Bad design !

For other car-related discussions not covered in other sections.

Moderators: scimjim, philhoward, erikscimitardemon, Roger Pennington, Lukeyboy46, Terry Rickard

User avatar
Corky
RSSOC Member
Posts: 10575
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:02 am
Location: Macclesfield
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by Corky » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:40 am

philhoward wrote:2 reasons for the price of one IMHO
............ and they are ?

(At a guess)

The garage over estimates the time it will take so they don't lose out?
They use expensive non pattern parts to cover themselves?


Steve
Current:- SS1 Ti RG sprint car. VW Touareg 3.0 V6
Prev:- Sabre Ti, 3xSS1 Ti, SS1 16v Turbo Racer, 5XGTC, 2XSE6B, 2XSE5A, 2XV6 Coupe, Sabre 6
Project Threads & YouTube

“It's not the winning, it's the taking apart that counts"

User avatar
philhoward
RSSOC Member
Posts: 23999
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Staffs, UK
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 523 times
Contact:

Re: Bad design !

Post by philhoward » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:50 am

Sorry - reply was to Roger!

Turning the engine 2 revolutions both seats the belt and checks you don't have valve to piston interference.


Phil Howard
Scimitarweb Forum Admin
SS1 1600 Rooster Turbo; Sabre Mk1.5, Sabre Mk2
Previous: SE5/5a/SS1 No.1/SS1 Rooster/SS1 1800Ti/SE5a 24 Valve
http://www.ss1turbo.com
Never try and argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you based on experience.

User avatar
Roger Pennington
RSSOC Member
Posts: 19247
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:43 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 448 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by Roger Pennington » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:15 pm

That's true Phil, though I'd suggest there's a fundamental difference - if the job's been done properly, there shouldn't be any possibility of valve/piston contact, but no matter how well or badly the job has been done, you will *always* have to settle the belts before checking the tension. So I'd say the first check is the essential, the second is just a "peace of mind" thing to settle any doubts :)


....Roger

RSSOC member (since 1982)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Image

"Condition can be bought at any time; Originality, once lost, is gone forever" - Doug Nye

Barrie James
RSSOC Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:26 pm
Location: Shanklin, ISLE OF WIGHT
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by Barrie James » Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:43 pm

In a properly designed engine: are there any? The camshaft would be shaft driven from the crankshaft.

How about this for an idea. Horizontally opposed, six cylinder 2.5Ltr, air cooled. Twin contra rotating crankshafts, two con-rods per piston, shaft driven single overhead camshafts. Would cost a mint, but last forever.


Barrie.
2000 MGF Wedgwood SE
2002 Peugeot Partner 1400
RSSOC 2778

User avatar
Coupe Racing
RSSOC Member
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:51 pm
Location: Nr Telford - Shropshire
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by Coupe Racing » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:05 pm

Who needs camshafts when you can have hydraulic activated valves


Blessed are the Cheese makers

Better to be an hour early than 1 minute late

User avatar
Roger Pennington
RSSOC Member
Posts: 19247
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:43 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 448 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by Roger Pennington » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:12 pm

Four cylinder Vintage Bentleys (3 & 4.5 litre) had a shaft driven overhead camshaft.

In the case of the six cylinder cars (6.5 and 8 litre) they had a different system - the three-throw drive. Basically, driven off the nose of the crank, was a small crankshaft with three journals at 120 degrees. The camshaft had a similar short crankshaft on the end, and they were linked by three connecting rods, running up the height of the engine, which transmitted the drive. :D


....Roger

RSSOC member (since 1982)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Image

"Condition can be bought at any time; Originality, once lost, is gone forever" - Doug Nye

User avatar
scimjim
RSSOC Member
Posts: 35718
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Gloucester
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by scimjim » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:22 pm

Are there any engines with electrically actuated valves yet? Solenoids won't sap engine power :-)


Jim King

Current: SE5 (8Ball), TI SS1 (snotty), 1600 SS1 (G97), 1600 SS1 (C686CCR), 2.5TD SE5a (diesel 5a), 6 x random other SS1s.
Previous: SE5, 3 x SE5a, 2 x SE6a, 3 x SE6b, GTC, 2.9i GTC, 3 x 1600 SS1, 1300 SS1, Mk1 Ti Sabre, Mk1.5 CVH Sabre
Chief mechanic for: 1400 K series SS1 (Megan3), 1400 CVH EFi SS1 (Grawpy), Sabre/MX5 auto (The Flying Broomstick),
1300 SS1 (Number One) & Sarah's coupe.
CURE THE FAULT - NOT THE SYMPTOMS

User avatar
scimjim
RSSOC Member
Posts: 35718
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Gloucester
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Bad design !

Post by scimjim » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:27 pm

Barrie James wrote:In a properly designed engine: are there any? The camshaft would be shaft driven from the crankshaft.

How about this for an idea. Horizontally opposed, six cylinder 2.5Ltr, air cooled. Twin contra rotating crankshafts, two con-rods per piston, shaft driven single overhead camshafts. Would cost a mint, but last forever.
I'm not sure why shaft driven would be any more "proper" (efficient, cheaper, quieter?) than belt, chain or gear driven? I'm also having problems visualising contra-rotating cranks (do you mean counter-rotating?)


Jim King

Current: SE5 (8Ball), TI SS1 (snotty), 1600 SS1 (G97), 1600 SS1 (C686CCR), 2.5TD SE5a (diesel 5a), 6 x random other SS1s.
Previous: SE5, 3 x SE5a, 2 x SE6a, 3 x SE6b, GTC, 2.9i GTC, 3 x 1600 SS1, 1300 SS1, Mk1 Ti Sabre, Mk1.5 CVH Sabre
Chief mechanic for: 1400 K series SS1 (Megan3), 1400 CVH EFi SS1 (Grawpy), Sabre/MX5 auto (The Flying Broomstick),
1300 SS1 (Number One) & Sarah's coupe.
CURE THE FAULT - NOT THE SYMPTOMS

Post Reply

Return to “Other Car Chat”