M1 abrams = 1500 hp
Leo2 = 1500 hp
I've seen some Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp with much smaller engines.
Why are tank engines so weak?
M1 abrams = 1500 hp
Leo2 = 1500 hp
I've seen some Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp with much smaller engines.
>I've seen some Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp with much smaller engine
what is torque
Duty cycle. A 1500 HP Supra is driving a quarter mile at a time (maybe an eighth) and getting a full tear-down and rebuild every 50 miles or less.
A Supra has more torque at the crank than an Abrams has at the main shaft. The 1500 ft-lbs number you see quoted is at the output side of a 7.5:1 reducer gear.
First and second gen Supras have a 5M, third gens have a 7M, and fourth gens have a 2JZ. There was never a four cylinder Supra.
nobody gives a shit about your gay car, take it to PrepHole
>There was never a four cylinder Supra.
*Ahem*
Anyway, tanks "only" produce 1500HP because we don't need them to go 150mph, but to have massive torque to move around. Same reason why big rigs "only" have 5-600hp, yet tow around 30 tons trailers easily.
>because we don't need them to go 150mph
But... can we? Theoretically, of course.
Well yeah if you really wanted to you could strap a train engine to it for 8500 HP. It'd make absolutely no sense, but you _could_ do that
My apologies if you've already heard or read this a dozen times, but since you brought it up,
During destructive testing the Abrams would get up to about 60mph, still accelerating, but then the tracks components would overheat from internal friction and snap explosively.
Probably failed at the "bino" "[binocular]" tubes, which are the pipes you thread across through all the eyes of track components, making the joint.
The AGT1500 is governed at 35mph consequently, instead.
I've gotten a sep2 up to 46mph on flat, level, asphalt roads before. Took a sep3 (a few tons heavier) up to 42mph under same conditions. Granted that was where they topped out and you couldn't pay me to keep driving that fast for any considerable amount of time because you could feel and hear the tracks begin to float up against the hull, and the noise was butthole clenching (I've never heard of anyone throwing track at 40 something mph but I imagine it'd be catastrophic)
Also those "binocular" tubes are actually called cooling tubes - they do exactly what the name implies, as well as give the end connectors something to, well, connect.
>46mph on flat level asphalt
How...
... are you this "Fortune Son" I keep hearing about?
Mind if I ask which station?
I was in Georgia.
Unless something was tweaked differently, I wonder if the climate might change things.
I was stationed in Hood (cavazos now, but I'll never get used to that...) but I did that while on rotation in Germany a long time ago. It was around January at the time, so it was very fricking cold, around 20 degrees or so. Also (and I highly doubt it would have any iota of a bearing on it) the tank was low on fuel, only around 1/8 in the front left/right and 1/4 in the rear - nothing on it except BII.
The 42 mph sep3 was at Hood though, going down West Range road behind all the motorpools. I distinctly remember seeing an MP beam us with his radar gun and then shake his head - I guess he knew to not even bother..
>MP
Kek. Classic scene.
>Cavazos
"I bet it's cuz Hood was Confederate, isn't it..."
Yep.
My headcanon is now that, when the Garrison Commander touches base with the GD contractors, he says, "I want the tanks on MY base to get up faster. What can you give me?"
"... We can give you 45, General."
Or realistically, since you said "long time ago," maybe they dialed the fleet back sometime after you ets'd, to save money / extend life... Or maybe there is a fuel efficiency savings at 35mph... I was also on SEPv2, but ~2015.
Wait, so whoever told Tom Clancy back in the early '90s that M1s could do 65 with no real repercussions was lying to him?
No, the speed governor was there for a reason. Going to 60 on a road would be bad enough.
Not
but another tanker here. The Abrams is actually limited to 45mph, not 35. And that's on flat ground. Going downhill with gravity giving a helping hand you could go faster. So 42-46mph depending on condition of the engine and weight of the tank itself (eg. the heavier armor of the SPEv3) is perfectly plausible.
No that's moronic. I'm sure that without the governor, and lighter weight M1IP's and early M1A1's that it could easily reach 65mph, but that would destroy the tracks and suspension, and God help you if you hit a bump.
As much as I love the imperial system (thousandths of an inch are superior to tenths of a millimeter, frick you), for engineering/construction there should be a decimal foot of 10 inches. Maybe. Not a big deal, as that's redundant as no one says "I am 1 meter and 82cm tall" they just say "182cm" or "1.82m"
4 forwards, 2 reverse gears.
That's a BMW, not a Supra. A fifth-gen Supra would have been an LC500 with a mild weight reduction and the V35 engine out of the LS500. Alternatively they could have gone with a successor to the original lineage, and made it a GT86 (which should have been called Celica, naming it after a Corolla to try to capture the tofu delivery market was moronic) with a premium interior and a V6 (6 cylinders is important but Toyota doesn't make an I6 anymore and it wouldn't fit in the 86 anyway), possibly with a turbo option.
Also, as I already stated, the AGT-1500 only makes 200 ft-lbs at the turbine shaft. The quoted 1500 ft-lbs is at the output of a 7.5:1 reducer gearbox integral to the power pack. You could get the same amount of torque out a 2 HP lawnmower and a 500:1 reducer gear and it would move the tank, just very, very, very slowly. Torque doesn't really matter in an engine since you can use gearing to get it to whatever you want. Power does matter because it affects the amount of wheel speed you can have at a given final torque output. That's why semis these days are usually at least 500-600 horsepower and often up to 1500 horsepower, rather than 200-300 horsepower like they were in the past. You might not remember the days of semis needing 10-20 miles to reach freeway speeds, but it used to be a thing and everyone is much safer now that they have enough power to reasonably move their load.
The reason semis have enormous engines to make the same amount of power as a riced out Honda is because of longevity and duty cycle. Instead of a couple of 1/4 mile passes every other weekend in the summer and a yearly rebuild, those semis are going literally millions of miles between repowers, and they might be generating their maximum power output the entire way up a mountain, for 30 minutes or more at a time.
Did you link the wrong post? I'm not OP, I explained why OP was wrong. He's not even an PrepHoletist, just a fast and the furious fanboy.
>Wait, we all forgot, that it is useless to argue onlinr and to argue woth idiots.
>Ok..
OP, you are right. You win this argument. Supras are better than tanks. Thanks for sharing.
Because tank engines are meant to produce 1500 hp on like an 80% or more of a duty cycle. The supra sits parked it's whole life, cruises using like 5-10 hp down the highway, and does a couple rolling pulls getting takeout.
> Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp
Are you sure about that moron?
500hp would be incredible for a 4S 3L engine.
Tanks engines are relatively low power for its size because reliability is more important and the transmission would be huge if you really want to take advantage of that engine, aka absurd torque at low speed. Tracks themselves are a limiting factor if you more power, probably.
At max power a car engine would last a few hundred hours, even the modern ones. Tank engines lasts 1500-2500 hours iirc (not the russian ones).
Cessnas engines are "underpowered" compared to car engines because they're designed to work at 75-100% of its rated power continuously for 500-1000 hours without severe problems.
>Cessnas engines are "underpowered" compared to car engines because they're designed to work at 75-100% of its rated power continuously for 500-1000 hours without severe problems.
Nah the main reason Cessna engines are underpowered is that they're ancient pieces of trash.
Car engines have come a very long way since the civilian aviation industry decided to stop introducing new technology in the 1970s.
>civilian aviation industry
FAA regulations killed civil aviation at the behest of Boeing.
> ancient pieces of trash.
Some companies tried to use MB turbodiesels for aircraft with really bad results. That isn't even a new design but common and well tested engines.
i know we send AVDS engines for preventative maintenance every 150 engine hours
1500 hours (L2) is the engine life, maintenance is far more often. Older engines lasted 500-1000 hours.
>Abrams 1500 hp
>Leopard 2 1500 hp
Yeah, but the Abrams still has far better torque curve.
