From: clare@snyder.on.ca   
      
   On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 15:51:31 -0700, Bob La Londe    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 3/1/2025 3:37 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:   
   >> Those horsepower numbers seem exceedingly large. Is it really required?   
   >> I'm thinking in terms of 100hp peak, 20hp continuous at most. It   
   >> might require a multi-speed transmission, but that's key to efficiency   
   >> anyway. Am I overlooking something? A 12 kg LiFePO4 battery can deliver   
   >> about a kilowatt for a minute or so. Do you really want 250 of them?   
   >>   
   >> bob prohaska   
   >>   
   >> ---------------------------------------   
   >> My 91 Ford Ranger has a 105HP 4 cylinder engine that can barely get it   
   >> to 70MPH on flat ground. It was fine around town and for commuting in   
   >> bumper to bumper traffic at 50MPH. I bought it for its 7' bed and put up   
   >> with the Pinto engine.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine#Lima_OHC_(LL)   
   >>   
   >> "A version with two spark plugs per cylinder, distributor-less ignition,   
   >> and reduced main bearing sizes was introduced in the 1989 Ford Ranger   
   >> and 1991 Ford Mustang. This engine produced 105 hp (78 kW) and 183 N?m   
   >> (135 lb?ft)."   
   >>   
   >   
   >Jim basically made the same point as my long winded reply.   
   >   
   >Horsepower is horsepower.  I want to make a surface street work vehicle   
   >out of it.  Around here that means I'll have to do 55 once in a while to   
   >get everywhere around town.  I also want to be able to haul a little bit   
   >with it.   
   >   
      
   Actrually no horsepower is NOT horsepower -   
      
   A400 HP cummins will out pull your 400HP Chevy LS - any day of the   
   week. The torque curve is what you need to look at. How often will you   
   be running full throttle at 5900 RPM under load to produce the 6.2L   
   LS3's rated 430HP????   
   Even at Peak torque RPM of 4600 RPM (425 ft lbs) you are only baking   
   375 horses - and that's a pretty sophisticated engine.   
   Work the numbers for a smallblockchevy, or a Mopar small block putting   
   out 400HP.   
      
    Electric motors are TOTALLY different - particularly dumb as a rock   
   series wound traction motors that will take all the amps you can give   
   them at zero RPM and produce INSANE torque - and will draw virtually   
   NO amps, and produce virtually NO torque at INSANE RPMs   
      
    The generator used as a motor in my FIAT produced about 18HP 36 would   
   have been quite adequate.  100hp in a ram 1500 would make a nice town   
   truck with gears, and would not be TERRIBLY painful for short highway   
   jaunts.   
      
    Find a copy of Paul R Shipps'"WV Engineering Guidebook" for all the   
   tables to determine the horsepower/performance requirements for ANY   
   conversion. This was the "bible" for EV conversions in the 1980s.   
   (3e vehicles, San Diego Ca)   
   >If I was using it as a tractor substitute around the property it might   
   >be different, but I have a tractor already.   
   >   
   >Having owned a few trucks, all used for work, some rarely going highway   
   >speed, I can't believe I'd want less than 200HP on tap, but if the price   
   >was right I might live with 160ish.   
   >   
   >   
   >--   
   >Bob La Londe   
   >CNC Molds N Stuff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)