Krypsis wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:
Krypsis wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:
Geary Morton wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Side valve/flathead engines for cars went out of favor in the
1950s.You
can buy an old Rolls Royce/Bentley car in UK for about 5,000 British
pounds money.It will cost that much money, or more, each year just to
keep the thing going.
Ask the Brits about that if you don't believe me.

I need to yank the circuit breakers and get back to working in my
attic.I need to remove a couple of junction boxes in my attic so I
can
put down some plywood in those areas.
cuhulin

Studebaker had a flathead six in 1960. I know because there was
one in my 1960 Lark.

--Geary

Rambler made a flathead six until about 1963 or 1964. We bought a
house in 1963 and the neighbor was showing us his shiny new Rambler
with a very obvious flathead six. It ran good and he was perfectly
happy with it. One of the reasons flatheads got a bad rap was they
would not wind

One of the reasons flatheads had a bad rap was they had one hell of a
bad combustion chamber shape. Way too much surface area hence too
much heat loss. Smooth they were, efficient they weren't.

I wasn't talking about racing RPM's and for what it may be worth to
you I had one getting 38 MPG on the highway, a 1961 flathead with
overdrive.
85 MPH absolute top speed but with 38 MPG I didn't care. Obviously I
could have gotten more with an aerodynamic car but pushing a brick at
65 MPH and getting 38 MPG did *not* make me want to run out and buy a
new piece of shiny *junk*.

Well, I like my shiny "junk". It fits into my garage nicely, at least in
the remaining space.

If you want
combustion efficiency, then a hemispherical (hemi) chamber is the way
to go with at least 4 valves per cylinder and the spark plug as
central as it can get. Minimise flame propagation distance so
avoiding detonation at higher compression ratios. Throw a good bit of
swirl into the combustion chamber to get that fuel well and truly
mixed with air and properly vapourised. Then you have yourself a
powerhouse.

I have a 400 HP ++ 440 police engine. Just how much do I need. It
smoke the tires shifting into second at about 60 MPH. It will already
just about tow a house, and yes I do know I could put 8 little
injectors on the manifold and use 8 little embedded boards to control
each injector, but of course I would use shortwave control. *Grin*

Sounds like overkill to me. Why push more iron than necessary? Anyway,
fuel injection and electronic/computer controlled ignition is the only
way manufacturers could meet the emission standards. The carburettor is
dead.

My old iron is mostly for freeway use and floats at 100 MPH. I had a
1988 Mustang GT 5.0 that got bouncy over 100. I could care less about
emissions standards since there are so few vintage cars left.


like an overhead. They all had over 4" strokes, so duh..., no 7K RPM.
It turns out that high RPM is good for power but sucks for mileage.

High RPM is good for BHP at the expense of torque.

EhhhTT! BHP is RPM times torque. At about 5,500 RPM 1 foot pound of
torque equals one HP. At 1,000 RPM it would be 5.5 foot pounds.
The poor fuel mileage is purely due to inefficiencies.

Sounds to me like you're so in love with old oversized American iron
that you can't see beyond it. Have a look at the rest of the world where
fuel is hellishly expensive so performance, efficiency AND fuel economy
go hand in hand. Let me guess, you love valve radios and don't have a
single tranny version in the house, right?

Grow a brain before you try to insult my logic. High RPM is the biggest
waste of fuel, 4 cylinders or 8, 10, 12. Learn some basic math and see
why you down-shift for engine braking coming down a hill.

Yes, like spinning the engine too damned fast. If there was an extra
highway cruising overdrive even my 440 would get over 30 - 35 MPG.

Ramblers in the 60's were actually good cars, but economy was not
the priority in the 60's.
Now we have over-winding 4 bangers trying to make up the power gap.

So explain to me how these "overwinding 4 bangers" crap all over the
"old" detroit iron in the performance stakes!

Do you know anything about applying geometry and trigonometry to cars?

Yes, up until about 40 years ago. Not done much since.

It is very painfully obvious.

I *never* said the imported crap had a chance against a properly set
up V8. It is gearing and the manufacturers have either been too stupid or

Power to weight ratio is a critical factor.

You have been reading too much Hot Rod. Power/weight is only for quarter
miles and stop light drags, neither of which is a limiting factor.

It takes so much to push a
ton a mile and you can't get an improvement on that without applying
efficiencies and minimising losses/wastage.

I can, so why can't you realize it????? My 160 MPH Mustang got 33 MPG in
fifth (overdrive in a Tremec). It would also spin me around if I was
rolling in first and stepped on the gas too hard.

