 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / June 2007Variable valve timing is not new technology
was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s, > was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve > timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza > in the late 1960s, And multi valve over head cam had been around since the turn of the last century. You're telling us this because....? -- Regards, Noddy. >> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve >> timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza >> in the late 1960s, > > And multi valve over head cam had been around since the turn of the last > century. You're telling us this because....? Probably to kill some of the ricers spirits on why their tin cans make so much noise and have so little performance. I love it when ricers thinks the valve train is the only important part of an engine and go for the power to weight ratio crap. Im happy with a decent cube V8 that can light up the rear tyres without raising a sweat or a fit. :-) Also not sounding a like a few bees on steroids as well.  SignatureRegards Dan >>>was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve >>>timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Also not sounding a like a few bees on steroids as well. Valve train is the only important thing to them,because its all they can do to improve preformance,why,cause gone are the days when cubic inch can be replaced for preformance and the opportunity to gain power to weight is gone, Woulkd not even give an eye to any vehicle made after 1980. I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock stroking signs you talk of. Its producing 300hp,my Mazda makes 100hp and weighs in at under 1/20th of its weight. Who is going to win this race? > Valve train is the only important thing to them,because its all they can > do to improve preformance,why,cause gone are the days when cubic inch can > be replaced for preformance and the opportunity to gain power to weight is > gone, No it ain't. There is *still* no substitute for cubic inches, and the larger the capacity an engine the more power it will make all else being equal. The same "hi tech" approach applied to a lot of today's smaller capacity engines can be applied to anything else, and in doing so will make more power with a bigger engine. The number one reason why smaller engines seem to be benefiting most from modern technology is because it allows them to make fairly decent power whilst remaining relatively small, making larger capacity engines (and the associated fuel consumption) relatively redundant. -- Regards, Noddy. > I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock > stroking signs you talk of. > Its producing 300hp,my Mazda makes 100hp and weighs in at under 1/20th > of its weight. Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it generate huge amounts of torque instead? Marco > Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it > generate huge amounts of torque instead? Heh I had a 18.1 litre V12 (12V92 Detroit Diesel) Gen set in my garage getting a reco pumped out over 800 hp which is rather mild for the size and how many pistons it had. but with over 3000nm of torque. And an engine note that drove shivers down my spine. :-) SignatureRegards Dan >> I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock >> stroking signs you talk of. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it >generate huge amounts of torque instead? Might be time to brush up on some basic engine theory (since he's already told you everything you should need to know)! :) Engine's don't develop torque instead of power, they develop power from torque. Torque is a function of displacement and volumetric efficiency. The first is fixed and the second isn't likely to vary by more than 10% for a naturally aspirated engine. A 900ci V8 will produce as near as damnit to 1200 Nm of torque... based on a specific torque figure of 80Nm per litre (which is a typical value for a carburetted V8). The reason it's only producing 300bhp (approx 225kw) is because its peak power is at around 1800rpm... since power = torque*rpm/9549. Dead simple I woulda thought! ;-) SignatureJohn H >Torque is a function of displacement and volumetric efficiency. The >first is fixed and the second isn't likely to vary by more than 10% >for a naturally aspirated engine. A 900ci V8 will produce as near as >damnit to 1200 Nm of torque... based on a specific torque figure of >80Nm per litre (which is a typical value for a carburetted V8). Unless it happens to be a diesel of course... in which case you can reduce the specific torque figure by around 15Nm (for an na diesel). SignatureJohn H >was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve >timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni >Torazza in the late 1960s, After he'd studied Leonardo's notes no doubt... being able to read Italian probably helped as well! *:o) SignatureJohn H > was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s, \ Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914. gonesailing_gonefishing blathered on in: >> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s, > \ > Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914. Err, you trying to say the SS had poppet valves? Like, ones that had quality 'lift'? > gonesailing_gonefishing blathered on in: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Err, you trying to say the SS had poppet valves? > Like, ones that had quality 'lift'? Variable valve timing is the issue old son, type of valve not specified. If you want to make an issue, variable valve timing goes back even further to the very early steam locos. Actually, some steam engines did have internal engine type valves. >> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve >> timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni >> Torazza in the late 1960s, > Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914. LOL. Very good. :-) SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.