Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Now that's just a plain stupid answer!

Speaking of cars...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:42:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

The problem is you have it backwards. A typical Nissan V6 engine
(3.3-liter SOHC 12-valve) has a bore of 3.602 inches and a stroke of
3.268 inches. This is called "over square" and is typical of high
reving,
low torque engines.

Back in the olden days short stroke engines were very common (a 302
was a 327 with a shorter stroke). Then the emission controllers said
longer strokes burned cleaner and we ended up with 350s and 307s that
were long stroke engines. I suppose now days they have found better
ways to clean up the exhaust so they can go back to short stroke vigh
rev engines. My Vtec Honda redlines at something like 8.5k. The cam
shift doesn't happen until 5k.

Those really aren't representitive of the "olden days". The old, straight 6
and 8 engines had relatively long strokes with small bores ... mainly to
they last for a reasonable period of time without blowing up. Lots of low
end grunt, but limited in RPM. New, high reving engines typically have
larger bores and short strokes with peak torque much higher up in the RPM
curve.

General rule of thumb:

Longer stoke, smaller bore = low end torque.
Shorter stroke, larger bore = higher RPM, lower low end torque

For example ... A Ford F1 race car V8 has a bore of over 4 inches but the
stroke is just
over 2 inches. Sucker revs to 16,000 RPM.

Basskisser is kissing bass.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure
why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's
the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer
stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not
less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is
relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Now that's just a plain stupid answer!


How so brain sturgeon?

Speaking of cars...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Back in the olden days short stroke engines were very common (a 302
was a 327 with a shorter stroke).

Those really aren't representitive of the "olden days". The old, straight
6
and 8 engines had relatively long strokes with small bores ...

I was referring to the performance engines of the late 60s when power
was the only real goal. The 302 was developed for the 5 liter racing
circuit (Can Am?)

Gotcha.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare
debacle(it should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant
except for the careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the
mid 70's... I mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl
interior, that rusted out in 2 years?).

Rob

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure
why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's
the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer
stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not
less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is
relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Now that's just a plain stupid answer!


How so brain sturgeon?

I'm not a brain surgeon. But, since I suppose you aren't even bright
enough to realize how stupid your answer was, I'll dumb down my
response so that you MIGHT understand it. Of course if the ONLY
variable you wish to change is stroke, then of course it would change
the torque. BUT, now try to hang in there, if you changed the bore, the
torque would also change. The real measurement would be to change the
stroke AND bore to keep the same displacement.

Speaking of cars...
 

"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob

Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..


I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been, this
is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I really
abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

We had a '61 Valiant. Got it for Mrs.E. when I first got out of the Navy.
Had to be one of the ugliest cars ever made and to make it worse she had it
painted "Buttercup Yellow". There was more bondo and filler on that car
than metal ... but it ran great.

It's one of the many cars we've owned that I try to forget.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..



My memories of my Valiant are more pleasant than my memories of my Lotus
Cortina.

The weirdest cars I've owned a

1. Fiat 500 (while stationed in Naples, Italy)
2. 196something Bentley (while stationed in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
3. Plymouth "Cricket" ..... that never ran. Replaced by the Buttercup
Yellow Valiant.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..



My memories of my Valiant are more pleasant than my memories of my Lotus
Cortina.

The weirdest cars I've owned a

1. Fiat 500 (while stationed in Naples, Italy)
2. 196something Bentley (while stationed in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
3. Plymouth "Cricket" ..... that never ran. Replaced by the Buttercup
Yellow Valiant.

Eisboch

Mine was a 1963 Rambler Classic, 3 speed with an automatic clutch. It was
actually a pool car I had to share with my 2 older sisters till I had enough
cash to buy my own.

Speaking of cars...
 

trainfan1 wrote:
Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare
debacle(it should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant
except for the careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the
mid 70's... I mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl
interior, that rusted out in 2 years?).

Sounds like you are familiar with a vehicle of that description, did you
own it?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Don White wrote:


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob


Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch


We got new fenders free up here.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really
sure
why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps
it's
the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the
relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque.
Modern
V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer
stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not
less
as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is
relative
to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?


Everything else being equal (# cylinders, displacement)- yes.

Now that's just a plain stupid answer!


How so brain sturgeon?

I'm not a brain surgeon.

Thats obvious.


The real measurement would be to change the stroke AND bore to keep the
same displacement.

Exactly what I said- "Everything else being equal (# cylinders,
displacement)- yes"

Lets REALLY dumb this down for you.


Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1

capiche?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..


My memories of my Valiant are more pleasant than my memories of my Lotus
Cortina.


The weirdest cars I've owned a

1. Fiat 500 (while stationed in Naples, Italy)
2. 196something Bentley (while stationed in Ponce, Puerto Rico)
3. Plymouth "Cricket" ..... that never ran. Replaced by the Buttercup
Yellow Valiant.

Eisboch


Mine were the 1962 Morris 850 SW and a 1981 Lada.

Speaking of cars...
 

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:04:42 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been, this
is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I really
abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

We had a '61 Valiant. Got it for Mrs.E. when I first got out of the Navy.
Had to be one of the ugliest cars ever made and to make it worse she had it
painted "Buttercup Yellow". There was more bondo and filler on that car
than metal ... but it ran great.

It's one of the many cars we've owned that I try to forget.

Eisboch


One of my relatives had a '61 Valiant with a 426 Hemi in it. What a
sleeper. :o)
I always thought it was funny having wheelie-bars on a Valiant until I
saw the engine.
Mark E. Williams

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever. Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

Eisboch

\
My dad bought a Ford Station wagon years ago, that had the 300 ci Ford 6 in
it. They said they thought the tranny was broke as it stopped driving but
the engine was still running. Since then they could not get the engine
started. Problem was the motor sheared the crankshaft at the main for #6
and off course to restart it the camshaft would not turn from the starter
end. Tossed a new crank in and engine good to go. Why can't Ford make
something as dependable now?

Speaking of cars...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:22 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Back in the olden days short stroke engines were very common (a 302
was a 327 with a shorter stroke).

Those really aren't representitive of the "olden days". The old,
straight 6
and 8 engines had relatively long strokes with small bores ...

I was referring to the performance engines of the late 60s when power
was the only real goal. The 302 was developed for the 5 liter racing
circuit (Can Am?)

Gotcha.

Eisboch




But the 307 was a dog of a Chevy engine. Under square. A 302 (305) CID
engine was a 327 with a265 CID crank. Whereas the 307 was a 265 with a 327
crank. The reason for Over square on high reving engines is to keep down
the ring speed.

Speaking of cars...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
On 10/15/2006 3:42 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Don White wrote:

That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.
Have you noticed you can now buy a brand new Chrysler Aspen? D-C has
revived the nameplate. That takes guts after the Aspen/Volare debacle(it
should have been a worthy successor to the Dart/Valiant except for the
careless way Chrysler designed/built/marketed cars in the mid 70's... I
mean who wanted an olive green Aspen w/ orange vinyl interior, that rusted
out in 2 years?).

Rob

Yep. Remember the top of the fenders over the front tires? They always
rusted through.

Eisboch




I had a Valiant slant-six station wagon for a while. Must have been,
this is a guess, 1961? Silver. Crummy seats, but a tough little car. I
really abused it. Got rid of it before it rusted through.

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke.... please answer, we'll
go from there, little guy. Also, you notice, please, that I never said
that one type (long stroke, small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE in the power band that torque is prominent.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration (Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.


Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the early '80's I found a 63 Valiant that an old lady had owned
since new. I bought it from her for $125. The interior was like a
brand
new car, needed paint.


Did you have the long-stroke high rev, or the short-stroke high torque
engine in it?

Ooops, you must not have seen my post regarding your ignorant statement
that the only thing affecting torque is stroke....

Never said that. Did you miss the part where I said "Everything else
being
equal (# cylinders, displacement)"
I even simplified my argument for you. Here it is again.

Engine #1- 250 ci straight 6 in a under square configuration (Stroke is
longer than the bore- long stroke)

Engine #2- 250 ci straight 6 engine in a over square configuration
(Stroke
is smaller than the bore- short stroke)

Engine #1 will have more torque than engine #2 at a lower rpm.
Engine #2 will rev higher and achieve its max torque at a higher rpm than
Engine #1.
Engine #2 will also redline @ a higher rpm than Engine #1.

Anything here you disagree with?

Yes.

LOL, what is incorrect in my example above?
I'd love for Gene to chime in here.




Also, you notice, please, that I never said that one type (long stroke,
small bore vs. short strong big bore) had
any more torque than the other. Quite the contrary. My statement was
WHERE
in the power band that torque is prominent.

And that's where you're wrong. You stated- "Inlines, because of the
relatively short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"

Low end torque is not enhanced by having a relatively short stroke.

Low end torque is enhanced by having a larger bore. Which is what I
originally stated.

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever. What is essential, and you fail to understand, or
address, is that my statement had to do entirely with WHERE in the
power curve you are measuring torque.

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the
overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement
of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine
will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will
do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever.

#1- A longer lever works easier than a short one
#2-#1 is only one reason why a longer stroke engine has inherently more low
end torque than a short stroke engine of the same displacement.

What is essential, and you fail to understand, or
address, is that my statement had to do entirely with WHERE in the
power curve you are measuring torque.


I've addressed what you've said in just about every response, and it is the
basis of why you're wrong-

"Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque"
You are attributing the low end torque of an engine to the "relatively short
stroke". This is ass-backwards from reality.

Speaking of cars...
 

On 16 Oct 2006 15:49:43 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

CR wrote:

Wrong. Low end torque is not enhanced by bore size as long as the overall
displacement of the engine remains the same.

Prove it.



"Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of
any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the
length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will
make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do
so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke."

http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...es_general.htm

What you fail to realize, is that you need to think of the connecting
rod as a lever.

Actually... a longer rod does not change the force on the crank at all
- the "lever" is the offset of the crank pin from the crank centerline
- i.e. half the stroke.

Basically, the rod isn't a "lever", it's a vector. The "leverage"
doesn't change because the lever arm (crank throw) is fixed. What does
change with a longer rod and less rod angle is the force vector. You
can gain very slight efficiencies with longer rods, but the torque of
an engine is primarily controlled, as CR correctly stated, with
stroke. Other things have influences, but stroke is the primary
mechanical factor.

Oh, and obviously, a longer rod does not increase stroke.

Speaking of cars...
 

Harry Krause wrote:

On 10/13/2006 5:36 PM, Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's
the compact shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

Eisboch


I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.

The new Camrys are ugly as hell. I hope you are looking at an '06.

Speaking of cars...
 

Calif Bill wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:oYTXg.33$kG5.13@trndny07...

I'm going to do my best to talk my wife into the 268 hp Toyota Camry.



Doesn't do much good to try and talk a woman into anything when it comes
to cars. Based on my own experience, I'd offer her my advice, then let
her make her own decision, it's her car afterall and if you talk her into
something else you're sure to hear every little nag she has about it for
as long as she owns it and maybe longer. It isn't easy but I've gotten a
lot closer to accepting that the average person is not a gearhead like
me, they don't know or care what goes on under the hood, and pick a car
almost exclusively based on how it looks. Completely opposite from myself
but whatever.

Mrs.E. sent me out to get her a car a couple of years ago while we were in
Florida. She had a small car and was getting intimidated by large trucks.
I asked her what she wanted and she told me to "surprise" her ... she just
wanted something a little bit bigger and with room to carry stuff.

So, I bought her a BMW X5. She hated it. She backed it into my truck,
backed it into my boat trailer and backed it into a tree. Then she got
backed into by a Federal Express semi and that was the end of it.

Eisboch



Never drove the M5, but looks like it is one of those cars where the
visibility to the back sux.



Not if you are always looking ahead!

Visibility is no worse than a Jeep GC.