Motor is HOOOPEDDD!!!
#1
07-06-2009, 08:49 PM
#2
07-06-2009, 10:24 PM
V6 Ram Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#3
07-06-2009, 10:24 PM
V6 Ram Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#4
07-06-2009, 10:46 PM
#5
07-11-2009, 05:16 AM
Professional
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#6
07-15-2009, 08:24 PM
Record Breaker
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That post awesome. And off base, and on amphetamines. Reciprocating internal combstion engines are better engineered than ever before. They are not throwaway. They are not cheap junk. Things lasted longer in the past because the science and engineering of failure probability was inaccurate. So, "When in doubt, make it stout" was the order of the day. Thicken those cylinder walls by 10% just to make sure.
Nowadays, engineers are amazingly good at predicting failure. It's literally what makes aircraft travel possible. Knowing when an engine will give up, or start exhibiting component failure, enables you to eliminate extra material (aka cost) wherever possible. The result? A strong engine that costs less.
Now if an engine costs less, then the break-even point between a labor intensive repair and a replacement drops. A new Hemi might cost Chrysler $2000 for round numbers. A week in the shop to rebuild a motor that threw a rod might be twice that in warranty claims.
These "throwaway motors" are actually engineering marvels that cost everyone...consumer, garage, and manufacturer, less in the end. If there is ANYTHING a large auto company does NOT want to do, it's under-design an engine that loses money on warranty work and catastrophic failures.
Know what the design has to do. Design it to those exact specs. Test the crap out of it and know how and when it will fail. Reduce cost where possible. Test again. Repeat until the design is optimized. That is true mechanical engineering.
Nowadays, engineers are amazingly good at predicting failure. It's literally what makes aircraft travel possible. Knowing when an engine will give up, or start exhibiting component failure, enables you to eliminate extra material (aka cost) wherever possible. The result? A strong engine that costs less.
Now if an engine costs less, then the break-even point between a labor intensive repair and a replacement drops. A new Hemi might cost Chrysler $2000 for round numbers. A week in the shop to rebuild a motor that threw a rod might be twice that in warranty claims.
These "throwaway motors" are actually engineering marvels that cost everyone...consumer, garage, and manufacturer, less in the end. If there is ANYTHING a large auto company does NOT want to do, it's under-design an engine that loses money on warranty work and catastrophic failures.
Know what the design has to do. Design it to those exact specs. Test the crap out of it and know how and when it will fail. Reduce cost where possible. Test again. Repeat until the design is optimized. That is true mechanical engineering.
#7
10-01-2009, 12:54 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
#8
10-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in short, it went like this...
High comp motor + boost = MUCH more stress on stock internals and possible bent rod with premature engine failure.
No, this is proof that boosting a STOCK V6 is a bad idea.
High comp motor + boost = MUCH more stress on stock internals and possible bent rod with premature engine failure.
No, this is proof that boosting a STOCK V6 is a bad idea.
Last edited by xanadu62; 10-03-2009 at 10:16 PM.
#10
10-09-2009, 10:04 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South of St.Louis
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts