I give up. Even if I'm right, I'm wrong. :lol:
Farrar
Printable View
Dunno who is right or wrong, but I do know now that Renault was hemorrhaging money throughout the 1980's (just learned that looking up info for another thread).
I always assumed that since Renault was able to buy a controlling interest in AMC and build a new factory in Canada, they were profitable. Apparently nothing could be further from the truth. Renault lost money every year between 1980 and 1986, racking up a staggering $5.75 billion in losses (more than $11 billion in 2010 dollars). New management was able to turn a profit in 1987 and 1988, in no small part by selling Renault's share of AMC to Chrysler, but by the end of the decade things had turned sour again (profits plunged 87% in 1989 alone).
Must be nice to be a government owned auto manufacturer. Thank God that could never happen in the United States. Oh wait, nevermind....
Bill Robertson
#5939
Grow up. If there's a genuine need to reengineer something I'm there with bells on, but I'm a firm believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... with the additional caveat of don't go crowing from the rooftops using as flowery language as possible on "how badly engineered and sub-standard these silly little cars are!". Stick to the facts, wherever possible stickin gto solid engineering principles along the way....
What a complete and utter howler of a post!
1) Have you ever actually TRIED opening up the plug gaps on a stock coil? Given I *know* it'll maintain a spark under twice the pressure generated in a stock DeLorean engine, I'll cheerfully put money on it working just fine. Remember: I use it on my turbo engines under 15psi of boost producing well over 200hp. "Barely functional at best"?!?!?! Get a life...
2) You've got your facts completely backwards - it takes MORE energy to generate a spark when under more pressure, not less. I've repeated this fact a hundred times but you're still ignoring it.... can't think why.:umm:
3) Running a carburetor gives you much less control over the mixture and no engine likes to run lean, yet all will run pretty much fine when rich (not talking catalysts here!). The more you start to worry about emissions, the closer to stochiometry the engines are required to run. Stochiometry is where the spark plug has the easiest time.
Where's the "What he said" smiley gone....?
Umm.... not sure what you meant there, Ron.
Oh my gaaaawd. Did you really just write that? :lol: Your analogy of a spring is fundamentally flawed: You have to put the energy in to compress it in the first place, right? And as no energy transfer is 100% efficient, ipso facto more energy is lost compressing the gases in a diesel than in a petrol engine.
The efficiency of any heat engine is fundamentally linked to its compression ratio, but not for the reason you state.
That reads like one of those spam emails that says "As seen on TV and even Oprah!"
They don't "agree" with you Bill. I'd love to get a good running stock DeLorean on a gas analyser and dyno and let you do your best with the ignition to see if we get any improvements at all.... but that ain't gonna happen, so we'll just keep fighting on here...
You WHAT?! Complete and utter nonsense.... ask yourself why even modern cars use "coil packs" !?! Capacitive ignition was used for a brief period to overcome problem associated with coil charge times. Even a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me that:
"Capacitor discharge ignition (CDI) or thyristor ignition is a type of automotive electronic ignition system which is widely used in outboard motors, motorcycles, lawn mowers, chainsaws, small engines, turbine-powered aircraft, and some cars."
Well done demonstrating another yawning chasm in your knowledge.
...then did a bunch of othe rstuff to make it run right but you never said how it ran before you decided to "upgrade"?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-llexKFzKFC...255B1%255D.jpg
Funny then that the numbers cast into DeLorean parts like the intake manifold, sump and more are actually Renault part numbers.... even the camshaft numbers Bill has posted in his Volvo literature are traceable Renault numbers....!
Yeah, check out Renault's performance today....
Because real engineers, who build ignition systems for a living, disagree with you?
For example, Pages 61 and 62 of the afore mentioned SAE paper (Lucas' commentary):
"The effects of spark duration, air-fuel ratio (A/F), compression ratio and ignition advance were observed.... [11:1 compression ratio results] For these conditions a 2 millisecond spark was adequate until the A/F exceeded 16:1, whereas for a 7:1 compression ratio 2000 milliseconds were necessary for this A/F.... The effect is aggravated by low compression ratio."
Page 64 [Delco engineers' response]:
"... Similarly, with higher compression ratios, the mixture temperatures and pressures at the time of ignition are increased. These conditions reduce the spark duration required to prevent any engine misfires for the same A/F."
This particular exchange involved the study's spark duration tests, but the effects of higher compression also apply to spark energy, gap projection, and electrode size: any given fuel/air mixture is easier to ignite under higher compression than the exact same mixture is under lower compression.
Bill Robertson
#5939
Easier to ignite has nothing to do with the voltage required to break down the air gap of the spark plug.
The plug will spark at whatever voltage is sufficient to bridge the gap, no matter what the 'maximum output' voltage of your coil is, no matter what your compression ratio is, and no matter what your A/F is.
Easier to ignite has everything to do with how wide you set the gap. If you set the gap too narrow on a low compression engine (harder to ignite), you risk misfiring not only because the spark voltage will be too low, but because the flame front will be too small.
It's no historical coincidence that American manufacturers widened their plug gaps at the same time they were dropping compression ratios.
Bill Robertson
#5939
[Man, you're really going to make me work here....]
I was being sarcastic (Bill & Steve)....well, sardonic:
Well, It went like this:
[Well, that wasn't so bad...all of the cut and paste reminded me of working for Equifax...at least it wasn't Assembler.]
========
Well, since I'm already here, again:
RE:
( It didn't take long, the very next post in the thread: )
Yeah, you *DID* mention it, but saying, ...
...does not remotely address '"performance" including HP & Emissions', whether you did when you said a hotter coil alone would increase it, or your emissions (to name but a few).
Just another extraneous truth.
And, yeah it was where you quoted from an even earlier thread, YOURSELF! :hysterical:
You *ARE* getting sneaky! I'll have to try that one...
=====
I was proud of this post until now.:huh: