Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 7, 1:48 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article om, Bret Ludwig wrote: Dunno where you get the idea Lucas distributors are not reliable. Growing up in a family with several British cars. I grew up with only British cars.;-) Surely they have French, German and Italian cars over there-they did each time I was there. What freaked me out in the 70s was the Russian cars-I saw a Zaporzhets at a dealer not far from Charing Cross in the 70s. My uncle was a John Bircher so I had a photo taken of myself in this thing. It was very tinnily constructed and had a V4 engine that looked like a copy of the old Wisconsin V4 industrial engine used in a lot of road construction equipment. |
#42
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 8, 5:44 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om, Bret Ludwig wrote: 90% of carbs on the US road anymore, if not 95% are four barrel Holleys with progressive operation, two small and two large. 90% Holleys, that seems far fetched, do you have any hard evidence to support this contention? Most are on 60s-80s V8s. But where people were converting 80s cars with TBI to carb ten years ago, now we are seeing EFI on everything from old Beetles to flathead Ford V8s. You have to realize that at least in these parts the easy availablity of credit and $100/hr shop charges have denuded the US roads of cars older than ten or fifteen years. Does that mean my twelve year old car will soon be on the scrap heap and I should bit it farewell while I still have the chance? My daily driver was made while Bret's idol was still alive and getting serviced against the refrigerator by Sinatra. It does, however, have a fuel injected 5 liter and AOD. |
#43
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 9, 9:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om, Andre Jute wrote: The particular aluminium engines that came from Buick to Rover were marine engines, if that gives a clue to their carburettors and tune. This basic engine block was sold in the US by both Buick and Oldsmobile, but equipped with radically different head designs. On other engines the Oldsmobile heads had bigger valves and could flow more air than the Buick heads which due to their somewhat odd design couldn't accommodate valves as large as the Oldsmobile heads, I assume the same rule held on this engine. Also the Oldsmobile version of the engine was sold in two different states of tune, one with a 2V carburetor and the other with a 4V carburetor and a different cam. I can't remember if Buick offered a version in a higher state of tune like the Oldsmobile. If you're right and they picked up so many horses on being fitted with SUs, they couldn't have put out more than about 110-120hp in US trim. We had one out of a Rover Coupe on the dyno in the middle 60s and it was good for less than a four and a quarter Bentley engine, which was pretty choked and good only for a smidgin under 130bhp. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Just as a mattter of historical evidence, Ford apparently between the wars made their flathead V8 in England, possibly in a tax-friendly smaller size as well. I don't know if it has any relation to the engine you are speaking of, but Ford also had a smaller flathead V8 that was sold for a few years in the US, also "between the wars" IIRC. A friend and I shoehorned one of these into an MG-TC. V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) and was later made by Simca: they were sold stateside by Chrysler dealers. Midget racers occasionally would buy the cars new to pull the engines out and leave the dealer with the rest of the car. They'd get turned into Altered drag cars or garden planters. |
#44
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 8, 5:44 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om, Bret Ludwig wrote: 90% of carbs on the US road anymore, if not 95% are four barrel Holleys with progressive operation, two small and two large. 90% Holleys, that seems far fetched, do you have any hard evidence to support this contention? I'm guessing he's probably right because all the carbed vehicles are either muscle cars and trucks or Volkswagens, and there's a two barrel Holley that's popular on those. |
#45
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The RR V-8 is not an exact copy of any US engine but is very close to the Olds in some ways and IIRC Chryslers in others. Bristol of course simply used a blueprinted Chrysler: Jensen used them out of the box. |
#46
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote: Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The particular aluminium engines that came from Buick to Rover were marine engines, if that gives a clue to their carburettors and tune. The engine was first seen by William Martin-Hurst, the MD of Rover, in a boat yard, according to legend, but then it was and is common to use car engines for some racing boats. That unit was shipped to the UK for evaluation and fitted to a Rover 2000 mule. But Martin-Hurst was already a fan of the engine as fitted to a Buick Skylark he'd driven, and it was only on seeing the bare engine in the yard he realised it was short enough to fit his 2000. The Rover V-8 is based on the Olds/Buick 215 which was fitted to cars between 1961 - 63, and bought by Rover in '65. It was considerably modified for UK requirements and production - by a combination of GM and Rover engineers working together in the UK. If you're right and they picked up so many horses on being fitted with SUs, they couldn't have put out more than about 110-120hp in US trim. We had one out of a Rover Coupe on the dyno in the middle 60s and it was good for less than a four and a quarter Bentley engine, which was pretty choked and good only for a smidgin under 130bhp. The first Rover V-8 was quoted at 160 bhp - but I dunno about export versions with lower compression ratios, etc. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Hmm. Just what broke? Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; I've got one. ;-) such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Snag is the space such a design takes up - you wouldn't have had the same flexibility of the hatchback design with vast load area which is originally why I kept mine. -- *Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#47
