really depends what kind of engine it is. small 4 cylinder inline, probably not too hard.
400 ci V-8, I'd like to see it done.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Nope, it has to do with the torque converter. It can only transfer power in one direction, namely engine rotation to transmission rotation. Rotating the transmission side will not transfer power to the engine side.
And the engine driven portion of the torque converter's turbine has to be driven at the stall speed of a few thousand RPM in order to lock up.
Only way it might be possible is with a manually electronically locking torque converter that you could activate with a switch or via a jumper on a fuse block or something.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,362
- 416
- 126
You guys are also forgetting that engines and fuel back in those days are nothing to what we have today. Compression on those engines were low due to poor gas refining, didnt require high compression ratios so cranking one of those engines would be nothing compared to today, also alot of them were just 4 cyl not 4-12.
Engine and means of starting
See Ford Model T engine
Model T had a front-mounted, 177 in³ (2.9 L) four-cylinder en bloc motor (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and three main bearings. Recent accounts credit the default-configuration Model T with fuel on the order of 25 to 30 mpg (7.8-9.4 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline or ethanol[3], though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition made ethanol an impractical fuel.
Before starting a Model T with the hand crank, you had to retard the spark, or you stood a good chance of breaking your arm if the engine "kicked back". The crank handle should be cupped in the palm, rather than grabbed with the thumb over the top of the handle, so that if the engine does kick back, the rapid reverse motion of the crank will throw your hand away from the handle, rather than violently twisting the wrist. Most Model T Fords had the choke operated by a wire emerging from the bottom of the radiator where it could be operated with the left hand while cranking the engine with the right hand. Most cars sold after 1919 were equipped with electric starting.
Ignition timing was adjusted manually by rotating the timer using by moving the spark advance lever mounted on the steering column. A certain amount of skill and experience was required to find the optimal choice of magneto or battery and the optimal timing for any speed and load. In keeping with the goal of ultimate reliability and simplicity, this system was retained even after the car became equipped with a generator and battery for the electric starting system.
The car's 10 gallon (38 litre) fuel tank was mounted to the frame beneath the front seat; one variant had the carburetor modified to run on ethyl alcohol, to be made at home by the self-reliant farmer. Because fuel relied on gravity to flow forward from the fuel tank to the carburetor, a Model T could not climb a steep hill when the fuel level was low. The immediate solution was often to drive up steep hills in reverse. In 1926 the fuel tank was moved forward to under the cowl on most models[4].
While the first few hundred Model Ts had a water pump, its use was abandoned early in production. Ford opted for a cheaper and more reliable circulation system based on the thermo-syphon principle. Hot water, being less dense would rise to the top of the engine and up into the top of the radiator, descending to the bottom as it cooled, and back into the engine. This was the direction of water flow in most makes of cars even when they did have water pumps, until the introduction of crossflow radiator designs. Water pumps were also available as an aftermarket accessory for Model T.
linkage MPG in 99 years hasnt changed really
Engine and means of starting
See Ford Model T engine
Model T had a front-mounted, 177 in³ (2.9 L) four-cylinder en bloc motor (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and three main bearings. Recent accounts credit the default-configuration Model T with fuel on the order of 25 to 30 mpg (7.8-9.4 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline or ethanol[3], though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition made ethanol an impractical fuel.
Before starting a Model T with the hand crank, you had to retard the spark, or you stood a good chance of breaking your arm if the engine "kicked back". The crank handle should be cupped in the palm, rather than grabbed with the thumb over the top of the handle, so that if the engine does kick back, the rapid reverse motion of the crank will throw your hand away from the handle, rather than violently twisting the wrist. Most Model T Fords had the choke operated by a wire emerging from the bottom of the radiator where it could be operated with the left hand while cranking the engine with the right hand. Most cars sold after 1919 were equipped with electric starting.
Ignition timing was adjusted manually by rotating the timer using by moving the spark advance lever mounted on the steering column. A certain amount of skill and experience was required to find the optimal choice of magneto or battery and the optimal timing for any speed and load. In keeping with the goal of ultimate reliability and simplicity, this system was retained even after the car became equipped with a generator and battery for the electric starting system.
The car's 10 gallon (38 litre) fuel tank was mounted to the frame beneath the front seat; one variant had the carburetor modified to run on ethyl alcohol, to be made at home by the self-reliant farmer. Because fuel relied on gravity to flow forward from the fuel tank to the carburetor, a Model T could not climb a steep hill when the fuel level was low. The immediate solution was often to drive up steep hills in reverse. In 1926 the fuel tank was moved forward to under the cowl on most models[4].
While the first few hundred Model Ts had a water pump, its use was abandoned early in production. Ford opted for a cheaper and more reliable circulation system based on the thermo-syphon principle. Hot water, being less dense would rise to the top of the engine and up into the top of the radiator, descending to the bottom as it cooled, and back into the engine. This was the direction of water flow in most makes of cars even when they did have water pumps, until the introduction of crossflow radiator designs. Water pumps were also available as an aftermarket accessory for Model T.
linkage MPG in 99 years hasnt changed really
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
A 400 ci V-8 is likely 9:1 CR, a small 4 cylinder is more like 11.5:1 CR. Depending on condition of the rings though, etc, compression forces should balance out like a spring to some extent.
There would probably be little difference in mechanical effort to turn the crank. But it's not as hard as people think. I've done it on all sorts of cars.
One of which was a 440 ci V-8, bolting up a torque converter to the flywheel with the engine and transmission in place under the car with the car on jack stands. You have to have a ratchet on the crank pulley to rotate each bolt hole towards the bottom so you can access them one at a time.
You have to do it this way because you can't get the bell housing of the transmission up over the torque converter and under the transmission hump and be able to stab the input shaft into the engine mounted torque converter at the same time. So the transmission has to go in with the torque converter already on the input shaft and inside the bell housing. Only way to bolt it up to the flywheel then is to rotate the crank by hand to line up each bolt. It's done all the time.
Even so, the bolts from the flywheel to the torque converter are oriented opposite as the crank-flywheel bolts, so you have to put them in from the flywheel side and drive them into the torque converter. So even to mount the torque converter by itself onto an engine on a stand you have to rotate the flywheel, and thus the crank, to access all the bolt holes.
Not hard at all, even with all the belt driven accessories attached (alternator, power steering pump, water pump, etc) which when added up, probably cause more resistance than the engines internal rotating assembly and valve train do. But then again there is no oil pressure so probably not.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
I think they also had to manually set the spark correctly on the hand cranked engines and if it was not set right there was a chance the engine would try to start running reverse of it's normally operating rotation which was the "kick back" that would hurt.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,362
- 416
- 126
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it has.
Then:
40 HP, 15 mph, 1000 lbs @ 25 mpg
Now:
400+HP, 120+ mph, 5,000 lbs @ 25 mpg
But in the end the results are still 7-35 mpg
Everything has gotten improved but the end MPG results.
Toastedlightly
Diamond Member
- Aug 7, 2004
- 7,213
- 6
- 81
yea, I've done this myself several times, so I guess I wasn't thinking. I wouldn't say it's easy though, it's a pain in the ass as I remember it.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Originally posted by: funboy42
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it has.
Then:
40 HP, 15 mph, 1000 lbs @ 25 mpg
Now:
400+HP, 120+ mph, 5,000 lbs @ 25 mpg
But in the end the results are still 7-35 mpg
Think of it this way. If you limited a modern engine to 40 HP, took off all the modern accessories that use engine energy, never went more than 15 mph and put it in a 1000 lb car, you'd probably get over 100 MPG. Rolling at 15 mph would probably cause you to run out of gas slightly faster than just letting it sit their and idle until the tank is empty. It takes exponentially more energy out of the available energy in the fuel to do 65 mph on the freeway than it does taking a stroll through the town at 15 mph in a Model T.
As effeciency gains allow for more mpg out of the available energy, we use that available energy for OTHER things, like faster cars, higher speed limits, and power everything, so in the end, yeah, actual vehicle MPG is about the same. But the overall 'energy extracted per gallon' must go up to do all these other things. MPG from the engine standpoint is 10x better than it was then, it's just we use more of that gallon for 100 other things instead of moving another mile or two.
The biggest improvement was fuel injection and stoichiometric combustion. That alone probably resulted in a 10 fold improvement over the Model T back before there was a solid understanding of chemistry and physics.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: funboy42
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it has.
Then:
40 HP, 15 mph, 1000 lbs @ 25 mpg
Now:
400+HP, 120+ mph, 5,000 lbs @ 25 mpg
But in the end the results are still 7-35 mpg
Think of it this way. If you limited a modern engine to 40 HP, took off all the modern accessories that use engine energy, never went more than 15 mph and put it in a 1000 lb car, you'd probably get over 100 MPG. Rolling at 15 mph would probably cause you to run out of gas slightly faster than just letting it sit their and idle until the tank is empty. It takes exponentially more energy out of the available energy in the fuel to do 65 mph on the freeway than it does taking a stroll through the town at 15 mph in a Model T.
As effeciency gains allow for more mpg out of the available energy, we use that available energy for OTHER things, like faster cars, higher speed limits, and power everything, so in the end, yeah, actual MPG is about the same.
I have a 40 hp engine that does 65 in a 1500 lb car and it gets about 20 mpg. It's a bit worn out though, it could be doing closer to 28
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: funboy42
Originally posted by: exdeath
Yeah it has.
Then:
40 HP, 15 mph, 1000 lbs @ 25 mpg
Now:
400+HP, 120+ mph, 5,000 lbs @ 25 mpg
But in the end the results are still 7-35 mpg
Think of it this way. If you limited a modern engine to 40 HP, took off all the modern accessories that use engine energy, never went more than 15 mph and put it in a 1000 lb car, you'd probably get over 100 MPG. Rolling at 15 mph would probably cause you to run out of gas slightly faster than just letting it sit their and idle until the tank is empty. It takes exponentially more energy out of the available energy in the fuel to do 65 mph on the freeway than it does taking a stroll through the town at 15 mph in a Model T.
As effeciency gains allow for more mpg out of the available energy, we use that available energy for OTHER things, like faster cars, higher speed limits, and power everything, so in the end, yeah, actual MPG is about the same.
I have a 40 hp engine that does 65 in a 1500 lb car and it gets about 20 mpg. It's a bit worn out though, it could be doing closer to 28
Model T was (might as well look up the actual specs now) 20 HP, 65 mph top speed, and weighs 1200 lbs and gets 25-30 mpg.
Though that is from one source on Wikipedia. Another source http://www.modelt.ca/faq-fs.html says 12-14 mpg.
Is your engine fuel injected? Driving lots of accessories? What mpg would you get if you drove no faster than 20 mph at all times? Do you drive on flat roads or lots of hills?
Lot of factors, but a engine designed to the same performance requirements as the Model T using todays engine technology would probably get 100 mpg.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,362
- 416
- 126
I guess my under laying point would be this. 99 years ago at the birth of the automobile cars were getting 25-30 mpg, here it is 99 years later and one would think with all the advances in engine technology, fuel injection, fuel, we would be seeing 100+ MPG but were not, throughout the 99 years, v-8, v-6, 4 cyl, carb'd engines from 1908, 1940's, 1950's and 60's, (70's no so because at the late 60's-early 70's you bought cars off the show room floor pushing 600hp 600ft lb or torque getting 12 MPG, same today be lucky to get 6 and push 12 if it was a hybrid and these were non computerized, shutting off cyls cruising on the highway).
Point is with all these advances in 99 years we still dont see better MPG unless it is cars that if it got better MPG cost more to maintain and your really not saving sh!t in the long run. Cars that do come out such as the electric car that Saturn had that worked, lasted long, wasnt to costly to maintain, gets shut down, where is the 3 cyl geo metros that pushed 50+ MPG? We have the technology to make the modern engine get 100+ MPG in the long run it comes down to whos behind the oil. They dont want you to get better and if it does it needs to cost more to buy it, keep it running, and make up the loss on that end. You on the other hand get a false feeling your saving the world when the batteries in the car you bought causes more pollution to produce them, more pollution to recycle them, and if the car breaks down out of warranty what would of been a $1500 repair is now a $15,000 repair, and the $1000 a year in fuel you saved in the 3 years you drove it was for nothing. You end up selling the car or junking it because you cant afford the repair making you buy yet another car, I ask you what did you save then?
Point is with all these advances in 99 years we still dont see better MPG unless it is cars that if it got better MPG cost more to maintain and your really not saving sh!t in the long run. Cars that do come out such as the electric car that Saturn had that worked, lasted long, wasnt to costly to maintain, gets shut down, where is the 3 cyl geo metros that pushed 50+ MPG? We have the technology to make the modern engine get 100+ MPG in the long run it comes down to whos behind the oil. They dont want you to get better and if it does it needs to cost more to buy it, keep it running, and make up the loss on that end. You on the other hand get a false feeling your saving the world when the batteries in the car you bought causes more pollution to produce them, more pollution to recycle them, and if the car breaks down out of warranty what would of been a $1500 repair is now a $15,000 repair, and the $1000 a year in fuel you saved in the 3 years you drove it was for nothing. You end up selling the car or junking it because you cant afford the repair making you buy yet another car, I ask you what did you save then?
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Ah but we are. The thing is however, the extra power and efficiency we extract from fuel with modern engines that *would* be giving us this extra MPG on the road is being *diverted* into things *other* than driving mileage. For example going even faster through higher wind resistance, accelerating harder, powering more accessories, pushing around a heavier car with more cargo and more passengers, etc. If you build an engine that has twice the MPG, you will only realize that doubled MPG if you stick it in the same car and drive the same way. But stick it in a new car also, one that weighs twice as much, carries more people, and has to power a bigger alternator, power steering, ABS brakes, etc, and drive at higher speeds through exponentially increasing wind resistance, you are not going to actually see that double MPG like you would expect.
If people today drove the same cars as 99 years ago and drove them the same way they did 99 years ago, with the same traffic conditions, but with today's engine technology, you'd see 100 MPG easy.
In other words if you took the 70 HP 4 cylinder out of a Civic and stuck it on a 1200 lb Model T and put a speed limiter on it at 25 mph and rev limit at 2000 RPM and didn't take it on the freeway (which didn't exist then) you would probably see close to 100 mpg.
Time for an older guy who actually did it.
Back about 1950-58 my father had two Austin vehicles (British cars) that came with hand cranks for emergency starts. They slipped in through a hole in the front bumper and body work to fit into a socket on the end of the crankshaft, in the centre of the fan belt pulley. The crank had a cross-pin through its end, and the socket allowed the pins to turn the engine in only one direction. It was made with a one-way tapered collar so that you could not crank backwards. But the real reason was that, once the engine started and was turning over faster than you could crank, it would NOT force the crank to turn forward fast and break your arm!
The arm-breaking thing you did have to watch out for, although it was rare then. It WAS caused by kick-back as others have said. That happened if the spark fired before the piston reached TDC. Although that was a danger in much older designs with manual timing systems, it was quite rare on a system with distrubutor and vacuum advance. Still possible, though, if you pulled the piston almost to TDC, then let off the force. Never mind the spark - just the compressed air in the cyclinder would push it back.
You did NOT turn the engine over at any speed, nor through several piston firings. You would turn it slowly to get to the start of a compression stroke, then position the crank so that your next motion was to pull the crank handle UP for half a revolution. UP was important - if the crank did kick back you would not be bent down close enough to get hit in the face! Plus, the crank handle would be going down - away from you - and your hand would lose its grip. If you had been pushing down instead and it kicked back, the force would have been directed right along your arm bones! The half revolution simply pulled ONE of the four pistons to TDC for the spark to fire. If that did it, the resulting engine work should (but didn't always) push it through another half revolution for the next cylinder to fire, and so on...
Even at that time, cranks had become rare on American cars. Why? Compression ratio. The Austins had a Compression Ratio of about 6:1 or 7:1 with 4 cylinders, so the force necessary to push one piston up was do-able by the average person. But cars with Compression Ratios of 10:1 and larger-diameter pistons made the force unreasonable, so a crank was simply not practical. Push-starting with a manual transmission was better. And as more automatic trannys came through (which made push-starting difficult or impossoble), we saw the rise of that magic tool, the Booster Cables!!
Re the discussion of battery power to run ingnition and fuel injection systems: Most batteries that are badly weakened, even to the point that they will not even turn over the engine at all, still have enough power to run a fuel pump and ignition system for a while. Those take maybe 5 to 10 amps, whereas a starter motor can easily pull 80 to 150 amps to do its job. On a cold engine in winter it can be much more!
Back about 1950-58 my father had two Austin vehicles (British cars) that came with hand cranks for emergency starts. They slipped in through a hole in the front bumper and body work to fit into a socket on the end of the crankshaft, in the centre of the fan belt pulley. The crank had a cross-pin through its end, and the socket allowed the pins to turn the engine in only one direction. It was made with a one-way tapered collar so that you could not crank backwards. But the real reason was that, once the engine started and was turning over faster than you could crank, it would NOT force the crank to turn forward fast and break your arm!
The arm-breaking thing you did have to watch out for, although it was rare then. It WAS caused by kick-back as others have said. That happened if the spark fired before the piston reached TDC. Although that was a danger in much older designs with manual timing systems, it was quite rare on a system with distrubutor and vacuum advance. Still possible, though, if you pulled the piston almost to TDC, then let off the force. Never mind the spark - just the compressed air in the cyclinder would push it back.
You did NOT turn the engine over at any speed, nor through several piston firings. You would turn it slowly to get to the start of a compression stroke, then position the crank so that your next motion was to pull the crank handle UP for half a revolution. UP was important - if the crank did kick back you would not be bent down close enough to get hit in the face! Plus, the crank handle would be going down - away from you - and your hand would lose its grip. If you had been pushing down instead and it kicked back, the force would have been directed right along your arm bones! The half revolution simply pulled ONE of the four pistons to TDC for the spark to fire. If that did it, the resulting engine work should (but didn't always) push it through another half revolution for the next cylinder to fire, and so on...
Even at that time, cranks had become rare on American cars. Why? Compression ratio. The Austins had a Compression Ratio of about 6:1 or 7:1 with 4 cylinders, so the force necessary to push one piston up was do-able by the average person. But cars with Compression Ratios of 10:1 and larger-diameter pistons made the force unreasonable, so a crank was simply not practical. Push-starting with a manual transmission was better. And as more automatic trannys came through (which made push-starting difficult or impossoble), we saw the rise of that magic tool, the Booster Cables!!
Re the discussion of battery power to run ingnition and fuel injection systems: Most batteries that are badly weakened, even to the point that they will not even turn over the engine at all, still have enough power to run a fuel pump and ignition system for a while. Those take maybe 5 to 10 amps, whereas a starter motor can easily pull 80 to 150 amps to do its job. On a cold engine in winter it can be much more!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter