Speaker cab with a volume knob

Maybe. Inline vs a V style engine doesn't really matter. There's an old myth that inline engines make better torque than V engines, but it's not true. Torque is dependent on displacement and volumetric efficiency. The most important factor in torque is displacement though. Bigger engines make more torque, whether it's an inline, V, or horizontal engine. Dropping engine size is a way to limit power to reduce speed to be safer for drivers, but crew chiefs always find a way around it. I'd be like "Fine, you want me to use a smaller engine? I'll just turn more RPM's". There, I just got my speed back.
 
I wonder is there's scope for rotary engines in Formula racing ? I've heard they get a lot of performance out of small engines.
 
I wonder is there's scope for rotary engines in Formula racing ? I've heard they get a lot of performance out of small engines.

You have to look to pro or semi-pro racing to see what works. Racing is more monkey-see-monkey-do than anything else. Why else would ancient pushrod OHV technology still be so rampant? Because it still works awesomely. If no one's using rotary engines - and no one is - there's gotta be a reason for that. I know racers and racing mentality. They'll do literally anything for a competitive edge. Rotaries have been around long enough that someone somewhere has to have tried them and it must have simply not been worth it. F1 engineers look for improvements as little as .5 hp. I'm sure rotary engines have crossed their mind and it didn't pan out.
 
I ride a motorcycle that's large enough to move me & small enough for me to put a foot on the ground without getting a 45 degree lean. That's all the torque I have on the topic. Funny how torque means different things in different places: a neck band to denote social status and/or ownership doesn't seem to fit with big brmm brmms though.
 
Lol. My last bike made 130 hp out of 750 cc's. Gotta love RPM's!
there was some bizarre Honda bike at one point that used pairs of joined cylinders so the pistons were oblong shaped and 8 valves per cylinder. It was essentially an 8 cylinder bike but with pairs of cylinders joined together to make it a 4 cylinder bike to meet restrictions.
If I remember correctly it had a redline approaching 30,000 rpm!
:eek:
 
(I am not) sorry to interrupt the motoring forum.

Lt.Bob gives practical advice:

... it's called an attenuator. Weber makes some good ones IMO ...

I agree. My Weber MiniMass attenuator order went in just before Christmas and is being made right now.
 
...like an Iso Grifo ...

I just love it when somebody goes to the obscure...

Yes you can. Pound for pound, an 8 cyl will always make more torque and horsepower than a 4 cyl, but you can make a 4 cyl perform like an 8. A properly turbo'd 4 can run away from a stock 8 all day long.

How that applies to amps and speakers....I have no idea. :D

Kinda an apples/oranges comparo, dontcha think, Greg? A better comparo might be the mid 80's Mustang GT's, which could be had with a 5.0L HO V-8, or a 2.3L turbo I-4. I am neither holding fox-body Mustang up as prime examples of autowonderdom, nor am I dissing them- they just present a good apples/apples comparison of the two motors, seeing as both were factory motors and thus had to turn out both performance and a certain level of reliability, both wee put into the same car, and both produced nearly the same power output and performance. The V8 out-sold the Turbo I-4, not because of a real performance advantage, but probably because it was easier to go fast with the V8, and because buyers were more familiar with it. Of course, there is much more to the picture- development cost, "tricks" used to get power (like intercooler on the turbo,) etc., but my point being, other things being held pretty much constant, a well-designed turbo setup pretty consistantly doubles the per-liter output of an ICE. If you are road racing (or such,) you might go with the turbo I4; if you are drag racing, you might slap yourself on the forehead and say "Wow. I couldda had a V8!"

...The 7L Iso Grifo engine...
There it is, again. Cool.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
 
The Chevy 427 was the best V8 ever made.

Although I respect your right to your own opinion, Greg, that honor usually goes to Chevy's SMALL block V8. The Chevy SB was a major game-changer. Every push-rod V8 made since (including Chevy's big block,) and most cammers, owe a huge design debt to that one.
 
Kinda an apples/oranges comparo, dontcha think, Greg? .
Yup, totally. Doesn't matter though. The initial claim was that a 4 can't act like an 8, and that's simply not true.

Although I respect your right to your own opinion, Greg, that honor usually goes to Chevy's SMALL block V8. The Chevy SB was a major game-changer. Every push-rod V8 made since (including Chevy's big block,) and most cammers, owe a huge design debt to that one.
Of course. The small block was first, and just about every pushrod Chevy V8 afterwards was based on the small-block. That doesn't make it the best though. The 427 was by far the best designed V8 made. Here's why I think so, based off building many different drag racing engines: The 427 was a special big-block in the sense that it could rev and act like a small-block. It had a great cylinder head design, and it's displacement wasn't so big that it's heads couldn't still fill the cylinders at high RPM's. It also had a far superior oiling system to anything Ford or Mopar kicked out back in the day. Really, from a pure design standpoint, the old Ford Clevelands were superior because they used big-block Chevy style canted-valve heads on a small displacement block which gave the potential for huge RPM's, but the Clevelands oiling and cooling system sucked, which made them far less reliable. And everyone knows the Hemi, which at the time was a stout player too, but it's own claim to fame (the hemispherical chambers and huge domed pistons) were also a giant hindrance in turning RPM's. The 427 Chevy had the best of all worlds. Superior head design, superior bore-stroke ratio, superior piston design, superior rod length, and superior durability. When I crewed in the NMCA, the naturally aspirated 427 based engines blew everyone away - even with the big block weight penalties.
 


you could also just build a box big enough to put your existing speaker cabinet in, along with some room for air and a mic... Then insulate the whole thing with Roxul or OC - essentially just build a bass-trap box.

But sorry for the off-topic post in the car engine forum :p
 
I haven't tried an isolation box yet, but I can't see why it wouldn't work well. You get the speaker moving some air, and keep the outside volume down. You won't get the room sound, and I always like a ribbon way back to get the room, but it might just be the best compromise. And OT, but whatever; the 427 is likely the 'best' V8 to date. And it's what the Iso Grifo used. At least for the 7-litre. Even the 454 in the 7.4-litre wasn't as 'good'. They'll blame the oil crisis for the shutting down of Iso Rivolta back in 1972, but I think it was using the Ford Boss 351 that did them in. Sure, it made 330HP or 383HP (depending on where you read about it), but still.......
Of course, I've never owned an Iso Grifo, so this is all based on reading a lot of sports car magazines when I was young. They were my Playboy. No, I didn't have a life then or now.
 
...I think it was using the Ford Boss 351 that did (Iso) in. Sure, it made 330HP or 383HP (depending on where you read about it), but still...

I don't see how. Other cars had the Ford 351C motor (I have never heard of a "Boss 351" motor, and I am pretty well versed in things Ford...) and never heard anyone blame the demise of a car on that motor. Care to defend your statement?
 
Even the 454 in the 7.4-litre wasn't as 'good'.

The 454's problem is it's bore/stroke ratio. The 454 and 427 are totally different animals. Both big-block Chevys, and close in displacement, but they don't act the same.

Their relationship is like the two most often modified Chevy small blocks - the 383 and 377. The popular 383 was a "stroker". It used a 350 block with a modified 400 crank and it pumped out 383 cubic inches with it's long stroke and smaller bore. Wildly popular with hot rodder and street machine guys. The 377 was the opposite, and far less popular, but much, much better. It used a 400 block and a 350 crank. It was essentially a de-stroked 400. That combo made 377 inches with it's bigger bore and shorter stroke. The little bit of torque that the 377 gives up to the 383 is more than made up for with better breathing at higher RPM's and the potential for way better horsepower and a much flatter power curve. On the dyno, 383's usually jump up to a peak torque number and then fall on their face. On the street or track, the 383 will provide tire melting torque and pin you in your seat and then gasp and wheeze and struggle as you push it into the higher RPM range. 377's on the other hand build up to peak torque, and it tapers off gently as the RPM's rise and horsepower takes over. Keeping that average torque number high as you get into higher RPM's makes big power. The 377's big bore and short stroke allows the engine to breathe better as the RPM's climb. All things being equal, the 377 will run away from a 383 all day long.
 
