OT: engines
 

I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
wondering...

Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Re: engines
 

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Re: engines
 

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Re: engines
 

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Re: OT: engines
 

> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.

Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

J.

Re: OT: engines
 

> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.

Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

J.

Re: OT: engines
 

> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.

Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

J.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>> checked if you are not trolling.
>
>
> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

Mighty Mite != car

Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.

Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
displacement, getting worse as you go back.

>
> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
etc.

Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
when collided with.

>
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
PC's.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>> checked if you are not trolling.
>
>
> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

Mighty Mite != car

Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.

Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
displacement, getting worse as you go back.

>
> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
etc.

Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
when collided with.

>
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
PC's.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>> checked if you are not trolling.
>
>
> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

Mighty Mite != car

Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.

Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
displacement, getting worse as you go back.

>
> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
etc.

Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
when collided with.

>
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
PC's.

Re: OT: engines
 

Keep YerSpam proclaimed:

> Troy wrote:
>
>>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
>>
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
>
>
> <<<snip>>>
> "Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
> More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
> You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
> And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
> You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Heh, try the old Mercury Capri with the 1600 smog choked engine
that dropped 10 mph off cruise speed every time the A/C compressor
kicked in. A truly fun way to cross Nevada with those looooonnnng
hills and luvverly warm summer days.

The old VW Van had a hard time getting to 75 mph and staying there
unless driven off a cliff...

Re: OT: engines
 

Keep YerSpam proclaimed:

> Troy wrote:
>
>>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
>>
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
>
>
> <<<snip>>>
> "Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
> More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
> You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
> And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
> You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Heh, try the old Mercury Capri with the 1600 smog choked engine
that dropped 10 mph off cruise speed every time the A/C compressor
kicked in. A truly fun way to cross Nevada with those looooonnnng
hills and luvverly warm summer days.

The old VW Van had a hard time getting to 75 mph and staying there
unless driven off a cliff...

Re: OT: engines
 

Keep YerSpam proclaimed:

> Troy wrote:
>
>>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
>>
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
>
>
> <<<snip>>>
> "Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
> More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
> You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
> And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
> You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Heh, try the old Mercury Capri with the 1600 smog choked engine
that dropped 10 mph off cruise speed every time the A/C compressor
kicked in. A truly fun way to cross Nevada with those looooonnnng
hills and luvverly warm summer days.

The old VW Van had a hard time getting to 75 mph and staying there
unless driven off a cliff...

Re: OT: engines
 

Jason Backshall proclaimed:

>>Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>>producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>
> Ts,
>
>>stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
>
> By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.
>
> Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

I'd think it would be more fun to take an old Stanley Steamer
engine and render it modernly and stick it in a FSJ. Or a Doble.
Think the Stanley was the first passenger car to sustain in
excess of 100 mph measured at Daytona sand beach.

Re: OT: engines
 

Jason Backshall proclaimed:

>>Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>>producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>
> Ts,
>
>>stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
>
> By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.
>
> Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

I'd think it would be more fun to take an old Stanley Steamer
engine and render it modernly and stick it in a FSJ. Or a Doble.
Think the Stanley was the first passenger car to sustain in
excess of 100 mph measured at Daytona sand beach.

Re: OT: engines
 

Jason Backshall proclaimed:

>>Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>>producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>
> Ts,
>
>>stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
>
> By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.
>
> Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

I'd think it would be more fun to take an old Stanley Steamer
engine and render it modernly and stick it in a FSJ. Or a Doble.
Think the Stanley was the first passenger car to sustain in
excess of 100 mph measured at Daytona sand beach.

Re: OT: engines
 

A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
page.
http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm

PS
I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year

--
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>>> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>>
>> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
> Mighty Mite != car
>
> Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
>
> Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> displacement, getting worse as you go back.
>
>>
>> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
>> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
> Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> etc.
>
> Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> when collided with.
>
>>
>> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
>> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
>> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
>> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> PC's.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
page.
http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm

PS
I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year

--
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>>> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>>
>> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
> Mighty Mite != car
>
> Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
>
> Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> displacement, getting worse as you go back.
>
>>
>> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
>> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
> Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> etc.
>
> Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> when collided with.
>
>>
>> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
>> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
>> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
>> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> PC's.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
page.
http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm

PS
I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year

--
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
>>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
>>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
>>> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>>
>> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
>> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
>> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
>
> Mighty Mite != car
>
> Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
>
> Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> displacement, getting worse as you go back.
>
>>
>> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
>> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
>> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
>> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
>
> Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> etc.
>
> Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> when collided with.
>
>>
>> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
>> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
>> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
>> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> PC's.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

That's all it had: http://www.----------.com/temp/crosley.jpg The VW
bug ten years later only had twenty five horsepower in it's 1200 CC, and
we all went up Torrey Pines, the hill on old 101 going into San Diego at
twenty miles an hour. That was great little engine it's head was cast
with cylinder block and later was a successful outboard motor
manufacturer.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Billy Ray wrote:
>
> A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
> page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
> page.
> http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm
>
> PS
> I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year
>
> --
> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
> .
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > Troy proclaimed:
> >
> >>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> >>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> >>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> >>> checked if you are not trolling.
> >>
> >>
> >> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> >> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
> >> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
> >
> > Mighty Mite != car
> >
> > Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> > engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> > 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> > same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> > In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> > better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> > cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> > e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> > models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> > vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> > pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> > or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> > cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> > of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> > much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> > control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> > 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> > would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
> >
> > Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> > displacement, getting worse as you go back.
> >
> >>
> >> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> >> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> >> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
> >> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
> >
> > Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> > etc.
> >
> > Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> > and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> > iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> > when collided with.
> >
> >>
> >> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> >> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
> >> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
> >> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
> >
> > Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> > PC's.
> >
> >

