[DMCForum] Re: Re ATTN: Martin G (Others read at your own risk)

["content22207" <brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My unbracketed comments precede yours. (Will respond to the Lego
comment after Church)

>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Gutkowski <webmaster@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> >The point I was making is: my engine burns too hot timed at 13 degrees
> >BTDC (that mysterious notch on my timing scale, which I am now
> >convinced was transplanted, not original the the block -- even F
> >series B27 is spec'd at 10 degrees). Jim thinks it doesn't get too
> >hot. 
> >

I suppose you could start with Message #9373 (the imfamous message
where Jim also states in the PS at the bottom that higher compression
*LOWERS* HP. He repeats that wild assertion in Message #9369. Why
doesn't anybody pillory him for saying THAT). Jim is a big fan of
advancing ignition time (see Message #9275). I agree with the
principle too, for obvious laws of physics, but I do NOT agree that
continuously advancing the spark will automatically increase HP --
especially not to the threshhold of knocking (see Message #9459. This
is his direct quote: "If running at the threshold of pinging could be
reasonably done, i think that it would be done").

This Saturday I advanced to that 13 degree mark on my timing scale
before driving to Louie's house. Engine didn't ping even once (which
certainly comes closer to Jim's "threshold of pinging" theory, not
farther from it) but the plugs indicated cylinder temps were way too
high. I pointed this out in Message #9761, to which he replied in
Message #9770 that this was more than just his theory -- it was the
theory of all internal combustion engines (which your Puma Racing
fellow disagrees with BTW).

> When did he say that? Quote him. I dare you. Your timing should be set 
> up at 10 degrees (if it does indeed have a renault dizzy). Setting
it up 
> at 13 at idle may well lose you power because that dizzy is meant for 
> 10. Renault and VOlvo Dizzy's are different to the DeLorean dizzy which 
> is specific to the DeLorean. I can't say it simpler than that.
> 
> >The "ass-dyno" he refers to is my perception that the car performed no
> >better timed like that. 
> >

See Message #9770. "Ass-dyno" was his term, not mine.

> No, that isn't what he said. Quote him.
> 
> >And don't go waving your HP numbers too proudly: even my dumbed down
> >460's, only producing 210 HP, still turn 425 lbs of torque. 
> >

That comment was directed to the "2 litre 4cyl variable-valve "Type R"
Honda engine that screams to 9000rpm and puts out nearly 200hp", not
your Citroen (which was never mentioned BTW). I'm willing to bet the
engine you actually mentioned has no where near the torque per CUBIC
INCH as my big blocks.

Of course a diesel produces more torque per displacement. That's why
transfer trucks are diesel powered, not gasoline. Have I ever stated
otherwise?

What is the compression ratio of your diesel anyway? Not exactly an
apples to apples comparison, is it? You notice I specifically
referenced my 8.5:1 460's ("dumbed down"). Hardly a diesel spec. 

You might be interested in the miserable failure Chevrolet had
converting its 350 gasoline block to a diesel. Engines blew themselves
apart prematurely. American big blocks do NOT want to be diesels --
are perfectly happy with their gasoline heritage.

> And my 2 litre Citroen diesel engine produces 185 ft-lb of torque yet 
> kicks out "only" 110hp. Haven't I said before that big american lumps 
> are just wannabe diesels? That's 92.5 ft.lbs/litre in mine. 460ci is 
> 7.5l so your engine puts out 57ft.lbs/litre. I towed my project
delorean 
> 550 miles from Germany on a heavy trailer with that 2 litre engine.
> 
> >0-60
> >in 8-9 seconds effortlessly. 
> >
> So does my citroen. And it does 50+mpg.
> 
> >The reason they don't scream at
> >rediculously high RPM's is BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. 
> >
> Point?
> 
> >
> >How are these for sweeping statements:
> >Advantages of a REAL big block (PRV is *NOT* a big engine):
> >- Power -- "there is no replacement for displacement"
> >
> If the cost of fuel or environmental damage are nonexistent. Then you 
> have no reason to innovate and you can sack all your R+D people.
> 
> >- Slower RPM's -- quieter running, less stress on engine components
> >
> Bollocks. Design an engine that's meant to be revved hard and it'll 
> suffer if it isn't. Ask any Porsche or other HIGH PERFORMANCE car owner.
> 
> >- Lower operating temperature -- seals and gaskets last longer
> >
> Leaving a car to sit for ages without running will bugger them up much 
> faster.
> 
> >- Ease of maintenance -- not only is every single component larger and
> >easier to access, but you don't have to mess with them nearly as often
> >
> Go and buy a lego car then.
> 
> >
> >Final thought: doesn't your statement that "Some of us might be more
> >worried about simply getting the most complete burn" (apparently in
> >reference to advancing ignition time) TOTALLY confirm what I said last
> >month about American manufacturers doing just that to get through
> >emissions?! Last month I was thoroughly pilloried for saying such. Now
> >you say EXACTLY the same thing...
> >

Actually in northern Virginia, at least, the test is done on a
treadmill at something like 30 mph.

> Did it occur to you that the reason the DeLorean runs more advance at 
> idle is because it's at idle that the emissions are tested?
> 
> Martin

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.