Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Engine rambling
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #239945 is a reply to message #236883] |
Thu, 13 February 2014 21:47   |
mikethebike
Messages: 331
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| WildBill wrote on Tue, 21 January 2014 10:10 |
Long way to ship, you like 403 better? I thought bigger would be better?
I should stick to what I have started. Just wouldn't be any problem getting a dirty engine to the door at the moment.
|
To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
"There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
[Updated on: Thu, 13 February 2014 21:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240073 is a reply to message #236845] |
Fri, 14 February 2014 19:28 |
 |
WildBill
Messages: 232
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It was my first airboat and don't have the disposable income to do r&d. Proven results I guess. It was a 500+ hp engine, reasonably inexpensive and a used 2.68 gearbox and used sensenitch 83" 3 blade super wide. Pretty impressive for the cash outlay actually. Ran it 3 years and decided I wanted something lighter and sportier so I got a smoking deal on a couple O-470 continental AC engines. Pretty much cores. The first engine is built, hot rodded a bit but 470 CID, 260 hp@2600 rpm and maby 280 now. Bored cases for second for 520 jugs and picked up a turbo. Not together yet.
Acreage came along, started building a 22hp brush cutter and walk behind tree cutter and 4.3 l chevy powered wood chipper,
I like projects, like building engines, like fabricating and designing, research, all of it. Just not crazy about going to work!
And then the gmc motorhome came along... Don't know how much I'm going to get done before summer. Good thing I'm working a 4/4 shift right now.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240075 is a reply to message #239945] |
Fri, 14 February 2014 20:08 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
"There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
[Updated on: Thu, 13 February 2014 20:49]"'
That was then this is now. I think that is pure BS.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240084 is a reply to message #240022] |
Fri, 14 February 2014 20:50 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"There are two paths to winning: Cubic inches and cubic money"
Someone in the pits at the Mitty afew years back. He had a Can-AM car, which looked like it had both.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
braselton GA
________________________________
From: Bill Dolinsky <Wildbillnick@yahoo.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
Yeah I agree no replacement for displacement. Don't know if I have time this year for more displacement. BBC I built for my airboat was a 489. There are 455 and 500's around here but presently still in cars in the middle of a field covered with snow.
Also will consider an aux grey water tank in front of the forward fuel tank. The tank I'm building works well for easy plumbing both systems.
--
Bill Dolinsky
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
1977 Kingsley TZE167V102169
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240130 is a reply to message #240075] |
Sat, 15 February 2014 08:57 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Can't agree. Whatever you can do to a smaller engine can be done to a larger one, and the larger one will win out.
--johnny
________________________________
From: Bob de Kruyff <NEXT2POOL@AOL.COM>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
""To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
"There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
[Updated on: Thu, 13 February 2014 20:49]"'
That was then this is now. I think that is pure BS.
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240135 is a reply to message #240022] |
Sat, 15 February 2014 09:25 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>
> Yeah I agree no replacement for displacement.
no big deal --- 12 hp at 3000 rpm---
http://gmcmotorhome.info/engine.html#403_VS_455
Mondello did not like the 403 or the cad 500, because of
siamesed cylinder layout (no cooling jacket between cylinders)
difference , not worth thinking about
same with the cad
*Dyno tests*
----------------------------------------------------------
I was digging through some old GM test data and thought I would share the
following:
*Olds 455* test data with an uncertain pedigree (Toro or not? Test
conditions?) and it showed a torque at 2800 and below of about *398*. No
data below 2000, but other tests implied a peak torque at 1200 to 1600 rpm.
*Peak hp was 234 at 3600.*
*Cadillac 500 EFI* - peak torque *395* at 1200 and 1600 rpm. *Peak hp 225
at 3600.* The engine was knock limited and spark was retarded about 10
degrees from MBT at most rpms. Both of these are consistent with other big
GM engines built at the time(except for the knock-limited part). Max
torque was
always below 2000 rpm and peak hp was never above 4000. That's not
counting performance engines like the Chevy 427 or the Chrysler Hemi, of
course.
Olds 350 EFI (Cadillac Seville) - peak torque 290 at 1200, peak power 190
at 4400 and still rising. Not knock limited.
If the Cad 500 were tested on today's fuels would it be knock-limited?
Don't know.
.
.
----------------
so have fun thinking about change
but
not worth the cost of parts and labor for the change
JWID
erf
> Don't know if I have time this year for more displacement. BBC I built
> for my airboat was a 489. There are 455 and 500's around here but presently
> still in cars in the middle of a field covered with snow.
>
> Also will consider an aux grey water tank in front of the forward fuel
> tank. The tank I'm building works well for easy plumbing both systems.
> --
> Bill Dolinsky
> Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
> 1977 Kingsley TZE167V102169
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240155 is a reply to message #240130] |
Sat, 15 February 2014 11:33 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
"There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
-- WildBill
That was then this is now. I think that is pure BS.
-- Bob de Kruyff
Can't agree. Whatever you can do to a smaller engine can be done to a larger one, and the larger one will win out.
--johnny
|
This was really an interesting short exchange.
There are really several other concerns here that have been ignored. Reliability is the first one that comes to mind and longevity is the next. Then along comes cost, weight and finally efficiency.
I once had a 100cc motocrosser that could put out 21+ Hp on our dyno. It could do that for about 45 seconds before seizing. Out on the track, you couldn't use WOT for 45 seconds so that was not an issue, but the powerband was so narrow that the beast was virtually unridable. When the backordered power was delivered all at once, it was difficult to control. The engine would do this for about 2 hours before an overhaul was needed (the single piston ring replaced). I detuned it to less than 18 so I could actually ride it, but the ring still had to get replaced regularly.
I also took care of an 18 hp hot bulb diesel at one time. It weighed about 300#. Full speed (full fuel - it didn't have a throttle - Diesels don't) was 450~500RPM. I ran it for two seasons and logged a total of 500+ hours. It got nothing but oil the moving parts which I did by hand.
Gentlemen, Everything in this world is a compromise.
A late friend and extraordinary can designer (one Dennis Novotny) used to love to paraphrase from the Road Warrior...
"Speed is just a question of money. How fast do you want to go and how long do you want to go that fast??"
Bore distortion a real issue for longevity and I agree with the siamese liner (bore) issue. There are also tales form allover about the 3.0l turbo-diesels in WiniViews going down and need cubic bucks to be returned to service.
So now the issue comes down to what you want within the limits of the resources you have available. Me? I'm going to stick with a flint-lock technology of the 455 and hope I can afford the fuel to wear it out.
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] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240163 is a reply to message #240155] |
Sat, 15 February 2014 13:06 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You've broadened the playing field :) All else being equal, the big guy will make more power then the little guy.
Remember, if resources don't matter, Kieth Duckworth's comment on the idea that F1 technology was good for production cars. He maintained that, if someone would front him the 3 - 4 million necessary at the time, he could produce a winning F1 engine with no use whatsoever in production, by turbocompounding a 2 stroke. I wish someine had, it would have been an interesting engine to say the least.
Anent the 21HP scooter, somebody, I believe Don Vesco, noted at Talladega that the properly tuned scooter for that race would hole the pistons on the cool - down lap. If you ever saw the spark plugs which came out of his Yamahas, you'd see what he meant.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
________________________________
From: Matt Colie <matt7323tze@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
Quote:
> To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
> "There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
> -- WildBill
>
> That was then this is now. I think that is pure BS.
> -- Bob de Kruyff
>
> Can't agree. Whatever you can do to a smaller engine can be done to a larger one, and the larger one will win out.
> --johnny
This was really an interesting short exchange.
There are really several other concerns here that have been ignored. Reliability is the first one that comes to mind and longevity is the next. Then along comes cost, weight and finally efficiency.
I once had a 100cc motocrosser that could put out 21+ Hp on our dyno. It could do that for about 45 seconds before seizing. Out on the track, you couldn't use WOT for 45 seconds so that was not an issue, but the powerband was so narrow that the beast was virtually unridable. When the backordered power was delivered all at once, it was difficult to control. The engine would do this for about 2 hours before an overhaul was needed (the single piston ring replaced). I detuned it to less than 18 so I could actually ride it, but the ring still had to get replaced regularly.
I also took care of an 18 hp hot bulb diesel at one time. It weighed about 300#. Full speed (full fuel - it didn't have a throttle - Diesels don't) was 450~500RPM. I ran it for two seasons and logged a total of 500+ hours. It got nothing but oil the moving parts which I did by hand.
Gentlemen, Everything in this world is a compromise.
A late friend and extraordinary can designer (one Dennis Novotny) used to love to paraphrase from the Road Warrior...
"Speed is just a question of money. How fast do you want to go and how long do you want to go that fast??"
Bore distortion a real issue for longevity and I agree with the siamese liner (bore) issue. There are also tales form allover about the 3.0l turbo-diesels in WiniViews going down and need cubic bucks to be returned to service.
So now the issue comes down to what you want within the limits of the resources you have available. Me? I'm going to stick with a flint-lock technology of the 455 and hope I can afford the fuel to wear it out.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - Members GMCMI, GMCES Going to MontgomeryThe majestic, once snow covered glacier Chaumière is in for the winter.
'73 Glacier 23 With 4 Rear Brakes that pull as they should
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240209 is a reply to message #240130] |
Sat, 15 February 2014 23:20 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Johnny Bridges wrote on Sat, 15 February 2014 07:57 |
Can't agree. Whatever you can do to a smaller engine can be done to a larger one, and the larger one will win out.
--johnny
________________________________
From: Bob de Kruyff <NEXT2POOL@AOL.COM>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
""To quote Henry Ford after placing 3 Ford Mk-II's in the top positions at Le Mans in 1966:
"There is no substitute for cubic inch displacement."
[Updated on: Thu, 13 February 2014 20:49]"'
That was then this is now. I think that is pure BS.
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not horsepower"
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240236 is a reply to message #240209] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 10:03 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not at all. I maintained - and still do, >if< you apply the same technology and upgrades to two different size engines, the larger will make more power. That is to say if hypothetically I can get a specific output of 100HP per liter, the three liter will make more power than the 1.5 liter. It is not to say I can get more steam out of f'rinstance a 455CID Olds engine than I can out of f'rinstance a 392 CID B enigne with hemispherical heads.
--johnny
Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not horsepower"
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240247 is a reply to message #240236] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 17:00 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
G'day,
I may be wrong but I think as Strother Martin noted in Cool Hand Luke; "what we have here is a failure to communicate."
I agree with Bob as I thought the intent was to convey the idea that the technology of 2014 did not exist in 1967.
I know of no engines from that era that had:
1) electronic fuel injection
2) electronic ignition control
3) variable valve timing
The only turbo charged car I can think of is the Corvair Monza.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Bridges
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:04 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
Not at all. I maintained - and still do, >if< you apply the same technology and upgrades to two different size engines, the larger
will make more power. That is to say if hypothetically I can get a specific output of 100HP per liter, the three liter will make
more power than the 1.5 liter. It is not to say I can get more steam out of f'rinstance a 455CID Olds engine than I can out of
f'rinstance a 392 CID B enigne with hemispherical heads.
--johnny
Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the
intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose
you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not horsepower"
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240256 is a reply to message #240247] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 19:48 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What about the Olds Jetfire? It used the Aluminum buick block and a
turbocharger almost identical to the one used on the
Corvair Turbo Spyder.
Jim Hupy
Salem,Or
78 Gmc Royale 403
On Feb 16, 2014 2:59 PM, "Robert Mueller" <robmueller@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> I may be wrong but I think as Strother Martin noted in Cool Hand Luke;
> "what we have here is a failure to communicate."
>
> I agree with Bob as I thought the intent was to convey the idea that the
> technology of 2014 did not exist in 1967.
>
> I know of no engines from that era that had:
>
> 1) electronic fuel injection
> 2) electronic ignition control
> 3) variable valve timing
>
> The only turbo charged car I can think of is the Corvair Monza.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia
> AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
> USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:
> gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Bridges
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:04 AM
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
>
> Not at all. I maintained - and still do, >if< you apply the same
> technology and upgrades to two different size engines, the larger
> will make more power. That is to say if hypothetically I can get a
> specific output of 100HP per liter, the three liter will make
> more power than the 1.5 liter. It is not to say I can get more steam out
> of f'rinstance a 455CID Olds engine than I can out of
> f'rinstance a 392 CID B enigne with hemispherical heads.
