Posted by George Orr on August 11, 2009, 1:28 am
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:36:21 +0100, News wrote:
>>
>> I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
>> the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed revving
>> engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?
>The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
>the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.
>Cheers!
>Rich
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
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:56:56 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>>And many engines back in the generator years redlined at about 3600.
>>
>> You're an idiot. The engines of the 50s and 60s redlined above 5000
>> rpm.
>>
>> 3600 rpm was the model T years, you ditz.
>Wrong.
>Model T was 1800 max.
>http://www.barefootsworld.net/ford-t-specs.html
>In the USA "high speed" engines of the pre-WW2 era were 3600 RPM
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-eight_engine
>The flathead ford v8 was the exception at 3200 RPM
>After WW2 most engines stayed at 3600 rating, but the "redline" went to 4000
>RPM
>RPM and compression generally increased in the 20th century as balance and
>metal technology advanced.
>Europe generally pushed the RPM higher before the USA
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
>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:56:56 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>And many engines back in the generator years redlined at about 3600.
> You're an idiot. The engines of the 50s and 60s redlined above 5000
>rpm.
> 3600 rpm was the model T years, you ditz.
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:
> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary because when the engine was
>> turning at 3k-4k, you couldn't have the generator spinning much faster
>> than 4k itself or it would disintegrate from the centrifugal forces.
>> (unless you want to spend the $ on a variable-ratio belt drive for just
>> the DC generator).
>
> There are no cars that incorporate variable ratio belt drives in
> America. It is too expensive, and there is no need.
>
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:
>Archimedes' Lever wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This was necessary because when the engine was
>>> turning at 3k-4k, you couldn't have the generator spinning much faster
>>> than 4k itself or it would disintegrate from the centrifugal forces.
>>> (unless you want to spend the $ on a variable-ratio belt drive for just
>>> the DC generator).
>>
>> There are no cars that incorporate variable ratio belt drives in
>> America. It is too expensive, and there is no need.
>>
>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
You're an idiot.
XML site map
>>
>> I believe GM may make the engine variable speed, and lower efficiency, as
>> the customers may be disconcerted at experiencing a constant speed revving
>> engine. Sounds garbage to me. Who cares about the speed of the engine?
>The driver. It could be disconcerting, especially to Aunt Tillie, when
>the sound of the motor doesn't change through acceleration, braking, etc.
>Cheers!
>Rich