Town And Country Miles

"Malcolm William Mason" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

My guess is that on the highway, the Aero has a much more fuelefficient engine and its sleeker, more aerodynamic body comes into play. In low city speeds, the added weight over the 9000 and the aggressive cams and timing on the engine compared to the 9000 contributes to the overall mileage.

Kristian

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:30:11 +0200, "Kristian Steve Jensen"

I appreciate the information. Thank you very much. How much more mass am I accelerating in the 9.5 compared with the 9k?

I do not understand exactly what is meant by "aggressive" cams and timing. Would you please enlarge on the message?

Thanks,

Malcolm

"Malcolm William Mason" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

My 9000i has a kerb weight of 1300 kg according to my registration (but ended at 1440 with 20 liters of fuel and me in it). Note that I do not have turbo, leather seats or air condition. A 9-5 Aero weighs in at 1540 kg according to Yahoo! Autos. If we add equipment, fuel and driver, you probably come close to 1750 kg. The difference is significant. Imagine loading your 9000 with 300 kgs of concrete and driving that around town!

Cams are the devices which open and close the valves that lets in air/fuelmixture to the engine and lets out the exhaust. To produce the massive power of the 9-5 Aero, the valves have to stay open very long to let in lots of fuel. This is perfect for mid- to high-speed use as power is always readily available, and the fuel is used at maximum efficiency. In city driving, this much power isn't needed, so as you lug around town at low revs the valves let in more fuel than needed. Also, the Aero has a big turbo which is wonderful when you're in boost range with your revs, but in the city extra fuel is used to spin the turbine around with little to no effect.

Hopes this makes things a little clearer.

Kristian

If we add equipment, fuel and driver, you

Kristian,

Thank you very much. I did know what cams, valves, timing were. It was the term "aggressive" that I did not understand or comprehend fully.

You describe the 2000 9.5 Aero with Hot engine as having "massive" power. Would you expand on that. I know it has good power but massive is a term ....well...

I have also "heard" that this engine will provide a temporary over-boast of 20% for ten seconds. Presumably this is to facilitate passing. Is this correct? Do you know? Are these good values?

An extra 20% of the rated 230 takes it to 276 bhp.and if 230 bhp is massive, what is 276 bhp.

Please let me thank you again for your information. I really like to understand what I am driving.

The metric units are no problem to me. Although I am in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, I was educated in Canada. Started at the Canadian Naval Academy to be a naval architect. Got my Dip. N.A. from Greenich, UK , a B.A.Sc. from UBC and because the RCN (now Canadian Armed Forces) could not find ships to design, they let me retire at 23 but paid for a masters in civil architecture at University of Toronto. So the units are very familiar.

The term "massive" still intrigues me.

Thanks again for all your help.

If I can assist in any way , please email at any time. Just remove the "delete" from the posted address.

By the way my practice is in historic restoration and adaptive re-use.

Malcolm Mason

Malcolm Mason

"Malcolm William Mason" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

If I recall correctly, the engine will add 20 newtonmeters for 10-20 seconds to facilitate passing, going from 350 to 370 nm for a short while. This is in the mid-range of the revs, and does not affect top-end horsepower. Several cars use similar overboost systems, but none will add

20% horsepower, that is an extreme addition for any car stock from factory. They usually add extra newtonmeters through overboost in the mid-rev range. (Note that a good aftermarket tuner can bring a normal 9-5 2,0t with 150 hp to almost 220 just by adjusting the electronics. With it's lower ratio transmission, it becomes nearly as quick as a stock Aero)

When it comes to the term "massive", try going from 65 to 110 km/h in second gear with flat throttle (of course under controlled conditions). There is no BMW. Ferrari or Porsche in the world (maybe with the exception of their latest supersport models) that will be even close to covering that in the same time. The only car that is better at this is the latest Aero with 250 hp. If you are familiar with Jeremy Clarkson, the british host of the TV-show Top Gear, he describes doing just this as "stepping on a land mine". You just put your foot down, and BANG. The clip with him testing the Aero should be available on your favorite filesharing service, just get it before Schwarzenegger and Ashcroft close them all :)

I hope that covers it. And by the way, I love the thought of an Aero. They are pretty expensive here in Norway, a new one will set you back over US$100

000! Just imagine what you can get for that in the US. The normal way of getting one here is getting a used one with the rear seats removed, this allows the car to come under "delivery vehicle" legislation, and takes away nearly all of the taxes, allowing you to get one for under half the price. You have to wait 10 years before you can add rear seats free of taxes. I'm thinking my next car will be a 9-5 on wich I will have the electronics tuned, and after that finally an Aero.

Kristian

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:16:40 +0200, "Kristian Steve Jensen"

"Malcolm William Mason" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Not trying to tread on the other response, which gives numbers...

