August 30, 2006: World's largest diesel engine

Undertoad · 08-30-2006, 01:31 PM

Neatorama had this item a while back and I'm only just now getting it out of the queue. This behemoth is documented in more detail here, but I'll summarize.

This thing is described as the "Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine". Shown above is the engine block and the main shaft, and if you count, you'll find it's a 10 cylinder engine. Built by The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd.

That means this images are not of the very largest engine, because they have a 14 cylinder version. But you get the idea, just mulitply by 1.4.

The cylinder deck. Each cylinder displaces 1820 liters. Think about this for a moment. When you hear displacement numbers for cars, it's generally in cc. That's a cubic centimeter, otherwise known as a milliliter.

The displacement of all four cylinders of a 1992 Subaru Impreza is 1820 cc. That is 1/1000th of the displacement of one cylinder of this engine.

So a 14-cylinder completed engine has a displacement 14,000 times that of a 1992 Subaru. What do they use this engine for? According to that one page that documents it all...

...to move Subarus! The big engines go on very large container ships, such as the ones used to get cars across the seas. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design, and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

Total engine weight: 2300 tons
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

That oughta do it.

capnhowdy · 08-30-2006, 03:50 PM

It takes 1,660 gals of fuel per hr. to feed those 108,920 horses. That is if you don't mash on it too hard.

I don't reckon I can afford that. Oh well.

Very interesting.

milkfish · 08-30-2006, 05:34 PM

And connect one of these to the driveshaft of a Subaru and it will do Warp Factor 5.

RellikLaerec · 08-30-2006, 07:03 PM

i like the fact that you can climb down into the crankshaft area with the latters!

xoxoxoBruce · 08-30-2006, 08:02 PM

They want single engine, single driveshaft/screw, propulsion systems because they take up less interior room and make it easier to stack containers on either side.

footfootfoot · 08-30-2006, 08:04 PM

I'm the kind of guy who likes a bit of redundancy, especially at sea. Call me Ishamel.
I mean call me old fashioned. When engine number one conks out, it's nice to have engine number two, even if it is a little putt putt.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-30-2006, 08:45 PM

Yes, but you have to understand, the people that make these decisions on what will be most profitable, never set foot on the damn things away from the dock.
'Tis not their butt in the sling.

Ubergeek · 08-30-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkfish

And connect one of these to the driveshaft of a Subaru and it will do Warp Factor 5.

Yup... for about... oh... say 1 or 2 seconds... then it will take that poor little Subaru and twist it into something that would best be described as a metal and rubber Twizzler... LOL

5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm?! Talk about towing capacity

I thought 102rpm sounded pretty tame... then I realized that each of those pistons has got to weight at least a couple of tons. That's a lota metal moving up and down!

Acroyear

xoxoxoBruce · 08-30-2006, 09:58 PM

Right, at 102 rpm that 38 inch diameter piston is moving at 1666 ft per minute (27.77 ft per second) and making 204 stop/starts, during that minute.

Bullitt · 08-30-2006, 11:01 PM

That thing is f***ing huge..
just saying what everyone's thinking

maninthebox · 08-31-2006, 07:56 PM

Yeah, I can shove that into my Caviler somehow............

onetrack · 09-02-2006, 07:14 PM

O.K. .. seen this one before (the pics make everyone go a little ga-ga - but EVERYTHING on ships is BIG, ain't it??) .... but what I wanna see is ...... the crankshaft grinder they used to grind the crank ..... and the milling machine they used to face the surfaces of the engine block .....

11-26-2010, 02:45 PM

I know that sharper minds than mine have determined that these huge diesels are more efficient/cost effective than steam, but I can't see how, I guess.

classicman · 11-26-2010, 03:50 PM

warning warning ... 4+ year old thread dredged up ...

xoxoxoBruce · 11-26-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpeapete

I know that sharper minds than mine have determined that these huge diesels are more efficient/cost effective than steam, but I can't see how, I guess.

Because you'd need a steam engine near as big and then a boiler, bigass condenser, piping, makeup water treatment and controls. These container ships are all about space, which is why they're using an inline engine and single screw.

