OT: engines
#31
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.
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
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.
>
>
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
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.
>
>
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
>
>
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.
>
>
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> >
> >
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.
> >
> >
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> >
> >
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.
> >
> >
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> >
> >
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.
> >
> >
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>>
>
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
>>
>
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>>
>
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
>>
>
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
>>
>
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
>>
>