Talbot Express (Autohome) Calypso power socket

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The coincidences continue ...

We have a Camelot (by Monaco). On several occasions, including while at the Monaco factory, I've been asked "which coach do you have?", and I've drawn a blank. Sometimes I'll utter "something to do with knights of the round table"  :-[
 
Tom said:
The coincidences continue ...

We have a Camelot (by Monaco). On several occasions, including while at the Monaco factory, I've been asked "which coach do you have?", and I've drawn a blank. Sometimes I'll utter "something to do with knights of the round table"  :-[

Hi Tom

Wow! I think coincidenses just stopped there..... http://www.demartinirv.com/Camelot/index.htm

 

Attachments

  • calypso.jpg
    calypso.jpg
    204.3 KB · Views: 8
Hi

Mind you, one has to remember that is Camelot motor home is based in the UK and, being just 16 feet long and a smidgen over 6 foot wide fits nicely into supermarket parking spots... I couldn't do that with my 29' Fleetwood Jamboree!  :D

Plus, in that 16 feet, Autohomes squeezed in a shower and bathroom handbasin, flush toilet, instantaneous hot water, gas fired warm air heating, hob, grill and oven, fridge with freezer section, and seat belts and sleeping accomodation for four!

For anyone considering touring the UK and Europe, I highly recommend this type of motorhome. Beats the Heck out of the ones I owned in the 1980's!

Plus, at it was made by Fiat and Citreon as well as Talbot, getting spares or service in Europe should not present a problem! Also averages around 25mpg

:D

Geoff and Sally
 

Attachments

  • a space.jpg
    a space.jpg
    106.8 KB · Views: 12
  • a rear view.jpg
    a rear view.jpg
    205.9 KB · Views: 8
There's a lot of utility in that small space Geoff.

... made by Fiat and Citreon as well as Talbot...

I recall the Sunbeam Talbot (or was that Talbot Sunbeam) car when I was growing up, but wasn't aware of the Euro connection. Your message caused me to run a search, and found some interesting info on the Talbot badge in this Wiki.
 
Hi Tom

Yes, back in the 1950's there was a beautiful Sunbeam Talbot around and they made a gorgeous two door convertible version that's as rare as chicken's teeth but Rootes seem to then drop the Talbot name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam_Alpine

It's a pity Chrysler took them over because they had developed a revolutionary opposed piston two stroke diesel engine that you can Google about (TS3 and TS4) that was small and highly efficient and Chrysler forced them to scrap the project (and the prototypes... an instruction they ignored) in favour of the Cummins diesels they were putting in their US trucks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3
http://www.commer.org.nz/Commer_Connections/TS4_Motor3.html

There were a few Talbot cars like the Horizon before Peugeot who took over the group dropped the name.

Geoff and Sally
 
...there was a beautiful Sunbeam Talbot around ...

Aye, it sure was, and my Dad's best buddy (also our GP) had one. Before we had a car in the family, Doc would load both families into that car for a trip to one of the beautiful beaches on the Gower peninsula.
 
I bought a Sunbeam Talbot convertable from another airman back in the late 50's in Spokane Washington. He cracked the block, and couldn't find another engine for it, and everyone told him that a weld wouldn't hold. I got it real cheap, and welded the block and drove it up until the early 70's. [I'm a welder, and he beleived some of the local shops and didn't trust the idea of a welded block.] It was a fun car, and with the right hand drive was a novelty. Seats were real leather, and the only major problem was that the wife had to sew a new top for me, which meant that I had to buy her an industrial sewing machine.
 
Hi

Continuing my point about the Rootes TS3 and 4 high efficiency two stroke diesel engines, I have often wondered why two stroke diesels were not further explored. If you look up the subject you will find all these ocean going tankers use two stroke engines because of their efficiency and simplicity of construction. They use separate lubrication so it's not like a small two stroke motorcycle that you mixed petrol and oil.

Given the proven efficiency and low overall height of the TS4, one wonders why the idea was not investigated further... if not by Chrysler then by a diesel engine manufacturer. The absence of timing and valve gear must also keep weight and costs down.

http://www.commer.org.nz/Commer_Connections/TS4Report.html

Seems like others were thinking along my lines of thought.....

