Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Spitfire\s+1500\s+engines\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Spitfire\s+1500\s+engines\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: lmdpth@lmd.ericsson.se (LMD/T/TB Peter Thorsen); Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 10:52:43 +0100; I understand that the Spitfire 1500 engine is not in general regarded as better than the (Mk3) 1300 because it does not rev. as well. It also seems to have some inherent problems with the bearings. D; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00308.html (7,816 bytes)
2. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: William Hartwell Woodruff <woodruff@engin.umich.edu>; Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 11:25:08 -0500; A few of us on the list have done this. There are quite a few simple modifications that must be made to the Spitfire before the 2L will fit in. Not the least of which is swaping over the uprated bra; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00312.html (8,168 bytes)
3. RE: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: lmdpth@lmd.ericsson.se (LMD/T/TB Peter Thorsen); Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 08:58:20 +0100; Hi Brent I didn't get any information on non-Triumph engines from the group. One of my friends once installed a Ford 1.6 liter engine and it seemed to work OK except the engine was even more worn tha; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00434.html (9,294 bytes)
4. RE: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Phil Willson <P.J.Willson@qmw.ac.uk>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:49:10 GMT; Brent, Peter May I put in a belated two pence/cents worth? The 1500 engine is basically the same whatever car it came from. It and the 2500 engine cannot be revved as hard as the smaller versions bec; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00437.html (11,422 bytes)
5. RE: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Phil Willson <P.J.Willson@qmw.ac.uk>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 12:32:23 GMT; Rich Dunno, but you'll get b..... all torque. It's all a bit complicated and a compromise and I'm by no means an expert. However, the so-called square dimensions where bore roughly equals stroke is u; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00440.html (8,966 bytes)
6. RE: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Tom Gentry <TGENTR@wgc.woodward.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 08:49:00 PST; As I understand it the general rule (assuming the same displacement) is long stroke = good low end torque; short stroke = high revving horsepower. Of course a side benefit would be that the larger b; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00444.html (8,204 bytes)
7. RE: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: lmdpth@lmd.ericsson.se (LMD/T/TB Peter Thorsen); Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 16:20:18 +0100; The longer the stroke the faster the pistonhead will move inside the cylinder at the same rpm (It has to cover a longer distance in the same time) The lubrication of the cylinder walls will be reduc; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00445.html (8,384 bytes)
8. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Jeremy DuBois <jer@thlogic.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:29:18 -0500 (EST); Here's my attempt on the difference, based on what I remember reading from my engines textbook: With a long stroke, the pistons and rods have to move further per stroke than on a short stroke engine; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00446.html (9,376 bytes)
9. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Tom Gentry <TGENTR@wgc.woodward.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 10:41:00 PST; end This is just a guess, but maybe there is no physical reason that a short stroke engine produces less torque. Perhaps it's just a matter of engine tuning. Since the long stroke engine CAN'T rev,; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00447.html (8,505 bytes)
10. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: "Lee Daniels, daniels@tamu.edu" <DANIELS@alchem.chem.tamu.edu>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:36:02 -0600 (CST); Of course there is. Come on guys, think about it: A longer stroke means the crankshaft has "longer" lobes on it. Then, for instance, when the stroke is half-way between TDC and BDC, the lobe is esse; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00448.html (8,713 bytes)
11. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: joe-schneider@nwu.edu (Joseph Schneider); Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:54:39 -0600; right (i'm a clinical surgeon, but i've always thought sir isaac newton was the greatest of our predecessors), and somewhere, i remember reading that rods/pistons start to come apart when accelerati; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00455.html (9,340 bytes)
12. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: Phil Willson <P.J.Willson@qmw.ac.uk>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:11:19 GMT; Ho Ho Ho (very seasonal) I think I stirred up a hornets nest, sorry! Between you, I think you've brought up most of the points regarding the relative benefits of large or small pistons, long or short; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00467.html (9,303 bytes)
13. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: lupienj@wal.hp.com (John Lupien); Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 16:20:21 EST; I have pulled stumps using an Rx7. 3000rpm and some clutch slip was needed. In any case, the bore/stroke debate has little application to rotaries. The Rx7 has a very flat torque curve until it runs; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00477.html (8,763 bytes)
14. Re: Spitfire 1500 engines (score: 1): Author: egilk@oslonett.no (Egil Kvaleberg); Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 06:43:18 +0100; On the 2500 and 1500 it is not in fact the pistons nor rods that give up the ghost at high RPM. It is the crancshaft itself, where extensive internal vibrations sets in, leading to inceased bearing s; /html/triumphs/1995-11/msg00563.html (8,923 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]