Adrian_Thompson wrote: Celica Turbo Group B rally carThose are cars I could own, especially a group B replica
Toyota's copy of an Escort, with a giant turbo on a 1.7l engine. Do want.
(Odd: The engine had DOHC and twin plugs, but still only 2v/cyl.)
Knurled wrote: (Odd: The engine had DOHC and twin plugs, but still only 2v/cyl.)
Not that odd- Alfa's have had DOHC engines with twin plugs but 2V from the mid 60's through the early 90s.
Ferraris had DOHC/2v for a good long time. As did Toyota sixes in the 80s.
But it's still "odd" to me, in the sense that the engine was a homologation special made for Group B, specifically that cylinder head was only ever used on the 4T. The other T engines were pushrod. So thus it is odd that Toyota didn't take the clean-sheet opportunity to go to 4v/cyl, unless they didn't trust 4v to thermal stress yet. Audi certainly had a lot of problems keeping their 4v engines together, and Toyota was pushing out ~350hp from 1.7l versus Audi doing maybe 500hp from 2.1l.
I note that the otherwise simple Celica was a formidable tool for endurance rallies. Simple suspension, simple chassis.
In reply to Knurled:
The 1600TS was a homologation special, too- and even after the 4V 2000 engines of the early 70s- 2 V engines stayed until 1993 (I think)
Alfas real oddball engine was the GTA Jr- which had the same bore as the 1600 (so the same head) but an ultra short stroke. A buddy had one, and it was happy up at 9000 rpm.
The Lotus TwinCam was only 2 valves per cylinder, also.
Flight Service wrote:
Rare Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato Sells For $1.9 Million in 2012!
I've often thought that was the most beautiful car ever built. I once was one in person at Road Atlanta years ago, even got pictures somewhere. It was in polished aluminium. No paint is sight. I now suspect it may have been one of the follow-up cars, after reading the story.
Knurled wrote: Ferraris had DOHC/2v for a good long time. As did Toyota sixes in the 80s. But it's still "odd" to me, in the sense that the engine was a homologation special made for Group B, specifically that cylinder head was only ever used on the 4T. The other T engines were pushrod. So thus it is odd that Toyota didn't take the clean-sheet opportunity to go to 4v/cyl, unless they didn't trust 4v to thermal stress yet. Audi certainly had a lot of problems keeping their 4v engines together, and Toyota was pushing out ~350hp from 1.7l versus Audi doing maybe 500hp from 2.1l. I note that the otherwise simple Celica was a formidable tool for endurance rallies. Simple suspension, simple chassis.
Isn't the extra valve considerably more important on an NA engine though? If you're using a turbo to force the airflow, you may not be as ill-affected than if you are running NA. And doubling the valvetrain means double the chances of breakage, so maybe it was a trade off they made on purpose (in fact, I would be willing to bet it was).
alfadriver wrote:Knurled wrote: (Odd: The engine had DOHC and twin plugs, but still only 2v/cyl.)Not that odd- Alfa's have had DOHC engines with twin plugs but 2V from the mid 60's through the early 90s.
Only four valves per cylinder? Bah.
BEHOLD! The Maserati Sei Valvole!
Cyclops V1
slantvaliant wrote:
That would look much better with a subtle S.H.I.E.L.D. logo on the side.
rcutclif wrote: Isn't the extra valve considerably more important on an NA engine though? If you're using a turbo to force the airflow, you may not be as ill-affected than if you are running NA.
The only difference between a turbo engine and a nonturbo engine is what you need to do to the compression ratio. The turbo doesn't "push" the air in, the turbo compresses the air, that's it.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Duke wrote: I see no reason for the first 3 lines of your post.The first three lines are semi tongue in cheek. I'm not a Toyota fan because: a) They have an undeserved reputation for quality b) These days they make almost terminally boring cars that out bland the worst domestic malaise era c) The press gives them massive leeway compared to other, especially domestic manufacturers d) The worst vehicle I've ever had the misfortune to own was my wife’s Highlander, the quality and design issues at 100K miles would have had a domestic or European manufacturer hung out to dry e) They used to make awesome cars, but choose not to these days in pursuit of the lowest common denominator buyer f) the picture really is ridiculous and totally impractical for many reasons But I still think it would rock.
The Fellas at ISIS seem to like them.
There was probably a weight penalty for 4v
Wall-e wrote:
But it's not March?.?.
spitfirebill wrote:Flight Service wrote:I've often thought that was the most beautiful car ever built. I once was one in person at Road Atlanta years ago, even got pictures somewhere. It was in polished aluminium. No paint is sight. I now suspect it may have been one of the follow-up cars, after reading the story.
I can't think of a more beautiful car. In my mind the designer of this is up there with Picasso, da Vinci, van Gogh.
This isn't a car it is moving piece of art
Edit: The man responsible for the DB4GT is Ercole Spada which made the car much prettier than the standard DB4, and it the beauty above.
His notable work from the link above:
1960 – Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato
1960 – Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ
1960 – O.S.C.A 1600 GTZ
1962 – Alfa Romeo 2600 SZ
1962 – Lancia Flavia Sport
1963 – Alfa Romeo Giulia TZ
1963 – Lancia Flaminia Super Sport
1965 – Lancia Fulvia Sport
1967 – Rover 2000 TCZ
1969 – Alfa Romeo Junior Z
1969 – Volvo GTZ 2000
1970 – Ford GT 70
1988 – Fiat Tipo
1989 – Lancia Dedra
1990 – Fiat Tempra
1992 – Alfa Romeo 155
1993 – Lancia Delta
1993 – Nissan Terrano II
1993 - Ferrari FZ93
1994 – Lancia Kappa
2001 - OSCA 2500 GT Dromos
2008 – Spada Codatronca
Folks born the same day as Mario's last Indycar race....
Are now old enough to legally imbibe adult-beverages.
Click and Clack
You'll need to log in to post.
