Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Just a quick note to add to the 'COST' aspect you mention....Nobody should assume that the way something is done from the factory is the 'best' way it can be done. Vehicle makers cut cost wherever and whenever possible while building a car. Think about it this way..if they save $2.00 on one part of a vehicle, and make 100,000 cars, thats an instant cost reduction of $200K. Now think of all the parts on a car, all the ways cost can be trimmed. For a long time Gm didn't put exhaust valve seals on their 4.3 and 350 engines, because the cost to put 6-8 seals in ALL the V6 and V8 truck engines alone would be 10 times that of the cost to install them under warranty for the few people that had problems with it. I guess my point is that ANYTHING can be improved upon on a vehicle by us, because we only have 1 vehicle to improve, and the cost to us is far less than the cost to the manufacturers to improve thousands of vehicles every year.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

I'm going to throw some wild dates for a haft a## time line
base on my very-very small world. Bare with me please.
1950 car motor would last say 75,000 miles
1960 car motor would lat say 100,000 miles if lucky--Late 60 to late
70 I had seen the GM bop&c last alot longer-Remember my very small world.
1980 on started to see cars going way over 100,000.. WHY? They still look
the same on the inside. Did the Jap cars make the US car get off there a##???
did our oil get better??

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

I guess the best answer to the question as to why engines last longer is a combination of things like better motor oils, metalurgy and gasoline quality. Engines have also become more progressively efficient as well because of better technique of construction which allowed higher compression ratios. The higher the compression ratio, the more thermally efficient an engine can be. That is when the better gasoline comes in, namely, to prevent preignition or "dieseling" due to the higher ratio. Fuel injection is another modern technique to prevent preignition and thereby allowing for higher ratios.

There is no substitute for progress.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

JEEPRZ

is this why jeep went from six bolt hubs to five bolt hubs?

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

/wwwthreads_images/icons/tongue.gif No big mystery there....remember that the Chevrolet six....apple pie car throughout the late thirties, fourties, and early fifties did not get pressure lubed rods in all models till 1953!!!! Imagine that today! SCOOP BEARINGS! Today's engines benefit from better , more precise machining due to tape-controlled machines with cutters that have great repeatability. Better castings today with smoother oil passages and more precise bores make most routine production engines today, the "pick of the litter" back in 1955. Better lubricants, better bearing surfaces...bearings with friction surfaces attached to a heat-dissipating background material are so much better than poured babbit. Space age materials for turbo wheels. The list goes on. I was strictly a Chrysler builder in the late fifties and all through the sixties, and we used to laugh at the other junk. A well-built early hemi with a hardened, shot-peened crankshaft (stock from the factory in trucks) would run 100-150,000 with no problem. Those engines had huge oil pumps, hard cylinder bores, and big rods to take the loads. I heard that the scrap rate from the foundry on those hemi heads was atrocious....it was a complex, heavy casting. There was, however, A LOT of just pure junk built after WWII, some of the early V8 engines were dogs, both from a performance standpoint and from a design standpoint as well. SHEESH! They really gave a ton of trouble, from hydraulic lifter problems (Olds) to cams going flat as a pancake(Chev 265-283)./wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif Practically all of detroits attempts at compact car engines; with the exception of the Mopar slant six;
were absolute, unsalvageable crap./wwwthreads_images/icons/frown.gif I say this to my sons over and over...you cannot IMAGINE how good cars are now; unless you drove the older stuff. /wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif SOme of it WAS a joke/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif.
CJDave

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Don't get me wrong. I would love to have a FWD Model B with the 55hp 4cyl. Wisconsin or a Willys MB with the flat head Go Devil (if I could afford to keep them). I would not want to swap those engines into a modern Jeep, however. Even if it could be done, it doesn't make sense./wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Jim I don't know your age but for us old guys we remember some high CR from
factory engines . The gas seem to be better to. The old lead did a good job .
These ran fast fairly clean if you like lead in your air. A little at 72 but big time 73 on smog engines in pickups anyway, perf. went away and gas mileage was nothing to brag about to. and it didnot get better till we started getting computers and fuel inj. to get compression back up and run on 87 to 89 oct.
My dad's 68 Buick 350 2barrel- Big car- Bought it new hardy run under 80MPH
it has run across the south west deserts 85 to 90 MPH summer air on and heat of the day and still get 14 MPG . I know some of the cars now will do better
but for its time and size it was great And I don't know if many will do better.
With that same size. [MY small world agin] BTW this car has 145000 still don't
leak oil or burn it. body is shot. Dad can't bear to haul it off.
I have a 650 yamaha saca 4cly if you leave this new gas in it to many weeks
you have to drain the carbs to get fresh gas in them to start???How stable can it be???
[I just don't understand all of the above or what I think I know]
EDIT -I was around some slant 6's -Great engine hands down. Not around many
mopars. A little around 383 in road runners not long runners but not well
cared for.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

You guys are forgetting a key point here - the invention of the computer. Computer controls (of course holding exception to the Carter Burp Burp and Die system ) keep engines at a perfect air/fuel and timing ratio at all times, not allowing knocking, detonation, or lean or rich mixtures that kill engines. When engines got older, systems malfunctioned, and these issues killed engines. Today that's not so much the case. Also, people are driving and commuting more than ever, some 100+ miles a day round trip for work, so cars are amassing miles, highway miles, in a few short years, and so they are lasting longer, mileage wise.

Just an opinion
Pete

88YJ,4"susp,33"BFGMTs,9000#winch, hm swing out TC/HL mount ,258,999,4.10,weber32/36,GMHEI.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif Pete I think you are right the comp and fuel inj. help engines
by light years/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Gregg, I'm 44 years old. I don't mean to imply that engines from the 50s and 60s are junk. They were good engines in their day, as you said. I'm certain that if taken care of, they would last well into the present day. You and Pete mentioned computer control and that certainly qualifys as progress. So too would developements like the OHV and the more recent SOHC and DOHC designs. I would say on average that compression ratios in engines has risen from about 6 to 1 to about 9 to 1 since the first Jeep was built by Bantam in 1940. Part of that progress is also due to the better quality of gas generally available since then. Add to that fact the no lead thing, which you mentioned./wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif Actually, Jim, there were some engines from the mid and late fifties which had compression ratios above twelve. My '57 Pontiac 347 in a '55 Catalina Coupe blew the doors off Chevys @ 12.5:1 because they only had 283 cu inches, but the problem was that if I even put a few gallons of regular in the Poncho, it would ping terribly. Once the HP race began in '57, there was no stopping it...compression ruled. Factory installed three-carb setups, lotta iron and lotta inches. There wa not a lot of finesse back then, it was all cubic inches. We have a '96 Pontiac Gr Am with the hi-tech 2.4 DOHC and I can tell you it would have won Indy in '51. This new computer stuff overcomes all of the problems inherent in the gasoline engine./wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif

CJDave

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Engine technology has come a long way since 1940; you'll agree with me on that. However, emviromentalist elitest leftists can't wait for the demise of the internal combustion engine, that spawn of the devil. It is truly a shame that they, those "knowledgeable" social engineers, are being continually disappointed by advances in IC engine design. It could not happen to a more foolish and short sighted group of socialist elite sticks in the mud.

Take Care all you good Jeepers. Jim (one of your number)

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

I myself would love to see further advancements in the IC engine, furthermore I would love to see gasoline go the way of the dinosaurs and become extinct. Technology is taking way too long in this area. The Internal Combustion engine is Basically unchanged in the 160 or so years it's been around. Supply Fuel, Compress, Ignite, Repeat. That's fine with me but, I would like to see advances in fuel sources on par with the advances in other oil related products. Examples: Tires have better compounds, Plastics are amazingly different than the first batch of Rayon. My dad's 283 Chevelle got 23mpg on the highway. My 258 jeep is lucky to sniff that. The funny part is the rash of EPA laws that choked down the cars in the 70's and ruined any economy advancements is bound to happen again soon. Muscle cars of the 60's; SUV's of the 90's. The automakers pat themselves on the back for squeezing 20 mpg out of a puny V-6 and all the while we fight wars in the mid-east so that the flow of oil money is unabated. P.S. my Jeep is not running well so I am not happy; just venting.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

XJY173 I,m 46 myself- I didn,t mean to inply that the engines of the 60s and 70s where great either/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif
Once agin cjdave and jpstaff put my thoughts in words many ways better than i did your can.
I do think that we all love our gas engines and playing with them. There just so much i don,t understand
on the engineering of a engine.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Hey Gregg,
I 'm in the same boat with you. It is good to be able to learn from guys that take the time to pass on knowledge. We are indeed lucky to be members of the Jeepin' family with it's rich tradition of cooperation. Buying that XJ so long ago was one of the better things I've done. Take Care. /wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

Jim (xjy173)

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

If you guys are interested, there is a separate group / division under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, www.asme.org I think, that is called ICE, for Internal Combustion Engine. If you are a member of ASME, you can pick 3 groups to follow from the many available, and they send you their quarterly or whatever it is mailings and flyers on current technical papers and such. ICE is one of my choices. There is a place in Texas somewhere called the Southwest Research Institute, I think, that does a lot of research on the internal combustion engine.

Yes, it would appear that technology is running slowly on the ICE, but emissions, computer controls, variable valve timing, transmission design, etc., have all made huge leaps. A lot of available technology is gearing towards active road sensors for ride, active suspensions, noise canceling interiors, aquatread and run-flat tires, etc. We need a shift in technology usage, not just quieter smoother cars that run on gas.

Just my opinion.
Pete
ASME, 11 years.

88YJ,4"susp,33"BFGMTs,9000#winch, hm swing out TC/HL mount ,258,999,4.10,weber32/36,GMHEI.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

"I would love to see gasoline go the way of the dinosaurs"

Good one /wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

The biggest drawback to the ICE is the massive waste of energy used to stop-start-stop-start the piston on ever revolution of the engine. It is just plain ineffecient by design. There is only so much that can be done to reasonably improve on it. Gasoline, and its relativly low flash point, is one of the biggest hindrances on effeceincy and power due to pre-igninton. ICEs of the not-so-distant future will have the fuel injected directly into the combustion chamber (similar to diesl), and compression ratios will go up several points in the process.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

CJ-7 TAZ,
I read an interesting article on the subject of gasoline vs. hydrogen in automotive magazine recently. It seems that the most efficient way to produce hydrogen suitable for automotive use is to get it from gasoline. This process, according to the article, causes more pollution than burning the gas directly in the car's engine. I'm sure that someday gasoline will go the way of the dinosaur; the question is when.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

interesting buncha posts here, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ported injection motors(TPI, MPI and the like) injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber?...

jimbo

'74 CJ5,232 I6,T15,Dana 30&44

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Yes, in all types of fuel injection except Throttle Body. The fuel is injected into the chamber at a split second before the plug fires. This enables the compression ratio to be higher without the worry of preignition during the compression stroke. With Carburetion or Throttle Body a fuel/air mix is sucked into the chamber during the intake stroke and if the compression ratio is too high, too much heat is generated and the mix could ignite prematurely, which is not a good thing.

BTW, a diesel engine ignites it's fuel by compression alone; there are no spark plugs. On diesels, the compression ratio is in excess of 20 to 1, which makes them much more thermally efficient than gasoline engines.

I think all I've written here is correct but I'm sure that our fellow members will help me out and fine tune what I've put down. All part of the learning curve. /wwwthreads_images/icons/cool.gif

Off to work now. Have a good day /wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Actually, in a 'port' fuel injection system, the fuel is sprayed into the intake PORT, not directly into the combustion chamber. On sequential systems (4.0, LT-1, and most others now built), the fuel is sprayed as the intake valve is opening, allowing the fuel to instantly (theoretically) atomize with the incomming air charge. On batch-fire systems (TPI, and other 'early' port injection systems) multiple injectors fire at the same time. The advantage of a port fi system over throttle body is the ability to have longer, more 'equal length' runners, and no chance of fuel 'puddling' in the intake manifold.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

/wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif In the Diesel configuration, a pushrod-operated actual injection pump (injector) on top of each cylinder squirts diesel into the chamber at near TDC, whereupon the heat from compresion (18:1 +) will cause the greasy fuel to begin burning and heat the air. Some diesels use a central injection pump (Cat) and pipe the high-pressure fuel to a check-valve equipped squirt mechanism which injects the fuel against the compression pressure of the cylinder. THAT"S WHY people burned the GM Diesel cars up so easily. The fuel pump only knows what throttle setting you chose....it will put fuel in WHETHER OR NOT the engine can gain RPM, has enough air to go with the fuel, or can TAKE it. Hence, exhaust temps rise and burndown occurs. That's why drivers pulling steep grades must watch the pyrometer...to make sure the engine has the air it needs to go with the fuel./wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif TPI and MPI systems don't enter the combustion chamber with a nozzle, but put it at the intake valve instead, in precisely measured quantities, eliminating the drawbacks and inherent inadequacies of carburated systems./wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif The efficiency of diesels comes from the concept of only injecting enough fuel to do the job, and burning ALL the fuel, as opposed to a carb engine which loses half of it out the exhaust pipe./wwwthreads_images/icons/frown.gif

CJDave

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

xjy173

What I found humorous in the statement was that " the way of the dinosaur" was the SOURCE of the
gasoline.

 

Re: \"Blueprinting an Engine\"

Hey Ron,
I did catch that pun but I thought that crude oil in the ground came from the plants those critters ate, digested and .... well, you know.

Take Care,
Jim (xjy173) /wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif