Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

slow eddy's Pushrod Nightmare In Hell Continues

22 views
Skip to first unread message

jon_banquer

unread,
May 30, 2015, 11:09:15 PM5/30/15
to
The fifth race this season for Daytona Prototypes is Detroit and once again pushrod reality has kicked slow eddy right in the nuts:

Chevy pushrod motors have claimed not only pole position in Detroit (4 out of 5 poles this year have been won by Chevy pushrod motors)but have taken the second and third positions over the Ford EcoBoost as well.

slow eddy continues to show just how little he really knows about race engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr0AXN1IPUc

John Doe

unread,
May 31, 2015, 1:02:39 PM5/31/15
to
Google Groups spam/troll...

--
jon_banquer <jonbanquer yahoo.com> wrote in news:4037cf98-257b-49c5-a5f3-dd32a241ace8 googlegroups.com:

Ed Huntress

unread,
May 31, 2015, 1:56:13 PM5/31/15
to
.>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr0AXN1IPUc
>>

Jesus, what a twit. So two of the four 5.5 liter Brontosaurus truck
engines beat the Honda and (lone) Ford 3.5 liter OHCs, and two of the
Brontosauri finished behind them.

As several of us tried to explain to Bonkers years ago, when you need
5.5 liters to beat 3.5 liters, claiming you're more "advanced," you
aren't doing very well. That's a pyrrhic victory.

Bonkers apparently doesn't understand this.

--
Ed Huntress

jon_banquer

unread,
May 31, 2015, 2:21:41 PM5/31/15
to
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 10:02:39 AM UTC-7, Anonymous posting pussy "John Doe" might as well be paid to promote my posts:

Thanks, bitch.

jon_banquer

unread,
May 31, 2015, 2:37:50 PM5/31/15
to
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 10:56:13 AM UTC-7, slow eddy tried to cover up all the lying he's done about pushrod engines and failed:

<slow eddy lies snipped>

Earlier this year moron slow eddy, who is totally out of his league, was bragging about how the Ford EcoBoost won the 24hrs of Daytona. The Ford EcoBoost hasn't won a Daytona Prototype races since!

Today marks the fourth time in a row that the Ford EcoBoost, with it's "miracle overhead cams", that slow eddy keeps claiming are the only way to go, has lost to Chevy pushrod engines that slow eddy says are shit.

When it comes to race engines slow eddy is a fucking moron with no clues and his track record, failed bragging, etc. show just how little he actually knows about real race engines.




jon_banquer

unread,
May 31, 2015, 2:46:41 PM5/31/15
to
Once again the overhead CAM engine that slow eddy says is superior has lost to a pushrod motor.

In four out of five races held so far this season in Daytona Prototype racing the pushrod motor has been victorious over the Ford overhead cam EcoBoost:

http://www.imsa.com/articles/cameron-curran-combine-corvette-dp-win-belle-isle


cl...@snyder.on.ca

unread,
May 31, 2015, 3:22:31 PM5/31/15
to
It's called different horses for different courses.OHC engines tend
to do better where high RPMs are an advantage, particulalarly when 4
valves are required to get adequate breathing. They tend to have a lot
less advantage in slower turning high torque engines.

What you need to remember is engined run on air. The more air you can
put through them, the more power you can get out of them. The engine
doesn't really care how big the gulps of air are - a 1 liter engine at
10,000 rpm breathes as much air as a a 5 liter engine at 2000 RPM, and
should theoretically produce about the same horsepower (friction and
pumping losses not factored in)
A 3.7 liter engine running 1 atmosphere of boost consumes the same
amount of air as a 7.4 liter engine at the same RPM, and should
provide about the same horsepower output.

Don't expect the little engine to haul logs or plough dirt like the
big one, and don't expect it to stick together as long while putting
out the same horsepower.

(This is all assuming the proper amount of fuel is mixed into the air)

Ed Huntress

unread,
May 31, 2015, 4:07:21 PM5/31/15
to
On Sun, 31 May 2015 15:22:28 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:56:02 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 May 2015 17:01:22 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
>><alway...@message.header> wrote:
>>
>>>Google Groups spam/troll...
>>
>>--
>>>jon_banquer <jonbanquer yahoo.com> wrote in news:4037cf98-257b-49c5-a5f3-dd32a241ace8 googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> The fifth race this season for Daytona Prototypes is Detroit and once again pushrod reality has kicked slow eddy right in the nuts:
>>>>
>>>> Chevy pushrod motors have claimed not only pole position in Detroit (4 out of 5 poles this year have been won by Chevy pushrod motors)but have taken the second and third positions over the Ford EcoBoost as well.
>>>>
>>>> slow eddy continues to show just how little he really knows about race engines.
>>.>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr0AXN1IPUc
>>>>
>>
>>Jesus, what a twit. So two of the four 5.5 liter Brontosaurus truck
>>engines beat the Honda and (lone) Ford 3.5 liter OHCs, and two of the
>>Brontosauri finished behind them.
>>
>>As several of us tried to explain to Bonkers years ago, when you need
>>5.5 liters to beat 3.5 liters, claiming you're more "advanced," you
>>aren't doing very well. That's a pyrrhic victory.
>>
>>Bonkers apparently doesn't understand this.
> It's called different horses for different courses.OHC engines tend
>to do better where high RPMs are an advantage, particulalarly when 4
>valves are required to get adequate breathing. They tend to have a lot
>less advantage in slower turning high torque engines.

Right. Chevy says that OHC on a small-block, in street tune, gives you
about 10% more horsepower. (They offered a small-block with OHC for a
year or two.) In racing, it can be a great deal more, but the big V8
engines are basically piston-speed limited, so an engine that big is
not going to get as much advantage as a smaller one that is
valve-speed limited.

>
>What you need to remember is engined run on air. The more air you can
>put through them, the more power you can get out of them. The engine
>doesn't really care how big the gulps of air are - a 1 liter engine at
>10,000 rpm breathes as much air as a a 5 liter engine at 2000 RPM, and
>should theoretically produce about the same horsepower (friction and
>pumping losses not factored in)
>A 3.7 liter engine running 1 atmosphere of boost consumes the same
>amount of air as a 7.4 liter engine at the same RPM, and should
>provide about the same horsepower output.

Assuming the 7.4 liter NA engine has no intake or exhaust tuning. In
racing, they all do. So boosting one bar above atmospheric, all else
being equal, does not double your horsepower.

>
>Don't expect the little engine to haul logs or plough dirt like the
>big one, and don't expect it to stick together as long while putting
>out the same horsepower.

But this one does. Here's an example:

http://tinyurl.com/6ajnvgn

The strength of these smaller engines, SI or diesel, has recently
surpassed all of the conventional rules-of-thumb.

Jon Anderson

unread,
Jun 1, 2015, 4:44:11 PM6/1/15
to
On 6/1/2015 6:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> But this one does. Here's an example:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6ajnvgn
>
> The strength of these smaller engines, SI or diesel, has recently
> surpassed all of the conventional rules-of-thumb.

That is impressive! Like to see Chevy run an equivalent test on a stock
off the shelf V8...


Jon

Ed Huntress

unread,
Jun 1, 2015, 4:58:58 PM6/1/15
to
I think it will be hard to get anything like direct comparisons. Ford
pushed the envelope with their EcoBoost design. Unlike the Europeans
who make advanced engines of this type, Ford decided to apply these
technologies across the board -- from minicars to full-size pickup
trucks. They've had a lot to prove.

So far, they've made their point. A lot of conventional wisdom about
engine strength and life is out the window.

--
Ed Huntress
0 new messages