..........Other cars had the Ford 351C motor (I have never heard of a "Boss 351" motor, and I am pretty well versed in things Ford...) and never heard anyone blame the demise of a car on that motor. Care to defend your statement?

I am not versed in anything, but a vast magazine collection of various subjects going back to the 70's keeps me entertained. Usually I just get into the advertising, so the super technical nuts-and-bolts trivia often escapes me.
This is not a 351C in the Italian sports car I mention, but a 351R. Ford called it the Boss, and apparently, from what I just dug up again, it was only used in the 1971 Boss Mustang. I've heard there is a Boss 351 registry site, as people feel since only about 1,800 were made, and under 600 are still around, these people are a 'select' company. I'd have to look up the 351C, but the 351R used a four-barrel Autolite spreadbore carburetor, an aluminum intake manifold, and aluminum valve covers. I think I read the cylinder head had to be modified. But again, until I go sit and read, this is all a faulty memory.
Other than that, you should know way more than I do. And it was a tongue-in-cheek flippant remark that the 454 killed the Iso Grifo. Of course a 7-litre engine during energy crisis times was the culprit. But Iso Rivolta did switch froma 7-litre to a 7.4-litre engine, that somehow produced less HP and torque. I am a shameless Luddite, and when you change anything on a product, you don't have people like me worshiping it anymore, sales plummet (not that I bought one), and the bank gets your house.
 
Ford called it the Boss, and apparently, from what I just dug up again, it was only used in the 1971 Boss Mustang.

OMG, I TOTALLY forgot about that motor. A good friend had one of those motors/cars, too, and it still slipped my mind. You are completely right about it's origin. It was a 351C, with 4-bbl heads and a factory alum. manifold, and yes, an Autolite spread-bore 4-BBl carb. 10:1 or 10.5:1 pistons, 4-bolt mains, etc. I don't think the head was modded, beyond the usual big ports all 4-bbl heads had. Yes, a rare car, indeed. Ford just didn't seem to do anything exactly right with the 71-73 Mustangs (I can say that, bc I own a 73 convertable,) as they were just a little too big. Ford designed the Mustang right out if it's market segment- Ioccoca corrected that with the Mustang II, and although the II was a lackluster car, the 74 sold rings around the 73, which pretty much proved Lee was right.

Sorry to call you out on something you were completely correct about, and I was completely wrong.
 
Do you have trouble reading? I said "pound for pound"- meaning all things being equal, the 8 will always potentially make more torque and power than a 4. Of course, with the same mods the 8 will always beat a 4. That should go without saying. I didn't think that had to be specifically spelled out for anyone. I guess I was wrong in your case. That wasn't the issue though. The claim was made that a 4 cyl can't perform like an 8, and I showed how it could. A turbocharged 4 cylinder can perform like an 8 cylinder. Perform like - meaning similar.

As for balancing the equation - I guess you don't race much. forced induction 4 cylinders are raced against natty 8's all the time. The forced induction on the 4 balances the equation because a natural 8 naturally makes more torque and power just by having 8 cylinders. The 4 needs the help to maintain a level playing field. It happens all the time. It's completely fair to compare a forced induction 4 to a naturally aspirated 8. Not vice-versa.


You've changed the basis of your argument. Can't go re-wording your statements, just to salvage your still-incorrect point.

Doesn't fly, internet tough guy.
 
You've changed the basis of your argument.

I didn't change anything. This was the claim made by someone else:

ranjam said:
You can't make a 4-cylinder engine perform like an 8-cylinder

I said you could, and showed how. You can't prove me wrong, because I'm not, so STFU.

I gotta go back to my assertion that you simply can't read well.
 
Back
Top