SUV Market Over Seas.....And Question

[miked10270 0]

Hi Tony,

Y'know, we could talk Landys & Bio on PM... Or even start a new thread... Or... HIJACK this one!

What model Landy do you have? I've got 2; a Defender 110CSW with a TD300 engine & auto box, & a Series II with a Perkins diesel. Both have run on John Nicholson's "commercial" BioDiesel with no ill effects except to my wallet - buying AND shipping the stuff to me makes it more expensive than FossilDiesel and while I like the smell I'm not THAT green!.

What BioDiesel are you using? You know, any fuel oil will thicken up & "wax" at low temperature, it's just that the likes of Esso, BP etc... add an anti-waxing agent through Autumn & Winter, just as they add an anti-foam agent through Spring & Summer. In effect, the exact blend of FossilDiesel available at the pumps changes through the year.

Incidentally, have you ever thought of adding a vegetable fat fuel system? I did think about it, but I don't do enough journeys of a long enough duration to justify it.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[shropshire 0]

Hi Mike.

Dont laugh... It's a TD4 Freelander... I've run it on commercial Bio (from pumps) but that's only 10%..

I've tried SVO (Straight Veggie Oil - cooking) and it hasn't caused any problems, so far. But I've heard that the Lucas CAV fuel pumps can sieze.

I've the Fat based system on the web...here - but wouldn't do that to my baby.

More stuff ....clicky

http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/index.html

Remember to pay the extra TAX!!!!

Regards,
Tony

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

No, HP tells you power at one particular speed. In an internal combustion engine its normally the redline RPM. I don't drive at redline. Torque is a better rating or at least the RPM where 80% of the torque is made. Internal combustion engines are not constant HP by any means. Electric motors are more suited for that job.

Torque ratings are also given at one particular speed.

It's all just applied physics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[miked10270 0]

Hi Tony,

What's wrong with the TD4 Freelander? Great engine & transmission - maybe a bit lacking in ground clearance & space for what I do but more economical & "everyday practical" than a "Deafener"!

I think that the "issue" with SVO & Bio is that it can attack certain types of "rubber" seals - apparently the seals have to be some particular dupont polymer to resist this and there's a question about whether they are. Lucas etc... don't say! The fuel companies all shout "BE SCARED OF BIO"!!!![scared]

YET...

100% BioDiesel (Modified Waste Vegetable Fat) is commonly available in Europe from pumps without there being a queue of cars having their fuel systems replaced. I do wonder just how "harmful" bio is to cars in Britain yet it does no harm to those cars sold on the continent!!?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[psw097 0]

Of course it is - its a direct relationship.

KW = (NM * RPM)/9550

But torque tells you a data point that is not the redline (or very close to it).

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Of course it is - its a direct relationship.

KW = (NM * RPM)/9550

But torque tells you a data point that is not the redline (or very close to it).

So?

Torque is completely meaningless without data on the transmission ratios and wheel size.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[psw097 0]

We can go al the way to F=MA if you want. The original posts were about HP without mention of any sort of RPM. This car is better than that car because it has more horsepower...blah, blah.

Torque is the application of force, motion is not required (T=FR). Horsepower is work per unit time. (W=T/S) Movement is required for work.

So, torque has pleanty of meaning without knowing the transmission ratios or the wheel size.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

We can go al the way to F=MA if you want. The original posts were about HP without mention of any sort of RPM. This car is better than that car because it has more horsepower...blah, blah.

Torque is the application of force, motion is not required (T=FR). Horsepower is work per unit time. (W=T/S) Movement is required for work.

So, torque has pleanty of meaning without knowing the transmission ratios or the wheel size.

OK, let's go to F=MA since you offered.

Your car engine is producing 450 lb.ft of torque. What acceleration A is produced if the car's mass M is 100 slugs?

Please provide an answer without knowing anything about the transmission or tire diameter. I'll even allow you to ignore air and tire resistance.

Thank you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

Thanks. You're right, nothing wrong with Freelanders(except petrol ones..... our previous one was a dog!) - but they did get some stick from some hard-core Defender peeps. But on my Landrover Experience day, the instructors really rated them.
It could do with an extra 2" (couldn't we all) Off-road but not too sure what that does to the on-road handling... Most of my time is on road, so need consider this.

SVO : Apparently, with the CAV fuel pump, the thicker fuel can cause lubrication problems but these can be sorted with a heated fuel filter (soon to be added to mine, so I'll let you know).

Bio is definitly one way to go... if we all use it then the price will get hyked due to supply/demand pressures... but we have to do something and soon and its good to feel that I'm doing my bit.

