On Tuesday, 28 July 2020 11:26:45 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 27 July 2020 14:16:41 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 26 July 2020 16:20:19 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/07/2020 14:47, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 13:54:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Oddly, it can be more so on older engines. Pushrod engines have
much higher loads to the camshaft than modern OHC multi valve
types. And a worn cam may not stop it running, but will reduce
the performance and increase fuel usage.

Judging by the number of drivers I've known that failed to
notice their engine was firing on 3 not 4 cylinders, it might
not get noticed ....

Dave is of course talking tosh. The load on the camshaft, all
other things being equal, does not change just because there is a
pushrod involved.

not until you use seriously high racing RPM where the pushrod mass
has some effect, anyway.

How many cars are pushrod nowadays?

You might ask Turnip why he's talking crap. But only to be expected.
And at various times he's claimed to be an engineer.

He is. You're not.

Even a child who has played with a Meccano set would know there is more
load on the cam of a pushrod engine than an OHC design. It is so
blindingly obvious it takes a real fool to dispute it.

Yes. The question is whether it's significant.

I don't recall any sprung cam mechanism in Meccano.


No surprise you
agree with Turnip.

I see you're making stuff up yet again.


NT