V6 or Straight 6?

[DrNick]

Really no idea! We were only really interested in lap times, but somewhere between a dragster and a XJ220. 700bhp in 900kgs, delivered in a silky smooth manner

Sorry, it was a facetious comment just noting that the plane could do over 1000mph whereas the car can't, at least on the flat as pointed out by BTB500. Although even if it fell of a very tall cliff it would probably only get to close to its top speed on the flat (I haven't done the sums but I'd guess at about 250mph).
Miles away from the original thread question, so I'll butt out now

 

[Mactech]

Ah! 1000mph not feet! Well nothing in the fat sea level air has got to that speed, but my mate Andy Green is still working on it.
The car in that trim was probably good for about 230mph as it is a slightly lower drag level than used on the 1990 Le Mans circuit with two chicanes in the Mulsanne straight. In a lower drag spec. the cars did close to 250mph when the straight was about 3 miles long....and won in 1988.

 

[Bellow]

Mactech, did you quantify the worth of the rear wheel spats in terms of top speed, lap time, and fuel consumption?

 

[BTB 500]

Ah! 1000mph not feet! Well nothing in the fat sea level air has got to that speed, but my mate Andy Green is still working on it.

Would be fantastic if that could be resurrected. The last update I saw was that the Bloodhound project was on hold, with the car in a transport museum while they tried to get more funding. Any insider info. you can share?

 

[Mactech]

Would be fantastic if that could be resurrected. The last update I saw was that the Bloodhound project was on hold, with the car in a transport museum while they tried to get more funding. Any insider info. you can share?

Nothing that can be made public yet, but the project is not dead yet.
About a decade ago now, Andy came and stayed with me in Norfolk whilst he was introduced to circuit racing at Snetterton in a Lotus Elise race. It was his very first circuit race and the Elise carried 1000 MPH on its number plate to promote the Bloodhound project.
Of course that wouldn't make him a target for the regular runners....much!
But he did very well and stayed out of trouble, and as might be excepted of a great Polymath, he finished just outside the top ten in his very first race.

 

[Mactech]

Mactech, did you quantify the worth of the rear wheel spats in terms of top speed, lap time, and fuel consumption?

Yes, we ran multiple test in the wind tunnel and on the circuit and they added about 7% to the overall L/D (Lift to drag ratio)
They did this by acting as a 'skirt' around the rear wheels to prevent the high pressure air rushing into the low pressure underneath the car created by the venturi tunnels.
So they could be used to either increase the downforce or reduce the drag depending on the set up of rear wing and front downforce configuration.
They were used on all the Le Mans and 1000kms race cars except the '87 LM cars, when it was considered they were more of and issue for quick wheel changes than performance benefit.

 

[Will]

Personally I’d take the M112 over the M104 - the M112 is bulletproof and easy to maintain. M104 is a nice unit for sure, but wiring loom issues, head gasket leaks and the older gearbox would put me off. The M112 is very smooth regardless of the I6/V6 comparison.

Later car has some updates too as mentioned, but again overall condition would be my main concern on a 25 year old car anyway.

Worth considering a 500 if within budget too

 

[timanderson]

When comparing the early 1998 R129 SL320 with a straight 6 engine and the late 1998 R129 SL320 with a V6 engine, there are a few pros and cons to consider for each option. Here's an overview:

Early 1998 R129 SL320 with Straight 6 Engine: Pros:

1. Classic Engine: The straight 6 engine has a classic design and is known for its smooth power delivery and balanced performance.
2. Reliability: Straight 6 engines are often considered more reliable and easier to maintain compared to some V6 engines.
3. Fuel Efficiency: In some cases, straight 6 engines can be more fuel-efficient than V6 engines due to their simpler design.

Cons:

1. Slightly Older Design: Being an early 1998 model, the straight 6 engine might have an older design compared to the V6, which could potentially affect performance or technology features.
2. Power Output: The straight 6 engine might have slightly less power compared to the V6 engine, although this can vary depending on the specific models and configurations.

Late 1998 R129 SL320 with V6 Engine: Pros:

1. Modern Design: The V6 engine in the late 1998 model is likely to have a more modern design, potentially incorporating technological advancements or improvements over the straight 6 engine.
2. Power and Performance: V6 engines can provide a good balance of power and efficiency, offering strong performance characteristics.

Cons:

1. Potential Complexity: V6 engines tend to be more complex than straight 6 engines due to their configuration, which might result in more intricate maintenance or potential repair costs.
2. Fuel Efficiency: V6 engines, on average, might be slightly less fuel-efficient compared to straight 6 engines due to their increased complexity.

Ultimately, the choice between the two cars depends on your personal preferences regarding engine characteristics, maintenance considerations, and any specific features or improvements introduced in the late 1998 model. It's recommended to test drive both vehicles and consider factors such as overall condition, maintenance history, and pricing before making a decision

 

[horatio]

I prefer the I6 to drive. It is noticeably smoother and IMO sounds nicer. As Will posted, the V6 is rock solid and has acres of space around it to do basic maintenance. Water pumps, pulleys etc are a doddle. It’s a pleasant engine but a bit dull.

The I6 is strong but watch for seeping oil from the head gasket.