Explanation of hp vs. torque...?
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
Explanation of hp vs. torque...?
Alright, I finally figured out some things about the nature of torque and HP ratings and what they actually refer to and thought I might share them with other newbies. Please correct any mistakes as this is entirely the result of a friend and I talking about how internal combustion engines work. Neither of us know too much about engines but this is what we were able to reason out. This may be old news to everybody else, but I felt good for working it out myself.
PS - If I am wrong, I would really appreciate corrections. I'm not sure if my terminology is alway accurate either... All help welcomed and encouraged.
First off let me begin by giving a quick overview of a combustion engine. As most people know, a combustion engine gets its energy from exploding a mixture of air and fuel. The valves allow air and fuel to enter the cylinder where it is compressed by the cylinder and then detonated by the spark plug. This explosion forces the cylinder down and creates the rotational force (torque) that is required to spin the driveshaft. The ammount of torque then is a direct result of the forces unleashed during combustion (the exploding of the fuel/air mixture). This is why an engine with larger cylinders produces more torque... the greater displacement of the cylinders allows there to be more fuel and air and hence, a more powerful explosion. Torque peaks at relatively low rpms because that is where the valves are bringing in the most effecient (basically maximum) amount of air and fuel into the cylinder. At higher rpms this mixture becomes less explosive because it is happening too fast and the valves do not have time to create an optimal mixture of air and gas.
HP is a derived figure. It is based on torque over time. It is important to note that you rarely get the optimum mixture of air and fuel while running an engine. (The rpm's where you do achieve your optimal mix is where your peak torque occurs.) To overcome this lack of efficiency, you simply have more explosions in less amoount of time. This is essentially HP. Horsepower is the engine having less powerful combustion more often. The 5000 less effecient combustions create more net power per time than 2500 optimal combustions.
This is why HP and Torque curves look the way they do in an engine graph. Rpm's go up until you reach your peak torque, at which point your cylinders are filling with the most air and fuel and creating the most powerful explosions. As the rpm's go up further, the fuel and air mixture becomes less robust and the torque curve starts to bend down. However, since you are increasing the number of times that combustion happens, you can have less efficient combustion and still gain power. The HP curve continues to rise until the frequency of combustion can no longer overcome the dwindling efficiency. This is where the HP curve hits the toilet.
This realization also helped me deduce why a free flowing exhaust which causes loss of back pressure causes the loss of low end power. The back pressure is needed to help the cylinder contain all of its fuel and air during the compression phase of combustion. Too little pressure and the cylinder will lose some of its air to the exhaust and create a less powerful combustion, hence reducing your maximum torque. However, this will help HP since it allows higher speed exit of exhaust and allows you to increase the number of times that combustion is happening in a given time.
What do ya'll think. Is this informative or completely obvious and a waste of time to post?
[This message has been edited by Foster (edited 03-24-2000).]
PS - If I am wrong, I would really appreciate corrections. I'm not sure if my terminology is alway accurate either... All help welcomed and encouraged.
First off let me begin by giving a quick overview of a combustion engine. As most people know, a combustion engine gets its energy from exploding a mixture of air and fuel. The valves allow air and fuel to enter the cylinder where it is compressed by the cylinder and then detonated by the spark plug. This explosion forces the cylinder down and creates the rotational force (torque) that is required to spin the driveshaft. The ammount of torque then is a direct result of the forces unleashed during combustion (the exploding of the fuel/air mixture). This is why an engine with larger cylinders produces more torque... the greater displacement of the cylinders allows there to be more fuel and air and hence, a more powerful explosion. Torque peaks at relatively low rpms because that is where the valves are bringing in the most effecient (basically maximum) amount of air and fuel into the cylinder. At higher rpms this mixture becomes less explosive because it is happening too fast and the valves do not have time to create an optimal mixture of air and gas.
HP is a derived figure. It is based on torque over time. It is important to note that you rarely get the optimum mixture of air and fuel while running an engine. (The rpm's where you do achieve your optimal mix is where your peak torque occurs.) To overcome this lack of efficiency, you simply have more explosions in less amoount of time. This is essentially HP. Horsepower is the engine having less powerful combustion more often. The 5000 less effecient combustions create more net power per time than 2500 optimal combustions.
This is why HP and Torque curves look the way they do in an engine graph. Rpm's go up until you reach your peak torque, at which point your cylinders are filling with the most air and fuel and creating the most powerful explosions. As the rpm's go up further, the fuel and air mixture becomes less robust and the torque curve starts to bend down. However, since you are increasing the number of times that combustion happens, you can have less efficient combustion and still gain power. The HP curve continues to rise until the frequency of combustion can no longer overcome the dwindling efficiency. This is where the HP curve hits the toilet.
This realization also helped me deduce why a free flowing exhaust which causes loss of back pressure causes the loss of low end power. The back pressure is needed to help the cylinder contain all of its fuel and air during the compression phase of combustion. Too little pressure and the cylinder will lose some of its air to the exhaust and create a less powerful combustion, hence reducing your maximum torque. However, this will help HP since it allows higher speed exit of exhaust and allows you to increase the number of times that combustion is happening in a given time.
What do ya'll think. Is this informative or completely obvious and a waste of time to post?
[This message has been edited by Foster (edited 03-24-2000).]
Senior Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
From: Fast46TritonVille
How about this?
What horsepower means is this. In Watt's judgement, one horse can do 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute. So imagine a horse raising coal out of a coal mine as shown above. A horse exerting one horsepower can raise 330 pounds of coal 100 feet in a minute, or 33 pounds of coal 1000 feet in one minute, or 1,000 pounds 33 feet in one minute, etc. You can make up whatever combination of feet and pounds you like - as long as the product is 33,000 in one minute and you have a horsepower. You can probably imagine that you would not want to load 33,000 pounds of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to move it one foot in a minute because the horse couldn't budge that big a load. You can probably also imagine that you would not want to put one pound of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to run 33,000 feet in one minute, since that translates into 375 miles per hour and most horses can't run that fast. However, if you have read the HSW article on the block and tackle, you know that with a block and tackle you can easily trade perceived weight for distance using an arrangement of pulleys. So you could create a block and tackle system that puts a comfortable amount of weight on the horse at a comfortable speed no matter how much weight is actually in the bucket.
Horsepower can be converted into other units. For example, one horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts or 2,545 BTUs (British Thermal Units) per hour. So if you took a one-horsepower horse and put it on a treadmill, it could operate a generator producing a continuous 746 watts. If you took that 746 watts and ran it through an electric heater, it would produce 2,545 BTUs in an hour (where a BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree F). One BTU is equal to 1,055 joules, or 252 gram-calories, or 0.252 food Calories. Presumably the horse would burn 641 Calories in one hour doing its work if it were 100% efficient.
Measuring Horsepower
If you want to know the horsepower of an engine, you hook the engine up to a dynomometer. A dynomometer places a load on the engine and measures the amount of power that the engine can produce against the load.
Torque
Imagine that you have a big socket wrench with a 2-foot long handle on it and you it to apply 50 pounds of force to that 2-foot long handle. What you are doing is applying a torque, or turning force, of 100 foot-pounds (50 pounds to a 2 foot long handle) to the bolt. You could get the same 100 foot-pounds of torque by applying one pound of force to the end of a 100 foot handle or 100 pounds of force to a one foot long handle.
Similarly, if you attach a shaft to an engine, the engine can apply torque to the shaft. A dynomometer measures this torque. You can easily convert torque to horsepower by multiplying torque by RPMs / 5252.
You can get an idea of how a dynomometer works in the following way. Imagine that you turn on a car engine, put it in neutral and floor it. The engine would run so fast it would explode. That's no good, so on a dynomometer you apply a load to the floored engine and measure the load the engine can handle at different RPMs. So you might hook an engine to a dynamometer, floor it and use the dynomometer to apply enough of a load to the engine to keep it at, say, 7,000 RPMs. You record how much load the engine can handle. Then you apply additional load to knock the RPMs down to 6,500 RPMs and record the load there. Then you apply additional load to get it down to 6,000 RPMs. And so on. You can do the same thing starting down at 500 or 1,000 RPMs and working up. What dynomometers actually measure is torque (in foot-pounds), and to convert torque to horsepower you simply multiply torque by RPMs / 5252.