Re: OT: engines
 

That's all it had: http://www.----------.com/temp/crosley.jpg The VW
bug ten years later only had twenty five horsepower in it's 1200 CC, and
we all went up Torrey Pines, the hill on old 101 going into San Diego at
twenty miles an hour. That was great little engine it's head was cast
with cylinder block and later was a successful outboard motor
manufacturer.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Billy Ray wrote:
>
> A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
> page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
> page.
> http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm
>
> PS
> I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year
>
> --
> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
> .
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > Troy proclaimed:
> >
> >>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> >>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> >>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> >>> checked if you are not trolling.
> >>
> >>
> >> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> >> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
> >> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
> >
> > Mighty Mite != car
> >
> > Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> > engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> > 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> > same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> > In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> > better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> > cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> > e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> > models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> > vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> > pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> > or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> > cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> > of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> > much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> > control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> > 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> > would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
> >
> > Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> > displacement, getting worse as you go back.
> >
> >>
> >> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> >> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> >> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
> >> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
> >
> > Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> > etc.
> >
> > Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> > and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> > iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> > when collided with.
> >
> >>
> >> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> >> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
> >> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
> >> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
> >
> > Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> > PC's.
> >
> >

Re: OT: engines
 

That's all it had: http://www.----------.com/temp/crosley.jpg The VW
bug ten years later only had twenty five horsepower in it's 1200 CC, and
we all went up Torrey Pines, the hill on old 101 going into San Diego at
twenty miles an hour. That was great little engine it's head was cast
with cylinder block and later was a successful outboard motor
manufacturer.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Billy Ray wrote:
>
> A local tire dealer has a 1948 Crosley in their showroom. There is a 5
> page brochure on-line at the link below. Be sure to read the specifications
> page.
> http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Crosl...sley%20(1).htm
>
> PS
> I think US horsepower ratings changes in 1972 give or take a year
>
> --
> Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
> 2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
> Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
> .
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Zr2dnfkfsOtGUNDeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > Troy proclaimed:
> >
> >>> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> >>> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> >>> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> >>> checked if you are not trolling.
> >>
> >>
> >> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> >> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
> >> Ts, stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)
> >
> > Mighty Mite != car
> >
> > Once you go back past mumble mumble year, American cars rated their
> > engines in SAE Gross horsepower. This is why you would see a
> > 150 British HorsePower vehicle kick rear on an American model of
> > same weight but 200+ horsepower, or similar for a 100 DIN unit.
> > In 19{mumble} they switched over to SAE Net, which maps a bit
> > better, but is still a bit optimistic. Of course there are
> > cheaters on both the upside and downside today as back then.
> > e.g. a 435 Hp 427 ZL1 that made closer to 500 or the "290 Hp"
> > models rated specifically to avoid insurance surcharges on
> > vehicles over 300 Hp. The 6.1 Hemi SRT of today, even though a
> > pushrod design, compares reasonably well to a 425 Hp 427 Chev
> > or 430 Hp Mopar 440. The old 426 Hemi was one of the downward
> > cheaters. Mostly just good engine management control, as some
> > of the older engines were higher compression ratio than pretty
> > much any gasoline you could buy today can handle without knock
> > control which drops HP. e.g. most of the aftermarket tuner
> > 396, 427 Chev and Ford Cammer, 426 ram+hemi, 440, 421, 428 that
> > would run well only on Sunoco 260 or similar.
> >
> > Plus the older engines were generally much heavier for a given
> > displacement, getting worse as you go back.
> >
> >>
> >> I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
> >> made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
> >> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said,
> >> and I even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.
> >
> > Some of the early american sboxen were the Crosley, Nash Metropolitan,
> > etc.
> >
> > Somewhat instructive to compare modern 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile times
> > and speeds with the older iron. Granted some of that was that the older
> > iron had to carry around real steel capable of taking out a Land Rover
> > when collided with.
> >
> >>
> >> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> >> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking...
> >> looking for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer
> >> than I, and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
> >
> > Yeah, I've been known to design a computer or two... big ones, not
> > PC's.
> >
> >

Re: engines
 

Sadly I don't expect them to build them like locomotives where the
diesel can generate enough power to move the train, but just uses
electric motors to do so, with a battery available for light duty
or additional short term pulling power.

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:

> That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but
> not so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran
> all of the time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be
> kicking in while climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when
> entering the freeway makes lots of sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
> news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a
>> small engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the
>> same as a stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if
>> mass produced the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried
>> before or not.
>>
>> Troy
>>
>

Re: engines
 

Sadly I don't expect them to build them like locomotives where the
diesel can generate enough power to move the train, but just uses
electric motors to do so, with a battery available for light duty
or additional short term pulling power.

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:

> That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but
> not so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran
> all of the time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be
> kicking in while climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when
> entering the freeway makes lots of sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
> news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a
>> small engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the
>> same as a stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if
>> mass produced the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried
>> before or not.
>>
>> Troy
>>
>

Re: engines
 

Sadly I don't expect them to build them like locomotives where the
diesel can generate enough power to move the train, but just uses
electric motors to do so, with a battery available for light duty
or additional short term pulling power.

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:

> That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but
> not so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran
> all of the time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be
> kicking in while climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when
> entering the freeway makes lots of sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
> news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a
>> small engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the
>> same as a stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if
>> mass produced the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried
>> before or not.
>>
>> Troy
>>
>