6 replies to this topic

[Paolo]

I recently read an ATA (Italian SAE) article about the history of 16 cylinders engines.
I was shocked to learn that the BRM H16 weighed "only" (it really says so...)
320 Kg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess it's a typo... anyone has data ?
I'd love to know the lenght, too.

[Ursus]

It was bloody heavy. I have read that the engine and gearbox together weighed close to the minimum car weight at the time. Someone surely will know more than me about this.

[Croaky]

Ask in the Nostalgia Forum. They might give you some data if you ask nicely and pretend you're over 60 years old

[Darren Galpin]

From Karl Ludvigsen, who posted this on the Nostalgia Forum. And I am less than half the age that Croaky suggests......;)


About the H-16 the plan was that it would weigh 380 pounds and develop 520 horsepower. In the event the two numbers were reversed! I don't think the H-16 ever developed more than 400 bhp. The concept wasn't bad but a number of decisions made on the drawing board added greatly to its weight and complexity.

Don't forget that a 4.2-liter Indy version of the H-16 engine was built and tested! Lotus was very much relying on that being ready. Here's what I say about that:

Its bore and stroke were 74.6 x 60.0 mm (2.94 x 2.36 ins.) and it was run eventually up to 10,000 rpm on a mixture of gasoline with 40 percent methanol. Recalled an engineer who saw it in action: ‘It is probably the most awesome, almost terrifying engine I have experienced running on a test bed.’ Rough and harsh, the 4.2-litre H-16 kept breaking pieces which were then strengthened sufficiently for it to record a maximum power reading of 585 bhp. Attached to a Lotus Indy chassis, it lasted only five laps of a British circuit before it tore up the centre gear and bearings of its output-gear set. Thereafter its flat crankshafts were given up in favour of new ones, still with four throws but spaced at 90-degree intervals. Phased at 45 degrees to each other, these cranks allowed firing as a sequential 16 but weren’t amenable to the use of a practical tuned exhaust system. In this Mark 2 form the 4.2-litre engine, still very rough-running, gave no more than 530 bhp and continued to devour its output gear train. Seeming to defy ready solution of its problems, the big engine was shelved.

[moog101]

IIRC Fangio tried the H16 Engined BRM and declared it a liabilty and the only engine he felt was not properly under his (sublime) control.

OT: I know the nephew of the BRM truck driver who was in Motor Sport Magazine last month.

[leegle]

That was the supercharged V16 with the centrifugal blower geared to the crankshaft and spinning at horrendous revs. You were partly right though. They shared the same conrods.;) I don't understand this suggestion that it was so incredibly heavy because there was little to it other than two of the V8s laid out flat and they were never criticised as being heavy. Just the drive gears and the output shaft extra.

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally posted by Croaky
Ask in the Nostalgia Forum. They might give you some data if you ask nicely and pretend you're over 60 years old

Here is what I posted over in the Nostagia forum:

Originally (1966) 555 lbs. (252 kg) plus 118 lb. (53.5 kg) of gearbox and clutch according to Tony Rudd (who ought to know!) - In his book "It Was Fun -My Fifty Years of High Performance". By 1967 he quotes 508 lbs. (231 kg). Ultimately they developed a 64 valve light weight engine with magnesium crankcase castings sandwiching five titanium blocks that came in at 398 lbs. (180.5 kg) - this development however never produced the targeted power.

I would like to provide more but the old folks home I am in has a rather limited library!