Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Bad cars"?

Expand Messages
  • LouRugani
    Messages Re: Bad cars ? Posted by: Eric lokisgodhi@yahoo.com ericwolfsbane I look at that list and there are several cars I would like to own. Eric =======
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Messages
      Re: "Bad cars"?
      Posted by: "Eric" lokisgodhi@... ericwolfsbane

      I look at that list and there are several cars I would like to own.

      Eric

      =======

      Bob Estabrook <bob_estabrook@...> wrote:

      OK, Mark started it so you can't blame me for this.

      Here's a link to the Time Worst Car list (with the Horsey Horseless). I think they may have mis-named the list though. Should be cars that Bob has either owned or wants to own. I have to admit that the '98 Fiat Multipla might only be attractive to another grasshopper though.
      http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/completelist/0165854500.html

      Just for fun....

      Bob

      ----Original Message-----
      The Crosley engine was one of the more bullet proof engines ever built. Way back when a friend of mine got 700 HP out of one of them. Highly modified of course but I always thought the no head design was a great idea. A bit difficult to do a valve job perhaps, but you never had to worry about blowing a head gasket!! As for auto reporters --- mostly morons who know little about cars or what kind of vehicles people want or need. Waldo

      "Reporters" who write these sensationalistic things are usually out to prove they need a job ... any job. Check out the angry comments and corrections on all the inaccuracies.

      Each such list, for instance, includes an attack on the Crosley Hotshot because of its troublesome CoBra brazed sheet-metal engine.

      No Hotshot ever built had such a engine.

      =Lou=


      Messages in this topic (18)
      Posted by: "Rob Eiring" reiring@... r_eiring

      That would be interesting! It's over 10 HP per cubic inch from a time when a fuel injected 283 made 1 HP per cubic inch

      Posted by: "DAVID BROWER" rimspoke@... rimsp0ke

      MY GOLIATH EMPRESS MADE 1 HORSE PER CUBE BACK IN 1960.
      67 HORSES FROM 1100cc!
      THE MESSERSCHMITT KR-200 CAN MAKE 12 HORSES FROM 200cc SO IT COMES PRETTY CLOSE. BY COMPARISON , AN ISETTA WOULD HAVE 18 HORSES BUT WE ALL KNOW
      THAT IS JUST A DREAM.

      WHEN FERRARI BUILDS RACE ENGINES, THEY CONSIDER 100 HORSES PER LITER TO BE A BENCHMARK . THIS = 1.64 HORSES PER CUBE .
      THERE ARE SOME PRODUCTION ENGINES THAT MEET THAT MARK BUT NOT MANY.

      I THINK THE ONLY INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS TO ASK ARE WAS THE 700 HORSEPOWER CROSLEY NORMALLY ASPIRATED ?
      & HOW LONG DID IT STAY TOGETHER ?

      IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH TO THIS TALE, I SUSPECT THAT THERE WAS A RATHER HEFTY SUPERCHARGER INVOLVED.

      1:36 PM, Rob Eiring <reiring@...> wrote:


      That would be interesting! It's over 10 HP per cubic inch from a time when a fuel injected 283 made 1 HP per cubic inch.

      Sent from my iPad

      "walter costa" <grtwaldo@...> wrote:

      Nope! It was a Crosley motor set up on a dynamo and you could read the
      dials. I just sent a request to Hot Rod Magazine to see if they still have the article.

      Sent via BlackBerry
      From: *Rob Eiring < <reiring@...>reiring@...
      Did you slip a decimal point on that 700hp? I figure that to be over
      890hp per liter, which would make the top of a World's Best Horsepower per Liter list.

      Nick Braje (who built most of the speed equipment ever made for Crosleys) says at about 75hp the bottom of the alloy block begins to separate from the rest of the engine.....

      -----Original Message
      Posted by: "Roger Mathews" rogr938@... rogr938

      Hey Waldo, you only "got me" by 2 years! Yes. I have fond memories too, mostly of driving my '54 King Midget from our home in Solon, Ohio, to Kent State Univ. It was just over 20 miles each way & most of it was "back country cruising" all the way. It was cold in the Winter, I had to wear a raincoat, if driving in the rain (goofy side curtains) but it never broke down, I never got "stuck in it" & I drove it until about 6 weeks after I got married. Years later, I found a pristine 56 & had it for several years, then sold it when I bought a new HMV, in 1980.
      I got my driver's license in the '47 Crosley & drove it until the crank was "toast." Shortly after that I got the KM & drove it just over 3 years, accumulated a lot of miles and memories.
      -------------

      From: walter costa <grtwaldo@...>

      Chevy used babbited bearings 'till '53. I agree. They were a pain. But you could convert them. I also had a '47 Crosley Wagon. I'm 6'2" and my legs were in my chest but unlike you I enjoyed driving it. I
      drove it until the sixties, until the freeway system became entrenched. The wagon was a 55MPH vehicle with the three-speed. No sane person would take a
      Crosley on the freeway or even a highway. I still have fond memories of it though. I remember one guy that had a "Hot Shot". He belonged to the SCCA. He raced it every time they had a race at the Pomona Fair Grounds. He always ended up last in "H" Production races but he always won a trophy because it was the only sports car with that small of an engine. He was in a class all by
      himself. He never missed a race. Crosleys were economical and bullet proof if you kept the RPMs to a reasonable level and clean oil in it. Can you imagine what a Crosley would be like today if it had had an opportunity to develop with modern oils and metallurgy? Hopefully like most small cars of
      the day it wouldn't have developed into another American behemoth with all this stupid electronic gadgetry modern cars have today, But one hell-of-a micro car with simplicity and ruggedness and comfort, without the ridiculous price tags Smart Cars and Fiat 500's have. What the hell !! At 75 I'm still a dreamer!

      Waldo

      From: Roger Mathews

      Mine was a 47 Crosley "wagon" that, while economical to drive, was difficult for me to get my arm through the sliding side window, to make my "turn signal." Next problem was getting my arm back in.... I was tall, with big shoulders (shirt size 44) . It may have been economical on gas, but it wasn't "fun" to drive. It was simple to maintain, but the babbit main bearings on the crank were awful. I have not-so "fond memories" of laying on my back with crocus paper (emery cloth) trying to make the crank "throws" round. Evenually the crank was too worn to be of any use so my little red "wagon" went bye-bye..

      If they would have had bearing inserts like the VW "beetle" engine, maybe more of them would still be around.
      Roger Mathews
      Yuma

      From: walter costa <grtwaldo@...>

      The Crosley engine was one of the more bulletproof engines ever built. Way back when a friend of mine got 700 HP out of one of them. Highly modified of course but I always thought the no head design was a great idea. A bit difficult to do a valve job perhaps, but you never had to worry about blowing a head gasket!! As for auto reporters --- mostly morons who know little about cars or what kind of vehicles people want or need. Waldo


      --- Original Message ---
      From: Louis Rugani

      "Reporters" who write these sensationalistic things are usually out to prove they need a job ... any job. Check out the angry comments and corrections on all the inaccuracies.

      Each such list, for instance, includes an attack on the Crosley Hotshot because of its troublesome CoBra brazed sheet-metal engine.

      No Hotshot ever built had such a engine.

      =Lou=

      The opposite of bravery is not cowardice, but conformity.

      Robert Anthony


      ----- Original Message --
      >From: richardranch@...

      Good question. I thought that was kinda high too.

      Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

      >From: Rob Eiring <reiring@...>

      Did you slip a decimal point on that 700hp? I figure that to be over 890hp per liter, which would makethe top of a World's Best Horsepower per Liter list.

      ---Original Message-----
      From: walter costa <grtwaldo@...

      The Crosley engine was one of the more bullet proof engines ever built. Way back when a friend of mine got 700 HP out of one of them. Highly modified of course but I always thought the no head design was a great idea. A bit difficult to do a valve job perhaps, but you never had to worry about blowing a head gasket!! As for auto reporters --- mostly morons who know little about cars or what kind of vehicles people want or need.

      Waldo

      Posted by: "Rob Eiring" reiring@... r_eiring

      At 48 cubic inches or 750cc, the Crosley fit into a couple road race and hydroplane classes in the 1950s and 60s.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Roger Mathews <rogr938@...>

      Frankly, I doubt that the original engine could be even slightly modified. Picture 4 holes, driled (bored) into a solid block of steel (Or aluminum) There was no "removable" head on the Crosley. How would you "modify" any part of it? Sure, you could probably use bigger valves but that engine block was really tiny! Yes, there were many different engines, put into the Crosley. I had a Ford V8 80 cubic inch (flathead) engine that would probably fit. Now there was a tiny engine! If I remember correctly, it was smaller than a VW "beetle" engine. I had it running on a 2x6 "box" mount. I easily moved that engine by myself.

      Roger



      From: Rob Eiring <reiring@...>


      It was probably an Altered with a Crosley body and a different motor. There were lots of those back in the day.


      From: walter costa <grtwaldo@...>

      Absolutely not. I read it in a Hot Rod mag way back then and if the guy was lyin' he did a pretty good job of it. Being an old gear head all my life after reading the article and seeing the photos it was believable. Hey, it might have been 500 Horses. Hell I'm 75 and that was a long time ago but I'm sure it was at least that. Still --- 700 still sticks in my mind.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: richardranch@...

      Good question. I thought that was kinda high too.
      Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

      From: Rob Eiring <reiring@...>

      ReplyTo:
      Did you slip a decimal point on that 700hp? I figure that to be over 890hp per liter, which would make the top of a World's Best Horsepower per Liter list.

      Nick Braje (who built most of the speed equipment ever made for Crosleys) says at about 75hp the bottom of the alloy block begins to separate from the rest of the engine.....


      -----Original Message----

      From: walter costa <grtwaldo@...>

      The Crosley engine was one of the more bullet proof engines ever built. Way back when a friend of mine got 700 HP out of one of them. Highly modified of course but I always thought the no head design was a great idea. A bit difficult to do a valve job perhaps, but you never had to worry about blowing a head gasket!! As for auto reporters --- mostly morons who know little about cars or what kind of vehicles people want or need. Waldo

      ____________________
      Posted by: "RandyC" nsu71@... nsuteam

      The 4 cylinder Crosley = 44 cubic inches.

      > At 48 cubic inches or 750cc, the Crosley fit into a couple road race and hydroplane classes in the 1950s and 60s.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.