Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Hey do you know your car's alternator only outputs 7-10% while it's running? - Page 14

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by George Orr on August 11, 2009, 1:28 am
 
wrote:


  Aunt tillie doesn't need to be driving a new techno car or any car if
she has issues rationalizing what the causes of sounds are.

Posted by Archimedes' Lever on August 11, 2009, 1:05 am
 


 WWII was a long way back from the 50s and 60s, which were the decades I
mentioned, and in THOSE decades, the redline was higher, as was the
"normal" operating window.  Far higher than the 3600 that some retarded
dope stated.

Posted by clare on August 11, 2009, 2:33 am
 On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:13:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever


1962 buick v6- max hp rated at 4600 rpm
1949 buick straight 8 - max hp rated at 3600 rpm
1958 buick 364 v8 - max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1957 caddy365 v8 max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1953 chevy max hp at 3600 rpm
1958 6 cyl chevy max hp rated at 4200 rpm
1958 chevy v8 - max hp rated at 4600 rpm
1949 chrysler max hp rated at 3600 rpm for the 6, 3200 for the 8.1954
chrysler hemi - 331 cu in - max hp at 4400 rpm
1953 forf flathead 0 max hp rated at 3800 rpm.
1955 ford "Y" block max hp rated at 4400 rpm
1953 hudson max hp at 4000 rpm
1957 rambler 6, max hp at 4200 rpm
1955 olds rocket v8 - max hp at 4000 rpm
1954 pontiac six, max hp at 3800
1954 pontiac 8, max ph at 3800 rpm

 worked on these babies - I know how fast they ran. NOT MANY engines
of the 50s  would even rev to 5000 without losing parts. Many stock
engines of the 60s and 70s could not rev over 5000 rpm Most redlined
WELL UNDER 5000.

Even the mighty Chevy 396, in stock form in 1966 was not happy much
over 4200 rpm. With aftermarket parts, or the L34 factory hotrod
version, they would hang together for a while at 5000 RPM.

A slant six 225 Dodge would not hit 5000 RPM stock - the little 170
could wind to 5500 with its 1 inch shorter stroke.


Posted by daestrom on August 10, 2009, 10:33 pm
 Archimedes' Lever wrote:

And that's why, you illiterate chump, I said what I did.  I did *not*
*ever* say they actually were driven by a variable ratio drive.

What I said was the ratio was kept low so as to *not* require such a
drive.  Too high a ratio and the generator would self-destruct.

A typical loser tactic, claim that I said something ridiculous and then
argue that I'm clearly wrong.  But the text is there for you to read
(and re-read and re-read until you have some comprehension).

daestrom

Posted by George Orr on August 11, 2009, 1:25 am
 wrote:


  You're an idiot.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread