Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
> tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't
sounds
> so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:


God, you really can't think at all. Progressive Linkage or any other
kind doesn't change the airflow pattern except to complicate the
issue-6 don't go into 8 evenly. Look at all the Weber setups. They all
have one throttle bore for ONE or TWO or VERY RARELY FOUR (and then
equidistant) cylinders. Four two barrels or two four barrels suits a
V-8 fine. One four barrel can be made to work ok but never with the top
end response of a Weber setup, but definitely better than three deuces.


For Automotive Performance,if you don't mind the expense and the
inability of Generation P to learn something grandpa didn't raise them
that way for, Eduardo Weber SpA was the king of float bowl carburetion.
Three generations of American and European road racers proved that.
Holleys do okay on V-8s, even giving arguably better part throttle
economy, but you want an even number of venturis to cylinders to feed.
Always. A single four barrel on a six doesn't hack it unless you have a
turbo (in a draw through setup) to agitate the mixture.

Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
> tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't
sounds
> so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:


God, you really can't think at all. Progressive Linkage or any other
kind doesn't change the airflow pattern except to complicate the
issue-6 don't go into 8 evenly. Look at all the Weber setups. They all
have one throttle bore for ONE or TWO or VERY RARELY FOUR (and then
equidistant) cylinders. Four two barrels or two four barrels suits a
V-8 fine. One four barrel can be made to work ok but never with the top
end response of a Weber setup, but definitely better than three deuces.


For Automotive Performance,if you don't mind the expense and the
inability of Generation P to learn something grandpa didn't raise them
that way for, Eduardo Weber SpA was the king of float bowl carburetion.
Three generations of American and European road racers proved that.
Holleys do okay on V-8s, even giving arguably better part throttle
economy, but you want an even number of venturis to cylinders to feed.
Always. A single four barrel on a six doesn't hack it unless you have a
turbo (in a draw through setup) to agitate the mixture.

Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a
> tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't
sounds
> so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:


God, you really can't think at all. Progressive Linkage or any other
kind doesn't change the airflow pattern except to complicate the
issue-6 don't go into 8 evenly. Look at all the Weber setups. They all
have one throttle bore for ONE or TWO or VERY RARELY FOUR (and then
equidistant) cylinders. Four two barrels or two four barrels suits a
V-8 fine. One four barrel can be made to work ok but never with the top
end response of a Weber setup, but definitely better than three deuces.


For Automotive Performance,if you don't mind the expense and the
inability of Generation P to learn something grandpa didn't raise them
that way for, Eduardo Weber SpA was the king of float bowl carburetion.
Three generations of American and European road racers proved that.
Holleys do okay on V-8s, even giving arguably better part throttle
economy, but you want an even number of venturis to cylinders to feed.
Always. A single four barrel on a six doesn't hack it unless you have a
turbo (in a draw through setup) to agitate the mixture.

Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Maybe not, but think about it...a Jeep with a Wankel rotary, as in Mazda
RX7....How do the Wankels do in low end torque?

"Ted" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103401494.320991.317730@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...


Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Maybe not, but think about it...a Jeep with a Wankel rotary, as in Mazda
RX7....How do the Wankels do in low end torque?

"Ted" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103401494.320991.317730@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...


Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Maybe not, but think about it...a Jeep with a Wankel rotary, as in Mazda
RX7....How do the Wankels do in low end torque?

"Ted" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103401494.320991.317730@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...


Fortunately, no one has ever put a radial engine in a Jeep, so we
don't even have to think about it.

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Hi Ben,
True, and they mark every part and bolt with the Ford logo, because the
Government forced them to garantee the parts and Ford didn't want to get
stuck with the Willys stuff.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Ben" <bmccunenospam@knology.net> wrote in message
news:rq0xd.5482$iE.2716@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Bill,
> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
> during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about
Willy's
> Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted
some
> of the production to Ford.
>
> Ben
> 95 YJ 2.5L

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Hi Ben,
True, and they mark every part and bolt with the Ford logo, because the
Government forced them to garantee the parts and Ford didn't want to get
stuck with the Willys stuff.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Ben" <bmccunenospam@knology.net> wrote in message
news:rq0xd.5482$iE.2716@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Bill,
> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
> during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about
Willy's
> Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted
some
> of the production to Ford.
>
> Ben
> 95 YJ 2.5L

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Hi Ben,
True, and they mark every part and bolt with the Ford logo, because the
Government forced them to garantee the parts and Ford didn't want to get
stuck with the Willys stuff.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Ben" <bmccunenospam@knology.net> wrote in message
news:rq0xd.5482$iE.2716@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Bill,
> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
> during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about
Willy's
> Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted
some
> of the production to Ford.
>
> Ben
> 95 YJ 2.5L

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Hi Ben,
The Willys W.W. II Jeeps made by Ford use bolts like these with a
Ford logo on them, unfortunately these are illegible:
http://www.----------.com/fordWillyBolts.jpg Other than we can see
something was there.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Ben wrote:
>
> Bill,
> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
> during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Willy's
> Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted some
> of the production to Ford.
>
> Ben
> 95 YJ 2.5L