---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 09/07/07: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:38 AM - Re: ELT info (Gene & Tammy) 2. 04:08 AM - Re: voltage regulator () 3. 08:23 AM - Re: Engine question (LWATCDR) 4. 11:02 AM - Re: Engine question (AMsafetyC@aol.com) 5. 12:58 PM - battery life (skellytownflyer) 6. 04:43 PM - Re: Engine question (Gordon Bowen) 7. 05:45 PM - Re: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke (AzevedoFlyer@aol.com) 8. 07:55 PM - Potential Auto engine for Pietes (Gordon Bowen) 9. 07:59 PM - Re: Pietenpol kids (Rick Holland) 10. 10:45 PM - Re: Engine question (Scott Schreiber) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:38:04 AM PST US From: "Gene & Tammy" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ELT info Rob, did the NTSB ever come up with a cause for the crash that killed Mike and his student? Gene ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:08:49 AM PST US Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: voltage regulator From: Thankyou very much for that info. ________________________________ From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AzevedoFlyer@aol.com Sent: September 6, 2007 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: voltage regulator Harvey, My admittedly modest contribution, after suffering with related problems. Besides voltage and current (Amps), you have to know if your generator is type "A" or "B" circuit. All Delco Remy generators are type "A." For better explanation, go to www.aerotechlou.com, "Troubleshooting alternator and generator issues". As an example: my Pacer has a Delco Remy generator (hence type "A") 12V and 35 Amps. The VR recommended is Electrodelta VR300, which will cost you app. $150.00. The automotive version -- performancewise the same as the aircraft grade - is a VR22, generally found or ordered from NAPA / Car Quest and the like. It was used in GM Corvair cars and is still used by many a farm tractor. It should cost you around $35.00. One last word: buy American. The current Chinese crop is worse than the toys they make, in the words of people in the known (Ecorse Electric/MI). Best of luck, Miguel N8714D PA22/20-150 ________________________________ .. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:23:44 AM PST US From: LWATCDR Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question Not exactly correct. In fact way off. For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed. So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when. They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak is very high in the RPM band. Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start on flame travel and forced induction. So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio for turning the prop that you want to turn. The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very little torque. I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they could also be very interesting. The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the thrust bearings will handle the load a On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote: > > > Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons. > Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short stroke > and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought > aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't gonna > find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque > requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine > designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet again > and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat > proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to get > torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW or > Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms. Biggest > problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time and > money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative > experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder > and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole Buick > V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there in > internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have worked > and are working are well documented. > Gordon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: AMsafetyC@aol.com > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question > > > What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of hp > out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would much > rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and redrive. > > Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max > rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range? > > I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I > already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is > greatly appreciated! > > John > > > ________________________________ > title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982 > href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982" > target=_blank>AOL.com. > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:02:07 AM PST US From: AMsafetyC@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question As this all sounds like a balancing act but then engine torque/rpm issues can be mitigated in some degree by matching up a propeller to that engine to determine the best combination to avoid exceeding the 92% of Mach speed at the propeller tip at a maximum allowable Rpm. which at any luck will be at the max torque. I located this calculator to help make those calculations and plugging in a number of variables. _http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html_ (http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html) Like most things in this life, its not the end all but it certainly helps take much of the guess work out of the balancing act. John BTW does anyone have a resource for torque curve charts I want to check my engine options to see what they actually look like on the torque charts http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:58:19 PM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: battery life From: "skellytownflyer" Well I bought new Gell cell battery last summer when I got my Tri-pacer annualed.Yea I know it's not a *iet-but is aircraft.I didn't fly much and it was dead by mid-winter.messed around and charged it back up and flew once or twice but still had to jump it.but didn't take it back in time to get it replaced.now I'm wondering if there are any tricks to getting a gel cell to accept a charge? I put a solar panel on the roof of the hangar in winter and kept it hooked up but it won't maintain a charge.wondering if hitting it with a heavy charger might wake it up-have tried slow charge and it seems to indicate enough voltage to cut back pretty quick but just won't hold.might crank it that day but a few days later-go back and it's dead.Gill put out some bad batteries I know.but I'm a tightwad and would'nt mind trying to get a little use out of it.still planning on starting cover on my GN-1 wings in about 6 weeks.Raymond Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133284#133284 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:01 PM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get by without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an engine for a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the crank good idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm (short stroke) would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have very large bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for decades at 2500 rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore aircraft engines is first for durability and then improved breathing and lower frictional losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's needed to get to peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the torque curve peak back to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think any car engine is designed for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a PRU. Could make cam changes to open small valves on small cylinders but in a big bore engines you already have larger and unshrouded valves away from the cylinder walls, no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust for poorer fuel/air burn in bigger bore you'd need two plugs per cylinder. The shorter stroke would mean less losses due to friction and less vibration. Subaru's seem to work for aircraft because they are 3.46" bore and 2.591" stroke, but still need two plugs and PRU to get the advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to work so it could run like a aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration (less with short stroke), and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of the cylinder (bigger valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website for a guy that builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in the cams and still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore engines means better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6 3.8L Ford engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including motor mount, 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who wants to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a PRU. Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything I'm willing to fly, yet. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "LWATCDR" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question > > Not exactly correct. In fact way off. > For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get > but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on > the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed. > So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably > want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The > bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will > effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people > tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when. > They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making > very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the > other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they > use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak > is very high in the RPM band. > Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction > and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start > on flame travel and forced induction. > > So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio > for turning the prop that you want to turn. > The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst > possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very > little torque. > > I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems > a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a > lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could > be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both > Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they > could also be very interesting. > The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern > motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the > thrust bearings will handle the load a > > On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote: >> >> >> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons. >> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short >> stroke >> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought >> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't >> gonna >> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque >> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine >> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet again >> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat >> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to >> get >> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW >> or >> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms. >> Biggest >> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time >> and >> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative >> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of homebuilder >> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole >> Buick >> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out there >> in >> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have >> worked >> and are working are well documented. >> Gordon >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: AMsafetyC@aol.com >> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question >> >> >> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of >> hp >> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would >> much >> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and >> redrive. >> >> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a max >> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range? >> >> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I >> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is >> greatly appreciated! >> >> John >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982 >> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982" >> target=_blank>AOL.com. >> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:36 PM PST US From: AzevedoFlyer@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Big Bore&Short Stroke Versus Small Bore&Long Stroke Piet Friends, I have to pitch into this subject. 