| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#18
November 27th 09, 03:20 AM
posted to rec.radio.shortwave
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| European Shortwave Bands In Cars | Shortwave | |||
| Top Three Best Electric Cars | Equipment | |||
| killing cars with RF? | Dx | |||
| New source for shortwave for cars? | Shortwave | |||
| Antenna for cars | Scanner | |||
Threaded Mode
