Intake manifold construction, intercoolers

[Greg Hermann]

At 11:24 AM 12/8/01, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>Greg Hermann tapped away at the keyboard with:
>
>> >> You are wrong, in part, Moe. Multi valve on street engines came
>> >> from EPA (and CAFE) rules, every bit as much as EFI and ALSO SOHC
>> >> and DOHC has.
>
>> >> Multi valves make higher valve velocities possible--which allows
>> >> reasonable lift values with short duration--directly related to
>> >> both emissions and CAFE-- and SOHC and DOHC not only tend to allow
>> >> higher valve velocities, but also facilitate variable valve
>> >> timing--which are also emissions and CAFE induced features as far
>> >> as street motors are concerned .
>
>> >Which must come as a hell of a shock to the likes of Alfa Romeo,
>> >Porsche, Jaguar, Mercedes, etc. who used those particular bits of
>> >technology to gain a competitive edge (in more ways than one) and
>> >to set themselves apart from the crowd.
>
>> >Engineers tend to like to make something better than what already
>> >exists. Well, Engineers worth their salt.
>
>> Perhaps I should have said "mass market" cars, rather than "street" cars.
>
>What's a "mass market" car? One that appeals to the great unwashed?
>You expect leading-edge technology in motorised shopping trolleys?
>The only "hi-tech" that appeals to the "masses" is cup holders and
>CD stackers. They don't have a clue what the "DOHC", "16V", "PORT
>INJECTED" and "TORQUE CONTROLLED" decals mean; nor do they care.
>
>BTW: I've seen those decals and their ilk on motorised shopping
>trolley for the past 5 to 10 years.
>
>Don't mix "mass market" and competition paradigms.

I wasn't. Just was saying that both venues have artificial displacement
restrictions. Of a different sort, but the same design restriction,
nevertheless.

They are at
>opposite ends of the scale.

Ailimentary, Watson.

Take your average "mass market" car
>around a race or autocross circuit to anywhere near its limit and
>you'll find that it will expire very rapidly, if you don't lose
>tyres or off the car first.

This can be accomplished even more quickly by fastening a somewhat heavy
trailer behind such a critter and then pointing it up a seven or eight mile
long grade with 6 to 8 per cent gradient !
>
>EFI is appealing in mass market because it is CHEAP to build,
>install and maintain (over the nominal life of the car).

No. It is simply the cheapest way to meet emission regs.

That
>appeals to mass-market _buyers_.

What really appeals to them is getting the commie pigs to give them another
"OK" sticker every year or two with minimal hassle (on top on minimal
cost).

The number of new cars produced
>with carb'd engines is very small - production is restricted to
>developing countries.

Where emission regs and "inspections" are virtually non-existent.

TBI is the LCD, and is diminishing as _buyers_
>migrate to engines with port-injection due to better drivability and
>fuel economy.

No. Port injection makes it possible to meet current cold start emission
requirements. Plain and simple. TBI can't do it.
>
>It'll take another 5 to 10 years before direct gasoline injection to
>reach the market penetration of port-injection. Partly because of
>fleet ageing, partly because of the cost reductions that come with
>development.

And--the motivating force behind DFI, is, again, regulations. This time
mostly CAFE.

Speaking of which--DFI is the only thing that can compete with DCOE/IDA
carbys in terms of BSFC !!
Why?? Because it HAS GOT to have good fuel atomization to even function !

>
>> Not to mention that competent engineer/tuners are quite capable of
>> making Weber DCOE/IDA carbys perform at least as well as EFI !
>
>Under all nominal operating conditions? On all sorts of cars?
>At a price the customer can afford? I very much doubt that.

You knew perfectly well I was talking about competition engines in this
one. You been taking debating lessons from the greenies or Slick Willie
Klinton?? Gotta be one or the other !
>
>> Also, not to mention that Jag's competitive advantage came
>> virtually entirely from being the first to adopt the use of disc
>> brakes in competition!
>
>So their chassis design was of no tangible benefit?

Virtually none, or likely even a negative compared to the competition of
their day. I spose you are going to try to tell me next that the Jag
engine's twin cams helped it rev higher to make more power, in spite of its
4-3/16" stroke and con rod bolts that gave every evidence of having been
made from used Tootsie Rolls !
>
>> Greg (raced an Alfa Guilia Spider Abnormale and tuned a GTZ for
>> years, both of which were very quick indeed (especially the TZ),
>> but both of which also lost REGULARLY to pushrod motored Cobras---
>> although NOT to Porsh*ts) (Also once had a pal who was a member of
>> Ecurie Ecosse, if you want to argue the particulars of Jags !)
>
>There's an Alfa locally that's unbeatable in the Sporting Car Club.
>It's only the when megabucks arrive that even have a chance of
>showing it up.

Not too surprising. Must be some down there who do know what they're doing
after all !

Greg


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org