| To: | jer <jer@thlogic.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Spitfire 1500 engines |
| From: | Tom Gentry <TGENTR@wgc.woodward.com> |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Nov 95 10:41:00 PST |
| Cc: | "'triumphs'" <triumphs@triumph.cs.utah.edu.wgcinet> |
| Encoding: | 15 TEXT |
>> I'm sure there are other differences I have forgotten, especially since >>what I wrote doesn't explain why a long stroke would provide better low end >>torque. This is just a guess, but maybe there is no physical reason that a short stroke engine produces less torque. Perhaps it's just a matter of engine tuning. Since the long stroke engine CAN'T rev, the engine is tuned (intake, cam, etc.) to produce it's power down low. Tom Gentry 72 TR-6 OD Rockford, IL TGENTR@WGC.WOODWARD.COM |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Spitfire 1500 engines, Jeremy DuBois |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Spitfire 1500 engines, Lee Daniels, daniels@tamu.edu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Spitfire 1500 engines, Jeremy DuBois |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Spitfire 1500 engines, Lee Daniels, daniels@tamu.edu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |