Ford V8

[Weatherlawyer]

How does the first Ford compare to the latest iteration, that is how does the 1930's environmentalist compare to the 2020 version?

[GB]

Try Google.

Prick.

--

[Dave Plowman (News)]

About 5% of the output. About the same input. ;-)

[Weatherlawyer]

When you think that engine bearings were poured, not fitted 100 years ago and the best oils needed to be washed out after each change, oil filters were just oiled mesh and timing was a matter of guesswork, I think that the early cars were remarkable by the time of these 1930's relics.

They came of age with the Ford. By WW2 they were making 30 and 40 litre monsters the same way. It is easy to forget the quantum leaps we are capable of.

The reason I asked is that Tesla development is in the same place that petrol engines were back then. Goodness knows what is in store for their development, once the environmental turkeys have been removed out of everybody's way.

[Weatherlawyer]

What kind of a shit for brains uses Google these days? Don't answer that I really don't want to know anything more about you.

[John]

The original ford V8 engine was a side valve engine.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. Electric car motors and batteries are already as near perfect as they can be got.

In the 1930s a car would do 40mpg a car today will do....40 mpg..

[Tim+]

Perhaps if you phrased your questions using conventional grammar and English you might get better responses?

Tim

[Chris Bartram]

Care to rephrase that in English?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not possible. Weatherlawyer lives on a different planet

[Chris Bartram]

I'd gathered that :-)

[Paul]

The Ford Model T used a 177 cu in (2.9 L) inline 4-cylinder engine. It was primarily a gasoline engine. It produced 20 hp (14.9 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h)

According to Ford Motor Company, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13?21 mpg-US (16?25 mpg-imp; 18?11 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol

Fuel system Gravity feed Holley, Kingston and Zenith carburettors one carburetor, a side-draft, single-venturi unit

The compression ratio was 3.98

******* By Neil Kaminar on Monday, December 13, 2010

The low compression of the Model T means that the combustion is not hot enough to form nitrogen oxides, the NOX, that forms smog.

The amount of carbon monoxide, CO, and unburnt carbon that the T puts out depends on how well the T is running and how the carburator and spark are adjusted.

Has anyone taken a T to a smog station to have it tested?

Neil

By John Carter on Monday, December 13, 2010

Believe it or not, in NJ a Model T is required to pass an emissions inspection if it is not registered as "Historic." All pre-1968 vehicles have to meet the same standard (1400ppm-HC, 8.5%-CO).

*******

Does it smell like petrol in here ?

Paul

[Paul]

Here's the emissions report from an emissions check on a Model T. Subject to someone setting the manual controls properly for the test of course.

HC ppm 253 <1400 ppm CO% 5.69 <8.5% CO2% 5.7 O2% 10.3

On another car

NOX 5PPM

Paul

[Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)]

Pretty random question for a DIY group. Brian

[Weatherlawyer]

Please excuse me. I am only just beginning to remember you are an idiot. IIRC the early versions of the People's Vagen could barely return 30mph. I can't believe that you know nothing about liquid battery cell development in the last few years.

You don't really believe that a mid-1930's first generation solid block 8 cylinder 1/4 ton of cast iron was capable of even glancing at a peak of 40mph on rural US highways, even downhill.

[Weatherlawyer]

That's good to know. So how was the side valve replaced by a more efficient high compression engine? And why?

[Weatherlawyer]

Not really, will type sar-chatechism suffice? "first Ford" meant the first Model 18.

By "latest iteration" I mean recent versions not necessarily Ford models. I gather that once the straight single casting pour, was developed as a technique, it did not take very long for other manufacturers to cotton on.

By cotton on I am referring to the sort of adsorbent pad, not necesarily made of coton if you can undertstand the term: "type" as being any prototypical adsorbent material absorbant.

When I stated: "environmentalist" I was conidering a nominal droopy drawered shed-like blissfully ignorant subspecies of incompetent, more likely a familiar of original Usenet trolls that think, because someone opens a subject for discussion about early internal combustion engines, one has the obligation to be a prick about it.

Will that suffice?

[Weatherlawyer]

Thanks Paul that was quite interesting.

[Weatherlawyer]

Quite so Mr Gaff, how are you keeping, OK I hope? I was wondering why anyone would take enough umbrage with strangers to attempt to upset them. Obviously affected by the lunar apse. I have a similar problem, that and unfortunately too old, these days, to care. Maybe that is a good thing?

It had occurred to me that with improvements continuing apace, Tesla might one day reconsider the aircraft market. I would love to hear of any developments with battery powered gliders. It is the obvious next phase in luxury vehicle technology.

[AJH]

Once the block casting was sorted it wasn't a big step to put push rods where the valve stems were and and OHV head on, this would have given an immediate increase in compression ratio as the empty space the valves previously opened into could be eliminated, and the relationship between thermal conversion to power is a straight line with compression ratio.

What I don't understand is what, other than higher engine speeds, the advantage of overhead cams give in relation to thermal efficiency?