Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*225hp\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*225hp\s*$/: 41 ]

Total 41 documents matching your query.

1. 225hp (score: 1): Author: greg <gtlund@cyberspeedway.net>; Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:29:21 -0700; I agree that any dyno figure has to be looked at carefully. Some California dynos used to be pretty optimistic but I know that Dave Rebello takes great care in keeping his calibrated before every run; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00166.html (9,131 bytes)
2. Re: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "kas kastner" <kaskas@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:20:50 -0700; It isn't just California dynos that have an optimistic attitude. My engine dynos were Hennan-Froude and checked every week for correct balance. The weight system is pretty darn hard to screw up. Fort; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00171.html (10,133 bytes)
3. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Terry and Cindy <roadandtrack@hypermax.net.au>; Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:53:21 -0000; could I please ask some of you good folk for some head air flow data so we can determine where some of the differences with power claims might be stemming from. Unfortunately, there is no basis to co; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00178.html (8,496 bytes)
4. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "barry rosenberg" <britcars@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:56:48 -0400; I understand the new Hot Rod magazine issue has an article on longer verses shorter rods. They built an engine and swapped rods and pistons only. They found no power difference. I have not read it ye; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00188.html (7,832 bytes)
5. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: joe dirt <oldskooling@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:46:45 -0700 (PDT); It is my understanding that longer rods and shorter pistons is not what is making the power alone, it is designing a cam to take advantage of the greater piston dwell at tdc and other variables. So i; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00193.html (9,015 bytes)
6. Re: 225hp (score: 1): Author: <triumph_marx@freenet.de>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:52:37 +0200; The maximum power will increase but the torgue will drop down. Chris; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00194.html (9,651 bytes)
7. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "barry rosenberg" <britcars@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:17:20 -0400; It is my understanding that going over 1.8 to 1 ratio would increase the rpm that maximum torque comes in and going below that reduces the rpm that torque comes in. This was from Hot Rod web site. Al; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00195.html (8,185 bytes)
8. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "Richard Taylor" <tarch@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 06:45:19 -0400; Okay. Help a neophyte. The way I see it, whatever goes on in the combustion chamber is completely ignorant of the length of the connecting rod, whether the rod is 4" long or ten feet long (assuming t; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00199.html (8,587 bytes)
9. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: joe dirt <oldskooling@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:56:50 -0700 (PDT); ",I hope" I take it you haven't had the car on a dyno yet with the long rod motor. I'm very interested in what kind of power improvement a long rod combo would provide in the TR motor. Have you at le; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00200.html (8,718 bytes)
10. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:40 -0700; As always, engines are pretty dynamic critters and making one parameter change without optimizing for it doesn't generally do much. Like sticking a nicely flowed intake manifold on a stock head. Long; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00203.html (10,164 bytes)
11. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:49:14 -0700; The easiest way to see it is to map the extremes with a piece of paper. Using a the same stroke, map the position of the piston for the minimum length rod to clear the crankshaft and one that is twic; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00204.html (10,041 bytes)
12. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "barry rosenberg" <britcars@bellsouth.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:45:45 -0400; The way I understand the long rod theory is several fold. One, the piston is at or very near top dead center longer allowing the act of combustion to build up more power for the push down on the pist; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00213.html (8,909 bytes)
13. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "Richard Taylor" <tarch@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:44:21 -0400; I still can't see it. We agree that at TDC and BDC connecting rod length makes no difference in piston stroke length. At 90 degrees crank rotation the piston is half way through its stroke no matter; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00214.html (9,378 bytes)
14. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <ryoung@navcomtech.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:22:45 -0700; I'll agree with that. Not true. The vertical distance from the crank pin to the wrist pin is shorter throughout the stroke than at either TDC or BDC, because of the angle the rod makes with the vert; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00216.html (8,983 bytes)
15. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: "Jack W. Drews" <vinttr4@geneseo.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:31:41 -0500; A really interesting thread. But in one respect the question of noticeable difference in performance sounds similar to the investigation that I did a couple of years ago on a completely different sub; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00217.html (9,320 bytes)
16. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:08:16 -0700; Of course the big difference is that for bike guys, 6000 RPM is a fast idle. In 1972 the Honda 350 Twin STREET bike had a redline of 10,500. My current favorite sportbike--an MV Agusta Senna--has a r; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00220.html (10,299 bytes)
17. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:20:54 -0700; In a word, no. At ninety degrees the piston is not necessarily halfway through the stroke. The effect is small for small differences in rod length, but the vertical component of travel is equal to th; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00221.html (10,543 bytes)
18. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:40:08 -0700; I didn't say that very well--here's another try. First of all, for ANY real engine, at 90 degrees of crank rotation the piston is NOT at half of the stroke. The stroke curve is a sine wave (or more a; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00222.html (11,792 bytes)
19. Re: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Michael Porter <portermd@zianet.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:51:28 -0600; And, this might be one of the reasons why two (or more) small intake valves generally produce more power than a single intake/single exhaust bathtub style chamber. High velocity combined with equival; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00223.html (8,814 bytes)
20. RE: 225hp (score: 1): Author: Bill Babcock <BillB@bnj.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:44:31 -0700; Actually, as I'm sure you know, that's not the usual reason offered for why multiple valves work better than single valves. While the theoretical area for a single valve is larger, in fact you can pa; /html/fot/2005-06/msg00224.html (10,053 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]