Have you driven a model T. The sensation of speed is not at all like a tractor or golf cart. Sitting up high and driving a model T at 40-45 feels like 60-70 in a modern car.
Man I like that cars today have things like reliability, ease of use, efficiency and safety. But honestly, i think, like most things, the early days of it were just really fun.
Horsepower wasn't as important as torque. ..the long stroke of the model T was it's power....moving 5 adults along at 30 mph was all it had to do...and that was faster and stronger than a horse
@@techmaven5900 really....then change the T's engine to a larger piston short stroke and see how it does at 1600 rpms....all early automobiles were long stroke for low rpm power which is ....wait for it ....torque... not horsepower! !...and so the reason diesels are long stroke low rpm engines
@@leonnygren9394 Torque is the equasion of Horsepower x RPM. Torque alone does not get you anywhere. Horsepower is the work. Torque is the power. All this power is nothing if it does not work.
@@dom3827 correct Dom...my point was like the old cars of the past, were low rpm high torque but low horsepower...they had more torque then horsepower....today they have more horsepower then torque for speed and quickness.
@@leonnygren9394 The calculation of horsepower already takes torque into account. Engine power is a function of torque and rotational speed. Torque is just a type of force. If you increase the torque of an engine, it also increases its horsepower. A shaft can provide massive torque, but if it's spinning at only 1 rpm, then it's not very useful (unless it's geared to trade off some torque for speed). For a specific engine speed, for example, 2000 rpm, a 100 hp engine will have twice as much torque as a 50 hp engine. But yes, you do have a point that the Model T's engine does deliver more of its power in the form of torque, than as rotational speed, especially compared to modern gasoline engines.
I think that my '26 coupe had a top end of 40 mph. Downhill with a tail wind, I got it up to 50. It didn't have a speedometer, but my brother was behind me in my '86 Jeep Cherokee watching the speed.
@@savagesock3598 It was 1989 or maybe 1990. I live in San Diego, and there are a lot of hills and canyons there. I was driving downhill and later my brother said that I reached 50 mph. Later, we drove to a meeting place where other Model T owners would be. Unfortunately, I had to drive up a long hill, and a rod bearing started knocking. Model T's relied on splash lubrication in the engine, and when they are driven uphill, the front rod bearing might not receive enough oil. That's what happened to my car. On the flat parts of the drive, my brother said that I was driving between 35 and 40 mph. My friend had a good engine, so I bought it from him, and gave him my old engine in the deal. He rebuilt that engine and sold it to someone else.
@@davelowets Driving at a slow speed with the transmission in low gear, the driver has to keep his foot on the left pedal, and my left foot would get tired after a while.
the main goal of the model T is to provide an affordable car that everyone can buy so to me this test is honest as it points the main goal of this car.
Didn't know there was 7/10ths of a horse roaming around o_O.. joking aside, not bad considering. Sure wont be hauling a 7000 pound camper, but will get you from point A to point B in a reasonable time.
I Invoke My First Amendment Rights If only people saw it that way instead of insisting they need a 300hp gas guzzler to drive around town at 20-30mph... a 70hp engine could happily cruise at 70mph and have a top speed of 100mph or more and you wouldn't even notice a big difference during city driving... the smaller engine would probably be more manageable in the city.
+micheals1992 I have a 300ish hp gas guzzler( oldsmobile aurora v8) and I have to say, driving the model t at work is a blast in summer. That said, I sure wouldnt want to drive her in winter. Open top and NY winter? no thank you :)
Can it do a burnout?.....still impressive for over a hundred years old and no water pump, and a carb thats prettymuch a gas line with a hole in it with wind blowing past it.
