Mother of all Cobras.

[machasm]

I know this is a Merc forum but I just couldn't resist.
1100BHP!
Mac.

 

[Silvertank]

Lovely!

 

[scumbag]

the bonnet buldge spoils it for me,

but what a car.

i bet you can't get that 0-300kph time tho. you will just sit taking tread off your tyres whilst people walk past!

 

[RICHARD HILL]

ARE!!!!!!! theres a difference? this is hp and NOT bhp, will try to convert it its not the same .

 

[BearFace]

ARE!!!!!!! theres a difference? this is hp and NOT bhp, will try to convert it its not the same .

The Germans (when not using PS or KW) quote the (DIN) hp as opposed to the American (SAE) hp, but as with our own BHP, these figures are not representative of the power available at the driven wheels, but rather the power made at the flywheel without any losses from auxiliary pumps and gearboxes etc. However in real terms, they are all essentially the same thing, so 1100hp will be more or less 1100 bhp - the differences are not significant, nor are the measures used to achieve them.

PS figures are used in Europe more frequently these days because one BHP is equivalent to 1.014 PS, which means the marketing folk can round figures up to suit their target markets - eg. the VW 2.0 TDi engine makes 138 BHP, but convert it to PS and it cracks the magic 140. Pointless, but somehow sexier...

On a rolling road, the power figures are basically achieved via the torque figures, which are read directly from the driven wheels. This gives an accurate indication of how much power is reaching the wheels, but it doesn't give any information about the gross engine output or indeed how much is being lost through the drivetrain. Bike mags often test the "real" BHP of the latest machines and find that it's generally a good 15-20 % lower than the flywheel figure, whereas car publications seem happy to run with the figures quoted by the makers.

In any case, however you look at it, 1100hp / 1096bhp in a lightweight Cobra chassis is going to rock literally anyone's world. I mean, the 0.9hp/kg ratio is better than any production superbike (bike makers quote dry weights, car makers don't...), so it's definitely going to be reasonably nippy...

 

[andy_k]

WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andy

 

[andy_cyp]

Truly awesome car but the front ???????????? not feeling it .

 

[ADY1983]

but the front, not sure on that maybe if the bulge was more black than red it wouldn't notice so much..

 

[RICHARD HILL]

Sorry I beg to differ 1100hp taken at the flywheel cant be the same as 1100bhp taken at the wheel {rolling road}.

 

[BearFace]

Sorry I beg to differ 1100hp taken at the flywheel cant be the same as 1100bhp taken at the wheel {rolling road}.

No, but then I didn't say it could........

What I said was that hp and bhp are to all intents and purposes the same measurements of engine power. What I said about rolling roads was supplementary to the post but entirely seperate to the hp/bhp comments (manufacturers don't use rolling roads to measure power outputs of new engines)

 

[Thmsshaun]

However its not really useable with that much power. Just imagine getting cramp in your right leg with the foot on the accelerator.

What a car though!

 

[machasm]

And I thought I had a big engine. 12.9L!
Mac.

 

[wallingd]

Mean pure monster of all driving forces.

What's the CO2?

 

[prprandall51]

Hmmm, What's the chances of it understeering with such a big engine up front? Impressive though it is, I can imagine that it is such a handful that it ends up being slower point-to-point on the public road than a reasonably tasty run-of-the-mill sports car. Unless that public road is a motorway, of course.

 

[Shude]

Hmmm, What's the chances of it understeering with such a big engine up front?

Am I not right in saying that bigger capacity == bigger holes? You are assuming the engine is heavy.

Impressive though it is, I can imagine that it is such a handful that it ends up being slower point-to-point on the public road than a reasonably tasty run-of-the-mill sports car. Unless that public road is a motorway, of course.

The AC Cobra was a seriously quick car, mostly around corners before the yanks got involved and turned out shelby-engined ones. After that it went well in a straight line too

 

[prprandall51]

Am I not right in saying that bigger capacity == bigger holes? You are assuming the engine is heavy.

Bigger holes = bigger engine block to surround them. Also equals stronger castings to contain the explosion = a heck of a lot more water to cool it = bigger starter motor to turn it= ....

I still think that a 12.3 litre engine is going to be heavy, no matter what it's made from, myself.

Philip

 

[Ian B Walker]

Maybe I am too much of a pureist. I love Cobras and have always had a desire to own one. Sorry but this one looks hideous to me. They are nick named the widow maker, for a very good reason. This one would have me dead before even getting in it. Like the power, dont like the Bonnet addition.

 

[scotth_uk]

Some of their engines rev to 9500rpm! Can you imagine the noise?!!!

 

[BearFace]

Bigger holes = bigger engine block to surround them. Also equals stronger castings to contain the explosion = a heck of a lot more water to cool it = bigger starter motor to turn it= ....

I still think that a 12.3 litre engine is going to be heavy, no matter what it's made from, myself.

Philip

It needn't be prohibitively heavy, as it's likely to have an aluminium block and head, and while the bore/stroke give it a relatively high cylinder capacity, the unit need not be physically much bigger than a regular V8. In theory, the combustion space to metal ratio could actually favour it, so it could potentially even be lighter. As an example, the Suzuki Bandit 1200 bike has an engine capacity of 1200cc which is twice that of the 600 version, and yet the engines are physically indentical in terms of size and appearance.

However the key factors are weight distrubution and the centre of gravity. If you look at this shot , the engine is mounted a long way aft of the front axle and very low into the chassis, which means it carries it's mass almost centrally and is further balanced by the weight of the driver and the rear axle. I'm not sure about the gearbox in this case, but many sports car makers mount them at the rear to further aid weight distribution.

If you've ever read reports on the original AC Cobra, the one common complaint in reviews is the wayward handling and lack of chassis balance. This company appear to take their engineering seriously, so I'd expect the car to be significantly better than the original, if not quite up to today's Ferrari / Porsche standards. I'll bet it's brilliant

God, did I just say all that..? Sorry

 

[andy_k]

Some of their engines rev to 9500rpm! Can you imagine the noise?!!!

that's not noise - it's music