|
Shortwave for cars?
On 11/24/09 15:20 , dxAce wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 11/24/09 15:09 , dxAce wrote: "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 11/24/09 13:18 , Krypsis wrote: Indeed. I had a g/f years ago, with an X1/9. She couldn't keep it running for love or money. I spent a weekend going through that drive train and rebuilt everything I could put my hands on. Fired it up and took it out for some break-in driving. VERY serious fun. Not too unlike that 914/6 I was driving at the time. I wouldn't mind owning one, myself, today. Almost bought one when I bought the 3P. Kids were getting too big by then so wasn't much use to the little woman as a shopping trolley. The X19 really is a 2 seater, definitely not a 2 + 2 Krypsis Then the practical solution would be to let the wife take the station wagon, and you take the X1/9. When I was married, we had three cars. A 4 seater sedan, her MG and my MG. After I got divorced I had 7 cars. Lots of choices. Too much fun. And a whole lot less maintenance. I'm no longer limber enough to shoe-horn myself into a X1/9. That's a shame. How's that back doing, btw? Not good. Gee, Steve, I'm sorry to hear that. Having broken mine, myself, I understand how miserable that can be. |
Shortwave for cars?
I have lost so much weight (because I am still on my diet) I can now
easily fit behind the steering wheel (with room to spare) of my 1948 Willys Jeep.Those two front seats do not slide back. www.devilfinder.com Tom McCahill Test the Jeep cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
On 11/24/09 15:28 , dxAce wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 11/24/09 15:20 , dxAce wrote: "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 11/24/09 15:09 , dxAce wrote: "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 11/24/09 13:18 , Krypsis wrote: Indeed. I had a g/f years ago, with an X1/9. She couldn't keep it running for love or money. I spent a weekend going through that drive train and rebuilt everything I could put my hands on. Fired it up and took it out for some break-in driving. VERY serious fun. Not too unlike that 914/6 I was driving at the time. I wouldn't mind owning one, myself, today. Almost bought one when I bought the 3P. Kids were getting too big by then so wasn't much use to the little woman as a shopping trolley. The X19 really is a 2 seater, definitely not a 2 + 2 Krypsis Then the practical solution would be to let the wife take the station wagon, and you take the X1/9. When I was married, we had three cars. A 4 seater sedan, her MG and my MG. After I got divorced I had 7 cars. Lots of choices. Too much fun. And a whole lot less maintenance. I'm no longer limber enough to shoe-horn myself into a X1/9. That's a shame. How's that back doing, btw? Not good. Gee, Steve, I'm sorry to hear that. Having broken mine, myself, I understand how miserable that can be. Yeah, I think most of my current problem may just be due to the weather. Kinda damp it seems, and I'm sure that you as well as I will be getting some rain soon, at least according to the radar picture. Been raining here since morning. |
Shortwave for cars?
Rolls Royce likes to claim they were the first with a V8 engine, in
1905. Not so! Antoinette was the first in 1902.The engines were used in Speedboats. cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
RHF wrote:
On Nov 23, 3:46 pm, Bill Baka wrote: - I saw the CD slot and conclude that it is consumer fluff. I may be - looking for something that doesn't exist, like a dedicated DX'ers type - radio without surround sound, Dolby, or any bling garbage. - - Bill Baka Then take a look at the Drake SW8 Receiver http://www.universal-radio.com/used/sold082.html . I'm tending to that direction now since Drake has always been a good brand, pricey, but good. Bill Baka |
Shortwave for cars?
Gregg wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:13 pm, Bill Baka wrote: Just so you know, this is going (eventually) into my 1966 Chrysler stealth hot rod and I am doing the engine right now so it will be a while. After 250,000 miles I finally need to bore the block of my trusty old 440 police engine. I bought the car in 1985 and can't bear to part with it. It's a tank, but a trusty and fast tank. Bill Baka- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's sweet. Even better then. Are you planning on keeping a radio in there for the 60's era? I need to find an original radio just for stock status since the previous owner took it out for an 8 track combo or something. Right now I have an AM radio from a 1973 Dart pulling that duty. Anything I put in the car beyond a stock radio will be on a quick release so it can come in with me at night. Cheers, Bill Baka |
Shortwave for cars?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Bill Baka wrote: dave wrote: http://www.shortwavestore.com/sws/mf...er-pr-506.html This site just got bookmarked. That one URL just made this thread worth the bother for me. You could just go to the MFJ web site. There you will find the converter, a download link for the manual and a place to send them a message asking them any question you want. You can also call them. Geoff. I have seen converters like that and the absolute best feed into a CB radio for a 27MHz first I.F. stage. The CB has all the sharp bandwidth, noise blanking and other things to make a good setup. Problem is I can't remember if they were a home build project or not. Since CB is dormant except among truckers it may be a bit of a specialty trick to find stuff. Thanks, Bill Baka |
Shortwave for cars?
Bill Baka wrote:
Then take a look at the Drake SW8 Receiver http://www.universal-radio.com/used/sold082.html . I'm tending to that direction now since Drake has always been a good brand, pricey, but good. The SW8 is the wrong shape, IMHO for a car radio. It will be fine to sit in on the seat next to you, or to keep in the the trunk or back seat until you stop, but that opens up a whole lot of other receivers of similar shape and size, and smaller portables (Sony ICF-2010, SW-77, etc). AFAIK the last good shortwave radio designed for mobile use was the Kenwood R5000, it has the same shape, and ergonomics of their series of mobile/base rigs, eg. the TS-120,180,130,430,440,450 with the performance of 430 on up. My recently aquired Drake SPR-4 runs quite nicely on 12 volts, and while it has the worst ergonomics of any radio every made, (you have to set two different switches to set the band, then tune it in two places), it has the best sound of any radio I've ever owned, no synthesier noise, etc. Another similar rig would be the Grundig Satellite 650, which has a similar design and sound, with much more automation, so it's easier to use. It seems that with the advent of general coverage receivers in moble HF ham rigs, separate receivers faded away. Except for a car radios designed for broadcast reception only (limited bands, AM only), the last one was designed in the late 1980's. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
Shortwave for cars?
Krypsis wrote:
wrote: Rolls Royce likes to claim they were the first with a V8 engine, in 1905. Not so! Antoinette was the first in 1902.The engines were used in Speedboats. cuhulin And a lovely lady she was too! Krypsis Didn't Rolls still use flathead motors in the '60s? |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
|
Shortwave for cars?
On 11/25/09 10:07 , Geary Morton wrote:
In , 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 I had the smaller bore (169) of that same block in my 50 Champion Regal Deluxe. Helluva motor. Damn, I miss that car. |
Shortwave for cars?
|
Shortwave for cars?
www.devilfinder.com
Studebaker in World War Two Some of the Army 2 1/2 ton trucks I drove when I was in Vietnam were built by Studebaker.Some of the trucks were Mack trucks, Dodge, GM, International, Kenworth,,, they all looked the same, built to Military Specs. www.vietnamguntrucks.com http://vietnamguntruck.tripod.com cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
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. 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. 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. The poor fuel mileage is purely due to inefficiencies. 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! 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. 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. Sure isn't like my younger days when we were into street rods that were barely street drivable. Sounded good though! ;-) 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. Krypsis |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
Those old long stroke engines of many years ago, on level roads, you
could start out from a dead stop in high gear, smooth and easy as pie.They had that real good low end torque.Some of those cars had a built in air compresser at the transmission, flip a little lever and you can air up those tires. Some new car manufacturers nowadays add some Bar's Leaks to every new car and truck before they send them out the factory doors. www.devilfinder.com Which auto manufacturers add Bar's Leaks to every new car? cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
Back in the middle 1950s, Ford had better manufacturing than GM, (GM =
Government Motors) GM had better management.They got together and worked things out. Ford still does have better manufacturing than GM. (GM = Government Motors) Motor Trend picked Ford Fusion as car of the year for 2010. www.motortrend.com I snail mail subscribe to Motor Trend magazines. cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
Watching Southern Expressions on the PBS tv channel.
James ''Super Chikan'' Johnson in Clarksdale,Mississippi.Check it out, www.superchikan.com Next up, Mississippi Roads. I knowwwwww a plaaaace where the Riverrr is windinnnn,,,,, Oh those Roads,,,, Mississippi Roadddddsss,,,,,,,,, cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
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 |
Shortwave for cars?
wrote:
Say there Krypsis, you live in Australia? Do you know Mr.Rogers? He is a Can't say as I do. Name doesn't ring a bell with me. I was into rodding more than restoring. I left the others to be fussy about nit picking restorations. Only jeep restorer I know was a fellow in a small Tasmanian town. He had a very nice one but, like so many of the people I knew from the old days, he passed away years back. Same chap had an MG as well. I recall how he was hunting a matching front wing as his had two different headlight cowlings from different models, one horizontal, the other with a droop. Used to irritate him no end. This was before the days of eBay and easy communications. He'd be rapt now at the ease of finding bits anywhere in the world through the internet. perfectionist at restoring World War Two Jeeps and such vehicles. www.jeepdraw.com cuhulin When I was into rodding, I was the younger one in my circle of friends. Sadly, most of the old crew are gone now. Robert, who died last Sunday, being one of the last. He was an unconventional character and his restorations were unconventional to say the least. The nit pickers would have a field day. Saw a couple of the remaining old timers at his funeral, the years have weighed heavily on them. Suppose they might have been saying the same thing about me! ;-) One of them still gets about on his old Harley, nice machine! Krypsis |
Shortwave for cars?
Krypsis wrote:
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. It will cruise over 130 but I am not into explaining that to a judge. It just happens to do it with ease and not 7,000 RPM out of an overstressed 4 banger. 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. You still don't get it. I was talking about where is the most efficient point to make a car move at 65 MPH continuous. More RPM's don't make efficiency for fuel consumption, and that, dear boy, is *exponential* in the loss department. 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 I don't need to watch a video on cars. The fuel cut is mainly so the muffler does not explode when ignition begins again. I ran a Texaco service center back when there were Texaco's. Engine breaking only works due to the losses in the pistons. Big trucks have an exhaust brake to boot. 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. Well then, pick up some engineering magazines and start reading because the hot rod magazines only showed the power curve down to maybe 2,000 RPM. These days I am more interested in what they can do at low RPM, and the accompanying mileage. 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. Don't even think of trying to make me sound stupid. I was talking freeway miles, not around town. It would be a small matter to install a stop and go traffic battery/motor-brake with out taking over the whole car. I have been in Silicon Valley traffic jams and drive 20 feet then stop for five minutes, repeat until done, can ruin any running gas engine's fuel efficiency. 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. Engineering for Dummies 101. Most of the energy is wasted on making the pistons go up and down. A V-8 can be geared to get over 30 MPG as long as the driver is aware that any lead-footing will cost him at the pump. 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. Go back to high school or Freshman college math and have your instructor teach you something. Physics is not old world but you appear to be unteachable. 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 |
Shortwave for cars?
Bill Baka wrote:
Krypsis wrote: 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 Yeah, Shares aren't worth much when the whole company goes down. I hate to lose a young guy at only 70. His wife or kids might just try to auction off the cars. Nobody under 40 seems to give a crap about cars anymore. He will be missed whether I knew him or not. Bill Baka |
Shortwave for cars?
Bill Baka wrote:
Bill Baka wrote: Krypsis wrote: 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 Yeah, Shares aren't worth much when the whole company goes down. His shares have a long term history of stability and regular dividends which was his goal, income, not growth. I hate to lose a young guy at only 70. Yeah, especially when he was "younger" than me. Funny thing was, his family has a history of longevity. Practically the only one who died under 90 was his father and his death was due to workplace injury. In fact, when they were looking for relatives to inform after his death, they found 2 aunts and an uncle still living. All of them would have to be well in their nineties by now. His wife or kids might just try to auction off the cars. He didn't have any kids and his wife is at a loss right now just what to do. Money isn't a problem for her in the short and long term as share dividends will see to that. More of an issue is her remote location and inability to drive a car. Her home is in the hills outside the urban limits with limited public transport options. Anyway, the cars are all in bits. There was only one person who knew how they all went together and he's gone. It would take weeks to just find everything. In my brief visit to the workshop, I saw bits scattered all over. Interestingly, he had been working on converting the engine bearings to full pressure fed lubrication. He'd drilled the crank and was in the process of building a larger oil pump to supply the extra requirements. He even had a new sump and pan cast to provide the extra room for the pump. He had been talking about doing this but I hadn't realised he was as far along as he was. I did say his restorations were "unconventional", didn't I? Nobody under 40 seems to give a crap about cars anymore. Yep. I don't know what will happen to my garage full of rods when I drop off the perch. None of my kids are mechanically inclined, the grandkids are more interested in partying and hooning. Guess the great grandkids are my only hope. Would hate to see the rods get sold off. Don't want to risk using them, don't want to risk losing them. What a conundrum! He will be missed whether I knew him or not. Bill Baka Sure will be missed around here. Used to have long phone calls about his projects. Sometimes an hour, sometimes 2 but always interesting. Miss them already. Krypsis |
Shortwave for cars?
