Jump to content
HybridZ
Sign in to follow this  
mutantZ

2 stroke

Recommended Posts

Depending on the year, those engines weigh between 950 and 1200 lbs without the tranny, almost half the weight of a 240. I have never heard of anyone doing it. 

What? 

 

You're telling me a 2-stroke, 3.6L V8 weighs as much or more than an all cast iron 5.9L Cummins and near, or double the weight of an all cast iron 350 chevy even though it's missing the entire valve train? I'm going to need some more proof there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall a Detroit Diesel 3-71 wasn't light, and a V8-71T was not light either.

 

Just because it's a 'two stroke" does NOT mean "it's missing the entire valve train"...

It does in this engine's case. Unless you want to count the reed valve packs. Still not enough to add up to 900lbs. 

 

But you already knew that. Just dense for density's sake. 

Edited by MAG58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, just trying to jump over the stupidity of not being able to put in the requisite search term to find in 0.03 seconds that 

 

"But by any standards, the 300s were beasts. With eight carburetors and a 555-lb weight, not to mention the noise, people have occasionally tried to adapt the engine for street use, or have at least attempted to put it on wheels. "

 

The obvious typographical brain fart was stating "without" instead of "WITH" outboard drive arrangement attached... The transmission was heavy gears and metal, and substantial...unlike the diecast cases...

 

Not all two-strokes are valveless.... The weight thing was a pissing contest easily answered with a quick search. The contention that two stroke automatically eliminates a valvetrain is foolish, and uninformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, just trying to jump over the stupidity of not being able to put in the requisite search term to find in 0.03 seconds that 

 

"But by any standards, the 300s were beasts. With eight carburetors and a 555-lb weight, not to mention the noise, people have occasionally tried to adapt the engine for street use, or have at least attempted to put it on wheels. "

 

The obvious typographical brain fart was stating "without" instead of "WITH" outboard drive arrangement attached... The transmission was heavy gears and metal, and substantial...unlike the diecast cases...

 

Not all two-strokes are valveless.... The weight thing was a pissing contest easily answered with a quick search. The contention that two stroke automatically eliminates a valvetrain is foolish, and uninformed.

 

 

I never said all two strokes are valveless and since everyone has the intelligence to put in a 0.03 second search term they already know that. What is a pissing contest is jumping down my throat for stating once in that entire thread that I said ALL two strokes are valveless, which I did not. I was clearly referring to that individual engine. Unless to you with gearbox vs with is an obvious simple typographical error and the semantic It's referring to THIS engine in THIS thread and not every single two stroke ever made in the history of ever, and that your witch hunt isn't now as equally a pedantic pissing contest as my own, then whatever helps you sleep at night tony.  

Edited by MAG58

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then if you consider this exchange "jumping down your throat" or "witch hunt" I pity you indeed in this harsh world.

 

But, OK, then you should appreciate that the point you jumped down his throat about "wanting proof" when it was simply right there for a 0.03 second search result. It is patently obvious that a 550 pound engine would indeed weigh 950 with that out drive unit on it...and someone familiar with them would know that number to be correct. This isn't the engine weights thread, is it?

 

With this obvious in my mind, I chose to simply correct the obvious error of stating two strokes were valveless...that engine, BTW, is not "piston ported"... So indeed it dies have valves. If you want to continue semantics...feel free.

 

He should have said 550, not 950. But then again, both are good numbers for someone shipping one depending on how you are buying it... Those auctions simply say "shipping weight, 950 lbs" without looking into it further, you could mistake it for the engine and not the out drive set. Then again, maybe he was on his phone, hit a bump, and "550" became "950"?

 

Really no reason to jump down his throat with that kind of response, demanding proof and aggressively asserting justification of your position by examples of omitted components!

 

Or is it just OK to "jump down people's throats" when MAG58 does it over easily searched hard data, but nobody else?

 

Or did you miss that point entirely in the first....oh, what am I saying, OF COURSE YOU MISSED IT!!!

Edited by Tony D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that 

 

Depending on the year, those engines weigh between 950 and 1200 lbs without the tranny, almost half the weight of a 240. I have never heard of anyone doing it. 

 

was posted in the 5.9 Cummins thread about 9 months ago.

 

Depending on the year, those engines weigh between 950 and 1200 lbs without the tranny, almost half the weight of a 240. I have never heard of anyone doing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×