How are American engine mfgs able to make high HP with simple designs? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    Where did you get your facts.
    Maybe where you live truck operate under low stress much of their life, but not here. My neighbor drives tractor trailers(super B's) and hauls cement loads up and down the road grossing 63000 kgs. He often mentions having his foot firmly planted down on the accelerator with the turbo whistling away at 37 psi boost, for most of his trips because of the huge rolling resistance and windy and sometimes cold conditions on the prairies. His last truck had 1250000 miles on it before it crapped out.
    My analogy wasnt misleading. I was simply pointing out that for reliability you need volumetric efficiency on your side. That was all.
    Your friend did pretty good at that weight, trucks in the US except for some state exemptions and heavy haul are limited to 80,000 pounds. Even at 135K the engine is not under the constant stress of a boat, think water dyno.

    Where did I get my facts, Caterpillar, Volvo, working in the internal combustion engine industry for about 40 years on and off. I fly airplanes, operate class 8 trucks, have done a bit of blue water sailing, had a AA/BAD as a kid, worked in top fuel engine building, F1 and Indy engine programs, do turbo, supercharging and nitrous systems, develop fuel systems. I have a bit of experience with engines both spark and compression ignition. From small block Chevys to Merlin's, Cat, Cummins, Volvo, Detroit, MTU and Mercedes.

    Engine load is not constant in road vehicles, boats and airplanes engines are at a constant power setting for hours or days at a time. The engines in trucks even in heavy haul don't have to maintain the percentage of power a boat does. Unless the truck is going to the proverbial school that is up hill ten miles in both directions. Caterpillar actually rates engine life in pound of fuel consumed, an engine at a high power setting IS consuming more fuel per hour than a less stressed one. Your friends truck gets miles per gallon, boats get gallons per knot.

    Steve

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    5,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    527
    Likes (Received)
    1824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    Your friend did pretty good at that weight, trucks in the US except for some state exemptions and heavy haul are limited to 80,000 pounds. Even at 135K the engine is not under the constant stress of a boat, think water dyno.

    Where did I get my facts, Caterpillar, Volvo, working in the internal combustion engine industry for about 40 years on and off. I fly airplanes, operate class 8 trucks, have done a bit of blue water sailing, had a AA/BAD as a kid, worked in top fuel engine building, F1 and Indy engine programs, do turbo, supercharging and nitrous systems, develop fuel systems. I have a bit of experience with engines both spark and compression ignition. From small block Chevys to Merlin's, Cat, Cummins, Volvo, Detroit, MTU and Mercedes.

    Engine load is not constant in road vehicles, boats and airplanes engines are at a constant power setting for hours or days at a time. The engines in trucks even in heavy haul don't have to maintain the percentage of power a boat does. Unless the truck is going to the proverbial school that is up hill ten miles in both directions. Caterpillar actually rates engine life in pound of fuel consumed, an engine at a high power setting IS consuming more fuel per hour than a less stressed one. Your friends truck gets miles per gallon, boats get gallons per knot.

    Steve

    NOTE!

    A knot is a unit of velocity. 1 nautical mile (1.85km) per hour.

    gallons per nautical mile would be the expression. ;-)

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    NOTE!

    A knot is a unit of velocity. 1 nautical mile (1.85km) per hour.

    gallons per nautical mile would be the expression. ;-)
    You are correct and with big boats fuel burn is expressed in tons per day.

    Steve

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    824
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    195
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roll-a-leblond View Post
    And I'll add the 1963 427 sohc Ford is still the highest hp N/A engine to come from a major mfg. 660 HP with dual carbs,615 with a single.

    Dodge was about to come out with a dohc 426 hemi to beat it.

    Airflow and fuel = power

    One more thing , ohc valve train does not make a engine new or modern,nor does a American v8 have to be pushrod.

    Ohc,dohc has been around since the beginning...the Ford gaa tank engine for the shernans was dohc and 1000ci v8 in ww2,to name one of many .
    4-valve Peugeot 1912, various American makers ca. 1916.
    1935 Duesenberg (American make) DOHC engine with 4 valves per cylinder, 6.9 liter supercharged engine with 400hp.

  5. Likes AlexO, bryan_machine liked this post
  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in SoCal View Post
    You are correct and with big boats fuel burn is expressed in tons per day.

    Steve
    So how long you think your F1 engine would last as daily driver???
    Even tuned down to 25% its normal ouput,it wouldn't cut it out in the wild.They were never designed for it. The engineers had only 1 thing in mind and it wasn't going to be a grocery getter.

