| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Ford V8
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version?
|
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? look it up |
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Try Google. Prick. -- |
Ford V8
In article ,
Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? About 5% of the output. About the same input. ;-) -- *They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Ford V8
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 15:18:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? About 5% of the output. About the same input. ;-) When you think that engine bearings were poured, not fitted 100 years ago and the best oils needed to be washed out after each change, oil filters were just oiled mesh and timing was a matter of guesswork, I think that the early cars were remarkable by the time of these 1930's relics. They came of age with the Ford. By WW2 they were making 30 and 40 litre monsters the same way. It is easy to forget the quantum leaps we are capable of. The reason I asked is that Tesla development is in the same place that petrol engines were back then. Goodness knows what is in store for their development, once the environmental turkeys have been removed out of everybody's way. |
Ford V8
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 14:50:03 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Try Google. Prick. -- What kind of a **** for brains uses Google these days? Don't answer that I really don't want to know anything more about you. |
Ford V8
On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. |
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 16:19, Weatherlawyer wrote:
The reason I asked is that Tesla development is in the same place that petrol engines were back then. Goodness knows what is in store for their development, once the environmental turkeys have been removed out of everybody's way. No. Electric car motors and batteries are already as near perfect as they can be got. In the 1930s a car would do 40mpg a car today will do....40 mpg.. -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them." |
Ford V8
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 14:50:03 UTC+1, GB wrote: On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Try Google. Prick. -- What kind of a **** for brains uses Google these days? Don't answer that I really don't want to know anything more about you. Perhaps if you phrased your questions using conventional grammar and English you might get better responses? Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote:
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? |
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 20:34, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? Not possible. Weatherlawyer lives on a different planet -- "I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun". |
Ford V8
On 09/05/2020 21:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/05/2020 20:34, Chris Bartram wrote: On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? Not possible. Weatherlawyer lives on a different planet I'd gathered that :-) |
Ford V8
Weatherlawyer wrote:
How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The Ford Model T used a 177 cu in (2.9 L) inline 4-cylinder engine. It was primarily a gasoline engine. It produced 20 hp (14.9 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) According to Ford Motor Company, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13€“21 mpg-US (16€“25 mpg-imp; 18€“11 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol Fuel system Gravity feed Holley, Kingston and Zenith carburettors one carburetor, a side-draft, single-venturi unit The compression ratio was 3.98 ******* By Neil Kaminar on Monday, December 13, 2010 The low compression of the Model T means that the combustion is not hot enough to form nitrogen oxides, the NOX, that forms smog. The amount of carbon monoxide, CO, and unburnt carbon that the T puts out depends on how well the T is running and how the carburator and spark are adjusted. Has anyone taken a T to a smog station to have it tested? Neil By John Carter on Monday, December 13, 2010 Believe it or not, in NJ a Model T is required to pass an emissions inspection if it is not registered as "Historic." All pre-1968 vehicles have to meet the same standard (1400ppm-HC, 8.5%-CO). ******* Does it smell like petrol in here ? Paul |
Ford V8
Paul wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The Ford Model T used a 177 cu in (2.9 L) inline 4-cylinder engine. It was primarily a gasoline engine. It produced 20 hp (14.9 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) According to Ford Motor Company, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13€“21 mpg-US (16€“25 mpg-imp; 18€“11 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol Fuel system Gravity feed Holley, Kingston and Zenith carburettors one carburetor, a side-draft, single-venturi unit The compression ratio was 3.98 ******* By Neil Kaminar on Monday, December 13, 2010 The low compression of the Model T means that the combustion is not hot enough to form nitrogen oxides, the NOX, that forms smog. The amount of carbon monoxide, CO, and unburnt carbon that the T puts out depends on how well the T is running and how the carburator and spark are adjusted. Has anyone taken a T to a smog station to have it tested? Neil By John Carter on Monday, December 13, 2010 Believe it or not, in NJ a Model T is required to pass an emissions inspection if it is not registered as "Historic." All pre-1968 vehicles have to meet the same standard (1400ppm-HC, 8.5%-CO). ******* Does it smell like petrol in here ? Paul Here's the emissions report from an emissions check on a Model T. Subject to someone setting the manual controls properly for the test of course. HC ppm 253 1400 ppm CO% 5.69 8.5% CO2% 5.7 O2% 10.3 On another car NOX 5PPM Paul |
Ford V8
Pretty random question for a DIY group.
Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ... How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? |
Ford V8
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:50:56 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/05/2020 16:19, Weatherlawyer wrote: The reason I asked is that Tesla development is in the same place that petrol engines were back then. Goodness knows what is in store for their development, once the environmental turkeys have been removed out of everybody's way. No. Electric car motors and batteries are already as near perfect as they can be got. In the 1930s a car would do 40mpg a car today will do....40 mpg.. -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them." Please excuse me. I am only just beginning to remember you are an idiot. IIRC the early versions of the People's Vagen could barely return 30mph. I can't believe that you know nothing about liquid battery cell development in the last few years. You don't really believe that a mid-1930's first generation solid block 8 cylinder 1/4 ton of cast iron was capable of even glancing at a peak of 40mph on rural US highways, even downhill. |
Ford V8
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, John wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? |
Ford V8
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 20:34:31 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? Not really, will type sar-chatechism suffice? "first Ford" meant the first Model 18. By "latest iteration" I mean recent versions not necessarily Ford models. I gather that once the straight single casting pour, was developed as a technique, it did not take very long for other manufacturers to cotton on. By cotton on I am referring to the sort of adsorbent pad, not necesarily made of coton if you can undertstand the term: "type" as being any prototypical adsorbent material absorbant. When I stated: "environmentalist" I was conidering a nominal droopy drawered shed-like blissfully ignorant subspecies of incompetent, more likely a familiar of original Usenet trolls that think, because someone opens a subject for discussion about early internal combustion engines, one has the obligation to be a prick about it. Will that suffice? |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 02:41:35 UTC+1, Paul wrote:
Paul wrote: Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The Ford Model T used a 177 cu in (2.9 L) inline 4-cylinder engine. It was primarily a gasoline engine. It produced 20 hp (14.9 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) According to Ford Motor Company, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13€“21 mpg-US (16€“25 mpg-imp; 18€“11 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol Fuel system Gravity feed Holley, Kingston and Zenith carburettors one carburetor, a side-draft, single-venturi unit The compression ratio was 3.98 ******* By Neil Kaminar on Monday, December 13, 2010 The low compression of the Model T means that the combustion is not hot enough to form nitrogen oxides, the NOX, that forms smog. The amount of carbon monoxide, CO, and unburnt carbon that the T puts out depends on how well the T is running and how the carburator and spark are adjusted. Has anyone taken a T to a smog station to have it tested? Neil By John Carter on Monday, December 13, 2010 Believe it or not, in NJ a Model T is required to pass an emissions inspection if it is not registered as "Historic." All pre-1968 vehicles have to meet the same standard (1400ppm-HC, 8.5%-CO). ******* Does it smell like petrol in here ? Paul Here's the emissions report from an emissions check on a Model T. Subject to someone setting the manual controls properly for the test of course. HC ppm 253 1400 ppm CO% 5.69 8.5% CO2% 5.7 O2% 10.3 On another car NOX 5PPM Paul Thanks Paul that was quite interesting. |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 08:12:53 UTC+1, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
Pretty random question for a DIY group. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ... How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Quite so Mr Gaff, how are you keeping, OK I hope? I was wondering why anyone would take enough umbrage with strangers to attempt to upset them. Obviously affected by the lunar apse. I have a similar problem, that and unfortunately too old, these days, to care. Maybe that is a good thing? It had occurred to me that with improvements continuing apace, Tesla might one day reconsider the aircraft market. I would love to hear of any developments with battery powered gliders. It is the obvious next phase in luxury vehicle technology. |
Ford V8
On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, John wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand is what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? |
Ford V8
On 10/05/2020 16:47, AJH wrote:
On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, JohnÂ* wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand isÂ* what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? Reduction in valve mass and spring tension required, plus improved gas flow (inlet and outlet) since your manifold design does not need to be compromised to avoid the pushrods. (its also supposed to be easier with double overhead cams to implement 4 valves per cylinder) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Ford V8
On 10/05/2020 22:05, John Rumm wrote:
On 10/05/2020 16:47, AJH wrote: On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, JohnÂ* wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand isÂ* what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? Reduction in valve mass and spring tension required, plus improved gas flow (inlet and outlet) since your manifold design does not need to be compromised to avoid the pushrods. (its also supposed to be easier with double overhead cams to implement 4 valves per cylinder) Yes but these are all to do with volumetric efficiency (getting more fuel and air into the cylinder), including the periphery of 2 inlet valves being bigger than one large one. Why should this increase thermal efficiency to give more miles per gallon if you might be happy with a modest performance and more mpg? I can see the point about the mass of valve gear and losses in compressing the spring but surely you get most of that back as the spring pushes the cam load back round. |
