Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » For your consideration... (a possible retrofit engine for the GMC?)
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration... [message #113960 is a reply to message #113953] |
Wed, 02 February 2011 11:37   |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Glenn, you are a man after my own heart. Mary & I are supposed to host a
rally in Oregon for the GMC Cascaders the last weekend in July at the Great
Oregon Steam Up grounds during the steamup. All manner of similar engines to
the one you have pictured as well as steam sawmill, tractors, trains, and
automobiles, food, military stuff. Still in the planning stages. You might
consider the power to weight ratio of your engine to be a slight bit high
for a GMC though.<Grin>
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC Royale 403
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Giere <glenngiere@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=37583&title=a-possible-retrofit-fo&cat=500
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> List Information and Subscription Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: For your consideration... [message #113962 is a reply to message #113953] |
Wed, 02 February 2011 12:01 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think it would be perfect with a leather belt running outside the coach to a rear wheel...
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration... [message #114010 is a reply to message #114000] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 00:19 |
Len Novak
Messages: 676
Registered: February 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There is a museum in Vista Ca that has quite a few of those. We attended a
rally there last year and had a blast.
http://www.agsem.com/
Len and Pat
78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
Fallbrook, CA
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 6:50 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration...
For your consideration... Wed, 02 February 2011 12:11
Glenn Giere
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=37583&title=a-possible
-retrofit-fo&cat=500
>
>
Looks like a 5HP Stover, might be a little slow for a GMC but certainally
different. I used to have a couple like this, still have a 5 HP Hercules &
a 3 HP Witte. Don't think I will be using either for a GMC conversion.
--
Bill Bryant
1976~PB
1914 Ford
1965 Corvette
GMC MH History CD
GMC Showroom Films DVD
http://bdub.net/billbryant/
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Len and Pat Novak
1978 GMC Kingsley
The Beast II with dash lights that work and labels you can see!
Las Vegas, NV new email: B52sRule@Gmail.com
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration... [message #114027 is a reply to message #113960] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 08:34 |
 |
mike miller
Messages: 3576
Registered: February 2004
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| James Hupy wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 09:37 |
Glenn, you are a man after my own heart. Mary & I are supposed to host a
rally in Oregon for the GMC Cascaders the last weekend in July at the Great
Oregon Steam Up grounds during the steamup. All manner of similar engines to
the one you have pictured as well as steam sawmill, tractors, trains, and
automobiles, ...
|
From what I have read, there is a steam engine (car) that shows promise.
The Doble Steam Car.
It was far advanced of anything else using steam. Massive torque and smooth at speed. I think for long distance over the road vehicles, the technology shows more promise than electricity.
| Quote: |
The 1924 model Doble Series E steam car could run for 1,500 miles (2,400 km) before its 24-gallon water tank needed to be refilled; even in freezing weather, it could be started from cold and move off within 30 seconds, and once fully warmed could be relied upon to reach speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour (140 km/h). In recent years Doble cars have been run at speeds approaching 120 mph (190 km/h), this without the benefits of streamlining and a lighter version of the Series E accelerated from 0 - 75 mph (121 km/h) in 10 seconds. Its fuel consumption, burning a variety of fuels (often kerosene), was competitive with automobiles of the day, and its ability to run in eerie silence apart from wind noise gave it a distinct edge. At 70 mph (110 km/h), there was little noticeable vibration, with the engine turning at around 900 rpm.
|
It would not need a transmission and it should run on any concevable fuel as long as it was a liquid and combustable. It also could run on a vapor or gas with some modifications.
More info:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_steam_car>
<http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car>
<http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/1925-doble-series-e-steam-car/213453/>
I suspect it would cost quite a bit to get (or make) a working model, let alone something I would trust to install in a GMC and drive across the country!
Still interesting.
Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
(#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
More Sidekicks than GMC's and a late model Malibu called 'Boo'
http://m000035.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration... [message #114030 is a reply to message #114027] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 08:41 |
tphipps
Messages: 3005
Registered: August 2004
Location: Spanish Fort, AL
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You should see the steam engines that Fred V., of Pensacola builds in his machine shop. He is heavy into steam. Bought his GMC to tow his steam engines to steam train meets.
Tom Phipps
2012 Phoenix Cruiser model 2552
KA4CSG
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration... [message #114042 is a reply to message #114027] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 10:18 |
 |
ljdavick
Messages: 3548
Registered: March 2007
Location: Fremont, CA
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Check out Jay Leno's Garage. He has video of his Doble and talks about how advanced they were.
<http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/1925-doble-series-e-steam-car/213453/>.
Larry Davick
Sent from the shower
On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:34 AM, Mike Miller <m000035@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> James Hupy wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 09:37
>> Glenn, you are a man after my own heart. Mary & I are supposed to host a
>> rally in Oregon for the GMC Cascaders the last weekend in July at the Great
>> Oregon Steam Up grounds during the steamup. All manner of similar engines to
>> the one you have pictured as well as steam sawmill, tractors, trains, and
>> automobiles, ...
>
>
>
> From what I have read, there is a steam engine (car) that shows promise.
>
> The Doble Steam Car.
>
> It was far advanced of anything else using steam. Massive torque and smooth at speed. I think for long distance over the road vehicles, the technology shows more promise than electricity.
>
> Quote:
>> The 1924 model Doble Series E steam car could run for 1,500 miles (2,400 km) before its 24-gallon water tank needed to be refilled; even in freezing weather, it could be started from cold and move off within 30 seconds, and once fully warmed could be relied upon to reach speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour (140 km/h). In recent years Doble cars have been run at speeds approaching 120 mph (190 km/h), this without the benefits of streamlining and a lighter version of the Series E accelerated from 0 - 75 mph (121 km/h) in 10 seconds. Its fuel consumption, burning a variety of fuels (often kerosene), was competitive with automobiles of the day, and its ability to run in eerie silence apart from wind noise gave it a distinct edge. At 70 mph (110 km/h), there was little noticeable vibration, with the engine turning at around 900 rpm.
>
>
> It would not need a transmission and it should run on any concevable fuel as long as it was a liquid and combustable. It also could run on a vapor or gas with some modifications.
>
> More info:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_steam_car>
> <http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car>
> <http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/1925-doble-series-e-steam-car/213453/>
>
> I suspect it would cost quite a bit to get (or make) a working model, let alone something I would trust to install in a GMC and drive across the country!
>
> Still interesting.
> --
> Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
> '73 26' exPainted D. -- `78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- `77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> List Information and Subscription Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Larry Davick
A Mystery Machine
1976(ish) Palm Beach
Fremont, Ca
Howell EFI + EBL + Electronic Dizzy
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration...A little bit of history [message #114049 is a reply to message #114042] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 11:10 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
After reading the change of thread to steam cars, I just had to step in here.
As many here know, I am a ship's engineer by trade and have had engineering licenses for steamships for a long time. I have often been asked why steam did not prevail over the IC engines of the day.
Unfortunately, I know why.
Politics.
In the early 20th century, the there were horses, electric cars, gasoline engine cars and steam cars for personal transportation.
Horses - enough said there. . .
Electric cars - they had the same problem they do today with range.
Gasoline cars - most were not very reliable and required a lot of maintenance.
Steam cars - were the result of 60+ years of carefully engineered technological evolution.
The steam cars were out there kicking everybody's butt down the road. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were long standing friends (Henry met him when he worked as an engineer at one of the Detroit power plants). Edison was making and selling electric cars. Henry had gotten his company off the ground (just). They together made an effort to promote three things. First was the news stories about steam power explosions doing massive damage and injury (the fact that these stories did not relate to current automotive technology did not matter). Then they worked on local ordinances (some still stand here) that a vehicle could not have any pressure in the boiler while inside a building (included service garages, and car barns). As all the fast start cars kept a fire going to keep the boiler warm, they now had to be dead cold and pushed inside. The scare stories were also used to push the requirements that a steam car operator also be a completely and duly licensed steam engineer (a 3~5 year apprenticeship would be required).