>Bugatti Chiron
>1500 hp
>1600 N⋅m
>M1 abrams
>1500 hp
>up tp 3,730 N⋅m
Questions?
>not measuring torque at the driving wheel
Yep. You are also right. It is a shame bugatti doesnt produce tanks. You won this argument.
Thank you for sharing.
>I've seen some Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp with much smaller engines.
Dyno queens that can't even make boost until redline are of no relevance to any practical application and especially not to tanks
>say engine has 1500 horses
>Look inside
>Valves
what's the point of a 1500hp supra?
make loud noises, shred tires into smoke and just generally make people go "woaaahhh so cool". There's no real benefit to more than like 800hp on a street car because it will spin DOT rated tires into fourth gear. It stops being a car you drive and just a stupid joke car that maybe you can drag race for money.
I don't get why a twincharged caterpillar engine is good enough for every other US military vehicle but tanks need turbojets. In 1984 there was no such thing as a 1500hp diesel 4 stroke engine that could operate for thousands of hours but now it should be fairly pedestrian given the displacement and packaging flexibility inside a tank. Look at the scania V8s making 770hp and 3700nm of torque.
What ever happened to the cummins boxer opposed cylinder ACE engine?
The turbine engine lets the Abrams lurch out from a standstill more violently. The idea is that you can bound from cover to cover more quickly. [Insert football analogy here for good measure]
>that's bs anon
I dunno, make a time machine and dissuade the DoD from the late 70's, then.
"yes i'd like my car to have eleventy horsies, please"
-statements from the utterly deranged
It made sense as an easily understandable reference of power in a time where cars weren't the norm and people were more used to horses; as far as I'm aware, the main reason countries using hp still haven't switched over to kW is simply because auto industry marketing departments make grumpy dumpies if they have to use smaller numbers.
>There's no real benefit to more than like 800hp on a street car because it will spin DOT rated tires into fourth gear.
To add: the meme horsepower supras will require so much boost to achieve those numbers that their turbos won't spool until really late in the rev range, resulting in a powerband so narrow that it has no practical purpose beyond jacking off to the big peak number on your dyno readings.
Anyone in here a tank mechanic? I'm looking for a definitive answer on whether the Abrams uses a hydraulic drive or if the engine is actually connected to the drive wheels by a gearbox.
Never heard anybody call anything a drive wheel. But the "Final Drive Sprocket."
I'm not a tank mechanic - but after double checking through the -1 to -4 TM, and consulting my memory, I'm quite certain it does not. There's nothing in the TM about a hydraulic drive for the transmission, and its safe to say the only place we'd ever put hydraulic fluid was the turret (every tanker has fond memories of getting bukkaked by cancer juice at one time or another..)
Hell, I honestly think its just a quirk of the tank. I remember when I was new the first thing my gunner told me was that every tank was practically unique unto itself. "This one doesn't shift out of low, this one doesn't kick into 2nd gear when you reverse, this one has good thermals but only for the GPS, this one has shitty thermals, etc.." Like each one has its own personality. A little bit superstitious to me, but I buy into it wholeheartedly.
>"I want the tanks on MY base to get up faster. What can you give me?"
>"... We can give you 45, General."
I wouldn't put it past division and III Corps, there's always something afoot over there.
It has a 6-speed automatic transmission (gearbox).
https://www.allisontransmission.com/en-gb/transmissions/models/x1100
There are driveshafts which come out of that transmission and go to the final drives. The final drives are planetary reduction gearboxes.
Neat, thanks. Although it's not 6 speeds, according to that link it only has 4 forward gears. Sounds like it's a 2 speed gearbox with an overdrive in series.
That's the difference between casuals talking about cars and what's common in industrial stuff. For a family car "4 speed" means four forward gears, reverse doesn't count. But when people are talking about tractors, bulldozers, etc, reverse gears count.
> Sounds like it's a 2 speed gearbox with an overdrive in series.
Probably. I don't know the inner workings of the transmission but that design makes the most sense to me.
Reverse gears don't count, that's why a 15 speed roadranger has 15 forward gears and not 12.
They do for bulldozers and tanks.
Oh ya that looks familiar.
CLUNK....
vreeEEEEEEeeeeeee
>I've seen some Toyota Supras also reaching 1500 hp with much smaller engines.
The most powerful muscle cars in the world have about 1000 hp.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-most-powerful-muscle-car-in-the-world-1-025-horsepower-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-170-sets-new-performance-benchmarks-301776731.html#:~:text=The%20Most%20Powerful%20Muscle%20Car,170%20Sets%20New%20Performance%20Benchmarks
You know it's possible to modify a car to make more power, right?
You can't boost those engines indefinitely. And of course that power rating is peak power, not continuous.
>And of course that power rating is peak power, not continuous.
And that's the actual answer to OP's question.
Turbos actually increase fuel efficiency since when you're cruising they aren't spooled and you can use a smaller engine for the same peak power, it's effectively the same as variable displacement. Also the Abrams is basically turbocharged.
Yes, turbochargers and superchargers. That engine already had a Supercharger. It should be noted that the M1 Abrams is a turbine engine so a turbocharger would be redundant. We should also note that turbochargers and superchargers decrease fuel efficiency which is already a major issue for tanks.
>We should also note that turbochargers and superchargers decrease fuel efficiency
This is utter nonsense.
Now it is true that when people hot-rod cars they often end up decreasing efficiency but that's because that specific goal is making as much power as possible rather than efficiency. But supercharged and especially turbocharged engines are very common when fuel efficiency is important. A smaller displacement turbocharged engine can be much more fuel efficient than a larger displacement naturally aspirated one, which is why they are the de-facto standard for things like semi trucks, construction equipment, generators, etc.
Should've compared it with commercial US civilian diesels. A lightly modified cummins 6.7l can make 1000hp and 1500 ft lbs torque fairly easy, fully juiced up custom ones can make 2500hp+.
and funny cars make 10,000 hp but you don't see John Force pulling freight for Union Pacific
>my car can raise 12 hundredweights by 30 hands in 100 jiffies
>having a measurement system based on human relatable objects like feet and hands and acres (the amount one person can plow in a day in medieval times)
versus
>having a measurement system that's made of completely arbitrary lengths that 99% of people can't relate to in everyday life
brb measuring how many hectoliters are in my seventy six decimeter by thirty seven decameter washing machine
>the amount one person can plow in a day
relatable unit
48 OPMs (Original Poster's Mother)
The only misstep of the metric system is that the units don't have goofy names like the imperial.
Apart from that it is superior in every way and every other opinion is wrong.
>verification not required
i'd say one of the SI/metric base units having a prefix (the kilogram) is another misstep
>misstep
Why?
Gram is ok and most people simply says "kilos"
a base unit having a size prefix that implies "unit * 10^3" just seems irregular
the base unit is the gram...
You can define your unit as a fraction of a reference. See the meter defined by the speed of light.
the SI base unit of mass is the kilogram
True, it shows that the original base unit was mostly useless outside of its original lab environment.
Why even measure things if said measurements don't sound silly? I would love it if hands and fathoms and other obscure units like that came back into common use
Links, rods, chains and furlongs.
Metric is just as arbitrary. A meter is the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom. An actual good system of units would be based on multiples of quantum or cosmological constants.
>An actual good system of units would be based on multiples of quantum or cosmological constants.
What the frick do you think the speed of light and frequency of quantum transitions in caesium are the directly observable manifestations of, you fricking pseud pleb?
Obviously I meant even multiples in base 10, or even 2 or 16 or something. If a metric second was 10,000,000,000 times the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Sounds pretty fricking arbitrary to me.
How about using a base 10 multiple of planck time that's close to a second for the base unit of time, and a billion times that or something for the base unit of distance?
