[PRCo] Re: PCC2s

[Fred Schneider]

We're getting way off the subject.   I suspect the torque and  
horsepower of that vintage Oldsmobile compared to a modern engine had  
a lot to do with (1) compression changes, (2) shortening the distance  
from the carburetor to the cylinders ... end cylinders on an in-line  
8 or 12 tended to starve compared to those on a V8 or 6, and  (3)  
transition from carburetors to fuel injection.

My old Packard in-line 8 was a fuel hog and had the acceleration not  
far removed from a Greyhound bus largely because the end cylinders  
starved.   I suspect, had Packard installed two intake manifolds and  
two carbs, each serving only four cylinders, the fuel economy and  
power might have improved.

But we can take that argument off the Ken.

On Jan 19, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Ken & Tracie wrote:

> Modernization is fine. I believe we are mostly on the same page,  
> Derrick.
> I'm just pointing out I believe there are some basics which need to  
> be a
> "jumping off point" to reach the next level of technological  
> development. Or
> at least not repeat previous mistakes by trying to use something  
> which still
> is not feasible 110 years later.
>
> Why try to re-learn lessons already learned at the expense of your
> passengers?
>
> Structural integrity should be a given for a vehicle. Build your  
> modern
> streetcar or bus on  solid rock, rather than shifting sands. :-)
>
> Mr. Holohan advocates using modern boilers, thermostats, radiators,  
> etc. get
> the most out of steam heat. But he points out advances are  
> evolutionary as
> often as they are revolutionary.
>
> Back around 1910, Oldsmobile built a big touring car which required  
> two step
> running boards to enter. The engine was a monster 640 cubic inch in- 
> line six
> with coffee can size pistons.
>
> We all know it wasn't faster or more powerful than a 3.8 liter GM  
> V-6 simply
> because it offered a larger cubic inch displacement.
>
> Physics doesn't lie.
>
> K.
>
>
>