Here is the last lie i was told.When i bought my truck i was told by some people that they were making enough horsepower that they had a problem with the heads seperating from the block.Just a rumor or fact?I dont know.

 

Everyone I know seems to agree that ford UNDERATED the Lightning engine. I believe the 360HP figure is right between the crank & rear wheel horsepower figures. Ford may have done this for insurance rasons. No Manufacturer rates Horse power as rear wheel, always crank horsepower! Lloyd

 

what is a mechanical diode clutch ?

 

The diode clutch is part is very similar to muffler pulleys. Thats what I've heard anyways.

THANKS FORD_TECH! I really appreciate your info. Now for my contribution:

Anyone ever heard of Coates engineering? Spherical Rotary Valve cylinder heads. Here's a picture.


Here's a link
http://www.Coatesengine.com/

I read and read and read. Really inpressed. I have bad feeling that overseas (pick one) auto companies will jump into this one first.

Numbers on a Lincoln 5.0 V8 (5500 rpm limit):
260 HP
249 FT/LBS

With Coates Heads (same 5500 rpm limit):
475 HP!
454 FT/LBS!
with no changes to the block or rotating assembly

Sorry for the long post, if they are still around when I have $15,000, I am gonna have them make me a cylinder head for this truck.

[edited for your enjoyment]
Sorry, that picture is huge, but I have to get my point across, I'll re-edit it tommorrow. Later on in the Popular HotRodding article, it says they had a Lincoln 5.0 revved to 14,500 rpms with their cylinder heads.

[Edited due to obsenity?, I have a poor imagination]

[This message has been edited by Tundra (edited 08-30-2000).]

[50+ posts = long loading time anyways]

[This message has been edited by Tundra (edited 08-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Tundra (edited 08-31-2000).]

 

Tundra:

If you have any imagination at all, that photo approaches the most obscene pic I have ever seen on the web
Bill

 

The drivetrain efficiency is a combination of trasmission, driveshaft lash and final drive gear and lash translated to the hub of the rear wheels. At peak torque (not HP) the generated torque loss at the rear wheel is 11.2%, which is way higher than typically seen on an auto. About 20% is the of the top of my head number to use for most autos. I am told that there are some very minor adjustments to the airflow for '01, but driven more by EPA concerns than straight out performance. If someone was to say that this does increase HP, I can't really argue with that, my point was, that most Lightnings were getting 375 HP or better anyway. I think that's a more accurate statement than when I said nothing much has changed, but really, I don't think much has. We'll know when they come out in November for sure.

 

Oh, and the analogy to a fan belt pulley is one I haven't heard before, but yeah, sorta. In the forward direct cluth on all 4R100's this year, they replaced a friction clutch with a "mechanical diode". I always thought a diode was an electronic thing. The diode is sort of like a clutch plate combined with a ratchet, it's pretty hard to explain but they say it will decrease warranty work. Best I can tell it doesn't have any positive or negative effect on performance.

 

One big limiting factor is the small piston bores. 3.55" about the same size as a 260 olds engine! this badly limits valve sizes. 4 valves would be nice, but the super charger over comes most restriction at the valves. the long stroke small bore makes great torque down low. if the bore was bigger than the stroke You could rev it much higher, but you would lower the the torque at low rpm's. that's why the 4.6 is a car engine, & the 5.4 is for trucks. more/less Lloyd

 

Now if the power-stroke could spin and make ~400 ft-lbs from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm and have the same slope as lightning, and it weighted the same.
Then YES

But the best engine to have is the one of those British Race Semi engines, that accelerates the truck (~6.4 tons) to 100 mph in less than 9 seconds... They are 6 cylinder turbo diesels and make 1200 hp and greater than 1200 ft-lbs.


Torque rules.
Horsepower drools...

 

What about the triple Pratt & Whitney jet engine semi, 36,000 HP, top speed 376 m.p.h?
http://www.flyavp.com/airshow99/shockwave.html

It's some custom built monster I saw on TLC last night "Extreme Machines." It beat a sports plane from a standing start, probably 0-200 in five or so seconds. It burns 100 gallons of diesel in a 1/4 mile.

Now that's all power, but jets don't do too much work per revolution of the turbine.

[This message has been edited by michael_hovis (edited 08-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by michael_hovis (edited 08-31-2000).]

 

I'd love to see that rig pulling a 40ft trailer of Orville Reddenbachers

 

Found this on another board, thought it was funny considering this thread.

 

the most amazing thing about that rig is its weight, 6800lbs for that monstrosity.

 

Wow, here we go again. Lots of good stuff to talk about in this one. First off, back in November of 98 Jack Roush had a prototype Lightning on Road Atlanta. It easily made over 475 HP, I think he said it dynoed over 500HP. HP/Liter is somewhat meaningless, a two stroke model airplane engine can make in excess of 400HP/Liter. But who cares? It's far from being hi tech, just high RPM. On the HP/TQ thing, remember by definition HP is a measure of a engines abilaty to do work, TQ is just a force. Torque does nothing but apply a force, as sone as there is a force with movement it becomes HP, since work is done when there is movement.

 

Force x distance = work = torque.

Hence ft.(distance) lbs.(force) of torque.

I think torque measures the amount of work an engine does, and power is just how quickly the work is done.

The only way the engine can develop torque is to rotate under the force of the burning fuel. The best way to increase torque is to increase the amount of fuel (and air) that burns for each firing of each cylinder (higher cubes = higher torque).

torque/time = power

[This message has been edited by michael_hovis (edited 08-31-2000).]