Variable valve timing is not new technology

[Ext User(George Orwell)]

was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s,

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:65cda7f30540f7434bd3cbc6be161423@mixmaster.it ...
> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve
> timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza
> in the late 1960s,

And multi valve over head cam had been around since the turn of the last
century. You're telling us this because....?

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(John_H)]

George Orwell wrote:
>
>was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve
>timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni
>Torazza in the late 1960s,

After he'd studied Leonardo's notes no doubt... being able to read
Italian probably helped as well! *:o)

--
John H

[Ext User(Dan---)]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:08:51 +1000, Noddy PCM code reading says:

> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
> news:65cda7f30540f7434bd3cbc6be161423@mixmaster.it ...
>> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve
>> timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza
>> in the late 1960s,
>
> And multi valve over head cam had been around since the turn of the last
> century. You're telling us this because....?

Probably to kill some of the ricers spirits on why their tin cans make so
much noise and have so little performance. I love it when ricers thinks
the valve train is the only important part of an engine and go for the
power to weight ratio crap. Im happy with a decent cube V8 that can light
up the rear tyres without raising a sweat or a fit. :-)

Also not sounding a like a few bees on steroids as well.

--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Cyborg 0019" <jjbruce@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46621d45@news.comindico.com.au...

> Valve train is the only important thing to them,because its all they can
> do to improve preformance,why,cause gone are the days when cubic inch can
> be replaced for preformance and the opportunity to gain power to weight is
> gone,

No it ain't.

There is *still* no substitute for cubic inches, and the larger the capacity
an engine the more power it will make all else being equal. The same "hi
tech" approach applied to a lot of today's smaller capacity engines can be
applied to anything else, and in doing so will make more power with a bigger
engine.

The number one reason why smaller engines seem to be benefiting most from
modern technology is because it allows them to make fairly decent power
whilst remaining relatively small, making larger capacity engines (and the
associated fuel consumption) relatively redundant.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Marco)]

On Jun 3, 11:45 am, Cyborg 0019 <jjbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock
> stroking signs you talk of.
> Its producing 300hp,my Mazda makes 100hp and weighs in at under 1/20th
> of its weight.

Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it
generate huge amounts of torque instead?

Marco

[Ext User(Dan---)]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:44:24 -0700, Marco PCM code reading says:

>
> Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it
> generate huge amounts of torque instead?

Heh I had a 18.1 litre V12 (12V92 Detroit Diesel) Gen set in my garage
getting a reco pumped out over 800 hp which is rather mild for the size
and how many pistons it had. but with over 3000nm of torque. And an engine
note that drove shivers down my spine. :-)



--
Regards
Dan

[Ext User(John_H)]

Marco wrote:
>On Jun 3, 11:45 am, Cyborg 0019 <jjbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock
>> stroking signs you talk of.
>> Its producing 300hp,my Mazda makes 100hp and weighs in at under 1/20th
>> of its weight.
>
>Why is such a large engine producing so little power - or does it
>generate huge amounts of torque instead?

Might be time to brush up on some basic engine theory (since he's
already told you everything you should need to know)! :)

Engine's don't develop torque instead of power, they develop power
from torque.

Torque is a function of displacement and volumetric efficiency. The
first is fixed and the second isn't likely to vary by more than 10%
for a naturally aspirated engine. A 900ci V8 will produce as near as
damnit to 1200 Nm of torque... based on a specific torque figure of
80Nm per litre (which is a typical value for a carburetted V8).

The reason it's only producing 300bhp (approx 225kw) is because its
peak power is at around 1800rpm... since power = torque*rpm/9549.

Dead simple I woulda thought! ;-)

--
John H

[Ext User(John_H)]

John_H wrote:
>
>Torque is a function of displacement and volumetric efficiency. The
>first is fixed and the second isn't likely to vary by more than 10%
>for a naturally aspirated engine. A 900ci V8 will produce as near as
>damnit to 1200 Nm of torque... based on a specific torque figure of
>80Nm per litre (which is a typical value for a carburetted V8).

Unless it happens to be a diesel of course... in which case you can
reduce the specific torque figure by around 15Nm (for an na diesel).

--
John H

[Ext User(gonesailing_gonefishing)]

On Jun 2, 7:20 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s,
\
Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914.

[Ext User(Toby_Ponsenby)]

gonesailing_gonefishing blathered on in:

> On Jun 2, 7:20 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s,
> \
> Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914.
>


Err, you trying to say the SS had poppet valves?
Like, ones that had quality 'lift'?

[Ext User(Athol)]

gonesailing_gonefishing <nunya.farken@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:20 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:

>> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve
>> timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni
>> Torazza in the late 1960s,

> Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914.

LOL. Very good. :-)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(gonesailing_gonefishing)]

On Jun 4, 8:10 pm, Toby_Ponsenby <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> gonesailing_gonefishing blathered on in:
>
> > On Jun 2, 7:20 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >> was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza in the late 1960s,
> > \
> > Nope, Stanley Steamer had variable valve timing back in 1914.
>
> Err, you trying to say the SS had poppet valves?
> Like, ones that had quality 'lift'?

Variable valve timing is the issue old son, type of valve not
specified. If you want to make an issue, variable valve timing goes
back even further to the very early steam locos. Actually, some steam
engines did have internal engine type valves.

[Ext User(Cyborg 0019)]

Dan--- wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:08:51 +1000, Noddy PCM code reading says:
>
>
>>"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
>>news:65cda7f30540f7434bd3cbc6be161423@mixmaster.it ...
>>
>>>was the first auto manufacturer to patent a functional variable valve
>>>timing system which included variable lift. Developed by Giovanni Torazza
>>>in the late 1960s,
>>
>>And multi valve over head cam had been around since the turn of the last
>>century. You're telling us this because....?
>
>
> Probably to kill some of the ricers spirits on why their tin cans make so
> much noise and have so little performance. I love it when ricers thinks
> the valve train is the only important part of an engine and go for the
> power to weight ratio crap. Im happy with a decent cube V8 that can light
> up the rear tyres without raising a sweat or a fit. :-)
>
> Also not sounding a like a few bees on steroids as well.
>

Valve train is the only important thing to them,because its all they can
do to improve preformance,why,cause gone are the days when cubic inch
can be replaced for preformance and the opportunity to gain power to
weight is gone,
Woulkd not even give an eye to any vehicle made after 1980.

I have a 900ci V8 sitting just over there,it shows none of the cock
stroking signs you talk of.
Its producing 300hp,my Mazda makes 100hp and weighs in at under 1/20th
of its weight.

Who is going to win this race?