| ||
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for: FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events |
1 of 1
Offline
[url=
Some of this stuff jumped wayyy over my butt the stuff I DID understand....really amazed me.
6sal6[/url]
PS...........read the SECOND blue post!
Last edited by 6sally6 (4/21/2015 3:26 PM)
Offline
Damn Mike, That stuff will give you a headache.
Now if the France family would just let them boys use roller lifters,......Naaah
Tubo
Offline
Yeah-butt....the part about the 180 degree crank and negative pressure on piston at BDC was inter-resting! the other stuff can get over my head real quick. Also...think about the dis-advantage the CUP engines have compared to the F1....and the HP numbers were close.
Offline
Actually 2015 Cup engines are allowed roller lifters. The company I work for is now supplying some to a couple of the teams.
Offline
180 degree, or flat cranks aren't really a benefit in terms of power production. Smokey Yunick experimented with them and found no benefit worth the amount of work required to get the engine to run right because now things like firing order, ect are all going to have to change, which can take time to figure out to get the crank harmonics right, etc.
Smokey experimneted with a 208 cubic inch small block Chevy at Indy. Running twin turbos it made 1,000HP when the fueling was right (whcih was rare because there was no EFI and he tried several different induction schemes from mechanical injection to carbs and just could never get it right). It was a standard 4"ish bore with a really short stroke, and he was spinning it around 15,000RPM. This was a regular 2 valve per cylinder cam in block enigne built in the late 60's/early 70's. So are the extremely expensive engines they build today with all the trimmings and the benefit of another 40 years worth of engine development impressive? Not to me.
Cup engines are impressive because of how far they've pushed the design given pretty restrictive rules.
Oh, and the restrictor plates have nothing to do with cost. It has to do with making all the engines make the same power. Since airflow dictates power they know exactly how much power the cars will make. The idea is tighter racing, and more wrecks. Its the same reason they took years to introduce sensible safety measures that would have saved lives like fuel cells, roll bars, etc. They can't get away with that today, so they come up with other means to ensure wrecks.
Offline
TKOPerformance wrote:
180 degree, or flat cranks aren't really a benefit in terms of power production. Smokey Yunick experimented with them and found no benefit worth the amount of work required to get the engine to run right because now things like firing order, ect are all going to have to change, which can take time to figure out to get the crank harmonics right, etc.
Smokey experimneted with a 208 cubic inch small block Chevy at Indy. Running twin turbos it made 1,000HP when the fueling was right (whcih was rare because there was no EFI and he tried several different induction schemes from mechanical injection to carbs and just could never get it right). It was a standard 4"ish bore with a really short stroke, and he was spinning it around 15,000RPM. This was a regular 2 valve per cylinder cam in block enigne built in the late 60's/early 70's. So are the extremely expensive engines they build today with all the trimmings and the benefit of another 40 years worth of engine development impressive? Not to me.
Cup engines are impressive because of how far they've pushed the design given pretty restrictive rules.
Oh, and the restrictor plates have nothing to do with cost. It has to do with making all the engines make the same power. Since airflow dictates power they know exactly how much power the cars will make. The idea is tighter racing, and more wrecks. Its the same reason they took years to introduce sensible safety measures that would have saved lives like fuel cells, roll bars, etc. They can't get away with that today, so they come up with other means to ensure wrecks.
X-2 on the wreck part. I'm afraid its all"show biz and reality-type TV"now.
Had a buddy once who got it from a very reliable source(yeah,I know) It was decide who was gonna win...BEFORE the race started!! A certain team would "get -the-call" before each race. I can believe that!!
Offline
Didn't read the whole article but did notice that the F1 charts only go up to about 11000 rpm. They can actually turn much faster (and have, in past seasons) - up to 19000 rpm. Media says that the revs dropped because of the fuel rules (no refueling is allowed during the race).
1 of 1
REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on. |