Favorite American car

[sunk]

What's your favourite american car?
Mine is the '71 Pontiac TransAm
0-60mph 5.4s
top speed 150+mph
455ci V8
Neutral handling and tons of grip.

[kylekosir]

My faverite american car is a Saleen S7, its like the ultimate american car.

[hec16]

I got to say the Corvette
________
Vapir Air (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Godlaus]

Z06...........Enough Said.

[carreragt10]

Panoz Esperante GTR-1 ;)

[:Exige:]

Mosler MT900S :)

[kennyknoxville]

shelby daytona cobra coupe

[blackcat77]

Yenko Stinger Phase III Corvair.

For a production car, it would be the '69 Firebird Trans Am.

[bobobobo]

the powerful viper.........

[Coventrysucks]

the powerful viper.........

As opposed to the "special edition" one fitted with the engine out of a Citroen 2CV?

The original Ford GT40 was almost completely American...
Well, the engine was anyway.

So that. Probably.

[The_Canuck]

Z06 or Saleen s7

[D2LTA]

63-67 corvette with the tapered rear end

[Fleet 500]

What's your favourite american car?
Mine is the '71 Pontiac TransAm
0-60mph 5.4s
top speed 150+mph
455ci V8
Neutral handling and tons of grip.
Good choice.

I can narrow it down to two...
- 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham:
Big (19 ft or 228.5"), comfortable, lots of chrome, roomy interior and trunk (20-cu-ft), strong, powerful and reliable engine, don't see many around so they are definitely a head-turner, 375 hp; 525 ft/lbs torque, leather seats, rear footrests and even a hint of fins.

- 1969 Dodge Coronet R/T:
5-6 passenger capacity, good-sized trunk (17-cu-ft), a big, strong (375 hp/480 ft/lbs) dependable 440 engine. Even though it is a high-performance, the tuning is still mild enough for it to last years and years (decades and decades in some cases). Good muscle car looks, its 117" wheelbase and 206.6" keeps it out of the "small compact" class (but I do like the "compact" 340 Dart GTS). I prefer an R/T with the 3.55:1 rear axle ratio- that would put the 3,800-lb car in the high-13s for the 1/4 mile, yet can still be a daily driver and last a long time.

[Smokescreen]

As opposed to the "special edition" one fitted with the engine out of a Citroen 2CV?

HAHAHA.

I like the Hennessey 1000TT. Defines American.

[Fleet 500]

63-67 corvette with the tapered rear end
I recently bought an old Mechanix Illustrated magazine (Nov., 1962) with a road test of a '63 'Vette.
Here are some specs:
'63 Corvette Stingray
Engine/hp/torque------ 327-cu.-in/360/352
Compression ratio------ 11.25:1
Fuel induction---------- Fuel injection
Rear axle ratio---------- 3.70:1
Curb weight------------ 3,100 lbs
Tire size---------------- 6.70 x 15"
0-30 mph--------------- 2.9 sec
0-60 mph--------------- 5.2
0-80 mph--------------- 8.0
0-100 mph-------------- 14.8
Top speed-------------- 161 mph
(No 1/4 mile time or speed was mentioned)

[dracu777]

'Cuda Hemi Convertible :D

[austy351]

saleen S7 or a 71 cutlass 442
________
Website design (http://hostndesign.com)

[UCR]

Some of them big lazy muscle cars from time ago, or the saleen s7 tt thing.

maybee that molser mt900 cos all reviews say good stuff bout it.

[Fleet 500]

Some of them big lazy muscle cars from time ago,
"Lazy?" :confused:
"Big?" :confused:
They weren't that big... muscle cars were usually intermediates, with a wheelbase between 112" and 118" and an overall length of about 197" to 208".
The pony cars, of course, were even smaller with a typical wheelbase of 108" and an overall length around 188".

[UCR]

"Lazy?" :confused:
"Big?" :confused:
They weren't that big... muscle cars were usually intermediates, with a wheelbase between 112" and 118" and an overall length of about 197" to 208".
The pony cars, of course, were even smaller with a typical wheelbase of 108" and an overall length around 188".
be quiet

[Rockefella]

be quiet
Lmfao. So simple, but such ownage. :p

[Fleet 500]

be quiet
This wouldn't be much of a message board if the members are supposed to keep quiet! ;)

[Fleet 500]

Lmfao. So simple, but such ownage. :p
He wishes. I noticed he didn't try to deny or challenge my post! Lol.

If that's how "ownage" is done, that's easy...
Rockefella, Matra, Bob, etc,.. be quiet!
There I just "owned" you guys! :rolleyes:

[UCR]

You dont get it, now sod off lol.

[Coventrysucks]

that molser mt900

I reckon that the Mosler is a British car that just happens to be built in the USA.

Very similar to the string of mid engined racers that popped up in the late 1990s
Ultima/Stealth/Harrier/ThatotheronethatlookabitlikeanUltima etc


"Lazy?" :confused:
"Big?" :confused:


be quiet

Quite.

Comparitively they are Lazy in their delivery of power, and in their general demeanor.

And they are big. Just because you drive a 600ft long car doesn't mean we all do.

You think all Europeans and Japanese people think "hey my car is so small compared to that normal American vehicle" or "hey that American car is so big compared to my normal European/Japanese vehicle"?

[CdocZ]

Any C3, C5, or C6 Corvette
Saleen S7 series
Mosler MT900S Photon
Dodge Coronet Superbee (1971)
El Camino
1971 Camaro RS SS

Ok, it's not 1 car, it's 6....but those are my top 6 for sure, not in order. Only one in it's spot is the Camaro (it's number 6).

[Rockefella]

He wishes. I noticed he didn't try to deny or challenge my post! Lol.

If that's how "ownage" is done, that's easy...
Rockefella, Matra, Bob, etc,.. be quiet!
There I just "owned" you guys! :rolleyes:
You're sense of humor is about as good as spoiled milk. :p

It's just that UCR made a general point in referring to muscle-cars as being big, and you jumped on it like it would affect your life. Saying be quiet was the icing on the cake for me. Hell, I laughed, whatever. :cool:

[Fleet 500]

Comparitively they are Lazy in their delivery of power, and in their general demeanor.

And they are big. Just because you drive a 600ft long car doesn't mean we all do.

You think all Europeans and Japanese people think "hey my car is so small compared to that normal American vehicle" or "hey that American car is so big compared to my normal European/Japanese vehicle"?
How is their delivery in power "lazy?" Some of the big blocks, like the 426-Hemi and 454 Chevy, could rev to 6,200-6,500 rpm even though they are thought of as "slow-revving" engines.
The 350 Oldsmobile "W" engine could rev to 6,600 rpm.

A late model Toyota Avalon is the same length as a '70 Dodge Challenger (192").

Yes, I do often think European and Japanese cars are small compared to the cars I drive. There is a good reason for that- it's true!

[UCR]

How is their delivery in power "lazy?" Some of the big blocks, like the 426-Hemi and 454 Chevy, could rev to 6,200-6,500 rpm even though they are thought of as "slow-revving" engines.
The 350 Oldsmobile "W" engine could rev to 6,600 rpm.

A late model Toyota Avalon is the same length as a '70 Dodge Challenger (192").

Yes, I do often think European and Japanese cars are small compared to the cars I drive. There is a good reason for that- it's true!
Get your coat.

[Fleet 500]

You're sense of humor is about as good as spoiled milk. :p

It's just that UCR made a general point in referring to muscle-cars as being big, and you jumped on it like it would affect your life. Saying be quiet was the icing on the cake for me. Hell, I laughed, whatever. :cool:
My sense of humor is fine. I just don't see why you would agree with someone (even in jest) who can't reply logically to my comments.

I'm curious, what would you define as "big?"

[UCR]

My sense of humor is fine. I just don't see why you would agree with someone (even in jest) who can't reply logically to my comments.

I'm curious, what would you define as "big?"
"Taxi for fleet!"

[Fleet 500]

Get your coat.
I certainly hope you don't debate on any politics message boards! You wouldn't last two days. :D

However, it would be nice if you would actually reply to the info I post! I may as well be talking to a wall.

[Fleet 500]

"Taxi for fleet!"
Can't you type more than three words per post? :confused: :D

[UCR]

Can't you type more than three words per post? :confused: :D
GET THE **** OUT!!!!!

[Coventrysucks]

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you have a brain.


How is their delivery in power "lazy?"... ...even though they are thought of as "slow-revving" engines.

Answered your own question there.

Lazy:# Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
# Slow-moving; sluggish

So then - an engine that is slow revving, or slow moving would be "lazy".

And FYI the question mark should appear outside of the quotation marks, unless it is part of the quoted material.


Yes, I do often think European and Japanese cars are small compared to the cars I drive. There is a good reason for that- it's true!

Would you please read what I actually wrote. Think about it, then conclude with why your posting the above passage is totally redundant.

[UCR]

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you have a brain.



Answered your own question there.

Lazy:# Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
# Slow-moving; sluggish

So then - an engine that is slow revving, or slow moving would be sluggish.

And FYI the question mark should appear outside of the quotation marks, unless it is part of the quoted material.



Would you please read what I actually wrote. Think about it, then conclude with why your posting the above passage is totally redundant.
Aim for the knee caps lad. :D

[Matra et Alpine]

My sense of humor is fine. I just don't see why you would agree with someone (even in jest) who can't reply logically to my comments.

arrange these words in to a well known phrase ....


POT


KETTLE



BLACK


CALLING





I've not laughed SO much for SOOOO long.
Get with the program Fleet, apply our own rules to yourself :D

[ScionDriver]

I am going to go with the Mercury Grand Marquis. Becuase, why not? that and I can't think of another American car I like much.

[Matra et Alpine]

How is their delivery in power "lazy?" Some of the big blocks, like the 426-Hemi and 454 Chevy, could rev to 6,200-6,500 rpm even though they are thought of as "slow-revving" engines.
The 350 Oldsmobile "W" engine could rev to 6,600 rpm.
Fleet, please, PLEASE, remember you are in an internatioanl forum.

yeas, a whole 6,500 IS "high revving" for you.

It's NOT for the rest of the world.

Please remember we're not ALL in Hicksville, TN :D
( no intended slur on the residents of Hicksville :o )

Yes, I do often think European and Japanese cars are small compared to the cars I drive. There is a good reason for that- it's true!
and yet you dont' see why UCR ( and everyoen elses coments ) about the cars you adore are big compared with what they drive ??
astounding :(

[UCR]

His heads fuked Pete. Just leave him, soon enough he'll die.

