New at this, trying to understand horse power
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
There is also the argument that pushrod engines are easier to maintain and
repair out in the sticks.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Mark12211" <mark12211@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050113110349.19502.00000065@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably
start
> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
repair out in the sticks.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Mark12211" <mark12211@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050113110349.19502.00000065@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably
start
> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
In message <41E6B1D6.C2E2444E@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> You're ignorant when it come to American engines. Ford made
>overhead cam engines in the twenties for some of their tractors. Mustang
>used an overhead cam in their 429" for their '69 Boss:
>http://www.geocities.com/infieldg/v8sohc427.html We been there, done
>that! If you want to go fast get a push rod engine, if you just want
>another puny rice burner, buy an OHC.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>Mark12211 wrote:
>>
>> Pretty good fuel consuption also, only 56 gallons per mile. You could design
>> any type of engine to get better performance by making it burn higher
>> combustion fuel at a fast rate. But vehicles that will be driven on roads need
>> a balance between fuel consumption and power.
>>
>> Today's OHC engines are generally designed as smaller engines for use in
>> smaller cars. The produce a nice amount of power and are fuel efficient. They
>> are generally more expensive to design than a pushrod engine.
>>
>> Today's high torque larger trucks, SUVs, and sports cars use larger engines
>> that are OHV pushrods. These have gotten much better at fuel consumption than
>> they used to be. These are cheaper to build, since the designs haven't changed
>> much.
>>
>> Over the next 20 years, even large cars, trucks, and SUV will probably start
>> switching over to using mostly OHC engines. Manufacturers haven't put the
>> capital into designing large OHC engines until recently.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
bllsht wrote:
>
> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
You know the 30 year rolling exemption will end in April, right?
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
You know the 30 year rolling exemption will end in April, right?
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
You know the 30 year rolling exemption will end in April, right?
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.
In message <41E841BF.B75785B4@***.net>, "L.W." wrote:
> I was just going by what a friend told me his Stang was. I know the
>tunnel port 429", that's what's waiting for Kalifornia's new SMOG will
>be for my '78 Bronco: http://www.----------.com/429ford.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> While Ford did make a 427 SOHC motor, the Boss 429 was a pushrod motor.