Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39408 posts, RR: 76 Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
1977 Lincoln Town Car.
I have one!
The best car ever!
7.5 liter, 460 cu" V8 engine. 4 barrel carb.
Body on frame construction, rear-wheel drive American luxury sedan.
Seats six passengers very comfortably.
Quadraphonic 8track player AM/FM stereo.
Power glass moonroof.
The bright lights shut off for on coming traffic and resumes once they've passed!
Parts are very cheap and affordable.
Very reliable car.
Adam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1492 times:
It has got to be the Honda Civic. It has survived almost 30 years, while still being a bestseller. Now what other car has been a best seller since it was introduced in the 70's? Honda has pioneered alot of things like the Civic CVCC, VTEC-E, Civic VTEC-E Lean Burn, and the Continuously Variable Transmission. All of these were first introduced in the US on Civics.
Stratifier From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1492 times:
Now, I love the Civic for the most part, but let me explain why lean burn is something that's better off left in the laboratories.
The typical fuel-to-air mix ratio for gasoline engines is 1 : 14.7. In other words, you use 14.7 whatever units of air to combust 1 of gasoline. If your foot is heavy on the gas pedal, the amount of gasoline increases sometimes (probably 13 : 1).
Lean burn refers to any fuel-to-air ratio that uses less fuel than 14.7 : 1. However there are problems. At a ratio of 17-18 : 1 there will be excessive nitrous oxides (NOx) made, and if you go up to 22-25 : 1 you'd have trouble igniting the fuel-air mixture. So you've got to find ways to stir up a vortex in the cylinders. Even if you combust very well at a very lean ratio, torque will be relatively thin. Therefore, if the driver's heavy on the gas pedal, you need to be able to shift back to 14.7.
On the way back to 14.7, you'll go through the 17-18 stage all over again. Also, when you shift between ANY fuel-air mix ratios, you will experience changes in engine torque at the same engine speed. It takes an awful lot of fine tuning to make this pleasant and usable in reality.
Mitsubishi developed MVV first, and then based on its work went on to develop GDI as a way of making lean burn work. However, have you noticed how there are no GDI-equipped models in their US lineup? It could be that they couldn't get it to clear the emission laws.
Even Honda itself has benefitted from sticking to 14.7:1. IIRC all their LEV engines don't fiddle around with lean burn at all.
Also, if you recycle too much exhaust into the cylinders hoping to increase efficiency, the torque could suffer. Mazda had a real hard time tuning their diluted burn engines that never made it outside Japan.
Adam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1488 times:
Thats where the E in VTEC comes in though, it changes the cam profile to the point where the car is only operating on 3 valves, with the 4th intake valve opening slightly, the result of this 3 valve operation is an excellent swirling effect. I think on the Lean Burn engines, they have a totally differnt catalytic converter to reduce the NOx to acceptable levels, also I think the Lean burn only goes as high as 18:1 and is only in effect during idle situations and when you are driving with a very very light foot. Im not positive but the 3 valve operation is usually only in situations when lean burn is in effect, and maybe in effect longer than lean burn under acceleration. They have reached a milestone with the VTEC-E Lean Burn on the Civic HX, with some 40 some odd mpg all around yet still producing decent HP and Torque. Not something crazy like the Geo Metro and not having to resort to Diesel.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39408 posts, RR: 76 Reply 23, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1487 times:
Adam84, whats wrong with Diesel?
I used to have a 1981 Volkswagon Rabbit and a 1980 VW Dasher. Both were Diesel powered.
They were great little cars.
50 mpg and exempt from smog/emmissions testing.
They were gutless but reliable and cheap wheels.
Now matter how much engineering you put into a little 4cylinder, you can never achieve the same power and tourque that a V8 can produce.
Adam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1481 times:
I dont know what diesels are like nowadays but from what I have seen (my mother used to drive a 1986 Mercedes 300D) they are very underpowered (her Turbo 300D did 0-60 in about 18 seconds or so), they are impossible in cold climates, they are noisy and they put out quite a few pollutants. The only good thing about them though is the fact that they can actually run on practically anything, my father had some VW diesel way back when and he told me he would carry a jug of vegetable oil around in the trunk for if he ever ran out of gas.
About the thing 4cyl vs. 6 & 8cyl, you may not be able to have as much hp or torque as an 8cyl but you still have a chance of beating them in a race. My b/f's Acura Integra has outrun Mustangs and Camaros many many times, the sad thing though is the fact that he was once outrun by a Cadillac Seville. But I digress.
25 MrFord: I think the Mustang is one of the best, but the Ford Contour is THE best one ! And my mother's car, a '95 Mercury Mystique Etienne