Hemi Challenger

"Tony D" > wrote in message
.. .
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The
>>>>> OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the
>>>>> only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive.
>>>>> The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This
>>>>> also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It
>>>>> bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>>>>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a
>>>>> minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much
>>>>> sooner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back
>>>> in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as
>>>> well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and
>>>> durability in the mean time.
>>>
>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots. I
>>> have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the rest
>>> of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual
>>> loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be
>>> open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be built.
>>> Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never developed. Had
>>> Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out
>>> differently.
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies couldn't
>> have it because they last too long.
>>
>
> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>

That could be said about most suitable power plants, early in their
development stages...
It may be true now, but that doesn't mean it will be later...

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "WindsorFox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Toad Monster wrote:
>>> He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
>>> email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
>>> the problem... Spammers glean the headers too. That makes logical sense
>>> to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
>>> there to begin with...lol t/y
>>>
>>
>> You posted headers in the body of the message.
>
> So what?
> Spammers glean the headers too.
> The spammers aren't actually reading the the millions of Usenet posts. It
> is done with software that reads the headers as well as the message body ...
>
> Fer Christ sake.
>


You think they don't sit there and read all the information too? How
do you think spammers got to be so smart??
It looked to me like wetv put stuff in the message that it shouldn't have.


--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

Tony D wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>
>
> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>

I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those
cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove
it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is
an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm

Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

Tony D wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was
>>>>> the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis
>>>>> alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod
>>>>> motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the
>>>>> Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year
>>>>> until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we
>>>>> would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and
>>>>> SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines
>>>>> in production cars much sooner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>
>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually demand
>>> them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest
>>> never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably
>>> have turned out differently.
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>
>
> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.

....and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
necessarily make it the best design.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:36:02 -0500, WindsorFox
> wrote:

>Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
>> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those
>cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove
>it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is
>an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
>http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm
>
>Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft
And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more
fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it
ballances out.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "WindsorFox" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Toad Monster wrote:
>>>> He can't post something that isn't there, if a poster has left a real
>>>> email address in their Usenet postings, someone "REPOSTING" it, is not
>>>> the problem... Spammers glean the headers too. That makes logical sense
>>>> to me..All I did was re-copy what was already
>>>> there to begin with...lol t/y
>>>>
>>>
>>> You posted headers in the body of the message.
>>
>> So what?
>> Spammers glean the headers too.
>> The spammers aren't actually reading the the millions of Usenet posts.
>> It is done with software that reads the headers as well as the message
>> body ...
>>
>> Fer Christ sake.
>>
>
>
> You think they don't sit there and read all the information too? How do
> you think spammers got to be so smart??
> It looked to me like wetv put stuff in the message that it shouldn't have.


It is already in every message for crying out loud...

>
>
> --
> "Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."
>
> "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Tony D wrote:
>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance
>>>>>> applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines
>>>>>> can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s?
>>>>>> The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It
>>>>>> was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the
>>>>>> Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push
>>>>>> rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run
>>>>>> in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that
>>>>>> year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder
>>>>>> what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the
>>>>>> turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen
>>>>>> OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines
>>>> or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then
>>>> the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually
>>>> demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but
>>>> interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things
>>>> would probably have turned out differently.
>>>
>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>
>>
>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>> passenger cars.
>
> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in
> the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development
> might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would
> be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The
> fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the
> piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't
> necessarily make it the best design.

Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:36:02 -0500, WindsorFox
> > wrote:
>
>> Tony D wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>
>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say that
>>> turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for passenger cars.
>>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those
>> cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove
>> it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is
>> an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
>> http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia127.htm
>>
>> Heh, 130HP and 425 lb/ft
> And HORRENDOUS fuel consumption. Even a turbine chopper uses more
> fuel than a piston engined one - just cheaper fuel. Not sure it
> ballances out.
>

I didn't look at any of that info and didn't even think about it.
I'll have to see if there are any consumption listings for the GM thing.

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Tony D wrote:
>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that
>>>>>>> OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had
>>>>>>> in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best engines of
>>>>>>> that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it
>>>>>>> was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable
>>>>>>> to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only
>>>>>>> turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the
>>>>>>> entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with two
>>>>>>> laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if
>>>>>>> they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I
>>>>>>> think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us
>>>>>> back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the
>>>>>> OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing
>>>>>> mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy
>>>>> and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>
>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>> passenger cars.
>>
>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back
>> in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine
>> engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in
>> airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline.
>> Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today
>> doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>
> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.

A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Tony D wrote:
>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> WindsorFox wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high
>>>>>>>> performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages
>>>>>>>> that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford
>>>>>>>> had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best
>>>>>>>> engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned
>>>>>>>> because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it
>>>>>>>> too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me
>>>>>>>> of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched
>>>>>>>> slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox
>>>>>>>> failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in
>>>>>>>> today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC
>>>>>>>> engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in
>>>>>>>> production cars much sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised
>>>>>>> us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on
>>>>>>> the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and
>>>>>>> losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's
>>>>>> roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at
>>>>>> Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run
>>>>>> turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine
>>>>>> back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and
>>>>>> actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road
>>>>>> briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines
>>>>>> run things would probably have turned out differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conspiracy theorists of course say that the car companies
>>>>> couldn't have it because they last too long.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course, people who know what they're talking about would say
>>>> that turbines are great for specific tasks but not suitable for
>>>> passenger cars.
>>>
>>> ...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful
>>> than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back
>>> in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of
>>> development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine
>>> engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in
>>> airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline.
>>> Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles
>>> today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
>>
>> Jay Leno's proto burns biodiesel.
>
> A turbine will burn damn near any fuel.

That's good. Maybe we could feed them some of all that wasted used
oil you change out? P

--
"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians."

"So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck

"Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek