Anything else whatsoever... Keep it clean though.
#20619
Yachtsman wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:47 pm
klotzy_550 wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:02 pm
Yachtsman wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:07 pm

It seems there are a lot of people who want the 16 valve TR7 in fact one of the after-market tuning houses do a Kit
The populous that owns this specific engine, happens to be a gear head and / or has the money, is likely quite small.
Also, I am quite sure that this "tuner derived" kit comes a a decent price premium. What kind of faith do you have in parts that have been made by an "aftermarket tuning house." The "validation" that they perform is complete garbage compared to an OEM validation. Would also be quite curious as to what else was cost reduced on that engine that may only be good for the 4000 rpm spec. Raising the red line by 2k rpm would increase the crank imbalance forces squared. THAT IS A LOT of extra stress.
If you remember the 'Sprint' Head won a design award but the point I was making was the bean-counters shouldn't be able to direct company policy, but by then Triumph was part of BL. The TR7 was being made at Corby which was a hot-bed of politicle unrest. Most TR7's were exported to the US in fact the body shape was supposed to be something Americans would like. The TR7 is the first British sports car that you could ask for an auto gearbox without being laughed out of the building.
you can not blame the bean-counters without thinking. remember Triumph insisted to build it's own V8 engine despite having the Rover V8 within companys reach, but the bean-counters couldn't stop Triumph develloping it's very poor V8. and if you remember they made the TR7 with the Sprint head, the TR7 Sprint, but found out it is useless due to upcomming emissions regulations.
#20620
KLAS wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:02 pm

you can not blame the bean-counters without thinking. remember Triumph insisted to build it's own V8 engine despite having the Rover V8 within companys reach, but the bean-counters couldn't stop Triumph develloping it's very poor V8. and if you remember they made the TR7 with the Sprint head, the TR7 Sprint, but found out it is useless due to upcomming emissions regulations.
Firstly the Rover V8 wasn't in reach then Rover and Standard-Triumph were two companies in viscous competition. Not even Gentlemanly British competition they were told to merge by the Government. They both merged with Leyland trucks and not very willingly. Standard was started by a German Siegfried Bettmann from Nuremberg. Although Herr Bettmann immigrant status wasn't the problem at the time Queen Victoria's husband was or had been German. The King had a German name. It was down too a very British problem. Business Rivalry plus location all the workers probably lived within streets of the factory. Rover and Standard were chasing the same market. Needless to say Triumph people and Rover people didn't talk. The Triumph V8 isn't a bad engine, a bit prone to air locks, but as long as you kept glycol coolant in it year round it was fine. Triumph introduced cast block/aluminium head that BL/Rover group carried on, but the mechanic but more likely the 1st year apprentice couldn't handle filling the engine without getting an air lock. That warped the aluminium head so leaking head gasket, but the head gasket still had the air lock. Resulting in bad name. The straight six engine fitted to the 2600 Rover SD1, but designed by the Triumph Special Department (SD) outputted so much more HP than the Rover V8 that it was fitted with a 3/4 undersized exhaust manifold. How could the Sprint engine engineers be expected too forecast what the emission peoples minds.
The TR7 Sprint was never an OEM Triumph car
Some of the information from a book by Robson and Langworth and from talking to Stag owners
Last edited by Yachtsman on Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
#20639
Finally my engine builder is making noise's like it should be finished soon he doesn't want to write a deadline in stone. I haven't pressed much or threatened to take the engine away, because unlike California, machine shops that do crank regrinds aren't on every industrial estate and that was something I needed on the Essex, and he is storing other engines for me. I needed an engine builder in Cornwall, one local, one I could travel to. High compression S.I engine fuelled with ethanol are pretty radical most of the texts that people study say it can't work. OK petrol pinks at just over 10 to 1 in engines just like mine even if it didn't Pink(ping) even though the special petrol was made so it didn't it would make less increase in HP the higher the compression was. The thing is I'm not going to use petrol. So even though the compression of my engine is 16.51 to 1 the fuel won't be held back from making more HP because of the compression. I will as my next project rebuild the Kent engine it's not as heavily built as it was never expected to use a compression higher than 10 to 1 , so I will be using e85 and tailoring the compression to that, it will of course perform less well. Even so it should do better than most normally aspirated engines of similar swept volume
Last edited by Yachtsman on Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#20654
Ethanol is much cleaner burning than petrol, it’s also carbon negative all that means is all carbon that's in it was taken from the air when it was made during photosynthesis. Just like the carbon in fossil fuels like Coal, Crude oil and Natural gas. The difference is with ethanol that happened last week or even a few weeks ago, but not in the carboniferous Era. I thought ethanol burns cleaner than petrol so it should logically have much lower exhaust emissions. Ethanol is much higher octane than petrol so it can burn and burn without pinking at higher compression. Although ethanol vapour is of lower energy density than petrol vapour, I think when it’s compressed to nearly twice the density I think it will burn with enough thermodynamic efficiency to make up for it’s lower energy density. And then the effect of the oxygen in the molecule the emissions will be exceptionally low with next to no Nox and no CO at all. I’ve rebuilt an old British Ford push-rod V6 engine to have as high compression as was possible using other Ford parts to test this idea.
#20665
So... here we go with more fallacy?

12:1 CR was a goal, but was not achieved with this engine. Matter of fact, the actual CR when the engine was released was substantially lower than that.

http://442.com/oldsfaq/ofhst.htm
"The Oldsmobile Over-Head-Valve (OHV) Rocket V-8 was first produced in 1949. Originally named for its principal designer, Charles Kettering, as "Kettering Power". Corporate GM policy disallowed that, so the powers that be, opted for "Rocket Power"...."

www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofe303.htm
"This new engine incorporated a number of unique designs all with the idea of raising the compression ratio from the days standard of approximately 6:1 to an eventual 12:1. The Rocket engine never reached the 12:1 goal, but but it's offspring came very close. The new engine combined for the first time (excluding the almost simultaneous introduction of the similar Cadillac engine) a 90 degree V-8 with overhead valves and slipper pistons. This Rocket had 303 cubic inches, a 7.25:1 compression ratio, two barrel carb and could produce 135 hp at 3600 rpm, and 263 lb-ft of torque at 1800 rpm. "

Now, with regards to the topic... we have used such high compression ratios in the past, and present. Just look at all the diesels and turbocharged vehicles around.
#20673
What matters is a high compression ethanol engine will I think run with as much output and much less exhaust emissions than a comparable displacement petrol/gasoline engine. if I'm right and if people believe the data it'll make a difference.
#20676
Yachtsman wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:47 am What matters is a high compression ethanol engine will I think run with as much output and much less exhaust emissions than a comparable displacement petrol/gasoline engine. if I'm right and if people believe the data it'll make a difference.
Since the subject has shifted to that contained within an existing thread, this thread is now locked.
Existing thread: Why I think the use of Ethanol can replace the use of Gasoline as fuel.

If anyone feels this action is inappropriate, please feel free to contact me in chat or private message.
-cx

Hi, I am trying to assign Signed values to the x-a[…]

Vr Conditioner Noise when cranking

New version 202305 don't fix the issue. Now after[…]

blitzbox

I've finally figured out why MAP and Lambda weren'[…]

Hello, I bring news!! Let me tell you that after […]

Still can't find what you're looking for?