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
RapidRonnie wrote: On Sep 7, 1:48 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article om, Bret Ludwig wrote: Dunno where you get the idea Lucas distributors are not reliable. Growing up in a family with several British cars. I grew up with only British cars.;-) Surely they have French, German and Italian cars over there-they did each time I was there. What freaked me out in the 70s was the Russian cars-I saw a Zaporzhets at a dealer not far from Charing Cross in the 70s. Heh heh - I 'grew up' long before the '70s and imports became common in the UK. In the street where I lived there was only one - a Borgward Isabella owned by a guy who worked out of the country. Come the '70s things were very different. My uncle was a John Bircher so I had a photo taken of myself in this thing. It was very tinnily constructed and had a V4 engine that looked like a copy of the old Wisconsin V4 industrial engine used in a lot of road construction equipment. The Lada was fairly common in the UK but I don't remember seeing any others - apart from embassy cars. -- *I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#48
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
RapidRonnie wrote: Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The RR V-8 is not an exact copy of any US engine but is very close to the Olds in some ways and IIRC Chryslers in others. Bristol of course simply used a blueprinted Chrysler: Jensen used them out of the box. I suppose there's not really that many different designs for pushrod V-8s, but it was never mentioned at the time that the Rolls engine was based on any other - nor did they, as far as I know, pay any royalties etc unlike Rover who bought their design outright from GM. And of course the Rolls engine was several years earlier - IIRC 1959 being the first year of production. And still going... -- *You can't have everything, where would you put it?* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#49
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 9, 10:11 pm, RapidRonnie wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:19 pm, John Byrns wrote: In article om, Andre Jute wrote: Just as a mattter of historical evidence, Ford apparently between the wars made their flathead V8 in England, possibly in a tax-friendly smaller size as well. I don't know if it has any relation to the engine you are speaking of, but Ford also had a smaller flathead V8 that was sold for a few years in the US, also "between the wars" IIRC. A friend and I shoehorned one of these into an MG-TC. V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Horsepower. Actually, before the war 60 real horses pretty the sturdiest of the British engines, the 3 litre Austin Princess engine as fitted to Austin Healeys, didn't cross the 100bhp barrier (except advertising puffery) until you breathed on it. and was later made by Simca: they were sold stateside by Chrysler dealers. Midget racers occasionally would buy the cars new to pull the engines out and leave the dealer with the rest of the car. Mmm. I drove the largest (still tiny by American standards) of the 1950s Simca's with the V8 engine (presumably the same pre-war Ford Flathead, and certainly under 2.7 litre which was the top tax bracket in France) at Cannes in the 1960s, and it wasn't much chop. Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to Paris. The car was a Simca V8. They'd get turned into Altered drag cars or garden planters. I like your trivia too, Ronnie. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#50
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 10, 3:12 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article .com, RapidRonnie wrote: Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The RR V-8 is not an exact copy of any US engine but is very close to the Olds in some ways and IIRC Chryslers in others. Bristol of course simply used a blueprinted Chrysler: Jensen used them out of the box. I suppose there's not really that many different designs for pushrod V-8s, but it was never mentioned at the time that the Rolls engine was based on any other - nor did they, as far as I know, pay any royalties etc unlike Rover who bought their design outright from GM. And of course the Rolls engine was several years earlier - IIRC 1959 being the first year of production. And still going... -- *You can't have everything, where would you put it?* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Quite a bit of this is insidiously erroneous. I spoke to the distinguished motoring journalist Edward Eves about 25 years ago about the origins of the Rolls-Royce V8 engine. He had total access to the RR archives for a book he was writing. He said that the story that RR copied a Chrysler engine was quite untrue (as for lesser breeds of engines, gee...). Nor is Dave quite right in saying RR paid no royalties. They did pay Chrysler a royalty for the tappets in the RR V8which were manufactured under license from the American company, which is perhaps where the "copy of a Chrysler engine" story arises. But in automobiles everyone pays everyone else royalties; Rolls-Royce even in the time of Sir Henry, who prided himself on making everything himself if he could make it better, licensed their brake assistance from Hispano-Suiza, more recenlty self-levelling suspension technology was licensed from Citroen, and so on, so that the tappets licensed from Chrysler fits neatly into the pattern. After all, no one will claim just because RR licensed Citroen technology that they build a copy of the 1956 Goddess! Andre Jute |
#51
