Questions on new swap idea, need input!
 

I think I found my new ideal engine swap.....

Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation's A1B nuclear reactors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

Now I can already hear the haters lining up to say it won't work or I don't know what I'm doing etc etc etc but hear me out:

This idea is a 300% improvement over my last swap idea so it has to work. I was previously considering Westinghouse's A4W reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor). Yes these are the same reactors on the outgoing Nimitz class of US supercarriers that make 100 MW (~135,000 hp) each but let's not sweat the details.

More importantly let’s look ahead to the new Gerald R. Ford class of supercarriers and their more powerful A1B reactors. The 300% better idea really begins to take shape when you realize that these bad boys make 300 MW ( ~400,000 hp or 3 times the weak A4Bs) each. Plus they are a more efficient and compact design so it won't upset the twins amazing center of gravity. I realize your next objection is that the car will become too nose heavy . Fear not plebian for I have already taken care of that concern! I'm going to use 2 reactors (just like supercarriers!), and put 1 in the front and 1 in the back. I think approximately 800,000 hp at the reactor should translate to about 680,000 at the rear wheels (assuming 15% loss) which is finally enough to liven up this amazing chassis. I’m going to forgo lead lining the reactors for weight savings so I don’t expect to add much weight to the car overall.

Anyone have any experience with these kinda swaps and running unshielded reactors? I was thinking of just heat wrapping them to save a couple bucks. (Should also help keep intake fission temps down)

Let me know if you have any DoD contracts who can get good prices on these reactors, not trying to spend a fortune here.

Do you think the stock transmission can handle this power? Not really sure what the torque curve of a nuclear reactor looks but I think they are always technically at 0 RPM so that should mean I don’t have worry about too much early torque destroying the trans right? Car currently has 245 Pilot Super Sports so I’m sure it won’t slip too much.

Experience with supercharging or turbo charging a reactor? Possibly one of each for a same car at the same time type of comparison?

If you actually took the time to read this, have yourself a great weekend and a safe Halloween!!

:popcorn:


And thanks I will :)

Why don't you try a twin hayabusa turbo swap? 1 in the front and one in the rear for AWD

I can't believe you took the time to write all that...lol.

Long train of thought but......

Was reading about russia moving it's aircraft carrier closer to syria which lead to wikipedia to see what type of engine the carrier had which lead to the wikipedia page for US carriers and I kinda chuckled to myself about about nuclear reactor swap and heat wrap instead of lead/dense metal shielding and rest is history on a slow friday afternoon. More importantly it is now time for :cheers:

No its time for you to install your turbo this weekend :cheers:

Saving the turbo for the trunk mounted reactor, I really think a little 20g will help reduce fission lag

Thought you were talking about the Atom V8 motor at first.

Subscribed. I would love to see where this swap goes.

Why not....
 

Why not twin Hayabusa motors, one powering each rear wheel, you can use minimum torque loss traction control through wheel rpm based throttle control and dynamos and steering level meters for individual wheel torque control through the same circuit????

Jaden

Why not? Because the new Kawasaki Ninja H2 motors make more power. :w00t:

Why stop at four? Why not eight?

Attachment 145201