IIRC, "newtons" often cause confusion in modern physics classes. Formally, the SI unit "newton" is that force which, acting on a mass of one kilogramme, causes it to accelerate by 1 metre/sec^2.

Thus a lump of 1 kilo _mass_ (NB) on Earth exerts a _force_ (NB) downward due to Earth's gravity of roughly 9.807 newtons.

Physicists and designers of machinery prefer to be very careful when saying words such as "kilo", "newton", "mass" and "force". Blokes heaving on spanners here on Earth can get by with saying that 1 newton of force == 1 kilo of force.

(Class dismissed. No homework today.)

-- Andrew Stephenson

Yes, Newton is a measure of force. Newton meter is a measure of torque. Imagine hanging 1 Kg at the end of your arm stretched out horizontally; the torque will be (roughly) 9.807 times the arm's length (about 1 meter) times the weight (1 Kg) = 9.807 Nm.

However, this calculation assumes that the are is weightless... If the arm has weight, then this contribution has to be added to the torque. This may be done by summing up torque from bits of the arm, each with a distance from the shoulder and a small weight of meat.

If the arm has a uniform cross section, that will come down to the total weight of the arm x half its length.

-- MH

"Kristian Steve Jensen" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de...

thank you very much Kristian. You have been very generous with your information..Thanks again.

Malcolm Mason

IIRC, "newtons" often cause confusion in modern physics classes. Formally, the SI unit "newton" is that force which, acting on a mass of one kilogramme, causes it to accelerate by 1 metre/sec^2.

Just like a good old dyne only very much bigger. one dyne accelerates one gram one cm. per secnd per second. And that is from a loooooong time ago!

Thus a lump of 1 kilo _mass_ (NB) on Earth exerts a _force_ (NB) downward due to Earth's gravity of roughly 9.807 newtons.

But weighs one kilo (kilogram) correct?

And is Newton not capitalized as in Sir Isaac?

Physicists and designers of machinery prefer to be very careful when saying words such as "kilo", "newton", "mass" and "force".

And weight.?

Blokes heaving on spanners here on Earth can get by with saying that 1 newton of force == 1 kilo of force.

Malcolm Mason

I can never remember that one.

I think they try to avoid "weight" altogether. It's a really nasty ambiguous word which can be taken to mean "mass" or "gravitational force" depending on who's using it. There might be an official meaning for it, but it's so widely mis-used that it's practically useless.

No. It's a bit less than a tenth of that.

Cheers,

Colin.

THe use of "kilo" for kilogram is certainly not correct.

The use of kilograms for weight is correct. However, many people get confused, mistakenly thinking that this means that those kilograms are thus units of force rather than units of mass.

Weight is an ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. But its usage in commerce, for example, is much more uniform and consistent than its usage in the various sciences. Yet it is hard to believe how many people are so confused that they think that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure some quantity which varies with the strength of the gravitational field. We should not do so; we do not do so; we have never done so.

The use of kilograms force is no longer correct.

No. Not in English. Nor are the watts, amperes, volts, joules, kelvins, and the like.

The best thing to do is to avoid that ambiguous word in a technical context.

Certainly not.

Yes, there is a kilogram force--by definition, exactly 9.80665 newtons. So 1 newton is approximately 100 grams force.

But that kilogram force should no longer be used. It is not a part of the modern metric system, the International System of Units.

Yes. Last time I checked.

Possibly. It gets vague in everyday use. Consider volts (Count Alessandro Volta) and amps/amperes (André Marie Ampère), which we laid-back Brits rarely capitalise. There may be an ISO standard.

That too. Another weighty matter of massive importance.

-- Andrew Stephenson

See, I _said_ people get confused. But "exactly"? Did they go so far as to define 1-g as 9.80665? It varies measurably (if you have the right equipment) from place to place on the Earth, not to mention at points above it. (No way to run a universe.)

Thanks be for that.

-- Andrew Stephenson

"So far as"?

Certainly, the CGPM did indeed define the "standard acceleration of gravity" this way back in 1901.

Note that a _standard_ acceleration of gravity is a concept of metrology, not of physics. It serves no purpose other than defining a unit of force based on a unit of mass.

The most surprising thing is that nobody has bothered to officially define a standard acceleration of gravity for the purpose of defining pounds force. We often borrow the one which is official for defining kilograms force, but other values are used as well, such as 32.16 ft/s^2 or 386 in/s^2.

That is the local accelation of gravity, something entirely different.

That varies measurably even at any particular place on Earth over time (measurable variations every day), depending on the relative positions of the sun and the moon.

To measure the variation between the extremes on the earth's surface, you'd only need crude instruments. A good clock, and any kind of pendulum. Or even a cheap fisherman's scale would suffice. It varies by more than 1 part in 140 from Mt. Chimborazo, the highest mountain on Earth, to the North Pole.

Gene Nygaard

Enough with the units already....!

See

-- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8