|
Aston Martin Vantage: Mergers & Aquisitions in the front, cocaine in a nightclub toilet stall in the back.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Paging Lloyd https://twitter.com/tomwookieford/status/1336297273651830786
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
I follow a guy on Instagram who has done this but of course I can't remember his loving username to see if it's his or not. I don't think it is which means there's more than 1!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
This Volvo rocks, despite vossens with questionable track width choice
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
This might've been posted before, but not recently. Home machine ship guy rebuilds a Ferrari V12, including making his own cams and welding up the loving block to fit Testarossa heads (what the gently caress junkyards is he going to?): https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-project-cars/frankenferrari-v12-ferrari-308/148959/page1/
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
boxen posted:This might've been posted before, but not recently. God drat. If I could have even half of that guys automotive and engineering knowledge beamed into my head I would be so happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Diametunim posted:God drat. If I could have even half of that guys automotive and engineering knowledge beamed into my head I would be so happy. Why would you want to build a Ferrari I6?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Why would you not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Imperador do Brasil posted:Why would you want to build a Ferrari I6? Perfect kinda thing to drop into a 80s ltd squire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Hot take: wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 06:49
|
|
|
antimatt posted:Hot take: wrong thread. Looks like an unlicensed E30 in a bad video game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
boxen posted:This might've been posted before, but not recently. This was posted a while back but I haven't checked back in for a while so I appreciate the reminder!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
You rarely ever saw these in the UK and to see one this fresh looking in 2020??????????? S reg so 1998 if I'm not mistaken. https://twitter.com/ChodSpot/status/1336687565471158275?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
AirRaid posted:Is it an automotive Mullet? Plain in the front, party at the back? I always thought that was the Ranchero/El Camino but maybe it's just a joke I heard growing up 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:You rarely ever saw these in the UK and to see one this fresh looking in 2020??????????? S reg so 1998 if I'm not mistaken. It's always fun seeing old but minty economy cars in places they shouldn't be. Like the blue Ford Tempo that I sometimes see parked at the grocery store I go to...
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Shrapnig posted:Looks like an unlicensed E30 in a bad video game. That's actually what I thought too. I still love it. There was a time when I had a plan to make a convertible out of every model of 2 door Volvo, and a pickup out of every wagon. Then I learned how hard bodywork is and gave up. I do still have a tiny plan in the back of my mind for chopping my current 122 but I doubt I'll do it, it made the car great and ruined it at the same time. Also the 240 is slightly better when you start with a Bertone, for the more raked windshield:
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Does look weirdly great. But dont roll over, you'll be crushed and so will everyone else in it
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Does look weirdly great. But dont roll over, you'll be crushed and so will everyone else in it I doubt that an unmodified car would fare much better though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:I doubt that an unmodified car would fare much better though. Well given they started (by the looks of it) with a 240 (242?) coupe...... it most certainly would have fared a hell of a lot better. Those Volvos were years ahead of their time in passive safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:I doubt that an unmodified car would fare much better though. Volvo are known for occasionally stacking cars to show how strong they are...   
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Volvo are known for occasionally stacking cars to show how strong they are... They even added more weight by virtue of the stacking material. Some would say it spreads the weight more, but dude! they added more! (I do have an unnatural hatred for Ovlovs though)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
I wish old Volvo still existed 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I wish old Volvo still existed Some faculty member where I went to grad school drove a P1800 regularly, and I loved it. ( Although, now I honestly can't recall if it was the coupe or wagon, but both are good car stuff.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
It’s one thing when Koenigsegg develops FreeValve cam-less engines, a whole other thing when a dude builds his own proof of concept on a single cylinder engine in his garage with Arduino ECU 🤯 https://youtu.be/k_MrPylnsDg Guy also built his own 6x6 Wrangler and turned a Boxster into a 60’s F1 cart. https://youtu.be/AJt6sr31caY
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
BuckyDoneGun posted:It’s one thing when Koenigsegg develops FreeValve cam-less engines, a whole other thing when a dude builds his own proof of concept on a single cylinder engine in his garage with Arduino ECU 🤯 Both of those links are ridiculously badass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 01:22
|
|
EVERYWHERE 
|
I did a shitload of research on independently actuated valves and came to the same conclusion over and over. Yes it's possible but it puts more strain on the engine than a traditional valvetrain, so it's good for racing, but you'll never make it more fuel efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I did a shitload of research on independently actuated valves and came to the same conclusion over and over. Yes it's possible but it puts more strain on the engine than a traditional valvetrain, so it's good for racing, but you'll never make it more fuel efficient. Why would it put more strain on the engine? Freevalve can make workload smooth as silk dynamically depending on throttle position. Shorter open cycles, no cross-opening during light load with long open cycles with decent amount of cross-opening during full throttle. transition between cycles shouldn't be drastic, they are just electronically actuated switches (on/off/gradual opening) much like injectors so can be "mapped" to do a gradual transition instead of 'full race'/'eco mode' switch. With some more coding it can even adapt how it works to current state of engine, adapting cycles and loads to current errors and faults instead of just not working (looking at you, older jaguar v12 engines). Hell, the thing can be even made aftermarket plug and play, governed by ECU instead of ECU relying on camshaft sensors. I just don't see how it puts strain on the engine, its less moving parts. Erulisse fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Dec 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
Conversion losses. You are taking energy required to drive a valvetrain, which is a shitload by the way, and converting it into another form of energy, then converting it again. A traditional valvetrain takes mechanical rotation energy from the crankshaft, to rotational energy through the timing system, to rotational energy in the camshafts, to linear energy in the valves. It's all mechanical. With any type of independently actuated valve system, you require the crankshaft energy to convert into some sort of other energy, whether it's pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric. Then it needs to eventually be converted back to mechanical energy at the valves. Any conversion of energy has efficiency losses. There are at least two in a camless system where there is a comparatively small amount in a valve train. These rob the engine of energy in far greater quantities than you get with efficiency gains of independently operated valves. Especially when you have to compete with active variable cam timing on both intake and exhaust like modern cars have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Conversion losses. You are taking energy required to drive a valvetrain, which is a shitload by the way, and converting it into another form of energy, then converting it again. A traditional valvetrain takes mechanical rotation energy from the crankshaft, to rotational energy through the timing system, to rotational energy in the camshafts, to linear energy in the valves. It's all mechanical. With any type of independently actuated valve system, you require the crankshaft energy to convert into some sort of other energy, whether it's pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric. Then it needs to eventually be converted back to mechanical energy at the valves. Any conversion of energy has efficiency losses. There are at least two in a camless system where there is a comparatively small amount in a valve train. These rob the engine of energy in far greater quantities than you get with efficiency gains of independently operated valves. Especially when you have to compete with active variable cam timing on both intake and exhaust like modern cars have. I'm not anywhere near the level needed to properly analyze energy efficiencies, but wouldn't the ability to have a more control (with continuously variable lift/duration of the valves, along with the ability to do cylinder deactivation by shutting off fuel and leaving the valves open) allow for efficiencies to offset the conversion in actuation? I'm thinking carburetor versus fuel injection -- there's significant conversion and mechanical operations with a high pressure fuel pump, fuel injectors, etc., versus the venturi effect of a carburetor just drawing fuel in... but the control level allows precision and through that, efficiency. Edit: Actually, the whole conversation is outdated. We should be capacitance-overdriving our electric motors by now. meatpimp fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Dec 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
I guess mechanical systems have similar levels of control nowadays, more a question which control system is cheaper. But I'm wondering, could it help with the conversion losses if you attached a generator to the turbo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Hell fuckin' yeah https://twitter.com/CCCuration/status/1338067388328255494?s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I guess mechanical systems have similar levels of control nowadays, more a question which control system is cheaper. No. that would be even more energy losses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Hell fuckin' yeah Owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Hell fuckin' yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Conversion losses. You are taking energy required to drive a valvetrain, which is a shitload by the way, and converting it into another form of energy, then converting it again. A traditional valvetrain takes mechanical rotation energy from the crankshaft, to rotational energy through the timing system, to rotational energy in the camshafts, to linear energy in the valves. It's all mechanical. With any type of independently actuated valve system, you require the crankshaft energy to convert into some sort of other energy, whether it's pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric. Then it needs to eventually be converted back to mechanical energy at the valves. Any conversion of energy has efficiency losses. There are at least two in a camless system where there is a comparatively small amount in a valve train. These rob the engine of energy in far greater quantities than you get with efficiency gains of independently operated valves. Especially when you have to compete with active variable cam timing on both intake and exhaust like modern cars have. I'm curious, does the same apply for gigantic marine diesels that max out at like 110 rpm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:I'm curious, does the same apply for gigantic marine diesels that max out at like 110 rpm? Those typically don't run at a wide RPM range, so having variable valve timing doesn't get you much. You just optimize for the RPM it's going to live at and don't worry about added complexity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
boxen posted:Those typically don't run at a wide RPM range, so having variable valve timing doesn't get you much. You just optimize for the RPM it's going to live at and don't worry about added complexity. We were fighting with that at my last company. A lot of shipping contracts, especially for bulk cargo, are more profitable if the ship slow steams (thus burning less fuel) and arrives on time rather than running at the designed RPM and then waiting at anchorage for days. How much the ship slow steams varies by the terms of the contract. In theory, variable valve timing would buy you some more fuel economy there. Also you could shift the ship into reverse without engaging a new set of cams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:We were fighting with that at my last company. A lot of shipping contracts, especially for bulk cargo, are more profitable if the ship slow steams (thus burning less fuel) and arrives on time rather than running at the designed RPM and then waiting at anchorage for days. How much the ship slow steams varies by the terms of the contract. In theory, variable valve timing would buy you some more fuel economy there. Could you share more about this? This seems like awesome boat insanity poo poo which is...close enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Could you share more about this? This seems like awesome boat insanity poo poo which is...close enough. Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:Conversion losses. You are taking energy required to drive a valvetrain, which is a shitload by the way, and converting it into another form of energy, then converting it again. A traditional valvetrain takes mechanical rotation energy from the crankshaft, to rotational energy through the timing system, to rotational energy in the camshafts, to linear energy in the valves. It's all mechanical. With any type of independently actuated valve system, you require the crankshaft energy to convert into some sort of other energy, whether it's pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric. Then it needs to eventually be converted back to mechanical energy at the valves. Any conversion of energy has efficiency losses. There are at least two in a camless system where there is a comparatively small amount in a valve train. These rob the engine of energy in far greater quantities than you get with efficiency gains of independently operated valves. Especially when you have to compete with active variable cam timing on both intake and exhaust like modern cars have. Once variable valve timing is taken into consideration I'd be interested in differences in efficiency. Additionally there are losses in traditional valvetrain that may not be necessary in a, for example, pneumatic system, including heavy springs to control harmonics, hydraulic-adjusted lifters, increased oil flow/pressure, especially to oil-hungry variable timing components. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think you've considered all the variables. (another example might be for a pneumatic system using regenerative braking techniques to generate the system pressure required to drive the valvetrain during demand)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 00:10
|
|