newmercman:
I’ll answer the CAT question I asked myself then as everyone is transfixed on con rods, it was the same reason ■■■■■■■ went to 15l and Detroit to 14l, heat transfer. ACERT and EGR produced much higher combination temperature and the increased swept volume allowed more surface area to disperse that heat, so you see there’s a practical reason that stroke was increased, it wasn’t to make hot rods.
What EGR or ‘swept volume’ would that be in the case of TD120 and RR Eagle v TL12.Or even AEC 7.6 v 8.8.I’m sure that the ‘swept volume’ of the TL12 was more than that of the RR Eagle and TD120 and the AEC 8.8 more than the 7.6.Being a measurement based on both bore and stroke no different to cubic capacity.
Why did Volvo go to all the trouble of having lean their too tall TD120 to fit under the F88 cab when they could have just used a bored out TD100 like AEC did in the case of TL12 v the 590.
Carryfast:
Yep impossible to compete in that market sector doing the job the right way when everyone else is doing it the cheap way.
What could possibly go wrong.
Now see if they dare to do it with the 3 and 5 series.
So BL were years ahead of your beloved BMW because they knew that in the 50’s
Let’s get this right BMW have no option than to join in with the race to the bottom.
They are obviously limiting their exposure to it where possible.( No fwd 3 and 5 series so far ).
Did you actually check out the sales figures for rwd 1 series v fwd.
Seems to follow the same pattern of what happened to firstly BMC then Triumph and Rover and Ford and GM after making the same change.BMC obviously knew that in the 1960’s.
Read all the comments few actually welcome the change to fwd but plenty moaning about it.I didn’t need to bother putting adding to their objections. youtube.com/watch?v=iwbiev8xCTY
Why exactly have BMW no option but to join the “race to the bottom” I thought you said building big engine 3 box saloons was the way forward, if that’s true BMW should have no need for cheap end cars
[zb]
anorak:
They are all were moaning about the styling. None of them give a monkey’s about the mechanicals. It’s irrelevant anyway- the cars are designed to provide safe, comfortable transport. Even the greatest sports saloons, like the RWD ■■■■■■, needed a 5-link rear end, LSDs and uprated springs/dampers, to make them satisfying to drive. The only family car to reward sporting skills behind the wheel, without resorting to modifications, was the Mini.
Tell us what were these supposed ‘sporting’ credentials which the Mini had.
The Mini was no family car.It was a local urban run about at best for a driver and passenger.But still a death trap.
As for the vid.You obviously missed
‘‘Could have made this RWD’’.
‘‘I’ll keep my RWD models thanks’’.
‘‘Long live the F20 the last RWD’’.
‘‘I own a 2015 125i’’.‘‘I don’t think I will be tempted to swap it for a front wheel drive 1 series’’.
‘‘The only reason to buy a ( 1 ) series was RWD’’.
‘‘Ugly, Front Wheel Drive, expensive’’.
There are numerous other comments the same elsewhere.
Did you check out the sales figures for the new fwd model.
You really don’t think that Issigonis wrecked BMC then Edwardes finished the job.
[zb]
anorak:
They are all were moaning about the styling. None of them give a monkey’s about the mechanicals. It’s irrelevant anyway- the cars are designed to provide safe, comfortable transport. Even the greatest sports saloons, like the RWD ■■■■■■, needed a 5-link rear end, LSDs and uprated springs/dampers, to make them satisfying to drive. The only family car to reward sporting skills behind the wheel, without resorting to modifications, was the Mini.
Tell us what were these supposed ‘sporting’ credentials which the Mini had.
The Mini was no family car.It was a local urban run about at best for a driver and passenger.But still a death trap.
As for the vid.You obviously missed
‘‘Could have made this RWD’’.
‘‘I’ll keep my RWD models thanks’’.
‘‘Long live the F20 the last RWD’’.
‘‘I own a 2015 125i’’.‘‘I don’t think I will be tempted to swap it for a front wheel drive 1 series’’.
‘‘The only reason to buy a ( 1 ) series was RWD’’.
‘‘Ugly, Front Wheel Drive, expensive’’.
There are numerous other comments the same elsewhere.
Did you check out the sales figures for the new fwd model.
You really don’t think that Issigonis wrecked BMC then Edwardes finished the job.
Having driven several Minis years ago including in conditions that would have had some of my larger cars off the road, I am not sure about death trap in the context of the era in which they were designed. I would agree that in a collision the driver was completely unprotected but then most cars of that era were poor in safety department. Admittedly I would have rather been in a shunt in my Rover 2000 than the Mini 1100. I might have come off the road more easily in the Rover.
[zb]
anorak:
Where do I have a “problem” with an engine running at 1900rpm?
This is becoming stupid.
I thought you had problems with ‘centrifugal’ forces regarding what I’m saying should have happened with AEC’s designs.
Remind me what is it that you’re actually arguing with me about concerning those supposed ‘centrifugal’ ‘forces’.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 400 hp at 1950 rpm potential.
Why wouldn’t a 130 x 154 design have been superior to the TL12’s 136 x 142.
You could have a lot of fun in a Mini, the way they cornered was like driving a go kart. Death traps, yes but no worse than it’s competition, Citroën 2cv, FIAT 500, Hillman Imp or VW Beetle and by virtue of its lightness, handling and braking it was less likely to crash in the first place. It may not have made money, but it was a fantastic little car
[zb]
anorak:
They are all were moaning about the styling. None of them give a monkey’s about the mechanicals. It’s irrelevant anyway- the cars are designed to provide safe, comfortable transport. Even the greatest sports saloons, like the RWD ■■■■■■, needed a 5-link rear end, LSDs and uprated springs/dampers, to make them satisfying to drive. The only family car to reward sporting skills behind the wheel, without resorting to modifications, was the Mini.
Tell us what were these supposed ‘sporting’ credentials which the Mini had.
3 times winner of the Monte Carlo rally for starters
Having driven several Minis years ago including in conditions that would have had some of my larger cars off the road, I am not sure about death trap in the context of the era in which they were designed. I would agree that in a collision the driver was completely unprotected but then most cars of that era were poor in safety department. Admittedly I would have rather been in a shunt in my Rover 2000 than the Mini 1100. I might have come off the road more easily in the Rover.
[/quote]
The banger racing lads don’t like racing there Granada’s against the Mondeo’s etc because they usually come off second best
gingerfold:
How did Rolls Royce reduce con rod stress in the Merlin engine? To prevent a lot of frantic googling, as I’ve just read the book I’ll answer my own question. They designed a forked end (no not a mis-spelling ) at the gudgeon pin end.
It was the big ends not small ends.
The con rods didn’t fit side by side on the crankpin like most V engines because the cylinder banks weren’t ( as ? ) staggered.One rod was splayed at the big end and the opposing straight rod fitted inside of the fork.
Luckily they didn’t use a 0.95 bore stroke ratio for it.
[zb]
anorak:
Where do I have a “problem” with an engine running at 1900rpm?
This is becoming stupid.
I thought you had problems with ‘centrifugal’ forces regarding what I’m saying should have happened with AEC’s designs.
Remind me what is it that you’re actually arguing with me about concerning those supposed ‘centrifugal’ ‘forces’.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 400 hp at 1950 rpm potential.
Why wouldn’t a 130 x 154 design have been superior to the TL12’s 136 x 142.
I posted the equation for centrifugal acceleration up there^^^. Get the piston and conn rod weights for the two engines you propose, and work out the loads on the bearings. All you have to do is put the numbers into the spaces occupied by the letters. I’m not doing it for you.
newmercman:
You could have a lot of fun in a Mini, the way they cornered was like driving a go kart. Death traps, yes but no worse than it’s competition, Citroën 2cv, FIAT 500, Hillman Imp or VW Beetle and by virtue of its lightness, handling and braking it was less likely to crash in the first place. It may not have made money, but it was a fantastic little car
It depends on your definition of fantastic little.First you need the engine in the right place driving the right wheels. youtube.com/watch?v=sf9hFlEY5jQ
I never saw the Mini in that, so how is it relevant? The Jag was a 3.4 I would wager and the a40 was so named as 40 referred to its approximate hp, they both have live rear axles too. Compared to a mini they both handle like a partially set blancmange.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t a 130 x 154 design have been superior to the TL12’s 136 x 142.
I posted the equation for centrifugal acceleration up there^^^. Get the piston and conn rod weights for the two engines you propose, and work out the loads on the bearings. All you have to do is put the numbers into the spaces occupied by the letters. I’m not doing it for you.
You’re the one who keeps saying that tensile loads on the con rod are an issue and even get close to compressive loads.
Now you tell me why the big end fastenings don’t ever need to match let alone exceed the strength of main bearing and head fastenings.
You’ve got enough evidence to show your bs for what it is in the fact that it’s no problem to hold a 145 mm piston and its rod onto the crankshaft with a 183 mm stroke at 2,300 rpm.
130 x 154 at 1,900 will obviously be no problem at all.
It’s a truck not an F1 motor.
newmercman:
I never saw the Mini in that, so how is it relevant? The Jag was a 3.4 I would wager and the a40 was so named as 40 referred to its approximate hp, they both have live rear axles too. Compared to a mini they both handle like a partially set blancmange.
Strange how they are leading a race involving Minis.
So Leyland ditched it’s rwd products and the rest is history.It never looked back.
"Edit to add so the C18 stays together at 2,300 rpm …unlike the TL12 would boosted to 166 lb/ft per litre at 1,600 rpm" Quote cav551: " FPT Iveco have not released their 850bhp Cursor 16 for automotive use , because they do not consider that current forward control cabs and chassis provide enough space to meet its cooling requirements. Quote Carryfast: "The point was the connection between the C18’s specific torque output and its leverage.That was all So the Cursor 16 has a bore stroke ratio of 0.83.Your point being what?" Cav 551 My point was that the same applies to the C18, such a powerful engine produces a tremendous amount of heat. But that wasn’t all either, you sought to compare a 12.5 litre engine with one half as big again. Because if that had been all then you wouldn’t have written: " unlike the TL12…"
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t a 130 x 154 design have been superior to the TL12’s 136 x 142.
I posted the equation for centrifugal acceleration up there^^^. Get the piston and conn rod weights for the two engines you propose, and work out the loads on the bearings. All you have to do is put the numbers into the spaces occupied by the letters. I’m not doing it for you.
You’re the one who keeps saying that tensile loads on the con rod are an issue and even get close to compressive loads.
Now you tell me why the big end fastenings don’t ever need to match let alone exceed the strength of main bearing and head fastenings.
You’ve got enough evidence to show your bs for what it is in the fact that it’s no problem to hold a 145 mm piston and its rod onto the crankshaft with a 183 mm stroke at 2,300 rpm.
130 x 154 at 1,900 will obviously be no problem at all.
It’s a truck not an F1 motor.
So do the calculation then. Prove it, instead of waffling about it.
gingerfold:
How did Rolls Royce reduce con rod stress in the Merlin engine? To prevent a lot of frantic googling, as I’ve just read the book I’ll answer my own question. They designed a forked end (no not a mis-spelling ) at the gudgeon pin end.
It was the big ends not small ends.
The con rods didn’t fit side by side on the crankpin like most V engines because the cylinder banks weren’t ( as ? ) staggered.One rod was splayed at the big end and the opposing straight rod fitted inside of the fork.
Luckily they didn’t use a 0.95 bore stroke ratio for it.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t a 130 x 154 design have been superior to the TL12’s 136 x 142.
I posted the equation for centrifugal acceleration up there^^^. Get the piston and conn rod weights for the two engines you propose, and work out the loads on the bearings. All you have to do is put the numbers into the spaces occupied by the letters. I’m not doing it for you.
You’re the one who keeps saying that tensile loads on the con rod are an issue and even get close to compressive loads.
Now you tell me why the big end fastenings don’t ever need to match let alone exceed the strength of main bearing and head fastenings.
You’ve got enough evidence to show your bs for what it is in the fact that it’s no problem to hold a 145 mm piston and its rod onto the crankshaft with a 183 mm stroke at 2,300 rpm.
130 x 154 at 1,900 will obviously be no problem at all.
It’s a truck not an F1 motor.
I’m winning this- 1000 pages ago, you were pouring scorn on the idea that there were ever tensile loads in the conn rod.
) at the gudgeon pin end.