[car_fiend]

'59 Cadillac Eldorado
'72 and '79 Pontiac Grand Prix (dad's first and second cars, respectively, when first came to the states).
'70 Buick GS455 Stage 1

[rev440]

1969 Ford Mustang GT500 and 69 Z28 Camero

[250 GTO]

1966 Ford GT

[carsnut]

Panoz AIV Roadster

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, please, PLEASE, remember you are in an internatioanl forum.

yeas, a whole 6,500 IS "high revving" for you.

It's NOT for the rest of the world.

Please remember we're not ALL in Hicksville, TN :D
( no intended slur on the residents of Hicksville :o )

and yet you dont' see why UCR ( and everyoen elses coments ) about the cars you adore are big compared with what they drive ??
astounding :(
I could find '60s road test after road test of Euro cars which had redlines of less than 6,500 rpm.

[Fleet 500]

His heads fuked Pete. Just leave him, soon enough he'll die.
"When you don't like the message, attack the messenger."
Do you act this stupid on other message boards, too?

You never did make not even ONE reply to counter my comments. Who's head is messed up now? Lol.

[Matra et Alpine]

I could find '60s road test after road test of Euro cars which had redlines of less than 6,500 rpm.
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :(

and you coudl ALSO find road tests of US cars with redlines less than 6,500

The POINT is Fleet you coudl ALSO find road tests of Euro cars with redlines MORE than 6,500

Has the logic sunk in yet ???

The FACT is for European and Japanese cars 6,500 is pretty much run of the mill. It is NOT the top end of the range. got it yet ??

Here is a cheap, enonomy family saloon from 1966..... http://www.geocities.com/clewitsbert/cars.html
The Hillman Imp.........
8000 rpm. not the tuned sport version - IT did 10,000 :D
This was one of the CHEAPEST cars on the market and at the time was only beaten in sales volume by the Mini !!!!!!
Designed and deliverd to transport a family of four plus luggage ( necessary to keep the nose down at speed :) )

[Fleet 500]

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if you have a brain.

Answered your own question there.

Lazy:# Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness.
# Slow-moving; sluggish

So then - an engine that is slow revving, or slow moving would be "lazy".

I wonder how many people here notice that the majority of the rudest members here are from Europe?

Next time I am at the weekly (Friday night) car gathering, I'll be sure to tell those who own 11- and 12- second, 7,000+ rpm muscle cars that their cars are "lazy!" LOL!

[Matra et Alpine]

I wonder how many people here notice that the majority of the rudest members here are from Europe?

Next time I am at the weekly (Friday night) car gathering, I'll be sure to tell those who own 11- and 12- second, 7,000+ rpm muscle cars that their cars are "lazy!" LOL!
you lie as much as you like Fleet.

What was said was the ENGINE was "lazy".

We went over this, you seem to have a problem in the WORD :(
So WHAT if it's "lazy" , THAT is how big V8s generate lots of torque.
Start applying Archibald Technique :D

'rude' has a number of meanings.
An unwilingness to listen in a conversation is more rude than listening and making a comment on it :D

PS: If you DO lie to them at least ahve the decency to give my name and that I'm more than happy to explain the MEANING of it as you clearly STILL don't comprehend different engineering solutions for the same problem :D

[Matra et Alpine]

hmm, I've been surprised that it took so long for PANOZ to come up.

Does it have a bad reputation ?
I'm surprised as to me they seemed to have continued the tradition of Carroll Shelby much more so than the great man himself :(

[RS6]

Duesenberg SJ

[Coventrysucks]

I could find '60s road test after road test of Euro cars which had redlines of less than 6,500 rpm.

So?

Please enlighten me as to how this is relavent to anything other than you trying to convince yourself that all European cars are inferior to your mighty race of supercars?


I wonder how many people here notice that the majority of the rudest members here are from Europe?

Do you even know what Europe is though?

Some times I get the feeling that you have absolutely NO idea that life exists outside the USA. Or what it might be like to live there.


I'll be sure to tell those who own 11- and 12- second, 7,000+ rpm muscle cars that their cars are "lazy!" LOL!

Lazy = slow revving

You yourself admitted that they were slow revving.

Why do you now insist that when we say "lazy" we mean

Lazy = the whole car is slow, and the engine can only do 1500rpms?

What is wrong with you?

Your whole response to the point of "lazy" has been as if you don't know what the word means, or have never heard it before.

[Coventrysucks]

PANOZ
Does it have a bad reputation ?

1) Sounds like some sort of decongestant
2) They've entered a lot of Le Mans, and have never done as well as they should
3) Noel Edmunds

[Fleet 500]

you lie as much as you like Fleet.

What was said was the ENGINE was "lazy".

We went over this, you seem to have a problem in the WORD :(
So WHAT if it's "lazy" , THAT is how big V8s generate lots of torque.
Start applying Archibald Technique :D

'rude' has a number of meanings.
An unwilingness to listen in a conversation is more rude than listening and making a comment on it :D

PS: If you DO lie to them at least ahve the decency to give my name and that I'm more than happy to explain the MEANING of it as you clearly STILL don't comprehend different engineering solutions for the same problem :D
Back to "lying" again. That's your excuse for everything! When you don't agree with someone, use the "L" word! Luckily, I don't stoop to that when debating.

What would you consider an engine to be "lazy?" One with a 5,000 rpm redline? 5,500? 6,000?

And you make a good point. Those big V-8s make a lot of torque and don't need to rev high. Which is one reason why they last so long.

[Fleet 500]

So?

Please enlighten me as to how this is relavent to anything other than you trying to convince yourself that all European cars are inferior to your mighty race of supercars?

Do you even know what Europe is though?

Lazy = slow revving

You yourself admitted that they were slow revving.

Why do you now insist that when we say "lazy" we mean

Lazy = the whole car is slow, and the engine can only do 1500rpms?

What is wrong with you?

Your whole response to the point of "lazy" has been as if you don't know what the word means, or have never heard it before.
I was pointing out that there were many '60s European cars which had the same redline as "lazy, slow-revving" American V-8s.

Europe is a continent in the Northern Hemisphere which has a few rude members on message boards. :D

I did not admit they were slow-revving. That's why a put the quotation marks (") when mentioning the muscle cars.
It would be hard to generalize, but I would classify a low-revving American V-8 as one which has a redline of about 5,500 rpm or less. The 472 in my '69 Cadillac has a 5,200 rpm redline; it is a slow-revving engine. The Mopar 340 has a 6,000-6,200 rpm redline (depeding on the year). It is considered a high-revving engine.

BTW, what engine can only do 1,500 rpms?

[crisis]

Get your coat.
Post something intelligent.

[crisis]

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :(

and you coudl ALSO find road tests of US cars with redlines less than 6,500

The POINT is Fleet you coudl ALSO find road tests of Euro cars with redlines MORE than 6,500

Has the logic sunk in yet ???

The FACT is for European and Japanese cars 6,500 is pretty much run of the mill. It is NOT the top end of the range. got it yet ??

Here is a cheap, enonomy family saloon from 1966..... http://www.geocities.com/clewitsbert/cars.html
The Hillman Imp.........
8000 rpm. not the tuned sport version - IT did 10,000 :D
This was one of the CHEAPEST cars on the market and at the time was only beaten in sales volume by the Mini !!!!!!
Designed and deliverd to transport a family of four plus luggage ( necessary to keep the nose down at speed :) )
Sorry Matra ol boy but this is gold.

"It has an alloy 4 cyl. watercooled engine (in the back) of only 875 CC
and 42HP and revs up to 8000 rpm without problems."

I would have to say that anything that revved to 8000 and could only produce 42hp had plenty of problems. :D

[kko]

I did not admit they were slow-revving. That's why a put the quotation marks (") when mentioning the muscle cars.
It would be hard to generalize, but I would classify a low-revving American V-8 as one which has a redline of about 5,500 rpm or less. The 472 in my '69 Cadillac has a 5,200 rpm redline; it is a slow-revving engine. The Mopar 340 has a 6,000-6,200 rpm redline (depeding on the year). It is considered a high-revving engine.


IN AMERICA! THATS NOT HIGH REVVING FOR THE REST OF THE OWLRD-THEY DONT LIVE WHERE YOU DO! OPEN YOUR FUKING EYEs!

:D :p :D :p </rofl>

[crisis]

Fleet, I dont think I have ever really agreed with anything you have said (well maybe thats an exageration) but I have to award you the points here.

69 Dodge Coronet
Engines: 426 V8 Hemi 425bhp@5000rpm, 490lb-ft@4000rpm.
440 V8 375bhp@4600rpm, 480lb-ft@3200rpm.
440 Six Pack V8 390bhp@4700rpm, 490lb-ft@3200rpm

Hillman Imp
4 cyl. watercooled engine (in the back) (supposedly so no one would see it :D ) of only 875 CC and 42HP and revs up to 8000 rpm.
"The bodywork has a third door an a reclinable back seat,
which is very handy for shopping and transporting long stuff." laughing out loud.
And just this name " Sunbeam Californian " gets the tears rolling down my cheeks. http://thepowerfromport.com/images/smilies/rotfl.gif


Which one would pull the Cheeeeeks.

[Matra et Alpine]

Back to "lying" again. That's your excuse for everything! When you don't agree with someone, use the "L" word! Luckily, I don't stoop to that when debating.
Wrong again Fleet.
Read more carefully.
I ONLY call the "L" word when I can post the evidence of the truth not being told :)
Shame it seems to be you ALL the time :(
100% owned :D

What would you consider an engine to be "lazy?" One with a 5,000 rpm redline? 5,500? 6,000?
ooo, NOW we're tryint to make it an analytical choice so that it can look stupid. "lazy" is a SUBJECTIVE term and so cannot be constrained by such infantile attempts to diverte AWAY from the premise.
4,000 is DEFINATELY "lazy".
8,000 is DEFINATELY NOT "lazy".
Even the most closed-minded would agree those to be reasonable ( though bike owners and F1 drivers woudl still call 8000 "lazy" :D )

So the range of lazy to not lazy "probably" covers the 4000 to 8000 so pick your points in the range and start applyign subjective adjectives. Like VERY, LOTS, LITTLE, HARDLY etc. If you woudl stop trygin to make EVERYTHING bi-partisan/white-black you woudlnt' ahve such a problem with the label :)

Personally *I* would also factor in the engines ability to change speed into the "lazy" subjectivity. So an engine with low inertia, lightened flywheel, clutch, crank, conrods and pistons would be higher on the lazy-not lazy scale because it can increase revs more freely/quickly.

And you make a good point. Those big V-8s make a lot of torque and don't need to rev high. Which is one reason why they last so long.
Too simplistic showing the propsensity to only see the good of the V8 and not all the other aspects :(
High revs in their own aren't a problem with decent oiling and materials :)
It's HP/l that is a MUCH better factor on longevity.
You take a designed for 250HP V8 engine and push it out to 500 and you'll drop the engine life. THEN you change component materials and oilways to counter it. AND then you get higher hp/l :D Went over the reasons why engineers use hp/l in a long-past discussion. Had explaiend all this before :(

[Matra et Alpine]

Sorry Matra ol boy but this is gold.

"It has an alloy 4 cyl. watercooled engine (in the back) of only 875 CC
and 42HP and revs up to 8000 rpm without problems."

I would have to say that anything that revved to 8000 and could only produce 42hp had plenty of problems. :D
oh dear.

The engine in question is the production version of

the COVENTRY CLIMAX

Do a little research. RECOGNISED WORLDWIDE as one of the best ever engine designs. Originallly built as a fire pump engine to guarantee to deliver water continuously at high pressure for fighting fires. So reliabaility was important.

It was 'detuned' for that road car. As stated. THAT was NOT a performance car, it was cheap trasnport. The FACT about the imp though was that it woudl beat the Minis ( and the Galaxies ) in saloon racing on circuits !!! LOTS of power and torque is needed to counter LOTS OF WEIGHT. Keep it light and you dont' NEED lots.
The engine was used in many race formulas and consistenly won.

You coudl push an imp engine out to 100hp without any turbo or forced induction. IN 1966 !! From sub 1000cc. AND it was STILL a usable street car :) Racing versions pushed out to 120+. Do the math and compare it with the output from a 7liter engine from an engineering perspective and "laziness".

Sorry guys I forget that as the "old man" that the history of racing engines isn't that widely known nowadays. Look up coventry climax and it might make a difference.

[Matra et Alpine]

Fleet, I dont think I have ever really agreed with anything you have said (well maybe thats an exageration) but I have to award you the points here. ....
Which one would pull the Cheeeeeks.
Which one won rallies against INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION ???
............
http://www.imps4ever.info/racing/rallies/compete.html

Yeah for the drag strip I'd take the big bruiser for sure.
But let me put a Darrian out there and it would be a surprise - same engine :)
Darrians STILL own some of the records on hillclimb tracks.
( remember we dont' do much drag overe here so I dont' knwo if anyone bothered. I woudlnt' try it :D )

Here's a report of the Clan Crusader which used the imp engine/transmission.... "In North American terms it was not too powerful, its 998 cc engine pushed out only 120 horsepower but it was in an 1100# chassis. I remember racing a Corvette at Ingliston that had lots more power but the superior handling of the Clan meant I was ahead at the end of the race." From a fellow-scottish racer .. http://www.headsupracer.com/article_inthetraps_ian.htm


PS: can we get back to best American car ? FLeet take this BS into another thread if you're going to continue the pathetic omparisons PLEASE.
I'm still owndering why the Panoz was so late getting in this thread ????
( and yeah I'd forgoten the Noel Edmunds link, probably explains it all :D )

[crisis]

oh dear.

The engine in question is the production version of

the COVENTRY CLIMAX

Do a little research. RECOGNISED WORLDWIDE as one of the best ever engine designs.
Small engine designs.


Originallly built as a fire pump engine to guarantee to deliver water continuously at high pressure for fighting fires. So reliabaility was important.

Um, fire pumps, cars? I cant see a pump running at 8000rpm so I suppose reliability would not be so much of an issue.



It was 'detuned' for that road car. As stated. THAT was NOT a performance car, it was cheap trasnport.
But you were alluding to the fact it was exhibiting impressive "performance" on the weight of engine revs.


The FACT about the imp though was that it woudl beat the Minis ( and the Galaxies ) in saloon racing on circuits !!! LOTS of power and torque is needed to counter LOTS OF WEIGHT. Keep it light and you dont' NEED lots.
Well thats where the problem is isnt it. If the ultimate reason d être for the existence of justification of a car/engine design is its success on a race track than it makes 99% of all designs pointless. You made a point of claiming the engine was superior to another based on the fact it revved to 8000rpm . I mearly stated this was of little consequence given it could only produce a paltry hp .

You coudl push an imp engine out to 100hp without any turbo or forced induction. IN 1966 !! From sub 1000cc. AND it was STILL a usable street car :) Racing versions pushed out to 120+. Do the math and compare it with the output from a 7liter engine from an engineering perspective and "laziness".
Impressive as it is mega hp can be wrung form any stock motor. And this engine was still only useful in light , tiny cars.


Sorry guys I forget that as the "old man" that the history of racing engines isn't that widely known nowadays. Look up coventry climax and it might make a difference.
Yes well impressive for the day, these type of things are generally viewed through rose coloured glasses. What we have is a 100 hp engine propelling something you could bare fit four people in in the best case scenario. And with 4 80- 100kg lumps of meat in it said performance would start to wane.
Personal preference has cut in well by this stage. Your leather cap and goggles betray your love of specialist track cars (of which this is not intended as criticism) where others may view cars worth and value in a broader sense.

[Fleet 500]

Post something intelligent.
From what he has been posting today, I really think he's not capable of doing such a thing!

[Fleet 500]

IN AMERICA! THATS NOT HIGH REVVING FOR THE REST OF THE OWLRD-THEY DONT LIVE WHERE YOU DO! OPEN YOUR FUKING EYEs!

:D :p :D :p </rofl>
Gee, what a hyper person!
You need a tranquilizer.

[crisis]

Which one won rallies against INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION ???
Perhaps that should read -

Which one won rallies against INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION in 40 year old rallys.???
:D

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, I dont think I have ever really agreed with anything you have said (well maybe thats an exageration) but I have to award you the points here.

69 Dodge Coronet
Engines: 426 V8 Hemi 425bhp@5000rpm, 490lb-ft@4000rpm.
440 V8 375bhp@4600rpm, 480lb-ft@3200rpm.
440 Six Pack V8 390bhp@4700rpm, 490lb-ft@3200rpm

Hillman Imp
4 cyl. watercooled engine (in the back) (supposedly so no one would see it :D ) of only 875 CC and 42HP and revs up to 8000 rpm.
"The bodywork has a third door an a reclinable back seat,
which is very handy for shopping and transporting long stuff." laughing out loud.

Which one would pull the Cheeeeeks.
A good point. Sometimes, a very high redline doens't mean much.
And it's common knowledge that the Hemis were very underrated (for insurance purposes).
That 425 hp @ 5,000 rpm factory rating was actually more like 470 hp @ 6,000 rpm.

[Fleet 500]

100% owned :D

4,000 is DEFINATELY "lazy".
8,000 is DEFINATELY NOT "lazy".

So the range of lazy to not lazy "probably" covers the 4000 to 8000 so pick your points in the range and start applyign subjective adjectives.
You take a designed for 250HP V8 engine and push it out to 500 and you'll drop the engine life.(
The only thing you've "owned" is you own little fantasyland. :D

Come on... can't you narrow it down a little? Giving me a range of 4,000-8,000 isn't very precise!

There are many muscle car owners (in the '60s and today) who have modifed their cars to 500 hp. without a large amount of reliability loss. And it doesn't take too much to make those V-8 produce 500 hp. A higher-lift cam, headers, aftermarket intake manifold, maybe blueprinting the engine, bigger carb should be able to make a 440 Mopar or 429 Ford or 400 Olds engine make 500 hp.

[scottie300z]

IN AMERICA! THATS NOT HIGH REVVING FOR THE REST OF THE OWLRD-THEY DONT LIVE WHERE YOU DO! OPEN YOUR FUKING EYEs!

:D :p :D :p </rofl>

Im just wondering out of my own curiousity what cars from other countries at this time normally revved to? And im talking normally, dont list the highest revving car of the time.

[crisis]

Im just wondering out of my own curiousity what cars from other countries at this time normally revved to? And im talking normally, dont list the highest revving car of the time.
I am more perplexed at the desirability of high revs if it is purely a trade off for low capacity or cylinder count.

[Matra et Alpine]

Small engine designs.
Not just, Crisis, if you read up on it you find that it was recognised for it's innovative materials, casting technique and internal design which was WAY ahead of the technology of the day.

Um, fire pumps, cars? I cant see a pump running at 8000rpm so I suppose reliability would not be so much of an issue.
hmm, might be a "common language" problem there.
it was used as the engine to drive the impellors of the water pump.
SO LOTS of speed and power in something light enough to be carried to a fire scene and provide a number of fire tenders with water.
Moving lots of water and delivering thousands of gallons a couple of hundred feet high isn't a 'simple' job. It wouldn't' have spent it's whole life at 8,000 revs though for sure. But NO engine lives long at maximum revs and seldom is there in any form of competition.
It was designed for that task and then was spotted by the racing designers of the day and then taken up by the mainstream car industry.

But you were alluding to the fact it was exhibiting impressive "performance" on the weight of engine revs.
Correct, remember I was responding to the comment that 6,500 was high revving ? So provided a NORMAL STREET CAR that as delivered from the factory for a detuned use did 8,000. The one we rallied did 8,800 ( mainly because on hitting 9,000 it destroyed valve springs available in the day ). Racers who could pay for specials took it to 10,000. The basic engine was unchanged, the BIG difference being the introduction of Wills rings to maintain the block to head seal for the cylinder.
So as the point under debate was engine revs this was chosen.

Well thats where the problem is isnt it. If the ultimate reason d être for the existence of justification of a car/engine design is its success on a race track than it makes 99% of all designs pointless. You made a point of claiming the engine was superior to another based on the fact it revved to 8000rpm . I mearly stated this was of little consequence given it could only produce a paltry hp .
NO, the ORIGINAL point being made was that "LAZY" referred to engine revs, that citing a 6,500 as 'evidence' of high revving showed a lack of understanding of other engines of the day.
I was NOT claiming outright performance !!!
Impressive performance in the right vehicle WAS pointed out.
This thing would die a gasping death in a 3 ton behemoth :D

Impressive as it is mega hp can be wrung form any stock motor. And this engine was still only useful in light , tiny cars.
Never said otherwise.
Watch out , you've fallen into the "Fleet-trap".
The point in discussion is NOT the hp or the weight of the cars it is the subjective description of a car as "high revving".
The extra information I added to provide additional input that many may not be aware of.

Yes well impressive for the day, these type of things are generally viewed through rose coloured glasses. What we have is a 100 hp engine propelling something you could bare fit four people in in the best case scenario. And with 4 80- 100kg lumps of meat in it said performance would start to wane.
Hit by Fleetism again.
Those do not alter the range of "high revving" exhibited in the world of the time.
BTW, the reason I pointed out the Imp sold as well s the Mini and was in the top sellers was to try to get over that we weren't talking about some small production specialist car. We WERE talking a about a car used by families to transport them and their luggage around Britain and Europe.
( One of the guys in the rallies we compete in actually drives to the event with his 2 kids in the back. At each special stage or service parc, the kids get out and he and his wife do the stage and then they all get back in and do the road section :) He even drives 400 miles to GET to the event in the case of the Angus Classic :D PS: his kids wrew 14 and 16 !!! )
Just because it's smaller than your used to doesn't negate it.
And MOST IMPORTANTLY isn't important in the debate on what constitutes high-revving - we have here an UNMODIFIED cheap family transport and I see special mods in the engines being pitched at it (sic)

Personal preference has cut in well by this stage. Your leather cap and goggles betray your love of specialist track cars (of which this is not intended as criticism) where others may view cars worth and value in a broader sense.
You're confusing things again, you sure you're not drinking in the same cesspits as Fleet ??? :D

We are discussing rev range.
I happen to have lived through the time under discussion and yes competed. BUT I also was in a family driven around in the back seat, I also drove them on roads.
Sorry for being able to provide first hand knowledge and to know history on cars enough and think it beneficial to share for the UCP 'readers' :(

LET ME REPEAT - oh dear, you sure you're not FLeet ? - the car in question was NOT a specialist track car :)

And of COURSE there are other factors involved, I've already exposed on the limits of the Coventry :) BUT we were discussing "high revving" , let's not lose the plot completely here before the Climax gets labelled a WMD :D and me the left-wing-loony son of Saddam :D :D

[Coventrysucks]

It would be hard to generalize, but I would classify a low-revving American V-8 as one which has a redline of about 5,500 rpm or less. The 472 in my '69 Cadillac has a 5,200 rpm redline; it is a slow-revving engine. The Mopar 340 has a 6,000-6,200 rpm redline (depeding on the year). It is considered a high-revving engine.

BTW, what engine can only do 1,500 rpms?


Again - WTF is wrong with you?

Lazy = slow revving

How does that mean low revving to you? Are you on a different planet where words mean something completely different to everyone else?

For example - an F1 engine is quick revving - it does idle to 19,000 almost instantly when not under load.

A slow engine would be something like a very large diesel which takes several seconds to get to 3,500.

If an F1 engine took a minute to go from idle to 19,000 it would be slow and "lazy", if the big diesel were instant it would be quick.

For your ill-informed opinion there are lots of engines that only get up to 1500/2000. Just because they don't put modern marine diesels in US muscle cars I guess you've never heard of them...

[Matra et Alpine]

Perhaps that should read -

Which one won rallies against INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION in 40 year old rallys.???
:D
erm Crisis, what's happened today ?

Fleet and I were 'debating' the meaning of high-revving FOR the older cars.

I could have as easily brought in a modern engine or a bike engine, but I didnt' to try to keep the debate on the point.

Yes it won in compeition in the 60s and 70 and into the 80s. See Darrian and Davrian sports cars. That's the era Fleet is posting info on the cars we are dsicussing as whether they constitue high revving or not.

[Matra et Alpine]

The only thing you've "owned" is you own little fantasyland. :D

Come on... can't you narrow it down a little? Giving me a range of 4,000-8,000 isn't very precise!
and did you NOT read the list of descriptive terms I provided ?

I chose those because they encompassed the RANGE.

You clearly understand range as little as you did when we debated power curves.

You are consfusing the MEAN and the MAX.

There are many muscle car owners (in the '60s and today) who have modifed their cars to 500 hp. without a large amount of reliability loss.
I call you out on providing evidence that ANYONE in the 50s and 60s who got 500 out of a stock 250/350 block got anywhere NEAR the original mileage of the engine IF it used that power. Remember it's real easy to build a "show" engine which does 500HP. If you only use 100 of it of course it will live forever :) Lte's see evidence of engines which actually PRODUCED the power for use.

And it doesn't take too much to make those V-8 produce 500 hp. A higher-lift cam, headers, aftermarket intake manifold, maybe blueprinting the engine, bigger carb should be able to make a 440 Mopar or 429 Ford or 400 Olds engine make 500 hp.
Didnt' debate how 'easy' it is to get a large capacity engine to produce power, Fleet.
BUT in producing it you up the hp/l which ups the problems.
"blueprinting" is NOT an insignificant activity :)
EVERY one of those will have also upped the oil pressure, pump and the oilways.
But I'm not debating power, you confuse AGAIN that I don't have a problem recoginsing the benefits of more cubes. You confuse pointing out the limitations as being anti it. That's that partisan mindset kicking in again.
Try not to. Remember the Archibald Technique and go use those links on debating adn you'll understand better.
:(

[Matra et Alpine]

I am more perplexed at the desirability of high revs if it is purely a trade off for low capacity or cylinder count.
cylinder count is NOT a limitation on revs.
The STROKE of an engine is the ultimate limiting factor.
The faster an engine revs the more the pistons go up and down.
The more they go up and down in a given second the faster they have to travel and the quicker they have to stop and change direction.
SO smaller pistons, lighter pistons is one of the first things normally undertaken to get revs up.
Higher revs gets more turbulent air flowing which traditionally gives a better mix of the atomised fuel/air. ( With modern direct injection this becomes a much less important factor but stil present )
Better mix gives better burn which releases more power more quickly which generates higher force to move the piston which gets the power.
These factors lead to more efficient cylinder combustion which traditionally means engine efficiency ( again modern ECU, injector and valve train management makes this less so in 'cruising' when fuel can be stopped completely and cylinders/banks can be 'disengaged' )

So short stroke, small capacity engines produce "sufficient" power for many needs efficiently. These engines rev freely and higher because they have lower moving mass and smaller lighter pistons and shorter stroke.

BUT a large cylinder with a LONG stroke produces TORQUE better.
The slower burn in a long stroke engine gives a longer push on the piston. THAT is where the higher torque comes from.
The drawback is that it's harder to ensure full burn in long stroke large cylinders becaues the atomisation fo the fuel/air mixture isn't ideal at the edges of the incoming intake gasses. So it isnt' as "efficient". Again, swirl chambers, multi-valve, swirl pot pistons all get used to counter this inherenet "weakness" but at a cost. Better injection systems and direct injection clearly reduces this.

SO the longer stroke means higher piston speed which makes for stresses which prevent the engine from being revved too high. Laws of physics kick in pretty hard here :(

The outcome is there are a wide range of engines for us all to chose from.
Some offer great torque, some offer more efficiency, some offer more power, some offer more "responsiveness" in being able to rev higher to propel the car through acceleration quicker, some offer wider/higher power ban requiring less gear changes through hard accelerate, some offer lower/wider power band requiring less gear changes in normal driving. Each delivers a different solution to sometimes a different challenge. No one is always better than the other in all things,

Does that help ?

And in returning to what is "high revving" ?
A Honda race engine at 24,000 and an F1 at 18,000 clearly is.
The MAJORITY of older cars sat in the range 4000 to 8000
The majority of newer cars probably sit in the 6000 to 8500 ( not sure, what's the redline on run-of-the-mill US V8s at the moment ?? )
There are more cars at the top of that range and slightly higher than in the past.
When we descirbe something as "lazy revving" it covers those in the lower range of those bands and those engines that dont' increase their revs quickly.
6,500 is clearly NOT in the high end of any of those bands and so the fastest revving car cited "MAY" be lazy, and certainly the other ones could be labelled so. EXCEPT that it seems to cause problems with the 'name'. I dont' have an issue with describing a number of my engines as screamers even with the negative connotation that carries ( and experience :D -- riding across Eureop on a biek spending most of it's time at 8-10,000 didin't do my hearing all that good :D but it WAS fun !!! )

[rev440]

Did any of you guys ever see the Ferrari GTO vs the Pontiac GTO. The Pontiac owned the Ferrari everywhere! Yes i have noticed there are some rude people from the uk but theres some rude people ffom the us too.

[Coventrysucks]

Did any of you guys ever see the Ferrari GTO vs the Pontiac GTO.

Which GTO? :rolleyes:

Ferrari 250 GTO vs 2005 Pontiac GTO?

[henk4]

Which GTO? :rolleyes:

Ferrari 250 GTO vs 2005 Pontiac GTO?

288 GTO versus the 1964 Pontiac?

[Matra et Alpine]

Did any of you guys ever see the Ferrari GTO vs the Pontiac GTO. The Pontiac owned the Ferrari everywhere! Yes i have noticed there are some rude people from the uk but theres some rude people ffom the us too.
Would that have been the Car&Driver articles ?

Which one did you prefer ...

The 1964 original where they didnt' actually TEST a Ferrari GTO but proclaimed the Pontiac "better" ( though did accept the Ferrari would win on the track over the standard GTO )

OR

The 1984 "repeat" article where they DID actually get an example of each of the original 1964 cars and tested them side-by-side ?
This time they confirmed the track advantage AND disproved the original supposition that the Pontiac would win on the drag.
Both cars in part showed their 20 years of usage and may have for sure contributed to the results and that should be remembered. But the artciel DID point out that the original Pontiac "standard car" had in fact been breathed on by a tuner !!!

Can you show a refernce to where it was "owned everywhere" ????

I apologise up front if asking for a little evidence and truth is considered "rude" :)

PS: See "The Story Behind the Famous "Car & Driver" GTO" at http://www.contes.com/ccvmore.htm it's in print the 1964 Pontiac was a ringer

[UCR]

From what he has been posting today, I really think he's not capable of doing such a thing!
I think you should buy an atlas, read it a few times then post.

[Mustang]

67 mustang fastback :) no question unless its a mk2 gt40 :p

[Fleet 500]

I think you should buy an atlas, read it a few times then post.
I already have an atlas. :p

[Matra et Alpine]

I already have an atlas. :p
Confirming your reading disability ?????