It really frosted old Henry that the Stanley Bros had the automotive speed record from 1906 to 1911 (~130). But he worked the crash in 1907 of a record attempt for all it was worth. It wasn't a steam issue. The tires could not stand the speeds approaching 200MPH. The car finished the flying mile just under that, but it did it end-over-end and killed the driver.
Lots of interesting reading is available on this subject. (No, I don't remember any titles.)
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration...A little bit of history [message #114073 is a reply to message #114049] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 15:17 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| mcolie wrote on Thu, 03 February 2011 11:10 |
After reading the change of thread to steam cars, I just had to step in here.
As many here know, I am a ship's engineer by trade and have had engineering licenses for steamships for a long time. I have often been asked why steam did not prevail over the IC engines of the day.
Unfortunately, I know why.
Politics.
In the early 20th century, the there were horses, electric cars, gasoline engine cars and steam cars for personal transportation.
Horses - enough said there. . .
Electric cars - they had the same problem they do today with range.
Gasoline cars - most were not very reliable and required a lot of maintenance.
Steam cars - were the result of 60+ years of carefully engineered technological evolution.
The steam cars were out there kicking everybody's butt down the road. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were long standing friends (Henry met him when he worked as an engineer at one of the Detroit power plants). Edison was making and selling electric cars. Henry had gotten his company off the ground (just). They together made an effort to promote three things. First was the news stories about steam power explosions doing massive damage and injury (the fact that these stories did not relate to current automotive technology did not matter). Then they worked on local ordinances (some still stand here) that a vehicle could not have any pressure in the boiler while inside a building (included service garages, and car barns). As all the fast start cars kept a fire going to keep the boiler warm, they now had to be dead cold and pushed inside. The scare stories were also used to push the requirements that a steam car operator also be a completely and duly licensed steam engineer (a 3~5 year apprenticeship would be required).
It really frosted old Henry that the Stanley Bros had the automotive speed record from 1906 to 1911 (~130). But he worked the crash in 1907 of a record attempt for all it was worth. It wasn't a steam issue. The tires could not stand the speeds approaching 200MPH. The car finished the flying mile just under that, but it did it end-over-end and killed the driver.
Lots of interesting reading is available on this subject. (No, I don't remember any titles.)
Matt
|
200 mph is a old Ford! Yikes!
I love steam as much as anyone but it has a number of large faults. A very good feel for why the IC engine won out is explained in Jules Verne's book, Paris in the 20th Century. he describes how wonderful it is to just hop in a car, start it up and drive away. How clean it is compared to steam, no water usage.
It really made me understand why steam is best romanticized from the future.
Or watch Jay Leno start up the Stanly steamer. It's an event to get it running.
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] For your consideration...A little bit of history [message #114076 is a reply to message #114073] |
Thu, 03 February 2011 15:48 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not being any stranger to antique internal combustion or steam engine either
for that matter, I have the following 2cents worth. My father in law, long
time deceased, used to say that when they put electric starters on
motorcycles, that was the end of civilization as it was known in the 20's
and 30's. It put all sorts of lame ass people on and into motorized vehicles
that otherwise would have nothing to do with them because thay weren't
intelligent or fit enough to start them with kick starters or cranks. Then
came things like heaters, windshield wipers, automatic transmissions, power
steering and brakes, radios & the beat goes on. He never was without an
opinion(either correct or incorrect) and woe be to the son in law who was
idiot enough to have an opinion that differed in any great measure from his.