12.7HP & a top speed of 45 MPH= 72.42 KPH. It does what it needs to do. Technically, I don’t have an issue with Ford *_momentarily_* bringing back some sort of ORIGINAL and updated version! Many people don’t need more than 45 MPH anyways! 🤣 Thanks Ford. ☝🏻😌
I am not commenting on this thread, but have always wondered if Model T's had an oil pump or whether they just relied on dippers and oil just flung about to land in the required spots for mains as well as big end lubrication.
madmanmapper You mean SOMEWHAT surviving company ... Cadillac is part of the GM corporation , and their only in buisness because Obama gave them billions . FORD FTW
American man Ford got $15.9 billion in talf money to build cars that the government specified, this was in addition to the billions they were making from government contracts already. Ford got the largest bailout of the big three and they are the most deeply intertwined with the government.
I've never understood why the Model T was so underpowered? Nine years earlier, in 1905, there were already cars with a 200 hp V8 (like the French Darracq sports car). So, it's not like the technology didn't exist.
No, the practical technology really didn’t exist. Brake were only on two wheel and were mechanical drum. Tires technology was crude to say the very least. Blow out and flats were a daily occurrence. Paved roads were made of cobble stone, gravel, or very rough concrete in larger cities; everywhere else was just dirt. Popular opinion as well as most local laws were on the side of horse owners in 1910. In some places speed limits were as low as 1-5 miles per hour and, in many places, someone had to walk in front of your car holding a flag to warn others that a motor car was approaching. Your 200 mph race car still had “oilers” that you had to stop every 20 miles or so to refill least your engine would seize up. Even in 1930, 50 mph in a Model A Ford was fast, somewhat dangerous, and scary!
Sounds good. Does anyone know what the parasitic loss in the drivetrain is? I know in a modern car theres about 10 to 20% loss, but with the bands, drum and gear setup im leaning towards 30 to 40%. Then again, maybe it depends on the material? Our model t has kevlar band material, but when installing the bands I read there was cotton originally, and flexible wood, leather or wool used too. Anyone have any insight?
Based on the results of this test, drivetrain loss sits at 36% for a stock engine. Not sure if this particular transmission is stock or updated, however. Not bad number's considering the vintage. We operate tractors from that era that have drawbar losses in excess of 60%.
I find it very hard to believe that there that much parasitic loss, at least in the sense of what I would consider loss: dissipation as frictional heating of the drivetrain. But I also find it hard to believe the loss percentages many people quote even for modern drivetrains. A drivetrain which dumped 10-20% of a modern engine's power into drivetrain heating would likely wreck itself in short order. I find it more likely that this is a measurement problem, but I don't know how the measurement was done, so it's hard to say. Was the engine in good condition? Was it being run at full throttle with proper spark and mixture settings? More importantly, was this an inertial chassis dynamometer, measuring the acceleration of a flywheel and calculating wheel horsepower from that? If so, the result might have been inaccurate due to incorrect values being entered (or assumed) for the rotational inertia of the engine flywheel, transmission, driveshaft, and especially the wheels. I guess the power required to accelerate those is often counted as "drivetrain loss", but that feels wrong to me; true, it's power that isn't accelerating the car forward, but it's still mechanical power that *must* be expended if the car is to accelerate at all. The point is that once the car has stopped accelerating and has reached a constant speed, that power becomes available to overcome air drag, wheel and road resistance, and actual frictional losses in the drivetrain.
@@colindhowell have you ever been around cars? there is that much loss. have you picked up the parts your claiming dont use energy to operate? let me see you spin a tire at 70 mph. its really hard. now spin a driveshaft. their heavy. spin a rear differential from an old vehicle. its pretty hard to turn by hand. now remember a transmission is a unit. it is powered by the engine. you spin the torque converter its heavy. it spins a fluid. which is heated and pressurized and then pumped through the transmission to operate its valvebody which selects a gear which also takes power to spin. you may feel like it doesnt make sense but it makes a whole world of sense. your car doesnt amazingly gain power back because your not accelerating. cars dont get faster at top speed. those frictional and rotational forces are always sapping power and the faster they spin the more power they eat up. a good auto trans will get you about 25% driveline loss. some manuals are closer to 15-20% because a good chunk of the weight that would have to spin is shaved off and you select the gears. it doesnt have a fluid pump that must be ran also. older tech had more losses due to clearances manufacturing tolerance lubrication advances material advances and the epa. im actually impressed that its claimed at 36% considering how new cars really were at the time and 100 years later driveline losses havent been cut down that much.
The modern stuff will de exactly the same if you do exactly the same to it like they did on the model T. Which means a complete rebuild. So where is the point of this comment? That you can rebuild a car and make it run 100 years later? That`s no mystery. Show me a Model T without a rebuild which was not maintained. But i guess you wont find one, because it went back to iron oxide somewhere deep under the earth.
Este entregó un enorme 12.7 HP a las ruedas traseras. Pero eso es suficiente para impulsar este automóvil a una agradable velocidad de crucero de 30 mph y una velocidad máxima de 45 mph.
No, Ford actually *rated* the engine for 20 hp, and observed that output at 1600 rpm; I've even found a power and torque graph they published in one of their 1921 service bulletins. (This would apply just as well to the 1914 model, since the engine changed very little throughout the Model T's run.) The formula you're thinking of gave a figure of 22.5 hp with no rpm value, since it was merely a rule-of-thumb estimate, based on cylinder dimensions as you said.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: I was replying to Chris Allen's claim that the 20 hp figure was from a formula. I understand that Ford's rating was at the crankshaft.
bill091086 I'm well aware of where the throttle is, dumbass. You don't modulate it like a modern pedal. You put it in low gear, you set the throttle to speed, then you jam it in high gear. You don't sit there and vary the throttle, for the most part it runs at a constant speed. Dumbass. I honestly can't believe you're so stupid.
Tiamoto TV: sorry man, but it’s on the right side of the column, same as tractors of the day and for many years to come. The arm that you move is applied against a round, semi-circular disc with detents in it. As you move the lever, the arm goes in and out of the detents. They keep it from moving and they make it easier to remember the throttle position that corresponds to common speeds that you use.
For less than $12,000 in today's money, $440 for the Model T Runabout is a deal you'll never find today for a brand new car. I would be happy to pay $12K to get from point A to point B . . . . . If only we had a Henry Ford today to do the same thing for the electric car. There is no way one cannot be built today for less than the fortune Elon's creations cost.
china tried to do that years ago. thye released 2-3 cars that they wanted to sell in the us for 12k and less. problem was in almost any crash everyone would die. so it immediately failed crash tests and wasnt allowed to sell in the market. when you cut corners to try to cheap out you always pay somewhere. this is the same reason professionals get blamed for high prices. it takes time money and energy to make things. skills work force and the knowledge and means to apply those skills. cars are expensive.
![Jay Leno Teaches Me How To Hand-Crank A Ford Model-T [Plus Our FULL Interview!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7FmCbmdPHP8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Jay Leno Teaches Me How To Hand-Crank A Ford Model-T [Plus Our FULL Interview!]](/img/tr.png)
To be fair, 45mph was ridiculously fast in the 1910s. Most horse carriages traveled at 5mph!
not to mention the perception of that speed in that car...
Lol can you imagine how jarring 45mph would be in such a crude vehicle on pothole-ridden dirt roads? lol
45mph was a death wish for the better part of a century!
Even on modern roads this would still be incredibly scary to do in a T.
It feels like you're driving a golf cart except for tractor and a lawn mower
Have you driven a model T. The sensation of speed is not at all like a tractor or golf cart. Sitting up high and driving a model T at 40-45 feels like 60-70 in a modern car.
Man
I like that cars today have things like reliability, ease of use, efficiency and safety.
But honestly, i think, like most things, the early days of it were just really fun.
That's the Model T of dynos.
Haha
Horsepower wasn't as important as torque. ..the long stroke of the model T was it's power....moving 5 adults along at 30 mph was all it had to do...and that was faster and stronger than a horse
It had nothing to do with the stroke alone.
