Your thoughts please

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
wammers said:
Difference here is i know what i'm talking about and you don't. You obviously still do not understand the required mixture ratio needed in petrol engines for clean efficient burn. A larger cylinder has more air in it at any given time and therefore needs more fuel than a smaller cylinder would under the same conditions, simple as that. Is that so hard to follow? We know the difference in the 4.0 and 4.6 engine is only 600 cc that is why the difference in fuel used is comparatively small as well explained by Ant. By your reasoning if they increase the 4.6 to 5.0 litres and give it more torque maybe it could beat the consumption figures of the 4.0 litre engine. It simply does not work that way. In general terms the larger the engine the more fuel it needs.
Click to expand...
Before manadatory cats, Ford ran fuel air ratio's of up to 21 to 1 and 17 to 1 was not uncommon.
Folowing your logic, it would never have been possible to get the improvements in economy that have been achieved by better control of fuelling, the same amount of bang is being achieved from considerably less fuel these days.
As for the antique LR V8 I can't see there would be much difference between to two engine except the longer stroke and increased torque should make it a more relaxed drive. I would guess there is a bigger difference in consumption between Gems and Thor and that could answer whay the 4.6 appears better than some 4.0's.
 
Datatek said:
Before manadatory cats, Ford ran fuel air ratio's of up to 21 to 1 and 17 to 1 was not uncommon.
Folowing your logic, it would never have been possible to get the improvements in economy that have been achieved by better control of fuelling, the same amount of bang is being achieved from considerably less fuel these days.
As for the antique LR V8 I can't see there would be much difference between to two engine except the longer stroke and increased torque should make it a more relaxed drive. I would guess there is a bigger difference in consumption between Gems and Thor and that could answer whay the 4.6 appears better than some 4.0's.
Click to expand...

Not on acceleration and under load they didn't. Rolls Royce must have been really hacked off when they built the Griffon and it used more fuel than the Merlin. :D:D
 
wammers said:
No just you in this case. Now go and design something when you make a balls of it go and ask someone like me what to do. I have met designers before.
Click to expand...

Sadly I come across people like you all to often. Stick in the mud types who think they know it all & have nothing to learn from a younger generation.
 
martynv8 said:
Sadly I come across people like you all to often. Stick in the mud types who think they know it all & have nothing to learn from a younger generation.
Click to expand...
It has to be said that some younger designers seem to have forgotten the basics judging by some of the stupidities that occur these days.
 
martynv8 said:
Sadly I come across people like you all to often. Stick in the mud types who think they know it all & have nothing to learn from a younger generation.
Click to expand...

I certainly have nothing to learn from you that's for sure you don't have a bloody clue what you are on about. Now go and play with your lego there's a good lad. You are beginning to get on my tits with your nonsense. We all know there are large modern engines that use less fuel than smaller older designs. It's known as technological progress.
 
wammers said:
I certainly have nothing to learn from you that's for sure you don't have a bloody clue what you are on about. Now go and play with your lego there's a good lad. You are beginning to get on my tits with your nonsense. We all know there are large modern engines that use less fuel than smaller older designs. It's known as technological progress.
Click to expand...

Think it's time for your holiday mate. Ha ha. :D
 
tomcat59alan said:
Think it's time for your holiday mate. Ha ha. :D
Click to expand...

Had loads of people like this at BAE came out with a pile of drawings of their latest idea, then went back embarrassed with their tails between their legs when it was pointed out it wouldn't work. The aircraft industry is full of them, glorified draftsmen with an overbearing sense of importance. :D:D:D
 
wammers said:
Had loads of people like this at BAE came out with a pile of drawings of their latest idea, then went back embarrassed with their tails between their legs when it was pointed out it wouldn't work. The aircraft industry is full of them, glorified draftsmen with an overbearing sense of importance. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

But Tony, you are missing the point. It works on paper :D:D:D
 
wammers said:
Had loads of people like this at BAE came out with a pile of drawings of their latest idea, then went back embarrassed with their tails between their legs when it was pointed out it wouldn't work. The aircraft industry is full of them, glorified draftsmen with an overbearing sense of importance. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Tony, you make a lot of assumptions about someones professional ability when you know nothing about them. I left a directorship position from a large company nearly 3 years ago to start my own business. I have always been involved in all parts of the process & spend ALOT of time on the factory floor. I've gained a heck of a lot of knowledge from older collegues with a huge amount of experience but I can also be surprised at what young graduates can often bring to the table too.
I wouldn't be building a growing business now if I spent my time dreaming up things behind a CAD screen all day (CAD Monkeys) as I call them.

Anyway, going way off topic now so let's justleave it at that shall we
 
martynv8 said:
Tony, you make a lot of assumptions about someones professional ability when you know nothing about them. I left a directorship position from a large company nearly 3 years ago to start my own business. I have always been involved in all parts of the process & spend ALOT of time on the factory floor. I've gained a heck of a lot of knowledge from older collegues with a huge amount of experience but I can also be surprised at what young graduates can often bring to the table too.
I wouldn't be building a growing business now if I spent my time dreaming up things behind a CAD screen all day (CAD Monkeys) as I call them.

Anyway, going way off topic now so let's justleave it at that shall we
Click to expand...

Ok with all your knowledge and experience maybe you can answer a question for me. A while ago i bought some plans for a light aircraft from the states. Spent a long time making tooling from the drawings. Then cutting blank components out from Aluminium sheet, then forming parts on the tooling. Then assembled the parts and had a nice single seat aircraft. I then had to get an engine for it. So i got hold of a 1500 cc aircooled VW as the basis for the power plant. Stripped it measured and crack tested everything. New crank, mid power cam shaft, new heads, an extra spark plug in each cylinder, 92 mm barrels and pistons to take the capacity to 1835 cc. Converted it to twin magneto ignition. Fabricated induction and exhaust systems. But low and behold when i did the engine runs despite having a lot more power and torque the 1835 cc motor used more fuel than the 1500 cc motor would have done. Wonder from your vast knowledge you could explain why that happened. Or would you be more comfortable if i asked about a dodgy hinge on a TV stand?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WightinNL
2a “strange” starter in a recent non starter
Replies
4
Views
765
tottot
tottot
SR4x4
Discovery 3 2005 (55) Land Rover Discovery 3 Tdv6 Auto (7 Seat) £6000
Replies
0
Views
1K
SR4x4
SR4x4
dapinky
Nos Da (good evening!)
Replies
7
Views
558
dapinky
dapinky
K
What money should I be asking?
Replies
18
Views
670
Anaconda
A
L
SOLD - Land Rover Ninety (Defender 90) 300TDi Auto soft-top
Replies
9
Views
4K
mondifa
M
Back
Top