[Fleet 500]

Would that have been the Car&Driver articles ?

I apologise up front if asking for a little evidence and truth is considered "rude" :)

Asking for evidence and the truth is certainly not rude. Swearing at members and calling them names is. But I think you are improving. :)

Don't forget the March, 1965 Car & Driver test of a Pontiac Catalina 2+2 VS Ferrari 330/GT 2+2.

I like how the Ferrari was less than half a second faster than the big (214.5" long, 4,155 lb) Pontiac around the Bridgehampton track.
The times were:
Ferrari... 2:00.85
Pontiac... 2:01.33

[Fleet 500]

Confirming your reading disability ?????
Having an atlas means someone has a reading disablity?

Well, not for me. Geography/Cartography, in addition to Seismology, Meteorology, Geology, Health, Photography, Bicycling, Hiking, history (especially the Old West and WWII), Oceanography, Astronomy, '50s/early '60s music, '50s-'70s U.S. cars, etc, happen to be among my interests.

[Matra et Alpine]

Asking for evidence and the truth is certainly not rude. Swearing at members and calling them names is. But I think you are improving. :)
Hoping for the day you do and save me HAVING to swear in the face of such ignorant treatment of other members :(

Don't forget the March, 1965 Car & Driver test of a Pontiac Catalina 2+2 VS Ferrari 330/GT 2+2.

I like how the Ferrari was less than half a second faster than the big (214.5" long, 4,155 lb) Pontiac around the Bridgehampton track.
The times were:
Ferrari... 2:00.85
Pontiac... 2:01.33
Given the now proven evidence that Pontiac supplied C&D with a ringer GTO then why do you believe ANY of these figures ?
As I'd said before citing the original E-types given to journalists, for figures you have to be careful that you can trust the source.
The BIG question is did C&D and the journalist KNOW that it was a ringer GTO and "collude" to get good numbers to sell mags or were they such bad drivers and mechanics not to notice it ????
If anyone can go to a library ( or maybe owns the book ) and check out the reference cited for some more background it woudl be VERY interesting.

[Fleet 500]

Hoping for the day you do and save me HAVING to swear in the face of such ignorant treatment of other members :(

Given the now proven evidence that Pontiac supplied C&D with a ringer GTO then why do you believe ANY of these figures ?
As I'd said before citing the original E-types given to journalists, for figures you have to be careful that you can trust the source.
The BIG question is did C&D and the journalist KNOW that it was a ringer GTO and "collude" to get good numbers to sell mags or were they such bad drivers and mechanics not to notice it ????
If anyone can go to a library ( or maybe owns the book ) and check out the reference cited for some more background it woudl be VERY interesting.
I am above that. My motto is there is no reason to swear at people. I was taught that. Good manners gets you a lot farther in life than bad manners.

Yes, I am well aware of the ringer GTO and Catalina. I don't believe the acceleration times they got for the Catalina (0-60 mph in 3.9 secs; 13.8@106 1/4 mile). But, as for the track times, who knows? If the Pontiac could make up the difference lost when cornering by acceleration in the straights, it just may have almost the same time as the Ferrari.

It wouldn't be the first time a heavier and bigger car performed better than expected.

[Matra et Alpine]

Having an atlas means someone has a reading disablity?
Well go back and read UCR's comment ....
"I think you should buy an atlas, read it a few times then post."
You replied you HAD an atlas, so we inferred that you didnt' read it.
Hey, you use that kind of logic to condemn Iraq to an invasion for non-existent WMDs :) Hoist again :D


You should TRY to COMPREHEND comments rather than seeing the first 3 words and then replying.

You're missing all the good humour :(

As well as the Archibald technique I would suggest another "trick" taught to me by someone more experienced ..... Write what you want to reply and then go do something else. Then come back to it, read the original and your reply and then edit it before sending to remove all the misonceptions, erroneous assumptions and mistakes and "attitude" :)

[UCR]

I like this converstation.
lol.

[Matra et Alpine]

I am above that. My motto is there is no reason to swear at people. I was taught that. Good manners gets you a lot farther in life than bad manners.
Your manners do NOT extend to reasonable debate.
You refuse to read any evidence presented.
THAT is MUCH more insulting than any simple names -- unless the names are true of course :)


Yes, I am well aware of the ringer GTO and Catalina. I don't believe the acceleration times they got for the Catalina (0-60 mph in 3.9 secs; 13.8@106 1/4 mile). But, as for the track times, who knows? If the Pontiac could make up the difference lost when cornering by acceleration in the straights, it just may have almost the same time as the Ferrari.

It wouldn't be the first time an heavier and bigger car performed better than expected.
yep, and we dont' know how many times C&D may have put ringers on the track - especially if any collusino was underway :)
Kind of makes a mockery of every number C&D produce from the era.
That's the problem when soemones caught with their hand in the sweetie jar :(

BTW, if you are WELL AWARE of the GTO ringer then why have you quoted some of these cars without supplying the caveats to other readers ??

[Fleet 500]

Well go back and read UCR's comment ....
"I think you should buy an atlas, read it a few times then post."
You replied you HAD an atlas, so we inferred that you didnt' read it.

How does one "read" an atlas? It's mostly maps.

I do look through it now and then. And I know the general things like the four biggest (in land area) countries (Russia, China, Canada, U.S.) and the most populous country (China).

[UCR]

How does one "read" an atlas? It's mostly maps.

I do look through it now and then. And I know the general things like the four biggest (in land area) countries (Russia, China, Canada, U.S.) and the most populous country (China).
I should bloody hope so. :eek:

[Fleet 500]

Your manners do NOT extend to reasonable debate.
You refuse to read any evidence presented.
THAT is MUCH more insulting than any simple names -- unless the names are true of course :)

BTW, if you are WELL AWARE of the GTO ringer then why have you quoted some of these cars without supplying the caveats to other readers ??
LOL. Like you accept ANY evidence I present? Even when it's from liberal sources?

Probably every car enthusiast has heard about those Pontiac VS Ferrari tests, so why explain any further?
I was, however, pointing out the fact that sometimes the bigger American cars win road course races with Euro cars. Like the one I posted a few months ago:

[Fleet 500]

I should bloody hope so. :eek:
Believe me... you walk through a typical high school and ask the students there what the four biggest countries are and probably only 2 out of 10 will know the answer!

[UCR]

Believe me... you walk through a typical high school and ask the students there what the four biggest countries are and probably only 2 out of 10 will know the answer!
Unbelievable.

[Fleet 500]

Unbelievable.
Yeah, it's been like that for years.
And it gets even worse... I heard instances in which a student was asked to point out the U.S. on a map, and he points to Canada!

[Coventrysucks]

Yes, yes. We all know American children have hollow skulls, but this is getting far too off topic now.

Move along, nothing to see here.

The Misc section is open 24/7 if anyone wants.

[UCR]

Yes but the hollow skulls make bad cars.

[Coventrysucks]

I think that we should all recognise that America has produced some great cars. Probably.

And I think that we should accept that Americans are right to be proud of their achievements in the field of accelerating quickly, and powerful engines.

Let's not get so blindly patriotic and tearful that we forget that other countries are also capable of producing great cars that excel in their own categories.

[Matra et Alpine]

LOL. Like you accept ANY evidence I present? Even when it's from liberal sources?
blind patriotism has prevented you from seeing the things I've agreed with you on.
But I suspect you've not been challenged to show evidence and present facts so get confused easily :D
FACTS are fine, you are reminding us all of all the times you have stopped responding becaues you've been shown to be posting inaccruate quotes and unsupported evidence. Opinion not fact.

Probably every car enthusiast has heard about those Pontiac VS Ferrari tests, so why explain any further?
I was, however, pointing out the fact that sometimes the bigger American cars win road course races with Euro cars. Like the one I posted a few months ago:
Can you please explain how you can put those three sentences in the same post ?
So you accept the ringers are present in the reporting and road tests and THEN you post an article saying one car better than the other.
UN-Subtle confusion :)
At least I know why you think novbody lied about WMDs !!!!
Love it, as CS says, take it to misc :D

[Fleet 500]

Yes but the hollow skulls make bad cars.
Yeah, "bad" cars that are selling in Hemmings for $30,000, $50,000, $75,000 and up (way up).
(I'm referring to the classic ones.)

[crisis]

Never said otherwise.
Watch out , you've fallen into the "Fleet-trap".
The point in discussion is NOT the hp or the weight of the cars it is the subjective description of a car as "high revving".
The extra information I added to provide additional input that many may not be aware of.
And it is equally subjective to propose that because one motor revs faster than another , that the slower one is "lazy" or not high revving. We must be careful with subjective propositions. He said that some of the engines he was talking about could not be considered "lazy" or "low revving" as they revved to 6500rpm. That is a fair enough claim if we consider it against modern standard V8s. If we put it alongside a 4 cylinder that revs to 8000rpm we are introducing a new set of parameters.



Hit by Fleetism again.
Those do not alter the range of "high revving" exhibited in the world of the time.
Im not sure the connection to "Fleetisms" but if we were comparing this to other 4 cylinders I may be as impressed as you. Even so it would not neccessarily paint 6500 revving V8s to the "also ran" pile.


BTW, the reason I pointed out the Imp sold as well s the Mini and was in the top sellers was to try to get over that we weren't talking about some small production specialist car. We WERE talking a about a car used by families to transport them and their luggage around Britain and Europe.
The thought of packing my family and their luggage into a Mini leaves me speechless. :eek: Im sure it was done though, you guys survived the blitz. :D


( One of the guys in the rallies we compete in actually drives to the event with his 2 kids in the back. At each special stage or service parc, the kids get out and he and his wife do the stage and then they all get back in and do the road section :) He even drives 400 miles to GET to the event in the case of the Angus Classic :D PS: his kids wrew 14 and 16 !!! )
Oompa Loompas? :D



Just because it's smaller than your used to doesn't negate it.
Well not every car I have ever owned has been a barge. ;)




And MOST IMPORTANTLY isn't important in the debate on what constitutes high-revving - we have here an UNMODIFIED cheap family transport and I see special mods in the engines being pitched at it (sic).
Yes , the subjective term "high". It is dangerous (and a little pointless) to go down this path. Again we are here because the presumption that one engines rpm could not be considered high if another was higher.


You're confusing things again, you sure you're not drinking in the same cesspits as Fleet ???