@@techmaven5900 really....then change the T's engine to a larger piston short stroke and see how it does at 1600 rpms....all early automobiles were long stroke for low rpm power which is ....wait for it ....torque... not horsepower! !...and so the reason diesels are long stroke low rpm engines
@@leonnygren9394 Torque is the equasion of Horsepower x RPM. Torque alone does not get you anywhere.
Horsepower is the work. Torque is the power. All this power is nothing if it does not work.
@@dom3827 correct Dom...my point was like the old cars of the past, were low rpm high torque but low horsepower...they had more torque then horsepower....today they have more horsepower then torque for speed and quickness.
@@leonnygren9394 The calculation of horsepower already takes torque into account. Engine power is a function of torque and rotational speed. Torque is just a type of force. If you increase the torque of an engine, it also increases its horsepower. A shaft can provide massive torque, but if it's spinning at only 1 rpm, then it's not very useful (unless it's geared to trade off some torque for speed). For a specific engine speed, for example, 2000 rpm, a 100 hp engine will have twice as much torque as a 50 hp engine. But yes, you do have a point that the Model T's engine does deliver more of its power in the form of torque, than as rotational speed, especially compared to modern gasoline engines.
I’d be more interested in knowing what the torque was.
about 40lbft of torque givin if the rpm is 2000 & 56 lbft @ 1400 rpm
yea i didnt know at at what rpm they revved, so i assumed 2k in my calc.
@@johndowe7003 1500rpm is the max for reliability
Factory rating was 80lb/ft at 900rpm and 20hp at 1500
My grandpa had a T. He tested his and he said his had 102 lbs of torque at 1300 rpm. Ig every model t is different
I think that my '26 coupe had a top end of 40 mph. Downhill with a tail wind, I got it up to 50. It didn't have a speedometer, but my brother was behind me in my '86 Jeep Cherokee watching the speed.
My Mercedes w110 200d will do 120kmh with a following wind!
All 56 up of it and that's a 1964 model :)
What year was this happening in? Very interested for the whole story.
@@savagesock3598 It was 1989 or maybe 1990. I live in San Diego, and there are a lot of hills and canyons there. I was driving downhill and later my brother said that I reached 50 mph. Later, we drove to a meeting place where other Model T owners would be. Unfortunately, I had to drive up a long hill, and a rod bearing started knocking. Model T's relied on splash lubrication in the engine, and when they are driven uphill, the front rod bearing might not receive enough oil. That's what happened to my car. On the flat parts of the drive, my brother said that I was driving between 35 and 40 mph. My friend had a good engine, so I bought it from him, and gave him my old engine in the deal. He rebuilt that engine and sold it to someone else.
It's must be weird driving a car around with your foot to the floor constantly.
@@davelowets Driving at a slow speed with the transmission in low gear, the driver has to keep his foot on the left pedal, and my left foot would get tired after a while.
12.7 to the rear wheels but good low end torque
the main goal of the model T is to provide an affordable car that everyone can buy so to me this test is honest as it points the main goal of this car.
An affordable car that will last the test of time!? Where's that kind of car today?
ObiTrev 1990s corollas
@Javier Gonzalez I've had 2 Hondas from the 90s. I will never buy another new car again.
@@ObiTrev just ride a bike then. Quit complaining
Re flash the ECU for a better tune !
Dude brought the dyno slayer! Great video, thanks for sharing!
😆 I NEVER expected to EVER see a model T dyno session... 👍
Still one of the coolest cars ever.
Didn't know there was 7/10ths of a horse roaming around o_O.. joking aside, not bad considering. Sure wont be hauling a 7000 pound camper, but will get you from point A to point B in a reasonable time.
I Invoke My First Amendment Rights If only people saw it that way instead of insisting they need a 300hp gas guzzler to drive around town at 20-30mph... a 70hp engine could happily cruise at 70mph and have a top speed of 100mph or more and you wouldn't even notice a big difference during city driving... the smaller engine would probably be more manageable in the city.
+micheals1992 I have a 300ish hp gas guzzler( oldsmobile aurora v8) and I have to say, driving the model t at work is a blast in summer. That said, I sure wouldnt want to drive her in winter. Open top and NY winter? no thank you :)
Pamela anderson full movie
Wow fastest production car a Ford Model T with 12.7HP. It bet the Konigsegg Agera RS
Hold by beer! My John Deere X350r Lawn Mower with 35 HP is the Fastest vehicle on Earth! XD!
I'd really like to know alot more about that dyno itself.
Raw power since 1908
Can it do a burnout?.....still impressive for over a hundred years old and no water pump, and a carb thats prettymuch a gas line with a hole in it with wind blowing past it.
cartmanrlsusall They had 20+ mpg no problem as well
No oil pump either. It relied on the con-rods dipping into the sump oil
It will do a burnout if you set it on fire!
Ellie Price not for long i think it had a wooden chassis in the early tin lizzies
Biana Doubt and wood spoke wheels
12.7HP & a top speed of 45 MPH= 72.42 KPH. It does what it needs to do. Technically, I don’t have an issue with Ford *_momentarily_* bringing back some sort of ORIGINAL and updated version! Many people don’t need more than 45 MPH anyways! 🤣 Thanks Ford. ☝🏻😌
Good hp better torque
Nunca en mi vida vi funcionar un modelo T tan preciosamente y a tanta prisa! Felicitaciones !
under european DIN parameters what numbes are?
But can it drift...
Depends if the stearing wheal could turn all the way?
Mike CorLeoné you can drift a model t, but that would be a hella scary ride
I am not commenting on this thread, but have always wondered if Model T's had an oil pump or whether they just relied on dippers and oil just flung about to land in the required spots for mains as well as big end lubrication.
T had splash lubrication.
@@techmaven5900 And no dip stick, boy, old Henry was cheap.
Ford oldest Automobile manufacturer in America! Still driving my 1968 Ford pickup!
madmanmapper You mean SOMEWHAT surviving company ... Cadillac is part of the GM corporation , and their only in buisness because Obama gave them billions . FORD FTW
American man
Exactly, Cadillac is older. Btw Cadillac was founded by Henry Ford.
American man Ford got $15.9 billion in talf money to build cars that the government specified, this was in addition to the billions they were making from government contracts already. Ford got the largest bailout of the big three and they are the most deeply intertwined with the government.
Do you have proof for any of that? Also how is that relevant?
Studebaker be was in business before Henry Ford was even born.Winton,and ransom Olds sold thousands of cars before the 03,Ford model a
Considering it’s a 90+ year old engine I wouldn’t want to force the engine that much if I were you
it was probably built for it
Key word, was
@@aboyplays7278 yes, "built" being past tense, because it was built in the past
Very impressive Model T Restoration. Where does one get the necessary parts for a classic that is one hundred years old.?
fasx56 Believe it or not there are a number of established suppliers for both reproduction and NOS parts.
The internet and Hemmings Motor News. Any and every question like that should be preceded by using a search engine.
The made twenty million model t's,parts are still out there.
I have one, I had massive speakers installed so I can cruise around blasting 1990s gangster rap
Should have blasted 1890's gangster rap...
I've never understood why the Model T was so underpowered? Nine years earlier, in 1905, there were already cars with a 200 hp V8 (like the French Darracq sports car). So, it's not like the technology didn't exist.
because the car had to be affordable, not fast; cars were stupidly expensive back then, like REALLY expensive
No, the practical technology really didn’t exist. Brake were only on two wheel and were mechanical drum. Tires technology was crude to say the very least. Blow out and flats were a daily occurrence. Paved roads were made of cobble stone, gravel, or very rough concrete in larger cities; everywhere else was just dirt. Popular opinion as well as most local laws were on the side of horse owners in 1910. In some places speed limits were as low as 1-5 miles per hour and, in many places, someone had to walk in front of your car holding a flag to warn others that a motor car was approaching. Your 200 mph race car still had “oilers” that you had to stop every 20 miles or so to refill least your engine would seize up. Even in 1930, 50 mph in a Model A Ford was fast, somewhat dangerous, and scary!