He was one of the smartest people that I ever met, self taught musically, a
fantastic mechanic and welder and his basic belief in repairing anything
was" If it won't last 200 years when you are through, you didn't do a good
enough job!" I sometimes wonder what he would have to say about GPS, Cell
Phones, PCs and many other things that some people think we can't do
without. I am sure that he would have some comments about IDIOTS that can't
drive in the snow or ice too. He had an old Fairbanks-Morse stationary
engine in his basement workshop with an overhead shaft and flat belt pulley
system to run his forge blower, Post drill, band saw, & several other pieces
of machinery. If he needed a carburetor for something old and had an old one
for a pattern, he would just cast himself a new one in his forge. It didn't
occur to him to buy something new when he had the ability to make it for
himself. Cost effectiveness be damned, if he had to educate himself on how
to do something, he would go to the library and check out technical
reference materials learn how to do it. Time was not a consideration for
him. A man from another era, the age of steam and fire and sweat and yankee
know how. He wouldn't have anything to with chinese junk, but respected
German equipment a great deal.
Don't miss some of those browbeating sessions that he gave me, but he taught
me a lot, and he has one very smart daughter whom I married almost 50 years
ago. Steam stuff is still a fascination of mine, probably will always be.
From another time, and place. Probably from a different America too. Enjoy
the life we live and the GMCs, they are an endangered species.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Keith V <my427v8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> mcolie wrote on Thu, 03 February 2011 11:10
> > After reading the change of thread to steam cars, I just had to step in
> here.
> > As many here know, I am a ship's engineer by trade and have had
> engineering licenses for steamships for a long time. I have often been
> asked why steam did not prevail over the IC engines of the day.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I know why.
> >
> > Politics.
> >
> > In the early 20th century, the there were horses, electric cars, gasoline
> engine cars and steam cars for personal transportation.
> > Horses - enough said there. . .
> > Electric cars - they had the same problem they do today with range.
> > Gasoline cars - most were not very reliable and required a lot of
> maintenance.
> > Steam cars - were the result of 60+ years of carefully engineered
> technological evolution.
> >
> > The steam cars were out there kicking everybody's butt down the road.
> Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were long standing friends (Henry met him when
> he worked as an engineer at one of the Detroit power plants). Edison was
> making and selling electric cars. Henry had gotten his company off the
> ground (just). They together made an effort to promote three things. First
> was the news stories about steam power explosions doing massive damage and
> injury (the fact that these stories did not relate to current automotive
> technology did not matter). Then they worked on local ordinances (some
> still stand here) that a vehicle could not have any pressure in the boiler
> while inside a building (included service garages, and car barns). As all
> the fast start cars kept a fire going to keep the boiler warm, they now had
> to be dead cold and pushed inside. The scare stories were also used to push
> the requirements that a steam car operator also be a completely and duly
> licensed steam enginee
> r (a 3~5 year apprenticeship would be required).
> >
> > It really frosted old Henry that the Stanley Bros had the automotive
> speed record from 1906 to 1911 (~130). But he worked the crash in 1907 of a
> record attempt for all it was worth. It wasn't a steam issue. The tires
> could not stand the speeds approaching 200MPH. The car finished the flying
> mile just under that, but it did it end-over-end and killed the driver.
> >
> > Lots of interesting reading is available on this subject. (No, I don't
> remember any titles.)
> >
> > Matt
>
>
> 200 mph is a old Ford! Yikes!
>
> I love steam as much as anyone but it has a number of large faults. A very
> good feel for why the IC engine won out is explained in Jules Verne's book,
> Paris in the 20th Century. he describes how wonderful it is to just hop in a
> car, start it up and drive away. How clean it is compared to steam, no water
> usage.
> It really made me understand why steam is best romanticized from the
> future.
>
> Or watch Jay Leno start up the Stanly steamer. It's an event to get it
> running.
> --
> Keith
> 69 Vette
> 29 Dodge
> 75 Royale GMC
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> List Information and Subscription Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 19 15:00:38 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03218 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