Don't you find it a little strange that American brands are absent in F1
racing? They do use V8 engines albeit limited to a maximum engine
capacity of 2.4 litres (146 Cu Inch). Now those fellows really have to
work on engine efficiency. Fuel efficiency never used to be factored
into the equation but I think that has changed in recent years.

Those are not streetable engines and you know it. 12,000 RPM is great
for racing but sucks on the street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

Have a look at the above link and tell me those engines aren't
efficient. Look at the BHP/Torque figures as well.

They are not efficient for the street and they would not be usable below
about 6,000 RPM. Ever hear of 'Peaky'? They are tuned for one thing only.


the American public does not want to have to shift and think while
talking on the cell.

Agreed .. but not for the same reason(s)

Bill Baka

Piston speed is THE defining factor in all of the above. Higher RPM
equals more power strokes in a given time frame. Long stroke engines
have a piston speed that is far too high when wound up around 7k RPM.
Remember, that piston is reciprocating, not just going in the one
direction. Usually this results in catastrophic engine failure when
piston speed exceeds sensible limits. Cut down the stroke and you
keep the piston speed reasonable at the expense of torque.
Appropriate gearing and more gear ratios compensates for the lack of
torque.

I am leaning to 6 speeds like in the performance cars. A Tremec 6 speed

Performance cars typically have narrow power bands. You NEED the extra
ratios so you can keep the engine in the power band.

with a 3.35 first and 0.70 and 0.50 are perfect overdrives for the road.
RPM is what sucks up mileage.

Efficiency is what saves fuel. That applies to engine design,
aerodynamics, vehicle mass, the whole gamut.
Used to run stock cars once. Couldn't do much about the aerodynamics but
did we ever shave the weight off them!

You just don't understand, do you? Revs don't get it!!!!!!

My
current daily drive is a five speed and its fifth gear is NOT an
overdrive. It's high revving 1800 cc 4 banger that pumps out 100KW
and it's as stock as the day it came out of the factory. The sports
models get 50% better power and still remain street drivable.

Having read that I don't know if I can have an intelligent car talk.

You can but you need an intelligent approach to it first.

Radios yes, cars no. I can't educate you on this group.

You "shouldn't" be trying to car educate me on this group.

No,
You seem too educated(?), err, opinionated for reason.

These days I select my cars on suitability to task rather than ego
pandering. Same as I do when selecting a radio. I look at what I want to
do, work out a spec list, look for suitable candidates, then compare to
see which fulfills my needs best. Garage space is an issue for me these
days.

For the kind of driving we do nowadays, a four cylinder is more than
adequate. Anything larger is overkill. That said, I have a couple of
larger beasts in the garage. They haven't seen service for quite a while
now. Just keep them for old times sake and dust 'em off now and then. I
am more interested in radios now.

Should I need a larger car for any reason, I will rent one, or perhaps
borrow one from my children as they are still in the ego stroking stage!

WTF???? I drive mine to show it off on the rare occasion I want to, and
if something really heavy needs hauling, a 440 will damn sure do it.
My 2 runarounds are newer front wheel drive clones.

Sure isn't like my younger days when we were into street rods that
were barely street drivable. Sounded good though! ;-)

And gas was 21 *CENTS* a gallon.

My 1952 Buick got maybe 6 or 7 miles per gallon with the DynaSlow
transmission but it just kept on running.

And that is exactly why efficiency wasn't a criteria in those days.

Left all that behind in the 70's and got into shortwave for the first
time. This was mainly because I was in and out of the country so much
in that era that I didn't have time for cars any more.

I believe.
Those are the kind of jobs I don't like though. I want an office to
call home and a fully expense paid flight, and not in 'sardine can' land.

I didn't have a choice. I started in the job when I was 15 and retired a
year or so back when I was 70. I always had full expenses paid flights,
limo supplied to get to and from airports and five star accommodation.
My only hassle was that the trips, and they were frequent, were never
planned in advance, always short notice (ie. be at the airport in 3
hours) and they played merry hell with my social life. Had to give up
racing and the rods. It's also why I got started in radio. It was easy
to cart a small radio around interstate and overseas, a truly portable
hobby. Still got my Sony ICF SW7600 but you wouldn't like it because it
is (a) small and (b) has no valves, not to mention (c) made in Japan.

Krypsis

I don't know what you worked at but it seems to have kept you very busy
for 55 years.
A Sony ICF would be fine with me, and actually made in Japan is becoming
a treasure find these days of China-land.
I personally worked for a lot of start-ups and know what it is like to
own 10,000 shares of wallpaper.
Bill Baka