>
> --johnny
>
>
> Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary
> will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the
> intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old
> addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose
> you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not
> horsepower"
>
> --
> Bob de Kruyff
> 78 Eleganza
> Chandler, AZ
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240261 is a reply to message #240256] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 21:02 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
Your memory is better than mine!
Come to think of it Buick built the Grand National which was turbocharged as well, it was later though.
What brought it to mind was you mentioning the Olds Jetfire. The guy that owns the storage facility where John Sharpe and I keep our
GMC's has one. According to him Chevrolet told GM to make Buick stop building them because they were blowing away Vette's!
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of James Hupy
What about the Olds Jetfire? It used the Aluminum buick block and a
turbocharger almost identical to the one used on the
Corvair Turbo Spyder.
Jim Hupy
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240262 is a reply to message #240247] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 21:30 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Perhaps that was the intent. Aint the way it came across :) My point was, and is, if you apply '67 tech or 2015 tech to two engines of diifferent displacements, the larger will win. Which is the essence of the initial quote 'you cant beat cubic inches'. It's still true today. Apples to apples, if you please.
--johnny
________________________________
From: Robert Mueller <robmueller@iinet.net.au>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
G'day,
I may be wrong but I think as Strother Martin noted in Cool Hand Luke; "what we have here is a failure to communicate."
I agree with Bob as I thought the intent was to convey the idea that the technology of 2014 did not exist in 1967.
I know of no engines from that era that had:
1) electronic fuel injection
2) electronic ignition control
3) variable valve timing
The only turbo charged car I can think of is the Corvair Monza.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Bridges
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:04 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
Not at all. I maintained - and still do, >if< you apply the same technology and upgrades to two different size engines, the larger
will make more power. That is to say if hypothetically I can get a specific output of 100HP per liter, the three liter will make
more power than the 1.5 liter. It is not to say I can get more steam out of f'rinstance a 455CID Olds engine than I can out of
f'rinstance a 392 CID B enigne with hemispherical heads.
--johnny
Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the
intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose
you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not horsepower"
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe [message #240295 is a reply to message #240247] |
Sun, 16 February 2014 21:29 |
Kosier
Messages: 834
Registered: February 2008
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob,
Don't forget the Jetfire Olds. For EFI, you can't disallow the 58 Chrysler
and DeSoto. There is one restored and still running.
The electronics of the time were not very good. The only way to make spark
plugs live in my '63 Corvair Spyder was to use
a Holley transistor ignition. When Rodenfels Chevrolet ruined the motor and
Chevrolet invalidated my warranty. (I was
Service Manager in a Ford dealership at the time) I removed the ignition and
got rid of the car. Later, we put the ignition on
a 1957 supercharged Ford we were racing. It then failed on us at the '66
Springnationals in Bristol, Tenn. When the Holley
rep told us it would never survive long-term in an automotive environment,
we trashed it. I've not been comfortable with
anything electronic in an automobile since. JWID
Gary Kosier
77 PB w/500 Cad
Newark, Oh
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mueller
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:00 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
G'day,
I may be wrong but I think as Strother Martin noted in Cool Hand Luke; "what
we have here is a failure to communicate."
I agree with Bob as I thought the intent was to convey the idea that the
technology of 2014 did not exist in 1967.
I know of no engines from that era that had:
1) electronic fuel injection
2) electronic ignition control
3) variable valve timing
The only turbo charged car I can think of is the Corvair Monza.
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Bridges
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 3:04 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New owner, new build, short timeframe
Not at all. I maintained - and still do, >if< you apply the same technology
and upgrades to two different size engines, the larger
will make more power. That is to say if hypothetically I can get a
specific output of 100HP per liter, the three liter will make
more power than the 1.5 liter. It is not to say I can get more steam out of
f'rinstance a 455CID Olds engine than I can out of
f'rinstance a 392 CID B enigne with hemispherical heads.
--johnny
Well you know the context of this conversation. Of course the Queen Mary
will put all of this to shame. But you are playing with the
intent of the conversation. Modern engine technology will relegate the old
addage of cubic inches as a secondary issue. I suppose
you probably are one of those that says "torque is what you want, not
horsepower"
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Jul 04 23:24:12 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.14676 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