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 10, 1:00 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article om, Andre Jute wrote: Interesting point was that just about the only US V-8 that ended up being made in the UK was the Buick unit which became the Rover one - and gained some 20 bhp when being fitted with SUs. Of course that wasn't the only mod. But I'm not sure what the original carbs were. The particular aluminium engines that came from Buick to Rover were marine engines, if that gives a clue to their carburettors and tune. The engine was first seen by William Martin-Hurst, the MD of Rover, in a boat yard, according to legend, but then it was and is common to use car engines for some racing boats. That unit was shipped to the UK for evaluation and fitted to a Rover 2000 mule. But Martin-Hurst was already a fan of the engine as fitted to a Buick Skylark he'd driven, and it was only on seeing the bare engine in the yard he realised it was short enough to fit his 2000. The Rover V-8 is based on the Olds/Buick 215 which was fitted to cars between 1961 - 63, and bought by Rover in '65. It was considerably modified for UK requirements and production - by a combination of GM and Rover engineers working together in the UK. Thanks for the historic refresher. There are no conspiracies; happenstance rules. What if he hadn't gone to wherever the marine engine was sitting on the floor... If you're right and they picked up so many horses on being fitted with SUs, they couldn't have put out more than about 110-120hp in US trim. We had one out of a Rover Coupe on the dyno in the middle 60s and it was good for less than a four and a quarter Bentley engine, which was pretty choked and good only for a smidgin under 130bhp. The first Rover V-8 was quoted at 160 bhp - but I dunno about export versions with lower compression ratios, etc. I've heard about 160bph being claimed. I just never saw it on a dyno under my control. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Hmm. Just what broke? Usual British crap production. The heads wouldn't seal properly without double-O-ringing, threads stripping, conrods coming through the side of the engine before we even exceeded the rev limit. My mechanics were student engineers, supervised by couple of real racing mechanics with a lot of experience. The engineers were fascinated by this lightweight engine, the real mechanics advised me (or rather my girlfriend's father who was paying for all this) to waste no more time and money on the Rover engine, to continue with our very successful development programme of the unbreakable Chrysler hemiheads which had served me well until we went off on the lightweight wild goose chase. Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; I've got one. ;-) Must take some TLC to keep it on the road. such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Snag is the space such a design takes up - you wouldn't have had the same flexibility of the hatchback design with vast load area which is originally why I kept mine. All my mates who previously drove 3.5 V8s, the 2000 shape, as company cars. decided that without the De Dion rear they would switch to Jags. They weren't family men, or at least not one-car family men, so they didn't care for the space. Rover lost a lot of prestige those years, and partly because of decisions like that one. We should take time out here for a moment of silence for the lost opportunity of what the Rover SD1, born to greatness, could have become with proper development in a company with proper management rather the British Motors Leyland rolling fiasco. (Not that I can think of one: all the British motor companies were up to **** those years, so pick a German car company, say VAG.) -- *Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed? What are you doing in your wife's dressing room when she is working? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#52
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 9, 7:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om, Andre Jute wrote: Just as a mattter of historical evidence, Ford apparently between the wars made their flathead V8 in England, possibly in a tax-friendly smaller size as well. I don't know if it has any relation to the engine you are speaking of, but Ford also had a smaller flathead V8 that was sold for a few years in the US, also "between the wars" IIRC. A friend and I shoehorned one of these into an MG-TC. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ The TC, and the TD following (smaller disk wheels instead of high spoked wheels), were such gutless little cars, even a Singer Sewing Machine treadle would have improved them. -- Andre Jute |
#53
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote: V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#54
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
"RapidRonnie" wrote in message ps.com... V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) and was later made by Simca: they were sold stateside by Chrysler dealers. Midget racers occasionally would buy the cars new to pull the engines out and leave the dealer with the rest of the car. http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/fhtime.htm Always a 90 degree V8 |
#55
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 11, 12:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Rated at a nominal 60hp in the first year of production. CID Bore " Stroke " Comp. HP@RPM 136 2.60 3.20 7.5:1 60@3800 in 1937. As to Ms. Piaf: Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend and falsehood to choke even 60 horses: __________________________________________________ ___ In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six- year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town (Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of 47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend, Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died. The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October 14, 1963. Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970 and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise. __________________________________________________ ______ The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards. And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Space 338 |
#56
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 11, 12:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Oh, 90-degree V, sorry. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Space 338 |
#57
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:20:26 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 11, 12:48 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Oh, 90-degree V, sorry. OK. Just a guess. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#58
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote: The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Horsepower. Actually, before the war 60 real horses pretty the sturdiest of the British engines, the 3 litre Austin Princess engine as fitted to Austin Healeys, didn't cross the 100bhp barrier (except advertising puffery) until you breathed on it. The Healey 100/4 used basically a pre-war Austin engine which struggled to make 100 bhp, but 6 cylinder models had post war C Series units all of which were good for over 100 bhp. Although not by much in standard trim. The last version with the Weslake head and separate ports *could* be made to produce a fair amount. But was a desperately heavy lump. -- *Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#59
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote: I suppose there's not really that many different designs for pushrod V-8s, but it was never mentioned at the time that the Rolls engine was based on any other - nor did they, as far as I know, pay any royalties etc unlike Rover who bought their design outright from GM. And of course the Rolls engine was several years earlier - IIRC 1959 being the first year of production. And still going... Quite a bit of this is insidiously erroneous. Which bits? I spoke to the distinguished motoring journalist Edward Eves about 25 years ago about the origins of the Rolls-Royce V8 engine. He had total access to the RR archives for a book he was writing. He said that the story that RR copied a Chrysler engine was quite untrue (as for lesser breeds of engines, gee...). Nor is Dave quite right in saying RR paid no royalties. They did pay Chrysler a royalty for the tappets in the RR V8which were manufactured under license from the American company, which is perhaps where the "copy of a Chrysler engine" story arises. Hydraulic tappets are invariably bought in. I dunno for sure but wouldn't be surprised if Rolls did just this. They bought in lots of component parts and complete assemblies.; But in automobiles everyone pays everyone else royalties; Rolls-Royce even in the time of Sir Henry, who prided himself on making everything himself if he could make it better, licensed their brake assistance from Hispano-Suiza, Yup - a mechanical servo system. Notable for the brakes only working with power assistance when the car was moving. So you couldn't test the front ones on a rolling road tester. more recenlty self-levelling suspension technology was licensed from Citroen, and so on, Disc brakes power assistance too. so that the tappets licensed from Chrysler fits neatly into the pattern. After all, no one will claim just because RR licensed Citroen technology that they build a copy of the 1956 Goddess! Indeed. However plenty I think confuse the Rolls V-8 with the Rover one as far as origin stories are concerned. -- *Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#60
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote: The first Rover V-8 was quoted at 160 bhp - but I dunno about export versions with lower compression ratios, etc. I've heard about 160bph being claimed. I just never saw it on a dyno under my control. The first UK engines had a 10.5 :1 compression ratio and needed 100 octane fuel. Round about '72 this was dropped to IIRC just under 9:1 to use 97 octane with a large drop in power output. I had both versions in P6 Rovers and there was a very noticeable difference in performance. Rover claimed it was minimal - but this just wasn't so. (I seem to remember people often spoke of 135 horses for that engine in the Mk Vi.) We were looking at the Rover V8 because back then it was the only engine we knew with any power that two guys could pick up between them, a wonderful thing. It wasn't much chop though; a very unreliable engine if you breathed on it even lightly. Hmm. Just what broke? Usual British crap production. The heads wouldn't seal properly without double-O-ringing, threads stripping, conrods coming through the side of the engine before we even exceeded the rev limit. Simply not my experience with any of these engines if kept in tune and the cooling system kept in good condition. The first failure point with high sustained revs was the distributor/oil pump drive. But not with standard rev limits set by the tappets pumping up. Stripped threads were down to poor practice - not using the correct sealer between bolts and block which led to incorrect torque settings. Documented in the factory workshop manual. And unless you had the correct setting the steel head gaskets gave problems. As they would with any overheating - one of the reasons GM gave up on the engine and went back to cast iron. My mechanics were student engineers, supervised by couple of real racing mechanics with a lot of experience. The engineers were fascinated by this lightweight engine, the real mechanics advised me (or rather my girlfriend's father who was paying for all this) to waste no more time and money on the Rover engine, to continue with our very successful development programme of the unbreakable Chrysler hemiheads which had served me well until we went off on the lightweight wild goose chase. Have you read Hardcastle's 'The Rover V-8 Engine'? Gives chapter and verse on its racing history both as the basis for the Repco units as well as later ones based on the Rover unit. Still, a decade later it made the SD1 into one of the greatest cars BL ever built; I've got one. ;-) Must take some TLC to keep it on the road. Some - it's still on its original engine. Only replacement to that has been the camshaft and tappets at around 130,000 miles. It still doesn't need the oil topped up between 6000 mile changes. such a pit they didn't see fit to carry forward the second-best thing about the P8, the De Dion rear axle, a beautiful thing of 300B-like purely linear motion.. Snag is the space such a design takes up - you wouldn't have had the same flexibility of the hatchback design with vast load area which is originally why I kept mine. All my mates who previously drove 3.5 V8s, the 2000 shape, as company cars. decided that without the De Dion rear they would switch to Jags. They weren't family men, or at least not one-car family men, so they didn't care for the space. Rover lost a lot of prestige those years, and partly because of decisions like that one. Heh heh. But the SD1 handles far better than any P6. If only they'd carried over the P6 brakes. We should take time out here for a moment of silence for the lost opportunity of what the Rover SD1, born to greatness, could have become with proper development in a company with proper management rather the British Motors Leyland rolling fiasco. (Not that I can think of one: all the British motor companies were up to **** those years, so pick a German car company, say VAG.) Indeed. I went to BMW after the SD1 ceased to be my main car. But it's still great fun to drive. And look at. -- *If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#61
