Re: Mercedes-Benz hit with suit

Page 6 of 13  


I suspect that he would not be able to stand the heat ;-) He doles it out but can he take it back?
Huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see it's almost impossible for you to grasp anything. Instead, you insist on repeating the same thing over and over, in spite of my refutations. Hey, if you repeat the same thing again and again, you'll think it's true. Knock yourself out.

Deja vu...

Blah, blah, blah...

No, but there are plenty of V6 ones. Actually, this is the most common engine in the US, unlike Europe, where the most common engine is an I4.

Wrong. That's because the consumers started buying trucks instead of full-size cars when they wanted more space.

They never sold in large numbers, otherwise they wouldn't have been brought...

Ahead of VW, Peugeot, Renault, Fiat, Ford, Opel? Not!

As I said, Europeans have different priorities. The Mondeo was a big flop in the US and the Focus didn't realize its expectations... And that's just mentioning Ford...

Wrong. I have a mid-size car and a full-size one, both quite average cars and both have a V6 with over 200HP...

You should stop eating monkey brains...

Blissful you are then, for you didn't explain anything, just mustered your ignorance and prejudices.

Oh, boy...

Sure. Your opinion is very qualified, as your posts have shown...

And why is it noone can find them? Strange, probably becuase of the oil conspiracy...

Sigh...
You're a text-book sophist!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are being silly.

I4 may be the most common engine configureation in Europe but 6 cylinder engines are very common also.

They certainly do now. However Ford has withdrawn its two offerings in that sector and GM has dropped one and is about to stop producing the other.

I do not follow this. Large companies often buy smaller and even larger rivals if they have some advantage for them. If they did not show an advantage then they would not be bought.

In many market sectors, yes, absolutely. BMW 3 series outsell many 'volume' rivals in the UK.

That is in the USA. As it happens I have had 6 and 8 cylinder cars from 2.0litres up to 4.2 litres but always in premium brands.

Oh dear. Tell him Philip. Explain to him how common such engines now are.

And you Sir are a text book Ostrich apart from your head being up your nether regions rather than in sand LOL.
Huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote in message

Well... as a GENERAL rule from idle; a sharply disproportionate increase in torque to increase in RPM is desirable in a truck engine... be it diesel or gasoline. This can be accomplished with high compression (which tends to limit maximum RPM), with more reciprocating weight (solid wrist pins), and an 'under-square' bore/stroke relationship ("stroker") giving more mechanical leverage against the crankshaft. Heavy flywheels do not produce continual torque. These are all techniques used in diesels because of the single focus .... low RPM torque. A few gasoline engines take advantage of these mechanical techniques. An example would be the 1ZZFE engine found in the Corolla. One way to get more torque from the engine was to make the stroke 12mm longer than the bore width ('under-square'). A longer stroke results in greater leverage against the crankshaft but with the trade off of increased piston speed for any given RPM compared to a shorter stroke at the same RPM. Longer stroke also subjects the piston greater acceleration and deceleration forces. 4,400 feet per minute is considered a safe maximum speed for a cast aluminum piston with less than 12:1 compression. Diesels ... due to their typically long stroke and 20:1 compression reduce the safe piston speed to about 2,800 feet per minute.
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

You are again reading the torque curve from the wrong end for a sensible interpretation. However, you are correct in that the start-off torque is important and for a nice tractable engine the torque at 1000 rpm should iseally be at least 75% of the torque at rated maximum speed.
This can be accomplished with

Heavy flywheels provide inertia, not engine torque as measured at the flywheel by a brake dynamometer, yes.
These are all techniques used in diesels because of the

Modern direct injection diesel engines vary from 16:1 to around 18:1 compression ratio. Most modern car diesels rev to 4500 to 4800rpm although their maximum power may be found a few hundred lower.
The question originally posed at the top of this page was about torque rise in truck engines though. You will find very many examples of engines with over 35% rise and a constant power over 30 to 40% of their rev range. Most are even seen to be 'rising power' engines where their horsepower actually rises as revs drop from their rated speed over a considerable range. This rather common characteristic is obviously as obscure to Neo as the workings of the torque curve and the need for a flattish one for petrol engines and the relation between the torque curve and engine power, let alone its practical relevance to road performance. This is rather at odds with his superior attitude.
Huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote in message

Sensible: Huw's viewpoint. LOL (1) A tractable (forgiving against lugging) engine that produces 75% of maximum torque at 1000 rpm is only necessary if you have limited torque multiplication thru the gearbox. I noticed in looking over charts of several BMW, Mercedes, and VW TDI diesels that maximum torque is typically found in the 1900-2300 rpm range, after which torque falls quickly in some as horsepower rises while in others torque rises quickly to a lower level but persists across a wider rpm range before ending sharply just before maximum horsepower. So it behooves the diesel driver to know if his engine behaves like the former or latter group.

Huw... you would be AMAZED how many people (who should know better) believe low end torque is a product of heavy flywheels typically associated with diesel. The inertia a heavy flywheel provides lasts for only a second ... but that is what impresses the "seat of the pants" drivers.

Revisit (1) The automotive examples I looked at suggest an over rev condition by going that high except... on engines where horsepower and torque are more equal. AS you lower compression, the mechanical safe limit of the engine (piston speed) rises. With electronics, turbocharger boost can be tapered down as rpm rises.

The "need" for a flat toque curve is VERY application specific. In a turbocharged semi truck diesel... 80% of max torque at 1200 rpm with a flat, quick rise to the max engine speed of 1800 rpm is what's provided from 11 liters. In a 250 cc naturally aspirated gasoline motorcycle you need a box full of gears and all the torque you can get ... which will likely be over a 3,000 rpm range (8,000-11,000 rpm) with maximum horsepower at 16,000 rpm. The wonder of reduction gearing saves the day if the driver is not fearful or recalcitrant about rpm and gear changes.
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Firstly start off torque needs to be 75% of that at maximum rated revs, not of absolute maximum torque. Secondly, the gearbox is almost irrelevant here unless a torque converter automatic is utilised because the start-off torque has a direct relation to the stalling behaviour of an engine with a manual box. An engine with a high start-off torque will start typically with little or no revs from a standstill whereas a low start-off torque will necessitate significant revving to get going.
I noticed in looking over

Again, how many times do I have to illustrate that a torque curve should be read from the high rev side down to make any sense. The diesel car will always have a torque curve that rises from high revs towards the point of maximum torque at lower revs. A petrol engine would also have a similar curve if it were not for inlet manifolds and cams [both adjustable on the best engines] to enhance the curve at lower revs so as not to have a very low torque at low revs. A consequence of this tuning is a torque curve that is flatter [and even may have two peaks] so as to enhance low end torque. The need for this is because the engine would otherwise and naturally peak at high revs with a steadily declining torque which would relate to very poor low end performance.

I am not amazed at all by the ignorance of so many people who think they know it all.

You cannot over rev a diesel engine which is not pushed [as in going downhill] because the governor [whether mechanical or increasingly electronic] prevents it.

Maximum torque will be produced at 1100erpm in your example. Possibly only 80% of maximum torque will be available at maximum power, although this would not be a typical modern example. More typical would be a 11litre engine which was rated at 2200erpm which produced an extra 10% of power at 2000 and only fell back to its rated horsepower again at 1800erpm. Maximum torque would indeed be at around 1100erpm and would be about 40 to 50% higher than at rated top speed. Such a positive engine characteristic is only posible by dint of the very steep torque rise as revs drop from maximum. As you know, the engine power is not measured by a dynamometer but the torque is, and it is this, in combination with engine revs which is used to compute the power at any point. An heavy hauling engine such as this would need at least 110% start up torque, calculated as explained previously, to start the load off without drama.
In a 250 cc naturally aspirated gasoline

Yes but notwithstanding the engine, lets assume 60hp, and the gearbox, the extremely low start off torque produced by such an engine would never start a 2 ton towed load off from standstill. By contrast, my 67hp landrover will happily start a 5 ton load and tow it around up hill and down dale from one day to the next. This perfectly illustrates why a gearbox will just not compensate for lack of torque in practice.
huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote in message

Bollocks. Do you start off in a 1:1 ratio? And where is this "75% need" written in stone? Probably a myth of your creation.

False.
There is torque multiplication via the torque converter and in 1st gear, an automatic transmission typically provides a 2.5:1 reduction ratio. Fluid clutches do not multiply torque, therefore are not used in automatics. The torque converter can be designed to limit engine rpm when the drive wheels are locked. Maximum engine effort against locked drive wheels is "stall speed." This is quite a bit higher than the 1000 rpm, 75% of maximum torque that you were just telling me about.

Ok, now we are back to a manual gearbox. So how much "revving" is significant? 200 rpm? 1000 rpm?

From the high side down towards idle or from torque peak toward the maximum horsepower peak? All you have been talking about is torque production from idle (or 1000 rpm) upward to where ever torque peaks.

Would you care to reword that in English? LOL From the way the above is worded, one should run diesels at maximum horsepower and work them down to no lower than the maximum torque rpm. This quite contradictory to commercial diesel operation.

Huw.... run any engine up to red-line and then (accidentally) downshift. That is another way engines get scattered and diesels are less forgiving. As you mentioned, exceeding the governor by using the engine as a brake. The maximum safe piston speed of diesel engines is considerably lower due primarily to high compression and secondarily the higher piston acceleration stresses of longer strokes.

IN fact, your assertion is not true on level ground if the load in on pneumatic tires. One of our neighbors bought a Yamaha ATV recently. When only a week old, he used it to pull his son's old Landcruiser home (I think its an FJ60, u-joint broke).... a distance of about 1/2 mile. 660 cc's with a 1,200 towing capacity. It's all done with GEARING. http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/unitspecs.asp?lid=1&lc=atv&cid=2 9&midH

Your illustration is not perfect. Re-read the example I gave you regarding reduction drive starters. Of course one has to input torque in order that it be multiplied. But it is precisely the gearbox reduction ratios that makes such paultry engine output capable of moving relatively heavy loads. Do you really think an 11 liter diesel making 1,300 ft/lbs torque can directly move an 80k pound semi truck? Right. Add up all the reductions from the crankshaft to the ground in any vehicle.
By the way, you don't need ANY engine to tow that 5 ton load "down dale." Gravity my friend. LOL Just don't overspeed the governor, ok.
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Granted, but it's also desirable that it remains constant over the useful RPM range.

Or supercharging, both tricks that Diesel engines have resort to.

Both of which decrease NVH or efficiency if heavier balancers have to be used.

Thanks to their lower RPM range.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In

Agreed. Take a look at GM's DuraMax diesel for their pickup trucks. It's just the power curve you want.

Any kind of forced induction increases compression.

Noise, Vibration, & Harshness. How would more reciprocating weight or a longer stroke would make for an noisier engine. Please explain.
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AAMOF, because it's often necessary to limit the torque in Diesel engines because of the transmission limitations, many Diesel engines have an almost flat torque curve. Point in case, the 2.7 and the 3.2 MB engines.

Of course.

It doesn't. But NVH is usually referred to in a group, even when only one of its components is relevant. In this case, vibration and harshness: under-square engines have worse vibrations and harshness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmm... not. Ford still offers the Crown Vic and the Mustang with a V8. Chevy has no V8 sedan. Of course, Pontiac and Cadillac do...

They were bought because they were on the brink of bankruptcy. They were there because people weren't buying them...

So after going round and round in circles you go in a spiral...
I'm tired of you. I give you the last words in the space below:
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In

Well Huw... the crankshaft is -not- connected to the wheels. ;-)
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not in neutral LOL.
Huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In

For the crankshaft to be connected to the wheels at any time presupposes the absence of any transmission with a Neutral. LOL
--
* Philip

"I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes. Ahead or similar. Depends on country. In Britain Ford and Vauxhall (GM) are the best sellers. In Germany (people are richer!), Europe's biggest country, the situation is completely different.
See the Sep 03 sales figs, for example: http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_september_2003.html
VW Golf/Passat sold 27 000 vehicles. Merc C/E sold 22 000.
As you can also see, Merc totally thrashed BMW, but the ratios vary from month to month, also dependeoing on new model intros.
See manufacturers ranked by sales in 2002 in Germany: http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/rangliste_autohersteller_2002.html
Yes, VW is tops by far, but look who is no. 2! And look by how far the no. 3, Opel (GM), trails Mercedes.
Merc and BMW are volume manufacturers. Niche producers/brands are, e.g. Bentley, R-R, Aston-Martin, Morgan
Aren't the Germans good at stats? I wish I could find similar for the UK.
For the UK I have some figs for 2003 to Aug.
Ford (excl Land Rover & other Premium Brands): 248 000 Vauxhall: 209 000 Renault: 121 000 Peugeot: 120 000 VW (excl Audi, Skoda, SEAT): 111 000
No data by model found.
DAS --
--
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

"Neo".... while I do enjoy and share your perspectives about diesel in the US, I did NOT post the above quote (DaimlerChrysler diesels passed ...blah-blah-blah). Have another go at it!
Regarding diesel vs. gasoline emissions .... this may be helpful. Try some of the links. :-) http://www.epa.gov/diesel /
--
~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And what does it say in the opening paragraph?
"...the best attributes of diesels -- fuel efficiency and durability -.."
DAS --
--
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1st off, car Diesel engines are not nearly as tough as those used in commercial applications. Because of the higher pressures, they're usually built with thicker walls, but it only adds to the weight.
But if you keep reading, the sub topics, you'll notice that Diesel is also responsible for the nastiest emissions...
Diesel is more efficient not much because of the fuel itself, but mostly because of its compression ratio. Direct-injection gas engines can use higher compression ratios and get a fuel consumption within 10% of Diesel, while retaining the simplicity and performance of conventional gas engines (case in point, Audi A4 2.0 FSI and 1.9 TDI on the highway). And that without stratified charge, when it would be able to achieve the same in mixed driving as well (as the A2 1.6 FSI does)...
So I disagree with you, Diesel future looks bleak in cars. It'll be remembered as passing, sad fad...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Car diesel engines are commonly used in commercial applications. Mercedes use the full car range in commercial cargo vans. As far as weight goes, the soon-to-be-launched Ford/PSA V6 CGI block 2.7litre V6, which will find its first application in Jaguar and Land Rover products, is rated at 202hp and 440Nm from an injection system running at 1650bar. It will be produced at the rate of 150,000 per year to start with.
It weighs just 202kgs.

I have not heard of any petrol engine which comes anywhere near 200g/kW/h. Not within 25% of it. Perhaps you have examples, because I certainly don't.
while retaining the simplicity and performance of

Since it has been an expanding market since the early 1960's and in many European countries it now accounts for 50% of the market and it is about to expand into the US, then it hardly a fad.
Huw
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.