<VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.

[jvhroberts at aol.com]

Except in the real world, it doesn't work like that. Remember, the 
opposite cylinders don't fire at the same time! First one, then one 
crank rev later, the other one fires. So, it pounds the crank left to 
right pretty heavily.

John Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From: moonpie8n at comcast.net
To: jvhroberts at aol.com
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org; dougmackintosh at yahoo.com; 
virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org; dnoneal at bellsouth.net; 
ricebugg at mtco.com; rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 6:49 pm
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette,  C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.


  I  have  to  agree  with  you  ,John [kinda]
  TO  my  way  of  thinking, .... when  you  have  equal  thrust  from 
 both  sides,  the  crank  is  more  likely  to "FLOAT". This  means 
 it  takes  less  oil  pressure  to  do  the  "Lube  Job" .  SO  less 
 pressure  needed  means  less  work  the  oil  pump  has  to  do , and 
 lighter  viscosity  oil , and  SO  ON , So  forth,  and such 
 like....................  and  you  end  up  with  a  few  more  HP's 
 at  the  crank, .....  RIGHT? [ I  think  you  guys  all  have 
 "Sheepskin" in  engineering] [ I  feel  like  a  guy  who  brought  a 
 knife  to  a  gunfight].
----- Original Message -----
From: jvhroberts at aol.com
To: moonpie8n at comcast.net
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org, dougmackintosh at yahoo.com, 
virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org, dnoneal at bellsouth.net, 
ricebugg at mtco.com, rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:00:52 PM
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette,  C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.

The friction thing is neat in principle, but the data say horizontally
opposed engines have no less bearing friction than V or inline engines.
The journals are hydro dynamically lubricated, and most of the friction
is in the form of viscous drag. There is no metal to metal loading in a
properly lubricated crank bearing.

Flat engines in formula racing seem to come and go. Width usually isn't
an issue with some of these pancake cars, but the engine needs to be a
bit higher in the chassis compared to V engines because of header
clearance, etc., as there's a lot more stuff below the crank centerline
than with inline or V engines. Now, they could shoot the exhaust
between the cams, or shoot the intakes between the cams and have the
exhaust come out on top, both have been done experimentally with good
effect.

Ferrari was never interested in the Indy formula. And few, if any, of
the Ferrari engines were close enough in displacement and other specs
to compete. Indy has some strange engine rules compared to other
classes!

Anyway... just some thoughts!

John Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From: moonpie8n at comcast.net
To: jvhroberts at aol.com
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org; dougmackintosh at yahoo.com;
virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org; dnoneal at bellsouth.net;
ricebugg at mtco.com; rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 2:39 pm
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette,  C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.


  The  flat  motors  wouldn't  work  at  INDY  either. They  would
 have  to  make  the  cars  wider  which  screwed  up  the "AERO"
 package. Even  though  the  180  motor  has  some  real  advantages,
.... Since  it  has  equal  thrust  on  the  crankshaft  from  each
 side [not  down  on  a  45  dgree  angle], ...,friction  can  be
 reduced.  That' s  why  you  never  saw  one  of  "Enzo's"  engines
 at  "Indy". They  were  obviously  powerful  enough  [kick  butt  in
 Formula "1"].....
  Bob  Isaac
  Moonpie  Racing
----- Original Message -----
From: jvhroberts at aol.com
To: moonpie8n at comcast.net, rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org, dougmackintosh at yahoo.com,
virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org, dnoneal at bellsouth.net,
ricebugg at mtco.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:41:33 AM
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette,  C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.

Well, apparently Subaru agrees! Although the Alfasud, Lancia, and
Citroen used them as well.

The issue for the Corvair is it needed an entirely new engine. A flat 8
would've been too long, but it sure could've used better cooling, a
more robust bottom end, etc. The clearance problem could've been solved
with the cam above the crank ala aircraft engines, although that may
have made the engine a bit too tall topside.
A 3.5L or so flat 6 with decent breathing and cooling would've made all
the difference. Being considerably lighter than the Camaro, 8 cylinders
probably wouldn't be necessary. Alas, GM was seriously doing things on
the cheap, and deviating significantly from the 1960 engine and
transaxle design just wasn't in the cards.  By 1970, the innovation of
the 60s for GM was completely over. The only notable success that
continues to today is FWD via the Toronado, although today it lives on
under other names. But by 1970, OHC engines, aluminum engines (the Vega
was done on the cheap, with the predictable result) air cooling, fully
independent suspensions (yes, the Corvette kept it, only because it had
to), and on and on, were all over. GM was squarely in the cast iron
engine, front engine/rear drive business, with anything different from
that being a distraction unless it made money.

Flat engines still aren't crazy popular. For F/R cars, they're so wide
they interfere with the front suspension. For rear engine cars, it
seems it's all that used, with other designs being the exceptions.
Obviously, lots of mid engine cars use them, but there's also lots of
inline and V engines too. For F/F cars, well, the world seems to love
transverse engines, and that is clearly not well suited for flat
engines!

Also, flat 4s cost a bit more to make than inline 4s, and if you'll
notice, Subarus aren't exactly entry level cars!

So, yes, a better Corvair was certainly possible, but its parent was
the wrong company to do anything new with it.

John Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From: moonpie8n at comcast.net
To: rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
Cc: Virtual Vairs <virtualvairs at corvair.org>; Doug Mackintosh
<dougmackintosh at yahoo.com>; virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org; David
O'Neal <dnoneal at bellsouth.net>; ricebugg at mtco.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 9:24 am
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette,  C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.


10-4 Rodney , .... Porsche and Ferrari did ok withe 180 degree "V"
motor for
decades
----- Original Message -----
From: rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com
To: moonpie8n at comcast.net, virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org, "David
O'Neal"
<dnoneal at bellsouth.net>
Cc: "Virtual Vairs" <virtualvairs at corvair.org>, "Doug Mackintosh"
<dougmackintosh at yahoo.com>, ricebugg at mtco.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:17:05 PM
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.


Moonpie8n wrote: "I think the Corvair was run off the road by GM'S own
cars."

Sure. But the Corvair WAS Chevy's future platform. Just look at the
concept cars
it inspired (including electric.) The Corvair could have been so much
more if
R&D funds hadn't been pirated away for the Camaro.

What could Corvair have been if it only had a bit more distance between
the cam
and crank for more stroke, bigger bore, plus 2 more cylinders?

I for one believe it could have corralled the Mustang.

No one can ever convince me that a horizontally opposed engine isn't
the best
engine design with one of its biggest advantages being its lower center
of
gravity.

Rodney

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
 _______________________________________________
This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights
are the
property
of the writer, please attribute properly. For help,
mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/
Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
Change your options:
http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
 _______________________________________________