1 - There is no relationship between PCU (Power Cylinder Unit: piston, rings and cylinder) wear and bore X stroke combinations. A large range can be made to achieve expected life limits. 2 - For aircraft engines, the overriding design objective is lightness and lower BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Minimizing thermal losses (hence lower BSFC) favors big bores and few cylinders. Given more displacement per cylinder, less of the same are necessary to generate the power needed, hence less weight. Example: 4 cyl. Lyc.O-360 versus 6 cyl. Cont. O-360: both are real 200HP engines. The Lycosaurus has lower BSFC (more mpg) and vibrates more. The Contisaurus has higher BSFC (less mpg) and is smooth as silk. Smoothness comes from lower thrust loads (the force pistons exert on cylinder walls) and better balancing of primary/secondary forces and internal binaries, a natural with 6 cyl. configuration. So, a large displacement per cylinder rotating at lower speed is capable of generating the same power as a lower displacement rotating at higher speed. Short strokes, as said before, implies high conrod angularity and higher thrust load. Higher thrust load generates friction losses and greater wear, if same materials are used. 3 - Given the above, large bores predominate. Thus large valves can be used, resulting in filling efficiencies (so called volumetric efficiency) far in excess of those achieved by the run-of-the-mill automotive engine. However, large valves do not induce the high turbulence levels needed for fast combustion. Thus the extreme sensitivity of our slow revving, big bore aircraft engines to fuel Octane rating. Higher Octane fuels are needed to preclude detonation but this slows combustion even more! Therefore, twin spark plugs are needed to expedite things. In effect twin spark plugs slice the combustion chamber in 2 and ensure freedom of detonation under high loads. Incidentally, this is the root explanation for speed loss when checking magnetos. Normal combustion is, paradoxically, very slow (20 to 100 m/s). Very high revving engines (Ferrari V12 comes to mind) have tiny pistons/combustion chambers and get away with a single spark plug. 4 - Our Lycosaurus and Contisaurus are not perfect (...and in some aspects irritably so, example in point carbs and mechanical fuel injection, not to mention single timing magnetos...) but are unbeatable in their primary function: reliability/safety. 5 - Can one turn an automotive engine into a good aircraft engine? The answer is an unequivocal YES. 6 - Done properly, almost any automotive engine should have at least 1000h TBO. Sorry for the lengthy mail. Intention was to contribute +. Cheers, Miguel Azevedo PA22/20-150 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:58 PM PST US From: "Gordon Bowen" Subject: Pietenpol-List: Potential Auto engine for Pietes For those of you bent on trying an auto conversion for your Piete project, especially considering the prior thread re H.P and torque, etc. You may want to look into the engine and chain-driven gears for the Toyota Prius, engine no. 1NZ-FXE. Only 1.5L but very light all aluminum engine, twin overhead cam, good torque at 4200 rpms. Probably be hard to find a wreck but with more cars on the road each year, they'll eventually be plentiful. Google it, you'll find lots of data on engine and drive train (no clutch or torque converter). Maybe not enough to swing a big prop or heavy plane, but a good potential. Gordon ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:15 PM PST US From: "Rick Holland" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol kids I received one a couple days ago also. Very thoughtful of them. I took wood shop in high school and enjoyed it but I can't imagine how exciting it would have been to have worked on a project like a Pietenpol. Especially getting to take a ride in it knowing that I had built a part of it. Rick On 9/4/07, Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > taildrags@hotmail.com> > > I received a nice laminated photo of the "Piet kids" in the mail last > week. > I think they sent out photos to everyone who contributed to their > restoration project and trip to Oshkosh. Very encouraging to see young > people carring the 75 year old design into the 21st century and beyond! > > Who knows; there might be a daydreaming young student doodling in class > right now, working on a biodiesel Piet or a hydrogen Piet or something > else > like that, even as we speak... > > > Oscar Zuniga > San Antonio, TX > mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net > > _________________________________________________________________ > Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes! > > http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2 > > -- Rick Holland ObjectAge Ltd. Castle Rock, Colorado ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:45:55 PM PST US From: "Scott Schreiber" Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question This is all very odd to me. We have a Lotus that runs a Toyota 2ZZ based engine built by Yamaha and it turns almost 9k stock, and is turning 12k after the build. It is like driving a sportbike with a steering wheel. My other daily driver is a Subaru 04 STi that put down 300 stock and is now at just over 500 after a larger turbo, IC, injectors, pump etc. and ECU reflash. That is where my auto mindset comes from. When I first started building I looke at auto and aero engines as the same. HP + HP etc. After allot of looking at the real world I came to see that they are very different an that people like Gordon have a real point. Granted the model A engine was not that different from an aero engine in many respects. The more I get used to it, and as I start down the road of building my second plane, an Acro Sport II, I see that a 360ci 4Cyl which would be terrible in the auto world makes sense in the aero world. That said, the PSRU is a valid idea and Subaru engines are ideal if any are for conversion. I really wanted to run an EA81 in my Peit and I do think it could have worked but the A65 won out for various reasons, chiefly insurance. -Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bowen" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question > > > I think the original thread on this discussion came regarding how to get > by without the PRU using a car engine. Guess if one was building an > engine for a tractor pull then having the long stroke for leverage on the > crank