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 11, 9:48 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: [Ford] V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Don't guess, Don. It only gives away your ignorance. Everyone else in this conversation except you and Worthless Wiecky, who's sure to be in it, can offhand name all or at least the most important reasons why a V8 engine should be made with an included angle of 90 degrees. No one knowledgeable even considered the possibility that I should be talking about how that particular engine was bent; everyone just assumed 90 degrees. For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain |
#62
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:24:25 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote: On Sep 11, 9:48 am, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: [Ford] V-8/60. It replaced the A/B Ford flathead 4 (unfortunately) The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Probably a 60-degree V. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Don't guess, Don. It only gives away your ignorance. Everyone else in this conversation except you and Worthless Wiecky, who's sure to be in it, can offhand name all or at least the most important reasons why a V8 engine should be made with an included angle of 90 degrees. No one knowledgeable even considered the possibility that I should be talking about how that particular engine was bent; everyone just assumed 90 degrees. For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain so what? |
#63
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. Jackass: 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, a briefly and may-come-back Ford Mustang engine (US-made, of course even if the design was shared by Yamaha) derived from the Ford Taurus SHO and, well ... Hell, the 60-degree mass-produced gasoline-powered V8 goes back to the unfortunate Sherman tank of WW-II. Before that into the 20s with Lincoln and others. Mr. Jute's arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance. A few links: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/web...er_polar_bear/ http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...L/default.aspx Rumors are afoot that Cadillac is still planning a 60-degree V10 (imagine that in the days of $3 gas), but apparently cancelled the planned 60-degree V8 opting for the more traditional 90 degrees. Not to mention that Detroit Diesel has had 60-degree V8s for years. In one form or another these beasts have been around since more-or- less the beginning of time. "All" means just that, unless Jute has been taking lessons from Clinton and will claim another "typo" with a thousand words of tripe and noise. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Booth 338 |
#64
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. Jackass: 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#65
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? None that I know of. True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM. They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8. They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover. They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real throw-back in those days. They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs. They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? I'm waiting with bated breath! |
#66
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? None that I know of. True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM. They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8. They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover. They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real throw-back in those days. The I4 was later resurrected as the "Iron Duke" They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs. I had one of those, a great little engine. You forgot the SOHC I6 they had in the mid 1960s. I think this one may have been the first automobile engine to use the now ubiquitous timing belt to drive the cam. I also owned one of these, I love most all GM 6 cylinder engines, except maybe the old Pontiac flathead six. I also owned a couple of GM's cast iron 60 degree V6 engines. They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. It soon went the way of the aluminum V8 and was sold to Willis/Jeep, GM eventually bought it back in the 1970s. They eventually converted it to an "even fire" design with a special crank and both my and my wife's automobiles are powered by this engine today. It seems smooth enough to me, with minimal if any "rock and roll". The 60 degree V6 I mentioned above did have a serious case of "rock and roll". I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? I'm waiting with bated breath! Just don't hold your breath. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#67
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 10:05 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? None that I know of. True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM. They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8. They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover. They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real throw-back in those days. They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs. They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? I'm waiting with bated breath! Developed for Buick in 1961, sold to Rover in 1964, never went into a production car to my knowledge, but it was an American V8 that was not 90 degrees - and it eventually did see use even if then made elsewhere. Even as spavined a company as American Motors in that era built several experimental 60-degree V8 engines, again none went into full production as I am aware. And, technically not American as I dimly remember it was made in Canada. I also dimly remember a 60-degree V8 used in racing... hardly production, but also to the point. I believe it was derived from the GM engine as noted above, except that at the same time American Motors was in that game... I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But the Ford SHO engine, the Lincoln engine, the 500ci Sherman engine, and quite the number of Detroit Diesel engines are all 60-degree V8s. Perhaps Arny can be useful, I also heard that the Mercruiser 454ci BB Marine Engine was a 60-degree engine? Also American if so. "All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has written, so it must be. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Space 338 |