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,434]

>So, torque has pleanty of meaning without knowing the transmission
>ratios or the wheel size.

Not really.

You have an engine generating 100 ft-lbs of torque. How fast will you accelerate?

I can generate around 200 ft-lbs of torque with a breaker bar. Am I more powerful than an engine that can generate 100 ft-lbs of torque?

For most applications, knowing the power is far more useful than knowing the torque. Knowing just the torque of an engine is like knowing that an engine can run at 7000 RPM. Not that useful without additional information.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Thanks. You're right, nothing wrong with Freelanders ... but they did get some stick from some hard-core Defender peeps.

Yeah... When you're in your Defender it's TOO tempting to ask a Freelander owner when they're "Going to give Ken & Barbie their Jeep back?"

Seriously, there's no basis for comparing the two - one's a car and the other's a truck! They're completely different tools for completely different jobs! Each is excellent in what it was designed to do, but they WERE designed for completely different things.

I remember when the Range Rover first came out. Again, "purists" looked down on their "car-like" qualities to the point where LandRover ended up sending a couple out on an expedition through some godawful "impassable" part of Central America to prove the Range Rover's off-road credibility. I think it was Australians who "created" a road through on this expedition and it was noted that the expedition actually consumed more beer than petrol, thus proving that the Range Rover was "economical"?

Regards,

Mike.

Edited to add:

LINK and to point out that Colonel John Blashford-Snell was involved - which is in itself proof of the expedition's insanity credentials!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[psw097 0]

"You have an engine generating 100 ft-lbs of torque. How fast will you accelerate? "
You have an engine generating 100 horsepower. How fast will you accelerate?

"Am I more powerful than an engine that can generate 100 ft-lbs of torque?"
Without the RPM I cannot know if you are more powerful. But, you are producing more stall torque. tell me the maximum RPM of both "motors" and I can take an accurate guess.

Since my original statement was "HP is a useless rating system without knowing the RPM" - you just proved my point with your 2 questions.

Knowing the power at an RPM or knowing the torque at an RPM will give you the other. Knowing the torque without RPM is far more usefull than knowing the power with no mention of RPM. If you know the RPM it doesn't matter unless the RPM is at a data point that isn't new (like redline).

Example:

Car 1 - 157KW
Car 2 - 165KW
Everything being equal what would be a better choice for an automatic transmission? You would have to pick more HP.

Car 1 - 157KW @5200 RPM redline 5500
Car 2 - 165KW @6300 RPM redline 6500
You'd still have to pick car 2, it just spins faster.

Or...with torque.

Car 1 - 330 NM
Car 2 - 270 NM
Now you'd pick car 1.

Car 1 - 330 NM @ 3000 RPM redline 5500
Car 2 - 260 NM @ 5000 RPM redline 6500
You would still pick car 1. It produces its torque at a lower RPM that is more suited to using a transmission that picks the shift points for you lower than redline. I can also guess HP by knowing the redline since a naturally aspired internal combustion engine will be have a semi-flat torque curve with some droop towards the redline.

The exapmle is real - the first is my Explorer with a 4 liter and automatic. The second is my Mazda6 with 3 liters and standard. The 6 with an automatic (not using the semi-auto feature) sucks for performance once there is any load on it, but with the standard it can scream. The Explorer could care less about the load and accelerates just fine at the shiftpoints seleceted by the automatic.

[billvon 2,434]

>Car 1 - 330 NM
>Car 2 - 270 NM
>Now you'd pick car 1.

Not always. If car 2 had an air-cooled two stroke that redlined at 8000RPM, and car 1 had a diesel that was limited to 3500RPM, you'd be much better off with car 2. That's why power is a much more important figure of merit than torque.

Torque and RPM almost don't matter in terms of final performance; they just affect transmission design. You can compensate for low torque or low RPM with a different transmission. You cannot compensate for lack of power.

>Car 1 - 330 NM @ 3000 RPM redline 5500
>Car 2 - 260 NM @ 5000 RPM redline 6500
>You would still pick car 1.

If I were designing a vehicle, I would choose the engine in car 2. With a good transmission it will out-accelerate, out-pull and out-speed the engine from car 1. You give an example of how car 1 would be better if car 2 had a poor transmission, and that is certainly true. But that's a problem with the transmission, not the engine.

[psw097 0]

I completily agree with you - in theory. My complaint is in practice - how horsepower is commonly presented.