We are discussing rev range.
I happen to have lived through the time under discussion and yes competed. BUT I also was in a family driven around in the back seat, I also drove them on roads.
Sorry for being able to provide first hand knowledge and to know history on cars enough and think it beneficial to share for the UCP 'readers' :(

My light hearted comment, note the smileys, was aimed at the comments made in the specs you linked to that
"It has an alloy 4 cyl. watercooled engine (in the back) of only 875 CC
and 42HP and revs up to 8000 rpm without problems."
I simply made the smart a$$ comment that to me 42 hp was the problem and that perhaps the fact that it was subjectively a high revving motor may have ignored the fact that in the form you put it to us, it was not particularly impressive. I will take your lead and also apologise for not knowing every incarnation of a motor I have had almost no contact with. :)



LET ME REPEAT - oh dear, you sure you're not FLeet ? - the car in question was NOT a specialist track car :)


Im not sure I said it was. :confused:

[crisis]

erm Crisis, what's happened today ?

Fleet and I were 'debating' the meaning of high-revving FOR the older cars.

I could have as easily brought in a modern engine or a bike engine, but I didnt' to try to keep the debate on the point.

Yes it won in compeition in the 60s and 70 and into the 80s. See Darrian and Davrian sports cars. That's the era Fleet is posting info on the cars we are dsicussing as whether they constitue high revving or not.
I think I covered the subjective term "high".
Again the post (of mine) you responded to was one that compared the application of the engine in question. My point being the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts.

[Coventrysucks]

Yeah, "bad" cars that are selling in Hemmings for $30,000, $50,000, $75,000 and up (way up).
(I'm referring to the classic ones.)

Classic European cars sell for millions.

Equally - The Rover City Rover.

What's your point exactly?

+ $30,000 isn't really a lot of money.

Neither is $50,000, or $75,000 really.

I'm seeing even less of a point.

On the one hand you go to pains to point out how cheap and fast these cars are, then you want to be proud of the fact that they are "expensive" as well?

[crisis]

cylinder count is NOT a limitation on revs.
I would contend that moving the additional mass and additional parts would have some effect.


The STROKE of an engine is the ultimate limiting factor.
It appears we are going down the "high rev" path. Just because the stroke may be the ultimate limiting factor, the additional mass and friction of moving parts cannot be ignored.



The drawback is that it's harder to ensure full burn in long stroke large cylinders becaues the atomisation fo the fuel/air mixture isn't ideal at the edges of the incoming intake gasses. So it isnt' as "efficient". Again, swirl chambers, multi-valve, swirl pot pistons all get used to counter this inherenet "weakness" but at a cost. Better injection systems and direct injection clearly reduces this.
Just how this manifests itself would be interesting to know within the realms of a "daily driver". As you said most of these innefficiencies would be dealt with in high performance motors.




Does that help ?

Help what? You have pointed out the positive effect that high revving has on fuel burning. That does not seem a particularly compelling argument that we need engines to rev high given the neccessity for them to be built to endure the stress and the questionable effect it has on longevity. It also appears these motors (from the ones I have come in contact with) require higher octane fuel to operate where lazy old V8s dont neccessarily although it is a small point.
As I see it high revving engines exist to extract the ultimate performance from these smaller motors in smaller lighter cars.

[Fleet 500]

Watch out , you've fallen into the "Fleet-trap".

Hit by Fleetism again.

You're confusing things again, you sure you're not drinking in the same cesspits as Fleet ??? :

LET ME REPEAT - oh dear, you sure you're not FLeet ?
Knock if off, will you?
Has it ever occurred to you that you may be wrong sometimes?
Can you even say that word "wrong?" :D

You are certainly not setting an example of an "open-minded" liberal (or whatever you are).

[Matra et Alpine]

Knock if off, will you?
Has it ever occurred to you that you may be wrong sometimes?
Can you even say that word "wrong?" :D

You are certainly not setting an example of an "open-minded" liberal (or whatever you are).
hee-hee :D

"Wrong" ? As I've been quoting FACTS and have been exploring how we can describe a SUBJECTIVE term in a common method I'm not sure how I am either right or wrong.

Responding to points raised that are counter to the explanation given then allows us to explore further and deeper and increase our common understanding and move towards a better shared view. Check out som eof Crisis comments which are reflecting the points already raised in his own words. eg and engine for a purpose and that comparign a modern V8 shodl be considered. The latter beign a valid point to redefine the SUBJECTIVE range for V8s to avoid the confusino of "lazy" when applied across all engine ranges. A poitn already covered at the OPPOSITE end in the 1200 rpm boat engines coverd in the on-going debate by CS ( I think? )

You've gone all loopy on "liberal" again adn really DO confirm that debating is a bad thing in yoru partisan world and any given opinion shodul just be accepted if you state it and ignored if it's anyone else.

We are TRYING to improve our common language on "lazy". OR didn't you read the input on that there is a RANGE of lazy to provide a platform for further discourse ? NO, sadly not. You've an "opinion" and all YOU want to do is to have it justified either by everyone agreeing or you being able to turn away from it. By all measn do either of those, but that's not improving ANYONES undesrstanding or knowledge. But knowledge is power and neo-cons dont' liek that :D WHere you stand is for you to chose.

Now on to Crisis inputs to the debate that move things forward .......

[Matra et Alpine]

And it is equally subjective to propose that because one motor revs faster than another , that the slower one is "lazy" or not high revving. We must be careful with subjective propositions. He said that some of the engines he was talking about could not be considered "lazy" or "low revving" as they revved to 6500rpm. That is a fair enough claim if we consider it against modern standard V8s. If we put it alongside a 4 cylinder that revs to 8000rpm we are introducing a new set of parameters.
Why is it 'new' parameter as the comment is made in a forum where all engines exist and in a thread about cars where all engines exist and they all provide the motive power to move cars ?
By all means you have a valid point in adding another "new set of parameter" which is that within the V8 market are these considered "lazy" or "high revving". Would we want to further confine it to the US market ?? Both TOTALLY VALID constraints on the points and worthy of accepting and returnign to step one of the debate and the inital premise reworded.
The points raised were to try to explroe the "subjectivity" and in it try to give everyoen tags we could apply that removed the one-tag-fits-all problem of "lazy".

Would it be agreeable to say SOME V8s are "lazy" taking all cars in all eras in the American market by American manufcaturers ? If so then the original comment someone got "huffy" about WAS valid then. The problem is it doens't apply to ALL engines and that is true. BUT because there are a few "performance" versions does it then make the tag "lazy" invalid for the majority ? Even when confiedn to only American V8s the term "lazy" is applicable BECAUSE the engines are designed for that purpose. The first Americna V8 was designed EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON. I'm amazed Fleet doesn't RELISH his heritage. "Lazy" is a term used in the automotive industry to describe an engine characteristic, which in some cases is anegative - nto ideal for a hillclimb car - and in others is a positive. Getting knickers in a twist over the negative and tryign to say it's NOT because there is an engine that revs 1,000 higher is always guaranteed to add little. Because it is applying an narrow analytical value to a subjective range. Been tryign to add words to the debate vocabulary to allow that to be explored, but I see it gets lost ( or ignored ) by some.

As well as the Imp engine I pointed out the bikes. Note that the proposer did NOT carry on with those as they are incapable of daily use for family and luggage. The idea that we were limiting it to capable cars was already introduced. After all in saying an I4 shoulnd't be introduced then shodl we remove lightened pistons in the V8 ? Or headers or all the other things the performance end of the V8 market introduces to get the revs up and produce a more responsive engine ?

[Matra et Alpine]

Im not sure the connection to "Fleetisms" but if we were comparing this to other 4 cylinders I may be as impressed as you. Even so it would not neccessarily paint 6500 revving V8s to the "also ran" pile.
Nobody said "also ran" ?
The only term complained about and TRYING to explore was "lazy".
If you get a sprinter and a long distance runner to do 200m then the external view woudl be that the long distance runner wasn't pushing themself, that they were being "lazy". Of course in that case the reality os obvious to all.

And so far that's the only proposition being made.
Daily use V8 engine in the world of petrol-driven automotive power is "lazy".
That in terms of all the petrol engines in the world whcih encompasses a a HUGE margin that the term "lazy" fits to those in the lower range.

Also, as was pointed out the other aspect of "lazy" being the ability to increase revs faster. This makes for "more responsive" driving. Not somethign you necessilry want when you've 2 kids in the back and a coffee in your had, so even it is not good or bad in all situations.

I contend that the issue is that we have issues in being able to put hands up to the negatives of anything. GWBism :D Note that I've exposed a few of those in the discourse. IN best debating comps I would point out that the other side hasn't :) [ jsut a bit of fun, but THAT is guaranteed to win you any debating competition !! ]

In "painting " things to piles, I see that the smaller I4s have been moved into the not able to move families ? :D Despite evidence to the contrary on that. Can we see a standard V8 revving to 8000 ? no. ( well actually of course we can, but not a high capacity one, so that is another avenue that coudl be explored and I leave to others to investigate the V8s ( as already offered ) and to show the range and profer opinion on the erv ranges adn the valid range the term "lazy" coudl be given to ....

[Matra et Alpine]

The thought of packing my family and their luggage into a Mini leaves me speechless. :eek: Im sure it was done though, you guys survived the blitz. :D

Oompa Loompas? :D

Well not every car I have ever owned has been a barge. ;)

The teenagers in the rally Imp were tall too, Yes, even we were going like "wtf?! when he turns up :D But they manage.

Normal sized. My young years was in a family of 4 kids with a Ford Anglia and we ALL used to go camping holidays with all the gear !! Like all things, if that's what you have then you manage. The 50/60s in UK were still affected by the war :( It wasn't till mid/late 60s that 'bigger' cars were able to be produced at a price most coudl afford.

Also, not every car we had was a shoe-box :)
It's the RANGE we were all exposed to that is underlying this "debate".
Returnig BRIEFLY to the initial point. We are an international forum, a member pointed out that 6000 was "lazy" the respondent didnt'; then ratinalise it by confining the comaprison to US cars in the 60s instead tried to say calling it lazy is wrong and cited a whoel 6500 as "evidence". Therein lies the screw-up :D

[henk4]

The teenagers in the rally Imp were tall too

No wonder as the car was designed by Mike Parkes, the Ferrari engineer/driver, who was famous for needing a bulb in the roof of Ferrari prototypes :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Im not sure I said it was. :confused:
You did point out my leather hat and goggles and love for "specialist track" cars :)
No problems, I was enjoying the debate and had dropped into "debate scoring mode" :D

Also I find that sometimes assumptions get made based on other inputs.
I've defended big engines often, but some dont' acknowledge that as it requires then some level of accpetance that the position isnt' "partisan".

