34 replies to this topic

[foggyjames]

Exocet, on 01 June 2011 - 09:37 , said:

We established that James, do keep up .

Well you keep insisting on calling it a Merlin, when it isn't...

I think discussions about its performance are irrelevant, to be honest...it's a tank engine...in a car. I don't care if it can't top 60mph, it's still pretty cool.

cheers

James

[RobbieH]

Exocet, on 31 May 2011 - 14:37 , said:

A Merlin with the supercharger removed is still a Merlin, and a Merlin engine in a car is still a beast, even if it is 'only' 600 bhp.

620 bhp at 2550 RPM equates to 1276.9 ft lbs of torque. That's just monstrous.

There is a 55 Chevy BelAir in the states with a fully supercharged Merlin if I recall correctly, there are a few vids on YouTube. Something like 3000 bhp and unimaginable torque. It's done to a much higher standard than the SD1.

I'm in work at the moment otherwise I'd post a few links, well worth a look though.

The Merlin should only be seen in the air, where it belongs  imho

Who can not be moved by the sound of Merlins overhead

Strega is chucking out 3600 horse (ish), not sure about Dago Red or the Red Baron but the latter has been clocked at over 500mph

maybe this could be noted to go a bit quicker

Quote

The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.

During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 miles per hour (480 km/h), or roughly 70 horsepower (52 kW) was obtained which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h).^[24] The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used "fishtail" style outlets which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.

[Exocet]

foggyjames, on 01 June 2011 - 11:52 , said:

Well you keep insisting on calling it a Merlin, when it isn't...

Yes it is. You can paint it pink and call it Jenny if you like, its still a Merlin. I don't care if its missing a few bits or has different grade internals

[TheJoyOfSix]

It's not a Merlin!

It's a Meteor.

Royces made two different versions of the 27litre V12, one was Normally Aspirated and called the Meteor, one was supercharged and called the Merlin.

Calling it a Merlin is like calling any Volvo 5pot engine a T5......

[Exocet]

No, its a Merlin by a different name. Made from the Merlin block with slightly different parts. In some cases, using older Merlin engines. If they were two completely unrelated seperate designs, you'd have a point. They are not.

It's a Merlin.

Any Volvo 5 pot -is- the same engine, like the Merlin, just with different parts. You can convert one to the other, therefore they are one and the same design.

If I had my legs cut off and my organs messed about with by doctors and they started calling me Barry, I'd still be the same person I was before .

[foggyjames]

Oh man, this has got pedantic. Calling it a Merlin implies it's supercharged...which it isn't. Sure, I referred to my old S70 engine (2.5 20v) as a "T5 without the turbo" a few times when talking to car enthusiasts not familiar with Volvos, but it's not a T5, and I think most of us would think someone routinely calling their NA a T5 because it's from the same family was a bit of a penis...

cheers

James

[yosser]

Exocet, on 01 June 2011 - 20:35 , said:

its a Merlin by a different name.

Exactly.  

Differently named as it has a different spec. to the Merlin.

It may well be based on the Merlin, and even constructed using some of the bare bones, but it is a different spec. for different applications and is, therefore, not a Merlin.

The Merlin is an aero engine, the Meteor is not.

Quote

Any Volvo 5 pot -is- the same engine, like the Merlin, just with different parts.

That really doesn't make any sense. If it has different parts, and is built to another specification for another application, then it is different. I would imagine that's why all the Volvo engines have different codes - to distinguish which variant it is and for which application.

That way if I needed a replacement engine for my S70R and one turned up from a n/a 2.0 I wouldn't say "oh, it's ok, it's exactly the same, we'll just have to change the crank/cams/head/liners/pistons and add a turbo etc."

'Different' does not mean 'the same'.

[Urban Tiger]

yosser, on 02 June 2011 - 13:39 , said:

'Different' does not mean 'the same'.

That is correct unless you use grainqey's law of "averages"

Edited by Urban Tiger, 02 June 2011 - 14:08 .

[Gregs T5R]

Off Topic Guys

Wether it was a Wizard or a Spitfire makes no difference! it just had a 27 Lt engine in it which to be quite honest was about as practical as chocolate fire guard!
When we met the guy he was taking his exhaust side exits of to make it sound louder, leaving the sharp fixing brackets on the side to cut people legs as he drove back and forth
The hole thing was a steaming pile of Dog pooh, it was even the same colour!

But well done in this thread for all the pic's at Mallory!

Now Gentlemen please readjust your skirts

[claymore]

At least he did the work himselfe (which is what ppc is all about) and didn't give an open cheque book to some garage to do all the work for them.

EDIT: shit, I just read that back, and it sounds like I'm having a go at Greg, which i am certainly not.

Edited by claymore, 02 June 2011 - 14:53 .

[Gregs T5R]

PSML Claymore!

I know your not! no worries mate! but your not far wrong as i thought they where restoring my car and making it go faster

And yes your right he did do the work, but I think even I could do a better job of making it look better

Glad to see your's is up and running as well, sounded nice on some of them vids to!

Cheers Greg

[Engineer]

History is a funny thing................

The original started in 1960.....

http://www.spainvia.com/Merlincar.htm

The latest news on the Dodd 2008.........

http://www.evo.co.uk.../the_beast.html

Quote:
"I ask Dodd about the legendary story of a Porsche-driving German baron who phoned up Rolls-Royce to enquire about its new model after the Beast had swept past him on the autobahn (back then the car had a Rolls grille – see ‘John Dodd vs Rolls-Royce’, above left). ‘That was me!’ he laughs. ‘Just having a bit of fun. I used to do it quite often actually. Phone up the salesmen in a funny accent, tell them I’d seen this car doing 200mph…’

Was it really that fast? ‘Most I saw was 185. Beyond that it was a bit dicey – there was always a risk of the flywheel coming apart and I once had the tyres disintegrate at 150mph on the way to Pebble Mill. Bloody awful those Firestones. But she’s steady as a rock [at speed], absolutely beautiful.’ There’s a pause. ‘Till you get to a corner, of course. Then she gets a bit tricky…"’

It would seem there was always some question of where the engine came from even in Dodd's car...............

Edited by Engineer, 02 June 2011 - 16:47 .

[Exocet]

foggyjames, on 02 June 2011 - 12:29 , said:

Oh man, this has got pedantic. Calling it a Merlin implies it's supercharged...which it isn't.

Calling it a Merlin implies it's heritage and origin, not that it's supercharged. You could ask many of those that have heard of the Merlin if it's supercharged or not, and most won't have a clue, they'd just know it as the engine from the Lancaster, Spitfire or Mustang to name but a few. You'll note on the Wikipedia page about the Merlin, that the Merlin engine shown in the picture lacks a supercharger, yet is still referred to as the Merlin.

The Wikipedia link that has been posted in the thread about the Meteor has some excellent quotes which illustrate what I'm trying to get at:

Wikipedia said:

For tank use the Merlin had its supercharger, reduction gear, and other equipment removed from its camshaft, greatly simplifying its construction.

and

Wikipedia said:

The first Merlin prepared for tank use was trialled in a modified Crusader in September 1941 at Aldershot

Both of which refer to the engine by it's 'umbrella', catch all name. The Meteor is a subtype of the Merlin, as are the various different types of Merlin (Merlin II, Merlin XX or Merlin 61 and the Packard V-1650 for example),  and you'll often find it called a Merlin Meteor or Meteor Merlin.

yosser, on 02 June 2011 - 13:39 , said:

Exactly.  

Differently named as it has a different spec. to the Merlin.

It may well be based on the Merlin, and even constructed using some of the bare bones, but it is a different spec. for different applications and is, therefore, not a Merlin.

The Merlin is an aero engine, the Meteor is not.

Consider the following quote:

Wikipedia said:

In 1938, Rolls-Royce started work on modifying some Merlins which were later to be used in British MTBs, MGBs, and RAF Air-Sea Rescue Launches

Which shows the Merlin was not just an aero engine. It was used on land, sea and in the air. And, as I mentioned above, the Merlin has many many different specifications (possibly as much as twenty or even more over the years), all of which are collectively known as 'The Merlin'.

yosser, on 02 June 2011 - 13:39 , said:

That really doesn't make any sense. If it has different parts, and is built to another specification for another application, then it is different. I would imagine that's why all the Volvo engines have different codes - to distinguish which variant it is and for which application.

That way if I needed a replacement engine for my S70R and one turned up from a n/a 2.0 I wouldn't say "oh, it's ok, it's exactly the same, we'll just have to change the crank/cams/head/liners/pistons and add a turbo etc."

'Different' does not mean 'the same'.

You miss the point entirely Yosser. The Merlin and Meteor are the same engine in the sense that a 1.25 Fiesta and a 1.6 Zetec S Fiesta are the same car, i.e. a Fiesta. I'm not claiming that the engines are identical, as clearly they are not. But changing a few parts about does not make it a totally different engine. Those of us with modified Volvo engines don't all have 'new' engines, they are all still the same Volvo engine, though some may have different rods, pistons or cranks etc

Anyway, as James has pointed out, this is becoming far too pedantic and I can tell it's only going to descend into silliness as discussions on the internet so often do. Life is far too short, the sun is shining, so we should all just agree to disagree and just enjoy the Merlin for it's engineering marvel and fantastic sound .

[V70Ben]

[yosser]

Exocet, on 02 June 2011 - 16:51 , said:

You miss the point entirely Yosser.

Actually, I don't think I do.

Knowingly or not, it seems to me that you have drawn this thread towards a philosophical discussion of the 'Ship of Theseus Paradox' - perhaps even verging towards a discussion of the 'Heraclitus river' view of the definition of "the same".

And, having said that, we must accept that this is a discussion that has troubled philosophers since the first century and - cerebral and omnipotent though t5d5 is - we are unlikely to find a resolution within the confines of this thread.

So, in the absence of a significant breakthrough in modern philosophy....

Exocet said:

we should all just agree to disagree and just enjoy the Merlin for it's engineering marvel and fantastic sound