$74,000
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607002822.07360.00000632@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a
V-8
> >the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
> What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with
smoothness?
>
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine
on the planet
>
> What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one?
The Lamborghini one?
>
> > when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
>
> The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
>
> > they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need
thisappliance.
>
> I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>
> >yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
> >just look at the charts.
>
> Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with
Twin
> Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>
> >if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits
of
> >a "W" engine.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
I think Byron and Toby answered your first question. I would say the vast
majority of V-12s if they are at a 60 degree Vee. the VR engines are 15
degrees so how can it be the same. balance shafts are different that
dampeners. look at the NA BMW V-12, and the NA MB. no I wasn't you just
didn't answer the question.
news:20040607002822.07360.00000632@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a
V-8
> >the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
> What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with
smoothness?
>
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine
on the planet
>
> What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one?
The Lamborghini one?
>
> > when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
>
> The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
>
> > they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need
thisappliance.
>
> I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>
> >yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
> >just look at the charts.
>
> Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with
Twin
> Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>
> >if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits
of
> >a "W" engine.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
I think Byron and Toby answered your first question. I would say the vast
majority of V-12s if they are at a 60 degree Vee. the VR engines are 15
degrees so how can it be the same. balance shafts are different that
dampeners. look at the NA BMW V-12, and the NA MB. no I wasn't you just
didn't answer the question.
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607002822.07360.00000632@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a
V-8
> >the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
> What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with
smoothness?
>
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine
on the planet
>
> What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one?
The Lamborghini one?
>
> > when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
>
> The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
>
> > they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need
thisappliance.
>
> I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>
> >yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
> >just look at the charts.
>
> Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with
Twin
> Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>
> >if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits
of
> >a "W" engine.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
I think Byron and Toby answered your first question. I would say the vast
majority of V-12s if they are at a 60 degree Vee. the VR engines are 15
degrees so how can it be the same. balance shafts are different that
dampeners. look at the NA BMW V-12, and the NA MB. no I wasn't you just
didn't answer the question.
news:20040607002822.07360.00000632@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a
V-8
> >the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
> What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with
smoothness?
>
> >no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine
on the planet
>
> What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one?
The Lamborghini one?
>
> > when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
>
> The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
>
> > they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need
thisappliance.
>
> I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>
> >yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
> >just look at the charts.
>
> Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with
Twin
> Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>
> >if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits
of
> >a "W" engine.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
I think Byron and Toby answered your first question. I would say the vast
majority of V-12s if they are at a 60 degree Vee. the VR engines are 15
degrees so how can it be the same. balance shafts are different that
dampeners. look at the NA BMW V-12, and the NA MB. no I wasn't you just
didn't answer the question.
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607034158.07360.00000638@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
> >other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
> >relative to each other balances out.
>
> I'm having a fit of dumbshit and not following. I'm well aware of how the
> standard combustion driven engine operates but I'm not sure as to how a
> 4-cylinder with a 1-2-3-4 firing order could be any more or less smooth
than
> one with a 1-3-4-2 firing order, or any other variation. Beyond that, I've
> ridden in a W12 Pheaton and found it to be quite smooth, so I find Ghee's
> claims (as usual) to be obnoxious.
why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
news:20040607034158.07360.00000638@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
> >other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
> >relative to each other balances out.
>
> I'm having a fit of dumbshit and not following. I'm well aware of how the
> standard combustion driven engine operates but I'm not sure as to how a
> 4-cylinder with a 1-2-3-4 firing order could be any more or less smooth
than
> one with a 1-3-4-2 firing order, or any other variation. Beyond that, I've
> ridden in a W12 Pheaton and found it to be quite smooth, so I find Ghee's
> claims (as usual) to be obnoxious.
why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607034158.07360.00000638@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
> >other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
> >relative to each other balances out.
>
> I'm having a fit of dumbshit and not following. I'm well aware of how the
> standard combustion driven engine operates but I'm not sure as to how a
> 4-cylinder with a 1-2-3-4 firing order could be any more or less smooth
than
> one with a 1-3-4-2 firing order, or any other variation. Beyond that, I've
> ridden in a W12 Pheaton and found it to be quite smooth, so I find Ghee's
> claims (as usual) to be obnoxious.
why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
news:20040607034158.07360.00000638@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
> >other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
> >relative to each other balances out.
>
> I'm having a fit of dumbshit and not following. I'm well aware of how the
> standard combustion driven engine operates but I'm not sure as to how a
> 4-cylinder with a 1-2-3-4 firing order could be any more or less smooth
than
> one with a 1-3-4-2 firing order, or any other variation. Beyond that, I've
> ridden in a W12 Pheaton and found it to be quite smooth, so I find Ghee's
> claims (as usual) to be obnoxious.
why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
>
Your claims are obnoxious because they usually involve lies and general
fabrications. You and your points of view are rarely grounded in reality and
anyone that followes your last 2 threads has seen as much.
>
Your claims are obnoxious because they usually involve lies and general
fabrications. You and your points of view are rarely grounded in reality and
anyone that followes your last 2 threads has seen as much.
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>why are my claims obnoxious because you disagree with them??
>
Your claims are obnoxious because they usually involve lies and general
fabrications. You and your points of view are rarely grounded in reality and
anyone that followes your last 2 threads has seen as much.
>
Your claims are obnoxious because they usually involve lies and general
fabrications. You and your points of view are rarely grounded in reality and
anyone that followes your last 2 threads has seen as much.
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions.
The torque output from the Malibu's 3.1 litre and the N/A variant of the 3.8
have never been great. But it's enough to make point to point transporation
workable. But their overall power output and fuel consumption are less than
ideal. A twin-cam 3.0 litre utilizing a multi-valve head and a basic variable
valve timing system could've yielded the same or better power output as the N/A
3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten
better fuel economy. The Opel/Saab sourced 3.0 litre in the Saturn L300 is
actually their best V6, IMO.
>The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
>so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL
No, the North American version of the Accord runs a 3.0 litre with 240Hp. The
Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The
European/Asian Accord, sold as the TSX in North America has a 2.4 litre, i-VTEC
equipped I-4 with 200Hp.
> the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
>as being different because of the two extra cylinders
Porsche uses a "flat" or "boxer" six, but it has the same number of cyllinders
as any other 6-cylinder engine. Wanna guess how many?
The torque output from the Malibu's 3.1 litre and the N/A variant of the 3.8
have never been great. But it's enough to make point to point transporation
workable. But their overall power output and fuel consumption are less than
ideal. A twin-cam 3.0 litre utilizing a multi-valve head and a basic variable
valve timing system could've yielded the same or better power output as the N/A
3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten
better fuel economy. The Opel/Saab sourced 3.0 litre in the Saturn L300 is
actually their best V6, IMO.
>The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
>so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL
No, the North American version of the Accord runs a 3.0 litre with 240Hp. The
Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The
European/Asian Accord, sold as the TSX in North America has a 2.4 litre, i-VTEC
equipped I-4 with 200Hp.
> the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
>as being different because of the two extra cylinders
Porsche uses a "flat" or "boxer" six, but it has the same number of cyllinders
as any other 6-cylinder engine. Wanna guess how many?
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions.
The torque output from the Malibu's 3.1 litre and the N/A variant of the 3.8
have never been great. But it's enough to make point to point transporation
workable. But their overall power output and fuel consumption are less than
ideal. A twin-cam 3.0 litre utilizing a multi-valve head and a basic variable
valve timing system could've yielded the same or better power output as the N/A
3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten
better fuel economy. The Opel/Saab sourced 3.0 litre in the Saturn L300 is
actually their best V6, IMO.
>The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
>so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL
No, the North American version of the Accord runs a 3.0 litre with 240Hp. The
Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The
European/Asian Accord, sold as the TSX in North America has a 2.4 litre, i-VTEC
equipped I-4 with 200Hp.
> the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
>as being different because of the two extra cylinders
Porsche uses a "flat" or "boxer" six, but it has the same number of cyllinders
as any other 6-cylinder engine. Wanna guess how many?
The torque output from the Malibu's 3.1 litre and the N/A variant of the 3.8
have never been great. But it's enough to make point to point transporation
workable. But their overall power output and fuel consumption are less than
ideal. A twin-cam 3.0 litre utilizing a multi-valve head and a basic variable
valve timing system could've yielded the same or better power output as the N/A
3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten
better fuel economy. The Opel/Saab sourced 3.0 litre in the Saturn L300 is
actually their best V6, IMO.
>The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
>so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL
No, the North American version of the Accord runs a 3.0 litre with 240Hp. The
Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The
European/Asian Accord, sold as the TSX in North America has a 2.4 litre, i-VTEC
equipped I-4 with 200Hp.
> the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
>as being different because of the two extra cylinders
Porsche uses a "flat" or "boxer" six, but it has the same number of cyllinders
as any other 6-cylinder engine. Wanna guess how many?
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
>hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement
Ford has been using an SOHC design on the Mustang version of their 4.6 litre V8
since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version
in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve
version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.
>the V-60 SHO 2nd
>gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.
I assume you mean 60-foot times. And I have a feeling that a 5.0 litre Cobra
fro the same era would give the SHO a good run for it's money. I wouldn't call
the car "very fast" but with a 0-60 time around 6.9 seconds it was definitely
quicker than most other cars of it's size, type and price at new. Keep in mind
though that the SHO engine was largely designed by Yamaha, not Ford. And most
of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.
>hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement
Ford has been using an SOHC design on the Mustang version of their 4.6 litre V8
since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version
in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve
version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.
>the V-60 SHO 2nd
>gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.
I assume you mean 60-foot times. And I have a feeling that a 5.0 litre Cobra
fro the same era would give the SHO a good run for it's money. I wouldn't call
the car "very fast" but with a 0-60 time around 6.9 seconds it was definitely
quicker than most other cars of it's size, type and price at new. Keep in mind
though that the SHO engine was largely designed by Yamaha, not Ford. And most
of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
>hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement
Ford has been using an SOHC design on the Mustang version of their 4.6 litre V8
since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version
in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve
version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.
>the V-60 SHO 2nd
>gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.
I assume you mean 60-foot times. And I have a feeling that a 5.0 litre Cobra
fro the same era would give the SHO a good run for it's money. I wouldn't call
the car "very fast" but with a 0-60 time around 6.9 seconds it was definitely
quicker than most other cars of it's size, type and price at new. Keep in mind
though that the SHO engine was largely designed by Yamaha, not Ford. And most
of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.
>hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement
Ford has been using an SOHC design on the Mustang version of their 4.6 litre V8
since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version
in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve
version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.
>the V-60 SHO 2nd
>gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.
I assume you mean 60-foot times. And I have a feeling that a 5.0 litre Cobra
fro the same era would give the SHO a good run for it's money. I wouldn't call
the car "very fast" but with a 0-60 time around 6.9 seconds it was definitely
quicker than most other cars of it's size, type and price at new. Keep in mind
though that the SHO engine was largely designed by Yamaha, not Ford. And most
of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.