On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:34:01 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
Ha-ha! JB, desperate for affirmation that he is somehow significant,
is feverishly counting "views" of unattributed YouTube videos.
Hey, Jon, since you bring up those old pushrod engines, what happened
to the Chevy 5.5 liter prototypes at Daytona last month? They went
around the track like they were on parade -- following the leader, a
"wimpy" 3.5 liter, DOHC Ford.
Better luck next time, huh? Maybe they need another liter or two. Or
maybe they need some more "advanced" design. How about a flathead?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:49:19 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
I want to see just what you can do with flatheads. I want to see a
racing class that's "anything you want to do to the engine, as long as
it's a flathead". Give that a decade or so, and you may see some real
performance out of the flatties.
Hey -- maybe Jon's thinking that DOHC engines don't work because it'd be
a bad idea to make a DOHC flathead?
Streamliners were getting around 220 hp out of them in the '50s. With
a blower, they've produced some impressive power in drag racing.
However, the fuel economy would be dismal. They have 'way too much
surface area in the combustion chamber.
May be. But that would, indeed, be a bad idea. <g>
BTW, if you're seriously interested in them, you should look into the
research done by Sir Harry Ricardo (he of the "Ricardo combustion
I think there are entire books, either by him or about him, that
discussed the many issues involved in making a flathead engine give
its best performance. You'll also find some old published research
done at the Sloan labs at MIT.
There are several issues besides just the surface area -- valve
shrouding, flame-path length (the biggie); swirl; and so on. It's an
interesting study for anyone who loves engines.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:31:06 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
You must be really sore about the Corvette DPs losing out to that
"wimpy" little DOHC Ford, eh, Jon?
Maybe they should try what Ford did in the mid-'60s, when their 4.7
liter GT40 got creamed by the 3.5 liter Ferraris at LeMans. Being an
obnoxious bully by nature, Henry II stuffed a 7-liter pushrod engine
into the car. Finally, he beat the Ferraris -- which were running
engines half the size of the Fords.
But then Ferrari punched their engine out to 4.5 liters, and, at
Daytona, they cleaned Ford's clock.
That one got you really sore, too, as I remember.
Thanks to Henry's shenanigans, rules were changed all over the world
to limit engine sizes for the top prototype classes, which previously
were unlimited. Thus, Chevy is now running the limit -- 5.5 liters.
And it wasn't enough.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:34:43 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
You didn't say anything about that, Jon. You just said that the Chevy
pushrod V6 was exciting. Indeed it was -- both as a racing engine and
as a hand grenade. <g> What it *wasn't* was a race winner. And that,
you'd realize if you weren't half-fast, is the objective.
You really do talk through your hat about racing and engines, Jon.
You picked one of the all-time losers -- the turbocharged Chevy V6
built by Falconer for GM -- and you got all excited because it put out
a lot of power.
It did. And then it would break. You can make a tractor engine put out
a lot of power if you over-supercharge it, as Falconer did, with the
Warner-Ishi turbocharger blowing the hell out of that asthmatic little
pushrod engine. He eventually got around 1,000 hp out of it. Then,
Chevy finally realized it was barking up the wrong tree, trying to
promote its V6 sedan engine by pretending it was a hot racing engine.
It just didn't have what it takes. From the time they started with
that engine at the beginning of 1985 until Chevy pulled out at the end
of 1988, after pouring megabucks into the effort, it won exactly two
I'd say you've been reading too many car-buff magazines and not
studying enough about engine design. You don't know what you're
talking about most of the time.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:33:17 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
Suuuure ya' did.
Let's take just one year, 1987, and see what happened to the Corvettes
in the IMSA GTP series:
Road Atlanta -- DNF, blown head gasket
Riverside -- DNF, broken valve spring
Mid-Ohio (Andretti) -- DNF, throttle sensor failed
Mid-Ohio (van der Merwe) -- DNF, misfire
West Palm Beach -- DNF misfire, body damage, fire
Portland -- DNF, debris hit kill switch
Road America -- DNF, rain-shorted electronics
San Antonio -- DNF, overheating
Del Mar -- DNF, unspecified
(from _Inside IMSA's Legendary GTP Race Cars, Martin and Fuller.)
The FI gave them a lot of grief, but it could only have caused the
DNFs at Mid-Ohio and West Palm Beach -- and it isn't certain that's
what caused the DNFs in those cases, either.
Blown head gaskets and broken valve springs are common problems with
over-stressed race engines.
This is exactly what you did years ago, when you took a Ford press
release as your "source" and claimed all the Fords failed at Daytona
because of a Kar Kraft transmission. Only it wasn't true, as we showed
from the detailed account of the race by AutoWeek.
Bonkers, you're so full of crap that you're going to die of sepsis if
you don't knock it off. Now, stick to things you actually know
something about if you're going to be sarcastic.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:38:35 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
That's quite a claim for a Barcalounger racer, Jon. <g>
Your rant, however, is up against everything I said, including the
documented race results -- including that the engines that you're
talking about only won two races during the years they ran, from 1985
to 1988, and they never won a championship.
As all of those DNFs demonstrate, they'd go like hell, and then break.
You could get horsepower out of a bagpipe is you supercharged it
enough. But it wouldn't win. Chevy ran those engines for marketing
reasons, but they just weren't up to winning.
If you didn't blow so much smoke and try so desperately to show that
you're not an insignificant kook, you'd have a lot less trouble when
you make mistakes.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:39:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
Projecting again, eh, Jon?
And here you were all excited about the new Ford GT. We haven't heard
you talking about it lately. What happened? Maybe you found out that
it has a wimply little (3.5 l) DOHC V6 engine? d8-)
Those engines are bullshit, that's why you don't see them in Le Mans
endurance racing or top notch F1.
Hell, NASCAR has them, but they were afraid of introducing the
carburetor, even when though they claim to be "stock cars", no car had
been sold in North America with a carburetor since 1988.
You stupid Hillbilly. What you like is only seen in NASCAR and engines
by Briggs and Stratton.
You may has well add an 8-track player! LOL!
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.