By on December 5, 2009

BIG engine

Well, I didn’t exactly say it was the truck’s propulsion engine. But take a good look at this picture, especially the cab of the truck way down in front and low, in order to get the proper scale of the payload on this mover of prime movers. More info on this mammoth straight-eight and the world’s largest diesel engines as well as the Eugene variation on this theme after the jump:

The giant diesel engine is headed for the bowels of a container ship. Actually, I don’t know if this particular engine has 100k hp, but follow this link to the world’s biggest marine engines which exceed that number. And the redline? 102 rpm. Bonus points if you can identify the engine in the back of the Toyota.

CC 40 001 800

Well, on that high (Lux) note, we’ll conclude this edition of Truck Saturday on TTAT. Thanks for sharing my other wheeled loves. Shall we have a train day?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

58 Comments on “Truck With 100,000 Horsepower Engine...”


  • avatar
    Nutsaboutcars

    “Actually, I don’t know if this particular engine has 100k hp, but the biggest marine engines exceed that number. ”
     
    Their weight is also quite unreal, 2,000 tons or so, as much as an entire ship weighted back in WW II. That truck the engine is on must be no everyday 18 wheeler!!!! Any info on it?

  • avatar
    paul_y

    http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/
    A variant of this engine is available with 14 cylinders, a turbo, and direct injection, producing almost 115000hp.
     
    These gigantic diesel engines are wonderfully absurd machines.

  • avatar
    Nutsaboutcars

    They are not just the biggest, they are, by far, the most efficient in tonmiles of cargo moved per gallon fuel used.   A very large tanker or bulk carrier is far larger and about half as fast as a large containership, and is even more efficient, carrying 300,000 tons of cargo going continuously at about 15-18 miles an hour (12-15 knots) and burning 30-50 tons of fuel a day, resulting in … 1,000s of TMPG (tonmiles per gallon)  and far, far more efficient than the biggest trains & their engines.
     
    Low speed, ultra low speed, sometimes below… 60 RPM (not 6,000!!!) and  gigantic propellers moving equally slowly (11 meters, or 33+ feet in diameter, and up to 100 TONS weight for one  propeller are the key to this efficiency.

    • 0 avatar
      Mark out West

      Is there any other IC engine that’s as thermodynamically efficient as these 2-cycle diesels?  Long after peak oil, these babies will still be humming.

  • avatar
    davey49

    For the most part these huge engines don’t actually turn the screws that propel the ships, they turn generators that power electric motors that turn the screws.
    Just like the Chevy Volt!

    • 0 avatar
      Bergwerk

      Actually in big container ships like the Emma Maersk,  these big diesels drive the single prop directly.  Single engine/ single screw saves space.  They can go as fast as 33-34 mph.

    • 0 avatar
      davey49

      I thought everything was using electric motors these days but I could be wrong.
      Oasis of the Seas uses electric motors for propulsion

    • 0 avatar
      PeteMoran

      @ davey49

      These massive engines have their advantage in the ability to direct drive and the fuel efficiency they gain from that. Below these sizes in other types of ship like Oasis  you’re better off with electric pod systems, perhaps like Oasis. They become packaging, manvouring and weight questions, plus the ability to operate a wide range of speeds efficiently.

      Oasis is fascinating and ridiculous at the same time – it’s interesting to read about how they got her out of the Baltic. They sailed her fast under the Denmark Link bridge to gain another 2ft of clearance.

  • avatar

    I assume you don’t have to look for a diesel leak with a broomstick?

    Yeah, it’s gorgeous too, altho Ima not sure a surplus flakjaket is gonna hold that flywheel ifn it lets go.

  • avatar
    DearS

    It makes something like 1hp per liter. My 2.5lt engine would make 2.5hp, funny. My 50cc yamaha could make over 5hp or 100 times more hp per liter, but it spun at over 100 times the Rpm also.

    • 0 avatar
      Ingvar

      Actually, what I have learned, counting horsepower only tells how fast the engine is moving it’s parts. What really tells how strong an engine is, is torque. What would the difference in torque be, relative to the size?

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      While I can’t define engine “strength”, power is the true measure of an engine’s output, and is the product of torque and rotational speed.  An engine with 10 lb-ft of torque and 100 horsepower can still do ten times the work – meaning that with the proper gearing, it can put ten times as much force on the final driveshaft at any given speed – as an engine with 10 horsepower and 100 lb-ft of torque.

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      When stroke is measured in feet instead of millimeters, It’s likely the linear speeds and accelerations of parts in this engine are similar to those in your engine.  There are two ways to make lots of power: lots of torque at lower rpm, or lots of rpm at lower torque.  So, this makes it’s power via a very high torque per displacement instead of high speed.  Engines like this can make over 200 lb ft of torque per liter!
      The ultra large displacement may sacrifice speed, but the low surface area for such a large displacement also minimizes heat loss, making for much greater efficiency.  Durability & maintenance cost is also a huge concern.  Could you imagine if this thing had thousands of little 625cc cylinders, like your engine?  Specific output would be simliar, but you’d need 2,500 cylinders!  Could you imagine changing the spark plugs?  The cams and crankshaft would probably rubber-band themselves an entire turn or two under the strain!  Not to mention you’d have to have a crankshaft that can handle 100,000 hp yet still accommodate a 3″ stroke!  You’d need a shaft bigger than 3″ to handle that kind of power

  • avatar
    baaron

    Cargo ships and tankers have a high, constant power demand. Seems like nuclear power is the best option. Instead of burning tons of fuel per hour, imagine using a reactor like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor) and only refueling once every 23years!

    • 0 avatar
      paul_y

      There’s probably way too many regulatory hoops to jump through, which might be why the only nuclear powered-ships are military vessels, rather than private.  I agree, something on this scale would make a lot of sense with a nuclear reactor.
       
       

    • 0 avatar
      Mark out West

      It was tried back in the 1960s by the Atomic Energy Commission, the NS Savannah – a mixed used cargo/passenger ship.  There were four others, IIRC.  Beautiful ship.

      Man, has this country lost its sack. Mach 6  X-15s, nuclear cargo ships, XB-70 bombers, moon shots, heart transplants.  Now we get excited about Twitter.  Pathetic.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Wartsila-Sulzer, a Finnish company, is one designer of these huge marine diesels. These diesels run over 50% thermal efficiency at maximum economy settings. They are direct-coupled to the propeller, no reverse at all, and certainly no electric generator in the way to reduce efficiency. Prime example is the Emma Maersk family of gigantic container ships. Samsung and others actually manufacture most of these engines under license.

    The ships need tugs in harbor to get them away from dock and to maneuver them. An acquaintance here in Nova Scotia is the local sales engineer for Wartsila, and boy it’s fun talking to him about these monster engines.

    Google Wartsila for more info.

  • avatar

    That is really cool. But I’d love to know where that thing was shot. Maybe even who builds them. Funny you would have a Eugene version.

  • avatar

    It’d be a laugh to take that thing down Jiffy Lube and ask for an oil change. I bet the service manager would still try and sell you a new air filter and some injector cleaner.

  • avatar
    tpandw

    You don’t need to apologize about trucks, even though this is The Truth About Cars.  I like machines with wheels under them.  Actually, I like machines that move.  I’ve enjoyed the truck posts.

  • avatar
    jmo

    No no no – the best is this.
    Torque = 5252xBHP/RMP
    T = 5252×100,000/100
    T = 5,252,000 lb/ft
    It makes 5.25 million pound feet or torque at 100 rpm!!!

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    Yeah but they can’t corner worth a damn!

    http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070730/news_1m30engine.html

  • avatar

    As efficient as these engines are, they are also completely unregulated in terms of emissions. I’ve seen it reported that just the 15 largest container ships in the world put out more CO2 than the more than 700 million cars on the road worldwide.
     
     
    Besides the Climategate shenanigans of lost data, “weighted” data, adjusted data, and crappy computer models, one of the biggest misdeeds of the environmental movement has been focusing on the wrong things. Cars have been a major target of the carbon control mob yet they represent less than 1/5 of manmade CO2 sources.
     
     
    Shifting manufacturing to China not only increases pollution because of laxer regulation there but also due to the pollution emitted in transporting those goods from China to market.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      I highly doubt that the 15 largest ships in the world consume anywhere near as much fuel as all those cars combined.  Do you have a link?

    • 0 avatar

      Here’s the article in The Guardian that most of the citations link to. Apparently much of the pollution from container ships is due to the heavy fuel oil they burn and due to the fact that the ships operate 24/7 about 80% of the time.
       
      Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world’s largest ships’ diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx.
      The calculations of ship and car pollution are based on the world’s largest 85,790KW ships’ diesel engines which operate about 280 days a year generating roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx a year, compared with diesel and petrol cars which drive 15,000km a year and emit approximately 101gm of SO2/SoX a year.
      Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.
      One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year
      Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions
       
       
       

    • 0 avatar
      John Horner

      I think you might be talking about the Sulfur oxide and Nitrogen oxide emissions, not the Carbon Dioxide emissions whey comparing the container ships to automotive pollution.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I don’t care about CO2 – it’s not a pollutant; it’s plant food.

    • 0 avatar
      vww12

      CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (less than 0.039%) —i.e., less than 4 hundredths of one percent.   You have to increase its concentration thousands of times for it to even become a poison to humans.
      By historical Earth standards, CO2 is unusually low right now.   Our plants evolved under an atmosphere that had lots more CO2 and so plants benefit from additional CO2.
      Good for them, as I love trees.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      Thanks for the link, Ronnie.  I figured it was pollutants other than CO2.  No surprise, really.  Who’s going to spend the money to clean up emissions on something that nobody regulates!

  • avatar
    lprocter1982

    Paul, I quite like these truck posts… but then, I’m a truck driver by trade, so I’m a bit biased… plus, I’m always cursing at all the ‘stupid 4-wheelers’ on the road… oh well… thanks for the posts, though

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    Besides the Climategate shenanigans of lost data, “weighted” data, adjusted data, and crappy computer models, one of the biggest misdeeds of the environmental movement has been focusing on the wrong things. Cars have been a major target of the carbon control mob yet they represent less than 1/5 of manmade CO2 sources.

    Ahh ‘climategate’. Some stolen emails deliberately misinterpreted into to-try-to-fool-somebody-into-thinking-there’s-really-something-debatable. The world is round. There is some minor debate as to how round, and when and where it changes. But not much. I don’t care who Faux has on saying it’s flat.

    I would have to crunch the numbers to be accurate, but regardless of whether it’s 7MM or 700MM cars, those things sure do put out some CO2, it’s sad more people don’t realize this.
    Yes, industrial puts out far more CO2 than cars. Half those industries are fighting cap and trade. You and I do not have clout equal to a small rural electrical co-op, let alone the political muscle that any one industry group wields. Yeah, go ahead and vote. Doesn’t matter who wins, interest groups will own enough pols to get their way. They have for the last 40ish years. 

    Cars, like the average person, are easily regulated.  

    True that shifting every bit of manufacturing somewhere far away, with virtually no rules to save a few bucks is something we will be paying for far into the future. With interest.
     

    • 0 avatar

      Cars, like the average person, are easily regulated. 

