OT: engines
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to a
> turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
>
> Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as they
> use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
>
> :-)
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to a
> turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
>
> Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as they
> use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
>
> :-)
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Yes, I've driven a million million miles on low RPM turbo charged,
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Yes, I've driven a million million miles on low RPM turbo charged,
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Yes, I've driven a million million miles on low RPM turbo charged,
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
with nine to eighteen speeds trying to get it to sixty miles an hour. If
you want to be the fastest and not just rice-ing a small engine, use a
supercharger.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Every over the road truck in the United States today in revenue
> service uses turbochargers. Even Gardner and Foden in the UK, eccentric
> but beautifully made engines, went to turbos at the end of their
> production life. I know of no Fodens stateside but Gardners show up in
> doubledeck English buses-lots of them come here, especially to places
> like Las Vegas, Wis. Dells, Branson, etc.-occasionally.
>
> ------ proves his opacity to reality himself so much better than
> anyone else could. Properly designed turbo installations add virtually
> no back pressure and some are tuned so that in the RPM range of
> interest they actually provide suction rather than pressure. Turbos
> derive their energy from the heat drop across the turbine! In WWII,
> Rolls Royce were against turbos in aircraft because they felt the
> exhaust energy from the stacks provided forward thrust to the airplane
> which you lost in a turbo. In a truck or car that energy is dissipated
> in the muffler system.
>
> Mechanical superchargers are very inefficient because they use a lot
> of crank horsepower. The centrifugal supercharger is the most efficient
> but, as you know from Fodens, is bad for roadgoing vehicles because
> they make boost in a narrow range. The Roots blower used on the (you
> have to admit) more successful Detroit Diesels makes boost linearly but
> is mechanically very, very inefficient. That's why screw types are now
> used in fuel dragsters. Detroits with turbocharging only use the blower
> for starting, it's "unloaded" (bypassed) at speed.
>
> Mack with its Thermodynes were the first production turbocharged road
> vehicle.I think they were introduced in 1955 and within ten years every
> four cycle linehaul engine in America was turbocharged. DDA took until
> the fuel crunch in '73 to get into the act. Of course there never was a
> naturally aspirated Series 60.
>
> Outside the US, --- in Germany and IHI were the turbo
> manufacturers.(ASEA Brown Boveri never made one that small AFAIK.) The
> English never made turbos for vehicles but there were some interesting
> things like Jumbo Goddard's turbo 8 liter Bentley.
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Hell, Lingenfelter goes the twin turbo route for the Corvette too - 725 hp
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Hell, Lingenfelter goes the twin turbo route for the Corvette too - 725 hp
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Hell, Lingenfelter goes the twin turbo route for the Corvette too - 725 hp
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
for the top of the range one he does.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:43515E34.95F0A42@***.net...
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > The '73 Porsche Can Am racer put out a 1500hp from 5.4 litres thanks to
a
> > turbo ; this was a car that could drive for more than 4 seconds in a
> > straight line. I wouldn't call that "not of any real value".
> >
> > Of course, Mack don't know anything about making horsepower either as
they
> > use turbos. Guess they aren't Real Trucks.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
ßill L. W. ------ III wrote:
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
The 917 Panzer Porsche would have been only able to put out 900 to
1100 flywheel hp with a mechanical blower. Plus weight would have gone
up. The Panzers steamrollered all other Can-Am cars so badly they ended
the series.
A Roots blower takes up to 50% of the power gain of the engine to turn
it. The BSFC of Roots-blower four cycle gasoline engines is terrible
and the blower life is too, unless it can be declutched like the 540K
Mercedes and Bugattis prewar. The much-loved Blower Bentley was a pain
in the *** and until they became stupid money collectibles many had
their blowers gutted and were run NA.
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
ßill L. W. ------ III wrote:
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
The 917 Panzer Porsche would have been only able to put out 900 to
1100 flywheel hp with a mechanical blower. Plus weight would have gone
up. The Panzers steamrollered all other Can-Am cars so badly they ended
the series.
A Roots blower takes up to 50% of the power gain of the engine to turn
it. The BSFC of Roots-blower four cycle gasoline engines is terrible
and the blower life is too, unless it can be declutched like the 540K
Mercedes and Bugattis prewar. The much-loved Blower Bentley was a pain
in the *** and until they became stupid money collectibles many had
their blowers gutted and were run NA.
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
ßill L. W. ------ III wrote:
> If you want to win, supercharge the Porsche:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
The 917 Panzer Porsche would have been only able to put out 900 to
1100 flywheel hp with a mechanical blower. Plus weight would have gone
up. The Panzers steamrollered all other Can-Am cars so badly they ended
the series.
A Roots blower takes up to 50% of the power gain of the engine to turn
it. The BSFC of Roots-blower four cycle gasoline engines is terrible
and the blower life is too, unless it can be declutched like the 540K
Mercedes and Bugattis prewar. The much-loved Blower Bentley was a pain
in the *** and until they became stupid money collectibles many had
their blowers gutted and were run NA.