Pushrod or OHC

[Slicks]

So why quote an Elise then as an example of low weight?

Is the Elise a lightweight or did that just change a few seconds ago? Did I ever imply that the Elise had a lightweight engine? Take a look at some facts here, the thing is a stripped out track car, its going to be light. I used the Elise because its an example of a lightweight car, that handles very good.

[Matra et Alpine]

Weight is irrelivant now? Are you seriously on something? Why does the Lotus Elise handle as well as it does? Ill give you a hint, light WEIGHT. The lighter the engine, the lighter the car can be...
Heh, from that it looks like you didnt even attend a highschool...

Slicsk you just PROVED you dont' know the difference between WEIGHT and MASS.
As has been said beferoe someimtes you'd do best to be silent and be thought the fool than to type and prove it

You said something to the matter of the "real" powerband is 20% of the peak power to the peak power.

Know I talked about an 80/20 rule.
And used it as an indicator that 80% of power is availabel on 80% of the band.

In which that formula is clearly biased toward the higher revving engine, something that you would make up...

.... only in your warped mind
I actually spent time going over this before. If a BIG engine produces flat power from 1500 to 5500 revs that's 4000 revs of usable power for the driver to make best time through corners. IF the engine doesnt' come on-cam till 4000 revs ( liek a race cam in the Coventry CLimax engine ) and maxes out at 7500 that's only 3500 revs of usable power. So for pushing a car through corners, all other things being equal engine numebr one is BETTER.
SO, I had already amde it independant of whether the engine was fast revving etc. HOWEVER, the reality of more modern engines with variable lift calm and multi-valve is that it is easier to control valves lift to avoid going "off cam" so the engines NOW have a WIDER usable power band.
That you dont like those numbers and clearly cant grasp the concetp of X is greater than Y then you'd do well to stop tryign to amke it out as somethgin it's not and again "showing yersel up" as they say over here

Then trying to exclaim the Elise has a more "usable" powerband then the Corvette, and I proved you wrong, and you didnt futher reply to it.

Hold on, you DID NOT. I asked you to compare the graphs on the +-10% points on the band the the 'Vette didnt' match the availabel revs in the bad.You dont' grasp the basics of driving cars and clearly will NEVER understand it enough as long as you keep closed minded.
Thanksfully getting the chance to point out the errors and basic bias in your posts enables OTHER UCPers to learn more about the truth and at the same time learn how NOT to BS about things they dont' know about A usefeul life-lesson you clearly missed in your up-bringing !!

Heh, now if this was you telling me this, you would fill the entire post up with "OMFG OWNED" in big red letters, then start jumping to conclusions, but Im mature, thankfully for you. Now go play some cricket and drink some tea, im sick of hearing from you.

First, Scots don't play cricket - that's the English.
OMFG OWNED
Second the only things I've said in posts have been factual and have been backed up with references, examples and experience.
Jump to conclusiosn ? I usually work my way methodically to them.
So far you're the only one knee-jerking and BSing
Immature - senile more like !!!
Losing it Slicks. You shooudl go and re-read the posts you have been quoting there and see the truth of waht was written. You are delusional

[sutton4481]

Pushrod or not, diesels still smell funny and make weird noises.

[Matra et Alpine]

Pushrod or not, diesels still smell funny and make weird noises.

I'll save henk the post time.

The answers are NO and NO for modern diesels.
The POS you guys get in the states are 20 years behind the predominately French diesels widely used in Europe.

Looks liek some of the technology might get there soon tho', then try it.
And even Honda are pointing out the benefits - do you guys not get the Honda "If things are bad" ads ???

[henk4]

Is the Elise a lightweight or did that just change a few seconds ago? Did I ever imply that the Elise had a lightweight engine? Take a look at some facts here, the thing is a stripped out track car, its going to be light. I used the Elise because its an example of a lightweight car, that handles very good.

In your reasoning it could have been lighter if it had pushrods

[henk4]

Pushrod or not, diesels still smell funny and make weird noises.

I always try to be one of the most polite forum members here, putting smilies wherevever my posts might sound a tat controversial, so in that spirit I would have answered that : "May be you are not familiar with modern diesel developments"
But in this case my answer could have been: "Go stick your nose out of your f..cking country and accept that progress not only or hardly originates from the most wastefully operating economy in the world".

Of course I would never say that because the meaning would be lost on idiots like you, and yes I did note the grin behind your extremely knowledgeable statement.

[drakkie]

I always try to be one of the most polite forum members here, putting smilies wherevever my posts might sound a tat controversial, so in that spirit I would have answered that : "May be you are not familiar with modern diesel developments"
But in this case my answer could have been: "Go stick your nose out of your f..cking country and accept that progress not only or hardly originates from the most wastefully operating economy in the world".

i think a nice OWNED is in place here

[Slicks]

Slicsk you just PROVED you dont' know the difference between WEIGHT and MASS.
As has been said beferoe someimtes you'd do best to be silent and be thought the fool than to type and prove it

Wow Matra, mass is the just space taken up, so tell me why weight is irrelivant?

Know I talked about an 80/20 rule.
And used it as an indicator that 80% of power is availabel on 80% of the band.

.... only in your warped mind
I actually spent time going over this before. If a BIG engine produces flat power from 1500 to 5500 revs that's 4000 revs of usable power for the driver to make best time through corners. IF the engine doesnt' come on-cam till 4000 revs ( liek a race cam in the Coventry CLimax engine ) and maxes out at 7500 that's only 3500 revs of usable power. So for pushing a car through corners, all other things being equal engine numebr one is BETTER.
SO, I had already amde it independant of whether the engine was fast revving etc. HOWEVER, the reality of more modern engines with variable lift calm and multi-valve is that it is easier to control valves lift to avoid going "off cam" so the engines NOW have a WIDER usable power band.
That you dont like those numbers and clearly cant grasp the concetp of X is greater than Y then you'd do well to stop tryign to amke it out as somethgin it's not and again "showing yersel up" as they say over here

Lets take a quick glance at your formula.
Back in the 101 thread, you took the RPM where the peak power occured, and took that times 20%, where as no matter the rev range, the higher revving engine always comes out with a "greater" powerband, which is clearly untrue. Then I took 75% of the peak power, and then found where that POWER occurs in the rev range. Because were talking about making POWER, not revs, that is clearly a better formula.

Hold on, you DID NOT. I asked you to compare the graphs on the +-10% points on the band the the 'Vette didnt' match the availabel revs in the bad.
You dont' grasp the basics of driving cars and clearly will NEVER understand it enough as long as you keep closed minded.
Thanksfully getting the chance to point out the errors and basic bias in your posts enables OTHER UCPers to learn more about the truth and at the same time learn how NOT to BS about things they dont' know about A usefeul life-lesson you clearly missed in your up-bringing !!

It seems YOU cannont grasp that a lower revving engine can be possibly be better than a higher revving one, get over it!
Quote from me at 101:
"Z06
75% of 350peak hp=262hp, found at roughly 4100RPMs. So thats 4100-6200RPMs from 75% of peak power to peak power.
Elise
75% of 166peak hp= 124hp, found at roughly 6000RPMs. So thats 6000-7500RPMs from 75% of peak power to peak power."
Which has a better powerband?

First, Scots don't play cricket - that's the English.
OMFG OWNED

All the same... After joining this forum I can see where the term "eurosnob" comes from.

Second the only things I've said in posts have been factual and have been backed up with references, examples and experience.

Oh yes, with your "experience". You back it up by saying "im smarter and more experienced so im right." Yet you cannot back up this 20% formula that you claim racers use.

[Slicks]

In your reasoning it could have been lighter if it had pushrods

That was only in the V engine design my friend, go back and look.

[henk4]

That was only in the V engine design my friend, go back and look.

I am sure a BMC B-class engine is much lighter than the lotus' used TC. Even the engine used in the MGB is probably lighter, but I am sure Matra will know the answer.

[sutton4481]

Sorry, I meant more along the lines of diesel smells funny, which it does. If you get it on you while filling, the smell seems to linger. Of course, this can be solved by using a little more care at the station or using the little plastic gloves some stations provide.

I realize that European diesels are a totally different breed than American diesels, but I know several people who own TDI Jettas and love them. I've ridden in one and the only difference you notice is at start up where the idle is a little strange. Diesel's failure in passengers cars in the US as of now is more attributable to the inferior fuel we receive and lower gasoline prices in the US, not its inherent qualities.

One thing I've always wondered though, will low-sulfur diesel run as well in older diesels as the diesel we use now? After the switch to unleaded fuel, some engines experienced trouble with valve lubrication and such and I was wondering if the same could happen with older diesel (mainly truck and industrial) engines.

[Matra et Alpine]

Wow Matra, mass is the just space taken up, so tell me why weight is irrelivant?

OK, lads, I know we've lots of yongseters who're 12-15 and doing junior grade science. I'll let you correct Slicks, coz I'm just plain tuckered out with this. I won't to go back to intelligentcarpage.com and get away from such blatant ---------

Lets take a quick glance at your formula.
Back in the 101 thread, you took the RPM where the peak power occured, and took that times 20%,

There was never a TIMES, what you smokin' ??
I said +-10% limts. THAT is the standard way to measure bandwidth on may things. Go check your speaker specs ( they typically use -3dB points ( dBs are for another discussion )
[QUOTE]where as no matter the rev range, the higher revving engine always comes out with a "greater" powerband, which is clearly untrue.[?QUOTE]
I walked you through the maths to back up the EXPERIENCE.
That you STILL can't see it or have the gumption to go to a track and learn it is your loss.

Then I took 75% of the peak power, and then found where that POWER occurs in the rev range. Because were talking about making POWER, not revs, that is clearly a better formula.

And as you said, a peaky engine isn't good.
Because you need to change gears a lot to keep it "on song" and maximise the performance through bends ( it's pretty much irrelevant on straights )
SO, LET ME WALK YOU SLOWLY THROUGH IT AGAAIN - please read it this time......
A wider power band enables a car to be in the correct gear for longer time and in cornering chainging gear loses you lots of time as in addition to the shift thime you ALSO have the loss of control impact.
WHERE the powerband happens does NOT matter as the gearbox ratiosn adn final differential drive are the ONLY factors that relate the engine speed to the wheel speed.
Whether it's from 1500-4500 or 5000-8000 is irrelevant. The driver has 3000 rev range to use.
WHAT part of this do you struggle to comprehend ?
So going back to those origianl graphs - and this is for th elast time - the ones cited shoed the Lotus had the WIDER power band but that it started at a slightly lower rev range. As pointed out the revs to speed relationship is external to the enging !!
PLEASE tell me ouy grasp this now ? And if not, please open up a new "Slicks 101 Math" thread adn we'll get karrmann to come teach

It seems YOU cannont grasp that a lower revving engine can be possibly be better than a higher revving one, get over it!

You show your inability ot comprehened again.
I NEVER said the lower REV was the point in question, it is the power BAND that matters to drivability and ultimate performacne on real cases away from a simple drag strip.
SO, if the +-10% points appear low down and extend for 5000 revs then that engine is better than one that they appear at medium range and extend only 4000 to 10000 revs. THE POINT WAS, that the engines you were citing didn't have the BAND.

Quote from me at 101:
"Z06
75% of 350peak hp=262hp, found at roughly 4100RPMs. So thats 4100-6200RPMs from 75% of peak power to peak power.
Elise
75% of 166peak hp= 124hp, found at roughly 6000RPMs. So thats 6000-7500RPMs from 75% of peak power to peak power."
Which has a better powerband?

Let me explain why what you TRY to suggest is NOT used by mechanics, tuners or race teams.
IF you have an engine with a peak at 2000 revs and another at 400 revs and a trough of 10-20% in between then in reality you are MOST of the time down on power by 20%.
Your silly numebr above PRESUME a graph shape which is seldom availabel in real life.
THAT is why the +-10 is typically used as a GUIDE.
REMEMBER these are GUIDES to teasm in setting up and tunign the cars. it is the DRIVER who ultimately will ask for fine tuning of power band to optimise it for a race.
BUT, if we are going to compare then as a starting point we SHOULD use the standard guide that best reflects usability for the driver.
taking a calculation as you have down based on a peak power point does NOT manage to reflect the peask and troughs. By using a +/- limits then you are able to ensure the relevance of the measurement. YOU find this technique used in everything from weighing your corn flakes packet to the calcualtiosn for landing a missionon mars !! ( just different numbers on the limints and differnet measurements )
The number YOU calcualte is just peak power with a ratio, it gives NO consideration to the SHAPE of the rest of the power band and thus is useless in real life.
PLEASE, spend a few minutes and try to find lots of power bands and see how the measurmenet you suggest doesn't reflect all the nuances of a curve, THEN see how a +/1 mathematicla method does. If you STILL can't see it, then next time you pass the junior school drop in and ask someone to go over it with you.THIS is NOT senior or college maths we're talking abotu here, it's simple real world statistical methodologies !!

All the same... After joining this forum I can see where the term "eurosnob" comes from.

That's OK, it joins all the other words you dont' understand.
BUT, we sure know ehat a REDNECK is

Oh yes, with your "experience". You back it up by saying "im smarter and more experienced so im right." Yet you cannot back up this 20% formula that you claim racers use.

From a Nascar race team site - it took me a 10second google to find you this ( shame you're too lazy ) - "On qualifying day, teams will put on a big plenum manifold in order to get peak horsepower. This impacts the amount of air coming through the carburetor into the engine. The key is maximum RPMs. On race day, when the power band needs to be moved down a little bit, they’ll put on a little smaller plenum manifold."
So, see teams playing with the power band to MATCH the RACE NEEDS.
That was only one.
The other citations I have are David Vizard's Tuning Fords book and performance Mini book. Also the Willis racing imp engines. Rally Preparation from the Audi works rally teams ( my brother owned and ran this team in international rallies for 4 years ). THEN we have Burton Performance Engineering databooks and track setup guides - FF1600 racing was so well established that there became published guides on the best setup for the eengine and suspension to give more time for fine tuning.
Finally, triple-C, or CCC, or Cars and Car COnversions. One of THE best performance magazines when back then the way you tuned an engine was to port it yourself and regrind combustion chambers, 'flow' valve guides, chose valve spring ratings, reshape seats for larger valves, rejet carbs, and the thousand other things in making cars fit for fast road, race and rallying. Sadly, the magazine closed a few years back as it became irrelevant to a generation who got their performacne by buying the latest part in from Japan and bolting it on. A great loss
Ontop of that are the countless hundresd of people over the years who I've met and had the common sense to shut up and learn from rather than try to show them how smart I am. When I post somethign, it's NOT a random thought for the night or a made-up quote to "win" - only losers play that "shit" I post because I've experienced it. I've spent hours at a time in codl wet paddocks and parc fermes spannering for teams to get a chance to drive when I was older. I just TRY to pass that on to folks in UCP to save them getting arthritis !!!! Maybe some of them will get the chance earlier because they learned more sooner.
You seem to only want YOUR POINT vinidicate.
I'm trying to spread some experience and truths. REAL practical stuff. Not fantasies of the mind or made up on the spot or googled at the time !!!!
YOU have a MAJOR problem that I am more knowledgeable than you.
Get over it.
You will know more about things than me and it doesn't bother me.
There are ALWAYS more peopel in the world that know MORE about things than any individual can. I know and accept that and respect others when they can explain their points without deceit or lies. I DONT when they change tack, avoid recognising other facts and show HUGE bias to unsupported statements.
Get over it.

AND waken up to the FACT you know very little about REAL engines.
I'd advise NOT getting into any pissing contest as my experience IS wide.
You'll jsut have MORE egg on your face

[Matra et Alpine]

I am sure a BMC B-class engine is much lighter than the lotus' used TC. Even the engine used in the MGB is probably lighter, but I am sure Matra will know the answer.

The original A-series engines weren't light.
Sadly, ESPECIALLY the 1500 unit in the MGB GT we rallied the last few years The latter Rover V8 engined MGB's were light engines being the orignal American alloy block they deemed too expensive and unecessary. IT weighs less than the 1500cc A-series block - not bad for 3.5l
The B-series engines were better, but still not in the K-series class as in the Lotii.
The ORIGINAL Lotus Ford engines were on a par with the BLMC B-series engines. Nowadays, however, you can get complete 'new' alloy block versions of the BDA engines which are superb pieces of machinery - just hand over your arms and legs please

[Matra et Alpine]

Sorry, I meant more along the lines of diesel smells funny, which it does. If you get it on you while filling, the smell seems to linger. Of course, this can be solved by using a little more care at the station or using the little plastic gloves some stations provide.

Yeah, good point, sutton, STILL the major block for me.
one little accdental spill and you stink for ages Working on them is a bloody nightmare for that reason too
BUT, the US still has full service stations ? Not a problem if you have someone else filling it up.
HOWEVER, friends and family say you get to be more carefula dn none of them have ever spilled any, so I'm irrational about my dislike of them

One thing I've always wondered though, will low-sulfur diesel run as well in older diesels as the diesel we use now? After the switch to unleaded fuel, some engines experienced trouble with valve lubrication and such and I was wondering if the same could happen with older diesel (mainly truck and industrial) engines.

Yeah the sulphur in the diesel is a libricant.
The suppliers measure the "lubricity" ( it is a real word ) to ensure it meets the standards. That's why it is NOT "no sulphur"
So a decent supplier and you wont have a problem.
Also, some old seasl had issues if they were made of buta-n rubber. ( Phased out of cars 10+ years ago ) So on really old cars the switch might cause some early cracking and deteriotion on pump seals and pipe seals. NOT an issue with younger cars.
Well that's according to BP ( my rally driver's ex-BP, what he doens't know about oils/petrols/diesels and a few "fun chemicals" isn't worth knowing

[henk4]

Sorry, I meant more along the lines of diesel smells funny, which it does. If you get it on you while filling, the smell seems to linger. Of course, this can be solved by using a little more care at the station or using the little plastic gloves some stations provide.

I realize that European diesels are a totally different breed than American diesels, but I know several people who own TDI Jettas and love them. I've ridden in one and the only difference you notice is at start up where the idle is a little strange. Diesel's failure in passengers cars in the US as of now is more attributable to the inferior fuel we receive and lower gasoline prices in the US, not its inherent qualities.

One thing I've always wondered though, will low-sulfur diesel run as well in older diesels as the diesel we use now? After the switch to unleaded fuel, some engines experienced trouble with valve lubrication and such and I was wondering if the same could happen with older diesel (mainly truck and industrial) engines.

It appears that our gasolene contains about 10% of benzene, which is quite toxic. I prefer the smell of diesel over the fumes of gasoline any time.

And yes old diesels can run on better fuel quality. Sulphur has absolutely no role in the combustion process