Sounds good. Does anyone know what the parasitic loss in the drivetrain is? I know in a modern car theres about 10 to 20% loss, but with the bands, drum and gear setup im leaning towards 30 to 40%. Then again, maybe it depends on the material? Our model t has kevlar band material, but when installing the bands I read there was cotton originally, and flexible wood, leather or wool used too. Anyone have any insight?
Based on the results of this test, drivetrain loss sits at 36% for a stock engine. Not sure if this particular transmission is stock or updated, however. Not bad number's considering the vintage. We operate tractors from that era that have drawbar losses in excess of 60%.
I find it very hard to believe that there that much parasitic loss, at least in the sense of what I would consider loss: dissipation as frictional heating of the drivetrain. But I also find it hard to believe the loss percentages many people quote even for modern drivetrains. A drivetrain which dumped 10-20% of a modern engine's power into drivetrain heating would likely wreck itself in short order.
I find it more likely that this is a measurement problem, but I don't know how the measurement was done, so it's hard to say. Was the engine in good condition? Was it being run at full throttle with proper spark and mixture settings?
More importantly, was this an inertial chassis dynamometer, measuring the acceleration of a flywheel and calculating wheel horsepower from that? If so, the result might have been inaccurate due to incorrect values being entered (or assumed) for the rotational inertia of the engine flywheel, transmission, driveshaft, and especially the wheels. I guess the power required to accelerate those is often counted as "drivetrain loss", but that feels wrong to me; true, it's power that isn't accelerating the car forward, but it's still mechanical power that *must* be expended if the car is to accelerate at all. The point is that once the car has stopped accelerating and has reached a constant speed, that power becomes available to overcome air drag, wheel and road resistance, and actual frictional losses in the drivetrain.
@@colindhowell have you ever been around cars? there is that much loss. have you picked up the parts your claiming dont use energy to operate?
let me see you spin a tire at 70 mph. its really hard. now spin a driveshaft. their heavy. spin a rear differential from an old vehicle. its pretty hard to turn by hand. now remember a transmission is a unit. it is powered by the engine. you spin the torque converter its heavy. it spins a fluid. which is heated and pressurized and then pumped through the transmission to operate its valvebody which selects a gear which also takes power to spin. you may feel like it doesnt make sense but it makes a whole world of sense. your car doesnt amazingly gain power back because your not accelerating. cars dont get faster at top speed. those frictional and rotational forces are always sapping power and the faster they spin the more power they eat up.
a good auto trans will get you about 25% driveline loss. some manuals are closer to 15-20% because a good chunk of the weight that would have to spin is shaved off and you select the gears. it doesnt have a fluid pump that must be ran also. older tech had more losses due to clearances manufacturing tolerance lubrication advances material advances and the epa. im actually impressed that its claimed at 36% considering how new cars really were at the time and 100 years later driveline losses havent been cut down that much.
So what was the HP? What kind of video is this?
And still running... what will the modern stuff do in a 100 years....?
The modern stuff will de exactly the same if you do exactly the same to it like they did on the model T.
Which means a complete rebuild.
So where is the point of this comment?
That you can rebuild a car and make it run 100 years later? That`s no mystery.
Show me a Model T without a rebuild which was not maintained. But i guess you wont find one, because it went back to iron oxide somewhere deep under the earth.
The world will be gone within the next hundred years, destroyed by humanity...
Can I put that model t exhaust system on a Mazda? Would make it sound like a model t?
what will happen if a turbo is installed?
***** 60 should be possible with custom lightweight rims and tires
The car would implode
You can hit the fabulous 15 HP score !
you will hit 88 mph and go BACK IN TIME!!!
Calvin Laudrensio there would need to be a clean up
Este entregó un enorme 12.7 HP a las ruedas traseras. Pero eso es suficiente para impulsar este automóvil a una agradable velocidad de crucero de 30 mph y una velocidad máxima de 45 mph.
12.7 hp not bad seeing that it was listed at 20 hp mabe the street racer T had 20 hp.
The 20 hp figure was from a formula based on cylinder dimensions.
The Dyno measures power at the rear wheels. The listen 20hp is an engine rating and probably measured at the flywheel.
No, Ford actually *rated* the engine for 20 hp, and observed that output at 1600 rpm; I've even found a power and torque graph they published in one of their 1921 service bulletins. (This would apply just as well to the 1914 model, since the engine changed very little throughout the Model T's run.) The formula you're thinking of gave a figure of 22.5 hp with no rpm value, since it was merely a rule-of-thumb estimate, based on cylinder dimensions as you said.
They measured horsepower at the crankshaft, not at the rear wheel for many years on most automotive applications.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: I was replying to Chris Allen's claim that the 20 hp figure was from a formula. I understand that Ford's rating was at the crankshaft.
I have ridden a horse but I think this is more fun
That was cool !
I kept hearing 107. I was like, how the hell is a Ford Model T gonna make 107 HP
It is a 2.9L
@@silvia_fuku0ka845 bigger displacement than a nissan skyline lMaO
upgraded cams,sportier pistons,ethanol in petrol tank is the answer
107lbs of torque probably
Not a ford fan, huh? Stop the hatin.
Weird car to dyno since the engine was designed to basically run at a constant speed. There is no throttle pedal.
V.Vega: The throttle is on the column like a tractor, dumbass. Constant speed......how stupid can you get?
bill091086 I'm well aware of where the throttle is, dumbass. You don't modulate it like a modern pedal. You put it in low gear, you set the throttle to speed, then you jam it in high gear. You don't sit there and vary the throttle, for the most part it runs at a constant speed. Dumbass. I honestly can't believe you're so stupid.
bill091086 That was completely unnecessary
Biana Doubt: Than you for setting know-nothing Vega straight!!!
Tiamoto TV: sorry man, but it’s on the right side of the column, same as tractors of the day and for many years to come. The arm that you move is applied against a round, semi-circular disc with detents in it. As you move the lever, the arm goes in and out of the detents. They keep it from moving and they make it easier to remember the throttle position that corresponds to common speeds that you use.
I already knew its top speed was 45
That's whp
wheel horse power=whp
turn on the caption please just subscribed thank you C😎😎L
if you went through all the gears you be up to 60 mph I don't think he had it all the way up throttle wasn't up very much
these topped out at 45... 60 isnt possible
I'd guessed in the teens...
50 SHOT OF NOS .
still faster than a prius
Not bad.
That's a bit sad, my lawn mower produces more power than that. 22HP.
300HP
It may be slow but it will best your lawnmower in a top speed run LOL
Arc thats also whp.. in otherwords probably has 40 fwhp....
It makes it even more impressive at the fact that we had 1,500 HP Supercharged P-51 Mustang engines less than 30 years later
Arc Model t engines don't have a large bore or stroke.
HIT the Nos!!
LOL!
Could he still drive it after the test 😂 thats the question?
ruclips.net/video/hhwVjJvEjAs/видео.html watch this video and you should be able to answer your own question...
For less than $12,000 in today's money, $440 for the Model T Runabout
is a deal you'll never find today for a brand new car. I would be happy to pay $12K to get from point A to point B . . . . . If only we had a Henry Ford today to do the same thing for the electric car. There is no way one cannot be built today for less than the fortune Elon's creations cost.
china tried to do that years ago. thye released 2-3 cars that they wanted to sell in the us for 12k and less. problem was in almost any crash everyone would die. so it immediately failed crash tests and wasnt allowed to sell in the market. when you cut corners to try to cheap out you always pay somewhere. this is the same reason professionals get blamed for high prices. it takes time money and energy to make things. skills work force and the knowledge and means to apply those skills. cars are expensive.
@@chehystpewpur4754 Trust me, with today's technology and materials . . . . if you remove 'greed' from the equation, it 'can' be done.
Elon is a moron.
this is need turbocharge