Re engine 16M trawler yacht

rafiki_ said:
insufficient torsional stiffness.
Click to expand...
U must be joking, did you ever drive one?
The very same chassis was also used for the AR 155, of which the GTA version with 4WD and 400+ HPs was very successful also in race tracks.
I agree that they should have invested a bit more in the Fiat Coupé though, but just because it would have also deserved a 4WD setup.
The turbo versions were just too powerful for front wheel drive only. Don't ask me why I know.... :)
 
MapisM said:
U must be joking, did you ever drive one?
The very same chassis was also used for the AR 155, of which the GTA version with 4WD and 400+ HPs was very successful also in race tracks.
I agree that they should have invested a bit more in the Fiat Coupé though, but just because it would have also deserved a 4WD setup.
The turbo versions were just too powerful for front wheel drive only. Don't ask me why I know.... :)
Click to expand...

dear master drifters, since fiat coupe is being mentioned and I do have a soft spot for them (and still drive a fairly powerful one since my crappy BMW needs a new motor) I have to agree with rafiki that torsional stiffness wasn't the greatest I've seen. Mind still fine after almost 20yrs and 220K in bumpy roads. Yes 330bhp on the front wheels with a viscodrive system is not enough (but I've installed a traction control system that makes an excellent sound when it's functioning ;) )
Would be interesting to have a 4wd version maybe slightly ahead of its time though and don't forget it was semi-handmade in Pinnin factory at a great expense and wasn't as I understand one of the best business moves for Fiat...
You may all be exceptionally happy with BMW and other german cars, I'd probably stick to Italians much prefer the straightforward utilitarian package, maybe too young for bmw and mercs :p

I hope the thread comes back in track and in this direction may I ask the original poster WHY it will be 3m for the motors to arrive??? Is the factory so busy building tractors or what???

cheers

V.
 
MapisM said:
U must be joking, did you ever drive one?
The very same chassis was also used for the AR 155, of which the GTA version with 4WD and 400+ HPs was very successful also in race tracks.
I agree that they should have invested a bit more in the Fiat Coupé though, but just because it would have also deserved a 4WD setup.
The turbo versions were just too powerful for front wheel drive only. Don't ask me why I know.... :)
Click to expand...
Both drove, and took torsional stiffness measurements, alongside a couple of competitors. Not the best I'm afraid.
 
vas said:
torsional stiffness wasn't the greatest I've seen. Mind still fine after almost 20yrs and 220K in bumpy roads.
Click to expand...
Oi, you increased the power by 50%, drove it where you shouldn't have for 2 decades, and now you're saying it's "still fine", what else did you expect?
There's no pleasing some people... :D
Have you got the 16v or the 20v?
Btw, 4wd wasn't actually ahead of its time, 'twas already available for both the 155 and the Delta.
Sure, it would have required some investment to adapt it to the Coupe, and as you said Fiat was not probably making enough money...
 
MapisM said:
Wow, do tell, did you work in Grugliasco?
A proper chassis testing rig is not exactly what you find at any body shop down the road...
Click to expand...
Hey MapisM, Rafiki will probably not be specific about his work/business on here, but I know him in real life and trust me, if anyone has access to the best car body torsional stiffness testing machines (and data) in the world, that guy is Rafiki :-)
 
rafiki_ said:
I disagree MM, Bangle made Bimmer styling interesting. The E60 still looks great, and the E90 has stood the test of time. Bimmers made Daimlers and Audi's look very boring.
Click to expand...
:-) It's an acquired taste. I'll give you a bit more time MapsM :D. It was a great car that e60 M5
 
Whopper said:
Curious JFM what you replace an e60 M5 with? Difficult package to better I would imagine..sorry for prolonging the tread drift!
Click to expand...
I hven't bought or ordered a replacement Whopper. I had a string of lovely cars every 2 years or so for 10 years up until 2005 when I got the e60 M5 then I kept that 8+ years becuase I could see anything better for what I wanted. The F10 M5 is the obvious choice (or M6) but I haven't ordered one (yet)
 
MapisM said:
Wow, do tell, did you work in Grugliasco?
A proper chassis testing rig is not exactly what you find at any body shop down the road...
Click to expand...

Not Grugliasco, but a UK consultancy. We did a benchmarking exercise for a manufacturer aiming to get into this market sector. A long time ago now, but we used the torsion rig at MIRA (motor industry research association).
 
Whopper said:
Curious JFM what you replace an e60 M5 with? Difficult package to better I would imagine..sorry for prolonging the tread drift!
Click to expand...

An F10 is the obvious replacement on a like for like basis. I've not driven a E60 but I can tell you the F10 is one helluva beast. Real Jekyll and Hyde character.
 
MapisM said:
Oi, you increased the power by 50%, drove it where you shouldn't have for 2 decades, and now you're saying it's "still fine", what else did you expect?
There's no pleasing some people... :D
Have you got the 16v or the 20v?
Btw, 4wd wasn't actually ahead of its time, 'twas already available for both the 155 and the Delta.
Sure, it would have required some investment to adapt it to the Coupe, and as you said Fiat was not probably making enough money...
Click to expand...
:p
I love this car dearly, thinking of just keeping it in my garage till it becomes a classic
I've got the 16vt

rafiki_ said:
Not Grugliasco, but a UK consultancy. We did a benchmarking exercise for a manufacturer aiming to get into this market sector. A long time ago now, but we used the torsion rig at MIRA (motor industry research association).
Click to expand...
nah, don't need fancy gear for that rafiki, just get a decent pavement, get one wheel up and see if the doors open (and more important close!)
coupe will fail, but so will a Subaru forester and a few other cars I know/owned :D

I think OP should post some e/r pics to get us back in track...

V.
 
vas said:
:p
I love this car dearly, thinking of just keeping it in my garage till it becomes a classic
I've got the 16vt


nah, don't need fancy gear for that rafiki, just get a decent pavement, get one wheel up and see if the doors open (and more important close!)
coupe will fail, but so will a Subaru forester and a few other cars I know/owned :D

I think OP should post some e/r pics to get us back in track...

V.
Click to expand...

And this is what they teach at Uni these days :D
 
crazy4557 said:
An F10 is the obvious replacement on a like for like basis. I've not driven a E60 but I can tell you the F10 is one helluva beast. Real Jekyll and Hyde character.
Click to expand...
I test drove an F10 M5 a few weeks ago and I wasn't blown away. Lovely car but not special enough and too heavy. Btw BMW were trying to give them away when I test drove it. I was offered a stonking 3yr business contract hire rate @ 15k miles pa at about £500 per month. Apparently they were reacting to M-B doing deals on the E63 AMG. It sounds absurd but I rented a F10 520d the other day and IMHO that is a better car in its price range than the M5
 
vas said:
nah, don't need fancy gear for that rafiki, just get a decent pavement, get one wheel up and see if the doors open (and more important close!)
coupe will fail, but so will a Subaru forester and a few other cars I know/owned :D
Click to expand...
Interesting to hear that, and also what rafiki said re. his tests with a torsion rig.
Otoh, aside from one year or so of first hand experience (also with a 16vt), I also met a few other owners.
One of them had one of the latest 20vt, which came stock with a more powerful engine (though I didn't feel much difference when I drove it).
And another tweaked his 16vt to a level similar to yours, making it capable of 280+ Km/h...
But nobody ever complained about poor torsion, though it's also true that in all those cars, mine included, a strut bar (which didn't come standard) was retrofitted. No big deal, anyhow.
As I said, traction was an issue instead, particularly on the wet.


...but all this is actually an OT inside the OT.
I simply mentioned the coupé just as the Bangle (+Pininfarina, TBH) best result, and I rest my case in this respect! :D
Incidentally, the BMW which apparently he was more proud of was the E65 (at least before it inspired the petition!), go figure...

Fully agree on your last sentence, anyway. Silverdee, are you already preparing the e/r for the new beasts? :)
 
Deleted User said:
I test drove an F10 M5 a few weeks ago and I wasn't blown away. Lovely car but not special enough and too heavy. Btw BMW were trying to give them away when I test drove it. I was offered a stonking 3yr business contract hire rate @ 15k miles pa at about £500 per month. Apparently they were reacting to M-B doing deals on the E63 AMG. It sounds absurd but I rented a F10 520d the other day and IMHO that is a better car in its price range than the M5
Click to expand...

You need to drive one and live with one before you can make a real judgement IMHO. The performance is just on another planet when and if you can find the right roads. That's half the problem with it though, the roads in the South are too small. So, on another note it's a great everyday cruiser and on the motorway it's all but silent if you want to schlep your way home in comfort with all the gadgets you can ever need. Yes the contract hire deals are and have been very tempting but I don't keep my cars for 2 years so ended up purchasing mine so that I've the option to change whenever!
Realistically all you really need today is an F10 530D. Superb piece of kit.
 
Yep, the mother has a 520d f10 which is pretty good and the 8 speed auto is excellent!. The father has an x5 with the older 35 twin turbo diesel and it's bloody impressive. I'd imagine the f10 535d is probably one of the best everyday real world cars available..
 
Divemaster1 said:
It is not just the power you need to be looking at ... you also need to be somewhere around the same weight (or add ballast)..... if a too light engine is chosen, you may affect her behaviour at sea...

Good luck.... and welcome to the forum!!
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting point you have raised and I'm no expert but I was fortunate enough to spend some time with one yesterday. If you look at the thread I put up yesterday about the Princess 98 loading on the ship, 'Big Lift'

View attachment 39362

There are some very important factors in loading a ship for stability and very surprising to me some very major misconceptions. While the P98 was in the straps being prepared for the lift I was able to spend some time talking to one of the 'Loadmasters' ' in charge. When setting up the loading, involved calculations are made to distribute the weight as high as possible!!!

Huh? I thought that was crazy as basic 'O' level physics says stability comes from a lower centre of gravity. :p

Wrong, there is a factor known as 'GM' a general turning moment around the 'Metacentric' point. This righting lever has a value which needs to be as low as possible, which means the boat will right itself more slowly for a slower role. When I asked why, the answer was simple. "When the boat is rolling out on the ocean, the quicker the vessel rights itself the more enertia is put into the load, and cargo starts moving and damage starts to occur. A slow pendulum type role is far safer and more comfortable."

Look here for explanation:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0625e/i0625e02d.pdf


Why I think this is relevant to 'Silverdee' is that the increase ballast was strapped in to the boat to give stability at anchor. This would be immediately improved just by a different hull shape, for example a Catamaran or Cathedral hull. Of course, this is not possible. 'Silverdee' needs to make a choice between most stable at anchor or most stable at sea?

I would imagine, dragging 3.5 tons of ballast around can't be very economical, fuel wise; it probably doesn't help sea keeping either. :o

Still, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but it might be worth reviewing the best ballast compromise with someone that does know his stuff and can advise correctly.

Hope this helps SD, sounds an excellent project!

RR
 
Interesting stuff roger. It's well known that increasing the angular inertia, aka putting weight high (or low - in a keel bulb) increases roll period ie makes for slower rolling. A few trawler yacht builders want you to put a big tender on the flybr for this reason. Of course, it can make the boat more capsize-ish, so that needs to be factored in too

Silver Dee's problem, pre ballast, was partly small engines and high windage. For normal cruising it didn't matter, but Silver Dee went to sea in some horrific wether. The ballast was to stop her leaning over in a cross wind. The fin stabs ought to have done the job, but given their modest size and 7 knots of boat speed in a big sea they weren't enough. The ballast did substantially solve the problem

Silver Dee has been up at the boatyard. Will try to get some pics in a while
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top