Anecdote .... already stated long time ago on UCP .... the guy with the Imp and the Angus Classic ... the FASTEST car on the hillclimb section was a Land Rover with a VERY breathed on V8. Second fastes on the small sprint track too, there are picures of it lookign VERY top heavy. Was his engien "lazy" , yea sure it was. Was the car "faster" than others, hell yes on those stages. Was it "faster" on others, no. Did it win? no. Was it "fun" ? Hell YES.

[Matra et Alpine]

I would contend that moving the additional mass and additional parts would have some effect.
When you take the total mass into account then it does ahve an effect on the INERTIA in the engine.
BUT in power generation and efficiency it is only the mass of the piston and conrod that becomes the "limiting" factor. ( Note "limiting" factor is used in it's engieering term, it is NOT a negative :) )
The piston speed and the forces involved in the deceleratinoa dn acceleration at the end of each stroke are THE highest stresses in any engine.

It appears we are going down the "high rev" path. Just because the stroke may be the ultimate limiting factor, the additional mass and friction of moving parts cannot be ignored.
Well I did cover why you get more torque from a long stroke engine.
Small capacity short stroke engines ARE the only route to "high rev" so yes it's the high rev path :D
Just as long stroke lower revving is the high torque path :)
It was common in competition to have a long and short throw crank for an engine to be able to trade torque and power(from revs).
There's nothign partisan about it, but the physics of it are that longer crank means lower revs given all other factors the same in any engine.
So if you want a high revving V8 then you got to shorten the conrods and lighten the pistons.
The beauty of modern ignition, fuelling and cam control is that we CAN now get the best of both. 20 years ago you couldn't.

Just how this manifests itself would be interesting to know within the realms of a "daily driver". As you said most of these innefficiencies would be dealt with in high performance motors.
It's the modern engine management and mutliple cam profiles that get the efficiency up in modern cars. The DRAWBACK of traditional fast revving was that the valve opening/closing requirements for high revving meant it woudl run as lumpty as heel at low revs. Hence way back you used to worry as much about a cam "coming on" as you do a turbo now. If an engine was off-cam it was horrible. Vtec et al have fixed that by having different profiles for different rev ranges and so can get the torque ADN the power across the range which used to be very expensive and difficult in the past.
As we've shared the Imp, returning to it. It delivered both, but at 50hp. When you tuned that engine out to a +100hp 10,000 screamer, keeping it "on cam" was an art form and required judicious usage of the gear box :) That was the drawback of ultimate screamers back then. Or alternatively viewd THAT is what made it lots of fun pushing it round tracks and stages !!
You didn't want that level of tune in a car you were going to use in town :) ( and why brother's was not pushed that far )

But returngin tot he friction comment. Their is slightly increased friction but these are tiny in anything but a full on competition engine with scrsper rings etc. The addition of more cylinders may double the cylinder friction but that isnt' a major part in the efficiency of an engien. If it was, you would never be able to turn an engine by hand :) Friction is low in lubricated car engines. Is a factor but small compared to the problems in fuel burning efficiency.

[Matra et Alpine]

Help what? You have pointed out the positive effect that high revving has on fuel burning. That does not seem a particularly compelling argument that we need engines to rev high given the neccessity for them to be built to endure the stress and the questionable effect it has on longevity.
"Questionable effect on longevity" ?
Honda's do 200,000 miles. My espace is on 150,000 from 2 litres and IT tows horses :D. Distance gone needs much of the background. ( Passing on some first-hand .. the Honda race engines are seldom run up now beyond 10,000 revs. The Honda engineer said that the engines will "live forever" int eh Honda museum by being started and run liek that twice a year. At IoM they ran them up to 18,000. THAT he said they can only do another 10-12 times int he life of the engine. They do NOT run it out to 25,000 as they expect it to let loose due to the aged stresses in the conrods. Now IF you owned one ( $1million+ ) then you could drive it forever and clock up hundreds of thousands of miels at 10,000 revs. It would get from a to b fine. BUT if you raced it or pushed it very hard on the streets it woudl let go within a thousand. )

It also appears these motors (from the ones I have come in contact with) require higher octane fuel to operate where lazy old V8s dont neccessarily although it is a small point.
Yes the octane level of high compression engines needs to be higher.
If you look at modern V8s you see their compression ratios are higher and correspondingly fuel octane is now higher than it was 30 years ago.


Car designers do NOT go out to create vehicles that last 500,000 miles or they're out of business. SOME owners can easily extract that as they don't drive them "at limit".
The much-abused hp/l that ricers love to expound is a measure of the engineering stress of an engine. The higher it is the more stressed it is. You can get the same hp/l for small 4 potters and huge V16s. They will "last" about the same for the same type of usage. That's why engineers and lubrication techinicians develoep dthe metric.
As I see it high revving engines exist to extract the ultimate performance from these smaller motors in smaller lighter cars.
Yes, nobody has said otherwise :)
And I've confirmed by pointing out you struggle to design for torque if you go the short stroke, high piston speed route.
But that wasn't what was being discussed.
THese are avenues presented to try to assist in the understanding of why the world over lower revving engines are called "lazy" :D

[Matra et Alpine]

phew that was fun.

Can you tell I had come out of THE most borign meeting in the world :D

PS: If the last points haven't covered the ground, then create a new thread an dwe'll move all this sheat out of here and let folsk post their favourite american cars :D

[henk4]

Can you tell I had come out of THE most borign meeting in the world :D


yes it shows :D

[sunk]

Surenough the SingRay was THE MOST powerful car on sale. Nothing out of Europe could beat it.(at least a that time.)

Funny, nobody said for the Avanti or the Thunderbird.

[Matra et Alpine]

Surenough the SingRay was THE MOST powerful car on sale. Nothing out of Europe could beat it.(at least a that time.)
WHich one ?

I remember the early-body shape variants, didnt' like the later when it got "curvy" :)

http://www.stingray.dk/RACE/GSFAV1.JPG

Can't find a pic of the soft top version. Remeber seeing it drifting :D and collosal noise :D

or more modern versions ??

"beat it" -- ? power or on track ??

[Fleet 500]

hee-hee :D

"Wrong" ? As I've been quoting FACTS and have been exploring how we can describe a SUBJECTIVE term in a common method I'm not sure how I am either right or wrong.

A poitn already covered at the OPPOSITE end in the 1200 rpm boat engines coverd in the on-going debate by CS ( I think? )

So, in the thousands of posts you've made here, you've never been wrong? I find that very hard to believe.
You seem to be suffering from Matraism. See, I can do it, too. :D

What does a 1200 rpm boat engine have to do with 6500 rpm American muscle car engines?

[crisis]

Why is it 'new' parameter as the comment is made in a forum where all engines exist and in a thread about cars where all engines exist and they all provide the motive power to move cars ?
Being that the term "high revving” is subjective we must try to compare it to something else to qualify or measure it. If we compared the "lazy" US V8s to all other contemporary V8s then we would see if it was lazier that the others. This still would not necessarily be enough to label them lazy unless we had established a benchmark whereby a motor was considered lazy. If we go and compare it to a solitary example of , what you point out , is an advanced example of 4 cylinder technology for the time, then were are introducing an orange (or lemon :D (kidding!)) into the comparison between apples.
We could say in this case that the V8 is lazier than the 4 cylinder example but I don’t believe we can say it is necessarily lazy.

Anyone else died out there yet? :D



The points raised were to try to explroe the "subjectivity" and in it try to give everyoen tags we could apply that removed the one-tag-fits-all problem of "lazy".

So are you saying that –
1. If any motor is found to rev less than another it is deemed lazy?
2. All motors that rev less than 8000rpm are lazy?

Prolly not. So we need to (really!?) define at which point you can deem a motor to be lazy given the definition-

Lazy; moving slowly and gently, resistant to work or exertion, slow moving, sluggish.

It could be put forward that nothing that revs at even 1000rpm fits those descriptions. However if we are talking about motors then we should really say a “lazy engine”. Now from my point of view I would use that in reference to something like a diesel (cue Henk) of old or something that revved to around 4000 like my old Holdens. Your involvement with Climax engines seemingly has you relegating engines under 8000rpm to lazy. As you point out those two wheeled aficionados may regard anything under 14000 rpm lazy.

Given the discussion started with these two broad generalisations
“Some of them big lazy muscle cars from time ago”
“Comparatively they are Lazy in their delivery of power and in their general demeanour”,

I consider that Fleets (unsurprising) retort that some of the V8s back then revved to 6500 and could not be considered lazy to be reasonably valid from his and many points of view. Simply intruding an example of a 4 cylinder to the argument and saying this revved to 8000 therefore 6500 is lazy does not appear to be a fair comparison.




Would it be agreeable to say SOME V8s are "lazy" taking all cars in all eras in the American market by American manufcaturers ? If so then the original comment someone got "huffy" about WAS valid then.
Kind of, depending onwhat "original" comment you are reffering to.



The problem is it doens't apply to ALL engines and that is true. BUT because there are a few "performance" versions does it then make the tag "lazy" invalid for the majority ? Even when confiedn to only American V8s the term "lazy" is applicable BECAUSE the engines are designed for that purpose. The first Americna V8 was designed EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON. I'm amazed Fleet doesn't RELISH his heritage. "Lazy" is a term used in the automotive industry to describe an engine characteristic, which in some cases is anegative - nto ideal for a hillclimb car - and in others is a positive. Getting knickers in a twist over the negative and tryign to say it's NOT because there is an engine that revs 1,000 higher is always guaranteed to add little. Because it is applying an narrow analytical value to a subjective range. Been tryign to add words to the debate vocabulary to allow that to be explored, but I see it gets lost ( or ignored ) by some.
I will refer you back to the two comments that I believe got this started.
And I dont know whether Fleets examles were "performance" examples however the example you highlighted was also, despite being a standard version, by your own admission an example of and advanced and individual design.



As well as the Imp engine I pointed out the bikes. Note that the proposer did NOT carry on with those as they are incapable of daily use for family and luggage. The idea that we were limiting it to capable cars was already introduced. After all in saying an I4 shoulnd't be introduced then shodl we remove lightened pistons in the V8 ? Or headers or all the other things the performance end of the V8 market introduces to get the revs up and produce a more responsive engine ?
No we should come to a definition (if anyone really cares) of what "lazy revving" is. Is it a number or is it a subjective ideal.

[Matra et Alpine]

So, in the thousands of posts you've made here, you've never been wrong? I find that very hard to believe.
You seem to be suffering from Matraism. See, I can do it, too. :D
You plonker ROdney :)
See the evidence is out htere where I've learned something !!
Also I don't post unless I have seen evidence I believe.
Or in the cases where I'm not sure I always preface it with that.

That is "matraism". I'd hoped you moght have learned it by now :D

What does a 1200 rpm boat engine have to do with 6500 rpm American muscle car engines?
you haven't followed ANY of this have you.
YOU asked what engine did 1200rpm.
Another UCPer gave you more details.
man what a chump :D

[Matra et Alpine]

Crisih I believe ALL your points are already covered in teh pages of comments to Fleet and yourself.

*I* tried to see if we coudl start applyign subjective adjetives already and spent time trying to get a discourse going on it.

"Lazy" is a SUBJECTIVE word and it's foolish within the English language and logic to aplly OBJECTIVE numbers to it - hence the range offered.

SUBJECTIVITY requires comparison. All that's been expaliend - at length - is those COMPARISONS. As well as the Imp - used because of the matching timeline with the "lazy V8" era - there are others. Do I need to get a list ? It is widely accepted in motoring circles what "lazy" is, I've tried my best to share. MORE IMPORTANTLY I've said this should be out of this thread if it needed follow-up.

Please do that if reviewing your comments in the post and my earlier explanations still leave a gap. I don't believe there is. The rationale and other simpler examples of "high revvign" are given. "Lazy" is NOT a derogatory term in engines. It's fit-for-purpose. Covred it all already. If necessary will see it in another thread for a full discourse as long as everyoen is willing to put in the effort to LOOK for high-revvign before coming in attacking "lazy". Proper debate not jsut argument :D

[crisis]

Nobody said "also ran" ?
My words for the implied sentiment. The fact that you came up with a revvier (?!) engine appeared to suggest or support the notion that the V8s reffered to were lazy. In this discussion that has been seen as a negative so hence the term "also ran".


The only term complained about and TRYING to explore was "lazy".
If you get a sprinter and a long distance runner to do 200m then the external view woudl be that the long distance runner wasn't pushing themself, that they were being "lazy". Of course in that case the reality os obvious to all
Precislely. :confused:



And so far that's the only proposition being made.
Daily use V8 engine in the world of petrol-driven automotive power is "lazy".
That in terms of all the petrol engines in the world whcih encompasses a a HUGE margin that the term "lazy" fits to those in the lower range.
I will reserve my opinion until we come up with a definition of lazy.




In "painting " things to piles, I see that the smaller I4s have been moved into the not able to move families ? :D Despite evidence to the contrary on that. ....
Hardly Matra. My comment was loaded with smilies. The size of the car was questioned anyhow, not the motor. And if we want to go down that track, despite the fact that a small I4 in a small car could physically transport a family of four around the country on a holiday it would not neccessarily make for a comfortable trip. And the thought of navigating the 1-2000k trips we embark on down here in a mini pushing 90kmh is beyond laughable. But this does not mean a family could not use said transport to propell themselves to some pleasant seaside accomodation.


Can we see a standard V8 revving to 8000 ?
But that comes back to the desireability or neccessity of an engine(any) to rev highly unless there is a particular advantage.

[spi-ti-tout]

That is "matraism". I'd hoped you moght have learned it by now :D
Until now I only thought it was worshipping a car but it seems every place has a few exceptions :D

[crisis]

You did point out my leather hat and goggles and love for "specialist track" cars :)
I did point out it was not intended as an isult and in any case would not have imagined that you wold ever consider it so. :)
I was kind of alluding to the impression I get from your coments that many things related to desireabilty of particular cars relates to how they perform on the track.

[crisis]

When you take the total mass into account then it does ahve an effect on the INERTIA in the engine.
BUT in power generation and efficiency it is only the mass of the piston and conrod that becomes the "limiting" factor. ( Note "limiting" factor is used in it's engieering term, it is NOT a negative :) )
The piston speed and the forces involved in the deceleratinoa dn acceleration at the end of each stroke are THE highest stresses in any engine.

Well I did cover why you get more torque from a long stroke engine.
Small capacity short stroke engines ARE the only route to "high rev" so yes it's the high rev path :D
Just as long stroke lower revving is the high torque path :)
It was common in competition to have a long and short throw crank for an engine to be able to trade torque and power(from revs).
There's nothign partisan about it, but the physics of it are that longer crank means lower revs given all other factors the same in any engine.
So if you want a high revving V8 then you got to shorten the conrods and lighten the pistons.
The beauty of modern ignition, fuelling and cam control is that we CAN now get the best of both. 20 years ago you couldn't.

It's the modern engine management and mutliple cam profiles that get the efficiency up in modern cars. The DRAWBACK of traditional fast revving was that the valve opening/closing requirements for high revving meant it woudl run as lumpty as heel at low revs. Hence way back you used to worry as much about a cam "coming on" as you do a turbo now. If an engine was off-cam it was horrible. Vtec et al have fixed that by having different profiles for different rev ranges and so can get the torque ADN the power across the range which used to be very expensive and difficult in the past.
As we've shared the Imp, returning to it. It delivered both, but at 50hp. When you tuned that engine out to a +100hp 10,000 screamer, keeping it "on cam" was an art form and required judicious usage of the gear box :) That was the drawback of ultimate screamers back then. Or alternatively viewd THAT is what made it lots of fun pushing it round tracks and stages !!
You didn't want that level of tune in a car you were going to use in town :) ( and why brother's was not pushed that far )

But returngin tot he friction comment. Their is slightly increased friction but these are tiny in anything but a full on competition engine with scrsper rings etc. The addition of more cylinders may double the cylinder friction but that isnt' a major part in the efficiency of an engien. If it was, you would never be able to turn an engine by hand :) Friction is low in lubricated car engines. Is a factor but small compared to the problems in fuel burning efficiency.
I merely stated the additional mass and friction played a part. Not that it was the overiding factor and I didnt think you alluded to it initially.

[Matra et Alpine]

See your PMS.

What part of "create a new thread an dwe'll move all this sheat out of here and let folsk post their favourite american cars " was too difficult ?

THIS is messing this thread up. Take it elsewhere ( the reason why I've not done so already is in the PM :D )

[crisis]

"Questionable effect on longevity" ?
Honda's do 200,000 miles. My espace is on 150,000 from 2 litres and IT tows horses :D.
But not at max revs. And I sure there plenty of examples of thrashed 4cyl (like anything0 that are well fkd. I would hazard to guess that your cars would enjoy a reasonable level of tlc? :D
The "reliablity" question of high revving 4 cylinders vs lower revving larger motors can be argued away forever (and I think we are just the people to do it :D ) but the physics of higher stress, temperature and use of the components must play some part.

[crisis]

See your PMS.

What part of "create a new thread an dwe'll move all this sheat out of here and let folsk post their favourite american cars " was too difficult ?

THIS is messing this thread up. Take it elsewhere ( the reason why I've not done so already is in the PM :D )
I hadnt read this far. Sorry.

[Fleet 500]

You plonker ROdney :)
See the evidence is out htere where I've learned something !!
Also I don't post unless I have seen evidence I believe.
Or in the cases where I'm not sure I always preface it with that.

That is "matraism". I'd hoped you moght have learned it by now :D

you haven't followed ANY of this have you.
YOU asked what engine did 1200rpm.
Another UCPer gave you more details.
man what a chump :D
You believe wrong!

And, going by the posts you make here, "chump" is probably your middle name. ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

You believe wrong!

And, going by the posts you make here, "chump" is probably your middle name. ;)
Fleet go back and read the comments on the 1200 rpm engine threaded through these posts.

They ARE as exlpained to you and you WILL see that you COULD have known that if you'd read it. Hence the "chump".

You dont' like name calling , well stop acting it then as it's even MORE ANNOYING :D THe advice not to post sentences that show up your thikning-processes had been given many times. You trip yourself up - and in good company at not being able to see it :D

PS: TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD. You're ruining this one.

[sunk]

STOP IT fleet & Matra.
You have been awake for quite some time now, so go take a deep breath, drink a glass of cold water and shut your eyes and lie down in a dark roon.

[Matra et Alpine]

STOP IT fleet & Matra.
You have been awake for quite some time now, so go take a deep breath, drink a glass of cold water and shut your eyes and lie down in a dark roon.
likewise.

Tried MANY times to get this OUT of here.

Aim your comments correctly

[MOPAR KICKS ASS]

it doesn't matter if your a chevy,ford,plymouth,dodge or mopar have fun and kick tuner butt

[CdocZ]

it doesn't matter if your a chevy,ford,plymouth,dodge or mopar have fun and kick tuner butt

And what happens when it's an American tuned domestic car? Or a modified Porsche and it is a track race? What happens then?

[Diognes56]

It is impossible for me to pick my favorite American car. I am partial to the 1956 Chevy BelAir, because I own one, but there are so many others I like just as much. I can tell you my most hated American cars, the list would be shorter.

David

[Fleet 500]

STOP IT fleet & Matra.
You have been awake for quite some time now, so go take a deep breath, drink a glass of cold water and shut your eyes and lie down in a dark roon.
Matra is an expert at making something out of nothing. I make one comment on how some American engines are not "low-revving" and Matra takes up several pages trying to say the opposite.

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra is an expert at making something out of nothing. I make one comment on how some American engines are not "low-revving" and Matra takes up several pages trying to say the opposite.
Blindf nonsense again Fleet.
Takes two to tango and I've tried to get you to take this dance outside :D

I provided a relatively short exlpanation of why your commetn wasn't valid in an international forum. You chose to try to "prove" that coment wrong to protect your ego and I responded to the question raised.

IT IS CALLED DEBATE. And I think if anyeon talks IN HERE about it again then a 1 day summary ban shoudl be dispensed jsut to get it over that if everyone wants it moved OUT of a thread then those continuing to ignore those requests shoudl get slapped.

PS: I've slapped myself for writing this :) BUT 'he' whines when I make seperate threads for these things cos 'he' feels "picked on". So I was hoping 'he'd do it. Not man enough :(

But it IS ENOUGH :eek: Make a new thread dopey.