I just finished a magazine article request. The initial request was for the advantages of AC motors over 25 HP. The first thing I had to do was call the editor and ask what the hell he wanted. Did he want me to write about 40,000RPM 2-pole spindle motors for skim cutting AL wingspars, a 56-pole 250RPM torque motor for direct drive or something inbetween. Induction or synchronous, base speed or top speed, peak or continuous, etc. To him 25HP should have been enough to tell the tale - its not.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I completily agree with you - in theory. My complaint is in practice - how horsepower is commonly presented.

I just finished a magazine article request. The initial request was for the advantages of AC motors over 25 HP. The first thing I had to do was call the editor and ask what the hell he wanted. Did he want me to write about 40,000RPM 2-pole spindle motors for skim cutting AL wingspars, a 56-pole 250RPM torque motor for direct drive or something inbetween. Induction or synchronous, base speed or top speed, peak or continuous, etc. To him 25HP should have been enough to tell the tale - its not.

Well, in THIS post you claimed torque was better than BHP, but you still haven't presented any evidence that it's better. All you have shown so far is that you can't predict acceleration with either torque or BHP without additional information, which is what I said and what you disputed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[psw097 0]

"Torque is a better rating" was the wording if you want to be that picky. A better rating when no RPM is stated. When quoting everyone needs to quote the entire thought not just the parts they like. Anyway its all down to opinion so there is no point in continuing.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

"Torque is a better rating" was the wording if you want to be that picky. A better rating when no RPM is stated. .

No it's not, for reasons that Bill gave. Torque in the absence of rpm is completely useless to predict or even estimate anything much at all. At least with bhp and the vehicle weight you can make a reasonable estimate of acceleration.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[HydroGuy 0]

LOL...I used to see the torque vs HP debates on Mustang and SS Camaro websites.

I have a 4 door now...
5.5L 24-valve V-8
469 hp @ 6,100 rpm
516 lb-ft @ 2,650 - 4,500 rpm
0-60 mph in 4.5 seconds
1/4 in 12.4 seconds
4/50,000 mile warranty

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[justinb138 0]

Quote

4/50,000 mile warranty

Ford or Chevy?

If it's Ford, good luck getting anything fixed under warranty.

My brother has a 2001 Ford Lightning that needed a new engine 2 years ago (after 29000 miles on the original ). It took a year and a half and a lawsuit to get it fixed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I have no idea why SUVs are so popular. "Sport Utility Vehicle"???

I once went to a party at a co-worker's house. I drove my little Mazda Protege, many of the other co-workers took their fat-ass SUVs. There was a hill leading up the un-paved driveway towards the road. When I watched people leave, their fat-ass SUVs were having a hard time getting up that hill, whereas my little mazda just zipped right up there.

Only problem is, I can never see my car in the parking lot because it's usually lost in the canyon between two SUVs.

SUVs suck. the suspension is not designed for that much weight & the center of balance is too high. I read an article about people who drive SUVs, saying it goes back to childhood- people associate being held up high with safety. So essentially, people would rather FEEL safe than BE safe.

another point the article mentioned was active safety (center-of-gravity, turning radius, agility, braking distance, etc. ) vs. passive safety (size, air-bags, seatbelts, crumple-zones, bumpers)

My car is higher in terms of active safety: It takes less momentum so it can get out of the way easier, and brake sooner etc.

The article points out that SUV buyers basically treat accidents as inevitable, so they're only interested in the passive safety features (I've got a big ass car, so when I run into someone, they'll get hurt worse than me)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

4/50,000 mile warranty

Ford or Chevy?

If it's Ford, good luck getting anything fixed under warranty.

My brother has a 2001 Ford Lightning that needed a new engine 2 years ago (after 29000 miles on the original ). It took a year and a half and a lawsuit to get it fixed.

I never had any trouble with Ford warranties.

I had a lot of trouble with Toyota, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[HydroGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

4/50,000 mile warranty

Ford or Chevy?

If it's Ford, good luck getting anything fixed under warranty.

My brother has a 2001 Ford Lightning that needed a new engine 2 years ago (after 29000 miles on the original ). It took a year and a half and a lawsuit to get it fixed.

I've had a 94 Ford SVT Cobra and a 01 SS Camaro. I felt my Ford was put together better than my Chevy. The fit/finish on exterior and interior pieces was better...and my Ford was 7 years older.

They both had transmissions made by Borg Warner...or was it Tremec...I don't remember, as one company purchased another way back when.

Chevy seems to like to waste space with the way they shape their body panels, and they have horrible blind spots (Vettes, Camaros).

Ford has had problems in the past with their SVT lines. They got sued over 99 Cobras not producing the stated flywheel HP. Had to recall them and put in new, lower flowing exhaust systems to barely cover it. They have had problems with the Lightning motors as well.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary