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*.

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*

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.


Krypsis


Bill Baka

Krypsis wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:
Krypsis 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

They would have been one of the last then as even Ford went OHV in
the mid fifties.

Krypsis

I got a deal on 5 1957 Plymouths in 1968 and had everything from a
baby hemi (332) to a flathead six. The Hemi (circa 1952) was gutless
and the flathead 6 was a monster chunk of iron. It did run quiet as
with all flatheads the valve noise was very minimal.

Bill Baka

The flatheads had minimal reciprocating mass as valve gear, big
advantage but they couldn't take advantage of it as they couldn't rev
much anyway. Overhead valve with overhead cam is the way to go, even
twin cam.
Keep that reciprocating mass to a minimum for better get up and go.

Krypsis

Krypsis,
You are totally missing the point. I built my older cars when gas was 21
cents per gallon for pure speed and city cruising. My later cars have
just proven that I can make a car get better mileage than these half
assed cars being advertised now.
It *can* be done but nobody is even attempting it.
Now, please go work out the math for any piston engine and you will find
that over about 1,000 RPM for an 8 or 2,000 for a 4 is overkill.
Go see how much is lost moving those little Aluminium things up and down
100 times per second at 6,000 RPM.
Do your own math.

Bill Baka

Tomorrow is Black Friday.In the morning, I am heading over to the
J.C.Penny store and buy a Discovery Expedition Wonderwall Projector for
my TV set and DVD player.Because I am a Player.
I hope J.C.Penny still has them in stock when I get there sometime
around nineish A.M.

www.devilfinder.com
Wonderwall Projector
cuhulin

wrote:
Tomorrow is Black Friday.In the morning, I am heading over to the
J.C.Penny store and buy a Discovery Expedition Wonderwall Projector for
my TV set and DVD player.Because I am a Player.
I hope J.C.Penny still has them in stock when I get there sometime
around nineish A.M.

www.devilfinder.com
Wonderwall Projector
cuhulin

This projector only has a resolution of 480 x 240 which is way below the
standard definition standard of 640x480 and nowhere near the hi def
standard of 1920x1080. It has one standard composite input so you can
only have one device connected at one time. It uses a standard 50W/12V
MR-16 halogen bulb so the light output is very low. Because of the low
resolution you cant really display a very large image. Bottom line is
this projector will make regular tv look like a low quality video you
downloaded off the internet unless you keep the screen size below 20 inches.
http://www.mahalo.com/answers/home-e...-lcd-projector

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.

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.


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!

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.

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!

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.

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

What it was, what it T'IS, yesterday, when I was over at my sister and
brother inlaws house for Turkey Day dinner and I was looking at the
Black Friday ads in their Clarion Ledger newspaper
www.clarionledger.com , I saw an ad about the Wonderwall Projector.When
I got back home to doggy's couch, I did a www.devilfinder.com for,
Wonderwall Projector.Later on, last night, after I posted I was going to
the J.C.Penney store, a few minutes later, I too, saw that mahalo site
about the Wonderwall Projector.I have deeeeeeecided to forget all about
that Wonderwall Projector.
Thank You, Mahalo.Now I don't need to drive wayyyyyyyy up North to the
J.C.Penney store at Northpark Mall, about thirteen miles North of
doggy's couch, or the other J.C.Penney store in Flowood at Dogwood Mall,
about fifteen miles Northeast of doggy's couch either.
cuhulin

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

Bill Baka wrote:
snip

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

My "young iron" is also for freeway use and I don't need to do 100mph,
not to mention that such speeds are illegal here. On the other hand, my
car is quite capable of maintaining the 100 - 110 freeway maximums here
so I am nonplussed.

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.

It's not too difficult to bring older vintage cars up to reasonable
emission standards but then the analists will question their "authenticity.
"
snip


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

Engine efficiency depends a lot on volumetric efficiency and the maximum
volumetric efficiency can occur at either high or low rpm depending on
engine design. My own car has the best efficiency around the 4,000 RPM
mark. Above 5,000 and below 3,000, it drops off dramatically. No point
sticking it in a tall geared overdrive and chugging around at 2,500 RPM
as I won't get the best economy.

why you down-shift for engine braking coming down a hill.

If you use engine braking, you may as well do it in a fuel-cut
situation. In fact it's already programmed into most modern vehicles.
Nearly all modern fuel injected cars turn off virtually all fuel when
you're not requesting torque via the accelerator pedal. Injection will
be cut when the accelerator is released and engine RPM is above
approximately 1500.

Watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xfxSkDHJKo

snip


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.

Not picked up a hot rod mag in decades.

Power/weight is only for quarter
miles and stop light drags, neither of which is a limiting factor.

Please explain to me then why there is a push to use lightweight
materials in cars if the weight isn't a factor. Seems you have been
letting your basic physics slip a tad! The laws of physics say that if
you have twice the mass, it will take twice the energy/effort to
accelerate said mass to a given speed. That applies whether you are drag
racing or simply getting up to speed on a freeway.

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.

That is around 7 litres per hundred kilometres, definitely in the medium
sized 4 cylinder engine, fuel injected, electronic ignition and
definitely not old world carb and mechanical breakers. I can get that
sort of mileage all the time in city cycle, better in highway cycle. I
am more than a little skeptical that you can achieve that sort of
mileage in any form of real world driving, especially in a piece of old
world American iron. Just so you know, we did have, in my younger days,
a heavy representation of American cars on our roads so I am not
unfamiliar with them - and their fuel consumption.

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.

Nobody said they were but they certainly do pump out the neddies, don't
they. Notice how the torque figures are extremely

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.

They are incredibly efficient in terms of power output per given litre
of engine capacity. They are not designed with fuel efficiency in mind
though the developments in racing do tend to filter down to the average
motorists cars in time.

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!!!!!!

You are just too old world. Think computers and fuel injection, I do.

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.

Opinionated eh?

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

Mine are simply too valuable to risk on the road. I've had them for over
40 years, put a lot of time and effort into them and don't want to throw
it all away with all the clowns that consider themselves drivers that
currently infest our roads. Besides, they attract a bit too much
unwanted attention these days as well. Very few people know they exist
and I intend to keep them that way.

A friend recently had his rather special Ford GTHO stolen from his
garage. Owned it from new but some other swine is enjoying it now. Told
him to keep it low key but he didn't listen.

if something really heavy needs hauling, a 440 will damn sure do it.

If I need some heavy hauling, a friend has a truck!

My 2 runarounds are newer front wheel drive clones.

I rest my case!


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.

Know them well. A friend of mine was a buick aficionado and had 2 or 3
of them, one of which was a Roadmaster Riviera hardtop. He died back in
1970 (trees and cars don't mix!) and his son inherited the cars. I
haven't seen the son Peter since 1980 so I don't know if he still has
them. His father ran a bus company and I last remember the cars
gathering dust at the back of the bus shed. Must look him up and check
on that.

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.

I worked for the Australian Federal Government, spent of lot of time in
the immigration department. It kept me extremely busy from 73 on.

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

Never spent any time in private enterprise.

own 10,000 shares of wallpaper.
Bill Baka

Never had any interest in shares. A friend of mine finally convinced me
to play the stock market and was giving me very good advice based on his
very successful experience. Went to his funeral last Wednesday.
Diagnosed with cancer on the Tuesday, gone by 6pm Sunday. He was a year
younger than me, just turned 70 this month.
Now this chap could machine up just about any part you wanted for your
rod or restoration. Went up to see his wife and help her out on Monday
and Tuesday evenings. Had a look through his workshop where he had been
restoring a 22 and a 26 Buick. He'd been casting up some bits ready to
machine up and use on the Buicks. Don't know what will happen to those
cars now. Sad loss for the rod and restoration community here.

Krypsis

Some of y'all are familiar with the old Eads Bridge between Saint
Louis,Missouri (Missouriah) and East Saint Louis,Illinois.Some of y'all
have driven across that Bridge before.YOU try driving a 1957 BMW Isetta
across that Bridge in rainy weather when that Bridge is soaking wet!
Sheeeeeeeeit Mope, that little bitty loud ass car was skating around all
over that Eads Bridge!

www.devilfinder.com
Eads Bridge Saint Louis Missouri
cuhulin

Say there Krypsis, you live in Australia? Do you know Mr.Rogers? He is a
perfectionist at restoring World War Two Jeeps and such vehicles.
www.jeepdraw.com
cuhulin