Carryall must have wandered off to Mindmel with an engine block or something. Beam me up scotty there was no intellegent life down here.
Brentanna:
Then again why are we using heavy water cooled diesel engine in trucks that max out at 700 to 800 hp Why not just find a R1820 slap it in with a supercharger and get 1600 hp. Would not weigh as much would not need to worry about checking coolet levels, heck wouldnt need a rad, or a transmission for that matter. 0 to 100% actually war power was 110%
Radial petrol aircraft engine just like the old Sherman tank. 
Running on LPG at half the price of diesel.Already had that discussion with Newmercman but I did’nt mind using a watercooled Merlin 1,500 hp at less than 3,000 rpm running at 80 tonnes + gross.He thought that’s as mad as all my other ideas. 
Ummm Carry fast, I did not say an engine produced torque at an idle and yes you can compare the two, a turbine engine is the closest you will get to an axial flow low friction powerplant. No up and down parts to take anything away from the power curve. And a transmission is nothing like a reduction gear system. No point in arguing with you you make as much sense in your arguments as Robbbie does, with is none.
actually the radial used in the shermans was diesel, mod done by Cat. Hell I have worked with the ■■■■ things, I do know what I am talking about
Brentanna:
Ummm Carry fast, I did not say an engine produced torque at an idle and yes you can compare the two, a turbine engine is the closest you will get to an axial flow low friction powerplant. No up and down parts to take anything away from the power curve. And a transmission is nothing like a reduction gear system. No point in arguing with you you make as much sense in your arguments as Robbbie does, with is none.
You said that torque gets less as revs increase 
.Take that to it’s logical conclusion would mean it’s putting out more torque at idle than at peak torque.
You use some messed up logic, Max Hp for a D13 is 485@ 1800 rpm, where is your max torque go to their site and look max torque is around 10-1200, so where is your curve going to be? 
Brentanna:
actually the radial used in the shermans was diesel, mod done by Cat. Hell I have worked with the ■■■■ things, I do know what I am talking about
The story I heard was that it’s a radial petrol or a Detroit two stroke diesel.But the diesel turned out to be a problem because most of the fuel supplies were petrol so the Detroit was a very rare option.
400 model D800 Modified radial engines were produced by Cat, produced 450hp the radials used were left overs from manufacture of the B17G. How do I know this, we had to reverse engineer 4 of them to rebuild a B17G for the confederate air force, It is still flying. Like I said I am very familiar with this. I have a degree in aerospace engineering. A large number of the shermans used in Korea were the Cat diesels, they ran on the same fuel supplies as the ships. That is where 2 of the engines used on the B17 were from.
Brentanna:
You use some messed up logic, Max Hp for a D13 is 485@ 1800 rpm, where is your max torque go to their site and look max torque is around 10-1200, so where is your curve going to be?
485 horse &1800 rpm is around 1,414 lbs/ft torque.You can add 10 % to that figure for peak torque so it’s putting out around 1,555 lbs/ft at around 1100 rpm which translates to around 325 horse at 1100 rpm.However depending on engine design max torque can be far higher in the rev range and much closer to peak power.But in all cases all you need is the torque figures and rpm to calculate the power and the torque curves.The longer it sustains peak torque up the rev range the more the power output will be.Simples.
Carryfast:
Driveroneuk:
Saab have always dared to be different.Different yes.Better no.Which is why anyone who knows anything about cars would’nt rush out to buy a SAAB if they won the lottery.
It’s more likely (rightly) that it will be something with a front engine and rear drive unless it’s a Veyron.
Obv not a Saab lover then, I’m on my 2nd Saab, I’m running 225bhp and I havnt had problems in the snow, yet a similar powered BMW 3 series couldn’t even move on the same patch of ground as me, your argument about a Ferrari vs a Mondeo is reduce though a Mondeo probably would be better than a 550 in this weather, when it’s dry the Mondeo would be boring, I’d still prefer a heavily tuned rb26 stuffed into a jzx100 than a Ferrari
Brentanna:
400 model D800 Modified radial engines were produced by Cat, produced 450hp the radials used were left overs from manufacture of the B17G. How do I know this, we had to reverse engineer 4 of them to rebuild a B17G for the confederate air force, It is still flying. Like I said I am very familiar with this. I have a degree in aerospace engineering. A large number of the shermans used in Korea were the Cat diesels, they ran on the same fuel supplies as the ships. That is where 2 of the engines used on the B17 were from.
The Cat diesel version was actually one of many and I was referring to those which I knew of used by the British etc in WW2 1945 in Italy and Yugoslavia not Korea.
Torque never comes out as a straight line on a graph it is an hyperbola therefore your calculation is not even close to being accurate. The function of which would be a function of x-1/y-1
Torque never comes out as a straight line on a graph it is an hyperbola therefore your calculation is not even close to being accurate. The function of which would be a function of x-1/y-1
gogzy:
Carryfast:
Driveroneuk:
Saab have always dared to be different.Different yes.Better no.Which is why anyone who knows anything about cars would’nt rush out to buy a SAAB if they won the lottery.
Obv not a Saab lover then, I’m on my 2nd Saab, I’m running 225bhp and I havnt had problems in the snow, yet a similar powered BMW 3 series couldn’t even move on the same patch of ground as me, your argument about a Ferrari vs a Mondeo is reduce though a Mondeo probably would be better than a 550 in this weather, when it’s dry the Mondeo would be boring, I’d still prefer a heavily tuned rb26 stuffed into a jzx100 than a Ferrari
But the relevant comparison would be the Mondeo with as much power as the Ferrari or even an ST 220 in this weather if we’re comparing like with like.Reduce the power with rear drive and you’ve got the advantage of something that can still steer while it’s losing traction unlike a front driver.Which is why one of the best cars I drove in zb conditions was a rear drive Volvo 145 estate.
Brentanna:
Torque never comes out as a straight line on a graph it is an hyperbola therefore your calculation is not even close to being accurate. The function of which would be a function of x-1/y-1
Never said a torque curve is a straight line on a graph or it would’nt be a curve .So exactly where is the big discrepency in those figures considering that I just applied the usual conversion factors and formulae to determine torque and or power figures from the figures which you gave .
Carryfast:
glenman:
seem to remember saab being a very good rally tool , in fact i think they still do well in the historics.Until you compare it with the rear drive escorts and the Audi Quattro.But don’t take my word for it you’ll have to ask Walter Rohrl what the torque bias was front to rear on the Quattro in rallying and why.
Quattros aren’t eligible for historic rallying,and in their early guise were running a 50/50 split,not 6x2 mid-lift. 
Carryfast:
Brentanna:
400 model D800 Modified radial engines were produced by Cat, produced 450hp the radials used were left overs from manufacture of the B17G. How do I know this, we had to reverse engineer 4 of them to rebuild a B17G for the confederate air force, It is still flying. Like I said I am very familiar with this. I have a degree in aerospace engineering. A large number of the shermans used in Korea were the Cat diesels, they ran on the same fuel supplies as the ships. That is where 2 of the engines used on the B17 were from.The Cat diesel version was actually one of many and I was referring to those which I knew of used by the British etc in WW2 1945 in Italy and Yugoslavia not Korea.
Your both right and wrong
Early Shermans were all petrol which led to the British nicknaming them Ronsons after the lighters advertising slogan “Lights first time” and the Germans nicknamed them Tommy Cookers
How ever post war studies showed that this was more due to the way the ammo was stored than fuel ignition and the “wet” storage system was introduced
The radial engine gave the Sherman it distinct shape but in WW2 less than 100 M4A6 with a Caterpillar RD1820 radial engine were produced due to having to stretch the hull to accomodate the engine ( they couln’t raise the turret height due to the tanks travelling on trains so they had to get under the bridges )
This was the engine developed from the Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 used in the B17 running on 87 octane rating gasoline and converted to diesel by Cat
The M4A2 was the diesel varient and this was used mainly by the USMC & British Army
The Korean Sherman tanks designated M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight used the Ford gasoline GAA V8 engine
The Israeli Super Shermans used ■■■■■■■ Diesels
It’s sounds like you got your hands on some extremlly rare tank and nicked the engines out of them
jesus bet the op regrets opening this can of worms.
im guessing this was meant to be a light hearted fun post, not a mega rant by geeky bores
Then again why are we using heavy water cooled diesel
Then again why are we using heavy, water cooled diesel
What a difference a comma makes
Are we talking about a heavy engine or some kind of atomic diesel engine?
Christ on a Bike! Another thread trashed by a bloke who could start an arguement with a tree.