Ford V8
On 10/05/2020 15:46, Weatherlawyer wrote:
You don't really believe that a mid-1930's first generation solid block 8 cylinder 1/4 ton of cast iron was capable of even glancing at a peak of 40mph on rural US highways, even downhill. Capable certainly. Retired racing driver Eddie Pullen (and other co-drivers) conducted an endurance speed run for Ford in the Mojave desert in 1933 with a stock V8 Saloon. Covering over 33K miles in a month. That was an average speed over 40mph, and that included servicing, refuelling, and driver changes. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Ford V8
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 9 May 2020 20:34:31 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote: On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? Not really, will type sar-chatechism suffice? "first Ford" meant the first Model 18. By "latest iteration" I mean recent versions not necessarily Ford models. I gather that once the straight single casting pour, was developed as a technique, it did not take very long for other manufacturers to cotton on. By cotton on I am referring to the sort of adsorbent pad, not necesarily made of coton if you can undertstand the term: "type" as being any prototypical adsorbent material absorbant. When I stated: "environmentalist" I was conidering a nominal droopy drawered shed-like blissfully ignorant subspecies of incompetent, more likely a familiar of original Usenet trolls that think, because someone opens a subject for discussion about early internal combustion engines, one has the obligation to be a prick about it. Will that suffice? It certainly suffices to demonstrate your inability to communicate in any meaningful fashion... Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:25:27 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 10/05/2020 15:46, Weatherlawyer wrote: You don't really believe that a mid-1930's first generation solid block 8 cylinder 1/4 ton of cast iron was capable of even glancing at a peak of 40mph on rural US highways, even downhill. Capable certainly. Retired racing driver Eddie Pullen (and other co-drivers) conducted an endurance speed run for Ford in the Mojave desert in 1933 with a stock V8 Saloon. Covering over 33K miles in a month. That was an average speed over 40mph, and that included servicing, refuelling, and driver changes. -- Cheers, John. It is amazing what a lot of information can be gleaned from usenet. Did you have this stuff lurking on your files or did you resort to doing what the firts correspondents urged? Either way I am grateful. Had you considered the average journey on any leg of the course was somthing like 10moh faster than the average daily commute anywhere on earth these days? And that it took an highly motivated team of not specified attendants, and professional racing car drivers with a network of enviable logistics to accomplish this on a deserted highway? And you have not supplied fuel consumption figures. Which raises the question of what the performance would do vis a vis the time taken with tyre changes and accidents as the cars deteriorated if they had introduced chicanes and what have you corners and hills? It was, I presume, hardly the course of a vehicle testing station that would be set up to test fuel figures on average road journeys these days. I would like to watch the video though. Got a link or failing that, what fuel and oils were they using and how were the bearings and linkages set up? |
Ford V8
On 12/05/2020 12:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:25:27 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote: On 10/05/2020 15:46, Weatherlawyer wrote: You don't really believe that a mid-1930's first generation solid block 8 cylinder 1/4 ton of cast iron was capable of even glancing at a peak of 40mph on rural US highways, even downhill. Capable certainly. Retired racing driver Eddie Pullen (and other co-drivers) conducted an endurance speed run for Ford in the Mojave desert in 1933 with a stock V8 Saloon. Covering over 33K miles in a month. That was an average speed over 40mph, and that included servicing, refuelling, and driver changes. It is amazing what a lot of information can be gleaned from usenet. Did you have this stuff lurking on your files or did you resort to doing what the firts correspondents urged? More a fluke of timing, I watched a video on the production of the original ford V8 a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RB3z1er9Sw Either way I am grateful. Had you considered the average journey on any leg of the course was somthing like 10moh faster than the average daily commute anywhere on earth these days? It was an endurance speed attempt round a circuit, so not surprising. And you have not supplied fuel consumption figures. Which raises the From memory, it was about 19 mpg... presumably US gallons - so about 24 mpg to us. question of what the performance would do vis a vis the time taken with tyre changes and accidents as the cars deteriorated if they had introduced chicanes and what have you corners and hills? It was, I presume, hardly the course of a vehicle testing station that would be set up to test fuel figures on average road journeys these days. I don't think fuel efficiency was much of a consideration in the US until the 1970's. I would like to watch the video though. Got a link or failing that, what fuel and oils were they using and how were the bearings and linkages set up? There are some clips of video of some of the various tests etc included in the one above. There are also some web sites that have more detail, such as: http://theoldmotor.com/?p=148792 -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:05:06 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 10/05/2020 16:47, AJH wrote: On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, JohnÂ* wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand isÂ* what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? Reduction in valve mass and spring tension required, plus improved gas flow (inlet and outlet) since your manifold design does not need to be compromised to avoid the pushrods. (its also supposed to be easier with double overhead cams to implement 4 valves per cylinder) -- Cheers, John. I am pretty sure this must be correct as the RR Kestrel was designed for that almost straight away. The question then is: Why did they not build a diesel with all that Hi Tech going for them? They would have got to Berlin immediately with diesel Gryphons, quite a lot of the way back as well probably. "The output of the engine depends solely on the mass of air it can be made to consume efficiently" which would become in diesels a deciding factor of the war... if... However Churchill surrounded himself with a Mediocracy, I can only presume as par for the course in his life, was intentional. With the inevitable design faults. |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:43:35 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 20:34:31 UTC+1, Chris Bartram wrote: On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Care to rephrase that in English? Not really, will type sar-chatechism suffice? "first Ford" meant the first Model 18. By "latest iteration" I mean recent versions not necessarily Ford models. I gather that once the straight single casting pour, was developed as a technique, it did not take very long for other manufacturers to cotton on. By cotton on I am referring to the sort of adsorbent pad, not necesarily made of coton if you can undertstand the term: "type" as being any prototypical adsorbent material absorbant. When I stated: "environmentalist" I was conidering a nominal droopy drawered shed-like blissfully ignorant subspecies of incompetent, more likely a familiar of original Usenet trolls that think, because someone opens a subject for discussion about early internal combustion engines, one has the obligation to be a prick about it. Will that suffice? It certainly suffices to demonstrate your inability to communicate in any meaningful fashion... For a given definition of "meaningful" would you care to reconsider the meaning of the adjacent word: "fashion". |
Ford V8
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:21:48 UTC+1, AJH wrote:
On 10/05/2020 22:05, John Rumm wrote: On 10/05/2020 16:47, AJH wrote: On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, JohnÂ* wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand isÂ* what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? Reduction in valve mass and spring tension required, plus improved gas flow (inlet and outlet) since your manifold design does not need to be compromised to avoid the pushrods. (its also supposed to be easier with double overhead cams to implement 4 valves per cylinder) Yes but these are all to do with volumetric efficiency (getting more fuel and air into the cylinder), including the periphery of 2 inlet valves being bigger than one large one. Why should this increase thermal efficiency to give more miles per gallon if you might be happy with a modest performance and more mpg? I can see the point about the mass of valve gear and losses in compressing the spring but surely you get most of that back as the spring pushes the cam load back round. Does it? Valve bounce reduces all and speed is the whole point of no longer using donkeys when people could afford horses, so that as youth increases the ability to go faster the inevitability of the go fater stripe glows ever more ruddy. Would the increased number of valves allow greater cooling efficiency or was it always about valve bounce? |
Ford V8
On 12/05/2020 13:20, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 10 May 2020 22:05:06 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote: On 10/05/2020 16:47, AJH wrote: On 10/05/2020 15:49, Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 16:22:34 UTC+1, JohnÂ* wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2020 04:48:43 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine. That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why? Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio. What I don't understand isÂ* what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency? Reduction in valve mass and spring tension required, plus improved gas flow (inlet and outlet) since your manifold design does not need to be compromised to avoid the pushrods. (its also supposed to be easier with double overhead cams to implement 4 valves per cylinder) -- Cheers, John. I am pretty sure this must be correct as the RR Kestrel was designed for that almost straight away. The question then is: Why did they not build a diesel with all that Hi Tech going for them? They would have got to Berlin immediately with diesel Gryphons, quite a lot of the way back as well probably. "The output of the engine depends solely on the mass of air it can be made to consume efficiently" which would become in diesels a deciding factor of the war... if... However Churchill surrounded himself with a Mediocracy, I can only presume as par for the course in his life, was intentional. With the inevitable design faults. I love watching you post ignorant drivel. Why didn't they go straight to jet engines? Because it's not that easy.? -- €śIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance" - John K Galbraith |
Ford V8
On 12/05/2020 13:56, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Would the increased number of valves allow greater cooling efficiency or was it always about valve bounce? neither. Getting power out of a non blown engine is down to one thing. peak RPM. I spent a happy couple of hours talking to Brian Hary who deigned F1 and Indycar engines. Without turbos, what limits performance is top RPM and what limits that is the ability to open and clse enough valve area - and 4 valves per cylinder is mandatory to retain head streangth and get maximum port area. In essence you can only get so much compressions out of a petrol style engine, so you can only get so much band per stroke, so to get more power you need more bangs per second. Ultimately once they found out how to get RpM up to 17-19000 in the Cosworth and post Cosworth ere, the problem became valve bounce, as even with massive springs and overhead cams the sheer force to operate it was sapping power, so pneumatic valves happened. Turbos remove the need for higher RPM allowing what is effectively far higher compression ratios, and reducing the need for such big valves. And for such high RPM None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. -- €śIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance" - John K Galbraith |
Ford V8
On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. That fits my understanding. So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable valve timing? |
Ford V8
On 12/05/2020 23:23, AJH wrote:
On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. That fits my understanding. So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable valve timing? because lower vehicle weight improves not engine fuel efficiency, but mpg. VVT extends rpm range. Allows more power from a smaller lighter engine. -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote. |
Ford V8
In article ,
AJH wrote: On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. That fits my understanding. So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable valve timing? Because, like for like, BHP goes up with RPM. Variable valve timing allows a much better torque curve. And the shape of that curve is what matters for day to day driving. Multi valve engines also are better for emissions. Just what tricks they get up to on an F1 engine when all it has to do is last once race of little relevance to a road car. Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same output. Despite the marketing hype. -- *I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Ford V8
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , AJH wrote: On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. That fits my understanding. So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable valve timing? Because, like for like, BHP goes up with RPM. Variable valve timing allows a much better torque curve. And the shape of that curve is what matters for day to day driving. Multi valve engines also are better for emissions. Just what tricks they get up to on an F1 engine when all it has to do is last once race of little relevance to a road car. Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same output. Despite the marketing hype. Youre ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as opposed to a turbo engine. What weight engine would you need to replace a 600 hp 2 litre three cylinder engine? https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look...ing-1842073757 Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
Ford V8
In article
, Tim+ wrote: Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same output. Despite the marketing hype. You‘re ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as opposed to a turbo engine. What weight engine would you need to replace a 600 hp 2 litre three cylinder engine? https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look...ing-1842073757 More to the point, who would want a crude 3 cylinder engine in a decent road car anyway? And of course that vehicle is a hybrid. So you get the weight penalty from the electric motor and battery pack. -- *I have my own little world - but it's OK...they know me here* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Ford V8
On 13/05/2020 13:09, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , AJH wrote: On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall. That fits my understanding. So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable valve timing? Because, like for like, BHP goes up with RPM. Variable valve timing allows a much better torque curve. And the shape of that curve is what matters for day to day driving. Multi valve engines also are better for emissions. Just what tricks they get up to on an F1 engine when all it has to do is last once race of little relevance to a road car. Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same output. Despite the marketing hype. Youre ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as opposed to a turbo engine. He is also ignoring frictional loses - larger in a big engine. What weight engine would you need to replace a 600 hp 2 litre three cylinder engine? https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look...ing-1842073757 Tim -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. |
Ford V8
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: You‘re ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as opposed to a turbo engine. He is also ignoring frictional loses - larger in a big engine. And you're ignoring that with a petrol engine a turbo unit of the same output as a larger NA one is generally more thirsty. It's just a cheap way of getting more power. -- *A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Ford V8
On 9 May 2020 19:22:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote: On Saturday, 9 May 2020 14:50:03 UTC+1, GB wrote: On 09/05/2020 12:48, Weatherlawyer wrote: How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version? Try Google. Prick. -- What kind of a **** for brains uses Google these days? Don't answer that I really don't want to know anything more about you. Perhaps if you phrased your questions using conventional grammar and English you might get better responses? Tim Speaking of grammar, your senttence didn't need a question mark. Thicko! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter