True, and they Still produces a ton of Power. My dads 65 3.8 E-Type was
rated at 280 HP, and a ton of torque. Even though, my Buick/Rover 215/3.5L
can produce more horse power than the Jag can, It will never touch it in the
torque range. On the other hand, the Jag will NEVER see anything above
5,500 RPM, 6,000 if you are wearing a Bomb Sqaud suit, where the Buick
engine can easily pass 9,000 RPM. The differnce is the stroke legths. The
Buick is very short at 2.8", and the Jag is very long at something around
5.5"..(don't have it's stats right off hand.) Jags are well know for
launching rods out the side of the block when over reved. The 215's are
not, as are most american V-8's They float and suck valves "Usually" before
they break rods.
Someone a while back talked about model aiplane engines...I've blown
rods in those too! Lost a plane to one about 10 years ago...Steep dive,
full throttle, BANG! Nitro fire ! Burned the whole front of the plane.
Landed quick enough to save the radio gear farther back in the plane.
Pretty cool actually. But back to the rod argument...Boats have more horse
power..?? What about Jets? no rods at all !! Lots of horse power !!!!
Rich
>Bob,
>
>As I recall, my XK 120 had a 3 inch bore and a 4 inch
>stroke. Talk about piston speed at high rpm. Why, you
>might ask, when the most knowledgeable designers are
>building low bore/stroke ratios of 1 or even less, would Jag
>build one in the 'wrong' direction. Because they were
>stupid? No, much more practical.
>
|