Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

4 Pages«<234
wbute Offline
#61 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 8:31:20 PM(UTC)
wbute

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/01/2010(UTC)
Posts: 671

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Actually, with a two stroke you add a flywheel weight to give it more torque and smooth out power delivery. I have never heard of a cam shaft being added....
detective Offline
#62 Posted : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 8:53:28 PM(UTC)
detective

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 284

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
CWC is Campbell, Wyant and Cannon. Just another specialist supplier to the Vehicle Manufacturers, and they were more than likely consulted for many casting applications by GM. I'm pretty sure many GMH V8 camshafts have CWC on them.

http://www.cwctextron.com/history.html

https://www.kautex.de/en...ive/cwc-textron-castings

I'm not surprised Ford used an outsource for the alloy heads. As I said GM did the same for L88 heads and ZL1 blocks, plus all their alloy intakes - all from Winters. GMH used outside sources for their alloy Holden engine bits, not sure who yet. Possibly CAC whom GMH owned around 50% of.


CWC was by 1948 a fully owned subsidiary of GM...The corporation had a multitude of uses for this firm post war and was bought up to that end.

HK1837 Offline
#63 Posted : Wednesday, 22 March 2017 4:59:22 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,612

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
If GM bought it in 1948 then they sold it pretty quickly, Textron owned it in 1956 and still do if the 'web is correct.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Online
#64 Posted : Wednesday, 22 March 2017 10:54:14 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Oh. Use desmodromic drive or timing gears instead. Why would overhead cam loose torque? Isn't stroke, rod length and flywheel weight and general reciprocating mass what determines torque? Doesn't a cam determine where and how power is delivered?
There are plenty of old style dirt bikes that are torquey with over head cams. I mean my XR 500 has over head cam, radial/hemispheric valves. Huge reciprocating mass and long piston skirt. My Husaberg 450 has overhead cam, low reciprocating mass, next to no piston skirt and obviously an overhead cam yet makes probably less torque but three times as much power.
Or do you mean that the overhead cam will allow for higher revs due to less valve float which will lead to potential to reduce reciprocating mass, higher revs, more power but sacrificing torque?


You are correct in saying that the 450 Husaberg has grunt way down low, as I have a 2008 one and all the other 450 bikes don't have that much low down torque at it has and yet again it does rev well, the piston skirt is short but it's not old tec piston at all.

The XR500 has a small cam and low compression 8.5:1 but the 450 Berg has a lot bigger cam and 13:1 comp, as for cams in cars fuel economy comes in to play, so it has to do with how the cam can be made to work, look at the commodore 3.0L VL she has no torque right from down low as a 3.3L EFI does. and the Falcon OHC 6 cyl had no torque right down low EA 3.9L with auto 3 speed and 2.77 diff boy were they a slug taking off the line and the EB 4.0L engine that was in my XG ute with a manual trying to take off in 1st at times was a flat to the floor job on a bit on a hill and that ran a 3.27 diff, the DOHC 4.0L has much better torque down low because of the cams and the ability to advance and retard, not to mention the 6sp box and low 1st gear helps a lot.

But all in all how a cam lifts the valve between a OHV and a OHC is fundamentally different on the start of opening the valve and this is why OHV are good for good low down torque from 500RPM Were a OHC don't as a rule but they can make good low torque like it is so with the husaberg 450 but it's made for endure work not the road or fuel economy.

So as a 308 V8 being a OHC and with the ADR laws I can not see it being a low down torque engine, remember the Gen 3 V8 is a OHV and it's not put to shame with the Ford OHC V8's.

Stroke and rod length is part of it but it's the stroke to rod ratio that is a key point and the cam is the brain and the head ports design comes into it as well, so it's rod ratio that predicts the foundation and then the cam can be built around this fundamental point to what can best do with that foundation and then the heads are what ever you can do best with such you have and if the heads are not the best, you work the cam to take best advantage you can out of them.
castellan Online
#65 Posted : Wednesday, 22 March 2017 11:01:08 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
Actually, with a two stroke you add a flywheel weight to give it more torque and smooth out power delivery. I have never heard of a cam shaft being added....


It's all in the ports with a 2 smoke the ports design are now your cam as are the mechanical exhaust port valve and reed valve help adjust any torque and power.
detective Offline
#66 Posted : Wednesday, 22 March 2017 8:11:27 PM(UTC)
detective

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/01/2013(UTC)
Posts: 284

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
If GM bought it in 1948 then they sold it pretty quickly, Textron owned it in 1956 and still do if the 'web is correct.


...Never said they bought the firm in 1948...just that they owned it, and the earliest Australian "project 320" prototype engines were cast by the GM owned subsidiary CWC in 1945-46.


... A little sage advice .. Too much (mis)information known by a few leads to a shitty, prickly forum that makes one reticent to engage in....JUST SAYIN' !

Edited by user Wednesday, 22 March 2017 8:29:12 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Premier 350 Offline
#67 Posted : Wednesday, 22 March 2017 8:44:34 PM(UTC)
Premier 350

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 480
Man
Australia
Location: On a build over WWII airfield. Got the .50 cal cases from my driveway to prove it

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Here is a related topic. This is now a photo in the public domain so it can be shared. Website shows 1965, probably closer to 1966 for the HT interior buck to be there. The HT buck you see on the right is the same one in the 2nd and 3rd photos. Look at the clock on the wall and the panelling and you can see the aspect of the 1st photo relative to the first.

Once you've zoomed in and looked around at the LC and HQ stuff all over the walls, have a close look at the HQ in the centre, with its chassis buck to the left. This was the car that was cancelled and replaced with the HQ design as we know it. This proves that for the HQ original release of 1970 to be met that there was already a lot of work gone into the car's design, remembering that its underpinnings were HK-HT not a whole new design as the HQ ended up. Also maybe ponder how the claims can be true that Ford Australia staff went to Detroit in the middle of 1968 to begin design on the XA Falcon? How did they get the cancelled design from a GMH studio? You can also see the 111" wheelbase on the sign behind the car on the wall. The image also shows you how far they were advanced with the HT's design at this stage assuming maybe late 1965. This means the HK was well and truly signed off by this stage, which also shows that for the HQ to start from scratch in early 1968 as claimed to be finished ready for the start of 1971 is near impossible.

http://www.hrc.org.au/im.../design%20studio%202.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...ford/design%20studio.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...0in%20seating%20buck.jpg



Great photos, and thanks for them. While I see similar elements between the "HG" and the XA its not an XA. It lacks the slightly ludicrous bulge/ridge to the front guards, and ditto for the 'nose' of the XA's bonnet. No sign of the wrap around front indicator/parkers either.
The rear door line and door handles do give a slight similarity.

One possibility is that perhaps Holden had whispers about what Frod were doing, perhaps from mutual suppliers, and wanted to gain insight into Ford's styling?
Highly unlikely though.
Attn camry drivers. The accelerator is the skinny pedal on the right.
HK1837 Offline
#68 Posted : Thursday, 23 March 2017 8:19:37 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,612

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Premier 350 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Here is a related topic. This is now a photo in the public domain so it can be shared. Website shows 1965, probably closer to 1966 for the HT interior buck to be there. The HT buck you see on the right is the same one in the 2nd and 3rd photos. Look at the clock on the wall and the panelling and you can see the aspect of the 1st photo relative to the first.

Once you've zoomed in and looked around at the LC and HQ stuff all over the walls, have a close look at the HQ in the centre, with its chassis buck to the left. This was the car that was cancelled and replaced with the HQ design as we know it. This proves that for the HQ original release of 1970 to be met that there was already a lot of work gone into the car's design, remembering that its underpinnings were HK-HT not a whole new design as the HQ ended up. Also maybe ponder how the claims can be true that Ford Australia staff went to Detroit in the middle of 1968 to begin design on the XA Falcon? How did they get the cancelled design from a GMH studio? You can also see the 111" wheelbase on the sign behind the car on the wall. The image also shows you how far they were advanced with the HT's design at this stage assuming maybe late 1965. This means the HK was well and truly signed off by this stage, which also shows that for the HQ to start from scratch in early 1968 as claimed to be finished ready for the start of 1971 is near impossible.

http://www.hrc.org.au/im.../design%20studio%202.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...ford/design%20studio.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...0in%20seating%20buck.jpg



Great photos, and thanks for them. While I see similar elements between the "HG" and the XA its not an XA. It lacks the slightly ludicrous bulge/ridge to the front guards, and ditto for the 'nose' of the XA's bonnet. No sign of the wrap around front indicator/parkers either.
The rear door line and door handles do give a slight similarity.

One possibility is that perhaps Holden had whispers about what Frod were doing, perhaps from mutual suppliers, and wanted to gain insight into Ford's styling?
Highly unlikely though.


HQ not HG. HG didn't exist in 1965, it was added after this HQ design was canned. The photo caption says the Studio was setup for Management, it is possible at this viewing was when Bill Mitchell saw the proposed HQ and told them no - we know Bill Mitchell was here around this time which is probably where his interest in the Monaro stems from. The car as you see it isn't an XA as we know it, it is to me obviously the start of the design that became the XA, either directly or by other means. Initial concept designs rarely look like the final product, but the design cues are there. If that isn't an initial XA design then this isn't a HQ design, remembering this is a clay HQ coupe, that early HQ/XA isn't even at this stage yet:

http://s4.photobucket.co...ro-prototype008.jpg.html
https://au.pinterest.com/pin/551198441874193309/

Remember again this is late 1965. Ford have made it quite public the XA design was started in early 1968 in the USA, and had a big head start anyway as it used the prior model's underpinnings (exactly like a HK is a HR underneath). At this stage it is extremely unlikely GMH were bothered with what Ford were doing, it was Ford who were usually reacting to GMH who held the Lion's share of the market. The XR GT was a direct result of Ford finding out about the HK coupes, the GTS Special particularly (what became the GTS327).
The piece of evidence that joins the dots as to how this canned HQ concept re-emerged as the XA Falcon is still elusive, but it'll be out there if I'm right. We may know later this year.



_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Dr Terry Offline
#69 Posted : Thursday, 23 March 2017 9:10:56 AM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,212

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 43 time(s) in 41 post(s)
I disagree with your theory Byron, in part anyway.

As they say design is very subjective. You might see elements of the basic XA shape in there somewhere, but others might not.

As I said earlier, to me it looks more like a fat TC Cortina.

Ford Australia have always said that the XA design 'began' in the US in 1968, but given some photos that have emerged in recent times I would doubt their claim.

Have a look at this: https://fordforums.com.a...&highlight=xa+design

Go down the page a bit to post #4 also.

It is titled Maverick design proposal 1968 & appears to be a complete clay rendering & even has an XB rear proposal.

There is a lot of Torino in there too.

For this to be this advanced in 1968, it must've begun a lot earlier than that.

Dr Terry

Edited by user Thursday, 23 March 2017 9:12:41 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#70 Posted : Friday, 24 March 2017 10:11:11 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,612

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
Here is a related topic. This is now a photo in the public domain so it can be shared. Website shows 1965, probably closer to 1966 for the HT interior buck to be there. The HT buck you see on the right is the same one in the 2nd and 3rd photos. Look at the clock on the wall and the panelling and you can see the aspect of the 1st photo relative to the first.

http://www.hrc.org.au/im.../design%20studio%202.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...ford/design%20studio.jpg

http://www.hrc.org.au/im...0in%20seating%20buck.jpg



I believe that the studio shown in the 1st piccy is not the same one as shown the the 2nd & 3rd. Everything around the clock is different & what appears to the a 'false' floor panel beneath the HQ is not seen in the other 2 piccies.

