Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

From: Jim Hall (jimfoo@qwest.net)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 08:13:02 EDT

  • Next message: Luca Ingianni: "Re: LRO: Low/no sulfur diesel fuel"

    I believe that I was told that Timm's 88 could do somewhere around 90
    MPH, and that's with 150 HP.

    Peter Ogilvie wrote:
    >
    > Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you
    > geared it so high (low numerically). Probably would take 400hp to push the
    > brick at that speed. 3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as the
    > engine would be well into its hp and torque curve so would actually be able
    > to hold that speed going up a hill. It may even develop enough hp to
    > actually get it up to 80mph. Though why anyone would want to drive a Series
    > over 65 is beyond me. If the 3436rpm @ 95mph is correct, you'd only be
    > turning 2351rpm @ 65mph. Only a few hundred rpm above the base of the
    > torque curve and well below the hp peak. You'd probably have the
    > performance of a stock 2 1/4 because the engine would never get up on the
    > torque/hp curve. If the first figures are right, performance would suck
    > even more. I think its a little presumptious to gear a Series to have the
    > same cruise rpm of a 250mph racer.
    >
    > Don't want to rain on your parade, but your figures just didn't seem to be
    > based on reality.
    >
    > Aloha
    > Peter O
    >
    > >From: "Kirk Hillman" <kdhillma@telusplanet.net>
    > >Reply-To: lro@works.team.net
    > >To: <lro@Works.Team.Net>
    > >Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
    > >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:40:59 -0600
    > >
    > >Adam,
    > > I was looking into this swap, but ended up scrapping it. Though, it
    > >should be noted that it wasn't because of viability. Other 'things' came
    > >up
    > >(read 'of the opposite gender'). I am curious about your desire to use the
    > >Muncie 420. I had trouble locating one at all. They were built a LONG
    > >time
    > >ago. Around here at least the SM-465 is much easier to locate but still
    > >isn't a piece of cake. Sure, you get a slightly lower 1st, but I am told
    > >the 420 is simply far less 'friendly'. Louder and more clunky etc.
    > > I am a little more curious about your calculations though. 95 MPH @
    > >3000 RPM? Unless I am messing the numbers up this is what I get with this
    > >set-up:
    > >
    > >SM-420
    > >Ashcroft High Range LR case (0.871 High)
    > >4.10 Diffs
    > >33" tires
    > >
    > >=3436 RPM @ 95 MPH (152 KPH)
    > >
    > >If there is something wrong with my calculations let me know. I was making
    > >a lot of decisions based on them. I have an Excel spreadsheet laid out
    > >that
    > >I would email you if you like with a number of transmission/transfer case
    > >options.
    > >
    > >Kirk
    > >
    > >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    -- 
    Jim Hall
    1966 88" Elephant Chaser
    http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
    "You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 
    with Jim." Mitch Stockdale
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 11 2001 - 09:39:47 EDT