Varooooooommmmmm,,,,,, my Maserati does one eighty fivvvve,,,, I lost my
license now I do not drivvvve,,,,,,, That is a real actual song, I have heard it before on my radio.I do not own a Maserati, but I believe they are Good cars.Italy makes a lot of nice thingys,,, especially those Italian wimmins! cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
Krypsis wrote:
Bill Baka wrote: Bill Baka wrote: Krypsis wrote: 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 Yeah, Shares aren't worth much when the whole company goes down. His shares have a long term history of stability and regular dividends which was his goal, income, not growth. Can't be an American company then. I hate to lose a young guy at only 70. Yeah, especially when he was "younger" than me. Funny thing was, his family has a history of longevity. Practically the only one who died under 90 was his father and his death was due to workplace injury. In fact, when they were looking for relatives to inform after his death, they found 2 aunts and an uncle still living. All of them would have to be well in their nineties by now. Same here except my dad drank and smoked himself into a stroke at 83. His wife or kids might just try to auction off the cars. He didn't have any kids and his wife is at a loss right now just what to do. Money isn't a problem for her in the short and long term as share dividends will see to that. More of an issue is her remote location and inability to drive a car. Her home is in the hills outside the urban limits with limited public transport options. She can't drive? What is up with that? Sounds like a 1920's kind of problem. Anyway, the cars are all in bits. There was only one person who knew how they all went together and he's gone. It would take weeks to just find everything. In my brief visit to the workshop, I saw bits scattered all over. Interestingly, he had been working on converting the engine bearings to full pressure fed lubrication. He'd drilled the crank and was in the process of building a larger oil pump to supply the extra requirements. He even had a new sump and pan cast to provide the extra room for the pump. He had been talking about doing this but I hadn't realised he was as far along as he was. I did say his restorations were "unconventional", didn't I? In other words, you or I or any car nut would be in heaven just trying to find parts to match to the cars. Found a manifold, must be for that one, radiator must go there, etc. Then the cars would get worked on as I found the parts. Damn, am I dreaming. Nobody under 40 seems to give a crap about cars anymore. Yep. I don't know what will happen to my garage full of rods when I drop off the perch. None of my kids are mechanically inclined, the grandkids are more interested in partying and hooning. Damn. I wasn't even allowed to drive my first car (with a legal permit) until I could convince my dad I could change a tire, diagnose a no spark or bad fuel pump, and fill every last one of my fluids. Only then did I get to go anywhere. My daughter, BTW, could care less about anything mechanical, so I don't know who to give the car too. Maybe I'll be buried in it like that rich woman was in her Ferrari. I have one grandson who might want it, I hope. Guess the great grandkids are my only hope. Would hate to see the rods get sold off. Don't want to risk using them, don't want to risk losing them. What a conundrum! I have that too. I am still looking for a 1962 to 1964 Ford Falcon to mileage up. He will be missed whether I knew him or not. Bill Baka Sure will be missed around here. Used to have long phone calls about his projects. Sometimes an hour, sometimes 2 but always interesting. Miss them already. Krypsis I guess I'm getting to where friends will start going. Lost 3 in three years. Sigh Bill Baka |
Shortwave for cars?
Ford Falcon, Good cars.Back in the 1970s, one of the vehicles I owned
was a 1962 Ford Falcon 4 door car.It had a 6 cylinder engine and manual shift transmission.I traded it to my old buddy for his 1950 Ford car, six cylinder engine, manual shift transmission with overdrive.He had bought the 1950 Ford car for a second car when he and I went to Hinds Community College on the G.I.Bill, Winter time of 1972 - 1973. cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
|
Shortwave for cars?
I like the 1957 Fords, I once owned a 1957 Ford Thunderbird.I traded a
1968 Ford Mustang for the Thunderbird in Lawrenceville,Georgia.I have owned a 1964 Ford Mustang car before, also a 1931 Ford four door Model A car I bought from a guy in Liberal,Kansas back in the 1970s.I have owned a 1939 Ford fastback car and a 1948 Chevrolet pickup truck too.I traded that pickup truck to an old buddy for some collectible folding money and some collectible silver coins.I still have that money here, in my box at the bank.I have owned a lot of vehicles over the past years. cuhulin |
Shortwave for cars?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com