Dr Terry


This may be the same room from the other end, looks like an elevator in the centre that the old HQ design is on.

Design Studio
Design Studio

Edited by user Friday, 24 March 2017 10:12:39 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Shearer Offline
#71 Posted : Sunday, 26 March 2017 4:11:37 PM(UTC)
Shearer

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 58
Man

Here's some information on the XA design:

https://www.shannons.com...on-prototypes-exclusive/
castellan Online
#72 Posted : Monday, 27 March 2017 2:16:24 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
The XA Falcon started out as a Mercury, a comet I think it was going to be and USA canned it, as Mercury wanted a bigger car and we got the base of the XA from their but Ford Australia sure did the Hardtop and ute and p van and wagon, not to mention a lot more work would of been done on the sedan but the basic body work is what was going to be a Mercury.
Dr Terry Offline
#73 Posted : Monday, 27 March 2017 3:11:21 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,212

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 43 time(s) in 41 post(s)
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
The XA Falcon started out as a Mercury, a comet I think it was going to be and USA canned it, as Mercury wanted a bigger car and we got the base of the XA from their but Ford Australia sure did the Hardtop and ute and p van and wagon, not to mention a lot more work would of been done on the sedan but the basic body work is what was going to be a Mercury.


I've not heard that one before. Can you quote any sources or links ?

Dr Terry
If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
HK1837 Offline
#74 Posted : Monday, 27 March 2017 3:42:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 11,612

Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 63 post(s)
On that fordforums link you posted up before Terry, it is mentioned there.

Edited by user Monday, 27 March 2017 3:42:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Online
#75 Posted : Tuesday, 28 March 2017 11:03:12 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: castellan Go to Quoted Post
The XA Falcon started out as a Mercury, a comet I think it was going to be and USA canned it, as Mercury wanted a bigger car and we got the base of the XA from their but Ford Australia sure did the Hardtop and ute and p van and wagon, not to mention a lot more work would of been done on the sedan but the basic body work is what was going to be a Mercury.


I've not heard that one before. Can you quote any sources or links ?

Dr Terry


Yes it's on the Ford forum, but I found it on the web years ago, I may have it somewhere in my notes.
Some of the Ford people go off the rocker about any mention of such a thing, but I am sure that the Mercury it was based on is mainly about the outer skin, we would have a different dash for sure and maybe just maybe put the XY front suspension on it, so I do say it's truly a Aussie car in all, but the foundation of the XA overall style was from a Mercury that never made it into production, so in that sense no it's not a Mercury, but that where it comes from initially I am sure of that.

As for the XD that was what the Aussie boys created, there is no real class in sculpting that, but as to the XC Hardtop some of the yanks would of came down to help our boys with it.

I have an Uncle who worked with Ford USA and he worked with the team involved with creating the Cleveland V8 he told me and he came to Australia once doing testing work in the NT mainly and he had a spac attack as to our servilely backward government at the time, I think it was with P Keating, Ford USA were eager in setting up a program in NT and the back of NSW, but all the red tape and the struggle that went on, so clearly the ALP did not want any business and he said that Ford USA top people were really totally pissed off at how they were so ill treated and packed up for good, veering never to return as such a lazy backward 3rd rate socialist pack of backward bastards and they never came across another country treat them like that in the world ever.

That Uncle was in Australia some years ago retired, but I had the wog badly so I did not go see him, only talked on the phone, but I surely wanted really to talk all about Ford with him.
Maybe I could ask him about that Mercury.
Dr Terry Offline
#76 Posted : Tuesday, 28 March 2017 2:17:34 PM(UTC)
Dr Terry

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 5,212

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 43 time(s) in 41 post(s)
Correct me here if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that Mercury built their cars on existing Ford (or sometimes Lincoln) platforms. In other words for every Mercury there was always another vehicle on which it was based. The original Mercs of the late 30s were just Fords with extra trim, altered rooflines & uprated engines. The later Comets were all based on either Falcons or Fairlanes etc. The Mercury Cougar was a Mustang with different outer panels. There were also several import Mercurys like the 70s Capri, the Sierra & the later convertible Capri, again other 'base' vehicles.

