How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version?

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

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.

--

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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?

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".

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 :-)

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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.

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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?

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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.

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".

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?

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.?


--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

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.



--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!