rafa26

Was the MGT 8.0 engine dyno before ????

Any HP numbers ?

Thanks.

rafa26

Finally i found something:



Thunder Tiger - PRO-50BX (R)

Product No. TTR9445


tdunder Tiger's PRO series engines are equipped witd dual-ball bearings, Schnuerle porting, ABC type piston and cylinder and
mixture control carburetor.

Specification:
Displacement: 8.19 cc. / 0.500 cu. in.
Bore: 22.5 mm. / 0.886 in.
Stroke: 20.6 mm. / 0.811 in.
Practical RPM: 2,000 ~ 30,000
Output: 1.80 BHP / 16,000 RPM
Weight: 465 g. wo/muffler / 16.41 oz.


http://www.thundertiger4u.com/pro50bx-r-p-7554.html

ttoks

the .50 in the MGT 8.0 is a converted helicopter engine, all they've done is put a larger cooling head on it and slapped it in the MTA4 chassis, just liek they did with the .70 and .90 in the EK4 (just so you know, thunder tiger owns team associated, the MGT is a re badged thunder tiger MTA4)

rafa26

Do you think the HP numbers are true ?

ttoks

HP numbers for aircraft engines are typically much less inflated then they are for car and truck engines, but i still wouldn't believe them fully.

ThermalRD

Output: 1.80 BHP / 16,000 RPM


I gotta tell ya, im impressed with those numbers. Not at how high they are, but the fact a company isnt claiming a ridiculous amount of HP on such a large mill. They're basically showing an HP number, at a really low RPM. Which is very practical, and expected of such a large motor. But really, if you're concerned about its power, go watch the videos on youtube. The truck moves quite nice.

IL2mSturmovik

It sure does, especially low end grunt

Evader ---> MGT

Could you really expect a .28 to out power this?

Sugafree

Yes!

rafa26

No.

ThermalRD

It would take a really high end .28 to out muscle that size of a motor. It can be done, just with a very high end motor. Dont expect this motor to have the top end of a .28 either. Then again, its all in the gearing now. This truck should be able to pull some big gears with ease.

binaryterror

Drinking fuel faster than an alcoholic drinking booze.

ThermalRD

LOL. Thats a whole different issue. LOL.

"Hey Brian, im comin in at 5 minutes!!!!!!" LOL

ttoks

i've noted that engine manufacturers tend to not claim outrages numbers on heli and plane mills.

if this engine in fact does make 1.8 HP (which isn't all to outrageous) there are a few mills out there that you can get fairly cheap that will easily out power it though, the best example being a picco .28 P3, around $200 bucks and has been dynoed at around 2.05 HP which isn't bad at all, or an LRP z.28 spec 3 made 1.87 (that was the truggy version so i'd expect around 1.75 from the pull start roughly)

but for bashing this engine would be great, hill climbs ect you'd need to gear the .28's down to get the toque to the ground at low, but you loose all top speed then, in a strait line the .28's will be faster but climbing over stuff i doubt you'll outdo the .50, just my opinion.

rafa26

Can you imagine a .50 all prepared for race.

Bria1

It may not be too bad, remember it is turning less rpm than a .28 does. But ya, a tank a little bigger than 150cc would've been nice.

With this thing, it's all about the torque.

rafa26

Couldn't agree anymore.

blackrain

i bet a lot of the things they dont offer you with the truck, will be sold seperate like a bigger gas tank

rafa26

What are you talking about man ?

black mamba

I believe the numbers. The thing has .50ci, so 1.8hp isn't out of line at all. I actually expected it to make a little north of 2hp just from sheer displacement alone. Considering the average .28 puts out 1.4-1.6hp, this engine already has a advantage in the bashing RTR market, and no bashing oriented .28 will touch it's torque curve. As for the low revs thing, that's how big engines operate.....they don't need rpms to make their power. Just regear accordingly and all will be well. Torque can do wonderful things that makes high rpms seem futile.[8D]

Here's a video of one on youtube that shows the truck running real good. It definitely isn't slow.........and it sounds pretty mean as well. I think this truck will go over big with the big block bashing crowd that is looking for something other than the same old, same old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orrp2zb6UhM

rafa26

Less RPMs, less fuel comsumption ! DAHHHHH !

infernalstone

That only applies to the engine itself. I'm willing to bet that my 3.0 in my ranger drinks less fuel at 4000 rpm than a 454 does at 2000 rpm.

More displacement allows for more components for the combustion. Which means it requires more fuel for a single cycle than a smaller engine.

rafa26

At the same time it produces more torque and takes the truck to a bigger distance with less fuel.

binaryterror

Fuel useage is based on power consumption. Just to idle a bigger engine will need more power to be able to continuously run to continue create RPM's. Bigger engine face the task of moving bigger parts therefore will use more fuel.

To turn power it will again take more fuel to create the power to increase the speeds of the engine because it will be moving more mass in side the engine.

If the .50 was to turn at 50% of full throttle it would use less fuel than to turn at 80% that is guaranteed. It however is not true that a .28 turning at 50% full throttle is using an amount in anyway related to that of a .50 engine.

infernalstone

In a perfect world where engines get 100% efficiency. However, considering that most internal combustion engine efficiency is down right terrible, no. If I recall I think internal combustion engines get something like..20-30% effiency. But thermal dynamics was a few years ago, and an off-major class.

What will happen is you will use more fuel over the same distance. However, you can move that distance faster.

Otherwise a Dodge Ram with a Hemi would get better mileage than a standard Ram. However, that's not the case. The Hemi will smoke the standard Ram in a race. But it'll run out of fuel well before the other truck.

Part of the reality of it is that you need X amount of fuel to ignite to make X amount of energy. But as Binary said above, bigger engine has more mass to rotate. Which comes out as a loss of energy by the time you reach the clutch. The trade off is that you have a bigger explosion each cycle, so you have more energy per cycle, even after loss from mass. Thus more torque with less rpm. But again, you have more mass to overcome in the engine, so a greater percentage of energy will be lost in translation after that initial kaboom of fuel and air.