good idea, or if building a NASCAR engine for routine 9000rpm (short > stroke) would be great but we're talking aircraft. Engines like Lyco have > very large bore and short stroke. Designed to run hours at a time for > decades at 2500 rpm and at peak torque. Think the reason for big bore > aircraft engines is first for durability and then improved breathing and > lower frictional losses. Without PRU cannot run any car engine at RPM's > needed to get to peak of torque curve, so what can you do to move the > torque curve peak back to say 2700 rpm. Very few options. Don't think any > car engine is designed for long durations of 4000 rpms even if you use a > PRU. Could make cam changes to open small valves on small cylinders but > in a big bore engines you already have larger and unshrouded valves away > from the cylinder walls, no need to experiment with the cam. To adjust > for poorer fuel/air burn in bigger bore you'd need two plugs per cylinder. > The shorter stroke would mean less losses due to friction and less > vibration. Subaru's seem to work for aircraft because they are 3.46" > bore and 2.591" stroke, but still need two plugs and PRU to get the > advertised 125hp. To get a car engine to work so it could run like a > aircraft engine you have to consider: vibration (less with short stroke), > and fuel/air vacuum pumping by the intake stroke of the cylinder (bigger > valves on big bore engines). Someplace there's a website for a guy that > builds VW engines for racing, he had made many changes in the cams and > still came to the conclusion it all came down to bigger bore engines means > better breathing and less frictional losses. I have a V-6 3.8L Ford > engine with supercharger down at the hanger in FL, including motor mount, > 225hp at 5200 rpm according to Ford. I'll donate it to anyone who wants > to put it on their C-172 and do the flight testing with or without a PRU. > Big fan of idea auto engines for aircraft, but haven't seen anything I'm > willing to fly, yet. > Gordon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "LWATCDR" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:23 AM > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question > > >> >> Not exactly correct. In fact way off. >> For an aircraft engine you do want HP you want all the HP you can get >> but you want it at the right RPM. The correct RPM will be based on >> the size of the prop and you maximum airspeed. >> So if you are not going to use a reduction system you will probably >> want a pretty long stroke. But even then it isn't that simple. The >> bore can also make a difference because the size of the valves will >> effect the amount of power you get out of the engine. Some people >> tried to make what where called bicycle pump engines way back when. >> They had a very long stroke and a small bore. They ended up making >> very little power because they couldn't breath well. An example on the >> other end of the scale is a modern high power hemi engine like they >> use in top fuel racing. They make a huge amount of toque but the peak >> is very high in the RPM band. >> Oh and yes it gets even more complex. You have things like induction >> and exhaust system to take in account as well. I will not even start >> on flame travel and forced induction. >> >> So the ideal engine would have a just the right stroke to bore ratio >> for turning the prop that you want to turn. >> The biggest bore and shortest stroke would honestly be the worst >> possible engine for a plane like an Aircamper it would have very >> little torque. >> >> I too have been thinking about the VW TDI. I did the math and it seems >> a little on the heavy side compared to the Model A but would make a >> lot more power. VW makes a nice 3 cylinder TDI in the EU which could >> be a great fit for an Aircamper but info on it is hard to find. Both >> Honda and Nissan are going to be bringing TDIs to the US soon so they >> could also be very interesting. >> The big problem I see with all the TDIs will be the crank. All modern >> motors are very optimized for what they do. I just don't know if the >> thrust bearings will handle the load a >> >> On 9/5/07, Gordon Bowen wrote: >>> >>> >>> Find an engine with the shortest stroke and largest diameter pistons. >>> Torque turns the prop, not max. hp. Low rpm torque comes from short >>> stroke >>> and large diameter piston engines, ie. diesel engines and storebought >>> aircraft engines. You can look until the next ice age, but you ain't >>> gonna >>> find too many cheap engines made for cars that meet the above torque >>> requirements at low rpm. OR Option 1--- bite the bullet and buy engine >>> designed for the job, like a Lycosaurus. Option 2--bite the bullet >>> again >>> and get a firewall forward system like the Subaru's modified, somewhat >>> proven and for aircraft. Subarus still need a PRU, do to rpm needed to >>> get >>> torque. Benefit of Subarus is the fact the pistons are oppossed like VW >>> or >>> Corvair, thus they don't vibrate themselves to death at high rpms. >>> Biggest >>> problem with looking a alternate sources of power is waste of your time >>> and >>> money. I know it's called experimental, but the engine alternative >>> experiment has been beaten to death by every type and sort of >>> homebuilder >>> and some spam cans with ie. 4.3L Chevy engines, or alumimum block ole >>> Buick >>> V-8's. There's tonnes of research and experiment documentation out >>> there in >>> internet-land for your consideration. The power systems that have >>> worked >>> and are working are well documented. >>> Gordon >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: AMsafetyC@aol.com >>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine question >>> >>> >>> What changes would one have to make to an engine to get the majority of >>> hp >>> out at a lower rpm, rather than making it a 6500 rpm screamer? I would >>> much >>> rather improve the low rpm output if possible than go full rpm and >>> redrive. >>> >>> Any suggestions on building a low rpm high output engine suggesting a >>> max >>> rpm in the 2500 to 3500 range? >>> >>> I would really like to use the ford 2.0 L OHC metric engine (Pinto) I >>> already have in stock if at all possible! Any info on building that is >>> greatly appreciated! >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982 >>> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982" >>> target=_blank>AOL.com. >>> >>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List >>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message pietenpol-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/pietenpol-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.