OT: engines
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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...
> 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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>>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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>>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.
