Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Have you taken it up direct with BMW GB - by letter or fax?


You're joking right?


I'd not take the word of any UK BMW dealer - crooks, the lot of them.


I know that too well. I was at a dealers the other day picking up some
parts (which actually were reasonably priced) and everyone who came in
through the door while I was waiting for ages to be served had a
problem with the work that had been or was supposed to have been
carried out. This was in Stevenage but it's been the same story at
every dealer I've been to.


I had a look at the filler cap today and it says "95-98"

Chris Bacon wrote:

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


It was certainly in use in some pre war aircraft engines...


You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you.
I _did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

I'd say its still a 4 stroke, in that the induction and firing cycles
are done in two volumetric compression expansion stages.

Depends on how you define 2- stroke/4 stroke.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I'm an "old boy", now. I worked in the motor trade between 1956 and
1988, approx. I don't think that the "interesting idea" in question
is a new one.
I can't think of many very new ideas in engine development -
improvements made with materials, maybe.

Petrol injection? It's not that old.
Um. Petrol injection is a refinement of Mr. Diesel's invention of the
1890s, isn't it? The concept is over 100 years old!

Diesel engines have had fuel injection from the beginning.
Petrol engines had carburetters first.
There is a difference.

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!

I think that it came much later. 1970's ?

Sylvain.


Just a thought. Is the Wankel rotary engine still being used by
anyone? I believe that Mazda used one in some of their cars not so
long ago.
These engines are why I mentioned head gasket thickness somewhere...
You've put "your foot in it", Chris. Find out more about these
engines, and you'll know why.
I absolutely do not know why. IIRC someone said that "the thickness of
the head gasket influences compression ratio" or words to that effect,
& I said that might be true for *some* engine designs...

The Wankel rotary engine has no removable cylinder heads.

That's why I said that might be true for *some* engine designs.


Actually, it hasn't got a cylinder head as such. It does have a
combustion
chamber, of course. If memory recalls, it has a rotor with lobes.
You need to read up on it, to understand its very unusual design concept.
This engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to the usual piston engine.
It doesn't have any pistons.

If you'd like to see an animation, there's one at:

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

I certainly will look at it.

Sylvain.

You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you. I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

In article .com,
wrote:
Have you taken it up direct with BMW GB - by letter or fax?

You're joking right?

No - you will get a reply. May not be what you want to hear, though. ;-)
At least it's free.

I'd not take the word of any UK BMW dealer - crooks, the lot of them.

I know that too well. I was at a dealers the other day picking up some
parts (which actually were reasonably priced) and everyone who came in
through the door while I was waiting for ages to be served had a
problem with the work that had been or was supposed to have been
carried out. This was in Stevenage but it's been the same story at
every dealer I've been to.

Yup. Same here.

Have you tried a specialist? My initial thoughts are the knock sensors
aren't doing their job. I can recommend AMC in Garratt Lane Tooting as
being honest and competent. 020 8944 9966 I've seen M3s in there.


I had a look at the filler cap today and it says "95-98"

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you. I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

Think it's regarded as a two-stroke.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


It was certainly in use in some pre war aircraft engines...


You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you. I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

I'd say its still a 4 stroke, in that the induction and firing cycles are
done in two volumetric compression expansion stages.

Depends on how you define 2- stroke/4 stroke.

In a piston engine, this is very clear.

4 stroke: Induction stroke, compression stroke, power stroke, exhaust
stroke.
2 stroke: Combined induction and compression stroke, combined power and
exhaust stroke.
Usually, there is a transfer passage between the crankcase and the cylinder
to make this work.
A refinement is to use a secondary piston to open the transfer passage port,
independently of the primary piston
(Puch 175cc engine, of Austrian manufacture).

Sylvain.

In article ,
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!

I think that it came much later. 1970's ?

That's electronic injection (EFI) Mechanical systems were in use before
WW2 on some racing cars. And on aero engines.

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I'm an "old boy", now. I worked in the motor trade between 1956 and
1988, approx. I don't think that the "interesting idea" in question
is a new one.
I can't think of many very new ideas in engine development -
improvements made with materials, maybe.

Petrol injection? It's not that old.
Um. Petrol injection is a refinement of Mr. Diesel's invention of the
1890s, isn't it? The concept is over 100 years old!

Diesel engines have had fuel injection from the beginning.
Petrol engines had carburetters first.
There is a difference.

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


Just a thought. Is the Wankel rotary engine still being used by
anyone? I believe that Mazda used one in some of their cars not so
long ago.
These engines are why I mentioned head gasket thickness somewhere...
You've put "your foot in it", Chris. Find out more about these
engines, and you'll know why.
I absolutely do not know why. IIRC someone said that "the thickness of
the head gasket influences compression ratio" or words to that effect,
& I said that might be true for *some* engine designs...

The Wankel rotary engine has no removable cylinder heads.

That's why I said that might be true for *some* engine designs.


Actually, it hasn't got a cylinder head as such. It does have a
combustion
chamber, of course. If memory recalls, it has a rotor with lobes.
You need to read up on it, to understand its very unusual design concept.
This engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to the usual piston engine.
It doesn't have any pistons.

If you'd like to see an animation, there's one at:

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you. I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

I've looked at that animation. As it's a rotor, and therefore has no piston;
we cannot talk about the number of strokes per revolution.
That HTML mentions the Otto cycle (4 stroke), and states that the Wankel
engine has one power cycle per revoluton of the rotor.
I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine.

Sylvain.

In article
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I'm an "old boy", now. I worked in the motor trade between 1956 and
1988, approx. I don't think that the "interesting idea" in question
is a new one.
I can't think of many very new ideas in engine development -
improvements made with materials, maybe.

Petrol injection? It's not that old.
Um. Petrol injection is a refinement of Mr. Diesel's invention of the
1890s, isn't it? The concept is over 100 years old!

Diesel engines have had fuel injection from the beginning.
Petrol engines had carburetters first.
There is a difference.

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


Just a thought. Is the Wankel rotary engine still being used by
anyone? I believe that Mazda used one in some of their cars not so
long ago.
These engines are why I mentioned head gasket thickness somewhere...
You've put "your foot in it", Chris. Find out more about these
engines, and you'll know why.
I absolutely do not know why. IIRC someone said that "the thickness of
the head gasket influences compression ratio" or words to that effect,
& I said that might be true for *some* engine designs...

The Wankel rotary engine has no removable cylinder heads.

That's why I said that might be true for *some* engine designs.


Actually, it hasn't got a cylinder head as such. It does have a
combustion
chamber, of course. If memory recalls, it has a rotor with lobes.
You need to read up on it, to understand its very unusual design concept.
This engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to the usual piston engine.
It doesn't have any pistons.

If you'd like to see an animation, there's one at:

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you. I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

I've looked at that animation. As it's a rotor, and therefore has no piston;
we cannot talk about the number of strokes per revolution.
That HTML mentions the Otto cycle (4 stroke), and states that the Wankel
engine has one power cycle per revoluton of the rotor.
I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine.

2-atrokes have one power cycle per revolution.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I'm an "old boy", now. I worked in the motor trade between 1956
and
1988, approx. I don't think that the "interesting idea" in
question
is a new one.
I can't think of many very new ideas in engine development -
improvements made with materials, maybe.

Petrol injection? It's not that old.
Um. Petrol injection is a refinement of Mr. Diesel's invention of the
1890s, isn't it? The concept is over 100 years old!

Diesel engines have had fuel injection from the beginning.
Petrol engines had carburetters first.
There is a difference.

I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


Just a thought. Is the Wankel rotary engine still being used by
anyone? I believe that Mazda used one in some of their cars not so
long ago.
These engines are why I mentioned head gasket thickness
somewhere...
You've put "your foot in it", Chris. Find out more about these
engines, and you'll know why.
I absolutely do not know why. IIRC someone said that "the thickness
of
the head gasket influences compression ratio" or words to that
effect,
& I said that might be true for *some* engine designs...

The Wankel rotary engine has no removable cylinder heads.

That's why I said that might be true for *some* engine designs.


Actually, it hasn't got a cylinder head as such. It does have a
combustion
chamber, of course. If memory recalls, it has a rotor with lobes.
You need to read up on it, to understand its very unusual design
concept.
This engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to the usual piston
engine.
It doesn't have any pistons.

If you'd like to see an animation, there's one at:

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).

I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you.
I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.

It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!

I've looked at that animation. As it's a rotor, and therefore has no
piston;
we cannot talk about the number of strokes per revolution.
That HTML mentions the Otto cycle (4 stroke), and states that the Wankel
engine has one power cycle per revoluton of the rotor.
I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine.


2-atrokes have one power cycle per revolution.

I'm aware of that, and went into some detail in one or two previous
messages.

As for the Wankel engine, I've said "I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine". This
is not meant to be taken as a firm statement, as I didn't really need the
info and didn't have enough motivation to read more about it.

Sylvain.

Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
I'm an "old boy", now. I worked in the motor trade between 1956
and
1988, approx. I don't think that the "interesting idea" in
question
is a new one.
I can't think of many very new ideas in engine development -
improvements made with materials, maybe.

Petrol injection? It's not that old.
Um. Petrol injection is a refinement of Mr. Diesel's invention of the
1890s, isn't it? The concept is over 100 years old!

Diesel engines have had fuel injection from the beginning.
Petrol engines had carburetters first.
There is a difference.
I wonder when petrol injection came in, then.... would it have been in
the 1920s? I was just saying that the concept is old - improvements in
manufacturing and materials make old ideas viable. There aren't very
many new ones!


Just a thought. Is the Wankel rotary engine still being used by
anyone? I believe that Mazda used one in some of their cars not so
long ago.
These engines are why I mentioned head gasket thickness
somewhere...
You've put "your foot in it", Chris. Find out more about these
engines, and you'll know why.
I absolutely do not know why. IIRC someone said that "the thickness
of
the head gasket influences compression ratio" or words to that
effect,
& I said that might be true for *some* engine designs...

The Wankel rotary engine has no removable cylinder heads.
That's why I said that might be true for *some* engine designs.


Actually, it hasn't got a cylinder head as such. It does have a
combustion
chamber, of course. If memory recalls, it has a rotor with lobes.
You need to read up on it, to understand its very unusual design
concept.
This engine bears no resemblance whatsoever to the usual piston
engine.
It doesn't have any pistons.
If you'd like to see an animation, there's one at:

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

You wouldn't be testing my knowledge, would you?
No, not at all.... would you regard the Wankel as a one-stroke, 1 1/2
stroke, 3-stroke, or four stroke, though? ( here - FWIW ).
I need some time to think about this. I may not be able to answer you.
I
_did_ know, but my memory has probably let me down.
It's sort of a joke question, really... the answer is there, though!
I've looked at that animation. As it's a rotor, and therefore has no
piston;
we cannot talk about the number of strokes per revolution.
That HTML mentions the Otto cycle (4 stroke), and states that the Wankel
engine has one power cycle per revoluton of the rotor.
I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine.


2-atrokes have one power cycle per revolution.

I'm aware of that, and went into some detail in one or two previous
messages.

As for the Wankel engine, I've said "I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine". This
is not meant to be taken as a firm statement, as I didn't really need the
info and didn't have enough motivation to read more about it.

Sylvain.


Analysis of the gas cycle says its a 4 stroke, tho a 2 stroke might be
makable..if indeed 'stroke; is a term you can apply to a machine that
doesn't have a linear piston in it.

Its just that there is an induction and a power stroke per revolution of
the main rotor..which is geared down to the shaft anyway....

Call it 4 cycle and avoid confusion, Induction,compression, power and
exhaust. Albeit that the combustion 'chamber' is a movable feast.

Wankels are like the old aero engine sleeve valve engines. Lots of
advantages, but let down by difficulties with sealing the things against
oil loss.

In the end better materials and conventional layouts make the ordinary
engine a more practical proposition.

In article
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:
snip
As for the Wankel engine, I've said "I'll settle for a 4 cycle engine". This
is not meant to be taken as a firm statement, as I didn't really need the
info and didn't have enough motivation to read more about it.

It's a grey area - I wasn't really arguing either way, just mentioning
one of the factors.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember EricP
saying something like:

I'm nearly convinced. Is there any negative side to running higher
octane fuel in your engine?

Yes, you could be wrecking your engine if the compression ratio can't
take the faster burning fuel. In simple terms, it goes bang faster
than lower octane ratings, so the engine must be flexible enough to
take it.

That is simply wrong. High octane pertol burns *more slowly* than low. You
won't damage any petrol engine by using a road fuel with a higher octane
rating than it actually requires. The only harm is to your wallet.

A look in the data section of the handbook should clarify it.

Perhaps you'd give a direct quote from one?

Sigh.

Dave it is all to do with the stroke of the pistons and size of
compression chamber. Believe me, it's factual!

Factual ********, you mean.
--

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

No mention of one area being more relevant than another. One accepts
that with turbocharging, inlet design is almost superfluous, as you an
simply increase boost pressure to the cylinders by screwing down the
waste gates etc..

It isn't superfluous at all; it's just as important.
--

Dave

Here in the states they're starting to use 85% Ethanol.......Hybrids
you know.
How would the M3 and other 1 to 4 strokes measure up to that?

I have a 4.8ltr 03 chevy silverado 4x4 that does quite well on
87octane.........but if I go to ethanol I'll have to retune.and that's
not covered under anything, as far as I know.

Thought's?

The message .com
from "sky" contains these words:

Here in the states they're starting to use 85% Ethanol.......Hybrids
you know.
How would the M3 and other 1 to 4 strokes measure up to that?

I have a 4.8ltr 03 chevy silverado 4x4 that does quite well on
87octane.........but if I go to ethanol I'll have to retune.and that's
not covered under anything, as far as I know.

Thought's?

My main thought is "Sorry, I understood each individual word, but the
sentences didn't add up to much at all".

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.