#68
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? None that I know of. True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM. They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8. They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover. They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real throw-back in those days. The I4 was later resurrected as the "Iron Duke" Exactly. It was offered in the initial Chevy II, but about zero were ever sold. GM redirected it into the industrial engine market and by all acccounts, it sold and served well. It was just the ticket for a small combine or big irrigation pump. They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs. I had one of those, a great little engine. As did I, 140 gross hp and 4 single-barrel carbs. I ran it long enough for the jug gaskets to leak like sieves. You forgot the SOHC I6 they had in the mid 1960s. Note my OP - "early 60s". Yes, they did the OHC I6 for Pontiac in, if memory serves, 1966. The Wikipedia agrees. I think this one may have been the first automobile engine to use the now ubiquitous timing belt to drive the cam. You mean the now-ubiquitous steel-reinforced-rubber timing belt... There a Fiat OHC I4 with one that was also introduced in 1966 - the 124. Fiat's implementation included a camshaft that would go idle after belt breakage with valves interfering with the pistons. Thus a minor belt failure became a total engine failure. also owned one of these, I love most all GM 6 cylinder engines, except maybe the old Pontiac flathead six. I also owned a couple of GM's cast iron 60 degree V6 engines. My first driver was an old 1958 chevvy Biscayne with the old "Blue Flame" 235 I6. You know, the one that was in the first Corvette. ;-) They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either! Can we say rock and roll? ;-) IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that they dumped on Rover, The aluminum that Rover got was a 214 V8. There was a turbocharged version of it with water injection - Oldsmobile. and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it could be built on the same line with existing tooling. The V8 that begat the 90 degree V6 was the smalleruick "Nail head" cast iron V8. It soon went the way of the aluminum V8 and was sold to Willis/Jeep, GM eventually bought it back in the 1970s. Agreed, except that by then Willys/Jeep was part of AMC. They eventually converted it to an "even fire" design with a special crank That was the original design - a *special* crank. However they updated it, and finally added a balance shaft. and both my and my wife's automobiles are powered by this engine today. It seems smooth enough to me, with minimal if any "rock and roll". The 60 degree V6 I mentioned above did have a serious case of "rock and roll". I've owned 7 60 degree V6s, Nissan (1) , GM (3) and Ford (3). One is smoother than the next. OK, the first chevvy V6 I had was a little rough, but it also had a carburator. I blame the carb. FI made all the difference on its sucessor with the same everything else. A 60 degree V6 that rocks and rolls does so for reasons other than inherent balance. My daughter owned a recent copy Chrysler's 3.8L 90 degree V6 (Liberty), and it still had a little rock-and-roll at idle. I've driven a prototype of the upgraded NVH version of the same car, and it is better but still has a bit of the classic 90 degree V6 lope. For some odd reason I've never knowingly driven one of the General's 90 degree V6s with the balance shaft, so I don't know about it. I kay have ridden on one or three, so if there's nothing to report, it must be pretty good. The GM 90 degree V6 I did drive was in a 1964 Buick Special, back in the day. I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? I'm waiting with bated breath! Just don't hold your breath. No, holding one's breath for most of these turkeys to take a correction with grace could result in a very blue face. |
#69
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Dickless Wiecky, Body Parts Trader Williamson by QUAD?
Peter Wieck wrote:
As to Ms. Piaf: Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend and falsehood to choke even 60 horses: Why, you lying little dickless slug, The Boss never wrote anything as turgid as this rubbish that you're trying to put in his mouth. __________________________________________________ ___ In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six- year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town (Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of 47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend, Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died. The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October 14, 1963. Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970 and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise. __________________________________________________ ______ The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards. Then why do you, Worthless Wiecky, embroider the facts by inventing the story that Theo Sarapo chopped up Edith Piaf's body for transport to Paris. You say: "Her husband Théo discretely drove her body back to Paris". Into how many pieces do you claim he chopped her body? And how many trips do you claim he made? Far from Mr Jute embroidering the story, or adding anything, you're the one who in manufacturing your so-called "evidence" is inventing events that never happened: "additional tripe and twaddle" indeed. This is what The Boss actually wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to Paris. The car was a Simca V8. And that is everything The Boss wrote on the subject, nothing superfluous, just the facts, and just enough of them to suggest the story and whet the appetite. Compare the two versions. The Boss took exactly 53 words to tell the entire story with a stunning punch. You took 230, more than four times as many to make the same story dull even as you tried unnecessarily to sensationalize it. That tells us everything we need to know about who is the professional storyteller and who is the clumsy wannabe. And that brilliantly brief piece by The Boss is what you, Worthless Wieckless, snipped out so that you could deceitfully substitute your own piece of turgid pomposity. How did you think anyone with the faintest sensitivity to the English language could ever believe The Boss wrote your flyblown piece of crap? And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story straight. Compare the two pieces. It is quite clear who tells the story straight and who throws in a kitchen sink full of garbage and bizarre invention, including a chopped-up body. It is also clear that you, Dickless Wieck, feels the need to embroider your version because you know you lack authority. And then, further to enhance the authority of your turgidly overwritten piece, you try to claim those are Mr Jute's words! Does Mrs Wieck know you're stalking another man, Dickless Wiecky? Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question. You've been screeching for two years that The Boss is untruthful yet you have failed to prove that he ever told a single lie. You're a ******, Wiecky, just like the Magnequest Scum before you were ******s. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Space 338 to get your Body Parts Yours sincerely but without any respect for worthless trash. Gray Glasser PS to The Boss: I never suspected you of knowing anything at all about popular music and/or popular musicians. Is the car the clue? Or is it Suicide Chic, the Sylvia Plath Syndrome? I still burst out laughing every time I remember the faces of those feminists when you sprang that one on them. |
#70
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 11, 12:35 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article .com, Andre Jute wrote: The 60 can't stand for cubic inches; that's only one litre. So what does it stand for? Horsepower. Actually, before the war 60 real horses pretty the sturdiest of the British engines, the 3 litre Austin Princess engine as fitted to Austin Healeys, didn't cross the 100bhp barrier (except advertising puffery) until you breathed on it. The Healey 100/4 used basically a pre-war Austin engine which struggled to make 100 bhp, but 6 cylinder models had post war C Series units all of which were good for over 100 bhp. Although not by much in standard trim. The last version with the Weslake head and separate ports *could* be made to produce a fair amount. But was a desperately heavy lump. The Boss had a beautiful gunmetal gray Healey 3000 with walnut facia and windup windows that he tooled around in when he could be bothered to show for class. Eventually someone made him an offer of a Stingray and cash pink slip exchange that he took. Regards, Gray |
#71
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 8:00 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:05 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines. 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine, Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that was used in a 1961 US production automobile? I seriously doubt it if that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references? I'm waiting with bated breath! Developed for Buick in 1961, sold to Rover in 1964, never went into a production car to my knowledge, but it was an American V8 that was not 90 degrees - and it eventually did see use even if then made elsewhere. Even as spavined a company as American Motors in that era built several experimental 60-degree V8 engines, again none went into full production as I am aware. And, technically not American as I dimly remember it was made in Canada. So no 60 degree American V8. Looks like there is only one Jackass here and his names is Peter Wieck, also known as Worthless Wiecky. I also dimly remember a 60-degree V8 used in racing... hardly production, but also to the point. I believe it was derived from the GM engine as noted above, except that at the same time American Motors was in that game... Muddle, muddle, mystery engine, twitch and twaddle. You lied, Worthless Wiecky. Again. Looks like there is only one Lying Jackass here and his names is Peter Wieck, also known as Worthless Wiecky. I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But the Ford SHO engine, the Lincoln engine, the 500ci Sherman engine, and quite the number of Detroit Diesel engines are all 60-degree V8s. Perhaps Arny can be useful, I also heard that the Mercruiser 454ci BB Marine Engine was a 60-degree engine? Also American if so. You should get your facts straight before you start calling people names, Worthless. Still ooks like there is only one Lying Jackass here and his names is Peter Wieck, also known as Worthless Wiecky. "All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has written, so it must be. The Boss wrote a book on it and several articles for distinguished magazines with knowledgeable editors. Why should anyone believe the Jackass Peter Wieck knows anything The Boss doesn't? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Kutztown Space 338 Get your body parts and ignorance here. Sincerely, with zero respect for a Loudmouth Jackass. Gray Glasser |
#72
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ps.com... I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But the Ford SHO engine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_SHO_V6_engine "In the mid 1980s, Ford Motor Company worked with Yamaha Motor Corporation to develop a compact 60° DOHC V6 engine for transverse application." the Lincoln engine, If you mean the LS, that was the same-old, same-old 3.0 liter 60 degree V6. There actually was a Ford 90 degree V6, but it ended up in trucks and minivans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Es...%28Canadian%29 the 500ci Sherman engine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#US_Variants The Serman tank was propelled by a variant of a 9-cylinder radial aircraft engine. There was a later "12 cylinder" diesel, but it was implemented by means of 2 I6's side-by-side! and quite the number of Detroit Diesel engines are all 60-degree V8s. I can find one reference to the Detroit Diesel 8V-71 being a 60 degree V8. (finally!) Perhaps Arny can be useful, I also heard that the Mercruiser 454ci BB Marine Engine was a 60-degree engine? Also American if so. The numbers 454 should tip off any up-to-date motorhead. That's a large block Chevvy 90 degree V8, in boater's drag. Many references to it as such on google. |
#73
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 12:10 pm, wrote:
Gray Glasser- Hide quoted text - The Jute Sockepuppet strikes... It was entirely inevitable when Lord and Master tripped over his own stroked-out memory. Andre-Gray... your left hand lies, your right hand swears to it. T'was ever thus. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#74
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But the Ford SHO engine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine Two can play at that. 60-degree V8. Go for it. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#75
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#US_Variants The Serman tank was propelled by a variant of a 9-cylinder radial aircraft engine. There was a later "12 cylinder" diesel, but it was implemented by means of 2 I6's side-by-side! Arny, you need to look a tad further: M4A3 - Ford GAA V-8 engine; welded hull; 75-mm, 76-mm, and 105-mm guns. Users: US, France (small numbers). The M4A3 was the preferred US Army vehicle. "Just thought I'd share some before and after pictures of my Ford GAA tank engine. All aluminum 1100 cubic inch V8 used in WWII Sherman Tanks. These were gas burners rated at 500 HP and 1050 Ft. Lbs. of torque for military service, but are capable of much much more using mostly stock parts. They feature a 60 degree vee, 5.4 bore x 6.0 stroke, 180 degree factory billet cranks, pent roof combustion chambers, shaft driven DOHC's, 4 valves per cylinder, and dual mags." http://www.enginehistory.org/featured_engines.htm And so forth. Guys, get a grip. Gray-Andre, get a life. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#76
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Dickless Wiecky, Body Parts Trader Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 11:55 am, wrote:
I am ****ed that my left hand got caught out and slapped... Not bad for a sock-puppet. Where's Westie Poo? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In rec.audio.tubes Peter Wieck wrote:
: : On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: : : I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew : up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But : the Ford SHO engine, : : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine : : Two can play at that. : : 60-degree V8. Go for it. : You mean the one manufactured in the Bridgend plant in Great Britain for the Volvo? Still not American unless we've somehow co-opted GB without me knowing. -dave |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 12, 1:45 pm, Dave Ryan wrote:
In rec.audio.tubes Peter Wieck wrote: : : On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: : : I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew : up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But : the Ford SHO engine, : :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine : : Two can play at that. : : 60-degree V8. Go for it. : You mean the one manufactured in the Bridgend plant in Great Britain for the Volvo? Still not American unless we've somehow co-opted GB without me knowing. -dave First made in the US, assembled by Yamaha in Japan until 1999, then adapted and made later in GB. And yes, now *adapted* for Volvo. Well... the history is: From the Detroit Free Press, 2002: About 19,730 SHOs were made from 1996 to 1999. The Taurus SHO was a limited-production, high-performance version of the Taurus family sedan, third-best-selling car in the country. The SHO -- for Super High Output -- differed from the everyday Taurus, with a pricier interior, stiffer suspension, tighter handling and a powerful 3.4- liter V8 Yamaha engine that could zip up to 140 m.p.h. While Yamaha assembled the engine in Japan, Ford built the engine components in Ontario. In a 1996 Car and Driver review of the SHO, Ford took credit for the development of its V8 engine. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#79
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But the Ford SHO engine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine Two can play at that. 60-degree V8. Go for it. Agreed. I knew you had it in you! ;-) |
#80
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message oups.com... On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#US_Variants The Serman tank was propelled by a variant of a 9-cylinder radial aircraft engine. There was a later "12 cylinder" diesel, but it was implemented by means of 2 I6's side-by-side! Arny, you need to look a tad further: M4A3 - Ford GAA V-8 engine; welded hull; 75-mm, 76-mm, and 105-mm guns. Users: US, France (small numbers). The M4A3 was the preferred US Army vehicle. "Just thought I'd share some before and after pictures of my Ford GAA tank engine. All aluminum 1100 cubic inch V8 used in WWII Sherman Tanks. These were gas burners rated at 500 HP and 1050 Ft. Lbs. of torque for military service, but are capable of much much more using mostly stock parts. They feature a 60 degree vee, 5.4 bore x 6.0 stroke, 180 degree factory billet cranks, pent roof combustion chambers, shaft driven DOHC's, 4 valves per cylinder, and dual mags." http://www.enginehistory.org/featured_engines.htm Agreed - I knew you had it in you, Peter. ;-) However, I still nailed you twice for which you have no rebuttals and no concessions. :-( |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Williamson kt66 mono amp and pwr supply $400 | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS. Williamson kt66 amp (acrosound 300 transformer) $400 | Marketplace | |||
Williamson Amplifier-a good web page | Vacuum Tubes | |||
neatly built Williamson monoblocks | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: WILLIAMSON G-400 Mono Power Amps | Vacuum Tubes |