62 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Of course there are some dragsters and Trucks which are the most powerful race cars.

But what about road racing cars?

 

The BMW F1 engine from 1986 had 1430 HP

The Porsche CanAm 917/30 from 1973 had 1560 HP

Even the Mercedes IndyCar engine of 1994 had 1000 HP

 

Were there more such powerful race cars?

[sabrejet]

Some of those figures look dodgy to me: the Benetton engine figure is I think, an extrapolation of dyno readings.

 

And Mark Donohue recalled that the 917/30 was 'only' putting out just over 1,000 bhp in qualifying trim, with the 917/10 less than the 1000. In fact that '1560 [b]hp' figure seems an inflation of the regularly-quoted figures. I suspect a bit of power creep.

 

The magic 1000 was also oft-quoted in regard to the total output of the Toyota TS050, but if so then the Audi R18 must have been giving that too I'd guess.

 

I think some of the hill climbers must be putting out prodigious amounts too, plus torque a-plenty.

[2F-001]

Paul Frere* quotes 1100 bhp for 917/30. I don’t doubt than any of these engines could peak at more momentarily - or on a dyno, but only figures capable of being produced on track (preferably in a race, or at least for a qualifying lap, and with transmission losses) are really interesting, surely

Sometimes figures are estimated (because, for instance, the dyno didn’t read high enough), but are then quoted, repeated, and then pass into folklore as fact.

917/30 was modified for the Talladega record attempt, the first try having failed due to overheating. Much attention to the cooling and packing the ducts with ice allowed a sustained 1100bhp from a smaller (5-litre) engine*. But one might argue that wasn’t actually a ‘racing car’.

(*Paul Frere: ‘Porsche racing cars of the 70s’.)

Edited by 2F-001, 05 October 2018 - 06:53.

[Lee Nicolle]

Horsepower figures that sound massive are only at best an indication of power. Is the power useable? In other words can you make the car go appreciably faster? Are they driveable? And this too an extent even applies to electric motors

Turbo engines always seem to make phone number figures but dont go much if any faster than a n/a engine. From my experience with tintops the mega numbers were generally slower than me with a simple V8. With driveability.

And that from F1 down. 

The most powerfull engines are ofcourse dragsters but from a road race point of view useless power. 

[Collombin]

The BMW F1 engine from 1986 had 1430 HP

Disappointing, I saw that figure quoted about 5 years ago, thought we'd have reached about 1800 by now.

[nmansellfan]

Some of the Offy turbo engine Indycars could produce four-figure power numbers before the boost restrictions came in, I have read.  But as with other engine manufacturers dyno's, could they actually read that high?

 

For F1, I think both BMW and Honda's dyno's in the first turbo era only registered up to 1000bhp.  All figures beyond that are extrapolations, as others have said.  I wonder if the Italian horses could be more accurately measured at Maranello?

[f1steveuk]

I can only agree with everyone. The 1935 Blue Bird, that attained 301 mph is often stated to have 2370 HP from it's 37 litre Rolls-Royce R Type, but 2370 was the highest figure ever attained by an R Type (R27), on a special sprint cocktail of fuel, and with a 400+ mph head wind down the supercharger intake, on a test bench. Campbell's engine (R37) was running "normal" fuel, and obviously wasn't going to get a 400 mph head wind, so it probably was producing 1350 HP maybe 1800 at a peak, but every book says over 2000!!

[Henri Greuter]

Some of the Offy turbo engine Indycars could produce four-figure power numbers before the boost restrictions came in, I have read.  But as with other engine manufacturers dyno's, could they actually read that high?

 

For F1, I think both BMW and Honda's dyno's in the first turbo era only registered up to 1000bhp.  All figures beyond that are extrapolations, as others have said.  I wonder if the Italian horses could be more accurately measured at Maranello?

 

Figures I have read for Offies in '73 were an estimated 1200 hp in qualifying trim.

To put it in perspective: that was with half the capacity and only 1/3th the numbers of cylinders of the 917/30 turbocharged Flat-12....

Mark Dees wrote in his book "Miller Dynasty" that on one occasion at the dyno of Dan Gurney's Eagle factory an engine had a malfunctioning boost control and that they saw, by accident a 1400 figure with the engine surviving that.

 

Strangely enough, the retirement rate of Offies in '73 was rather high, when the race was red flaaged yet again after 133 laps only 12 cars were still running. I don't know if there was a common reason for that or sheer coincidence.

[Hati]

For F1, I think both BMW and Honda's dyno's in the first turbo era only registered up to 1000bhp.

 

I remember reading a quote where BMW dyno was said to reach 1200hp and engine going over it. And with help of google same? quote can be found online, actual number according to it was 1280hp. Which wasn't enough to show the power so that 1430hp estimate probably isn't far from the truth.

https://www.bmwblog....formula-1-cars/

 

I also remember reading about Berger telling engineer how much boost gauge showed during qualifying and engineer saying that it had to produce over 1400hp at the moment but can't find a link for that.

[john aston]

All I know is that I have never seen a racing car accelerate like  a Brabham BMW on full qualifying boost. 

 

But compared to a top fuel dragster ? Nothing comes even close. Bit iffy round corners though.  

[Lee Nicolle]

All I know is that I have never seen a racing car accelerate like  a Brabham BMW on full qualifying boost. 

 

But compared to a top fuel dragster ? Nothing comes even close. Bit iffy round corners though.

These days with mid 6 second 'street cars' I suspect they too would blow off those BMWs. And they are able to tow a trailer as well!

Cornering is a little better!

[Henri Greuter]

I remember reading a quote where BMW dyno was said to reach 1200hp and engine going over it. And with help of google same? quote can be found online, actual number according to it was 1280hp. Which wasn't enough to show the power so that 1430hp estimate probably isn't far from the truth.

https://www.bmwblog....formula-1-cars/

 

I also remember reading about Berger telling engineer how much boost gauge showed during qualifying and engineer saying that it had to produce over 1400hp at the moment but can't find a link for that.

 

 

 

Remember something similar, about Monza qualifying if my memory is correct.

 

Edit: not found on the internet but in a (German language) book written by Austrian F1 journalist Heinz Pruller about the '86 F1 season. Pruller followed his fellow countrymen F1 drivers extensively in his books so he followed Gerhard Berger that season. Berger drove a Benetton-BMW. At Monza, according Pruller:  a new big turbo provided 5.3 bar turboboost, powerfigure in print: 1400 hp, enabling a top speed of 351.2 km/h.

[F1matt]

When the Pirellis were switched on the Benetton BMW looked a very capable machine. Dubious about the power figures even in qualifying trim. In regards to the Toyota TS050 I was watching the F1 practice on sky earlier this year with Ant Davidson doing the commentary, he said the Toyota had a button on the steering wheel which game them a 500bhp boost, that thing must have some power!

[Hati]

I've posted this somewhere before and asked the question but don't remember getting definitive answer, can anyone interpret how much boost was in use in this dyno run? It probably didn't use same "rocket fuel" they used in 80s but in any case, if MAP Bar 3,30 was boost used power figure is quite impressive. (Ok, it's that in any case.)

http://www.gurneyfla...bof1engine.html

[stuartbrs]

As we are talking about the 1986 Benetton BMW, its worth noting the the Pirro car just took out the lap record at Baskerville in an epic race with a CanAm McLaren... Very cool.

 

https://youtu.be/kzSD-CiG5qQ

[stuartbrs]

And I`m sure the last of the Honda V10`s achieved 1000hp, which is probably why the exploded so spectacularly so often.

[Charlieman]

I remember reading a quote where BMW dyno was said to reach 1200hp and engine going over it. 

Does anyone have any catalogues or marketing stuff for 1970s and 1980s dynamometers? What was the potential market for dynos capable of absorbing 1000bhp?

[AJB]

As we are talking about the 1986 Benetton BMW, its worth noting the the Pirro car just took out the lap record at Baskerville in an epic race with a CanAm McLaren... Very cool.

 

https://youtu.be/kzSD-CiG5qQ

An M8F that was 15 years older than the Benetton F1 car!

[GazChed]

What a great looking little circuit ! Wonderful viewing and listening all the way round by the seems of things . Reminds me of Castle Combe to an extent , at least before they planted hundreds of solar panels ! Talking of Castle Combe did any TNFers go to the Autumn Classic ? Sadly I couldn't make it due to work commitments having looked forward to it for the last 51 weeks !

[Tim Murray]

I had to give it a miss too, Gaz - I was really pissed off at not being there. I understand that at least two other TNFers made it there, though.

[Duc-Man]

Charlie Kemp mentioned once in a can-am group on facebook that, when he drove the 917/10 in '73, they had the same 5.4l engine as Penske had in the 917/30. They started the season with 1250hp.

The Shadow DN2 turbo that was in the RossoBianco museum had an info board beside it that stated 1250hp out of a 495 Chevy BB. The torque is nowhere mentioned but must have been massive. Unfortunately was the engine completely unreliable.

The Shadow Mk.III that Canepa sold a while back was also a turbo but not in the original specs as build in '72. It was the same setup with the turbos beside the engine as in the DN2 in '73 plus intercoolers instead of the turbos in the tail. That has been quoted with 1450hp from a 510 BB...due to modern engine managment. Torque at around 1800Nm.

[sabrejet]

An M8F that was 15 years older than the Benetton F1 car!

 

That M8F looks and sounds awesome. Makes the Benetton look a bit lame when you consider the size difference too... 

 

Is that Teddy Pilette's M8FT? Which brings us back to the 'power' question: supposedly 1200bhp in the Interserie McLaren turbo?

Edited by sabrejet, 07 October 2018 - 19:51.

[stuartbrs]

For those on Facebook, if you want to see more of the McLaren at Baskerville there is an awesome 360 degree video of the battle between the Benetton on the McLaren. Just look for the Baskerville Historics page on Facebook.

The McLaren has over 900Hp and is being driven (hard) by Jason White, multiple Australian Targa winner, the real deal. 

As for Baskerville, plenty said on here already, but it is Australia`s oldest continuously operating circuit, and sits in a natural amphitheater. The circuit now has a solid future due to the tireless efforts of the Baskerville Foundation and various clubs that raise money and inject funds into improving the facility. Part of this has been a recent resurface.

[Henri Greuter]

Of course there are some dragsters and Trucks which are the most powerful race cars.
But what about road racing cars?
 
The BMW F1 engine from 1986 had 1430 HP
The Porsche CanAm 917/30 from 1973 had 1560 HP
Even the Mercedes IndyCar engine of 1994 had 1000 HP
 
Were there more such powerful race cars?

Forgot to react on that but it is very doubtful if the '94 Indy merc you mention was ever ran at 1000 hp. Maybe on the test benches but as far as I know, not in the actual cars during May. Even at 900 hp the cars were something of a hand full already.

[Sterzo]

In regards to the Toyota TS050 I was watching the F1 practice on sky earlier this year with Ant Davidson doing the commentary, he said the Toyota had a button on the steering wheel which game them a 500bhp boost, that thing must have some power!

That button must have had the same effect as Louis Stanley going to the toilet in the Dorchester.

 

It would be fascinatng to know, as Charlieman asks, whether any dyno was marketed which would reach the figures quoted for various engines.

[7MGTEsup]

These days with mid 6 second 'street cars' I suspect they too would blow off those BMWs. And they are able to tow a trailer as well!

Cornering is a little better!

 

They also have 4x the displacement and 30 years of advancement of technology on their side.

 

1000hp from 91ci of displacement is no joke, and they lasted 200 miles at those sort of power levels. From what I have seen of drag week the cars running 6's aren't too reliable.

[Michael Ferner]

A dragster engine gets a full rebuild after just a few hundred revolutions. An F1 engine has to endure several millions between rebuilds.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by GazChed
What a great looking little circuit! Wonderful viewing and listening all the way round by the seems of things. Reminds me of Castle Combe to an extent, at least before they planted hundreds of solar panels !

Having been to both circuits I find this hard to fathom...

Castle Combe is much more open and it's flat, whereas Baskerville crams a lot of corners into its short length and it's all on a hillside.

On the subject of dynos, surely they built them to test and measure performance of big engines like the R-R Merlin?

[GazChed]

I wasn't really referring to the topography of the two circuits more to the lovely clubby atmosphere and good viewing. Mind you when I checked the new lap record at Baskerville , it was remarkably similar to the old Castle Combe mark set by Nigel Greensall , 48.82 seconds compared to 50.59 seconds at Combe . Then I realised that Josh Kean had completed 1.26 miles at just under 93 mph while Greensall completed the old Combe's 1.84 miles at just under 131 mph ! In any case ,I thought who was likely to have visited both circuits ? Then I remembered your visit to Castle Combe a couple of years ago Ray ....

[Ray Bell]

There you go...

The viewing at Baskerville is much better than Castle Combe because the circuit's on one hill and the spectators on the opposite hill. The Tassie atmosphere I never experienced there, but I did at Symmons one wet day and at a crowded Longford a couple of times. But the ingredients are all there.

I think driving a Can-Am McLaren around Baskerville would be very much like I imagine it was like to take a P4 around the twisty bits of the Targa.

[Lee Nicolle]

They also have 4x the displacement and 30 years of advancement of technology on their side.

 

1000hp from 91ci of displacement is no joke, and they lasted 200 miles at those sort of power levels. From what I have seen of drag week the cars running 6's aren't too reliable.

They do a 1000 miles between the tracks over 5 days. Yes big capacity turbo or nitrous engines dragging around 2000-3000lb cars. Plus trailers

And dont forget these are not factory teams with unlimited funds but drag racers on a small budget. And running on generally methanol or E85 not jungle juice

As for that BMW last time I saw it it tried to run over the driver!

[Lee Nicolle]

Having been to both circuits I find this hard to fathom...

Castle Combe is much more open and it's flat, whereas Baskerville crams a lot of corners into its short length and it's all on a hillside.

On the subject of dynos, surely they built them to test and measure performance of big engines like the R-R Merlin?

I agree, I have been to both also. Baskerville is tighter than Castle Combe. I have seen cars practicing on both circuits but not racing.

I feel the hp figures for the Merlins were probably theoretical. But maybe either the aircraft manufacturers or Rolls Royce had huge dynos. Though a aircraft engines delivers huge hp and torque at low rpms. Turbo drag engines see maybe 7000 and the BMW twice that.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 08 October 2018 - 22:22.

[Lee Nicolle]

Charlie Kemp mentioned once in a can-am group on facebook that, when he drove the 917/10 in '73, they had the same 5.4l engine as Penske had in the 917/30. They started the season with 1250hp.

The Shadow DN2 turbo that was in the RossoBianco museum had an info board beside it that stated 1250hp out of a 495 Chevy BB. The torque is nowhere mentioned but must have been massive. Unfortunately was the engine completely unreliable.

The Shadow Mk.III that Canepa sold a while back was also a turbo but not in the original specs as build in '72. It was the same setup with the turbos beside the engine as in the DN2 in '73 plus intercoolers instead of the turbos in the tail. That has been quoted with 1450hp from a 510 BB...due to modern engine managment. Torque at around 1800Nm.

Bo BB Chev had 1250hp normally aspirated in 73. Even 800 was stretching the truth.

And I doubt 1250 even now from a N/A  engine now With  100ci more now than then. Turbo? 1500 maybe

[Bob Riebe]

Here is a thread over at the Corvette forum with info and chat on the Can-Am Chevy big blocks.

One fellow worked on them.

https://www.corvette...ry-bad-boy.html

[7MGTEsup]

They do a 1000 miles between the tracks over 5 days. Yes big capacity turbo or nitrous engines dragging around 2000-3000lb cars. Plus trailers

And dont forget these are not factory teams with unlimited funds but drag racers on a small budget. And running on generally methanol or E85 not jungle juice

As for that BMW last time I saw it it tried to run over the driver!

 

I'm pretty sure on old F1 engine could manage 1000 miles running at light load and low rpm. Not sure I would call those top cars small budget as I would think you could buy a nice house for the cost of those cars. A lot of these turbo cars are running manifold pressures in the 400kpa+ region which isn't that far from what the turbo cars were running so I don't think E85 or Methanol can be considered much lower than jungle juice.

[Duc-Man]

Bo BB Chev had 1250hp normally aspirated in 73. Even 800 was stretching the truth.

And I doubt 1250 even now from a N/A  engine now With  100ci more now than then. Turbo? 1500 maybe

 

I never talked about an N/A BB engine. Read my comment again. I wrote:

 

The Shadow DN2 turbo that was in the RossoBianco museum had an info board beside it that stated 1250hp out of a 495 Chevy BB.

 

The N/A engines were somewhere around 750hp at the time.

[Lee Nicolle]

I'm pretty sure on old F1 engine could manage 1000 miles running at light load and low rpm. Not sure I would call those top cars small budget as I would think you could buy a nice house for the cost of those cars. A lot of these turbo cars are running manifold pressures in the 400kpa+ region which isn't that far from what the turbo cars were running so I don't think E85 or Methanol can be considered much lower than jungle juice.

E85 is pump fuel. Many production cars use it, though not too many sites carry it. But $1.40 a litre in comparison today with some site asking $1.69 for 91 and 20-25c extra for 98. I am converting my Falcon race car too use it. Doing it properly has cost about $1100, for carb, pump, hoses and fuel regulator. Though you can buy the metering blocks from Holley and change jets and power valves etc. And flush the system when leaving the car sitting. 

As I will do with the Classic Supermodified, hoses, filter and retune the SUs for the fuel. 

 

E85 is like all ethanol fuels, it is hydroscopic and absorbs too much water. Which is what causes the corrosion, not the fuel.

Methanol is a bit harder to convert too but really not much different. And is a LOT more stable now than in the past. And it too causes corrosion with the water it absorbs.

 

Methanol is far from jungle juice as well. The very high chemical stuff run in high dollar 50s engines and the BMW F1 engines was downright dangerous.

Both fuels have the capacity to make more power but the engine needs compression and airflow to do so.

Most E85 production engines have a bit less power.

And ofcourse a fuel stabiliser than lubricates valves and top ring area is also required as both fuels are a lot 'drier' But so is unleaded!

[Charlieman]

Random thoughts about dynamometers and turbo racing engines up to the 1980s...

 

At the time the only piston engines generating 1,000bhp were petrol monsters for aircraft or even bigger diesel marine/stationary engines. If available one of the dynos from the aircraft engine industry would have been suitable, but that industry had moved away from piston power at the high end. A dyno designed for a 1,000bhp diesel would operate at low revs and big torque compared to one for a small capacity racing screamer.

 

Anyone who has been in an engine test area will tell you how hot it gets! For a 1,000bhp diesel plodder (assumed thermodynamic efficiency of 33%), you have 2,000bhp of hot air to shift in addition to the power absorbed by a generator. For a 1,000bhp turbo screamer (assumed thermodynamic efficiency of 25%), you have 3,000bhp of hot air to shift. That's not a trivial problem.

 

For most racing turbos, packaging the engine around the rest of the car was a major consideration. Most turbo racing cars adopted water-air-air intercoolers which were difficult to implement in a lab.

[Bob Riebe]

E85 is pump fuel. Many production cars use it, though not too many sites carry it. But $1.40 a litre in comparison today with some site asking $1.69 for 91 and 20-25c extra for 98. I am converting my Falcon race car too use it. Doing it properly has cost about $1100, for carb, pump, hoses and fuel regulator. Though you can buy the metering blocks from Holley and change jets and power valves etc. And flush the system when leaving the car sitting. 

As I will do with the Classic Supermodified, hoses, filter and retune the SUs for the fuel. 

 

 

Did you calculate the 30 percent drop in fuel mileage into your saving calculaltions?

 

I always see this, concerning people who buy flex fuel cars in the U.S., well you sold your car that had no problems and after trade in spent 25 thousand dollars.

Did you calculate how many years, assuming you do not use 85 percent alcohol fuel often  it will take before you even break even, if you do break even in fuel savings money?

They usually give you that, go away, look and answer with, well I have warranty now.

[Lee Nicolle]

I'm pretty sure on old F1 engine could manage 1000 miles running at light load and low rpm. Not sure I would call those top cars small budget as I would think you could buy a nice house for the cost of those cars. A lot of these turbo cars are running manifold pressures in the 400kpa+ region which isn't that far from what the turbo cars were running so I don't think E85 or Methanol can be considered much lower than jungle juice.

Those old F1 engines used to idle at about 4000rpm. Useless for anything except an open wheel race car.

[Lee Nicolle]

Did you calculate the 30 percent drop in fuel mileage into your saving calculaltions?

 

I always see this, concerning people who buy flex fuel cars in the U.S., well you sold your car that had no problems and after trade in spent 25 thousand dollars.

Did you calculate how many years, assuming you do not use 85 percent alcohol fuel often  it will take before you even break even, if you do break even in fuel savings money?

They usually give you that, go away, look and answer with, well I have warranty now.

Avgas is arount $4 per litre and we now have unleaded avgas that is causing light aircraft to fall out of the sky! And I have a 20k trip business hours to buy Avgas wheras a 5km trip 24/7 to buy E85. Speedway event 15 litres per show. or 18-19 on E85.

Supersprint in the Falcon about 50 litres v about 65. So yes a saving as well as a little more power as well.

Plus my $1100 expense will actually after I sell the old components less than half of that.

And for both cars the fuel is a little safer with the added cooling from the alcohol. Hot night on Avgas is a bit borderline and a Cleveland lump needs all the help it can get!

[Charlieman]

According to the UK Channel 4 documentary about turbo engines recording the development of the Cosworth GBA, he GBA was first tested on the same dyno used for the DFV. Although the GBA might not be classified as one of the most powerful racing engines by everyone...

[AAGR]

According to the UK Channel 4 documentary about turbo engines recording the development of the Cosworth GBA, the GBA was first tested on the same dyno used for the DFV. Although the GBA might not be classified as one of the most powerful racing engines by everyone...

 

Maybe so, but by the time the GB was running reliably in  the 1987 Benettons, those 1.5-litre engnes were producing at least 1,000bhp in qualifying trim.

[Duc-Man]

...we now have unleaded avgas that is causing light aircraft to fall out of the sky!

 

Sorry, that sounds like BS to me.

There is a lead replacement additive for cars available, but not for aircraft?

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, that sounds like BS to me.

There is a lead replacement additive for cars available, but not for aircraft?

The way aircraft engines function, i.e. what makes a good safe engine, is only similar to auto engines in that they use gasoline really.

As a aircraft mechanic at the airport, he used to fuel my Boss Mustang,  full service at the airport you could not find at a gas station,   told me about Aviation low lead, that there was a huge amount more lead in Av-gas low lead than in auto premium leaded fuel.

You have to look up on-line as to why that is so important.

The carbs., on WWII U.S. fighter planes was also far, far more advanced that anything on automobiles, it was the basis for fuel injection developed later.

[Charlieman]

The way aircraft engines function, i.e. what makes a good safe engine, is only similar to auto engines in that they use gasoline really.

As a aircraft mechanic at the airport, he used to fuel my Boss Mustang,  full service at the airport you could not find at a gas station,   told me about Aviation low lead, that there was a huge amount more lead in Av-gas low lead than in auto premium leaded fuel.

That tetraethyl lead, and we are talking about silly percentages, was the biggest difference from pump petrol with a high octane score.

 

I have never tried to burn lead but I presume that the calorific value is less than zero.

 

There was so much tetraethyl lead in Avgas that technicians were employed to scrape the redundant stuff from/in aircraft engines. Service interval for engines? But the rules required the industry to work around a ludicrous concept, something from years ago. It was the aero industry acting daft.

[Bob Riebe]

Here is one site with some information on Aviation Fuel.

It is hard nowadays to search for info without getting pages of greenie trash that come from those who  live in an idealistic fairy land.

 

https://www.experime...-fuel-mogas.php

[Lee Nicolle]

Having used Avgas/ Racing Fuel 100 for over 40 years I have a fairly good understanding of the product and its capabilities. In the last decade it ha s dropped the lead content quite a lot. Struggle to get a grey pipe these days . On my 11-1 flat top piston engines is ok, been told not so good with 12-12.5-1 which is what my Chev Sports Sedan engine is. With lumpy top pistons.

It has far better volatility than any unleaded fuel and has better detonation resistance. Having a long time ago compared it with 98 unleaded on a dyno in a 10-1 Ford engine it started better [points ignition] and would take 3 degrees more timing. Which is all engine response. And was about 15hp up. These days that engine uses E15 100 octane and is lazy but runs ok  and starts ok on that fuel with the multispark ignition. Forget anything less to light the stuff.

The story about light aircraft  crashes was on the 7 30 report and I had heard it from other sources before. The engines were designed for AVGAS and the unleaded stuff will not cut it. The fools that make these laws really should be given a ride in a aircraft misfueled!

More modern and larger aircraft engines are designed around the high octane unleaded and are not a problem,, but it appears use more of it. This from a pilot mate.

[paulstevens56]

I would suggest some the diesel tractor pull engines are pushing out well over 2500hp.

 

And they blow up frequently due to the ridiculous pressures they are put through, sound great though!

 

But really they are the same as drag engines, very powerful but run for so few miles it hardly counts.

 

I would think some of the GroupC engines run by Toyota, Nissan and Mercedes and the IMSA motors run by them were wound up occasionally to very high power fuels using special fuel

[Collombin]

I would suggest some the diesel tractor pull engines are pushing out well over 2500hp.

Blimey, that's diesel locomotive territory isn't it? Why on earth would they need that much power? Huge torque figures no doubt, but not much need for high revs.