What I'm getting at is, why would they be designing a Mercury from scratch, when their usual MO is to develop the base car first & then add the Mercury bits ?

Mercury is now a defunct brand, maybe the fact that many saw their cars as being 'badge engineering' might have lead to that.

Dr Terry

Edited by user Tuesday, 28 March 2017 2:21:29 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If at first you don't succeed, just call it Version 1.0
castellan Online
#77 Posted : Wednesday, 29 March 2017 9:43:08 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dr Terry Go to Quoted Post
Correct me here if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that Mercury built their cars on existing Ford (or sometimes Lincoln) platforms. In other words for every Mercury there was always another vehicle on which it was based. The original Mercs of the late 30s were just Fords with extra trim, altered rooflines & uprated engines. The later Comets were all based on either Falcons or Fairlanes etc. The Mercury Cougar was a Mustang with different outer panels. There were also several import Mercurys like the 70s Capri, the Sierra & the later convertible Capri, again other 'base' vehicles.

What I'm getting at is, why would they be designing a Mercury from scratch, when their usual MO is to develop the base car first & then add the Mercury bits ?

Mercury is now a defunct brand, maybe the fact that many saw their cars as being 'badge engineering' might have lead to that.

Dr Terry


Yes you are correct, but the body work was a fair bit different from the others at times, so a team must of been to do with working on that division.

I think the Comet in 1970-1 got a total new outer skin and for the 1972 Comet Mercury wanted a smaller car platform, so ditching the XA Falcon type thing would make sense for Mercury, all tho it may well of been a plan for our Falcon as well all along, as what would of Ford Aus done without the XA, made a XZ up date on the XY body, such a thing would not cut it against the up dated HQ Holden. not to mention that would a company just sit on it's hands in pixie land thinking that something will just turn up.
Not to mention Ford Aus in them days was trying to totally capitalise on being a fully Aussie car to win customers over like the Holden did and Ford Aus said that the other cars Ford USA had were to big and would of been a failure for Ford Aus.
Football meat pies kangaroos and Ford cars.BigGrin that was about selling an Australian product.

Look at the Mercury 1960 Comet it's our XK Falcon the rear end is totally different and she has 4 headlights and the 1964 has our XP bonnet.

I am sure that the team that design are people from all over the world who motor company's hire the best in that field, look at the Mustang they got some dude in to do that from Italy. VW got a Italian Porsche to kick the Beetle off thanks to the German Government and Australia got the FX Holden due to our Government and that Holden closest relative is the Vauxhall Opel thing, not a Chev because the Chev have chassis and a big 6 so they can't be related at all.

I don't know why most people think that each car company 'only' uses there own people to design, that to me would be a very backward thing to do as a company, as that would only lead to a company's failure, a cancer much like socialism caught in a vortex of it's own blighted ego driven madness.
The top design people I believe can move around all over the industry's and are not payed as a common wage earner and they don't open there mouth about some things or there career would be destroyed.
castellan Online
#78 Posted : Saturday, 29 April 2017 4:31:07 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,019

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: wbute Go to Quoted Post
You can safely say Holden were only the wagging tail of the GM dog. Only given permission to re-work ideas. They did it well though. Taking Euro handling and US engine ideas and making great cars. The Commodore was a good example.


Look what South Africa did to the Commodore in 1979 they made a Senator with the big 250ci Chev 6cyl shoved into it.

Them Chev 6 are much bigger than our Holden 6 and I have seen just how big them Chev 6 look in the Commodore, not to mention fitting of the air con as well.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2017, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.442 seconds.