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05/fev_developing_.html


:)

Geoff and Sally
 
[quote author=Geoff_T]I have often wondered why two stroke diesels were not further explored.[/quote]

I believe the old Detroit diesels were 2-cycle.
 
Hi

My comments re two stroke anything were based on personal experience. At the very dawn of my motocycling days I owned most of the models of BSA Bantam... most had a semi-circular speedometer that went up to 55mph and you would not reach that on the 125cc unless down a vertical descent. Even the 175 with the 80mph speedo had trouble reaching 60mph. I believe the 125 motor struggled to reach 4bhp.
Years later I bought a Suzuki F50 as a runabout. It had a reed valve engine with the carb next to the reed valve and pushed out a commendable 4.5bhp (90bhp/litre). The performance was also surprisingly sprite for a 50cc.
Years later still I bought an MZ ETZ250 that produced 21bhp and enormous torque... I could give a Honda 250 4 stroke a demo of faster acceleration. That ended my motorcycle era but showed how the technology had advanced.
Then, as I had owned Commer motorhomes I was interested in the fate of Commer/Dodge/Talbot and discovered the opposed piston TS3/4 engines that I recall, years earlier, trucks and fire engines fitted with the TS3 and their distinctive exhaust bark. I still feel that two stroke technology is a way forward, especially with fewer components and one firing stroke per revolution per cylinder.

:)

Geoff and Sally
 
Firing once per revolution, two stroke engines have twice as many power strokes as an equivalent 4 stroke engine, thus they have effectively double the usable displacement in the same package and should produce twice as much horsepower and torque per CC.

The classic 2 stroke problems have been emissions and long life.  If the engine is a pressurized crankcase design where the bottom side of the piston pressurizes the next charge in the crankcase, you have to mix oil with the fuel because it's doing double duty as both fuel and lubricating oil - and doing neither very well.  The lubricating qualities are diluted by the fuel, while the oil burning in the cylinder greatly increases the engine's emissions.

You can get around the fuel and oil mixture problems by using an external charger to pressurize the charge instead of sending the fuel-air mixture into the crankcase, but this still leaves the problem of fuel blowing straight through the cylinder and out the exhaust port as the engine tries to charge and exhaust the cylinder at the same time.

Unburned fuel in the exhaust contributes nothing to the engine's output, lowering it's efficiency (mpg) while also increasing the unburned hydrocarbons (smog) in the exhaust.

By contrast, 4 cycle engines have their input and exhaust cycles separated by the power stroke where the raw fuel is consumed.
 
Hi

Both the Suzuki and the MZ used a separate oil tank and no oil/petrol mixture like the earlier Bantams. The TS3/4 opposed piston didn't use the crank case as part of the combustion path... here's a link to the operation... http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Rootes-ListerTS3/TS3.htm

My father used to work for De Havilland engines at Leavesden, it was also close to my school... we certainly could hear the Fairey Rotodyne when it landed there and, at the same time, Dr Joe Erhlich (sp?) had a 125cc two stroke motorcycle tearing up and down the main runway as he experimented with producing more bhp from the two stroke engine. I believe he used reed valves like the Suzuki.

Memories...

Geoff and Sally
 
Right - using an external blower eliminates the fuel contamination of the oil and vice-versa. But you still have the emissions problem of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust caused by raw fuel blown out the exhaust port while the intake and exhaust ports are open simultaneously - see figure 5 in your link to see this.

When you need less than a few parts per million of unburned HC in the exhaust, it doesn't take much cross contamination to exceed this.  California's current HC limits are 250 PPM at idle, 200 PPM at speed.
 
Hi

I just hope sufficient brain cells are applied to the issue... I believe the rewards would justify it.  Four stroke engines now have things like variable valve timing and other enhancements unheard of years before. When SAAB used to race their three cylinder two stroke cars (yes, the were poluters) they won races because they were unburstable and the cars were driven with the accelerator permananently on the floor.

There has to be a future there for the simpler engine, adapted to meet current specs.

Geoff and Sally

 
I could see something like a fuel injected 2 stroke eliminating the blow-by problem.  Blow the cylinder clear with fresh air then inject fuel after the ports close and the piston is compressing the mixture.  Or even at the top of the compression stroke, like a diesel.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,753
Posts
1,384,360
Members
137,524
Latest member
freetoroam
Back
Top Bottom