there are two schools of thought on that. on the one hand, surface oxidation resistance is a good thing. on the other, there may be a problem with tin in fatigue environments. i don't know this for sure, so if you know someone at work who does, it would be good to check - but tin has a weird deformation mechanism called "twinning" which changes the surface of the metal where it's occurred. given that almost all fatigue initiates at a surface, that /might/ be a fatigue initiator. how much it might be worse than oxidation, i can't say, but i know a lot of mil spec wire is silver plated, not tin, so i think it might not be simple cheapness preventing its use.
indeed, but that's not unique to silicone - many elastomers have the same problem.
maybe. it was was bullet proof - never failed unless abused.
Surprisingly, I apparently got one of the first '55 Studebakers that used the plastic-insulated wire rather than the cloth-covered wire that was used previously. It was still intact and flexible when I pulled the harness for repairs 5-6 years ago which made me happy as I was not looking forward to laying out for a new one.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.) There *are* a lot of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of every modern car with a few notable exceptions worth having and none of mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that :)
Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.
I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify another vehicle purchase.
And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on enthusiast-oriented TV programming.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?
dude, what is wrong with you this morning????
can we change who shows up with meaningless drivel on r.a.t?
ah, got it - you idea of a car that "handles" is an extended cab pickup. got it.
you sure won't have funds if you're driving a bmw.
nate, i'm sure that if you're nice to your mom, she'll let you out of the basement occasionally. you can have the tv on while she hoses you down and changes your depends.
What failures have I catalogued? I had a leaking oil filter housing gasket at the time the car was purchased, which was repaired and the car has been trouble free since. That is the ONLY issue that I've had in this car in about 6K miles/several months since purchase (car has 77K give or take.) There have been NO other repairs to this car under my care!
Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of approved manufacturers can make a decent car.
I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as well, FWIW. Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.
At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's hp/weight, and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations on fuel use...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf·ft (221 N·m) at 6,500 rpm.
Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.
Quite relevant.
It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.
It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX, Lotus, or Miata, I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage in comfort, which is important if you have friends.
Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important at all? Fascinating.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp / 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the s2000 instead? [rhetorical]
it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.
wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way of suppositional nonsense!
Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100. Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get that one.
It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.
OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."
I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars, but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle. You're attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the comparison. Dissemble much?
The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter. How you get there is less important.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair comparison, see here:
formatting link
Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make a fair comparison.
Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement, which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and Diesel engines.
That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less relevant anyway...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp. If you have cites to the contrary, I'm willing to be corrected, because, as you well know, hondas are something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed expert, please, enlighten us.
No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel wins, hands down.
Man Look! I came here for an argument. Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse. Man Oh I see, that explains it.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Hey, you're the one making the claims, you back them up.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that the burden of proof is on you because I (and likely many other readers of this group) are going to take your word for jack shit because you're hardly an authoritative source. And before you get your nosehairs all in an uproar, that's the way life works - unless you're a published expert, when you make a claim you need to back it up. And if you *are* a published expert, then the backup ought to be in your published works.
I shouldn't have to spend more than a minute or two researching anything you post, you lazy satchel.
In what way is it irrelevant? If you want to name a winner in the "breaking the 100 hp/l mark in a production automotive naturally aspirated engine" unless you exclude them and/or apply an adjustment factor (generally accepted as 2, e.g. the nominal 1.3l 13B engines should be considered to be 2.6l for purposes of this discussion,) Mazda wins.
Unless you want to start looking at two-stroke motorcycle engines... do those count, too? I'm sure I could find examples of those putting out over 200 hp/l before applying an adjustment factor.
Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.
Clearly most of the intelligent people have left Usenet; I guess I'm a little nostalgic for the good old days when we used to have actual intelligent, enlightening discussions. A little libertarian/egalitarian part of me truly believes that a moderated forum is inferior in most ways to an unmoderated group; however, you and others like you are starting to make me seriously question that belief.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.