Oh, and welcome to the Cellar, pete.

08-30-2006, 01:31 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	August 30, 2006: World's largest diesel engine Neatorama had this item a while back and I'm only just now getting it out of the queue. This behemoth is documented in more detail here, but I'll summarize. This thing is described as the "Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine". Shown above is the engine block and the main shaft, and if you count, you'll find it's a 10 cylinder engine. Built by The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd. That means this images are not of the very largest engine, because they have a 14 cylinder version. But you get the idea, just mulitply by 1.4. The cylinder deck. Each cylinder displaces 1820 liters. Think about this for a moment. When you hear displacement numbers for cars, it's generally in cc. That's a cubic centimeter, otherwise known as a milliliter. The displacement of all four cylinders of a 1992 Subaru Impreza is 1820 cc. That is 1/1000th of the displacement of one cylinder of this engine. So a 14-cylinder completed engine has a displacement 14,000 times that of a 1992 Subaru. What do they use this engine for? According to that one page that documents it all... ...to move Subarus! The big engines go on very large container ships, such as the ones used to get cars across the seas. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design, and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them. Total engine weight: 2300 tons Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm That oughta do it.

08-30-2006, 03:50 PM	#2
capnhowdy Blatantly Homosapien Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 6,200	It takes 1,660 gals of fuel per hr. to feed those 108,920 horses. That is if you don't mash on it too hard. I don't reckon I can afford that. Oh well. Very interesting. __________________ Please type slowly. I can't read very fast............... and no holy water, please.

08-30-2006, 05:34 PM	#3
milkfish A serene breakdown Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern NJ, USA Posts: 266	And connect one of these to the driveshaft of a Subaru and it will do Warp Factor 5. __________________ A genius is one who can do anything except make a living. - Joey Lauren Adams

08-30-2006, 08:02 PM	#5
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	They want single engine, single driveshaft/screw, propulsion systems because they take up less interior room and make it easier to stack containers on either side. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-30-2006, 08:04 PM	#6
footfootfoot To shreds, you say? Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet! Posts: 18,449	I'm the kind of guy who likes a bit of redundancy, especially at sea. Call me Ishamel. I mean call me old fashioned. When engine number one conks out, it's nice to have engine number two, even if it is a little putt putt. __________________ The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs

08-30-2006, 07:03 PM	#4
RellikLaerec Faithful Companion Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buckeye City Posts: 185	i like the fact that you can climb down into the crankshaft area with the latters!

08-30-2006, 08:45 PM	#7
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Yes, but you have to understand, the people that make these decisions on what will be most profitable, never set foot on the damn things away from the dock. 'Tis not their butt in the sling. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-30-2006, 09:58 PM	#9
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Right, at 102 rpm that 38 inch diameter piston is moving at 1666 ft per minute (27.77 ft per second) and making 204 stop/starts, during that minute. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-30-2006, 11:01 PM	#10
Bullitt This is a fully functional babe lair Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Akron, OH Posts: 2,324	That thing is f***ing huge.. just saying what everyone's thinking __________________ Kiss my white Irish ass.

08-31-2006, 07:56 PM	#11
maninthebox eats paste Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 52	Yeah, I can shove that into my Caviler somehow............

09-02-2006, 07:14 PM	#12
onetrack Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Western Australia Posts: 99	O.K. .. seen this one before (the pics make everyone go a little ga-ga - but EVERYTHING on ships is BIG, ain't it??) .... but what I wanna see is ...... the crankshaft grinder they used to grind the crank ..... and the milling machine they used to face the surfaces of the engine block ..... __________________ Illiterate??? - Not a problem! Write today for more information!! ....

11-26-2010, 02:45 PM	#13
sweetpeapete Guest Posts: n/a	steam vs diesel I know that sharper minds than mine have determined that these huge diesels are more efficient/cost effective than steam, but I can't see how, I guess.

11-26-2010, 03:50 PM	#14
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	warning warning ... 4+ year old thread dredged up ... __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)