What horsepower means is this. In Watt's judgement, one horse can do 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute. So imagine a horse raising coal out of a coal mine as shown above. A horse exerting one horsepower can raise 330 pounds of coal 100 feet in a minute, or 33 pounds of coal 1000 feet in one minute, or 1,000 pounds 33 feet in one minute, etc. You can make up whatever combination of feet and pounds you like - as long as the product is 33,000 in one minute and you have a horsepower. You can probably imagine that you would not want to load 33,000 pounds of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to move it one foot in a minute because the horse couldn't budge that big a load. You can probably also imagine that you would not want to put one pound of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to run 33,000 feet in one minute, since that translates into 375 miles per hour and most horses can't run that fast. However, if you have read the HSW article on the block and tackle, you know that with a block and tackle you can easily trade perceived weight for distance using an arrangement of pulleys. So you could create a block and tackle system that puts a comfortable amount of weight on the horse at a comfortable speed no matter how much weight is actually in the bucket.
Horsepower can be converted into other units. For example, one horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts or 2,545 BTUs (British Thermal Units) per hour. So if you took a one-horsepower horse and put it on a treadmill, it could operate a generator producing a continuous 746 watts. If you took that 746 watts and ran it through an electric heater, it would produce 2,545 BTUs in an hour (where a BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree F). One BTU is equal to 1,055 joules, or 252 gram-calories, or 0.252 food Calories. Presumably the horse would burn 641 Calories in one hour doing its work if it were 100% efficient.
Measuring Horsepower
If you want to know the horsepower of an engine, you hook the engine up to a dynomometer. A dynomometer places a load on the engine and measures the amount of power that the engine can produce against the load.
Torque
Imagine that you have a big socket wrench with a 2-foot long handle on it and you it to apply 50 pounds of force to that 2-foot long handle. What you are doing is applying a torque, or turning force, of 100 foot-pounds (50 pounds to a 2 foot long handle) to the bolt. You could get the same 100 foot-pounds of torque by applying one pound of force to the end of a 100 foot handle or 100 pounds of force to a one foot long handle.
Similarly, if you attach a shaft to an engine, the engine can apply torque to the shaft. A dynomometer measures this torque. You can easily convert torque to horsepower by multiplying torque by RPMs / 5252.
You can get an idea of how a dynomometer works in the following way. Imagine that you turn on a car engine, put it in neutral and floor it. The engine would run so fast it would explode. That's no good, so on a dynomometer you apply a load to the floored engine and measure the load the engine can handle at different RPMs. So you might hook an engine to a dynamometer, floor it and use the dynomometer to apply enough of a load to the engine to keep it at, say, 7,000 RPMs. You record how much load the engine can handle. Then you apply additional load to knock the RPMs down to 6,500 RPMs and record the load there. Then you apply additional load to get it down to 6,000 RPMs. And so on. You can do the same thing starting down at 500 or 1,000 RPMs and working up. What dynomometers actually measure is torque (in foot-pounds), and to convert torque to horsepower you simply multiply torque by RPMs / 5252.
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
That's pretty interesting but more of a definition than I was going for. I was just expounding upon the very basic nature of the engine and why a 2 liter Honda can produce more hp than my 4.9 liter Ford and to put that in context. The high rpms is where the Honda gets its power, while my Ford gets its power from big *** cylinders. Just trying to help out people who don't understand the relationship of horsepower and torque and why shovies can have more hp and still be crap as a truck.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Good explanations, guys.
Foster, your example engine would have to be turning 10,000 rpm to get its 5,000 combustion cycles (if it is a 4 cycle single cylinder engine). The part about losing torque on a free flow exhaust was real interesting.
------------------
1999 XLT S/C, 4.2 V-6, auto, 3.55 rear, dark torreador red/harvest gold, bed liner, Sony 10 disc CD, Edelbrock IAS, K&N filter, Superchip
[This message has been edited by dirt bike dave (edited 03-24-2000).]
Foster, your example engine would have to be turning 10,000 rpm to get its 5,000 combustion cycles (if it is a 4 cycle single cylinder engine). The part about losing torque on a free flow exhaust was real interesting.
------------------
1999 XLT S/C, 4.2 V-6, auto, 3.55 rear, dark torreador red/harvest gold, bed liner, Sony 10 disc CD, Edelbrock IAS, K&N filter, Superchip
[This message has been edited by dirt bike dave (edited 03-24-2000).]
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: CHULA VISTA, CA
Ummmm,
Not so fast.
RPMs vs. ideal 'breathing' of the engine:
-the air-fuel mixture can have 2 basic problems. Either too lean beacause the valve was open past the point all the exhaust left the cylinder (over scavenging), or the cylinder still contains exhaust gas from the previous cycle because the vavle closed before it all left. I am uncertain at what point you could achieve so little back pressure to allow over scavenging (without a supercharger pushing air/fuel in). But I hear it can happen.
Insuffificient scavenging means that part of the cylinder that could contain air/fuel instead contains exhaust. sub optimal from a power generation standpoint I assume.
But how the hell does higher back pressure at low-mid RPMs (which must cause under- scavenging and actual downward force [resistance to upward force anyway] on the rising piston head) HELP torque??
How How How?
As to refering to combustion as an "explosion," not technically correct. Particularly as computers measure the mixture so precisely. The combustion is controlled by design of the cylinders and timing of the spark (assuming no pre-ignition/knock). There is a smooth continuous expansion not only of gas but also movement of the flame "front."
I may understand some of what is happening in that darn engine. But I'll be a monkey's uncle if I can understand why and how much back pressure helps my truck go from 0-60 (or more) the fastest. ('cause that's what I want!)
any ideas, how and WHY?
------------------
2001 SuperCrew 4x4 Lariat 5.4/4-spd auto, 3.55 l/s, elec xfer case, Skids, Class III tow, Stock 17"s, Oxford White/Med Graphite leather capts chairs, Rhinolined
Planned: K&N FIPK (When they get the CARB # for 2001's), Superchip
(Fixed an offensive typo)
[This message has been edited by 1stSuperCrew (edited 03-25-2000).]
Not so fast.
RPMs vs. ideal 'breathing' of the engine:
-the air-fuel mixture can have 2 basic problems. Either too lean beacause the valve was open past the point all the exhaust left the cylinder (over scavenging), or the cylinder still contains exhaust gas from the previous cycle because the vavle closed before it all left. I am uncertain at what point you could achieve so little back pressure to allow over scavenging (without a supercharger pushing air/fuel in). But I hear it can happen.
Insuffificient scavenging means that part of the cylinder that could contain air/fuel instead contains exhaust. sub optimal from a power generation standpoint I assume.
But how the hell does higher back pressure at low-mid RPMs (which must cause under- scavenging and actual downward force [resistance to upward force anyway] on the rising piston head) HELP torque??
How How How?
As to refering to combustion as an "explosion," not technically correct. Particularly as computers measure the mixture so precisely. The combustion is controlled by design of the cylinders and timing of the spark (assuming no pre-ignition/knock). There is a smooth continuous expansion not only of gas but also movement of the flame "front."
I may understand some of what is happening in that darn engine. But I'll be a monkey's uncle if I can understand why and how much back pressure helps my truck go from 0-60 (or more) the fastest. ('cause that's what I want!)
any ideas, how and WHY?
------------------
2001 SuperCrew 4x4 Lariat 5.4/4-spd auto, 3.55 l/s, elec xfer case, Skids, Class III tow, Stock 17"s, Oxford White/Med Graphite leather capts chairs, Rhinolined
Planned: K&N FIPK (When they get the CARB # for 2001's), Superchip
(Fixed an offensive typo)
[This message has been edited by 1stSuperCrew (edited 03-25-2000).]
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
Hey guys thanks for your input. I knew some of my terminology was off and I'm still working on getting the whole picture. Could part of the back pressure mystery have anything to do with the pressure exerted on the exhaust valve? Does back pressure do that?
Dirt Bike Dave,
I guess I was talking about one of those racing Civics. Ya know, the ones that redline at something obscene like 11,000 rpm. Yeah, that's the ticket.
1stSuperCrew,
Thanks for the clarification. Is my basic assumption about the relationship between horsepower and torque correct?
------------------
1993 F-150 SWB Supercab 4.9l 4 speed auto w/ OD, 3.55 gears, K&N fipk, Custom Exhaust w/ Flowmaster.
But to chip or not to chip? Hmmmmm...
Dirt Bike Dave,
I guess I was talking about one of those racing Civics. Ya know, the ones that redline at something obscene like 11,000 rpm. Yeah, that's the ticket.
1stSuperCrew,
Thanks for the clarification. Is my basic assumption about the relationship between horsepower and torque correct?
------------------
1993 F-150 SWB Supercab 4.9l 4 speed auto w/ OD, 3.55 gears, K&N fipk, Custom Exhaust w/ Flowmaster.
But to chip or not to chip? Hmmmmm...
Senior Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: Bradenton, Fl. USA
1stSuperCrew,
I have often wondered the same thing about back pressure. The best way I know to explain it is from what I learned in a Firefighting engineer class I took a couple of years ago. When firefighters pump fire engines, they normally connect a 4 or 5 inch hose to a hydrant (intake) with runs through a pump (engine) and is pumped through a series of hoselines (exhaust) depending on the fire. If the pump has a constant maximum rpm (redline), the more hoselines (exhaust)connected to the pump at redline, the less efficient the flow of the water (exhaust gases) become. The pump will only intake so much water so it will only exhaust so much water, the trick is making it efficient. If the hoseline goes upstairs and around corners it will be a less efficient flow than a hoseline in a straight and level line. The more hoselines, the less efficient the pump will work to pump the same amount of water. A larger intake on the pump that would allow for more water flow would allow for more hoselines. Similar to a Supercharger allowing an engine to pump more air. IT is a delicate balance. Fire engines need backpressure to operate properly also. I understand that headers help cars because of more efficient flow from each cylinder as opposed to cat-back exhaust systems which only split the same amount of air at the same flow rate that it arrives at the muffler normally.
It is hard to explain but backpressure is needed for any pump to work efficiently. I hope I explained my theory clearly. Take the muffler off a push mower and mow the lawn with it and you will feel the loss of power. Or imagine a central AC in a home with only one duct as compared to one in each room. It makes sense when you think about it.
I have often wondered the same thing about back pressure. The best way I know to explain it is from what I learned in a Firefighting engineer class I took a couple of years ago. When firefighters pump fire engines, they normally connect a 4 or 5 inch hose to a hydrant (intake) with runs through a pump (engine) and is pumped through a series of hoselines (exhaust) depending on the fire. If the pump has a constant maximum rpm (redline), the more hoselines (exhaust)connected to the pump at redline, the less efficient the flow of the water (exhaust gases) become. The pump will only intake so much water so it will only exhaust so much water, the trick is making it efficient. If the hoseline goes upstairs and around corners it will be a less efficient flow than a hoseline in a straight and level line. The more hoselines, the less efficient the pump will work to pump the same amount of water. A larger intake on the pump that would allow for more water flow would allow for more hoselines. Similar to a Supercharger allowing an engine to pump more air. IT is a delicate balance. Fire engines need backpressure to operate properly also. I understand that headers help cars because of more efficient flow from each cylinder as opposed to cat-back exhaust systems which only split the same amount of air at the same flow rate that it arrives at the muffler normally.
It is hard to explain but backpressure is needed for any pump to work efficiently. I hope I explained my theory clearly. Take the muffler off a push mower and mow the lawn with it and you will feel the loss of power. Or imagine a central AC in a home with only one duct as compared to one in each room. It makes sense when you think about it.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: CHULA VISTA, CA
Dirt Bike Dave,
I understand that theory, and must also credit it to foster's posts. Your elegantly simple statement of it is compelling.
I KNOW that supercharged engines (with positive pressure intake sides) can easily have this problem. But the only force on a normally aspirated engine is atmospheric pressure, which is always less than the exhaust side. Yet, the momentum of the intake gasses, I imagine, could provide the force to push them right out the exhaust valve, unburned, even into the higher pressure area of the exhaust manifold inlets.
So, if that is the final answer: is a 2.5" pipe off the stock manifold (and all the way back to the muffler) the ideal balance of scavenging? Or does it leave too much exhaust in the cylinder? someone should be making an orifice that can be adjusted to the ideal size...in fact, a computer-controlled servo orifice. Hmmmmmmmm
Thank you all so much for putting up with my rantings. I have the type of personality that just HAS to figure everything out!
Clifford Claven sends
------------------
2001 SuperCrew 4x4 Lariat 5.4/4-spd auto, 3.55 l/s, elec xfer case, Skids, Class III tow, Stock 17"s, Oxford White/Med Graphite leather capts chairs, Rhinolined
Planned: K&N FIPK (When they get the CARB # for 2001's), Superchip
I understand that theory, and must also credit it to foster's posts. Your elegantly simple statement of it is compelling.
I KNOW that supercharged engines (with positive pressure intake sides) can easily have this problem. But the only force on a normally aspirated engine is atmospheric pressure, which is always less than the exhaust side. Yet, the momentum of the intake gasses, I imagine, could provide the force to push them right out the exhaust valve, unburned, even into the higher pressure area of the exhaust manifold inlets.
So, if that is the final answer: is a 2.5" pipe off the stock manifold (and all the way back to the muffler) the ideal balance of scavenging? Or does it leave too much exhaust in the cylinder? someone should be making an orifice that can be adjusted to the ideal size...in fact, a computer-controlled servo orifice. Hmmmmmmmm
Thank you all so much for putting up with my rantings. I have the type of personality that just HAS to figure everything out!
Clifford Claven sends
------------------
2001 SuperCrew 4x4 Lariat 5.4/4-spd auto, 3.55 l/s, elec xfer case, Skids, Class III tow, Stock 17"s, Oxford White/Med Graphite leather capts chairs, Rhinolined
Planned: K&N FIPK (When they get the CARB # for 2001's), Superchip
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 1
From: Oklahoma City
Honda is already doing the "servo orfices" in thier Vtech engines.
They do it by varying valve timing depending upon RPM.
This and the fact they use 4 valves per cylinder is how they get so much HP out of such a small engine.
Heck, Hondas 1.6L has almost the same HP as the old 4.9L Ford did an getting excellent mpg to boot.
The major drawback to this way of extracting Hp is the torque is horrible and to get the Hp you just about have to red line it.
Needless to say 1.6L is useless for towing due to the low torque, regardless how much Hp it has.
Another interesring thing is that even though my Honda and my F150 have similiar HP per Pound ratios, the F150 seems to be a LOT quicker.
------------------
99 XLT 5.4L Regular Cab 4x2 120" Wheelbase 4 wheel disc brakes/ABS 5 star larait style wheels Toreador Red/Silver 3.55 gears 255/70/16 OWL Delta toolbox, Ford Running Boards, Ventshades, Bugflector, Bullrings, Donnelly compass mirror, 2" Rear drop.
Eclipse 5340 cd player
Memphis ARCS50 component speakers w/tweeters mounted flush in the door panels (excellent sound)powered by a Sherwood 35x2 RMS amp
Kicker ZR360 for the 2 Audiobahn AWC10 subs
regcab54@sc.rr.com
Pitures at:
www.zing.com/album/?id=4294578075
They do it by varying valve timing depending upon RPM.
This and the fact they use 4 valves per cylinder is how they get so much HP out of such a small engine.
Heck, Hondas 1.6L has almost the same HP as the old 4.9L Ford did an getting excellent mpg to boot.
The major drawback to this way of extracting Hp is the torque is horrible and to get the Hp you just about have to red line it.
Needless to say 1.6L is useless for towing due to the low torque, regardless how much Hp it has.
Another interesring thing is that even though my Honda and my F150 have similiar HP per Pound ratios, the F150 seems to be a LOT quicker.
------------------
99 XLT 5.4L Regular Cab 4x2 120" Wheelbase 4 wheel disc brakes/ABS 5 star larait style wheels Toreador Red/Silver 3.55 gears 255/70/16 OWL Delta toolbox, Ford Running Boards, Ventshades, Bugflector, Bullrings, Donnelly compass mirror, 2" Rear drop.
Eclipse 5340 cd player
Memphis ARCS50 component speakers w/tweeters mounted flush in the door panels (excellent sound)powered by a Sherwood 35x2 RMS amp
Kicker ZR360 for the 2 Audiobahn AWC10 subs
regcab54@sc.rr.com
Pitures at:
www.zing.com/album/?id=4294578075
Senior Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
From: Fast46TritonVille
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: CHULA VISTA, CA
54regcab
Now I have another dilemma. Figuring out HOW a computer can control Valve timing! Seems pretty locked into high-tension steel parts (Camshaft, cam lobes, lifters, rockers, valves, and sometimes pushrods in there for the older designs)
I'll be chasing that down....maybe on the 'how stuff works' site. Man, that sounds like an awesome site for me-thanks 4.6!
Now I have another dilemma. Figuring out HOW a computer can control Valve timing! Seems pretty locked into high-tension steel parts (Camshaft, cam lobes, lifters, rockers, valves, and sometimes pushrods in there for the older designs)
I'll be chasing that down....maybe on the 'how stuff works' site. Man, that sounds like an awesome site for me-thanks 4.6!