Speakeasy forum

General discussion

a 4.5 Litre engine, but a top speed of 70mph?

by jonah jones / August 14, 2010 2:40 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: a 4.5 Litre engine, but a top speed of 70mph?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: a 4.5 Litre engine, but a top speed of 70mph?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Heavy car
by James Denison / August 14, 2010 5:50 AM PDT
Collapse -
4.2" stroke means lower RPMs
by Steven Haninger / August 15, 2010 10:12 AM PDT

The car may have been built for torque an not hp. I also didn't see rear a rear axle ratio. Long stroke engines produce very strong low end torque but can't rev as high or they come apart. That rated horsepower is rather low for the stated displacement and my guess is dyno measurement was taken at the flywheel (SAE, as it was done then) rather than at the driving wheels as it's done today. Figure that at least a 1/3rd of that power may be lost in drive train.

Collapse -
built for torque an not hp
by jonah jones / August 15, 2010 10:34 AM PDT

sort of like the Harley Davidson?

a 1000 CC and doing 65 (could never understand the attraction)


Collapse -
I agree...
by J. Vega / August 15, 2010 11:26 AM PDT

I couldn't see it either. I went with a Norton Commando. 850CC, but would do 115 MPH. It cost me $1,995 brand new in 1975. Those were the days!

Collapse -
Torque gets you acceleration and hp gets you speed
by Steven Haninger / August 15, 2010 8:48 PM PDT

If the car was as heavy as J. Vega suggests, it would need more torque just so it could get out of it's own way. That makes sense. The bore stroke ratio suggests torque was more important. The narrower bore would allow a shorter crankshaft and block. Long cranks tend to have RPM limits due to harmonics and flexing tendencies. I also wonder about tires and brakes back then...especially on a heavier car. It might not have been the engine that limited the speed but the manufacturer's recommendation to hold back on the throttle. The government hadn't imposed safety standards at that time.

Collapse -
LOL, when I first speed read that
by James Denison / August 16, 2010 12:26 AM PDT

I was half awake this morning and it came across as;

If the car was as heavy as a Vega, it would need more torque just so it could get out of it's own way.

I thought "that car wasn't heavy and it still couldn't get out of it's way".

Then I read it again, slower.

Collapse -
Chrysler's slant 6
by James Denison / August 16, 2010 12:57 AM PDT

That 225ci was a great engine for raw torque power, a fairly long stroke engine, belonging more in trucks probably than cars, although it was in a lot of cars. The Chevy 350ci was one of the best short stroke engines in my opinion, great for street racing.

Collapse -
To add to Steven's comments:
by Paul C / August 15, 2010 8:05 PM PDT

The specs on the second link do not mention weight, but I imagine that the thing weighs somewhere north of 6,000 lbs. I make that guess from the fact that my sister-in-law's hubby Gene is a classic car collector who primarily collects Packards of the pre-WWII era. They are amazingly beautiful cars, with (like the Delahaye) with a body hand built on a chassis which was the only thing the buyer got from the car manufacturer. However, they are all heavy, weighing between 6,000 - 7,000 pounds in finished form. With their straight 8 and V-12 engines, the Packards are significantly faster than the Delahaye, however, they're nowhere as fast as one might suspect. Weight was then, as now, the enemy of performance.

Also, the output of the engine was very anemic by modern standards at 37 BHP (brake horsepower)/liter of engine displacement. I'm considering buying one of Ford's new Fiestas. That car has a 1.6 liter engine that develops 120 BHP. Doing the math, that comes out to 75 BHP/liter - twice the power output of the Delahaye. If that 4.455 liter made the same BHP/liter output as the Fiesta's 4 cylinder engine, it would make about 334 BHP instead of 165 BHP.

The Delahaye's engine is what is known as an undersquare design; that is, its cylinder bore is less than the vertical stroke that the piston covers in one revolution. In addition, it has an older overhead valve design with the camshaft in the engine block. The Fiesta has an engine that is oversquare; that is, the stroke is less than the cylinder bore. The result is an engine that can operate at higher RPMs. It also is a double overhead cam engine (DOHC), with the valves being directly opened by the camshafts instead of through pushrods as in the Delahaye (DOHC engines existed at the time of the Delahaye, but were almost exclusively used in racing applications). Add to that better fuel management through fuel injection as opposed to the Delahaye's carburetors and modern electronic engine controls, and you can see clearly why the Delahaye was horsepower challenged.



Collapse -
I don't care for the "nose" above the grille...
by EdHannigan / August 15, 2010 11:12 PM PDT
Collapse -
"horsepower challenged" *wiping the tears*
by jonah jones / August 16, 2010 12:51 AM PDT

congratulations Paul, you just "Officially"
brought the Delahaye into the "PC" era


jonah "needed a good laugh" jones


Collapse -
square engines
by James Denison / August 16, 2010 1:39 AM PDT

The closest to a perfectly square engine I believe was the Ford 300ci.

Collapse -
From a Wikipedia article on the subject:
by Paul C / August 16, 2010 6:02 PM PDT
In reply to: square engines
The Volkswagen Group W16 engine as used in the Bugatti Veyron is an example of a square engine - with an identical bore and stroke of 86.0 millimetres (3.39 in). Another example of a square engine is the 1970s Ford 400M with a 4.00" bore and stroke.

The Mercedes-Benz M117 engine with a displacement of 5547 cubic centimeters is an example of a nearly square engine with a bore of 96.5 millimeters and a stroke of 94.8 millimeters.

The Cadillac 500-V8 manufactured from 1970-1976 is a nearly square engine with a 4.300 inch bore and a 4.304 inch stroke.

Nissan's SR20DE is a square engine, with a bore and stroke of 86mm and 86, respectfully.

The 1973-1976 Kawasaki Z-1 and KZ(Z)900 had a 66 mm bore and a 66 mm stroke, also making it a square engine.

Collapse -
familiar engines
by James Denison / August 16, 2010 10:50 PM PDT

OK, I've not used any of those engines, although I believe I drove a "500" once in a Toronado, but that was just one time when I borrowed my uncle's car. Maybe it was an El Dorado instead. I didn't know that about the 500 though. Looking in wikipedia, I don't see that engine listed for a Toronado, but remember clearly his had a 500ci in it. Maybe it was a swap? Mother had a '72 Cadillac which had the 472 engine it it. I loved the luxury, but hated the upkeep of that car. After spending more for her car, it also cost more for every repair to it, and the "quadrophonic" radio system cost the most to repair. Personally I considered that Cadillac a lemon.

I mentioned the Ford 300 because it was the most common used engine I could think of that came close to being square.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?