>A meter is the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second
That sounds like an after the fact invention. Story I heard was the french took the distance from the north pole to equator through paris and divided it be a million or something to get the meter
a meter is 1/10,000,000th the distance from the equator to the north pole
the idea was to base their system on a unit that did not differ from person to person, everyone lived on the same earth so everyone could use the same reference point of earth
the arbitrary number given by the speed of light is because that number equals the meter that already existed
before the speed of light, which was chosen because we know that the speed of light is always the same regardless of your inertial frame of reference, they used the wavelength of light originating from a krypton atom which that equaled the distance of the meter in use
you're thinking of the nautical mile, which is 1/60 of a degree of latitude
You dumb yank. The point of the metric system is:
1. Standardization of base units
2. Decimalization
3. More complex units derived from base units
All these so that you:
1. Reduce ambiguity
2. Reduce rounding errors
3. Easier computations
In conclusion, kys.
I understand that, and I see how it's usually better for precise and scientific endeavors, but metric feels kind of alien.
1984 actually had a thing on this IIRC where some old guy was talking about how a pint is the perfect amount of liquid for a drink.
With temperature 0 is quite cold, 100 is quite hot and you can live in both, nobody's surviving at 100C. And plus I'm not going to have my temperature reading dictated to me by how the water feels, it's going to be by how I a human feels.
It's a system made by humans, for humans.
Which pint?
They have requirements other than raw strength.
>Can you run a Supra engine on JP8? JP5? JP4? Home heating oil? Any percentage of ethanol fuel? If its combustable and thin enough to flow, you can you run it on whatever you want? Can you run it consistently?
>Is the Supra engine a Power Pack? Is it modular and able to quickly (within 45 minutes) & easily be swapped by poorly trained teenagers in an austere field environment?
>Does the Supra handle extreme temperatures? Extreme humidity? Will it operate without issue in the Arctic circle, the Saudi Desert and the Amazon rainforest?
>How well does the Supra engine handle smoke inhalation? What about dirt, dust and sand inhalation? mud? What about burning gasoline or napalm?
>What's the fording capability of the Supra engine? Does it handle total submersion well? What about in salt water? brackish silt water?
>How well does the Supra handle blast overpressure? Shrapnel? How well does it perform after being rammed, dropped, jostled?
>What about an NBC environment? Does it run without issue after a high altitude EMP? Can it be decontaminated from VX nerve agent or nuclear fallout?
Somehow I think a Supra engine (or any other civilian engine) wouldn't make the cut as a MBT engine.
You wrote a whole bunch of greentext but you left out the most important one: how long can the engine run at that power output? A fancypants drag race motor would shit the bed if you tried to run it for one minute straight at full power.
Ricers? What is this, 2005?
[spoiler] I miss 2005. [/k/doesn'thavespoilerslolz]
OP is so moronic, the difference is fricking weight and hp/ton.
1500hp in a Supra makes it go like 250 mph but for a 65ton getting near 70-80ton tank 1500hp gets it up to 60mph.
Not to mention that most tanks are speed governed, they could probably push towards 70-80mph without the limiter but you'd damage the running gear.
What is the deal with the abrams engine? I'm no expert in modern vehicles but whenever I see people talk this tank it's usually "engine bad" or something about electrics and diesel and I can't say I follow
Nothing wrong with it, its actually an amazing engine. The only issue worth considering is the fuel consumption, it drinks a bit more than diesels. But the US isn't short on fuel.
Even the noise is quieter or just as quiet as the Leopard 2 diesel in tests. Its a jet engine.
Well there's two problems. The first is that one of the main reasons to select a turbine engine in the first place was future improvements, reasoning that turbines have more upgrades down the line. They don't. It's essentially the same engine designed 40+years ago. It would cost a lot to improve it.
The other issue is idle fuel consumption. A turbine uses about 1/6th the fuel at idle as it does at full power, that is a lot. The Abrams has to carry an APU (so a second motor) to provide electricity when no locomotion is required. This just another piece of equipment that can break or something.