Twitch
-
Posts
1,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Twitch
-
-
Yeah the SA Long Colt .45 is a monster of a slug huh? Slow moving and nasty upon impact. I read about Patton's gun somewhere. As for different calibers for different uses. Boy, that's why I got about one of every caliber. Gets expensive when you want to go shooting with all the different ammo. Strange how you collect guns over your life then look back and realize you tend towards just 2-3 favorites. Anyhow weapon choice scenario described has nothing to do with speed of projectile, sight pictures semi-auto vs revolver or anything more complicated other than 7 shots and 7 bad guys 10 feet away. 240 grain bullet or 115 grain bullet, both jacketed. Real fast bullets of small caliber go in and out of bad guys allowing them to continue their mayhem while big, heavy bullets go in and cause internal damage and don't exit.
Turbo- yep that's what I meant all along. Power is worthless if it's not reliable. Simple is better. A normally aspirated big CID engine is better since it's not got all the plumbing and complexity of turbos, electronics and whatnot that the smaller engine has in order to be equal in HP. It's under a lot less pressure for the same HP output.
West- you call it a substitute I call it a crutch to flog more power. Symantics. Fine. I do find it curious that all the technology we use today is old in concept but modern in application. The high output tech of yesteryear doesn't work exactly as it did when it was applied decades ago due to electronics and computers. Almost everything is electronically metered and controlled where the original tech was all mechanical and less efficient. While there may be nothing new under the sun in concept, the applications, chemistry and metalurgy is superior to the 1920s, 30s or whenever. That's what makes it interesting that ideas which could not be applied in days gone by are viable now since technology caught up. Not automotive stuff only but everything.
-
Diz, the best thing for that Jag is to gut it and replace the running gear with Vette!
-
The saying is a true to life hot rodder theme. There was a time before computer controlled Wassitz engines when the simplest and least expensive way to get more power was to bore and stroke. These days with modern engine systems that isn't feasible. There is no substitute for cubic inches. There is a compensation or crutch only. And to be logical we have to talk apples and apples. While my 288 CID Packard straight 8 flathead produces 135HP my smaller DOHC Northstar of 278 CID produces 300HP. That's apples and oranges.
In any automotive competition class that allows CID up to a maximum of XXX we see no one using engines with less CID than their competitors. If CID wasn't paramount to be competitive what would 50 less cubes mean amongst friends? In NHRA 500CID is the maximum engine size allowed in fuel dragsters. No one uses engines with LESS displacement expecting to run 4.45 seconds at 334MPH. Suggest to a top fuel crew chief that he run a 300CID engine and then duck or you'll get that torque wrench across the teeth.
Even gassers with carburetors will run the largest displacement possible if there is an allowable CID range. If they can use 400-454CID you can bet every car will displace 454 cubes, not 401.
Aircraft, from the beginning, had the same simple formula- put the largest engine possible in the airframe- not the most techno one, streamlining notwithstanding. It's a given that the latest technology goes with it. No aero engineer would design a plane without a supercharger when the technology was such that the enemy will certainly have one too. Cubic inches ruled piston combat planes' motive power. It is simply alien for me to imagine any case why any designer/manufacturer would or ever did consider using a smaller CID engine when it might mean a loss in air superiority. 10 MPH can make a huge difference at certain times in combat.
No one ever said that more cubes is the only way to produce more power. Tongue-in-cheek- word play does not change where the original quote came from. There was a time when is was relatively easy to gain the most power for your dollar through boring and stroking. Before all the emmissions and computer crapola ended real engine rebuilds for more power for the average Joe. Guys used to pull their blocks and take them to machine shops for mods like that. It's useless to do much of that now with emissions and computer control stuff.
The whole point of smaller engines using something to compensate for the loss of CID is what makes different classes in auto competition. LSR is a good example. That's why there are so many classes. The guys like Mickey Thompson made their attempts using big blocks displacing the maximum size possible. If there was no substitute for cubic inches he and others would have tried using 4 blown/injected Corvair engines instead of Pontiacs. Heck them thar Corvair engines is aloomineeum sos they mus be light! Point is there IS a class for Corvair power and about everything else at Bonneville. Unlimited competition classes in motorsports of all kinds means the all out maximum legal CID is applied by the competitors to their machines even when smaller CID is allowed.
It's like the debate over 9mm vs .45 caliber- faster projectile vs slower but much heavier one. Situation: you have you choice of a .45 or 9mm each with 7 rounds. At 10 second intervals 7 knife-weilding assailant will enter the room and each will attempt to kill you as long as he breathes so one shot to kill or disable is paramount. So Keaneu Reeves, what do you do? What do you do?! I'd take the .45. How bout you!
-
I know. That's the weird thing, it shows Impalas in 66 but not 65 as I said. But his VIN showing 37 could be reflecting that the 65 was a late 65 and one of the 1st cars built at Doraville even though they officially started with 66 models.
-
Didn't even know there WASN'T some moderator here. Obviously we don't need one. No one has hijacked threads to export off topic dogma here as they consistantly do in the general forum or the rants and raves. There are a few individuals that distort nearly every thread on any subject into some political harangue full of hate-filled rhetoric. Even tech questions has been subjegated to become a bizarre agenda for spewing forth political BS when certain people aren't agreed with. They have tantrums and launch into off the wall crapola that has nothing to do with the original subject. Add to that flaming and derogatory personal remarks and you got a couple dopes that would have already been banned in most forums anywhere.
There was a general forum topic about threads that change direction. Well they all kind of do that. You're on a topic about 352 engines and it spurs an idea someone has about some other thing associated with 55-56 Packards' torsion bars and boom you're into another direction. That ain't bad. It's they way verbal conversations go in real life.
If someone is obnoxious on the Packard forum they can be dealt with through the main AACA moderators. Bad language certainly is not a problem. On the main forum or even rants and raves you can't even use 'G' language that is on TV G-rated shows every day or they edit it. If someone is going to get evil with "you no good piece of #*$&!" he should be taken to task. But if someone says "my car insurance company is crappy" and its censored I feel that's going a little to far. I mean this is 8-year-old language level and here us 50-something men can't use it. (for all I know someone will edit my example to say "my car insurance company is 'really something'") We got enough Big Brother in our lives.
I had no idea there was an 'ignore' feature. Great. I have basically done that manually on the general and R&R forums to ignore obxonious radicals.
If nothing else one can keep a topic alive by posting anything in the thread even "do not delete" when it slides down the page a bit. I just don't have any more info on 22-23 series cross references to keep it going. I didn't do it with the idea of it being ongoing.
We don't need no stinkin' moderators <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
Cubic inches is like an arms race. To go one up on pure CID you have to trick a smaller engine out. You got a small CID engine and a large CID engine. In basically equally sized cars the large engine will be faster with more power. Ok you say your small engine gets, whatever, an OHC or DOHC and/or blower and whatnot. Ok so now it can beat the car with the larger engine. All you've done is to prove the racers' theorem since you had to resort to chicanery to produce more power. Now the large CID engine with the same mods- is it going to be less powerful than the smaller CID engine? Of course not. Whatever mod is done to a small CID engine that is matched by a large CID engine will produce more power in the big CID engine. It's primary.
A turbo-supercharged 18 cylinder 3,270 CID Centaurus V engine with methanol/water boost produced 3,220HP while a 2,179 CID turbo-supercharged Daimler-Benz 603LA V-12 methanol/water boost produced 2,300HP
A look at most historical engine evolution lines proves the statement. Our old Packards for example in a given year or few years have the same basic engine technology with the only difference being CID. Why do the 327 or 359 CID straight 8s put out more power than the 288 CID? Because there is no substitute for cubic inches!
-
What I love about the Packard guys Aaron is that they're not bone stock originality snobs! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> When I start hearing that goofy stuff from some that are looking for original key blanks and NOS fan belts for a 1937 Wazoomoblie I get crazy. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> You ain't crazy.
Do watcha wanna do!
-
Funny, from the 1954 time of the Ford discussed here there was the concept for auto safety just beginning. But back then no one (the buying public) was interested. No, as you say, it's all anyone can think of. There's an overpowering urge for the safety nazis to force the industry into producing Nerfmobiles so we can just giggle when we hit one another. Of course the R&D cost for all that goes into the retail price.....
-
Totally agree! If it can't be driven send it to a museum.
-
That's not bad looking. It reminds me of the futuristic for the time 1938 Buick concept car.
-
-
And the 1954 Motor Trend Yearbook describes the differences as "deluxe-trimmed (Customline)...and a custom-trimmed (Crestline)" I don't know the definitions of deluxe and custom in this application either!
Tom- I too find more and more people don't know what a hardtop is.
You see sedans listed in Ebay called hardtops regularly. What really pizzes me off is that no danged car maker will build anything except a danged sedan! 
And no, it doesn't have anything to do with safety. -
In the days after Earl the completely useless excercise of making "show cars" prevailed throughout the world and NOTHING ever seemed to become a production car later. It was the most worthless expenditure of talent and money ever. You'd be wowed with a concept car and they'd end up producing some dead dog of a car 2-3 years later that shared nothing but the show car name.
In the last 10 years though there is a more realistic connection from concept to production in many cases at least.
-
A gymkahana- if I spelled it right- is a competitive parking lot cone course. It was all the rage in the 60s-70s for import car people. It is basically negatiating a course bordered by cones in the fastest time. There was usually a back-into-a-parking-spot included part also. May be too dangerous for some weak-kneed folks since you actually have to punch the throttle at times.
-
Last several digits on engine should be same as last several on dashboard VIN stamping.
-
Makes me think of the Daimler-Benz 600 series of inverted V-12s used in Messerschmitts.
-
9 times out of 10 these subtle mystery ailments end up being pollution devices gone awry that the computer doesn't describe properly. If the diagnostics aren't working the computer could be at fault too. How about plug wires? Are they 22 years old?
When my Northstar ran, only sometimes, on 7 1/2 cylinders after a long elimination of culprits it ended up being a fuel regulator.
I don't know where you live but sooner or later you're going to probably have pass state smog inspection so before then or after it flunks someone will need to do a computer analysis. That's when you'll find out for certain.
-
Dude your car rocks!
Speaking for my self I can say I appreciate all cars- stocker or modified. We must remember 25 years ago in 1980 folks thought 25 year old cars from 1955 weren't classics either. The 55 Desoto is the epitome of 50s style and power.
I can recall a friend of mine owning a 55 Sportsman in the mid-60s. He was always telling me how quick it was and I didn't believe him till one nite he ran against a 66 Bonneville with a 389. The 331 hemi wound up and sucked as much air as it could through the tiny 2 bbl. that the intake manifold dwarfed. The Desoto lost by just half a length to a larger engine with big 4 bbl.
That's the kind of stuff people will fondly recall if they see your car desplayed anywhere!
My Packard is original but has been repainted too. I don't care what class of anything it or any car I own is in. Last weekend 150 cars showed up at a local club cruise afternoon. EVERY type of car and truck was present. Some had mucho $$ into them too. It was very apparent. Your car would have fit right in. Look for some events locally like that man. People enjoy looking at the cars and talking to you about your car. And guess what? They all drove there. Show cars have their place as do museum cars. Less people can enjoy them though since they're either static or in a trailer viewed only by a few rather than all the folks on the streets as the cars travel to and from home.
Like Rick Nelson said in <span style="font-style: italic">Garden Party</span> "ya can't please everyone, so ya gotta please yourself."
-
The CFM is, as you say, basically a yardstick in commom use today as was venturi bore size before it. Neither, is indicative of performance without factoring in assorted mechanical efficiencies. It 2 carbs are basically equal and one has a velocity stack implemented it should be more efficient given the application it was made for.
Yeah the disparity in CID as a measurement doesn't mean the larger engine is more powerful as there are many factors to consider beyond CID. That's what I meant. The smaller engine can have a zillion things that make it more efficient and a producer of more HP, including the carb as you mention.
I am a writer of combat aviation subjects and know from the wide variety of piston aircraft motive power combinations that it can be confusing indeed. 2 duplicate aircraft- one is set up for optimum performance below 15,000 feet and another for 21,000 feet. The plane with the 2 or 3 stage blower produced less power and has less performance at 10,000 feet compared to its twin with a single stage blower.
Or we have 2 identical planes and one uses methanol/water injection while another uses nitrous oxide for combat overboost. Which one is more efficient? For what specific combat role should it be used? Or one is set up to pull more inches of mercury than another but will have a shorter life span. Some of it boils down to whether one craft has a turbo-supercharger vs another with a supercharger and further to what specific brand and blower type each is. Lots of variables of equal thing being unequal.
We had the Daimler-Benz engine that had Bosch fuel injection on one side that didn't produce more HP that a Packard-Merlin with a carburetor if we compare HP per CID. We know the F.I. is superior to the carb but it isn't readily apparent by just looking at HP statistics alone.
Anyhow I see what you mean in auto carbs and just had to ponder it in aviation terms as an illustration inside my own warped mind. So with your experience in carbs what one spec, if any, do you feel most comfortable with? Bore diameter, total venturi area, CFM or what? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
-
Thanks for thorough feedback on the subject. I haven't had any need to pull off the carb yet for any reason and have never measured bores. I have that Rochester book and a similar one for Holley. I've never owned a Carter before. I remember the days when carbs specs were discussed in venturi area which seemed to be a size comparison not performance comparison. That's they way me and my peers looked at it at the time anyhow. As I recall Euro-iron continued to spec out in carb venturi size after we switched over to CFM.
CFM seems to be a sensible way to see it- air ingestion flow rate. Where a fuel pump can be understood in GPH gallons per hour CFM is logical to me anyway.
Seems that way to guys like Roe too as he states venturi size has nothing to do with air flow. Kind of like saying one engine has 400cid and another has 327cid- yet the smaller engine has more horsepower for a variety of reasons proving CID alone doesn't automatically mean more power.
I did see the chart of bore size vs airflow baseline again though so when I do pull the carb my curiosity will be satisfied.
<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
-
I know those guys! They don't dial 911. They dial .357!
-
Don't know bore as I've never had it off to measure. But looking I found many other older carbs have no CFM rating either. Hit the 69s cars and it's in the specs but not readily listed in the 50s or before. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
-
Hey Novaman. I got a 65 Nova that needs LOTS of work. Have you noticed that sellers of the repro parts skip the 1965 model year on many parts? I wonder why? They may list, I dunno, headlight bezels for 62-64 67-68. But no 65. Weird.
-
I'm not swapping 2 for 4bbl or anything like that. Just curious of the flow on that carb.<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
who would'a thought of this?
in General Discussion
Posted
Yeah I meant the .45 ACP with jacket. The Long Colt is always a lead ball. A friend got into pistols in a big way as a hobby some years ago and naturally began loading his own. One of his nice ones was an 1873 SA Colt clone. I still use his loads for my S & W .44 Magnum Mountain Gun in the night stand- magnum case but with less powder. Somewhere above a .44 SPecial load and less than a mganum so if I ever pop on off it won't go through my wall and the neighbor's wall!
I don't know aboyt you but the SA Colt design is the best naturally pointing pistol there is. Boy, it feels right.
My .357 is a Colt Python. Very rare these days and expensive as they were only custom order from Colt. I "stole" a new, never fired one from an ex-boss for $500 about 5-6 years ago! My oldest daughter loves .357s and is very accurate with them. That combat Masterpiece is worth keeping too. A superb piece.
I assume you have events in and around Cheyenne where they have "western days" or similarly named things with era weapon shooting and dress.
Luckily there is an swell indoor range ner me. In fact this weekend a huge gang of us are going. Last time I helped 2 new shooters get going. This time I'll have 2 more. My youngest daughter actually noticed how little I shot last time. Fun assisting newbies!
Novaman and all- I know NHRA lowered the nitro again last year. It's at 85% now and Schumacher just set speed records at Pomona last weekend still with 500CID so technology does help. I never denied that. My signoff of "there is no substitue for cubic inches" simply is the universal old hotrodders code of the West. It came from the days when guys best and least expensive way of souping was to have machine shop work done. It was cheap in the 40s-50s. There was little "bolt on" aftermarket speed equipment out there compared to now.
Normal folks didn't buy superchargers due to expense. A dual carb manifold and milled heads maybe but they knew the HP came from experienced machinists and larger displacement. Geez, the easiest way to beef up a flathead Ford was to drop a Merc crank into it or have your crank stroked. It was the one thing that could boost HP and torque at low speed! Combining overboring for power held true for 1950 Ford flatheads and it does for 350 Chevies today.
The knowlwdgeable auto engineers of the time like Roger Huntington would recommend displacement increase as theeasiest and most reliable way to gain performance. That doesn't mean a supercharger wouldn't add power fast and easy. They were expensive as they still are. The idea was to have an engine that was no only powerful but stable. Superchargers in auto use where the block is not designed for them, cause wear and stress. Like Nitrous use today. Dial in too much on the button and you're sweeping up your engine in the pooper scooper.
Remember Fordillacs and Studillacs? They were generally 49-51 or so Fords/Studes with Cadillac OHV engines swapped in. For the time, big displacement= power, in a super reliable package. No body was attempting to cobble up DOHCs for Stude 6s or direct port cylinder heads for Ford flatheads. They did what was primary. They increased dicplacement via the path of least resistance and cost.
Why are crate engines selling like they are today? Because folks still want the same thing- more power for as little money spent as possible. People are still replacing smaller engines with bigger ones. 307s make way for 350s and 302s are swapped for 351s and so on. They aren't choosing to buy turbo-superchargers for about the same price as a larger engine. It ain't happining!
If the torque of a larger displacement engine isn't immediately noticed over a smaller one by a driver today then he needs to hang up his keys and head for the wheelchair. And torque is the real force not a narrow peak HP band at 5300-5700 RPM. If anyone claims that a 183CID engine will inherently produce more torque = power than a 289CID they need to surrender their torque wrenchs forthwith.
So folksies, back in the day- and this organization seems to be all about the 'back in the day' stuff- a wise man said, "there is no substitute for cubic inches." So if anyone wants to dissect it and make word play with statements like, "yeah, but if you use nitrous there is," or "well, multi-valve heads can substitute," fine. Auto engineers and real engine builders knew you weren't done with the search for power till you increased CID. If you wanted real broad band power, reliablity, for a relatively low cost you made it bigger. That's what it meant.
PS- I find it puzzling that the most simple and honest statement about applied automotive power even needs to be defined in that it is self evident. If we were debating how to gain peak waste gate RPM relative to HP output and fuel useage it would make more sense.