Re: 225

On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 07:02:17 UTC-7, Ray Bell wrote:

There's one thing I don't understand...

More than one.

I have proved with these diagrams that the engine is NO LOWER AT ALL. Yet each time I have stated that someone comes back and says it's lower. It definitely is no lower!

You're misinterpreting what you think you're seeing. That's why your claim isn't gaining any traction--it's not correct.

The cylinder head casting, in fact, is higher with the engine slanted.

Nope, it's lower. It just plain and simply, actually really is.

The lower centre of gravity is principally because the camshaft and lifters are significantly lower

This claim has no basis in fact.

Yes, the engine bay in the Australian cars was the same as US cars until 1969, the only differences being in the chassis rails where the steering box and idler arm are mounted.

There were other differences in the engine bay of Australian cars. The firewall, for example, was different starting with the first RV1 (1961 model, called "1962" in Australia), continuing through the SV1, AP5, AP6, VC, VE, and VF.

As to engine length, the shortness of the engine relied on two things. First, the bore centres being close together; second the water pump being mounted to one side. BOTH of these could have been achieved with a vertical engine.

Nope, the laterally offset water pump couldn't have worked with the cylinders upright. You're guessing -- incorrectly.

The engines sat no lower in the Australian cars

This bit's true.

Sorry, Ray, it must seem like I'm picking on you. That's not my intent -- you don't have a monopoly on this what you're doing, it's just that you're doing it now and you're loudly insisting you're right when you're not. It just really sticks in my craw when people make assertions rather than asking questions when they don't really know what they're on about. It spreads ignorance instead of spreading knowledge, and that's not a nice or helpful thing to do.

-Daniel