Hey, don

Discussion in '1930 Cadillac Series 452-A V16' started by goodcars, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: This car

    you betcha...and if i had the money, id gladly pay, too
     
  2. Re: Old engines...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 51coronet</i>
    <b>because the compression ratio was way low around 6 or 7 to 1
    and the cam was there just to open and close the valves. Wild cam grinds were not introduced yet. Low compression is mainly for forced induction engines, well it seems engineers were not aware not have tof this yet or did he tools neccesary to make a higher compression piston. Most old engines do suck but in regards to reliability nothing comes close to the old inline 6.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    you're an idiot, this car did not even have a camshaft, 95% of cars made in the 30's didn't have cams or camshafts, hell a lot of GM's motor's don't even have a bloody camshaft nowadays ever heard of PUSHROD engines????? They're called Over Head Valves (OHV)!!! sounds like it's got some overhead cams or something??? it's just pushrods<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: Old engines...

    First off, ever car has a camshaft, OHV means the cam is located in the block. Second, if you think old cars have no power you are SORELY WRONG!! How many times do I have to say it, Duesenbergs had 265 hp w/o a blower and 320 with. One 6.9L Duesey I8 was tuned to 450 hp. Mercedes and Auto Union both made race cars with upward of 600 hp.
     
  4. Re: Old engines...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Louis XIII</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 51coronet</i>
    <b>because the compression ratio was way low around 6 or 7 to 1
    and the cam was there just to open and close the valves. Wild cam grinds were not introduced yet. Low compression is mainly for forced induction engines, well it seems engineers were not aware not have tof this yet or did he tools neccesary to make a higher compression piston. Most old engines do suck but in regards to reliability nothing comes close to the old inline 6.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    you're an idiot, this car did not even have a camshaft, 95% of cars made in the 30's didn't have cams or camshafts, hell a lot of GM's motor's don't even have a bloody camshaft nowadays ever heard of PUSHROD engines????? They're called Over Head Valves (OHV)!!! sounds like it's got some overhead cams or something??? it's just pushrods</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I'm just wondering...have you ever heard of something called an internal combustion engine? Let's give you the rundown. It's commonly used in many forms of transportation, especially personal automobiles. It burns a mixture of gas and air (did you know that oxygen burns?), and uses pistons connected to a crank, which move up and down, usually in a 4-stroke (big term) pattern. The gas and air mixture is taken in through something called a "valve", which in a "pushrod" engine is opened by "rocker arm" which uses a "levering" motion caused by a pushrod which sits on a lifter which is pushed up by a "CAMSHAFT!!!", which is turned by the timing chain connected to the crank. If you can't understand this, try bashing your head against a wall until you can no longer speak and save us all some trouble. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: Old engines...

    Hate to point it out...two strokes and rotaries don't use camshafts...they don't have valves to move..

    also, v8's have been made that have no cams... i've heard someone call one of these an "ixus" while another sed they were made by lexus...

    at any rate i've heard (and take this as the pub talk that it is...i have no hard facts/data/sites to back it up) that these things are capable of pulling 16 to 20 grand...

    use solenoids to operate the valves...all incredibly precise electronic timing...

    gives u a woody thinking about the power that could make, eh?

    ----------
    superRoo
    (what, never seen a GTHO Falcon?)
     
  6. Re: Old engines...

    lol. 22.25 hp per litre. how retarded.
     
  7. Re: Old engines...

    how bout we try a formula...say.. (hp/litre) * age of car

    how many hp/litre did u say the 1931 nissan skyline had?

    guess ur gunna attack its classic character next...

    ----------
    superRoo
    (what, never seen a GTHO Falcon?)
     
  8. Re: Old engines...

    Hahaha, nice. Let's see...wasn't it somewhere around 0?<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: Old engines...

    not all cars have camshafts, ever hear of an RX-7? but most do have them and the majority of these old cars are rarely powerful, but they are really cool<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Re: Old engines...

    Yeah he's right. The RX-7 had an optional rotory engine. Power out da' ass. And now with the RX-8 comimg out..oh my god!<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. 0-60MPH IN 24 SECONDS?!?!?!???????!!???

    damn! i didn't even know it can go 60mph! its fast for what it is.... or was....i bet if ur goin down a hill with wind pushin u ..u can get 65mph!!!
     
  12. No Subject

    a v16? thats a #$%#in monster engine. is it because of older technology that it doesnt crank out a bit more power than it does?
    please forgive me since i dont know much about older cars<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Re: 0-60 in 24 SECONDS!?!?

    This was a supercar back.... then no matter what you may think... dipshits that make these kind of posst have to open their #$%#ing eyes either that or ill take them out for them and squeeze it onto their computer screen so maybe they can see clearer
     
  14. Re: THIS CAR SUCKS! It cant beat an RX-7 with mega top fuel hond

    Calm down... technology advanced past 1940....
     
  15. Re: 0-60 in 24 SECONDS..YEP ITS AMERICAN

    Didn't you just name tons of GM cars that you liked?!
     
  16. Re: 0-60 in 24 SECONDS..YEP ITS AMERICAN

    Didn't you just name a ton of GM cars?
     
  17. Re: No Subject

    Test
     
  18. Re: No Subject

    Test
     
  19. Re: No Subject
     
  20. Re: No Subject
     
  21. Re: No Subject
     
  22. Re: No Subject
     
  23. Re: No Subject
     
  24. Re: No Subject
     
  25. Re: No Subject
     

Share This Page