement that the Q7 was worthless, laughable, and wasn't in fact the most powerful diesel production vehicle being sold. I am merely trying to get you to see that there are vehicles out there for everyone, and not one is best.

Like we have talked about, you like trucks and hunting. I like Wranglers and offroading. Not one vehicle will serve us both perfectly, so we have different ones. Same thing with the Q7. You might not have a need for a very powerful, luxurious, cutting-edge SUV. Thats fine, I don't either. But, that doesn't mean I'm going to come in here and call it crap and take some specs out of context to belittle it. You don't like or need it, fine, just let it go and move on.

And I hope you realize I'm just trying to have a discussion here. I don't want you to think I'm mocking or talking down to you or anything. I just wish you would have a more open mind about these things. I mean, I don't like the 350Z or the Solstice, but you don't see me in that thread calling both of them junk.

Hilg

 

[YSSMAN]

...So how does this all relate to diesels?

 

[=V8 Power=]

...So how does this all relate to diesels?

Well as you can see diesels make for great debating...

 

[YSSMAN]

So, GM has three diesel engines on the way for 2008...

An I4 for the Ion replacement, otherwise known as the Astra. There should be a V6 that will be used in the smaller trucks, and a few sedans, particularly the Epsilon models. Then there should also be two V8s, one modified Duramax for the trucks, the others for the Zeta sedans and some of the SUVs as well.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Well as you can see diesels make for great debating...

Oh man, don't even get me started on catalytic converters.....HA HA HA



Hilg

 

[Leonidae]

allright, enough of this. I'll send all those puny SUV's and offroaders and V8's and V12's back to the carage with THIS:

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.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

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

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.

For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.


Finnish engineering in da house.

 

[Metar]

allright, enough of this. I'll send all those puny SUV's and offroaders and V8's and V12's back to the carage with THIS:

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.

Finnish engineering in da house.

Gimme a smaller one in my car, and I'll be a happier person.

 

[Leonidae]

yeah, but every time when you would drive counterclockwise, days would get shorter etc.. pretty much like when Veyron does the same.

 

[Jim Prower]

I'd rather the smaller Alco 251

Oh, they weren't all that great in locomotives, but if you took good care of them, like a Rotary, they'd serve ya well.

 

[=V8 Power=]

Well that Audi may make 730 some pounds of torque. But it can't touch these...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-738731599712873948&q=diesel+dyno

Eat it Audi

 

[Tornado]

Uh, yes it is, The q7 is the up scale Toareg, which is FANTASTIC off-road

The Tuoareg and Cayenne sit half a foot higher and aren't as long.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Well that Audi may make 730 some pounds of torque. But it can't touch these...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-738731599712873948&q=diesel+dyno

Eat it Audi

No, not on power, it sure can't come close to those things. But, think of it this way. The Q7 comes FROM THE FACTORY with all that power AND a full warranty. Let alone the fact that TDI engines don't even smoke 1/10th as much as those things do. And as a bonus, it makes all of that 500hp/740lb-ft while passing every emission test you throw at it. I highly doubt those trucks would even come close.

The engine in this Q7, not to mention the Q7 itself, are so different from these trucks you keep comparing it to, its not even funny. Those things are the work truck equivalent of a 1000hp Supra. Yea, it makes a crap load of power, and I'm sure they are plenty fast. But its just braggin rights. And that isn't what Audi is going for, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The TDI in the Q7 is designed for maximum comfort, useable power and great mileage. Don't even try and tell me those things get even CLOSE to the Audi's 20mpg, because it won't happen.

Hilg

 

[JNasty4G63]

The Tuoareg and Cayenne sit half a foot higher and aren't as long.

They are all built on the same chassis though. Just like a 350Z and G35 Coupe. Sure, the lengths and heights might be different, but underneath, they are the same car. The Q7, Touareg and Cayenne are all the same basic vehicle underneath, just with differing drivetrains to fit their specific target demographics.

Hilg

 

[=V8 Power=]

LoL, I just wanted to throw that in

 

[Poverty]

LoL, I just wanted to throw that in

The torque of the Q7 is also limited by its gearbox, so for all we know it could have beaten all those trucks

 

[JNasty4G63]

LoL, I just wanted to throw that in

Well, let me "just throw this in" as well then. If all we care about is total power, with no regard to usage, then lets not leave out International. From the factory, you can buy a truck with 470hp and 1650lb-ft of torque. That beats all of those things you posted.

http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/vehiclecenters/detail.asp?model=8600

We can keep going back and forth forever. You just need to understand that this Audi, and it's engine, are NOT made for the things you keep criticising it for. You are basically complaining that your apple doesn't taste enough like an orange. Sure, there are trucks out there that may have more low-end torque. Sure, there are trucks out there that can tow plenty more. And sure, some of those trucks might be cheaper to buy. But, that isn't what the Q7 is going up against. Just give it a rest.

Hilg

 

[Metar]

You can also buy, stock from the factory, that huge 100,000BHP diesel posted above... only it's not for a car.

 

[Tornado]

They are all built on the same chassis though. Just like a 350Z and G35 Coupe. Sure, the lengths and heights might be different, but underneath, they are the same car. The Q7, Touareg and Cayenne are all the same basic vehicle underneath, just with differing drivetrains to fit their specific target demographics.

Hilg

True, but based on that ideal the 350Z should be just as good off road as the Infiniti FX35.

 

[JNasty4G63]

True, but based on that ideal the 350Z should be just as good off road as the Infiniti FX35.

You must have missed the part where I said......

....with differing drivetrains to fit their specific target demographics.

One being a sports car, the other being a crossover utility. Very different intentions. Having the same "basic chassis" is quite different from being the "exact same car" underneath.

Hilg