    Oh and ten mile hill is a joke compared to 6 hrs travelling at 100km/h with a cross wind of 80 km/h engine at full power in top gear. You want to talk dyno and engine stress. How does 1.8 mpg for 6 hrs sound like. Maybe caterpillar should of rethunk there provings grounds. In the winter -30 100km/h , 70_80 kilometer side wind and result is same as boat scenario. Ive seen it a what a long trip that was.
    Just sayin.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    824
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    195
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    So how long you think your F1 engine would last as daily driver???
    Even tuned down to 25% its normal ouput,it wouldn't cut it out in the wild.They were never designed for it. The engineers had only 1 thing in mind and it wasn't going to be a grocery getter.

    Oh and ten mile hill is a joke compared to 6 hrs travelling at 100km/h with a cross wind of 80 km/h engine at full power in top gear. You want to talk dyno and engine stress. How does 1.8 mpg for 6 hrs sound like. Maybe caterpillar should of rethunk there provings grounds. In the winter -30 100km/h , 70_80 kilometer side wind and result is same as boat scenario. Ive seen it a what a long trip that was.
    Just sayin.
    In summer we also had to ski to school and in winter walk the 10 mile trip to uphill in both directions.

    BTW They started running some 104 ton trucks in here. Fuel consumption is quoted as 65-85 liters per 100km @80-85km/h so about 100 liters per hour.
    Back-calculating from fuel consumption and ~180g/kwh BSFC (diesel 0.83g/cm3 density) gives 83kg per hour =460kW =620 hp.
    Not much extra left on 750hp Scania engine...

  8. Likes adama, bryan_machine liked this post
  9. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Not bad. 1.8mpg = 124 liters per hour. Or something like that

  10. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    Back to the original topic, what makes moving the cam out of the block and into the head more complex??? What...the chain is longer. Complex is having the lifters in the block and achieving exacting geometry. If pushrods dont line up just right, the engine wìll fail prematurely.

  11. Likes Bobw liked this post
  12. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pinckney Mi.
    Posts
    2,993
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4161
    Likes (Received)
    765

    Default

    i got goose bumps all over reading bout HP.
    Them 427 fords, I seen em run on Telegraph( a public street) in the early 60s.
    fun times they were.just wanted to share.pretty sure the drivers were Ford employees.
    Gw

  13. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    8,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10450
    Likes (Received)
    8736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    Back to the original topic, what makes moving the cam out of the block and into the head more complex??? What...the chain is longer. Complex is having the lifters in the block and achieving exacting geometry. If pushrods dont line up just right, the engine wìll fail prematurely.
    I think it was here about a month ago. Some guy was having problems keeping his rocker arms alive in a 429...

    What a mess that pushrod/rocker/valve arrangement is/was... Looks like a Rube Goldberg device.


    Only needing a single cam would I guess be one advantage.. But on a straight six or 4, I see really no
    reason for there to be a cam in the block.. A straight 4 or 6 block, with no cam in it is about
    the simplest thing going..

    I wonder if pushrod motors were just a natural evolution from flat head motors that had everything in the block???

  14. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    5,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    527
    Likes (Received)
    1824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobw View Post
    I think it was here about a month ago. Some guy was having problems keeping his rocker arms alive in a 429...

    What a mess that pushrod/rocker/valve arrangement is/was... Looks like a Rube Goldberg device.


    Only needing a single cam would I guess be one advantage.. But on a straight six or 4, I see really no
    reason for there to be a cam in the block.. A straight 4 or 6 block, with no cam in it is about
    the simplest thing going..

    I wonder if pushrod motors were just a natural evolution from flat head motors that had everything in the block???
    No need to wonder.

    OHC, Valve in head and L heads were popular all around the same time, but I suppose one could make a case for a progression.

    "If you want to lean something new, read an old book."

    5 valve heads such as Yamaha and Audi, never use the word "simple" as far as valve actuation goes.
    The design does offer "drive ability" above many four valve designs. And just for yucks! Check into the early executions or RADIAL four valve heads. You will be impressed how sophisticated early IC engine valve gear was.

  15. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Woodland Hills, Ca. and some times Hutchinson, Ks.
    Posts
    2,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Some good old reading on engine development is Harry Ricardo's internal combustion and The high speed internal combustion engine.

    I worked for the company that solved the valve timing issue on the Ford SOHC 427, the thing that killed them was NASCAR rules. Micky Thompson ran "cammers" in a funnycar for a few years but doing work between rounds was much more difficult.

    Steve

  16. #53
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,789
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5979
    Likes (Received)
    4168

    Default

    One difference between engines of the muscle car era and modern engines is that today we can make more accurate sand castings, and we can make them from ALUMINUM. At the absolute peak of the late lamented hot rod aftermarket, the technical sophistication of engine blocks, heads and intake systems didn't approach that of a production 4-cam Ford V8. I will concede that iron is better for making huge power but it sure doesn't do much for the weight and balance of a race car, especially not a front engined one.

  17. Likes bryan_machine liked this post
  18. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California, Ventura county
    Posts
    1,351
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    174
    Likes (Received)
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg White View Post
    i got goose bumps all over reading bout HP.
    Them 427 fords, I seen em run on Telegraph( a public street) in the early 60s.
    fun times they were.just wanted to share.pretty sure the drivers were Ford employees.
    Gw
    wasn't the some law that every town had to have a Telegraph and or Telephone road

  19. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California, Ventura county
    Posts
    1,351
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    174
    Likes (Received)
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    One difference between engines of the muscle car era and modern engines is that today we can make more accurate sand castings, and we can make them from ALUMINUM. At the absolute peak of the late lamented hot rod aftermarket, the technical sophistication of engine blocks, heads and intake systems didn't approach that of a production 4-cam Ford V8. I will concede that iron is better for making huge power but it sure doesn't do much for the weight and balance of a race car, especially not a front engined one.
    yes remember the cheapest HP is less weight.
    thing have come a long way from the old GM Buick aluminum block

  20. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    8,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10450
    Likes (Received)
    8736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    One difference between engines of the muscle car era and modern engines is that today we can make more accurate sand castings, and we can make them from ALUMINUM.
    I agree that better casting methods probably help, and aluminum never hurts.. But..

    I think the biggest improvements come from actually looking at how the air flows, and
    how things work in the combustion chamber. I'm pretty sure CNC's and CAD and modeling
    software have taken that stuff to whole new level.

    Just for shits and giggles, my dodge has 245hp, my old 78 Bronco had about 160hp..
    Roughly the same size motors.. So for fun I just looked up the cam specs, they
    are damn near the same.

    The difference that I can see... Apparently the Dodge heads are pretty decent and
    hogging them out doesn't get you much.. The 351M, they added a cooling passage that
    choked off half the exhaust port.. ("that won't effect anything" said some engineer
    in the 70's).

    Look at an old Flat Head.. There was no consideration for air flow.. I've got
    a few old continentals out here.. Right angles in the exhaust and intake manifolds.
    No changing of cross sections when more air is entering or leaving... They are HORRIBLE!!!

    The whole thing kind of pisses me off.. Spend a few grand building a hotish motor 20 years ago,
    and a now a fricken new shit box grocery getter will smoke it, and the shit box probably
    has a better stereo too.

  21. Likes 72bwhite, Yan Wo, digger doug liked this post
  22. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Manitoba
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    59

    Default

    It's a lot more than just airflow. Increased compression ratios is the major reason todays gasoline engines have more power. Electronics and precise fuel delivery make it possible to avoid pre ignition. Better fuel also helps.
    Say what you want, you just can't beat the sound a Normally aspirated engine makes under wide open throttle breathing through a Holley 4 barrel. I miss that.

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    8,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    10450
    Likes (Received)
    8736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    It's a lot more than just airflow. Increased compression ratios is the major reason todays gasoline engines have more power. Electronics and precise fuel delivery make it possible to avoid pre ignition. Better fuel also helps.
    Say what you want, you just can't beat the sound a Normally aspirated engine makes under wide open throttle breathing through a Holley 4 barrel. I miss that.
    Better Fuel? I think we're lucky any of our trucks run at all on the crap that comes out
    of a pump now..

    On the higher compression.. How much of that is due to electronics, and how much of that
    is due to better combustion chamber design/piston design.. Possibly better cooling in the
    heads... Maybe the way the air is coming into and leaving the combustion chamber, better
    "swirl" and whatnot..

    Any of you guys ever read "The Best Damn Garage In Town"... The Smokey Yunich books??
    Some interesting stuff in there..

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,693
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 72bwhite View Post
    thing have come a long way from the old GM Buick aluminum block
    That thing won a Formula I manufacturer's championship ! (in slightly modified form ...)

  25. #60
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigor View Post
    It's a lot more than just airflow. Increased compression ratios is the major reason todays gasoline engines have more power. Electronics and precise fuel delivery make it possible to avoid pre ignition. Better fuel also helps.
    Say what you want, you just can't beat the sound a Normally aspirated engine makes under wide open throttle breathing through a Holley 4 barrel. I miss that.
    From what I have seen for the most part compression ratios have actually been going downhill until very recently where they have been coming up slightly as US engines have got smaller and more complicated and become more like the European and Japanese engines. The reason they fell was because to meet NOx emissions and less to do with pre-ignition.

    Everything I have heard from old timer mechanics is the fuel of today is terrible in comparison with the past.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •