Old tech vs New tech

[Jason James]

Comparing 265 Valiant engine to a first generation Ford OHC 4 litre.

When you look at stats for say the 44yo Valiant 265 [4.3L] Hemi-6 ILine to a "bread and butter" Falcon OHC 3.9/4 Litre EFI 6 from the '90s, they have the same power. But the Hemi has a higher CR of 9.5:1 [means more output] while the Ford OHC has a CR of 8.8:1. Apart from the question why Ford ran such low CRs, it can be seen the higher CR and extra 300cc of the *unsophisticated* carburetted Hemi, seems to make up for the very elaborate intake manifolding, EFI and computer control, of the Ford OHC 3.9/4Litre.

There's another consideration of course, and that's economy. The 4.3 litre Hemi 265 may have the same power of the advanced Ford OHC 4 litre , but does it do it as efficiently as the Ford 6 ? Not that much in it,..the 265 gets around 15-17 mpg, while the OHC gets 20 mpg around town.

The final consideration is engine longevity, and the Hemi swept the field on that account. That's not to say the Ford 6s aren't good for long life, they were, but there was the chronic alloy head problems. So why persist with the alloy head ? Fucked if I know. The additional weight of a cast-iron head would only be around 30 kgs by my estimation.

So what can be drawn by this comparison ? That old tech engines are'nt that bad a thing,...I would. OTOH, when Chrysler went ELB [Electronic Lean Burn], they reportedly [google] could return 30 mpg. Sorry, I call bullshit to that. The ELB did run leaner [17:1] step-up needles in its 2bbl Carter, and the processor did keep timing optimum for economy, but it will be a cold day in hell for me to believe an old tech 4.3L 6, with a few efficiency measures, add up to 30 mpg. Its horseshit :-)

Also, given the elaborate intake manifolding on the Ford 6s, and all the other new tech stuff [at that time], ie EFI in particular, why doesn't it blow the OTech Val motor into the weeds ? In short , I have no idea :-)

Jason

[D Walford]

How does the weight of the 2 compare?
I think the Valiant will be considerably lighter due to it having much
less standard equipment, many didn't even have power steering and weight
makes a huge difference to performance and economy.


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 10/07/15 8:06 AM, Jason James wrote:

> Also, given the elaborate intake manifolding on the Ford 6s, and all
> the other new tech stuff [at that time], ie EFI in particular, why
> doesn't it blow the OTech Val motor into the weeds ? In short , I
> have no idea :-)

Jason, this is complete rubbish :)

Firstly, if you want to make a *genuine* "new versus old" comparison,
then using the crappy old engine out of your ED Falcon isn't the way to
do it. For a start you could try doing a *direct* comparison between a 4
litre Chrysler Hemi which would be the *245* cubic inch variety, against
say the 4 litre in the current Falcon for example. If you do that, then
the old Hemi starts to look a bit average.

Very average in fact, as the current 195kw "Barra" engine makes around a
hundred *more* horsepower than the 245 Hemi and uses around 35% less
fuel to do so. Better still is the fact that the Barra engine is used to
lug around a body that weights about half a tonne more that what most
Valiants of the 245's day did yet it delivers performance that would
make an E-49 Charger look pretty tame :)

I know you have a soft spot for your old Val Jase, but cars really have
come a *long* way :)

[Jason James]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:25:39 AM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/07/15 8:06 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
> > Also, given the elaborate intake manifolding on the Ford 6s, and all
> > the other new tech stuff [at that time], ie EFI in particular, why
> > doesn't it blow the OTech Val motor into the weeds ? In short , I
> > have no idea :-)
>
> Jason, this is complete rubbish :)

Just an attempt to find out what the differences are, and how they go about implementing them.

> Firstly, if you want to make a *genuine* "new versus old" comparison,
> then using the crappy old engine out of your ED Falcon isn't the way to
> do it. For a start you could try doing a *direct* comparison between a 4
> litre Chrysler Hemi which would be the *245* cubic inch variety, against
> say the 4 litre in the current Falcon for example. If you do that, then
> the old Hemi starts to look a bit average.

The 245 was a real buzz-kill of an engine. Its output was pathetic, so I went for the better engine which was more representative of old-tech. The 245 used the even more gutless 215 camshaft and valve size.

>
> Very average in fact, as the current 195kw "Barra" engine makes around a
> hundred *more* horsepower than the 245 Hemi and uses around 35% less
> fuel to do so. Better still is the fact that the Barra engine is used to
> lug around a body that weights about half a tonne more that what most
> Valiants of the 245's day did yet it delivers performance that would
> make an E-49 Charger look pretty tame :)

I have great regard for Ford's efforts on the later 6s,...simply incredible.

> I know you have a soft spot for your old Val Jase, but cars really have
> come a *long* way :)

I know and I'd love to know what makes them so, in detail, rather than saying its the EFI or head design.

The Jim Mock site is good for some detail.

Jason

[D Walford]

EFI and cyl head design is a major part of it, so is having the ignition
controlled by the ECU also better intake and exhaust, OHC with variable
valve timing, improvements in each area of design all adds up.
You can also add more accurate tolerances and better materials in engine
construction.
Back in the 70's a GT Falcon with a 5.8lt engine made about 300hp which
everyone thought was pretty good, our 2015 WRX makes 264hp out of 2.0lts
and uses a fraction of the fuel the old V8 did.



--
Daryl

[Jason James]

Absolutely, but it'be interesting to know how they developed the engine taking into acct efficiency, fuel octane and anti-knock precautions, different gas-flow speeds, the effect and design of the exhaust, valve size and angle, port design etc etc.
I suspect that much of this info is covered by corporate secrecy, at least for current designs, but a Valiant or any car over 20 yo would be not so jealously guarded.

I

[Noddy]

On 10/07/15 11:28 AM, Jason James wrote:

> The 245 was a real buzz-kill of an engine. Its output was pathetic,
> so I went for the better engine which was more representative of
> old-tech.

Really? In what way?

> The 245 used the even more gutless 215 camshaft and valve size.

It's all about horsepower per cubic inch Jason.

The 215 and 245 garden variety engines were very close to each other
with .65 and .67hp per cube respectively, with their different total
outputs being dependent on their total capacity. The 265 in single
barrel carb form came in a little better at .76hp per cube, while the
265 "HP" with it's 2bbl carb came in better again at .82 horsepower per
cubic inch.

Step up to the "big bangers" and things improve somewhat.

Chrysler advertised the E-38 "6 pack" at 280hp, which gives it a power
per cube rating of 1.05, and the E-49 with it's 300hp has a rating of
1.13 which is getting up there for the Era.

However, compare that to the current 261hp 4 litre "Barra" engine with
it's power per cube rating of 1.06. That's slightly better than the
larger capacity, radical cammed, triple Weber equipped E-38 engine, and
just shy of the E-49.

The current Ford 6 makes as much power per cubic inch as the "race"
motor Hemi's did in the late 1960's, yet they're as smooth as a baby's
arse, are *far* more driveable and are positively thrifty when it comes
to fuel consumption by comparison. How do they do it? They do it with a
host of modern day techniques that wouldn't have been out of place in
Formula 1 in the 1990's.

They do it with things like computer systems that can monitor every
aspect of the engine's condition and alter it's state of tune on the fly
in a nanosecond with things like precise fuel metering, variable length
inlet manifold runners, variable cam timing, variable ignition timing,
and so on. They use port and manifold designs that permit airflow
approaching 100% volumetric efficiency in many cases. They can run at
temperatures that can achieve the best burn for both power and emissions
and do it incredibly reliably.

In short, they can provide the *maximum* bang per buck you can get from
a set volume of fuel, and in a way that no engine with a carburettor and
basic ignition system could ever possibly do. It's not a trick, it's
just decades of improvement that keep being incorporated into each new
model.

In 1966, Jack Brabham won the Formula 1 world Championship in his own
car (and remains to this day the only man to do so) powered by an engine
he himself helped develop. That engine was the Repco-Brabham RB620, and
it was a single overhead cam V8 of 3 litres in capacity that made 310hp.

In 2005, Honda produced a 3 litre naturally aspirated V10 for F1 that
made 965hp, or over 300 horsepower per litre, or nearly three times the
output of the Repco-Brabham for the same capacity.

_That_ is technical progression at it's finest.

> I have great regard for Ford's efforts on the later 6s,...simply
> incredible.

Not nearly as incredible as some. From a technical perspective, Ford is
fairly conservative compared to people like Honda for example.

> I know and I'd love to know what makes them so, in detail, rather
> than saying its the EFI or head design.

Well, in a nutshell, is *is* efi and head design, along with a whole
bunch of other stuff. The changes have been progressive, and each new
"discovery" opens the doors for something else.

It's a bit like the advances we're seeing today in the field of medicine
in that the more we learn, the more easily we can discover new things.

[Jason James]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:31:48 PM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/07/15 11:28 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
> > The 245 was a real buzz-kill of an engine. Its output was pathetic,
> > so I went for the better engine which was more representative of
> > old-tech.
>
> Really? In what way?

It was popular and had the same output as the OHC Ford engine making comparisons easier.

>
> > The 245 used the even more gutless 215 camshaft and valve size.
>
> It's all about horsepower per cubic inch Jason.
>
> The 215 and 245 garden variety engines were very close to each other
> with .65 and .67hp per cube respectively, with their different total
> outputs being dependent on their total capacity.

In the case of the 215 vs 245 the capacity increase of the 245 was the sole reason it outputted more power. OTOH, the 265 had greater capacity and larger valves with a different cam-profile.

The 265 in single
> barrel carb form came in a little better at .76hp per cube, while the
> 265 "HP" with it's 2bbl carb came in better again at .82 horsepower per
> cubic inch.
>
> Step up to the "big bangers" and things improve somewhat.
>
> Chrysler advertised the E-38 "6 pack" at 280hp, which gives it a power
> per cube rating of 1.05, and the E-49 with it's 300hp has a rating of
> 1.13 which is getting up there for the Era.

Quite impressive for the time. But for the purposes of comparison, there is no other engine at the time.

> However, compare that to the current 261hp 4 litre "Barra" engine with
> it's power per cube rating of 1.06. That's slightly better than the
> larger capacity, radical cammed, triple Weber equipped E-38 engine, and
> just shy of the E-49.
>
> The current Ford 6 makes as much power per cubic inch as the "race"
> motor Hemi's did in the late 1960's, yet they're as smooth as a baby's
> arse, are *far* more driveable and are positively thrifty when it comes
> to fuel consumption by comparison. How do they do it? They do it with a
> host of modern day techniques that wouldn't have been out of place in
> Formula 1 in the 1990's.

No argument. Its how they developed that engine, that I'm curious about.

> They do it with things like computer systems that can monitor every
> aspect of the engine's condition and alter it's state of tune on the fly
> in a nanosecond with things like precise fuel metering, variable length
> inlet manifold runners, variable cam timing, variable ignition timing,
> and so on. They use port and manifold designs that permit airflow
> approaching 100% volumetric efficiency in many cases. They can run at
> temperatures that can achieve the best burn for both power and emissions
> and do it incredibly reliably.

Understand those parameters which can be adjusted on the fly, but not so easy with head design or even exhaust. For example, did they have half a dozen heads to try on the dyno? Or the same number of different exhausts.

> In short, they can provide the *maximum* bang per buck you can get from
> a set volume of fuel, and in a way that no engine with a carburettor and
> basic ignition system could ever possibly do. It's not a trick, it's
> just decades of improvement that keep being incorporated into each new
> model.

Yep.

> In 1966, Jack Brabham won the Formula 1 world Championship in his own
> car (and remains to this day the only man to do so) powered by an engine
> he himself helped develop. That engine was the Repco-Brabham RB620, and
> it was a single overhead cam V8 of 3 litres in capacity that made 310hp.
>
> In 2005, Honda produced a 3 litre naturally aspirated V10 for F1 that
> made 965hp, or over 300 horsepower per litre, or nearly three times the
> output of the Repco-Brabham for the same capacity.
>
> _That_ is technical progression at it's finest.

It is. The fantastic revs they operate at seems to have a lot to do with their power out.

>
> > I have great regard for Ford's efforts on the later 6s,...simply
> > incredible.
>
> Not nearly as incredible as some. From a technical perspective, Ford is
> fairly conservative compared to people like Honda for example.
>
> > I know and I'd love to know what makes them so, in detail, rather
> > than saying its the EFI or head design.

> Well, in a nutshell, is *is* efi and head design, along with a whole
> bunch of other stuff. The changes have been progressive, and each new
> "discovery" opens the doors for something else.

I should have said, what is it about EFI and head design that is responsible for increasing power, but improving economy.

>
> It's a bit like the advances we're seeing today in the field of medicine
> in that the more we learn, the more easily we can discover new things.

Indeed. It occured to me that manufacturers probably use previous engine/manifolding/exhaust design templates so they dont reinvent the wheel everytime they decide to get higher performance.


interesting stuff there,..tks.

Jason

[Jason James]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 2:54:38 AM UTC+10, Jason James wrote:

Found a site which has actual development stuff.

A few statements from engineers who worked on the Hemi-6 project. Interestingly enough, the yank engineers were against developing the 265.

http://www.valiant.org/valiant/hemi-six.html

Jason

[Noddy]

On 11/07/15 2:54 AM, Jason James wrote:

> In the case of the 215 vs 245 the capacity increase of the 245 was
> the sole reason it outputted more power. OTOH, the 265 had greater
> capacity and larger valves with a different cam-profile.

Which is why it had a better power per cubic inch rating.

> Quite impressive for the time. But for the purposes of comparison,
> there is no other engine at the time.

Do you think it's impressive?

The engines were pretty radical, with big camshafts, lots of compression
and more carburettor than a Phase III GTHO. I thought they were okay,
but I never thought they were anything spectacular.

The Bathurst LJ XU1 had an output of 1.08hp per cube, and given it's
particularly poor cylinder head design I thought that was reasonable.
The Hemi 6 should have been better than what it was in my view.

> No argument. Its how they developed that engine, that I'm curious
> about.

Well, it's not just *that* engine. It's every engine over the last 30
years. Ford isn't doing anything unique, and are just employing the same
tactics as everyone else.

Actually, it'd be fairer to say that almost everyone else does it better
than Ford does :)

> Understand those parameters which can be adjusted on the fly, but not
> so easy with head design or even exhaust. For example, did they have
> half a dozen heads to try on the dyno? Or the same number of
> different exhausts.

Possibly, but then they also have a lot of known parameters that can be
simulated without the need to build hundreds of variations to test, and
this is different to how things were done in the 1960's. For example, in
the 1960's everything was about massive port volume, but today they
appreciate that the *shape* of the port and air flow rate is far more
important than simply having ports big enough to stick your head in.

> I should have said, what is it about EFI and head design that is
> responsible for increasing power, but improving economy.

It's about getting the maximum burn per pound (or kilogram) of fuel if
you like.

There is a physical limit to how much power you can extract from every
pound of fuel you can run through an engine, and this is countered by
the mechanical limit of a given engine's ability to extract maximum
energy from that fuel and turn it into power. Ultimately you want to
extract the maximum, but some engines get a hell of a lot closer to
doing that than others. The better able the engine is to do so, the more
power it will make and the better it's economy will be.

As engines get more and more advanced, and they're pretty advanced now,
the law of diminishing returns will start to bite fairly hard in that
their designers will find it increasingly difficult to extract more
power or better fuel economy from the things, but with each new
development they add a little bit more of a gain.

I mean, if you asked me 30 years ago if we'd see 2 litre engines that
made as much power as 6 cylinders twice their size and used half the
fuel to do so I would have thought you had two dicks.

Yet here we are.....

[Jason James]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:48:18 AM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/07/15 2:54 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
> > In the case of the 215 vs 245 the capacity increase of the 245 was
> > the sole reason it outputted more power. OTOH, the 265 had greater
> > capacity and larger valves with a different cam-profile.
>
> Which is why it had a better power per cubic inch rating.
>
> > Quite impressive for the time. But for the purposes of comparison,
> > there is no other engine at the time.
>
> Do you think it's impressive?

At the time, yes. I tried overtaking one [a single bbl 265 VH] which the local fire-officer had, and his vehicle did mine like a dinner. I was in an HD manual with a recoed 179.

> The engines were pretty radical, with big camshafts, lots of compression
> and more carburettor than a Phase III GTHO. I thought they were okay,
> but I never thought they were anything spectacular.
>
> The Bathurst LJ XU1 had an output of 1.08hp per cube, and given it's
> particularly poor cylinder head design I thought that was reasonable.
> The Hemi 6 should have been better than what it was in my view.

Well it was faster than any other local 6 [big 3] by a significant margin.

[D Walford]

On 11/07/2015 9:48 AM, Noddy wrote:


> I mean, if you asked me 30 years ago if we'd see 2 litre engines that
> made as much power as 6 cylinders twice their size and used half the
> fuel to do so I would have thought you had two dicks.
>
> Yet here we are.....
>
>

Toyota 1.6lt na 4AGE engines from the early to mid 80's had outputs of
up to 123kw (165HP), to make that power they needed lots of revs but
that doesn't seem to worry them.
Stock head design is very good and there isn't much that can be done to
improve it.

--
Daryl

[D Walford]

On 11/07/2015 11:42 AM, Jason James wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:48:18 AM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
>> On 11/07/15 2:54 AM, Jason James wrote:
>>
>>> In the case of the 215 vs 245 the capacity increase of the 245 was
>>> the sole reason it outputted more power. OTOH, the 265 had greater
>>> capacity and larger valves with a different cam-profile.
>>
>> Which is why it had a better power per cubic inch rating.
>>
>>> Quite impressive for the time. But for the purposes of comparison,
>>> there is no other engine at the time.
>>
>> Do you think it's impressive?
>
> At the time, yes. I tried overtaking one [a single bbl 265 VH] which the local fire-officer had, and his vehicle did mine like a dinner. I was in an HD manual with a recoed 179.
>
>> The engines were pretty radical, with big camshafts, lots of compression
>> and more carburettor than a Phase III GTHO. I thought they were okay,
>> but I never thought they were anything spectacular.
>>
>> The Bathurst LJ XU1 had an output of 1.08hp per cube, and given it's
>> particularly poor cylinder head design I thought that was reasonable.
>> The Hemi 6 should have been better than what it was in my view.
>
> Well it was faster than any other local 6 [big 3] by a significant margin.
>

True but they used fuel at a rate that would scare the shit out of you
today, I bet if you owned one now it would either run on LPG or sit in
the garage and it would rarely come out.
Too bad that their engines were the only good thing about Valiants.



--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 11/07/15 11:42 AM, Jason James wrote:

> Well it was faster than any other local 6 [big 3] by a significant
> margin.

Well, it was an okay car and it was quick, but it wasn't *that* quick :)

The biggest problem with the Charger was that it was heavy, and it ran
out of puff *real* fast once it hit 100 miles per hour. Up to that point
it qas fairly fast, but once you hit the "ton" it's performance fell off
rapidly.

The XU1 was significantly lighter and more nimble, and could put in
better lap times on just about any track in the country.

[Jason James]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 12:21:26 PM UTC+10, D Walford wrote:


> > Well it was faster than any other local 6 [big 3] by a significant margin.
> >
>
> True but they used fuel at a rate that would scare the shit out of you
> today, I bet if you owned one now it would either run on LPG or sit in
> the garage and it would rarely come out.

I owned a 318 which got around 19 mpg hiway,.two 245s, the VH got around 20-22 mpg, and the ELB CM 21-23. A bored out 265 [to 273] got about the same as the 245s. Only drove it once on the highway. The 186 HD only returned around 22 as well.

The 351c was the worst,..it ate LPG like it was going out of style,...on petrol it was about 14-16mpg. All these are hiway.

After I sold the VH, I missed its reliability. Had it for 5 yrs.

> Too bad that their engines were the only good thing about Valiants.

They copped heaps in the early models for their weak frontends. The CM [last model] frontend was a beaut however. Lower arms were heavily gusseted.

Jason

[D Walford]

Brakes were below par as well, worst brake I've ever experienced was in
a Valiant ute.

--
Daryl

[Jason James]

Well, the VF 318 770 sedan had dual piston calipers [PBR IIRC] on unventilated discs, and were quite adequate. Where things went downhill, was Chrysler's decision to use un-assisted MCylinders on the VH. Cant comment on the early models [S,AP5,6,VC and VE] or successive models, except the CM which did have assistance.
FWIW, the VH brakes were disc at the front, and the pedal was rock hard,...no squishy feel you get with some boosted brakes. I found their tendency to lock the rear-drums the worst feature in a panic stop. I had one such stop when a truck came thru a stop-sign without stopping :-). I nearly did a 180 in the fucking thing. So much for the proportioning valve :-).

Jason

[Xeno]

Anything with disc brakes NEEDS a booster. You see, there is no self
energising action with disc brakes, purely a clamping action on the disc
itself. That means the driver is having to provide all the force needed.
Note, the drum rears would have been self energising hence their
tendency to lock up - even with a valve.

Brakes have come a long way since those dark days.

--

Xeno

[Jason James]

Yeah,..but Chrysler already had built cars with boosters, so given what you say, and it makes sense, they were more interested in the money they'd save, which is a sad indictment on Chrysler engineers at the time.

Jason

[Xeno]

Built to a price point. That's what it always comes down to. They
weren't the only manufacturer to skimp on a booster in their basic
models. Nowadays however a booster is pretty much standard equipment -
along with a whole lot more fancy gadgetry, as my Benz owning mate is
discovering. ;-)

--

Xeno

[D Walford]

On 11/07/2015 6:13 PM, Jason James wrote:

> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 5:57:25 PM UTC+10, D Walford wrote:
>> On 11/07/2015 4:06 PM, Jason James wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>> Too bad that their engines were the only good thing about Valiants.
>>>
>>> They copped heaps in the early models for their weak frontends. The CM [last model] frontend was a beaut however. Lower arms were heavily gusseted.
>>>
>> Brakes were below par as well, worst brake I've ever experienced was in
>> a Valiant ute.
>
> Well, the VF 318 770 sedan had dual piston calipers [PBR IIRC] on unventilated discs, and were quite adequate.

I meant to say brake fade.
Specs don't mean much when they don't perform, may have been ok in
general use but I was in my early 20's and tended to push cars a lot
harder that I do now.
I drove a lot of different Valiants because the company I did my
apprenticeship with was a Chrysler dealer at one point so there were
lots of different cars that we got to drive, we also had a big fleet of
HQ Holden panelvans and their brakes whilst being shit compared to
today's cars were a hell of a lot better than any Valiant.

Where things went downhill, was Chrysler's decision to use un-assisted
MCylinders on the VH. Cant comment on the early models [S,AP5,6,VC and
VE] or successive models, except the CM which did have assistance.
> FWIW, the VH brakes were disc at the front, and the pedal was rock hard,...no squishy feel you get with some boosted brakes. I found their tendency to lock the rear-drums the worst feature in a panic stop. I had one such stop when a truck came thru a stop-sign without stopping :-). I nearly did a 180 in the fucking thing. So much for the proportioning valve :-).
>

Typical of many older cars with disc drum setup.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 11/07/15 5:53 PM, D Walford wrote:

> Brakes were below par as well, worst brake I've ever experienced was in
> a Valiant ute.

Yep. Putting unboosted disc brakes on something that was supposed to be
"sporty" was pretty pissweak.

At least Ford realised that big camshafts made for an erratic low rpm
vacuum and put a vacuum tank in their cars :)

[Noddy]

On 11/07/15 6:46 PM, Jason James wrote:

> Yeah,..but Chrysler already had built cars with boosters, so given what you say, and it makes sense, they were more interested in the money they'd save, which is a sad indictment on Chrysler engineers at the time.

Not so much on the engineers, but on the bean counters. They wee the
ones who limited the budget, and the engineers had to work within those
constraints. They probably wanted to put a vacuum tank on some of their
cars like Ford did so they could run boosted brakes, but the bean
counters said no.

I spent many an hour driving my borther's mint original E-49 Charger,
and between that, my GTHO and my Bathurst XU1 it was far and away the
nicest car to drive. ....Until you had to stop, in which case it
suddenly became the worst and by a very long way.

For a car with lots of go it had *appalling* brakes. Even by the
standards of the day.

[Noddy]

On 11/07/15 6:58 PM, D Walford wrote:

> Typical of many older cars with disc drum setup.

Yep. I used to always do two things in my GTHO religiously: The first
was to run metal king pads in the front so the thing would stop even
when the rotors were glowing red, and the second was to back the rear
brakes off until the hand brake would *just* grab when it was pulled on
fully to prevent the rears locking up in a hard stop.

[Paul Saccani]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:31:59 +1000, Noddy <m...@wardengineering.com>
wrote:

Nice explanations and summaries.

>Chrysler advertised the E-38 "6 pack" at 280hp, which gives it a power
>per cube rating of 1.05, and the E-49 with it's 300hp has a rating of
>1.13 which is getting up there for the Era.
>
>However, compare that to the current 261hp 4 litre "Barra" engine with
>it's power per cube rating of 1.06. That's slightly better than the
>larger capacity, radical cammed, triple Weber equipped E-38 engine, and
>just shy of the E-49.

Just a quick note, though - Jason wanted to compare with the OHC six
(presumably in line with his current ride), so probably didn't have
the Barra in mind.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:48:30 +1000, Noddy <m...@wardengineering.com>
wrote:

>> I should have said, what is it about EFI and head design that is
>> responsible for increasing power, but improving economy.
>
>It's about getting the maximum burn per pound (or kilogram) of fuel if
>you like.
>
>There is a physical limit to how much power you can extract from every
>pound of fuel you can run through an engine, and this is countered by
>the mechanical limit of a given engine's ability to extract maximum
>energy from that fuel and turn it into power. Ultimately you want to
>extract the maximum, but some engines get a hell of a lot closer to
>doing that than others. The better able the engine is to do so, the more
>power it will make and the better it's economy will be.
>
>As engines get more and more advanced, and they're pretty advanced now,
>the law of diminishing returns will start to bite fairly hard in that
>their designers will find it increasingly difficult to extract more
>power or better fuel economy from the things, but with each new
>development they add a little bit more of a gain.

The next line of development will be higher CR unthrottled SI engines
with more aggressive EGR to improve pumping losses.

[Noddy]

On 17/07/15 11:28 AM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> Just a quick note, though - Jason wanted to compare with the OHC six
> (presumably in line with his current ride), so probably didn't have
> the Barra in mind.

I think he was comparing the original 265 Hemi to his current ED engine
because that's what he has under his right foot at the moment, but I'm
not sure if he was looking to do that specifically or just limiting
things to that era as that's the limit of his experience.

I was just saying that if he wishes to compare old to new then there's
no time like the present, and engines have come a long way just in the
20 years between his ED and the current Barra engine let alone between
his 20 year old engine and the one 20 years before that.

[Noddy]

On 17/07/15 11:36 AM, Paul Saccani wrote:

> The next line of development will be higher CR unthrottled SI engines
> with more aggressive EGR to improve pumping losses.

Maybe, but as I said the law of diminishing returns is closing in
rapidly. It'll be interesting to see where things are 20 years from now
though.

[D Walford]

The current generation of high tech engines is smaller capacity with
forced induction, very popular in Europe for their excellent power for
their capacity and excellent economy.
I find the performance and economy of our 2.0lt turbo WRX to be
excellent, goes like hell and on hwy cruise the trip computer shows as
low as 7.2lts/100km.
As I've mentioned before I was very impressed by the 1.6ltTD Ford Focus
we rented in the UK, no problem cruising on 100mph whilst showing 53mpg
on the trip computer.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 17/07/15 12:33 PM, D Walford wrote:

> The current generation of high tech engines is smaller capacity with
> forced induction, very popular in Europe for their excellent power for
> their capacity and excellent economy.
> I find the performance and economy of our 2.0lt turbo WRX to be
> excellent, goes like hell and on hwy cruise the trip computer shows as
> low as 7.2lts/100km.
> As I've mentioned before I was very impressed by the 1.6ltTD Ford Focus
> we rented in the UK, no problem cruising on 100mph whilst showing 53mpg
> on the trip computer.

It's pretty outstanding.

Like the wife's TD IX-35. It's a nice drive that goes *very* well for an
1800kg car, and still averages 45mpg.

[D Walford]

That makes me wonder how anyone can think old cars are better than new.
When the WRX was getting fixed the panel shop loaned us an AU, because
it was an unknown I gave the Hilux to my wife to drive and I drove the
old Falcon, it actually drove pretty good but it hadn't aged that well,
the engine was leaking oil badly from what looked like a rear main oil
seal and it had a hole in the exhaust somewhere, very happy to hand it
back last night.
BTW I highly recommend Melton Body Works and Allianz car insurance, they
didn't have to loan us a car and their work looks to be excellent, they
also fixed it straight away, the accident only happened on Monday and it
was picked up 2.3pm Thursday so I am very happy with their service and
workmanship.

--
Daryl

[Jason James]

I wanted to compare 2 engines clearly defined as old and newer tech. I've driven both [tho my 265 was .060 bored]and can say they both produced similar grunt as advertised.

The other valid comparo would, as Nod said, be the 245 vs ohc 4 litrem,,but the 245 was,nt Chrysler's best effort,..IOW its output was in the toilet for reasons related to its head being the same as the 215.

Its this sort of stuff I really enjoy being discussed. E.G why did Chrysler not up-grade the 245 ? 160 odd HP for 4 litres is not all that hot even for the early '70s

Jason

[Noddy]

On 17/07/15 1:03 PM, D Walford wrote:

> That makes me wonder how anyone can think old cars are better than new.

I've got nothing against old cars. God knows I've owned enough of them,
still do and will always. They certainly have character compared to most
of the stuff around today. But that's about it though :)

> When the WRX was getting fixed the panel shop loaned us an AU, because
> it was an unknown I gave the Hilux to my wife to drive and I drove the
> old Falcon, it actually drove pretty good but it hadn't aged that well,
> the engine was leaking oil badly from what looked like a rear main oil
> seal and it had a hole in the exhaust somewhere, very happy to hand it
> back last night.
> BTW I highly recommend Melton Body Works and Allianz car insurance, they
> didn't have to loan us a car and their work looks to be excellent, they
> also fixed it straight away, the accident only happened on Monday and it
> was picked up 2.3pm Thursday so I am very happy with their service and
> workmanship.

Cool.

[Jason James]

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:07:48 PM UTC+10, D Walford wrote:
> On 17/07/2015 12:48 PM, Noddy wrote:


> That makes me wonder how anyone can think old cars are better than new.

They aren't, and it would be foolish to claim this. My interest lays with the technology changes, including head/manifolding design.

Having said this, there is one thing which has got worse with newer technology, and that is fault-finding in an engine bay packed with stuff, and many different technologys from dozens of sensors to forced induction, ignition control and manifolding, Also as much as 3 processor control boxes. You cant do it with the same tools of 1970, and despite a higher reliability, if it goes tits up, you can be in a world of hurt :-)

> When the WRX was getting fixed the panel shop loaned us an AU, because
> it was an unknown I gave the Hilux to my wife to drive and I drove the
> old Falcon, it actually drove pretty good but it hadn't aged that well,
> the engine was leaking oil badly from what looked like a rear main oil
> seal and it had a hole in the exhaust somewhere, very happy to hand it
> back last night.

As a random pick, the condition was always going to be a hit/miss affair. My personal gripes about Ford's local stuff, has been [amongst others] their implementation of processor based controls. They all end up fracturing the PCBs around heavy component items like relays. Add to that their penny-pinching on tried and true devices [eg sprintless'shifter failure] using crap materials is unforgivable.

Old cars to my way of thinking, have an attraction which includes their simplicity for those who want to fill in their retirement or, weekends, plus the feel of just driving them :-)

Jason

[D Walford]

On 18/07/2015 7:55 AM, Jason James wrote:
> On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:07:48 PM UTC+10, D Walford wrote:
>> On 17/07/2015 12:48 PM, Noddy wrote:
>
>
>> That makes me wonder how anyone can think old cars are better than new.
>
> They aren't, and it would be foolish to claim this. My interest lays with the technology changes, including head/manifolding design.
>
> Having said this, there is one thing which has got worse with newer technology, and that is fault-finding in an engine bay packed with stuff, and many different technologys from dozens of sensors to forced induction, ignition control and manifolding, Also as much as 3 processor control boxes. You cant do it with the same tools of 1970, and despite a higher reliability, if it goes tits up, you can be in a world of hurt :-)
>
>

You can but I've owned lots of late models cars and never had a single
electrical issue but that could be because we don't keep them for more
than 5yrs.

>
>> When the WRX was getting fixed the panel shop loaned us an AU, because
>> it was an unknown I gave the Hilux to my wife to drive and I drove the
>> old Falcon, it actually drove pretty good but it hadn't aged that well,
>> the engine was leaking oil badly from what looked like a rear main oil
>> seal and it had a hole in the exhaust somewhere, very happy to hand it
>> back last night.
>
> As a random pick, the condition was always going to be a hit/miss affair. My personal gripes about Ford's local stuff, has been [amongst others] their implementation of processor based controls. They all end up fracturing the PCBs around heavy component items like relays. Add to that their penny-pinching on tried and true devices [eg sprintless'shifter failure] using crap materials is unforgivable.
>
> Old cars to my way of thinking, have an attraction which includes their simplicity for those who want to fill in their retirement or, weekends, plus the feel of just driving them :-)
>

After driving the AU for a few days I was thinking that if I ever needed
a cheap runabout an AU wagon wouldn't be a bad choice, a quick look on
carsales.com.au showed that a low kms AU wagon are rare and they still
want $3-4000 for them.


--
Daryl

[Jason James]

And get a OEM LPG example...If I go for another Ford, and that's not very likely, a Fairlane/LTD/Fairmont/Ghia on LPG would be my pick. As I mentioned recently, a work mate just bought a 2-3yo G6E, and he spewed *afterwards* when he learnt about their ATF cooler probs...

Jason

[Noddy]

On 18/07/15 9:34 AM, D Walford wrote:

> You can but I've owned lots of late models cars and never had a single
> electrical issue but that could be because we don't keep them for more
> than 5yrs.

Or that many of them were Fords :)

[D Walford]

On 18/07/2015 10:49 AM, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/07/15 9:34 AM, D Walford wrote:
>
>> You can but I've owned lots of late models cars and never had a single
>> electrical issue but that could be because we don't keep them for more
>> than 5yrs.
>
> Or that many of them were Fords :)
>
>
>

Last Ford I owned was a 1994 NC11 Fairlane which did have a coil
failure, luckily I wasn't far from home and I had a spare coil.

--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 18/07/15 9:54 AM, Jason James wrote:


> And get a OEM LPG example...If I go for another Ford, and that's not
> very likely, a Fairlane/LTD/Fairmont/Ghia on LPG would be my pick.

A Falcon on gas would be fine, but stay away from the OEM lpg
installations as they're horrendously bad. You're far better off getting
an injected vapour aftermarket kit installed.

> As I mentioned recently, a work mate just bought a 2-3yo G6E, and he
> spewed *afterwards* when he learnt about their ATF cooler probs...

Yeah, it's pretty pissweak, but the fix is relatively simple. Install an
aftermarket external transmission fluid cooler.

[D Walford]

That's easy and not all that expensive to fix if you are aware of the
issue and do something about it before there is a failure, simply fit an
external trans oil cooler bypassing the OE cooler.
I wouldn't bother with LPG as a I wouldn't be doing a lot of kms, a lot
of them already have LPG though.


--
Daryl

[keithr]

On 10/07/2015 4:31 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 10/07/15 11:28 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
>> The 245 was a real buzz-kill of an engine. Its output was pathetic,
>> so I went for the better engine which was more representative of
>> old-tech.
>
> Really? In what way?
>
>> The 245 used the even more gutless 215 camshaft and valve size.
>
> It's all about horsepower per cubic inch Jason.
>
> The 215 and 245 garden variety engines were very close to each other
> with .65 and .67hp per cube respectively, with their different total
> outputs being dependent on their total capacity. The 265 in single
> barrel carb form came in a little better at .76hp per cube, while the
> 265 "HP" with it's 2bbl carb came in better again at .82 horsepower per
> cubic inch.
>
> Step up to the "big bangers" and things improve somewhat.

>
> Chrysler advertised the E-38 "6 pack" at 280hp, which gives it a power
> per cube rating of 1.05, and the E-49 with it's 300hp has a rating of
> 1.13 which is getting up there for the Era.
>
> However, compare that to the current 261hp 4 litre "Barra" engine with
> it's power per cube rating of 1.06. That's slightly better than the
> larger capacity, radical cammed, triple Weber equipped E-38 engine, and
> just shy of the E-49.
>

> The current Ford 6 makes as much power per cubic inch as the "race"
> motor Hemi's did in the late 1960's, yet they're as smooth as a baby's
> arse, are *far* more driveable and are positively thrifty when it comes
> to fuel consumption by comparison. How do they do it? They do it with a
> host of modern day techniques that wouldn't have been out of place in
> Formula 1 in the 1990's.
>
> They do it with things like computer systems that can monitor every
> aspect of the engine's condition and alter it's state of tune on the fly
> in a nanosecond with things like precise fuel metering, variable length
> inlet manifold runners, variable cam timing, variable ignition timing,
> and so on. They use port and manifold designs that permit airflow
> approaching 100% volumetric efficiency in many cases. They can run at
> temperatures that can achieve the best burn for both power and emissions
> and do it incredibly reliably.
>
> In short, they can provide the *maximum* bang per buck you can get from
> a set volume of fuel, and in a way that no engine with a carburettor and
> basic ignition system could ever possibly do. It's not a trick, it's
> just decades of improvement that keep being incorporated into each new
> model.
>
> In 1966, Jack Brabham won the Formula 1 world Championship in his own
> car (and remains to this day the only man to do so) powered by an engine
> he himself helped develop. That engine was the Repco-Brabham RB620, and
> it was a single overhead cam V8 of 3 litres in capacity that made 310hp.
>
> In 2005, Honda produced a 3 litre naturally aspirated V10 for F1 that
> made 965hp, or over 300 horsepower per litre, or nearly three times the
> output of the Repco-Brabham for the same capacity.
>
> _That_ is technical progression at it's finest.
>
>> I have great regard for Ford's efforts on the later 6s,...simply
>> incredible.
>
> Not nearly as incredible as some. From a technical perspective, Ford is
> fairly conservative compared to people like Honda for example.
>
>> I know and I'd love to know what makes them so, in detail, rather
>> than saying its the EFI or head design.
>
> Well, in a nutshell, is *is* efi and head design, along with a whole
> bunch of other stuff. The changes have been progressive, and each new
> "discovery" opens the doors for something else.
>
> It's a bit like the advances we're seeing today in the field of medicine
> in that the more we learn, the more easily we can discover new things.
>
A series of articles on current and future developments. The bottom
article is the first, the top article is the last

http://arstechnica.com/feature-series/future-of-fuel/

[keithr]

On 18/07/2015 7:55 AM, Jason James wrote:

Thats why I enjoy driving my 1991 NA MX5, no power steering, no ABS,
nothing goes beep if I do something that the car doesn't think that I
should.

[Paul Saccani]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:09:30 +1000, Noddy <m...@wardengineering.com>
wrote:

Indeed. For unthrottled SI engines, best efficiency, at 45%, already
exceeds that of CI engines, to give some idea of the state of play
today.

Compared with the typical SI efficiency of around 20%, these engines
would achieve a lot more than an incremental improvement.

I'd anticipate these to be entirely practical on the twenty year
scale.

The developments below would, in my estimation, be on a longer scale
to be practical. OTOH, it's *within possibility* that all three lines
could be combined in main stream engines within twenty years.

As you say, such technology would also run into diminishing returns -
I would expect the next non-incremental improvement would likely be
development of this technology with a two stage turbo and supercharged
two stroke, possibly combined with a power recovery turbine. That
would then run into the Carnot cycle limits coming into play due to
the maximum allowable hot side temperature.

Further improvement would require advances in material technologies to
allow higher operating temperatures, and hence an increase in the
efficiency allowed by the Carnot cycle. Current development
technologies along these lines are high strength ceramics.

[Paul Saccani]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:08:17 +1000, Noddy <m...@wardengineering.com>
wrote:

Indeed.

[Tas Karas]