       
       
      Sounds kind of statist to me.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      OH HELL NO!  Climategate is about manipulating data to create a crisis out of a potential problem.  There was a deliberate attempt to select start dates and end dates for proxy data sets like tree ring data and ice cores to “hide the decline” and show temperature rising at an accelerating rate.  Inconvenient data which suggests more natural climate variation and less man-made effect was dropped.  Urban heat island effect on surface temperature measurements not well accounted for.  Different sets of direct and indirect temperature measurements conflated together with undisclosed fudge factors.  Doesn’t mean that we can continue to burn fossil fuels at an accelerating rate forever, but the scientific justification for international CO2 regulation is currently a mess.
       
      Bringing this back to cars and huge diesel engines, how do I get a car with a smaller version of that super efficient 2 cycle diesel design?  As more Chinese motorists take to the road, fuel prices are likely to go up.  Would be nice to more miles and less heat per gallon.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

                      George B,
       
                       The only place for two stroke diesels are open oceans, where there is no pollution laws to violate. Were these things regulated like diesel cars, they would probably need a literal ocean’s worth of urea to stay legal.
       

  • avatar

    Well with the global warmering and peek oilz,  I guess I’ll just shuffle off in a Jaguar and enjoy the drop into the Oldavi thing

  • avatar
    DearS

    They are making 200lb/ft of torque per liter. That is for the I14 25.5k.lt version. About 3 times what a normal N/A engine does. The 3.0lt BMW diesel makes 140lb of torque.  or 2/3 the torque. 

     And I miss read the specs earlier. Its actually making 4 hp per liter. 

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    Wartsila are a fascinating company which I’m lucky enough to have worked with.
     
    Their largest engines are the most efficient ICE’s in the world when they are used in combined-cycle (waste heat is used to run a turbine for ship’s power).
     
    As far as I’m aware they’re used via direct drive with variable pitch propellers (itself an engineering feat).
     
    The scale of everything is mind-blowing. Watching these engines being started is an awesome sensation.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    It’s probably only like 70,000 HP SAE net.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    That Toyota pickup looks like a Darwin award waiting to happen…

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    Holy crap that’s big!

    Bet it’s loud, too.

    Thanks for this.

  • avatar
    Andy D

    When  I was  working at  the Fore River Shipyard , they  had  several transporters for   moving  units, pieces of  ship weighing several hundred tons ,  from  the  mills  to   the  cranes .   The Goliath  Crane could lift 1200 tons.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    Guessing from the Internationalish tenor of today’s posts, is that a Cornbinder motor in the Toyota pickup? It does look to be OHV.
    Check out the shiny paint behind the door…I wonder if the pickup has already needed repairs from having a load smash into the back of the cab.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    I worked at a naval shipyard for quite a few years. They had dozens of large cranes, of course, but no purpose-built trucks like the one shown. They did have a couple of very large flatbed trailers with many wheels and axles that would typically be used to move subassemblies of several ship compartments, gun turrets, and the like. These had long drawbars and were drawn by normal heavy trucks.

  • avatar
    cnyguy

    The engine in the pickup looks like it came out of a Toyota Land Cruiser.

  • avatar
    Facebook User

    Starting one of these babies with compressed air is a pretty special experience :-)
    Also, although they are diesel engines, technically they don’t really run on diesel fuel.  When close to port, and maneuvering (start/stop/start) lighter diesel fuel is used.  Once at sea and at cruising speed, much heavier fuel is used (that needs heating to be useful as a fuel for the engine).  This heavier stuff can be pretty nasty.  For some time in the past (and maybe still) chemical waste would be mixed in by the companies selling these fuels with this heavy oil, as an illegal way to dispose of toxic waste.
    Toxic waste or no, the heavy oil contains a lot of sulfur.  The ships I served on would usually have a nice faint yellow smoke trail behind them…
    Still, comparing them to cars is ludicrous.

    • 0 avatar
      Highway27

      The way I’ve heard it described is they pretty much use the same level of petroleum as asphalt for fuel.  Just imagine how horrible burning a road would be…
       

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    Sounds kind of statist to me.

    Not in favor of it, but when the general pop not only doesn’t grab the pitchforks when the government illegaly wiretaps the whole country, but mostly cheers, I have no problem arguing the average American is easily ruled.
     The last forty years (of all parties) have been the most constitutionally corrosive in history.
     

  • avatar
    kkt

    Any of you with knowledge of these engines know how they are started?
    Does the ship have a smaller engine that turns over the main engine?  If so, what’s the smaller engine — another diesel?
     

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    @ kkt
     
    Yes, compressed air driving the flywheel, leaving all the valves open and then closing them to create some heat-soak, then open again to increase speed and then BANG! (Freakin’ amazing – wow!).
     
    Depending on the model, they bleed off/store starter air from a few “clean” compression strokes before shutdown. Otherwise, they fill the supply air cylinder from other auxiliary systems yes (takes forever apparently).
     
    The ones I saw took about 15-30 minutes depending on temperatures. I think there a few videos on YouTube

  • avatar
    Nutsaboutcars

    Ships do not run on asphalt, give me a break guys. They run on several different grades of diesel fuel, incl. heavy diesel. Sulfur emissions are their no. 1 problem, but as far as all other pollutants and non-pollutants, large, oceangoing ships  emit, per ton-mile of cargo carried, far, far less than the best, most efficient trains, let alone polluting, congesting trucks on our highways. That’s why Short Sea Shipping, trying to take t he trucks off the highways by offering coastal cargo ship services, is supported in EUrope to the tune of $450 million from the governments.
     
    Somebody asked about how these huge engines start, great Q, there are starting systems that involve compressed air and/or smaller motors.

    • 0 avatar
      PeteMoran

      @ Nutsaboutcars
       
      Ships do not run on asphalt, give me a break guys.
       
      You’re right, they don’t, but I think Highway27 was asking us to imagine what it would be like to be burning a road. The bunker fuel they use is pretty close to bitumen. It’s mostly near-waste from the refining process. It has to be pre-heated and sludge separated  (I believe – but that might be done onshore now) before use into the engine.
       
      Until very recently, the “sludge” was dumped at sea and wound up as big floating carbon balls in the ocean. They can be years old before they arrive onshore – mostly they sink – that’s the theory anyway, doesn’t work out so well.

    • 0 avatar
      Sinistermisterman

      Ships still use fuel pre-heaters and fuel filters to clean the fuel, but the vast majority of sludge is (supposed) to be refined out before delivery to the vessel.
      Despite the fact that most types of marine diesel oil or filthy horrible crap there are still strict tolerances within which the quality of the fuel has to fit. I’ve personally dealt with a ship which took on ‘allegedly’ dubious fuel which resulted in massive abrasion in one of the cylinders, piston rings falling to bits, cylinder liner cracking and claims for up to half a million dollars in lost time/damage etc.
      And big? You have no idea how big these babies are until you climb in through the scavenger port and actually stand on the piston head!

  • avatar
    Nutsaboutcars

    PS You can live in one of the cylinders of those 12-14 cyl 100,000 HP engines, even in one of the smaller ones (30,000 HP or so). But the engine room is very noisy and very hot.
     
    Nuclear power is not an economic option for even the biggest  ships, which travel at 15-25 knots and need far less than 100,000 HP. It is used only on 360,000 HP or so, 40-knot aircraft carriers and also 40 kn or so Subs.

  • avatar
    KROSECARTRUTH

    I’m trying to find one these engines to photograph for a film project. does anyone know where I can locate one? is there an engine of this scale in the US?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: “Another thing is that I sneak up on deer all the time on my mountain bike.” No….you...
  • EBFlex: ORV is just off road vehicle. A more broad term than ATV or UTV. And again, those are not analogous. Those...
  • Kenn: When I walked by the open door of the GM’s office at a SoCal Toyota dealer, the day I took delivery of my...
  • slavuta: Before traveling to space he could take care of public transport. You should like this...
  • ToolGuy: I spend that $169/year on washer fluid and oil filters instead.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber