NEW 6 L FORD diesel V8

From : dick

Q: with a class leading 325-horsepower and 560lb-ft of torque the 6.0-liter power stroke v8 turbo diesel engine is a marvel of design and engineering. http//www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003/ford/superduty/firstdrive/page2.html --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.515 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

Replies:

From : mrdancer

with a class leading 325-horsepower and 560lb-ft of torque the 6.0-liter power stroke v8 turbo diesel engine is a marvel of design and engineering. http//www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003/ford/superduty/firstdrive/page2.html isnt that the one that has all the new powerstroke owners pissed off theyve been having lots of problems with them. .

From : budd cochran

and the sweaty bald overweight car salesman with the 10 wide hawaiian hula power tie with pasta stains blubbers with the torque curve of a humpbacked single hump camel and the hp band with a shape reminiscent of a needle ....and a turbocharger design co-developed by mopar and mitsubishi that they dropped because of being problem plagued. another ford better idea they stole to get yep a real winner folks. my brother-in-laws 2000 ford p-smoke was in the shop more than his 72 ford big block 250 with 200000 miles on it. budd dick wrote with a class leading 325-horsepower and 560lb-ft of torque the 6.0-liter power stroke v8 turbo diesel engine is a marvel of design and engineering. http//www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003/ford/superduty/firstdrive/page2.html --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.515 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote and the sweaty bald overweight car salesman with the 10 wide hawaiian hula power tie with pasta stains blubbers with the torque curve of a humpbacked single hump camel and the hp so its like the one on the left then http//www.m-w.com/mw/art/camel.htm .

From : budd cochran

maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. that engine could use a 6-8 speed auto better than the one in the article and possibly a two speed axle. budd terra wrote budd cochran wrote and the sweaty bald overweight car salesman with the 10 wide hawaiian hula power tie with pasta stains blubbers with the torque curve of a humpbacked single hump camel and the hp so its like the one on the left then http//www.m-w.com/mw/art/camel.htm .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. but fewer main bearings. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| .

From : tom lawrencetrey

anyone else compare the stroke of an isb to the stroke of just about any v6/v8 - i think youll find your answer. .

From : mike simmons

budd cochran wrote maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. but fewer main bearings. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| not exactly..... typically an inline engine of roughly equivalent displacement has a substantially longer connecting rod thus the principle of the lever and fulcrum allows the inline engine to develop more torque over a broader rpm range and thus a flatter torque curve chryco service manager member sae .

From : max340

i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power lots. all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. an assumption at best. crankshaft flex has more to do with design and material than with length. in the case of the psd duramax and cummins b the cummins crank is more rigid because its larger in all dimensions not just length. but fewer main bearings. exactly which is the second part of the flex issue. in a v8 the crank can flex two directions two banks two rods on one journal and the mains are farther apart. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. lol measured in how minute a quantity torsional springiness is a factor of cross section in the crank. the cummins b series has no problem here as stock bottom end on the b series has survived modified power outputs in the 1200ft lbs and 600hp area. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses but not torsional ones.... which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. again thats not all of what keeps a crank from experiencing twist. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| no. its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : terraterra

max340 wrote i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power lots. well see about that... all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. an assumption at best. crankshaft flex has more to do with design and material than with length. in the case of the psd duramax and cummins b the cummins crank is more rigid because its larger in all dimensions not just length. well okay good for cummins. but thats outside the scope of this v or i layout question - irrelevant - so what - not even on the same page... but good for cummins. but fewer main bearings. exactly which is the second part of the flex issue. in a v8 the crank can flex two directions two banks two rods on one journal and the mains are farther apart. thanks the two-plane thought escaped me. im glad to gain the flexural insight but this still isnt about power. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. lol measured in how minute a quantity it doesnt matter! as minute as you can imagine then half of that still affects something else somewhere. it only has to resonate too much or the wrong way it doesnt have to break. torsional springiness is a factor of cross section in the crank. the cummins b series has no problem here as stock bottom end on the b series has survived modified power outputs in the 1200ft lbs and 600hp area. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses but not torsional ones.... yeah yeah you already knew i knew that. no baby lessons please im really not as stupid as i look. which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. again thats not all of what keeps a crank from experiencing twist. youre justifying the inline choice every way you can think of. the twistiness is minute anyway the cummins shaft is thicker the bending is only in one direction... i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| no. its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. nothing!!! you made a few good points here at least about how cummins builds things but said nothing at *all* about power output. then you summed it all up with its long been known... anyone else .

From : terra

mike simmons wrote budd cochran wrote maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. but fewer main bearings. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| not exactly..... typically an inline engine of roughly equivalent displacement has a substantially longer connecting rod thus the principle of the lever and fulcrum allows the inline engine to develop more torque over a broader rpm range and thus a flatter torque curve chryco service manager member sae interesting but i cant picture it the way youre describing it. the crank throw is the lever arm not the rod length. the crank centerline is the fulcrum. and longer rods make an already tall design even taller. i know longer rods are good their reduced rocking/angularity lessens side forces on pistons and cylinder walls. makes the up-down piston movement more sinusoidal too for whatever thats worth. why not just put longer rods on a v-8 too if thats the secret .

From : mike simmons

mike simmons wrote budd cochran wrote maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. but fewer main bearings. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| not exactly..... typically an inline engine of roughly equivalent displacement has a substantially longer connecting rod thus the principle of the lever and fulcrum allows the inline engine to develop more torque over a broader rpm range and thus a flatter torque curve chryco service manager member sae interesting but i cant picture it the way youre describing it. the crank throw is the lever arm not the rod length. the crank centerline is the fulcrum. and longer rods make an already tall design even taller. i know longer rods are good their reduced rocking/angularity lessens side forces on pistons and cylinder walls. makes the up-down piston movement more sinusoidal too for whatever thats worth. why not just put longer rods on a v-8 too if thats the secret think about it the crank throw and the crank centerline is not the only lever and fulcrum. mike .

From : trey

interesting but i cant picture it the way youre describing it. the crank throw is the lever arm not the rod length. the crank centerline is the fulcrum. and longer rods make an already tall design even taller. i know longer rods are good their reduced rocking/angularity lessens side forces on pistons and cylinder walls. makes the up-down piston movement more sinusoidal too for whatever thats worth. why not just put longer rods on a v-8 too if thats the secret with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. also the cylinders are in a straight line. they are not offset by 45-60 degrees. this allow them to be fired more evenly. by being longer and having more main bearings the stresses put on the bearings would be spread over a larger area more bearings. something else that not too many people think about is with the i6 the cylinders are straight up and the pistons dont rest on the walls. while with the v8 the pistons are a bit more sideways so one side of the piston will rest on the bottom side of the cylinder. after many years of operation the cylinders in the v8 will become a little more oval shaped. yes this type of wear will take a long time the thing that i wonder about is i have a vs.-twin motorcycle. and it has more torque then the inline 4 mikes out there. so i am thinking its not entirely the layout but the size of the cylinders. grr schedules suck! i guess i will finish when i get back tonight..... .

From : tbone

ford does not own cummins. they may have owned some stock in it at one time but iirc that is no longer the case. if ford did own it or were planning to switch over to cummins do you think that they would have wasted either the time or money to develop this new engine -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i was impressed by this new engines towing performance. did anyone read that part of the article i thought ford owned cummins & would be using one in its trucks soon & be cutting chrysler off. it is rumored that dodge may be using a mercedes diesel soon. if that happens what will you cummins guys have to say i am impressed by the dodge/cummins reliability most of all. with a class leading 325-horsepower and 560lb-ft of torque the 6.0-liter power stroke v8 turbo diesel engine is a marvel of design and engineering. http//www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003/ford/superduty/firstdrive/page2.html --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.516 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

From : jerry

mario wrote jerry wrote christ got knots in your panties again........ jerry uh re-read his first post. hes a fucking troll to post that. and youre his defender--figgers. really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. said he thought ford owned cummins ...... he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. jerry .

From : mario

dick wrote i was impressed by this new engines towing performance. did anyone read that part of the article uh no dick. if its not reliable then who cars about its brief performance i thought ford owned cummins & would be using one in its trucks soon & be cutting chrysler off. a little research would go a long way in not making a dick out of yourself dick. http//www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/products/dodgeram/faq/answers.cfmuuid=000c518f-094b-1e31-850880c4a8f00000 be sure to set all of your misinformed-blunt-force-head-trama buddies straight. it is rumored that dodge may be using a mercedes diesel soon. same place you got the ford owned cummins info dick dont hold your breath. on second thought... if that happens what will you cummins guys have to say that youre still a dick dick. i am impressed by the dodge/cummins reliability most of all. well maybe theres hope for you yet. --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. too bad its not certified stupidity free. .

From : jerry

mario wrote dick wrote i was impressed by this new engines towing performance. did anyone read that part of the article uh no dick. if its not reliable then who cars about its brief performance i thought ford owned cummins & would be using one in its trucks soon & be cutting chrysler off. a little research would go a long way in not making a dick out of yourself dick. http//www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/products/dodgeram/faq/answers.cfmuuid=000c518f-094b-1e31-850880c4a8f00000 be sure to set all of your misinformed-blunt-force-head-trama buddies straight. it is rumored that dodge may be using a mercedes diesel soon. same place you got the ford owned cummins info dick dont hold your breath. on second thought... if that happens what will you cummins guys have to say that youre still a dick dick. i am impressed by the dodge/cummins reliability most of all. well maybe theres hope for you yet. christ got knots in your panties again........ jerry .

From : mario

jerry wrote christ got knots in your panties again........ jerry uh re-read his first post. hes a fucking troll to post that. and youre his defender--figgers. .

From : royjerry

ok now that i have found and ordered my wheels m/t classic iis 16*8 w/a 3200 load capacity. i am looking for tires. i have a few different ones i am looking at they are all either mts or a very aggressive at. three from dunlop one from nitto one from general any thoughts and opinions on these brands a friend at work really brags about yokohama geolander tires. if you can get past the name they are a decent looking tire and seem to do well in mud and snow. denny i was looking last year and had settled on those. seems like a heck of a tire. tire rack has info on them. roy .

From : max340

i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power lots. well see about that... we dont have to its a known fact for over half a century. an assumption at best. crankshaft flex has more to do with design and material than with length. in the case of the psd duramax and cummins b the cummins crank is more rigid because its larger in all dimensions not just length. well okay good for cummins. and any other design with a large cross section like a 225/6 or an olds big block v8 or even a chevy 427 extended block v8. but thats outside the scope of this v or i layout question - irrelevant - so why did you mention it when the issue is v8 or i6 remember you did bring it up...... so what - not even on the same page... but good for cummins. very much on the same page. see as you noted a v8 can/will spin faster. in order to spin faster weight reduction on the crank is almost a necessity in order to lower inertial resistance to that higher rpm. you may think its simply a diesel issue. not so. mopar 225/6 engines usually only wound up to 4000rpm which was quite high for them. otoh they also had larger crankshafts. torsional springiness is a factor of cross section in the crank. the cummins b series has no problem here as stock bottom end on the b series has survived modified power outputs in the 1200ft lbs and 600hp area. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses well gee go figure you wanted to know why an inline was better and yet you now scoff at the very reason. why dont you design a v8 with a main bearing between all connecting rod jounals go ahead split the siamesed rod journals...... but not torsional ones.... yeah yeah you already knew i knew that. no baby lessons please im really not as stupid as i look. coulda fooled me given this stuff you dont seem to understand. the engineering community has known for over 50 years that inline engines are better at lower rpm power. youre justifying the inline choice every way you can think of. duh. the twistiness theres an engineering term i dont see too often..... the cummins shaft is thicker the bending is only in one direction... i doubt there is an *deflection* or flex in a cummins crankshaft. if there were any it would spell certain death to an engine noted for its longevity. nothing!!! you made a few good points here at least about how cummins builds things but said nothing at *all* about power output. ive said plenty if you know as muich as you claim. however if you know as little as it appears you wont understand block rigidity connecting rod angles crankshaft weight vs. rpm or a number of other factors that have made the inline 6 a better choice than v8 power for almost all hauling from pickups to 80000lb tractor trailers. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : jforbesmax340

does anyone know where i can find cold air intakes for a 95 dakota 3.9l. and headers for the same truck. i tried jcwhitney and jegs but neither had them. .

From : jerry

terra wrote i know as much as i understand and i asked for what i dont understand. well i was going to tell you that it would only be a few more posts before he started a diversion spin and started calling you petty little names ............... too late ............... just read his last posts. jerry .

From : mike simmons

mario wrote jerry wrote christ got knots in your panties again........ jerry uh re-read his first post. hes a fucking troll to post that. and youre his defender--figgers. really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. said he thought ford owned cummins ...... he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. jerry gasp! you mean ford doesnt own cummings ^ .

From : jerrymario

moparman wrote also while getting my truck serviced today the rear end holds synthetic grease/oil that apparently only the dealer has. at 30k you need this changed so dont take it to quick-lube and get 90 weight grease. fyi the oil change for the rear end was 129.00. just out of curiosity what is so special about it that other synthetic oil can not be used jerry .

From : mario

jerry wrote mario wrote jerry wrote really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. oops. kind of messes up the roll you were trying to get on all indications are that he was referring to the towing performance of the ford in the article that he provided a link to in post no. 1. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. and how accurate do you think that is based on the following said he thought ford owned cummins ......he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. so many fools so little time. even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. lol! damn! if a toyota salesman could think that then my god how could anyone else be expected to know!!!! now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll with your intelligent and persuasive analysis what the hell was i thinkin ;- btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. uh yeah whatever you say jerry. .

From : jerry

mario wrote jerry wrote mario wrote jerry wrote really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. oops. kind of messes up the roll you were trying to get on all indications are that he was referring to the towing performance of the ford in the article that he provided a link to in post no. 1. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. and how accurate do you think that is based on the following said he thought ford owned cummins ......he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. so many fools so little time. even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. lol! damn! if a toyota salesman could think that then my god how could anyone else be expected to know!!!! now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll with your intelligent and persuasive analysis what the hell was i thinkin ;- btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. uh yeah whatever you say jerry. nice try but no cigar and i do say. jerry .

From : jerry

mario wrote really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. oops. kind of messes up the roll you were trying to get on all indications are that he was referring to the towing performance of the ford in the article that he provided a link to in post no. 1. he probable was but so what........ does that really bother you that much he likes the ford as well as the dodge silly guy. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. ive seen and i know you have been around long enough to see that question on this ng before as well as in the tdr........no there. and how accurate do you think that is based on the following said he thought ford owned cummins ......he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. again you have seen that on here before also havent you. since ford did in fact once own three million shares about 10-15 % of cummins stock that rumor still floats around. so many fools so little time. yeah my thought exactly when i saw your post even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. lol! damn! if a toyota salesman could think that then my god how could anyone else be expected to know!!!! hard to imagine isnt it. now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll with your intelligent and persuasive analysis what the hell was i thinkin ;- you werent btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. uh yeah whatever you say jerry. finally you got it right. jerry .

From : dick

thanks for the defense jerry! it seem this ng has more than its fair share of dicks. mario wrote really! said he was impressed with the cummins reliability. said he was impressed with the towing performance. oops. kind of messes up the roll you were trying to get on all indications are that he was referring to the towing performance of the ford in the article that he provided a link to in post no. 1. he probable was but so what........ does that really bother you that much he likes the ford as well as the dodge silly guy. said he heard a rumor about mercedes diesels to be used in dodge trucks. ive seen and i know you have been around long enough to see that question on this ng before as well as in the tdr........no there. and how accurate do you think that is based on the following said he thought ford owned cummins ......he is not the first person to pop in here thinking that nor will he be the last. again you have seen that on here before also havent you. since ford did in fact once own three million shares about 10-15 % of cummins stock that rumor still floats around. so many fools so little time. yeah my thought exactly when i saw your post even a salesman at a toyota dealer tried to tell me a couple months ago that ford had bought cummins. lol! damn! if a toyota salesman could think that then my god how could anyone else be expected to know!!!! hard to imagine isnt it. now just which section of his post made you think he was a troll with your intelligent and persuasive analysis what the hell was i thinkin ;- you werent btw as to his first post it is irrelevant as this pertains to the second and present post. uh yeah whatever you say jerry. finally you got it right. jerry --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.516 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

From : max340

thats the only lever that matters. the other leverage is acting against the cylinder wall which isnt going anywhere i hope so no work is being lost. except to friction. keep barking you still havent figured out why the inline six is more efficient. and yes its the obvious. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : terra

tom lawrence wrote anyone else compare the stroke of an isb to the stroke of just about any v6/v8 - i think youll find your answer. as trey says in motorcycledom inlines are typically short-stroke high revving engines while the vees are long-stroke torquers. .

From : jerry

ive had the jet chip stage 1 in my 2k dakota qc 4.7 with manual for two years. very pleased. you can really notice the difference in the midrange. mileage doesnt suffer that much if any on road trips. i dont tow anything but have gone 425 miles on a full tank of gas several times on longer trips. not near as good mileage if you want to hot rod around - but it feels good doing it. cant comment on the stage 2 but i thought that one was for the engines with no extras and running straight headers and such. i want to put a chip on my wifes liberty. i like the 3.7 just fine also but it needs a bit more midrange at times. going for the 5.7 in a month or two... i decided to try it when my son got one for his jeep wrangler and commented on his newfound power curve. im looking at trying a jet chip in my 01 dakota qc 4.7. i use my truck mainly as a daily driver but also pull a travel trailer with it on weekends. id be interested in hearing how the stage i chip compares with the stage ii etc. steve in pittsburgh .

From : tboneterra

well miles now dont get me wrong this is not an insult but its people like you that allow gas prices to go through the roof. the dealers know that many people couldnt be bothered with any inconvenience to save a few dollars so they have no problem raising their prices because they know that people like you will still come. it is only a matter of time before the cheaper stations see this and raise their prices to match. when that happens the expensive stations raise theirs a little more and the cycle continues. i go to the cheaper stations on principle as much as cost savings. i guess that you just have tons of disposable cash good for you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote that argument is only valid of you are talking about productive time. there are times during the day when people are just sitting on there asses listening to music watching tv or reading. you can listen to music read and with todays modern gadgets even watch tv while sitting in line at the gas station and still save 27 bucks. being paid $9.00 and hour for doing nothing more than i would be doing for free anyway sounds pretty good to me. there are better things to do with my time than sit in my car for 3 hours. if all i am doing is sitting and reading the paper or listening to the stereo id rather be at home. $9 to sit in my car is not my idea of a good value for my time. .

From : terra

mike simmons wrote mike simmons wrote budd cochran wrote maybe but not as symmetrical or as nice. did you see those power curves yucch! its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. horsepower comes up smoother and has a broader peak as well since its a function of rpm and torque. i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power all i see is that a v-8 has a shorter and thus more rigid crankshaft. but fewer main bearings. an i-6 has a longer crankshaft thus more torsional springiness from one end to the other. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses which the v-8 has less of anyway because of its shorter shaft. i can understand that fewer larger cylinders might produce a low rpm torquer and many smaller cylinders might produce a high rpm screamer. but your v versus i powerband explanation is nonsense right right 8^| not exactly..... typically an inline engine of roughly equivalent displacement has a substantially longer connecting rod thus the principle of the lever and fulcrum allows the inline engine to develop more torque over a broader rpm range and thus a flatter torque curve chryco service manager member sae interesting but i cant picture it the way youre describing it. the crank throw is the lever arm not the rod length. the crank centerline is the fulcrum. and longer rods make an already tall design even taller. i know longer rods are good their reduced rocking/angularity lessens side forces on pistons and cylinder walls. makes the up-down piston movement more sinusoidal too for whatever thats worth. why not just put longer rods on a v-8 too if thats the secret think about it the crank throw and the crank centerline is not the only lever and fulcrum. thats the only lever that matters. the other leverage is acting against the cylinder wall which isnt going anywhere i hope so no work is being lost. except to friction. .

From : terra

max340 wrote thats the only lever that matters. the other leverage is acting against the cylinder wall which isnt going anywhere i hope so no work is being lost. except to friction. keep barking you still havent figured out why the inline six is more efficient. and yes its the obvious. the obvious would have been stated by now without all the distractions. i bet you thought of something silly. drool what is it .

From : terra

trey wrote with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. yes it can thats a geometry/interference problem. something else that not too many people think about is with the i6 the cylinders are straight up and the pistons dont rest on the walls. while with the v8 the pistons are a bit more sideways so one side of the piston will rest on the bottom side of the cylinder. after many years of operation the cylinders in the v8 will become a little more oval shaped. yes this type of wear will take a long time gravity .

From : max340

the obvious would have been stated by now it most certainly would have if you knew anything about the subject. instead youd rather claim that you know and throw all sorts of mud around trying to discredit the claims of those that actually read the engineering and design stories. without all the distractions. the only distractions youve had are self inflicted. i bet you thought of something silly. almost as silly as the guys that design these things. drool what is it go take a long look at an inline six ill bet an inline eight is the same and using all that knowledge of yours figure it out. yes its as obvious as staring at the engine itself. assuming you know what you are looking for... which with all your claims that inline advocates are full of crap you should be able to explain away the obvious right twistiness...... i liked that...... max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

its not a stretch its a known fact that cylinders go out of round. you already got lost max. lol thats funny mr twistiness. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : terra

max340 wrote i just dont get it. what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power lots. well see about that... we dont have to its a known fact for over half a century. dogma something held as an established opinion. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. an assumption at best. crankshaft flex has more to do with design and material than with length. in the case of the psd duramax and cummins b the cummins crank is more rigid because its larger in all dimensions not just length. well okay good for cummins. and any other design with a large cross section like a 225/6 or an olds big block v8 or even a chevy 427 extended block v8. so you really didnt need to bring it up. but thats outside the scope of this v or i layout question - irrelevant - so why did you mention it when the issue is v8 or i6 remember you did bring it up...... i mentioned the advantages i know of so they wouldnt be rehashed again endlessly. alas thats happening anyway. so what - not even on the same page... but good for cummins. very much on the same page. see as you noted a v8 can/will spin faster. i noted faster is apparently because there are more & smaller cylinders. youve been talking about durability. in order to spin faster weight reduction on the crank is almost a necessity in order to lower inertial resistance to that higher rpm. now youre stuck. mass resists acceleration/deceleration not rpm. you may think its simply a diesel issue. not so. mopar 225/6 engines usually only wound up to 4000rpm which was quite high for them. otoh they also had larger crankshafts. torsional springiness is a factor of cross section in the crank. the cummins b series has no problem here as stock bottom end on the b series has survived modified power outputs in the 1200ft lbs and 600hp area. but a couple more main bearings which handle bending stresses well gee go figure you wanted to know why an inline was better and yet you now scoff at the very reason. why dont you design a v8 with a main bearing between all connecting rod jounals go ahead split the siamesed rod journals...... the very reason. you just abandoned your whole argument about power. but not torsional ones.... yeah yeah you already knew i knew that. no baby lessons please im really not as stupid as i look. coulda fooled me given this stuff you dont seem to understand. the engineering community has known for over 50 years that inline engines are better at lower rpm power. why are they better youre justifying the inline choice every way you can think of. duh. the twistiness theres an engineering term i dont see too often..... the cummins shaft is thicker the bending is only in one direction... i doubt there is an *deflection* or flex in a cummins crankshaft. if there were any it would spell certain death to an engine noted for its longevity. you doubt theres any nothing!!! you made a few good points here at least about how cummins builds things but said nothing at *all* about power output. ive said plenty if you know as muich as you claim. however if you know as little as it appears you wont understand block rigidity connecting rod angles crankshaft weight vs. rpm or a number of other factors that have made the inline 6 a better choice than v8 power for almost all hauling from pickups to 80000lb tractor trailers. i know as much as i understand and i asked for what i dont understand. .

From : trey

trey wrote with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. yes it can thats a geometry/interference problem. something else that not too many people think about is with the i6 the cylinders are straight up and the pistons dont rest on the walls. while with the v8 the pistons are a bit more sideways so one side of the piston will rest on the bottom side of the cylinder. after many years of operation the cylinders in the v8 will become a little more oval shaped. yes this type of wear will take a long time gravity ok so its a stretch. i have heard that many times i am just wondering how true it is..... if you look at it locically it will happen. but who knows. .

From : max340

ok so its a stretch. i have heard that many times i am just wondering how true it is..... if you look at it locically it will happen. but who knows. its not a stretch its a known fact that cylinders go out of round. as to who knows anyone who has built an engine and checked the cylinders properly knows. you are on the money dont let terra bullshit you into thinking otherwise. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : tbone

i find it amazing that no matter how many times you are asked you still seem to never actually answer the question. it must be that you dont actually know and are once again afraid to admit to it. why dont you just answer the question and put an end to it if you can -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving the obvious would have been stated by now it most certainly would have if you knew anything about the subject. instead youd rather claim that you know and throw all sorts of mud around trying to discredit the claims of those that actually read the engineering and design stories. without all the distractions. the only distractions youve had are self inflicted. i bet you thought of something silly. almost as silly as the guys that design these things. drool what is it go take a long look at an inline six ill bet an inline eight is the same and using all that knowledge of yours figure it out. yes its as obvious as staring at the engine itself. assuming you know what you are looking for... which with all your claims that inline advocates are full of crap you should be able to explain away the obvious right twistiness...... i liked that...... max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

we dont have to its a known fact for over half a century. dogma something held as an established opinion. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. dogma = belief beyond proof known fact = knowledge with proof describing dogma will not make the facts go away. if you have enough knowledge to dispute the facts you should also know what the facts are. and any other design with a large cross section like a 225/6 or an olds big block v8 or even a chevy 427 extended block v8. so you really didnt need to bring it up. again the twistiness and torsional bs was your issue based on length of the crank itself. obviously in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are full of crap you deny mentioning the issue. i mentioned the advantages i know of so they wouldnt be rehashed again endlessly. alas thats happening anyway. because your so called advantages are dogma in that they are not based in well founded reason and engine design. very much on the same page. see as you noted a v8 can/will spin faster. i noted faster is apparently because there are more & smaller cylinders. youve been talking about durability. but ability to accelerate is also a characteristic you may want from an engine. face it you really dont know where you are going with this do you in order to spin faster weight reduction on the crank is almost a necessity in order to lower inertial resistance to that higher rpm. now youre stuck. mass resists acceleration/deceleration not rpm. actually now you are stuck. since mass resists a change in speed measured in rpm duh its obvious why a v8 which is designed for higher rpm and fast acceleration would be desired for its lighter crankshaft. further since you dont appear to know why the v8 design is less durable that the inline 6 you probably dont know about the characteristics of a v8 crank which are not desirable in fast acceleration. the very reason. you just abandoned your whole argument about power. wrong. my argument wasnt about power it was about advantages in general of an inline over a v8 design. coulda fooled me given this stuff you dont seem to understand. the engineering community has known for over 50 years that inline engines are better at lower rpm power. why are they better you still havent looked at the obvious have you i know as much as i understand and i asked for what i dont understand. well then perhaps i should start at the beginning since you seem to be lost just afer you looked at the two designs and failed to grasp the basic ideas at work. 1 an inline design inherently balances the engine. this leads to smoother operation and less parasitic loss of power. the engine is balanced end to end unlike a v8. the inline six fires 1-5-3-6-2-4 meaning it alternates firing each end of the crank. a v8 cannot do this with a cross plane crankshaft which is what almost all american v8s have. further since the crank has throws every 120 degrees and power stroke every 240 degrees the crank never changes its center of gravity. 2 because of the crank length due in part to cylinder location it is possible although the 225/6 did not to have a main bearing between all cylinders. 3 because i6 engines have all cylinders in the same location in relation to the crankshaft all counterweights are the same. however a cross plane v8 cannot do this since each piston on a throw is moving a different direction thus making larger yup counterweights a necessity and therefore slowing its rate of acceleration compared to a flat plane v8. however the flat pane v8 is much more subject to vibration than the cross plane v8 or the inline 6. also since the v8 is not balanced end to end this also requires larger counterweights to cut vibration. 4 since an inline 6 is all but vibration free it is the most efficient design compared to the v8. 5 an inline 6 will always have less moving parts than a v8 adding to reliability and efficiency. 6 an inline 6 almost always has better rod angle geometry than a v8 although this is subject to design parameters beyond the inline or v characteristics. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

damn max ya did it again!!! gbmfg if it wants to spin itll spin with just a small push...... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : roy

damn max ya did it again!!! gbmfg if it wants to spin itll spin with just a small push...... that is true as always entertaining. roy max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

tbone wrote ok so its a stretch. i have heard that many times i am just wondering how true it is..... if you look at it locically it will happen. but who knows. its not a stretch its a known fact that cylinders go out of round. you already got lost max. while true it has nothing to do with gravity and if you believe so max then you know even less than i thought you did. as to who knows anyone who has built an engine and checked the cylinders properly knows. but do you know why it happens from what i am reading i doubt it. max doesnt even know what were talking about. you are on the money dont let terra bullshit you into thinking otherwise. see i asked gravity and max thinks i said cylinders dont wear. this is incorrect. the angle of the cylinder has little to nothing to do with the reason for them going out fo round. nothing id say. unless you operate it on jupiter where the gravity is immense. .

From : terra

trey wrote trey wrote with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. yes it can thats a geometry/interference problem. i think i blew it. longer rods would make the problem worse all else being equal. when increasing throw rod angle interferes with the cylinder. longer rods assume smaller angles. it seemed to make sense but swinging the top of the long rod out just makes interference worse even though the angle decreases. i only had 3 hours sleep. maybe max will take over and share what he knows about this. .

From : tbone

trey wrote trey wrote with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. yes it can thats a geometry/interference problem. i think i blew it. longer rods would make the problem worse all else being equal. when increasing throw rod angle interferes with the cylinder. longer rods assume smaller angles. it seemed to make sense but swinging the top of the long rod out just makes interference worse even though the angle decreases. i only had 3 hours sleep. maybe max will take over and share what he knows about this. dont hold your breath - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

while true it has nothing to do with gravity and if you believe so max then you know even less than i thought you did. never said it did. i simply said that the statement saying cylinders go out of round is correct. try reading what i said not inferring from other rather poorly informed readers comments. as to who knows anyone who has built an engine and checked the cylinders properly knows. but do you know why it happens from what i am reading i doubt it. i know exactly why it happens. i know what the engine builders do to despite it i know what the piston designers do to try to alleviate it. i also know that engines that have cylinders aligned vertically seem to have less of a problem with this. you are on the money dont let terra bullshit you into thinking otherwise. this is incorrect. the angle of the cylinder has little to nothing to do with the reason for them going out fo round. think so huh then youd be wrong. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

i find it amazing that no matter how many times you are asked you still seem to never actually answer the question. ive answered it numerous times. look at the design it speaks for itself. if you know anything about engines the inline six is so simple and perfect a design it explains itself. it must be that you dont actually know and are once again afraid to admit to it. why dont you just answer the question and put an end to it if you can i can i have and yet people like you still fail to understand basic engine design. you shoulda shut up while you were part of the vast listening audience. max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : terramax340

max340 wrote we dont have to its a known fact for over half a century. dogma something held as an established opinion. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. dogma = belief beyond proof known fact = knowledge with proof its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. that was you asserting it as a known fact. you rambled on about robust construction throughout your first reply then just repeated the same dogma i questioned in the beginning. wheres the proof that an inline engine is better at torque output describing dogma will not make the facts go away. if you have enough knowledge to dispute the facts you should also know what the facts are. so what are they and any other design with a large cross section like a 225/6 or an olds big block v8 or even a chevy 427 extended block v8. so you really didnt need to bring it up. again the twistiness and torsional bs was your issue based on length of the crank itself. obviously in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are full of crap you deny mentioning the issue. wheres that denial 1 i mentioned it right off thinking id get it out of the way. 2 then i had to remind you that it was i who already mentioned it so you really didnt need to cover it again. i mentioned the advantages i know of so they wouldnt be rehashed again endlessly. 3 and now im reminding you again. you need a fresh start max. look heres what bud wrote its a typical v-8 pattern. inlines build torque smoother and flatter around the peak figure and drop off slower. heres what i wrote what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power heres what you wrote lots. its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. i mentioned the advantages i know of so they wouldnt be rehashed again endlessly. alas thats happening anyway. because your so called advantages are dogma in that they are not based in well founded reason and engine design. short shaft - rigid fewer bearings long shaft - flexy but room for more bearings which ones arent based in well-founded reason btw thanks for that gem about bearings not handling torsional stress pure genius very much on the same page. see as you noted a v8 can/will spin faster. i noted faster is apparently because there are more & smaller cylinders. youve been talking about durability. but ability to accelerate is also a characteristic you may want from an engine. face it you really dont know where you are going with this do you i dont know where youre going thats all. in order to spin faster weight reduction on the crank is almost a necessity in order to lower inertial resistance to that higher rpm. now youre stuck. mass resists acceleration/deceleration not rpm. actually now you are stuck. since mass resists a change in speed measured in rpm duh duh what i said mass resists rpmm it doesnt resist rpm. its obvious why a v8 which is designed for higher rpm and fast acceleration would be desired for its lighter crankshaft. further since you dont appear to know why the v8 design is less durable that the inline 6 you probably dont know about the characteristics of a v8 crank which are not desirable in fast acceleration. the very reason. you just abandoned your whole argument about power. wrong. my argument wasnt about power it was about advantages in general of an inline over a v8 design. i specifically asked what does a vee or inline layout have to do with power you answered lots.... .. .. .. .

From : tbone

i find it amazing that no matter how many times you are asked you still seem to never actually answer the question. ive answered it numerous times. look at the design it speaks for itself. if you know anything about engines the inline six is so simple and perfect a design it explains itself. what does this do with the question my lawn mower engine is far more simple then my truck and yet it puts out nowhere near the torque. it must be that you dont actually know and are once again afraid to admit to it. why dont you just answer the question and put an end to it if you can i can i have and yet people like you still fail to understand basic engine design. now that would be budd but lets not change the subject. the question was and still not answered by you is how does the in-line configuration naturally create more torque you shoulda shut up while you were part of the vast listening audience. why this is a public forum and i would like to hear an actual answer and not your typical bs of it is common knowledge or everybody knows. at one time everybody knew that the earth was flat did that make it valid or even correct -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

while true it has nothing to do with gravity and if you believe so max then you know even less than i thought you did. never said it did. i simply said that the statement saying cylinders go out of round is correct. try reading what i said not inferring from other rather poorly informed readers comments. then you are twisting what was said once again imagine that. as to who knows anyone who has built an engine and checked the cylinders properly knows. but do you know why it happens from what i am reading i doubt it. i know exactly why it happens. i know what the engine builders do to despite it i know what the piston designers do to try to alleviate it. then tell us some of these things oh great one instead of your typical bs of i know everything while never actually answering anything. the proof is in the pudding max and you have yet to prove anything. i also know that engines that have cylinders aligned vertically seem to have less of a problem with this. and there is a reason for that but i doubt that you know what it is. and if you do then just say what it is rather than your typical i dont know answer of it is so obvious.... yet never saying why. you are on the money dont let terra bullshit you into thinking otherwise. this is incorrect. the angle of the cylinder has little to nothing to do with the reason for them going out fo round. think so huh then youd be wrong. then prove it for a change. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

wheres the proof that an inline engine is better at torque output it is inherent in the design look at it and it becomes obvious if you know anything about engines at all. wheres that denial you claimed it was irrelevant but you brought it up. why mention it if its irrelevant fact is its very relevant but you dont seem to want to discuss it. therefore given that the crankshaft of an inline six is at the heart of why its better and you have declined it seems to a read what ive written elsewhwere b discuss the crankshaft because you beleive you already know it all and c seem to feel that there are no facts that can prove that the inline six is a better design than a v8 it will be fun to let you muddle through the bullshit in order to prove whatever your heart desires. you need a fresh start max. that would be you. clear your bias and you cant prove a damn thing to me attitude and look at the crankshaft instead of getting it out of the way. you want to do away with the crank when its the obvious fact. short shaft - rigid fewer bearings long shaft - flexy but room for more bearings that is pure dogma as you like to call it. flexy which ones arent based in well-founded reason both. btw thanks for that gem about bearings not handling torsional stress pure genius i figured you might need that in order to realize that twistiness and torsional springiness werent particularly useful. i dont know where youre going thats all. then open your brain and stop dismissing the crankshaft issue because that is why the inlines six is better. actually now you are stuck. since mass resists a change in speed measured in rpm duh duh what i said mass resists rpmm it doesnt resist rpm. what wanna repeat that its obvious why a v8 which is designed for higher rpm and fast acceleration would be desired for its lighter crankshaft. further since you dont appear to know why the v8 design is less durable that the inline 6 you probably dont know about the characteristics of a v8 crank which are not desirable in fast acceleration. ooops skipped this one altogether didnt you over your head maybe max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : max340

then you are twisting what was said once again imagine that. nope that would be you. then tell us some of these things oh great one instead of your typical bs of i know everything while never actually answering anything. why its far more fun to watch you pontificateas though you know it all byinsulting others and never using the facts you claim to have. those on here that know me already know i know this stuff i have nothing to prove to them and no reason to prove it to you. the proof is in the pudding max and you have yet to prove anything. then take a look at the inline six pudding and figure it out. its obvious why its better and anyone claiming the knowledge that you and terra do should see the advantages almost instantly. i also know that engines that have cylinders aligned vertically seem to have less of a problem with this. and there is a reason for that but i doubt that you know what it is. lol yeah only i have facts that say gravity *may* actually have a hand in this not direct proof but a very odd coincidence. so i cant eliminate gravity but i can say what causes the majority of out of round problems. and if you do then just say what it is rather than your typical i dont know answer of it is so obvious.... yet never saying why. well it is obvious...... this is incorrect. the angle of the cylinder has little to nothing to do with the reason for them going out fo round. think so huh then youd be wrong. then prove it for a change. if the cylinder is aligned more closely to the angle of the con rod less scuff occurs. in an engine with a shorter rod such as a v8 cylinder is at a sharper angle to the con rod. therefore the angle of the cylinder relative to the rod has almost everything to do with going out of round. btw i notice you jokers arent replying to the posts i made with the technical stuff proving what i say to be true. is that because you dont understand it or that it deals with crankshafts which terra has dismissed as something he understands or simply because the proof is overwhelming and youve got no sane way of refuting it too easy...... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

what does this do with the question my lawn mower engine is far more simple then my truck and yet it puts out nowhere near the torque. have ya checked it on a per cylinder basis lol the question was and still not answered by you is how does the in-line configuration naturally create more torque i answered that question but you two seem to be avoiding that post. you shoulda shut up while you were part of the vast listening audience. why this is a public forum yup but unless you like looking like a jackass you shoulda shut up. i would like to hear an actual answer and not your typical bs of it is common knowledge or everybody knows. i posted all the stuff you need you just havent got a reply to it yet. at one time everybody knew that the earth was flat did that make it valid or even correct are you saying there is a new age of engine exploration lol actually there is. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : todd w roatroy

diesel just wondering are the addatives required i mean i know they ate government mandated but what exactly do they do our lawn mover sat for about two months once then it would not start we took it to the shop and they told us that the gas has gone bad. they told us that all the adatives in the gas now days tend to break down. how true is this does gas have a shelf life whats wrong with this picture hmmmmm mike trey youre right about starbucks... fergot about them. i almost bought a cup of starbucks at the airport once and the right before i order a cup my sanity returned and i walked away...... ^ the shelf life for untreated gasoline in a sealed container is about three months. i dont know if the modern additives are any better/worse that the ones used years ago. i don know that the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead was extremely stable but the feds put the kabosh to that. mostly the additives used in gasoline are detergents stabilizers and oxygenates mainly mtbe or alcohol. mtbe is quickly finding disfavor amongst the epa since any fuel that escapes can contaminate groundwater and mtbe is very hazardous. the amount of gasoline that is extracted from a barrel of crude varies with the season and the type of crude. virtually all the fractions of a barrel o crude are used in some way with little waste. the refinery can adjust the process to produce the fraction that is most in demand. for example in the winter months there is a greater demand for home heating oil so the refineries turn out more of this product. in the summer the demand for gasoline jumps while the home heating oil demand is almost non-existent so the refineries switch to more gasoline production. also some addtional steps are needed based upon the season the fuel is used in. thats why there is almost always a spike in fuel prices around labor day as the refineries switch over to the winter blend of gasoline and switch to more home heating oil to stock up for the winter. finally certain markets require certain specs for their fuel to meet epa requirements. thats why the phoenix area was screwed a few weeks ago when the only pipeline carrying their specific product failed. crudes are classified by their sweetness or absence of sulphur. west texas crude for example is a sweet crude will comparatively little sulphur while saudi crude is sour meaning it has a fairly high content of sulphur. since we are so dependent on mid-eastern oil and it is quite sour some extra steps are taken to remove the suplhur before sending it to market. hydrogen gas is injected during the refining process and the hydrogen combines with the sulphur forming hydrogen sulfide which is fairly easily extracted from the product. comparatively speaking diesel fuel is very much like home heating oil except that it has a couple of additives to boost the cetane rating and detergents to promote cleanliness of the inejctors and the excess sulphur is removed also. to give you an idea of how cheap our fuel really is the price of crude is based upon a 42 gallon barrel at the wellhead. so if a barrel of oil is selling at $30.00 a barrel the cost of the barrel is actually .71 per gallon. keep in mind all the steps necessary to convert that barrel of crude to a usable product and the profit margins necessary to keep the oil companies and retailers afloat plus the federal and state taxes added and you can see that our fuel is really a bargain! sorry for the dissertation but you asked! ^ mike . 222 267726 745e0233.0309131138.1e733187@posting.google.com wish it were that simple. driving in 2wd. just feels like something spinning down ir turning into a store driveway and engaged at a certain speed just cant seem to reverse operation without first slowing down to point. fan clutch todd hate to ask this but is your 4wd in 4wd if so that would cause the lurches on dry pavement. it also has a tendency to cause you to write very large checks if you continue this way. ram 1500 4x4 hemi quad fortunately this is minor i think just annoying. i work in a hilly area. at the top of the hill is a road that i take a right on. standard one lane 35 mph road so the turn occurs at about10 mph. this turn is at the top of a steep hill so you immediately start down a steep hill. when you first round the corner of the turn and give it gas to continue it gives the bigggest tranny/drivetrain lurch - like a big tranny slip. i feel this same slip/lurch on flat surfaces like turning onto my street. unless you let the tranny/drivetrain or whatefver spindown a second or 2 before giving it gas you get a lurch/slip. if you give it gas immediately after a slow down turn onto a street or drive the lurch occurs. on the big hill going to work the angle must make it even worse as the lurch is drastic and easy to replicate. again if i coast around the turn a

From : roy

damn max ya did it again!!! gbmfg roy wheres the proof that an inline engine is better at torque output it is inherent in the design look at it and it becomes obvious if you know anything about engines at all. wheres that denial you claimed it was irrelevant but you brought it up. why mention it if its irrelevant fact is its very relevant but you dont seem to want to discuss it. therefore given that the crankshaft of an inline six is at the heart of why its better and you have declined it seems to a read what ive written elsewhwere b discuss the crankshaft because you beleive you already know it all and c seem to feel that there are no facts that can prove that the inline six is a better design than a v8 it will be fun to let you muddle through the bullshit in order to prove whatever your heart desires. you need a fresh start max. that would be you. clear your bias and you cant prove a damn thing to me attitude and look at the crankshaft instead of getting it out of the way. you want to do away with the crank when its the obvious fact. short shaft - rigid fewer bearings long shaft - flexy but room for more bearings that is pure dogma as you like to call it. flexy which ones arent based in well-founded reason both. btw thanks for that gem about bearings not handling torsional stress pure genius i figured you might need that in order to realize that twistiness and torsional springiness werent particularly useful. i dont know where youre going thats all. then open your brain and stop dismissing the crankshaft issue because that is why the inlines six is better. actually now you are stuck. since mass resists a change in speed measured in rpm duh duh what i said mass resists rpmm it doesnt resist rpm. what wanna repeat that its obvious why a v8 which is designed for higher rpm and fast acceleration would be desired for its lighter crankshaft. further since you dont appear to know why the v8 design is less durable that the inline 6 you probably dont know about the characteristics of a v8 crank which are not desirable in fast acceleration. ooops skipped this one altogether didnt you over your head maybe max spam filters why purify an undesired substance .

From : tbone

what does this do with the question my lawn mower engine is far more simple then my truck and yet it puts out nowhere near the torque. have ya checked it on a per cylinder basis lol it only has 1. the question was and still not answered by you is how does the in-line configuration naturally create more torque i answered that question but you two seem to be avoiding that post. actually no you didnt. you shoulda shut up while you were part of the vast listening audience. why this is a public forum yup but unless you like looking like a jackass you shoulda shut up. why it never seems to stop you. i would like to hear an actual answer and not your typical bs of it is common knowledge or everybody knows. i posted all the stuff you need you just havent got a reply to it yet. no you didnt. at one time everybody knew that the earth was flat did that make it valid or even correct are you saying there is a new age of engine exploration lol yep but that has nothing to do with the point at hand or these particular engine types. actually there is. i know. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! you are really starting to get weird lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

then you are twisting what was said once again imagine that. nope that would be you. nice try but wrong. then tell us some of these things oh great one instead of your typical bs of i know everything while never actually answering anything. why its far more fun to watch you pontificateas though you know it all byinsulting others and never using the facts you claim to have. forget where the space key is this is a description of yourself now. when i do supply facts you just delete it and pretend that they dont exist so why bother. since you dont bother to supply any why should anyone else. those on here that know me already know i know this stuff i have nothing to prove to them and no reason to prove it to you. only in your dreams max. it is more like they know better than to get into these pointless arguments with you and really dont care. i do it because i get bored and like to watch you spin sometimes and you dont answer me because you cant. the proof is in the pudding max and you have yet to prove anything. then take a look at the inline six pudding and figure it out. its obvious why its better and anyone claiming the knowledge that you and terra do should see the advantages almost instantly. you are the one making the claim try backing it up for a change. i also know that engines that have cylinders aligned vertically seem to have less of a problem with this. and there is a reason for that but i doubt that you know what it is. lol yeah only i have facts that say gravity *may* actually have a hand in this not direct proof but a very odd coincidence. lol talk about spin and abstract definitions. so i cant eliminate gravity but i can say what causes the majority of out of round problems. then why dont you and if you do then just say what it is rather than your typical i dont know answer of it is so obvious.... yet never saying why. well it is obvious...... i never said that you are wrong i only asked for a reason or fact to back up your statement and you have yet to provide it. this is incorrect. the angle of the cylinder has little to nothing to do with the reason for them going out fo round. think so huh then youd be wrong. then prove it for a change. if the cylinder is aligned more closely to the angle of the con rod less scuff occurs. in an engine with a shorter rod such as a v8 cylinder is at a sharper angle to the con rod. therefore the angle of the cylinder relative to the rod has almost everything to do with going out of round. ya see you do know something and your above definition virtually eliminates gravity and the cylinder not being vertical thanks max. btw i notice you jokers arent replying to the posts i made with the technical stuff proving what i say to be true. i hope that you are not referring to that laugh riot you posted involving the cranks center of gravity changing lol. is that because you dont understand it or that it deals with crankshafts which terra has dismissed as something he understands or simply because the proof is overwhelming and youve got no sane way of refuting it do you really want me to go there. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

have ya checked it on a per cylinder basis lol it only has 1. your truck engine only has one interesting..... again have ya checked on a per cylinder basis i answered that question but you two seem to be avoiding that post. actually no you didnt. yes i did. now go read it and attempt to figure it out. you are really starting to get weird lol. starting max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

it is more like they know better than to get into these pointless arguments with you lol actually the arguments i get into with them have a point. but lets address the issue if they know better than to get into these pointless arguments what is your excuse easier and easier.... ya see you do know something and your above definition virtually eliminates gravity and the cylinder not being vertical thanks max. yeah except that the slant six goes out of round on the lower side underside as the engine sits in the car of its cylinder and crank rotation says it should go out of round on the upper side. oops forgot about reality didnt you i hope that you are not referring to that laugh riot you posted involving the cranks center of gravity changing lol. lol well if you dont like that bunch of facts i guess youll have to convince the engineers that wrote most of that stuff on several different locations that ive looked at over the years. laugh riot or not the inline six secret is the fact that its very well balanced and cancels all its vibrations. do you really want me to go there. go anywhere you want the results should be highly amusing. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

roy wrote damn max ya did it again!!! gbmfg yup max did it again. he did provide some info though so it wasnt a total waste of time. heres what i conclude 1 the power characteristics come from the way the displacement is divided up and proportioned. many small cylinders and big bores make speed a few big cylinders and long strokes make torque. 2 the v or i choice is based largely on the results of 1. if you end up with eight or ten or twelve cylinders they just arent going to fit well in a stretched out inline package. if the vehicle is physically is large enough maybe that wont be a problem. .

From : mike simmons

roy wrote damn max ya did it again!!! gbmfg yup max did it again. he did provide some info though so it wasnt a total waste of time. heres what i conclude 1 the power characteristics come from the way the displacement is divided up and proportioned. many small cylinders and big bores make speed a few big cylinders and long strokes make torque. 2 the v or i choice is based largely on the results of 1. if you end up with eight or ten or twelve cylinders they just arent going to fit well in a stretched out inline package. if the vehicle is physically is large enough maybe that wont be a problem. ahhhhh!! we have finally cut to the chase ^. your conclusions above are correct however max is correct also about the inherent balance of the inline six. from a manufacturing standpoint the inline six in much less costly to produce. the speed characteristic you attribute to the many small cylinders is due to less reciprocating mass vs fewer larger cylinders. this is also the primary reason that many manufacturers went to a four valve per cylinder head. packaging constraints also dictate engine configuration and that i believe is the primary reason that ford went to the v-8 in 32 and vw adopted the boxer engine. mike .

From : tbone

it is more like they know better than to get into these pointless arguments with you lol actually the arguments i get into with them have a point. but lets address the issue if they know better than to get into these pointless arguments what is your excuse i included that already but as usual you deleted it. go back and read it again. ya see you do know something and your above definition virtually eliminates gravity and the cylinder not being vertical thanks max. yeah except that the slant six goes out of round on the lower side underside as the engine sits in the car of its cylinder and crank rotation says it should go out of round on the upper side. oops forgot about reality didnt you oh really perhaps you had better double check your facts. iirc the engine rotates in a clockwise direction and the cylinders are banked 30 degrees to the passenger side. if this is true then the connecting rod would be angled to the high cylinder wall on the crankshaft side during the power stroke. if the connecting rod is angled up it will put all sideward force on the lower cylinder wall. so much for reality. then again the connecting rod is only one of the forces acting on the piston during combustion so there are probably many reasons for this that have nothing to do with gravity. i hope that you are not referring to that laugh riot you posted involving the cranks center of gravity changing lol. lol well if you dont like that bunch of facts i guess youll have to convince the engineers that wrote most of that stuff on several different locations that ive looked at over the years. laugh riot or not the inline six secret is the fact that its very well balanced and cancels all its vibrations. just because they wrote something doesnt mean that you understood what they were saying and it appears that you did not. the straight 6 is an old design that has as many or more short comings as it has advantages. perhaps you would care to demonstrate how the minimal amount of added vibration equates into any measurable loss of torque. do you really want me to go there. go anywhere you want the results should be highly amusing. possibly but not as amusing as what you are coming out with. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

have ya checked it on a per cylinder basis lol it only has 1. your truck engine only has one interesting..... no but the lawn mower does. again have ya checked on a per cylinder basis why do i need to i answered that question but you two seem to be avoiding that post. actually no you didnt. yes i did. now go read it and attempt to figure it out. i did and it is still invalid. you are really starting to get weird lol. starting never mind. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : danmax340

i was wondering if someone can help me with my tranny problems. my sister just got a 99 1500 with 80000+ miles on it and the tranny needs to be replaced/fixed. ive read on many different message boards about this and it seems to be a semi consistent problem. was this something that dodge re-called should she replace the tranny with a newer one if so when did they change the tranny did they change the tranny thanks i can supply more information if this makes no sense dan -- i dont like country music but i dont mean to denigrate those who do. and for the people who like country music denigrate means put down.-- bob newhart .

From : max340

what is your excuse i included that already but as usual you deleted it. go back and read it again. you said they knew better so if they know better any reason you have isnt good enough. and thats by your admitted standard. oh really perhaps you had better double check your facts. iirc the engine rotates in a clockwise direction and the cylinders are banked 30 degrees to the passenger side. yup. keep thinking about it.... if this is true then the connecting rod would be angled to the high cylinder wall on the crankshaft side during the power stroke. yup now explain where it is when on the compression and exhaust strokes. if the connecting rod is angled up it will put all sideward force on the lower cylinder wall. unless there is a compression load on it....... then again the connecting rod is only one of the forces acting on the piston during combustion so there are probably many reasons for this that have nothing to do with gravity. during combustion did you forget about the three other strokes just because they wrote something doesnt mean that you understood what they were saying and it appears that you did not. lol then you are free to do as you request all others to do explain it to the best of your ability. well wait. the straight 6 is an old design that has as many or more short comings as it has advantages. never said otherwise. however it is the most efficient design when it comes to making low end torque. perhaps you would care to demonstrate how the minimal amount of added vibration equates into any measurable loss of torque. lol apparently the engineers and designers before me and probably after me already decided that they were enough of a force that they keep using the inline six. i keep wondering when youll come up with any facts of your own but the only thing you have to say is that aint so everytime somebody says something that proves you wrong. go anywhere you want the results should be highly amusing. possibly but not as amusing as what you are coming out with. translation i have no where to go. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

yes i did. now go read it and attempt to figure it out. i did and it is still invalid. where is the proof you continually demand it from others lets have some from you. well wait. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340max340

1 the power characteristics come from the way the displacement is divided up and proportioned. many small cylinders and big bores make speed a few big cylinders and long strokes make torque. thats a fair assessment although not always true. 2 the v or i choice is based largely on the results of of 1. if you end up with eight or ten or twelve cylinders they just arent going to fit well in a stretched out inline package. if the vehicle is physically is large enough maybe that wont be a problem. true. however the fact remains the inline six is the most efficient engine due to near perfect balance both rotationally and along the length of the shaft. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

the speed characteristic you attribute to the many small cylinders is due to less reciprocating mass vs fewer larger cylinders. actually many of the top end euro manufacturers such as jag and bmw among others have had legendary success and high speed with inline six engines. thus we are back to the reasons i mentioned that a cross plane and a flat plane v8 have in making high rpm as to why they chose inline six engines. packaging constraints also dictate engine configuration and that i believe is the primary reason that ford went to the v-8 in 32 and vw adopted the boxer engine. actually the boxer is very efficient as well so while packaging is part of it being a boxer is also part of it as many porsche owners can attest. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

the small end does swing out away from the opposite side of a right triangle. sketch a little picture and youll see it im gonna say this again and im not sure why it isnt clear the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder no. you have not changed your stroke. you have changed the height of the piston. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

max340 wrote the small end does swing out away from the opposite side of a right triangle. sketch a little picture and youll see it im gonna say this again and im not sure why it isnt clear the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. try to see the whole rod not just the small end. the crank is stopped somewhere around 90 degrees. okay lengthen the rod and the small end moves up the cylinder and farther away from the big end. its just like raising an extension ladder to reach higher up a wall by *extending* it not by moving the bottom anywhere. max are you still with me now can you see that the longer ladder points more vertically and less into the wall it leaned back. in fact you better hug the ladder more closely as you climb now so it doesnt fall over backward. if the short ladder was 10 feet tall climbing up 10 feet to the very top put you right up against the wall right will climbing 10 feet up a 20 foot ladder still put you against the wall is your ladder bent does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder no. you have not changed your stroke. you have changed the height of the piston. .

From : terra

max340 wrote 1 the power characteristics come from the way the displacement is divided up and proportioned. many small cylinders and big bores make speed a few big cylinders and long strokes make torque. thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. i said many cylinders and big bores make speed. not all i said many. the fact that many also dont doesnt make my statement untrue. likewise a few big cylinders make torque. not all of them make torque but a few do. same with long strokes a few of them also make torque. 2 the v or i choice is based largely on the results of of did i spell it wrong of. whats the problem .

From : budd cochran

dick the key here is claimed towing performance. they use what amounts to a standardized load or a computer program to determine towing ability not real world loads like you and i might run into like the 8000 pounds in a 6x12 u-haul and 1100 lbs in the back of the truck that i towed with my 318. the reason for the quotes around the word standardized point to a possibility the standard could change if needed. for example if they find it cannot tow a 10000 lb load on a 2500 lb trailer they can easily knock the trailer weight out of the factoring by reducing the load by 2500 lbs. with a computer program its easier you just tell the program to ignore the trailer value. as for towing ability i remember the ih v-8 diesel i used to drive in a 2 1/2 ton bobtail van rig for a disabled services company years ago. it was a good engine as long as you kept the revs up. with a 5 speed and a two speed axle you didnt always have the gear you needed. as a comparison the 250 cummins in the 63 peterbuilt dump truck i used to drive had a torque band flat enough to allow me to skip a missing gear in the main transmission 5 speed main with 3 speed brownie box. i would wind to 2600 in 2nd/over then split to 4th/under at 1200 rpm and it would just keep pulling as i climbed back up the mountain for another 17 ton of dolomite. budd dick wrote i was impressed by this new engines towing performance. did anyone read that part of the article i thought ford owned cummins & would be using one in its trucks soon & be cutting chrysler off. it is rumored that dodge may be using a mercedes diesel soon. if that happens what will you cummins guys have to say i am impressed by the dodge/cummins reliability most of all. with a class leading 325-horsepower and 560lb-ft of torque the 6.0-liter power stroke v8 turbo diesel engine is a marvel of design and engineering. http//www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003/ford/superduty/firstdrive/page2.html --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.516 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

From : budd cochran

you reminded me of when my step-dad saw a first slant six for the first time. at first he thought a motor mount was broken then thought the cylinders would wear funny from being leaned over . . but he didnt think a v-8 would have a wear problem. budd trey wrote trey wrote with the longer connecting rods the crank can have a longer throw. yes it can thats a geometry/interference problem. something else that not too many people think about is with the i6 the cylinders are straight up and the pistons dont rest on the walls. while with the v8 the pistons are a bit more sideways so one side of the piston will rest on the bottom side of the cylinder. after many years of operation the cylinders in the v8 will become a little more oval shaped. yes this type of wear will take a long time gravity ok so its a stretch. i have heard that many times i am just wondering how true it is..... if you look at it locically it will happen. but who knows. .

From : max340

1996 ram 1500 3.9l auto 113000km what size of wrench is needed to remove the caliper allen bolts im about to start a brake job but the haynes manual doesnt indicate the size. i dont want to be running to the parts store halfway through the job realising i dont have the right socket. thanks . 222 267776 20030914115326.08239.00001175@mb-m14.aol.com thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. 1 the power characteristics come from the way the displacement is divided up and proportioned. while partly true you also have to account for engine configuration since a v6 and an inline 6 will have different characteristics but the displacement is divided up and proportioned in 6 cylinders on both engines. many small cylinders and big bores make speed small cylinders meaning what diameter stroke total swept volume the only generality you can apply here is a shorter stroke will allow quicker acceleration. too short and other characteristics kick in. and you dont have to have many cylinders since a short stroke 6 will accelerate almost as quickly as an 8 or maybe quicker depending on design. a few big cylinders and long strokes make torque again a general rule. if that same engine achieves 5252 rpm itll make damn good hp as well. if its only a 4 cylinder its not gonna make as much torque as a 6 cylinder with the same displacement or even an 8 of the same displacement. like i said its a fair assessment but not always true. in saying yes always. you prove how little you know how much you need to learn and how much you need to lose that i know it all attitude. i said many cylinders and big bores make speed. not all i said many. the fact that many also dont doesnt make my statement untrue. likewise a few big cylinders make torque. not all of them make torque but a few do. then when i said although not always true i was correct because you are saying not all i said many. and not all of them make torque but a few do. same with long strokes a few of them also make torque. so its not always true if a few do but not all. 2 the v or i choice is based largely on the results of of did i spell it wrong of. whats the problem of what did you forget the rest of the statement max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

try to see the whole rod not just the small end. ok let me repeat the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. it isnt swinging anywhere. the crank is stopped somewhere around 90 degrees. okay okay. lengthen the rod and the small end moves up the cylinder and farther away from the big end. yup. its just like raising an extension ladder to reach higher up a wall by *extending* it not by moving the bottom anywhere. ok. max are you still with me yup. now can you see that the longer ladder points more vertically and less into the wall yup. it leaned back. nope. it went higher. it didnt lean anywhere. remember you are talking about the top rung in relation to the wall. will climbing 10 feet up a 20 foot ladder still put you against the wall unfortunately you cannot climb up half a connecting rod. your original question asked if the piston would be closer to the crankshaft and the answer is no. does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder now if you are asking if the i-beam section of the rod is closer to the cylinder wall not the bottom but the side yes it will be closer since you have not changed your stroke. the base of your ladder is in the same location and youve made it higher which means that the angle is closer to vertical but at the same distance from the base of the wall. so the net effect is lower side loading of the piston but closer tolerances at the rod to cylinder area at the cylinder wall skirt. however the piston will stay higher in the bore so if need be the clearance could be machined into the cylinder wall skirt. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

max340 wrote try to see the whole rod not just the small end. ok let me repeat the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. it isnt swinging anywhere. heres the source of your confusion the old small end is being replaced by a new small end farther up. just like the point that used to be the top of the short ladder is now the middle of the long ladder. possible additional confusion two different walls. with the ladder the building wall is in front of the ladder. with the rod the cylinder wall is behind the rod. it leaned back. nope. it went higher. it didnt lean anywhere. remember you are talking about the top rung in relation to the wall. i wasnt talking about the top rung of the extended ladder. thats why i had you climb halfway up so you would be in the middle at the same point that used to be against the wall. that point swung away from the wall in an arc as the ladder was lengthened. will climbing 10 feet up a 20 foot ladder still put you against the wall unfortunately you cannot climb up half a connecting rod. and you cant fit an extension ladder inside your cylinder. your original question asked if the piston would be closer to the crankshaft and the answer is no. nobody ever asked if the piston would be closer to the crankshaft. does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder now if you are asking if the i-beam section of the rod is closer to the cylinder wall not the bottom but the side yes it will be closer since you have not changed your stroke. thats it! i wasnt referring to the big end hitting the cylinder thats why i positioned the crank at 90 degrees. all im doing is explaining why i blew it a longer rod can only make interference problems worse even though it reduces the angle. the base of your ladder is in the same location and youve made it higher which means that the angle is closer to vertical but at the same distance from the base of the wall. bottom same distance away top still touching wall. but every point in between the bottom and top moves away from the wall as the ladder grows longer. so the net effect is lower side loading of the piston but closer tolerances at the rod to cylinder area at the cylinder wall skirt. however the piston will stay higher in the bore so if need be the clearance could be machined into the cylinder wall skirt. exactly. what are slipper type pistons anyway .

From : budd cochran

one half of any dimension is still the same as the other half regardless of ladder length. the only changed dimension is the distance between the wrist pin and rod bearing. budd max340 wrote try to see the whole rod not just the small end. ok let me repeat the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. it isnt swinging anywhere. the crank is stopped somewhere around 90 degrees. okay okay. lengthen the rod and the small end moves up the cylinder and farther away from the big end. yup. its just like raising an extension ladder to reach higher up a wall by *extending* it not by moving the bottom anywhere. ok. max are you still with me yup. now can you see that the longer ladder points more vertically and less into the wall yup. it leaned back. nope. it went higher. it didnt lean anywhere. remember you are talking about the top rung in relation to the wall. will climbing 10 feet up a 20 foot ladder still put you against the wall unfortunately you cannot climb up half a connecting rod. your original question asked if the piston would be closer to the crankshaft and the answer is no. does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder now if you are asking if the i-beam section of the rod is closer to the cylinder wall not the bottom but the side yes it will be closer since you have not changed your stroke. the base of your ladder is in the same location and youve made it higher which means that the angle is closer to vertical but at the same distance from the base of the wall. so the net effect is lower side loading of the piston but closer tolerances at the rod to cylinder area at the cylinder wall skirt. however the piston will stay higher in the bore so if need be the clearance could be machined into the cylinder wall skirt. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : mac davistbone

hey gary... got into a discussion with a friend last night on transmission coolers for trucks with automatics and i wanted your opinion we were talking about add-on tranny coolers and i parroted your theory on disconnecting the radiator cooler because it could heat up your tranny fluid... he said that you should not remove the tranny cooler because it was needed to warm the tranny fluid so that it was in the operating temperature range needed to make the tranny perform and that the newer transmissions needed a temp of at least 160 to 180 to work..... he has a ford 3/4 ton diesel so i take all he says with a grain of salt ive always believed that you cant get a tranny too cool.. especially here in california where 30 degrees is cold.... do you know of any transmissions that actually require a min temp that high .

From : tbone

what is your excuse i included that already but as usual you deleted it. go back and read it again. you said they knew better so if they know better any reason you have isnt good enough. and thats by your admitted standard. as usual even here you feel the need to twist facts and meanings and you wonder why people think that you are usually full of shit. oh really perhaps you had better double check your facts. iirc the engine rotates in a clockwise direction and the cylinders are banked 30 degrees to the passenger side. yup. keep thinking about it.... i did and you are wrong but will never be man enought to admit to it. if this is true then the connecting rod would be angled to the high cylinder wall on the crankshaft side during the power stroke. yup now explain where it is when on the compression and exhaust strokes. who cares the most force is applied during the power stroke and therefore the most wear occurs on this stroke. hell the power stroke supplies more force than the intake compression and exhaust strokes combined or the engine could not run. if the connecting rod is angled up it will put all sideward force on the lower cylinder wall. unless there is a compression load on it....... hahahahahahahaha it will do that b e c a u s e there is a compression load on it. you really need to review your grammer school physics notes. then again the connecting rod is only one of the forces acting on the piston during combustion so there are probably many reasons for this that have nothing to do with gravity. during combustion did you forget about the three other strokes nope but since the combustion stroke supplies much more force on the piston than the other three strokes combined they are insignificant. just because they wrote something doesnt mean that you understood what they were saying and it appears that you did not. lol then you are free to do as you request all others to do explain it to the best of your ability. well wait. since neither i or anyone else has any idea what you may have read or where you read it from that would be impossible for me to do and you know that. perhaps that is why you never actually supply any links as to where you get your information it propects you from being proven wrong. the straight 6 is an old design that has as many or more short comings as it has advantages. never said otherwise. however it is the most efficient design when it comes to making low end torque. you have yet to prove that and that is all that i am asking for. perhaps you would care to demonstrate how the minimal amount of added vibration equates into any measurable loss of torque. lol apparently the engineers and designers before me and probably after me already decided that they were enough of a force that they keep using the inline six. as i expected no valid answer. are you now claiming to be an engineer i am still waiting for the answer. i keep wondering when youll come up with any facts of your own but the only thing you have to say is that aint so everytime somebody says something that proves you wrong. when did i say that aint so with the exception of your slant six cylinder wear bs. all i ever asked was for you to back up what you were saying and you have so far and as usual failed to do so. go anywhere you want the results should be highly amusing. possibly but not as amusing as what you are coming out with. translation i have no where to go. we have all known for a long time now that you have nowhere to go. that is why you constantly need to alter and twist definitions to hold up your incorrect arguments. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

terra wrote hi buddd. i shorted you a d last time so im including it here. either way no matter. im not picky over typos like some. if maxs brainpower is a dimension then one half of it would be twice as much as all of it since its a negative number. ya think must not or youd know max is right. budd .

From : tbone

w r o n g ! ! ! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving one half of any dimension is still the same as the other half regardless of ladder length. the only changed dimension is the distance between the wrist pin and rod bearing. budd max340 wrote try to see the whole rod not just the small end. ok let me repeat the small end of the rod which is where the wrist pin is does nothing more than move parallel to the cylinder wall. it isnt swinging anywhere. the crank is stopped somewhere around 90 degrees. okay okay. lengthen the rod and the small end moves up the cylinder and farther away from the big end. yup. its just like raising an extension ladder to reach higher up a wall by *extending* it not by moving the bottom anywhere. ok. max are you still with me yup. now can you see that the longer ladder points more vertically and less into the wall yup. it leaned back. nope. it went higher. it didnt lean anywhere. remember you are talking about the top rung in relation to the wall. will climbing 10 feet up a 20 foot ladder still put you against the wall unfortunately you cannot climb up half a connecting rod. your original question asked if the piston would be closer to the crankshaft and the answer is no. does the longer rod with the lesser angle come closer to the base of the cylinder now if you are asking if the i-beam section of the rod is closer to the cylinder wall not the bottom but the side yes it will be closer since you have not changed your stroke. the base of your ladder is in the same location and youve made it higher which means that the angle is closer to vertical but at the same distance from the base of the wall. so the net effect is lower side loading of the piston but closer tolerances at the rod to cylinder area at the cylinder wall skirt. however the piston will stay higher in the bore so if need be the clearance could be machined into the cylinder wall skirt. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

tbone wrote w r o n g ! ! ! i dont know why its so difficult. the picture idea didnt work the ladder analogy didnt work. max is a real wiggle worm aint he its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. the engineering community has known for over 50 years that inline engines are better at lower rpm power. my argument wasnt about power it was about advantages in general of an inline over a v8 design. .

From : max340

heres the source of your confusion the old small end is being replaced by a new small end farther up. just like the point that used to be the top of the short ladder is now the middle of the long ladder. nope. the small end is still the small end it just has a longer rod. the middle of the rod has no relevance. possible additional confusion two different walls. with the ladder the building wall is in front of the ladder. with the rod the cylinder wall is behind the rod. how about we dispense with the ladder analogy and work with reality. i wasnt talking about the top rung of the extended ladder. thats why i had you climb halfway up so you would be in the middle at the same point that used to be against the wall. that point swung away from the wall in an arc as the ladder was lengthened. unfortnuately no. your analogy works great for a lader not so great for a connecting rod. the mid point on a connecting rod is of very little relevance to any discussion regarding rod length. unfortunately you cannot climb up half a connecting rod. and you cant fit an extension ladder inside your cylinder. which leads to the inevitable question why are you talking about extension ladders thats it! i wasnt referring to the big end hitting the cylinder thats why i positioned the crank at 90 degrees. all im doing is explaining why i blew it a longer rod can only make interference problems worse even though it reduces the angle. if the longer rod makes interference problems worse you shouldnt be using such a tight block for that stroke. bottom same distance away top still touching wall. but every point in between the bottom and top moves away from the wall as the ladder grows longer. nope. if the base stroke is the same distance from the wall crank and cylinder centerline all points in between will stay at the same distance to the wall cylinder centerline. by adding more length youve simply added more points from which to measure. as long as the stroke remains the same the rod will be the same distance from centerline at the rod journal. so if the rod clears the cylinder skirt at x length and x stroke it will still clear the cylinder skirt with x + a length and x stroke. what are slipper type pistons anyway its a piston without a full skirt leading to less friction in theory anyway and a lower weight. this theoretically reduces the parasitic power loss inherent in changing the direction of travel of the piston mass for every stroke. i doubt id use them on the street; i doubt i could afford to if i wanted to. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. in the case being discussed as long as the stroke remains the same the rod will not get close enough to the cylinder skirt to necessitate machining to the cylinder. things that might change this would be a tight cylinder skirt to crank clearance or a stroke that already was too large for the diameter of the cylinder. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote one half of any dimension is still the same as the other half regardless of ladder length. the only changed dimension is the distance between the wrist pin and rod bearing. budd hi buddd. i shorted you a d last time so im including it here. if maxs brainpower is a dimension then one half of it would be twice as much as all of it since its a negative number. .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote one half of any dimension is still the same as the other half regardless of ladder length. the only changed dimension is the distance between the wrist pin and rod bearing. budd hi buddd. i shorted you a d last time so im including it here. if maxs brainpower is a dimension then one half of it would be twice as much as all of it since its a negative number. lol - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote w r o n g ! ! ! i dont know why its so difficult. the picture idea didnt work the ladder analogy didnt work. max is a real wiggle worm aint he oh yea to the point of making himself completely unbelievable even on the few occasions where he may be right. its long been known that an inline engine is better at torque output than a v engine given comparable displacements. the engineering community has known for over 50 years that inline engines are better at lower rpm power. my argument wasnt about power it was about advantages in general of an inline over a v8 design. i know i wanted to hear them myself. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. no he isnt and basic geometry proves it. in the case being discussed as long as the stroke remains the same the rod will not get close enough to the cylinder skirt to necessitate machining to the cylinder. things that might change this would be a tight cylinder skirt to crank clearance or a stroke that already was too large for the diameter of the cylinder. you really dont understand basic geometry do you since you seem clueless in most sciences i really should have expected nothing less. the extending ladder example clearly demonstrates what will happen if you increase the length of the connecting rod even if the stroke remains the same. the distance between the crank and the cylinder wall is part of your stroke vs. diameter of the cylinder calculation. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. no he isnt and basic geometry proves it. budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. you really dont understand basic geometry do you you obviously take most of us for fools. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. the extending ladder example clearly demonstrates what will happen if you increase the length of the connecting rod even if the stroke remains the same. yup. and at no time does the con rod move outside the confines of the cylinder since the centerline of the cylinder and the stroke remain the same. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340roy

if maxs brainpower is a dimension then one half of it would be twice as much as all of it since its a negative number. ya think must not or youd know max is right. ya know what the silly part of this is budd in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : roy

thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. roy max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. no he isnt and basic geometry proves it. budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. that is correct but the angles change as the length increases and if they change then the distance between the hypotenuse and the vertical side has to change at any given point. this is just simple math. you really dont understand basic geometry do you you obviously take most of us for fools. no in your case you prove that for me every chance you get. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. hahahahahah hehehhehehe you really are an idiot. if the length of the vertical changes every point except for the end points change. here is an example that even a fool like you can use to understand. get a ruler and draw a right triangle. make the horizontal and vertical the same length say 6 inches each and then draw the hypotenuse isnt that pretty. now extend the vertical line another 6 inches and draw the hypotenuse again. now remember the only line that you are increasing is the vertical. are the two hypotenuse lines lying on top of each other i bet not. the funny thing is that the only way that they could not be on top of each other is if the measurements are changing at the previous given points imagine that. the extending ladder example clearly demonstrates what will happen if you increase the length of the connecting rod even if the stroke remains the same. yup. and at no time does the con rod move outside the confines of the cylinder since the centerline of the cylinder and the stroke remain the same. first of all that is not what was said. what was said was that no distances would change which was completely wrong. secondly it is possible in a given design that the crank swing could be greater than the cylinder width and still function and if so extending the connecting rod long enough would cause it to hit the base of the cylinder wall so once again you are full of it. you really need to stop arguing with me when it comes to science because you really dont know shit and you spin is ineffective here. btw i see no response to the previous post about the 225 cylinder wear patterns why not did you realize that you were wrong and once again not be man enough to admit to it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

terra wrote what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. congratulations. you just invented perpetual motion . . . . not! its frictional losses tom. budd .

From : tbone

terra wrote what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. congratulations. you just invented perpetual motion . . . . not! its frictional losses tom. budd what do i have to do with this that was terra not me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : aguy

on wed 17 sep 2003 121148 -0400 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote a double post almost a half hour apart lol. ah but it was budd. two posts almost equal one for him so we just have to cut him a little slack. .

From : terra

roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. .

From : terra

max340 wrote w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. no he isnt and basic geometry proves it. budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. are you attempting to say that no portion of the hypotenuse will be farther from the opposite side than the vertex of the hypotenuse & adjacent sides is thats obvious and obviously irrelevant. you really dont understand basic geometry do you he probably does. i do. you obviously take most of us for fools. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. go try out an extension ladder study it real carefully as things happen. if its 10 feet long you position the base 4 feet away from a wall and it has 10 rungs when collapsed then the 10th top rung meets the wall. extended to 20 feet the 10th rung would be right in the middle 2 feet from the wall. the 5th rung which used to be 1/2 way up and 2 feet from the wall is now 1/4 the way up and 3 feet from the wall. the 5th rung swung back in an *arc* 1 foot! and the 10th rung swung back 2 feet! can you believe it max this must sound amazing to you so youll have to try it out and see for yourself. the extending ladder example clearly demonstrates what will happen if you increase the length of the connecting rod even if the stroke remains the same. yup. and at no time does the con rod move outside the confines of the cylinder since the centerline of the cylinder and the stroke remain the same. at 90 degrees the big end is outside. draw the rod long enough and there it goes too outside the cylinder. .

From : roy

roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. .

From : tbone

roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : hattmakr

tbone fatchance@noway.now writes snip nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. its a game. he has toyed with you and several others for years. been damn good entertainment for us. please continue to fall foolhardily into topics that way surpass your mental capacity. aw .

From : jerry

theguy wrote yeppers hat guy he sure has. he writes shit here that makes him look like a total tard then you guys laugh and laugh over it. yeppers sure has made a fool outta all of us. be careful now ........... theyll put the wagons in a circle again. jerry .

From : max340

budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. are you attempting to say that no portion of the hypotenuse will be farther from the opposite side what opposite side thats obvious and obviously irrelevant. nope. its quite relevant since you are attempting to prove that the rod will contact the cylinder wall..... failing miserably but trying just the same. you obviously take most of us for fools. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. go try out an extension ladder i think we covered why the ladder was irrelevant. if its 10 feet long you position the base 4 feet away from a wall and it has 10 rungs when collapsed then the 10th top rung meets the wall. extended to 20 feet the 10th rung would be right in the middle yup but then the 10th rung would be at the half way point so it would be at the same distance from the wall as the fifth rung was when the ladder was 10 rungs high. you cannot simply count rungs you must go by position relative to all other rungs. if the halfway point is one inch from the vertical itll still be an inch from vertical when you extend the rod. the 5th rung which used to be 1/2 way up and 2 feet from the wall is now 1/4 the way up and 3 feet from the wall. the 5th rung swung back in an *arc* 1 foot! and the 10th rung swung back 2 feet! can you believe it max this must sound amazing to you so youll have to try it out and see for yourself. all of which is as i pointed out before irrelevant since you are not using a quarter of the rod you are using all of it. at 90 degrees the big end is outside. lol while possible that was not claimed in the original example. i specifically stated in my example that it was not outside the cylinder diameter. and further even if true considerable lengthening of the rod would have to take place before the beam portion would hit the cylinder wall. jeez you two act like you are inventing the practice of installing longer rods in a race engine. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

yup but this one took ya longer.g yeah a bit since getting him to sort out his original direction took a bit. also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. lol check out his version of right triangles and how the hypotenuse moves around. its fairly amusing. i hope he isnt building any houses..... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340theguy

the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. sometimes yer the cat sometimes yer the ball of yarn. in this case the cat knows geometry and the yarn can only do random arcs. say how far does that rod get from the centerline if its moving back so much hint the proof that it doesnt move is found in the formula for finding area of a triangle....... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : theguy

on wed 17 sep 2003 014041 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. .

From : theguyjerry

on 17 sep 2003 031718 gmt hattmakr@aol.comnospam hattmakr wrote tbone fatchance@noway.now writes snip nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. its a game. he has toyed with you and several others for years. been damn good entertainment for us. please continue to fall foolhardily into topics that way surpass your mental capacity. aw yeppers hat guy he sure has. he writes shit here that makes him look like a total tard then you guys laugh and laugh over it. yeppers sure has made a fool outta all of us. .

From : theguy

on wed 17 sep 2003 043844 gmt jerry jerry1655@earthlink.net wrote theguy wrote yeppers hat guy he sure has. he writes shit here that makes him look like a total tard then you guys laugh and laugh over it. yeppers sure has made a fool outta all of us. be careful now ........... theyll put the wagons in a circle again. jerry see that is where they get all mixed up. they keep doing the circle jerk instead of the wagon thing. thats the deal with people like them. they just dont get it. .

From : tbone

oh ok now i understand. everything that he says is just a load of shit and i should just laugh and ignore it like the rest of you do. thanks for the tip. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone fatchance@noway.now writes snip nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. its a game. he has toyed with you and several others for years. been damn good entertainment for us. please continue to fall foolhardily into topics that way surpass your mental capacity. aw .

From : tbone

the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. sometimes yer the cat sometimes yer the ball of yarn. in this case the cat knows geometry and the yarn can only do random arcs. i never thought of you as a yarn ball but if you insist. say how far does that rod get from the centerline if its moving back so much what are you talking about hint the proof that it doesnt move is found in the formula for finding area of a triangle....... are you saying that increasing the length of one of the sides does not increase the area -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on wed 17 sep 2003 014041 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. i think this is what jerry was referring to with circling the wagons -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

that is correct but the angles change as the length increases incorrect. only one angle changes and it still has the same base point and is still aprt of a right triangle. as such it still is within the confines of the cylinder. thus no clearance problems. first of all pinhead it is impossibe for only one angle to change. second if an angle changed like you just claimed then budds only the length changes is incorrect and so are you thanks max. btw i never said that there would be a clearence problem so please keep your spin straight. and if they change then the distance between the hypotenuse and the vertical side has to change at any given point. wrong. if you pick a point on the hypotenuse that is one inch from the vertical on the first set up there will be a point at one inch on the second set up. duh no shit but it will not be at the same place realtive to the verticle line so measurements are a changin. again the issue is whether or not the rod will somehow have an interference point when lengthened and the answer is no. remember pinhead the cylinder wall holds position to the vertical line not realtive to a position on the hypotenuse. this is just simple math. no its simple geometry. is geometry no longer a form of math hahahahahah hehehhehehe you really are an idiot. if the length of the vertical changes every point except for the end points change. nope. if the base dimension remains the same all points between it and the peak will have the same distances they had prior. there will simply be more points from which to measure given equal increments. but the points will be different as compared to the origional length and since the cylinder did not move the origional length is al that matters. here is an example that even a fool like you can use to understand. thanks but you are the one who doesnt understand. as usual you are refuting the obvious by claiming it doesnt exist. what obvious yup. and at no time does the con rod move outside the confines of the cylinder since the centerline of the cylinder and the stroke remain the same. first of all that is not what was said. it most certainly was. go back and read. or would you prefer to twist it again i dont give a rats ass what the argument was between you and terra. budd made the claim that nothing would change besides the lenght and that is what i said was incorrect and he was. what was said was that no distances would change which was completely wrong. lol if the base dimension remains the same no point on the hypotenuse can get farther from the vertical. wrong. what you two seem to forget is that the rod angle changes not the distance from vertical. now you are talking out of your ass again. if the angle changes the distance from the verticle has to change for a given point of measure not some bs relative area as you are trying to spin it to mean. and its taken two days for you to realize that and maybe more because if you are true to form youll deny that as well. no max that would be you. secondly it is possible in a given design that the crank swing could be greater than the cylinder width and still function and if so extending the connecting rod long enough would cause it to hit the base of the cylinder wall sure if you extended it say 6 feet yeah it could happen. even at six feet it proves that more is changing than just the distance so you prove my point once again. dont confuse what i said with your argument with terra. you really need to stop arguing with me when it comes to science lol its freakin geometry. is math no longer one of the sciences because you really dont know shit obviously thats you arguing thatthe points will be farther from the centerline of the cylinder.... lol. huh where did i say that btw i see no response to the previous post about the 225 cylinder wear patterns why not because you missed it. i responded. go find it. no you didnt stop lying. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : terra

max340 wrote budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. are you attempting to say that no portion of the hypotenuse will be farther from the opposite side what opposite side too bad max thats what its called. trigonometry ever learn it thats obvious and obviously irrelevant. nope. its quite relevant since you are attempting to prove that the rod will contact the cylinder wall..... failing miserably but trying just the same. nope never tried to prove that and never claimed it would actually happen. i just said i think i blew it. longer rods would make the problem worse all else being equal. you obviously take most of us for fools. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. go try out an extension ladder i think we covered why the ladder was irrelevant. oh yeah... because you cant climb a connecting rod! hahaaahaaa!!! if its 10 feet long you position the base 4 feet away from a wall and it has 10 rungs when collapsed then the 10th top rung meets the wall. extended to 20 feet the 10th rung would be right in the middle yup but then the 10th rung would be at the half way point so it would be at the same distance from the wall as the fifth rung was when the ladder was 10 rungs high. you cannot simply count rungs you must go by position relative too bad max. you simply count rungs. if the cylinder wall is close to hitting the rod 1 inch above the big end thats where it will still be close to hitting a longer rod too. one inch. the cylinder base isnt moving up along with that relative position youre trying to follow its still one inch from the big end of the rod. to all other rungs. if the halfway point is one inch from the vertical itll still be an inch from vertical when you extend the rod. the 5th rung which used to be 1/2 way up and 2 feet from the wall is now 1/4 the way up and 3 feet from the wall. the 5th rung swung back in an *arc* 1 foot! and the 10th rung swung back 2 feet! can you believe it max this must sound amazing to you so youll have to try it out and see for yourself. all of which is as i pointed out before irrelevant since you are not using a quarter of the rod you are using all of it. but the only concern is the point 1 inch up from the big end where the rod comes closest to the cylinder wall. at 90 degrees the big end is outside. lol while possible that was not claimed in the original example. i specifically stated in my example that it was not outside the cylinder diameter. and further even if true considerable lengthening of the rod would have to take place before the beam portion would hit the cylinder wall. jeez you two act like you are inventing the practice of installing longer rods in a race engine. thanks. you should pay attention. .

From : terra

max340 wrote what are slipper type pistons anyway its a piston without a full skirt leading to less friction in theory anyway and a lower weight. oh. every motorcycle engine ive seen has those. this theoretically reduces the parasitic power loss inherent in changing the direction of travel of the piston mass for every stroke. what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. .

From : terra

max340 wrote the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. sometimes yer the cat sometimes yer the ball of yarn. in this case the cat knows geometry and the yarn can only do random arcs. say how far does that rod get from the centerline if its moving back so much hint the proof that it doesnt move is found in the formula for finding area of a triangle....... here you go felix 1/2xbasexheight prove that as the rod lengthens any point on the rod x distance from the big end doesnt move in an arc away from the cylinder centerline. .

From : terra

max340 wrote yup but this one took ya longer.g yeah a bit since getting him to sort out his original direction took a bit. also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. lol check out his version of right triangles and how the hypotenuse moves around. its fairly amusing. i hope he isnt building any houses..... lol! care to expand upon what you were thinking here tbone that is correct but the angles change as the length increases max incorrect. only one angle changes and it still has the same base point and is still aprt of a right triangle. only one angle changes!! how would you manage that bend the sides so the angles still add up bwaaahaahaaa!!!! you da cat dat knows his geometry huh .

From : tbone

max340 wrote yup but this one took ya longer.g yeah a bit since getting him to sort out his original direction took a bit. also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. lol check out his version of right triangles and how the hypotenuse moves around. its fairly amusing. i hope he isnt building any houses..... lol! care to expand upon what you were thinking here tbone that is correct but the angles change as the length increases max incorrect. only one angle changes and it still has the same base point and is still aprt of a right triangle. only one angle changes!! how would you manage that bend the sides so the angles still add up bwaaahaahaaa!!!! you da cat dat knows his geometry huh lol -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbonebudd cochran

tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote in message would i want a 2500 vs a 1500 what are the real differences bigger heavier pieces frame axles suspension which translates into more payload/towing capacity and less busted stuff. in the case of a 4x4 it also means a solid front axle vs. independent front suspension. it also means a much harder ride for the 2500 so if you are just looking for a big car that can occasionally haul a few things you may be disappointed with the 2500s ride and handling. if you intend to work it hard the 1500 may not meet your needs. dood ive ridden in both trucks and own the 2500 hemi it is far the better ride. -- moparman----remove clothes to reply... scud coordinates latitude 32.61208 degrees north longitude 96.92995 degrees west depth 17.35 inches a better ride or a more truck like ride there is no magic here. heavier springs and a solid front axle are not going to give you a more car like ride than the 1500 and i have been in both as well. the only way that he will know for himself is to test drive both of them on the type of roads that he will be driving on most of the time if he can. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. the only change possible is the location of the wrist pin pivot in relation to the bore and crank main bearing centerline wrist pin height in relation to crank centerline and the piston compression height in relation to wrist pin location. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. budd .

From : budd cochran

the important positions the wrist pin and connecting rod journal have not swung in any arc. the wrist pins position change is in a straight line as determined by the piston in the bore. change the offset of the pin too much and youll bind the piston in the bore too little and you can have piston slap but changing the pin offset is the only way you will move it perpendicular to the bore. budd terra wrote max340 wrote w r o n g ! ! ! lol budd is right. no he isnt and basic geometry proves it. budd is correct and basic geometry confirms it. as long as the base stroke at 90 degrees on the crank of a right triangle is the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side no matter how long the vertical side is. are you attempting to say that no portion of the hypotenuse will be farther from the opposite side than the vertex of the hypotenuse & adjacent sides is thats obvious and obviously irrelevant. you really dont understand basic geometry do you he probably does. i do. you obviously take most of us for fools. as long as the stroke base of the right triangle remains the same no point on the hypotenuse will be farther from the vertical side. go try out an extension ladder study it real carefully as things happen. if its 10 feet long you position the base 4 feet away from a wall and it has 10 rungs when collapsed then the 10th top rung meets the wall. extended to 20 feet the 10th rung would be right in the middle 2 feet from the wall. the 5th rung which used to be 1/2 way up and 2 feet from the wall is now 1/4 the way up and 3 feet from the wall. the 5th rung swung back in an *arc* 1 foot! and the 10th rung swung back 2 feet! can you believe it max this must sound amazing to you so youll have to try it out and see for yourself. the extendingladder example clearly demonstrates what will happen if you increase the length of the connecting rod even if the stroke remains the same. yup. and at no time does the con rod move outside the confines of the cylinder since the centerline of the cylinder and the stroke remain the same. at 90 degrees the big end is outside. draw the rod long enough and there it goes too outside the cylinder. .

From : theguy

on wed 17 sep 2003 144955 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. the only change possible is the location of the wrist pin pivot in relation to the bore and crank main bearing centerline wrist pin height in relation to crank centerline and the piston compression height in relation to wrist pin location. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. as usual its not the engine that you are stroking. man what an ugly picture that thought leaves. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. budd .

From : budd cochran

max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. the only change possible is the location of the wrist pin pivot in relation to the bore and crank main bearing centerline wrist pin height in relation to crank centerline and the piston compression height in relation to wrist pin location. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. budd .

From : tbone

a double post almost a half hour apart lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. the only change possible is the location of the wrist pin pivot in relation to the bore and crank main bearing centerline wrist pin height in relation to crank centerline and the piston compression height in relation to wrist pin location. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. budd .

From : budd cochran

i keep forgetting you think you never make a mistake nor ever have server probs. must be nice to be so self-delusioned. while ive got your attention. . . i finally saw that tornado commercial. . . . at 300 am while waiting for my pain meds to kick in after hemorrhoid surgery last week there are some butt pains that can be removed surgically you know and i am truly impressed that even you have the ability to fall for such an obviously bogus demonstration. it requires a blind faith far beyond what i have. i do feel that i should describe what i saw. a the working fluid is hard to see untinted water not air with a single stream of smoke being used to demonstrate the initial rotational speed. the pale blue bottle adds to the difficulty of determining rotational speed. to stir a glass of water until you generate a similar vortex you have to really do some serious stirring. to get a 5 gallon volume of water in a bottle to spin fast enough would require a paint mixer most likely. where is it b to slow the flow enough to demonstrate the vortex in the upper bottle would require a restriction possibly as small as 1/4 in diameter to flow since the bottles neck i.d. is around 1.25. the vortex shown in the commercial would allow air to flow easily into the upper bottle allowing a very rapid draining unless restricted some how. is that why the connecting pipe is not clear plastic or glass . . to hide the restriction or the stirring device or . . . the restriction will also restrict the vortex flow sad to say. c there is some vortex action in the flow into the lower bottle but nothing approaching the rpm needed to produce the vortex in the upper bottle. the flow rate into the lower bottle cant be too slow or you get a simple laminar flow stream to the bottom of the bottle no cling to the sides too fast and it cant make the turn at the neck so yes a rotational speed is needed. but the upper bottle is now not draining fast enough to carry the vortex into the lower neck with enough impetus to generate the flow demonstrated because . . the upper bottle isnt draining fast enough as seen by the lowering of its water level. could there be a hidden water supply into the connecting pipe angled to generate the lower vortex and the vortex in the lower bottle isnt enough to support their claims either. shouldnt the rotational speed be maintained in a straight tube isnt that what they claim happens in the twists and turns of an intake manifold d the lack of two 90 degree elbows or even a couple 45 degree ones puts the demonstration in the bogus category. as i said before i saw the commercial without the bends theres no proof the vortex will turn corners. with the mass of water being so many times greater than air it would resist the vortex destroying tendencies of turning smooth corners and actually be in this case the better fluid for the demonstration. so why arent there any bends e if the demonstration is accurate why shift so fast from the upper bottle where you barely get to notice the vortex they mention to the lower bottle where your not given a good look at the rate flow into the bottle or the flow rate out of the upper bottle they must be the same!!! or if there is any vortex at all in the connecting pipe. truly tom you have much greater faith in the demonstrations made by advertising agencies out to empty your pockets than i can ever have in that if i ran my truck into another vehicle it would be called a vehicular collision by the cops. tbone wrote if maxs brainpower is a dimension then one half of it would be twice as much as all of it since its a negative number. ya think must not or youd know max is right. ya know what the silly part of this is budd yea that you act like you actually have a clue. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. once again you make bs assumptions. the base of the triangle could be twice the width of the rectangle and only extend a short distance into the rectangle. since the base of the rectangle does not move if you extend the triangle farther into the rectangle the hypotenuse will evenually hit the side. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. only with your limited conditions which are not real world. and anyone that knows engines knows that m

From : aguy

i have a 71 power wagon......does anyone know where new or like-new parts can be found http//www.sweptline.com/ .

From : redneck tookover hell

resorting to petty insults again there budd. gee and i wonder why people feel the need to attack you. damn t-boner the boys are biting pretty hard these days. what did you fuck up this time chaos confusion and trouble!!!! my work here is almost done .

From : tbonemax340

max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. oh please only a little exaggeration there. in simple geometry there are right triangles. if you stuff a right triangle inside a rectangle representing the cylinder in such a way that the hypotenuse doesnt touch the side of the rectangle and the upright of the triangle is the centerline of the rectangle and then you move only the point at the top of the hypotenuse and vertical side while extending the rectangle to match the height of the triangle does that make the base wider nope. so if the top point stays on the centerline of the rectangle and the base stays the same size will the hypotenuse ever be parallel to the outer side of the rectangle nope. the only change possible is the location of the wrist pin pivot in relation to the bore and crank main bearing centerline wrist pin height in relation to crank centerline and the piston compression height in relation to wrist pin location. funny how the both of you forget that the connecting rod is the hypotenuse in your right triangle and changing its length changes the angles as well. if the angles change the distances change so in fact more changes than the wrist pin pivot. so will the rod ever interfere with the cylinder nope. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. or if someone somhow figures out how to increase the connecting rod long enough provided that the crank swing distance is greater than the cylinder bore. and anyone that knows engines knows that machining the cylinder skirt is usually because the crank or the big end of the rod or rod bolts not the beam as terrabone thinks wont clear the skirt. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. budd .

From : max340

ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. lol yeah i forgot you arent allowed to give an opinion of someone lest you be doing exactly what they do. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. agreed. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. zactly. i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. are you the guy whos been following me around lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

funny how the both of you forget that the connecting rod is the hypotenuse in your right triangle and changing its length changes the angles as well. if the angles change the distances change so in fact more changes than the wrist pin pivot. um no. triangles only have anles equal to 180 degrees no matter what length the sides. so if one point is moved the two angles still equal 90 degrees since the right triangle only has 90 degrees for the hypotenuse. therefore those angles cannot change so drastically as to cause any sort of interference. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

first of all pinhead it is impossibe for only one angle to change. the angle that matters in this case is the angle of the rod in relation to vertical. thats the only one that will change and have any effect on the engine. better get your angles straight lol duh no shit but it will not be at the same place realtive to the verticle line so measurements are a changin. sure it would. if its half way up or even 70% of the way up in the first set up itll be halfway up or 70% of the way up in the second example. remember pinhead hey roy anyone have a pool going on when tbone would start using this name on this thread i dont give a rats ass what the argument was between you and terra. then why did you butt in when you hate it so much when people do that to you because you missed it. i responded. go find it. no you didnt stop lying. go find it. i see you are done here once again. i can tell you are done when you start calling people pinhead claiming posts dont exist calling people liars and use denial of facts rather than proof as a defense. if you ever met your own standards for proof youd surprise everyone including yourself. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

are you attempting to say that no portion of the hypotenuse will be farther from the opposite side what opposite side too bad max thats what its called. opposite side of the triangle cylinder stroke wall trigonometry ever learn it nope and since its not relevant here i dont see a need for it. nope never tried to prove that and never claimed it would actually happen. i just said i think i blew it. longer rods would make the problem worse all else being equal. and all else being equal longer rods within reason would not be worse. too bad max. you simply count rungs. if the cylinder wall is close to hitting the rod 1 inch above the big end thats where it will still be close to hitting a longer rod too. one inch. the cylinder base isnt moving up along with that relative position youre trying to follow its still one inch from the big end of the rod. which proves that if the rod angles toward the centerline from the rod journal and the rod journal is the farthest point from centerline the rod will still not be closer to the cylinder wall than the point where the rod jounal centerline is. but the only concern is the point 1 inch up from the big end where the rod comes closest to the cylinder wall. nope. ill explain it again if the rod angles toward the centerline from the rod journal and the rod journal is the farthest point from centerline the rod will still not be closer to the cylinder wall than the point where the rod jounal centerline is. jeez you two act like you are inventing the practice of installing longer rods in a race engine. thanks. you should pay attention. oh sorry was this a new invention i think you and tbone are both full of forks..... done. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340roy

this theoretically reduces the parasitic power loss inherent in changing the direction of travel of the piston mass for every stroke. what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. lol explain it and you ignore it so why explain it again. hint look at the paragraph i wrote again. note the words change of direction. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : roy

roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. the thing is roy is it really a game i dont think so. it is more like a good cover for when he makes a fool out of himself to hide behind. tom it is the same game. there always seems to be a few that fall into it. roy if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : roy

on wed 17 sep 2003 014041 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. really read who responds to the threads. sadly at times i a get a laugh out of the mindless stuff you post as well. now go back to your homework. .

From : roy

on wed 17 sep 2003 014041 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote roy wrote thats a fair assessment although not always true. yes always. at any instant in time it will be true. sorry its not always true. sure it is. i simply made always apply to time rather than mass. i told ya roy a little push and these thingsll spin like a balanced crank with no rods hung from it. yup but this one took ya longer.g also seems ya lost one along the way. i figure you can pick it before the thread ends. its nice that max can turn to you for comfort. nah ya have it wrong. i turn to him for entertainment. actually it is those that fall into his game that are the entertainment. oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. i think this is what jerry was referring to with circling the wagons jerry seems to think there is some sort of group in the ng. i dont get it. but let me assure you i dont have a wagon nor see the need for one. roy if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : aguy

on wed 17 sep 2003 215356 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. really read who responds to the threads. well that would pretty much be a who is who in this ng roy. sadly at times i a get a laugh out of the mindless stuff you post as well. ah thanks. me too. now go back to your homework. why you want to copy it .

From : roy

on wed 17 sep 2003 215356 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. really read who responds to the threads. well that would pretty much be a who is who in this ng roy. no i said responds to not comments on the threads. maxs threads attract pretty much the same players. usually with the same results. sadly at times i a get a laugh out of the mindless stuff you post as well. ah thanks. me too. now go back to your homework. why you want to copy it only if it is correct .

From : jerry

roy wrote jerry seems to think there is some sort of group in the ng. i dont get it. but let me assure you i dont have a wagon nor see the need for one. youre just kidding yourself roy if you believe that never was the case. now however the group is just about devolved and the funny thing to have watched these last couple years was how they turned on each other. still there are the few that keep hoping for the good old days. not to fear though still one guy around that will shoot them a email and drag them back if something is said about them. not talking about you either. jerry .

From : roy

roy wrote jerry seems to think there is some sort of group in the ng. i dont get it. but let me assure you i dont have a wagon nor see the need for one. youre just kidding yourself roy if you believe that never was the case. now however the group is just about devolved and the funny thing to have watched these last couple years was how they turned on each other. still there are the few that keep hoping for the good old days. not to fear though still one guy around that will shoot them a email and drag them back if something is said about them. not talking about you either. jerry obviously im aware that a few have met up with each other. myself and my wife took a ride to maine and had a enjoyable time denny and his family. but i dont see the circle the wagons bit. then again i guess it is all in how you take things. i guess i dont pay that close attention to it. hell its a damn ng not a thing that goes on here is really all that important in the scheme of things imo. roy .

From : jeremy chaversmax340

i used to run uniroyals back in the day didnt like them at all. no traction on damp ground and id imagine much worse on wet or snowy ground. didnt keep em long enough to find out. used to install coopers but its been ages. they were decent nicely priced tires. all i run is bfgoodrich at/ta kos now. all the people i know that use their trucks ie - 4xing or snow plowing run bfgs. not sure how they compare in price to uniroyal but theyre prolly more expensive than the cooper and i know they make em in 16.5. jeremy any opinions by users of cooper ast and uniroyal laredo awp tires theyre one of the few options in the old 16.5 size on my dodge. tia -- ed light smiley -/ ms smiley - .

From : max340

hell its a damn ng not a thing that goes on here is really all that important in the scheme of things imo. obviously its much more important to some people. otoh some of us have water to deal with. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : jerry

roy wrote hell its a damn ng not a thing that goes on here is really all that important in the scheme of things imo. we can agree on that. jerry .

From : terra

max340 wrote this theoretically reduces the parasitic power loss inherent in changing the direction of travel of the piston mass for every stroke. what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. lol explain it and you ignore it so why explain it again. hint look at the paragraph i wrote again. note the words change of direction. i didnt miss anything you didnt explain anything the first time. you cant. .

From : tbone

funny how the both of you forget that the connecting rod is the hypotenuse in your right triangle and changing its length changes the angles as well. if the angles change the distances change so in fact more changes than the wrist pin pivot. um no. triangles only have anles equal to 180 degrees no matter what length the sides. so if one point is moved the two angles still equal 90 degrees since the right triangle only has 90 degrees for the hypotenuse. therefore those angles cannot change so drastically as to cause any sort of interference. w r o n g -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote the important positions the wrist pin and connecting rod journal have not swung in any arc. the wrist pins position change is in a straight line as determined by the piston in the bore. those important positions mean nothing at all in this argument. anybody here say those positions swung in any arc wasnt me. wasnt max or tbone or you. i dont think anybody said it. anybody here not already know the wrist pin moves in a straight line change the offset of the pin too much and youll bind the piston in the bore too little and you can have piston slap but changing the pin offset is the only way you will move it perpendicular to the bore. who wanted to move the pin laterally in the bore anyone budd i dont see any value in your post budd. sorry. .

From : aguy

on thu 18 sep 2003 010740 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote on wed 17 sep 2003 215356 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote oh geez spare us the bullshit roy. no one falls into maxs game but he and you. it is sure nice to see you get a good belly laugh outta old max though. now wipe the drool off your chin and get back to work. really read who responds to the threads. well that would pretty much be a who is who in this ng roy. no i said responds to not comments on the threads. maxs threads attract pretty much the same players. usually with the same results. sadly at times i a get a laugh out of the mindless stuff you post as well. ah thanks. me too. now go back to your homework. why you want to copy it only if it is correct oh man that hurts. .

From : aguy

on thu 18 sep 2003 015412 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote roy wrote jerry seems to think there is some sort of group in the ng. i dont get it. but let me assure you i dont have a wagon nor see the need for one. youre just kidding yourself roy if you believe that never was the case. now however the group is just about devolved and the funny thing to have watched these last couple years was how they turned on each other. still there are the few that keep hoping for the good old days. not to fear though still one guy around that will shoot them a email and drag them back if something is said about them. not talking about you either. jerry obviously im aware that a few have met up with each other. myself and my wife took a ride to maine and had a enjoyable time denny and his family. but i dont see the circle the wagons bit. then again i guess it is all in how you take things. i guess i dont pay that close attention to it. hell its a damn ng not a thing that goes on here is really all that important in the scheme of things imo. roy well im with you there. .

From : tbone

first of all pinhead it is impossibe for only one angle to change. the angle that matters in this case is the angle of the rod in relation to vertical. thats the only one that will change and have any effect on the engine. nice spin but that is not what you said lol. duh no shit but it will not be at the same place realtive to the verticle line so measurements are a changin. sure it would. if its half way up or even 70% of the way up in the first set up itll be halfway up or 70% of the way up in the second example. in order for that to be true the cylinder would also need to move and that is not happening. remember pinhead hey roy anyone have a pool going on when tbone would start using this name on this thread i only use it when you make it fit. i dont give a rats ass what the argument was between you and terra. then why did you butt in when you hate it so much when people do that to you i was speaking to budd get over it. because you missed it. i responded. go find it. no you didnt stop lying. go find it. this is what you use whenever you are unable to respond. i cannot find it if it is not there and it isnt. if you are referring to your previous post about the compression and exhaust strokes i already demonstrated that the combustion stroke applies more force than the other three combined and since it applies force to the lower cylinder wall that is the reason for the 225 wear pattern and not gravity or the angle of the cylinder. since you didnt respond to that you have admitted your error. i see you are done here once again. i can tell you are done when you start calling people pinhead claiming posts dont exist calling people liars and use denial of facts rather than proof as a defense. if you ever met your own standards for proof youd surprise everyone including yourself. hey roy did anyone take odds when max would pull the standard maneuver of accusing the other person of being done while actually being the one to bail out. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : terra

terra wrote max340 wrote this theoretically reduces the parasitic power loss inherent in changing the direction of travel of the piston mass for every stroke. what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. lol explain it and you ignore it so why explain it again. hint look at the paragraph i wrote again. note the words change of direction. i didnt miss anything you didnt explain anything the first time. you cant. i doubt youll even know how to get started max so ill spare you the struggle. you can ignore the changing direction. the changing acceleration is what counts. lets call the pistons slowest speed min and that occurs at the top and bottom of a stroke where min=0. well call the pistons highest speed max in your honor. are you happy max occurs about halfway through a stroke. it takes a big push to accelerate mr. piston from min to max. the push comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. regardless once he reaches max mr. piston is moving real fast. he has his highest kinetic energy. uh-oh! now mr. piston has to begin slowing down. on a downstroke he will push against mr. rod and mr. rod will push mr. crankthrow. on an upstroke he will pull against mr. rod and mr. rod will pull mr. crankthrow. when mr. piston arrives at min he has stopped. all of his kinetic energy has left him now transferred through mr. rod to mr. crankthrow. and the cycle repeats with mr. piston and mr. rod and mr. crankthrow all pushing and pulling back and forth. i hope you enjoyed the lesson max. .

From : budd cochran

heck no i wont follow you around. i step into too many piles of stuff here in the manufactured home community already. budd max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. lol yeah i forgot you arent allowed to give an opinion of someone lest you be doing exactly what they do. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. agreed. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. zactly. i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. are you the guy whos been following me around lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : budd cochran

max340 wrote if he ever met his own standards period hed have to become a lurker. budd go find it. i see you are done here once again. i can tell you are done when you start calling people pinhead claiming posts dont exist calling people liars and use denial of facts rather than proof as a defense. if you ever met your own standards for proof youd surprise everyone including yourself. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : budd cochran

my mistake. budd tbone wrote terra wrote what power loss all the kinetic energy goes right back into the crankshaft. congratulations. you just invented perpetual motion . . . . not! its frictional losses tom. budd what do i have to do with this that was terra not me. .

From : budd cochran

heck i didnt see any real value in the original post other than the old know thine enemy type information. the powerstroke power curves suck period. the primary reason they suck is a v configuration will give a peakier power curve. even harleys have a peakier power curve than a same size etc. inline or boxer twin but not as peaky as if the v were at 90 degrees instead of 45. the odd part is that if you really want incredibly flat torque curves then you need a multi-cylinder 5 to 21 cylinders radial. those old wright cyclones and pratt/whitneys have torque bands within 10% of peak at idle and full throttle and as high as 2500-2800 horsepower at 2500 rpm. that is a flat power band. a long time ago i read somewhere about why that was but i have since forgotten the source. hey when youre 20 years old and trying to beat that darn 283 chevy ii with a 273 cuda you dont always store those details in your memory. but i did whup the chevy. what i do remember about the article was that it compared torque to a number of people pulling on a rope and with inlines the power of the cylinder strokes add together better than a v engine which has half the pullers pulling at a angle to both the rope and the other pullers that are pulling in the opposing direction. then your torque out put becomes a resultant vector of force rather than a direct force. then it said that radials were like a capstan winch with all the cylinders marching around in time with each other each again adding to the previous cylinder smoothly and without so much that vectoring of forces stuff. anyhow im out of this thread. t-bones in over his head and calling names and denying what hes previously said. after that starts hes just incapable of intelligent conversation. have a good day terra. budd terra wrote budd cochran wrote the important positions the wrist pin and connecting rod journal have not swung in any arc. the wrist pins position change is in a straight line as determined by the piston in the bore. those important positions mean nothing at all in this argument. anybody here say those positions swung in any arc wasnt me. wasnt max or tbone or you. i dont think anybody said it. anybody here not already know the wrist pin moves in a straight line change the offset of the pin too much and youll bind the piston in the bore too little and you can have piston slap but changing the pin offset is the only way you will move it perpendicular to the bore. who wanted to move the pin laterally in the bore anyone budd i dont see any value in your post budd. sorry. .

From : budd cochran

well tom. heres where your self-proclaimed mechanical knowledge lets you down again. the out-of-round wear in the slant sixes including the 170 and 198 engines is within accepted industry standards. in most cases ive found its always well below the industry standards even in excessive mileage units. the reason is as mentioned the pin offset in the slant six reduces sidewall wear as well as reduces piston slap. . . but you didnt allow for that in commentaries on the leaning tower of power. you just stuck you foot in your mouth and went right on chewing. add to that the pull of gravity since the engine leans to the right is pulling the piston away from the side with the loading from combustion. tell us again how many hundreds of slant sixes youve overhauled tom. well try not to laugh too hard. budd tbone wrote this is what you use whenever you are unable to respond. i cannot find it if it is not there and it isnt. if you are referring to your previous post about the compression and exhaust strokes i already demonstrated that the combustion stroke applies more force than the other three combined and since it applies force to the lower cylinder wall that is the reason for the 225 wear pattern and not gravity or the angle of the cylinder. since you didnt respond to that you have admitted your error. i see you are done here once again. i can tell you are done when you start calling people pinhead claiming posts dont exist calling people liars and use denial of facts rather than proof as a defense. if you ever met your own standards for proof youd surprise everyone including yourself. hey roy did anyone take odds when max would pull the standard maneuver of accusing the other person of being done while actually being the one to bail out. .

From : tbone

i guess that would happen if you keep walking in your old paths. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving heck no i wont follow you around. i step into too many piles of stuff here in the manufactured home community already. budd max340 wrote ya know what the silly part of this is budd sorry to reply to the question would subject me to wrath. lol yeah i forgot you arent allowed to give an opinion of someone lest you be doing exactly what they do. yeah it can . . if the fool revs the engine just high enough to bend the rod just the right amount but under normal circumstances no. agreed. and that is usually because the engine has been stroked not because of a rod / stroke ratio change. zactly. i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i understand it and i have this nice white dinner jacket for you with extra long sleeves that fasten in the back. are you the guy whos been following me around lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbonetboneredneck tookover hell

resorting to petty insults again there budd. gee and i wonder why people feel the need to attack you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving max340 wrote if he ever met his own standards period hed have to become a lurker. budd go find it. i see you are done here once again. i can tell you are done when you start calling people pinhead claiming posts dont exist calling people liars and use denial of facts rather than proof as a defense. if you ever met your own standards for proof youd surprise everyone including yourself. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

budd is just upset because i made him look foolish like that is all that hard to do. actually he made himself look foolish and i just pointed it out which i think is sometimes worse. as for max well that is pretty much the same as always - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving resorting to petty insults again there budd. gee and i wonder why people feel the need to attack you. damn t-boner the boys are biting pretty hard these days. what did you fuck up this time chaos confusion and trouble!!!! my work here is almost done .

From : max340max340

you can ignore the changing direction. the changing acceleration is what counts. lol im sure the engineers and designers at wiseco and trw among others would love to be able to do just that. lets call the pistons slowest speed min and that occurs at the top and bottom of a stroke where min=0. well call the pistons highest speed max in your honor. are you happy max occurs about halfway through a stroke. lol it does pretty bold assertion from someone that doesnt know anything about engine configuration. it takes a big push to accelerate mr. piston from min to max. and you were asking about parasitic loss the push comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. um no. on the intake stroke it is dragged down the cylinder. you forgot that didnt you i hope you enjoyed the lesson max. funny i thought it would be a lesson on piston motion and the physics involved. instead it was a lesson/example of how stupid people can act when given the chance. your description isnt even deserving of a response. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

anybody here say those positions swung in any arc wasnt me. it was you or tbone but no matter we didnt care. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

heck no i wont follow you around. i step into too many piles of stuff here in the manufactured home community already. hell the only thing yad step in on this coast is water lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

anybody here say those positions swung in any arc wasnt me. it was you or tbone but no matter we didnt care. then why did you respond to it perhaps because you made it up -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

i already demonstrated that the combustion stroke applies more force than the other three combined and since it applies force to the lower cylinder wall it does not on my 225 slants it doesnt. mine run clockwise. i bet most others do to. a clockwise running 225/6 will load the upper side or driver side of the cylinders on the combustion stroke. that is the reason for the 225 wear pattern and not gravity or the angle of the cylinder. bzzzzt!!! wrong. but thanks for playing. since you didnt respond to that you have admitted your error. i didnt respond because i felt that those of us who know the slant six could tell you are full of shit. you simply deny the brown gravy on your chin and it all goes away in your mind. and since i dont care what you think its fun to just let your brain fool your stomach and watch the results. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

your buddy max then jumped in and said that the 225 wore out of round to the lower wall and that the forces were acting on the upper wall. this was of course incorrect. lol hahahahahahahahahahaha. got a napkin tbone i think there is gravy on your chin. the combustion stroke wears against the lower wall like you would know anything about combustion. wrong. wrong. the rotation of the engine indicates that during the combustion stroke the big end of the connecting rod is swinging to the high cylinder wall which puts the load on the lower wall. nope. think about it tbone. if the con rod wrist pin end tends to go towards the lower cylinder wall where does the piston crown the part without lubrication go yup upper side of the cylinderjamming the combustion rings and the dry crown against the cylinder wall. meanwhile the lubricated piston skirt is against the lower wall with much less contact and much less wear. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

i already demonstrated that the combustion stroke applies more force than the other three combined and since it applies force to the lower cylinder wall it does not on my 225 slants it doesnt. mine run clockwise. i bet most others do to. a clockwise running 225/6 will load the upper side or driver side of the cylinders on the combustion stroke. oh really then just answer me this batman where is the big end of the connecting rod in respect to the cylinder walls half way through the combustion stroke that is the reason for the 225 wear pattern and not gravity or the angle of the cylinder. bzzzzt!!! wrong. but thanks for playing. yes you are. since you didnt respond to that you have admitted your error. i didnt respond because i felt that those of us who know the slant six could tell you are full of shit. then you admit that you lied and didnt respond well i guess that there are miracles after all. either way you are still wrong. you simply deny the brown gravy on your chin and it all goes away in your mind. and since i dont care what you think its fun to just let your brain fool your stomach and watch the results. of course you dont care then you would have to admit to being wrong and that could never happen. since even the simplest forms of physics and geometry throw you i can see why you are unable to understand what i am saying so i will just let you sit in your ignorance and remain the group entertainment. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

you can ignore the changing direction. the changing acceleration is what counts. lol im sure the engineers and designers at wiseco and trw among others would love to be able to do just that. and they do just that. direction neither applies nor requires any force only acceleration and changes in it does. changing direction is nothing more than another acceleration. it figures that you would not understand this. lets call the pistons slowest speed min and that occurs at the top and bottom of a stroke where min=0. well call the pistons highest speed max in your honor. are you happy max occurs about halfway through a stroke. lol it does pretty bold assertion from someone that doesnt know anything about engine configuration. no max it is simple fact and nothing more. this really shows just how little you really know. but to put it into terms that even a simpleton like you can understand if the piston is not moving at the top of the stroke and also not moving at the bottom of the stroke it has to both accelerate to some speed and then return to zero within the stroke. now unless you believe in instantaneous acceleration of an object with mass.... it takes a big push to accelerate mr. piston from min to max. and you were asking about parasitic loss the push comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. um no. on the intake stroke it is dragged down the cylinder. you forgot that didnt you to use your spin that would be a pull and is not what he was talking about. the push still comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. i hope you enjoyed the lesson max. funny i thought it would be a lesson on piston motion and the physics involved. instead it was a lesson/example of how stupid people can act when given the chance. only with your ignorant reply here. i can see why the rest of the group considers you the primary entertainment and never actually asks you anything. your description isnt even deserving of a response. and yet you did anyway lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

what i do remember about the article was that it compared torque to a number of people pulling on a rope and with inlines the power of the cylinder strokes add together better than a v engine which has half the pullers pulling at a angle to both the rope and the other pullers that are pulling in the opposing direction. then your torque out put becomes a resultant vector of force rather than a direct force. that is a complete load of crap. if that were true then a radial would have no torque at all. anyhow im out of this thread. t-bones in over his head and calling names and denying what hes previously said. after that starts hes just incapable of intelligent conversation. iow you are following the max lead and are trying to accuse someone else for your bailing out of the thread. the only ones that are in over your heads are you and max. neither one of you have been able to back up a single point in this thread. now run away again and leave this thread to people that actually know something. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : terra

tbone writes the push comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. um no. on the intake stroke it is dragged down the cylinder. you forgot that didnt you to use your spin that would be a pull and is not what he was talking about. the push still comes from either above or below depending on which way mr. piston has to go. max is right mr. piston gets pulled on that stroke to the halfway point. it makes no difference. from there to the bottom the mass of mr. piston works with not against messrs. rod and crankthrow. i hope you enjoyed the lesson max. funny i thought it would be a lesson on piston motion and the physics involved. instead it was a lesson/example of how stupid people can act when given the chance. it was a lesson on piston motion and the physics involved in addition to being a lesson/example of how much fun one can have with stupid people when given the chance. .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote the odd part is that if you really want incredibly flat torque curves then you need a multi-cylinder 5 to 21 cylinders radial. those old wright cyclones and pratt/whitneys have torque bands within 10% of peak at idle and full throttle and as high as 2500-2800 horsepower at 2500 rpm. that is a flat power band. and im an a&p student now get to see radials monday thru friday! .

From : budd cochran

i emailed pratt / whitney last night to see if i can get a torque /hp chart on one of the multicylinder radials. if i get one ill email you a copy. the one chart i did see was for a supercharged engine and the torque curve was more of a straight line than a curve from idle at 900 rpm to max power at 25 or 26 hundred with peak at about 1500 with none of the band below 1500 ft/lbs iirc. its been 30 or more years since i saw it. budd terra wrote budd cochran wrote the odd part is that if you really want incredibly flat torque curves then you need a multi-cylinder 5 to 21 cylinders radial. those old wright cyclones and pratt/whitneys have torque bands within 10% of peak at idle and full throttle and as high as 2500-2800 horsepower at 2500 rpm. that is a flat power band. and im an a&p student now get to see radials monday thru friday! .

From : budd cochran

lol terra wrote budd cochran wrote yeah its big enough but does it come with cupholders vbg do you think i would need oversize tires on my truck if i dropped a single cylinder version of it in budd just fill your tires with water and theyll be fine. .

From : budd cochran

thats one that id like to see the torque curve for. it just about has to be as flat as a kansas pool table. budd terra wrote budd cochran wrote i emailed pratt / whitney last night to see if i can get a torque /hp chart on one of the multicylinder radials. if i get one ill email you a copy. the one chart i did see was for a supercharged engine and the torque curve was more of a straight line than a curve from idle at 900 rpm to max power at 25 or 26 hundred with peak at about 1500 with none of the band below 1500 ft/lbs iirc. its been 30 or more years since i saw it. heres a 28-cylinder beauty http//www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng34a.htm hey max! something to ponder! http//www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng24.htm http//www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng21.htm will heavier pistons in these engines rob power do they even reciprocate .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote yeah its big enough but does it come with cupholders vbg do you think i would need oversize tires on my truck if i dropped a single cylinder version of it in budd just fill your tires with water and theyll be fine. .

From : max340

he realized that he is wrong and is no longer able to spin his way out of it anymore. since he can never admit to error he just runs away and waits for the next opportunity to strike again. lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : terra

budd cochran wrote lol what happened to max anyway did i kill max max!!! where are you max im sorry i called you stupid okay 49 years old and i learned just a few days ago how a differential works. looked at a picture on a web page for a couple minutes and finally realized it after wondering forever. how ignorant is that terra wrote budd cochran wrote yeah its big enough but does it come with cupholders vbg do you think i would need oversize tires on my truck if i dropped a single cylinder version of it in budd just fill your tires with water and theyll be fine. .

From : budd cochran

how easily some are pacified with a mundane mantra of idiotic blather true do you think hell ever figure out that his t-bones problem with mechanics isnt in his owners manual type answers but his conception of how things work in general budd max340 wrote he realized that he is wrong and is no longer able to spin his way out of it anymore. since he can never admit to error he just runs away and waits for the next opportunity to strike again. lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

i keep forgetting you think you never make a mistake nor ever have server probs. i never claimed to always be right that would be you and max. as for the double post that was a joke. must be nice to be so self-delusioned. you would know as well as i would. while ive got your attention. . . you never lost it you just chose to run away. i finally saw that tornado commercial. . . . at 300 am while waiting for my pain meds to kick in after hemorrhoid surgery last week there are some butt pains that can be removed surgically you know and i am truly impressed that even you have the ability to fall for such an obviously bogus demonstration. it requires a blind faith far beyond what i have. i do feel that i should describe what i saw. lol now that depends on what you mean by fall for or blind faith.since i dont own one or intend to buy one i would say that i dont believe that the product will give me the amazing results that they claim but that does not mean that i dont understand the principles that it is based on. i also saw the commercial last night and they changed it and made it a bit more bogus than the last one. i guess that they are trying to push sales higher. a the working fluid is hard to see untinted water not air with a single stream of smoke being used to demonstrate the initial rotational speed. the pale blue bottle adds to the difficulty of determining rotational speed. to stir a glass of water until you generate a similar vortex you have to really do some serious stirring. to get a 5 gallon volume of water in a bottle to spin fast enough would require a paint mixer most likely. where is it where do you come up with this stuff the vortex in question was just a demonstration of flow and tend to form naturally when liquids drain. all he did was swirl the water to getr it started. i am surprised that it didnt start on its own. b to slow the flow enough to demonstrate the vortex in the upper bottle would require a restriction possibly as small as 1/4 in diameter to flow since the bottles neck i.d. is around 1.25. the vortex shown in the commercial would allow air to flow easily into the upper bottle allowing a very rapid draining unless restricted some how. is that why the connecting pipe is not clear plastic or glass . . to hide the restriction or the stirring device or . . . the restriction will also restrict the vortex flow sad to say. you are probably correct with the flow limiter but the vortex flow was still much greater than without it which proves my point that there is more than static friction at work. i doubt that there was any stirring device involved or that would be false advertising. c there is some vortex action in the flow into the lower bottle but nothing approaching the rpm needed to produce the vortex in the upper bottle. what are you talking about please provide the formula to substantiate this claim. the flow rate into the lower bottle cant be too slow or you get a simple laminar flow stream to the bottom of the bottle no cling to the sides i guess that you have never seen the new leafless gutter attachments. too fast and it cant make the turn at the neck again please provide a formula to back up this load of crap. i guess that you never saw a small tornado on discovery or the weather channel and the way they can bend and twist. so yes a rotational speed is needed. duh no shit. how could it be a vortex without rotational speed. but the upper bottle is now not draining fast enough to carry the vortex into the lower neck with enough impetus to generate the flow demonstrated because . . the upper bottle isnt draining fast enough as seen by the lowering of its water level. could there be a hidden water supply into the connecting pipe angled to generate the lower vortex hahahahahahaha you really are too much. where are the formulas to back up this load of crap. the upper bottle isnt draining fast enough lol didnt you just say that they probably had a restrictor in between the two bottles. if so how fast do you expect it to drain as long as the water comes in contact with the sides it will stick to them regardless of the upper vortex speed. as for the hidden water supply that would be false advertising. and the vortex in the lower bottle isnt enough to support their claims either. shouldnt the rotational speed be maintained in a straight tube isnt that what they claim happens in the twists and turns of an intake manifold you are trying to make way to much out of a simple example. d the lack of two 90 degree elbows or even a couple 45 degree ones puts the demonstration in the bogus category. it is not a demonstration of what happens in an intake manifold only what a vortex does. as i said before i saw the commercial without the bends theres no proof the vortex will turn corners. true but watching a tornado on tv i

From : gary r garantmax340

be very sure its the pump and not the belt. check for tight/loseness and condition of rubber. a noisy pump is generally belt related. steering pumps are long lasting and in my experience with older trucks tend to outlast most other components.... grg i have a 1999 ram with a 318. just started making a clinking noise somewhere on the front of the engine. i put a screw driver on the power steering pump then my ear. i could hear the noise through the screwdriver. i just want to make sure this is indeed the problem. would i be able to hear it well if it were another component the runs off of the serpentine belt if this is the ps pump can the pulley or bearings be changed as opposed to the whole pump thanks for the help in advance. --- outgoing mail is certified virus free. checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.515 / virus database 313 - release date 9/1/2003 .

From : max340

how easily some are pacified with a mundane mantra of idiotic blather true yup recite the words enough and he believes em. do you think hell ever figure out that his t-bones problem with mechanics isnt in his owners manual type answers but his conception of how things work in general nope. he doesnt and wont have enough experience to deal with the stuff the owners manual never talks about. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

the reason that i give owners manual type answers is because ......you dont have anything else to go on. like the engineers that wrote them ......your reality is only in a sterile lab environment. i understand the physics behind what is going on ......in your corner of the world where some things can be twisted. do you really think that i own that many service manuals. no and its quite evident by the narrow band of facts you use filling in the huge gaps with presumption and guess work. but then again you have more than demonstrated that you dont even understand the simple physics of an internal combustion engine with your exhaust gasses moving at the same speed as the intake lol. you of all people would be hard pressed to prove budd either wrong or right on that one. now go and cower in the corner once again like you usually do and wait for someone with a spine to say something to me so that you can spit out your senseless blabber once again about me rather than to me. but its much more fun to confuse you with facts and watch you run about uncontrollably spewing forth rhetoric so that the original issue that youve been proven a fool on is lost in your pontifications of granduer. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

the reason that i give owners manual type answers is because .....you dont have anything else to go on. and that is still far more than you ever have. like the engineers that wrote them .....your reality is only in a sterile lab environment. and yours is in that fantasy land called maxworld where the laws of common physics need not apply if it goes against your beliefs lol. i understand the physics behind what is going on .....in your corner of the world where some things can be twisted. sorry max but you are talking about yourself once again and trying to pass it off as me. do you really think that i own that many service manuals. no and its quite evident by the narrow band of facts you use filling in the huge gaps with presumption and guess work. that would be you also. but then again you have more than demonstrated that you dont even understand the simple physics of an internal combustion engine with your exhaust gasses moving at the same speed as the intake lol. you of all people would be hard pressed to prove budd either wrong or right on that one. lol are you also saying that they do now go and cower in the corner once again like you usually do and wait for someone with a spine to say something to me so that you can spit out your senseless blabber once again about me rather than to me. but its much more fun to confuse you with facts and watch you run about uncontrollably spewing forth rhetoric so that the original issue that youve been proven a fool on is lost in your pontifications of granduer. how would you know you have yet to ever supply one. just because you claim your bs as fact without the slightest micron of proof to back any of them up doesnt make it so. please indicate exactly what you made me a fool on. i can name plenty that i made you one on in this thread alone. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

but then again you have more than demonstrated that you dont even understand the simple physics has it ever crossed your mind that a its not just simple physics anymore and actually yes it is. b that if everyone saw the same thing in the exact same way that dupont ford chrysler benz chapman porsche ferrari and a host of others would all have built the same car and they pretty much did. obviously the simple fact that there are many firing orders to american v8s says that there is more than one way to do something well. and wtf does that have to do with anything in this thread. are you just spinning again my little puppet boy. the fact that ford had two firing orders in one configuration says they were a bit confused. why are they confused off to the carosel with you..... is this all that you got left how sad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : aguy

on wed 24 sep 2003 001930 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote how easily some are pacified with a mundane mantra of idiotic blather true do you think hell ever figure out that his t-bones problem with mechanics isnt in his owners manual type answers but his conception of how things work in general gee i dont know bud. i will just have to turn in tomorrow to find out. i just cant wait until the next episode of the budd zone to find out if budd will ever get his head out of his ass or if max will ever get a clue or...................well you get the point. budd max340 wrote he realized that he is wrong and is no longer able to spin his way out of it anymore. since he can never admit to error he just runs away and waits for the next opportunity to strike again. lol max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : budd cochran

tbone wrote the reason that i give owners manual type answers is because like the engineers that wrote them i understand the physics behind what is going on unlike you and your buddy max. yeah sure. and yet you cant understand the physics that prove the tornado wont work. do you really think that i own that many service manuals. never said you did but it is soooo easy to right click and save the answers others give to the same question in the past then call up the file when you need it. but then again you have more than demonstrated that you dont even understand the simple physics of an internal combustion engine with your exhaust gasses moving at the same speed as the intake lol. your answer at the time stated more was coming out of the engine than what was going in. thats what i disagreed with because adjusting for volume increase due to temperature rise there can not be more coming out of an engine than what goes in. reverting to the volume increase caused by heating and yes your volume goes up requiring a higher speed to remove it in a given length of time but the molecular mass is unchanged . . . you still have the same amount coming out as went in. it was you that twisted it into a speed argument. heck you cant even compute the time and thusly the speed with which a fuel / air charge has to move to get a full cylinders worth of the mixture into a cylinder. iirc you wanted to know where i got the numbers for the formulae. since you didnt give any and there were none given anywhere else i used numbers i felt would give a good illustration yet you complained about those numbers. the formulae i used is available at your local library on the net and in most high school math textbooks. now go and cower in the corner once again like you usually do and wait for someone with a spine to say something to me so that you can spit out your senseless blabber once again about me rather than to me. your constant degredations directed at me and others only demonstrates you have a very low opinion of yourself and the verbal attacks only prove this to everyone else. they are not good tactics for a discussion among adults only children. yes i have made the mistake of letting myself fall into the little game you play but no more. thanks for playing. budd .

From : budd cochran

maybe if hed get his hands nice and greasy on a couple forklifts a garden tractor or twenty twist a few wrenches on a few street machines .. . . . nope itll never happen. if it has it was a traumatic experience that hes pushed out of his conscious thought. budd max340 wrote how easily some are pacified with a mundane mantra of idiotic blather true yup recite the words enough and he believes em. do you think hell ever figure out that his t-bones problem with mechanics isnt in his owners manual type answers but his conception of how things work in general nope. he doesnt and wont have enough experience to deal with the stuff the owners manual never talks about. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340max340

has it ever crossed your mind that a its not just simple physics anymore and actually yes it is. hardly. i guess you arent as smart as you claim. b that if everyone saw the same thing in the exact same way that dupont ford chrysler benz chapman porsche ferrari and a host of others would all have built the same car and they pretty much did. hardly. again poor observational skills let alone knowledge. obviously the simple fact that there are many firing orders to american v8s says that there is more than one way to do something well. and wtf does that have to do with anything in this thread. ooops you missed the point entirely. you claim you are so adept at countering everything but failed to see the point at all. the fact that ford had two firing orders in one configuration says they were a bit confused. why are they confused for the same reason you appear to be right now. off to the carosel with you..... is this all that you got left how sad. lol i have far more but why waste it when the easy stuff has you looking for excuses max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

tbone wrote the reason that i give owners manual type answers is because like the engineers that wrote them i understand the physics behind what is going on unlike you and your buddy max. yeah sure. and yet you cant understand the physics that prove the tornado wont work. it is more like you dont understand the physics as to why it might. they have dyno results to back up their points what do you have do you really think that i own that many service manuals. never said you did but it is soooo easy to right click and save the answers others give to the same question in the past then call up the file when you need it. why would i bother to do that if i dont know the answer to something i dont reply and if i do and wind up being wrong i learn from it and move on unlike you. it must really bother you to think that i may know more than you do on some subjects in order for you to fabricate these reasons as to why i can answer questions that you cant. why is that budd it really sounds like it is you with the confidence problem. but then again you have more than demonstrated that you dont even understand the simple physics of an internal combustion engine with your exhaust gasses moving at the same speed as the intake lol. your answer at the time stated more was coming out of the engine than what was going in. no i didnt and if you say that i did prove it. i said that the exhaust was moving faster and nothing more and you said that was impossible lol. thats what i disagreed with because adjusting for volume increase due to temperature rise there can not be more coming out of an engine than what goes in. now you are just a liar. you used the speed of the exhaust gasses to determine how fast the vortex needed to spin and how little time it would have to react. i said that the exhaust speed was meaningless because it was moving much faster than the intake speed. you then responded with your long ignorant babble about if the exhaust was moving faster than the intake then the intake could not keep up and some type of black hole would form. do i need to hunt it down for you liar reverting to the volume increase caused by heating and yes your volume goes up requiring a higher speed to remove it in a given length of time but the molecular mass is unchanged . . . you still have the same amount coming out as went in. it is more than just heat that causes the volume increase. i never said anything different but you did. you made the claims that if the gas was comming out faster than what went in that some black hole would form within the engine. do i need to hunt this bs down and repost it for you it was you that twisted it into a speed argument. once again you lie. heck you cant even compute the time and thusly the speed with which a fuel / air charge has to move to get a full cylinders worth of the mixture into a cylinder. that is correct and neither can you although i believe that you are not bright enough to figure that out. in order to do that you need to know the maximum flow rate and there are far to many unknown variables involved to do that. anything that you came up with is nothing more than laughable guess and looked more like total bs. iirc you wanted to know where i got the numbers for the formulae. then you would once again be wrong. i wanted to see the formulas that you used. since you didnt give any and there were none given anywhere else i used numbers i felt would give a good illustration yet you complained about those numbers. but your numbers were just bullshit without some justification and you provided none. the formulae i used is available at your local library on the net and in most high school math textbooks. did you learn this load of crap technique from your idol maxi who cares where the formulae can be located since there are many of them. i asked you to show me the e x a c t formulae that you used to come up with your bs numbers and once again you failed to back up your argument. now go and cower in the corner once again like you usually do and wait for someone with a spine to say something to me so that you can spit out your senseless blabber once again about me rather than to me. your constant degredations directed at me and others only demonstrates you have a very low opinion of yourself and the verbal attacks only prove this to everyone else. hahahahahaha hehehehehhehe pot kettle black. sorry budd but you insult me far more than i do to you. hell just look at your comments to max in this thread alone. i guess that you have just been proving how low of an opinion that you have of yourself. is that why you feel the constant need to attack me because you think that someone you perceive as a low life liberal could actually be smarter than you they are not good tactics for a discussion among adults only children. yes i have mad

From : tbone

has it ever crossed your mind that a its not just simple physics anymore and actually yes it is. hardly. i guess you arent as smart as you claim. oh really then please tell me exactly what physical properties that make these new engines run changed. b that if everyone saw the same thing in the exact same way that dupont ford chrysler benz chapman porsche ferrari and a host of others would all have built the same car and they pretty much did. hardly. again poor observational skills let alone knowledge. again please indicate what was so different about them. did one use nuclear power and levitated did another one use some type of unknown drive what i see are a bunch of 4 wheeled vehicles that were propelled by an engine. now while the drive lines may have been somewhat different wtf does that have to do with the point at hand. obviously the simple fact that there are many firing orders to american v8s says that there is more than one way to do something well. and wtf does that have to do with anything in this thread. ooops you missed the point entirely. you claim you are so adept at countering everything but failed to see the point at all. since you once again failed to state what point you were trying to make it is clear that you once again are full of it. the fact that ford had two firing orders in one configuration says they were a bit confused. why are they confused for the same reason you appear to be right now. yet another lame answer that once again makes no sense at all. how does experimenting equate to confusion off to the carosel with you..... is this all that you got left how sad. lol i have far more but why waste it when the easy stuff has you looking for excuses like i said how sad. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

hardly. i guess you arent as smart as you claim. oh really then please tell me exactly what physical properties that make these new engines run changed. they run changed i thought they ran hi-test. simple physics might make a carb work but simple physics dont make fi work. again please indicate what was so different about them. lol indicate did one use nuclear power and levitated actually i think chapmans car did at least one version of it...... did another one use some type of unknown drive ask jaguar what they thought of ferraris cars. what i see are a bunch of 4 wheeled vehicles that were propelled by an engine. if that is all you see then you are not only poorly educated but missing true art in motion. now while the drive lines may have been somewhat different wtf does that have to do with the point at hand. everything. since you once again failed to state what point you were trying to make i stated it very clearly. you missed it entirely. it is clear that you once again are full of it. if it is a spaghetti dinner then yes i am full of it. the point you so blindly missed was that a problem can be solved in many different ways particulaly in the automotive arena. as such claiming you are the only one who is correct is pure egotism as many fine automakers will

From : tbone

hardly. i guess you arent as smart as you claim. oh really then please tell me exactly what physical properties that make these new engines run changed. they run changed i thought they ran hi-test. mine runs regular. simple physics might make a carb work but simple physics dont make fi work. oh really shooting fuel through a small valve to get it to spray seems like simple physics to me. now the controlling systems might be a bit more complicated but we are not talking about that. the physics that are responsible for making the engine run are unchanged even in these high tech fuel injected engines. they are still fuel and air compressed and detonated and the explosive result captured and converted into mechanical energy and the physics behind this is the same as always. again please indicate what was so different about them. lol indicate getting desperat again did one use nuclear power and levitated actually i think chapmans car did at least one version of it...... got a link this i would like to see. did another one use some type of unknown drive ask jaguar what they thought of ferraris cars. what i see are a bunch of 4 wheeled vehicles that were propelled by an engine. if that is all you see then you are not only poorly educated but missing true art in motion. i have other things to worry about. now while the drive lines may have been somewhat different wtf does that have to do with the point at hand. everything. i doubt it. since you once again failed to state what point you were trying to make i stated it very clearly. you missed it entirely. it is clear that you once again are full of it. if it is a spaghetti dinner then yes i am full of it. the point you so blindly missed was that a problem can be solved in many different ways particulaly in the automotive arena. as such claiming you are the only one who is correct is pure egotism as many fine automakers will attest. but what does this bogus point have to do with the converstaions going on in this thread please show me where i claimed that i had the only correct way to do something. what does this have to do with your bogus cause of the wear patterns on a 225 or how you claimed that only one angle could change in a triangle i think that you are spinning yourself now lol. do you get it now will you ever get it not likely. i get that you are desperatly spinning yourself now. for the same reason you appear to be right now. yet another lame answer that once again makes no sense at all. that depends purely on your point of view. a bunch of us out here are laughing at the fact that i have you chasing your tail looking for my point. meanwhile the fact that you dont understand just makes my point even more clear. really and who are these people most people here including myself know that in reality you never actually have a point and really just serve as the group entertainment. how does experimenting equate to confusion lol!!!!! ask edison that...... i would but he is dead so i am asking you once again... lol i have far more but why waste it when the easy stuff has you looking for excuses like i said how sad. lol -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : redneck tookover hellbudd cochran

i use a floor jack placed under the differential depending on which end you want to lift can anyone suggest the best method for lifting a 93 dodge dakota club cab 4x4 with a v8 seems to be the exception when looking for a lift kit. chaos confusion and trouble!!!! my work here is almost done .

From : max340

oh really shooting fuel through a small valve to get it to spray seems like simple physics to me. now the controlling systems might be a bit more complicated but we are not talking about that. you might not be talking about it but i am. the physics that are responsible for making the engine run are unchanged even in these high tech fuel injected engines. yup but the physics that improve efficiency and power are not all that simple. they are still fuel and air compressed and detonated and the explosive result captured captured i thought it was an internal combustion engine. as such that energy is already in custody. again please indicate what was so different about them. lol indicate getting desperat again nope just laughing at your bullshit terms. it is amusing that you felt the need to whine about it though. actually i think chapmans car did at least one version of it...... got a link this i would like to see. you obviously dont know who colin chapman is if you need a link. if that is all you see then you are not only poorly educated but missing true art in motion. i have other things to worry about. if you dont have an understanding of the differences between the vehicles that the gentlemen in my list came up with then your biggest worry is when to shut the hell up. now while the drive lines may have been somewhat different wtf does that have to do with the point at hand. everything. i doubt it. doubt all you like its amusing to watch. really and who are these people lol if you havent figured it out from those that comment here a list would do little for your comprehension. most people here including myself know that in reality you never actually have a point and really just serve as the group entertainment. so be it. far better than village idiot like yourself. how does experimenting equate to confusion lol!!!!! ask edison that...... i would but he is dead so i am asking you once again... and im telling you once again to learn by experience instead of whining that the book didnt tell you it would be this way. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : denny

im usually friendly to everyone until messed with. this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g eating a huge handful of carrots. vbg better cut the shit. im getting ready for easter. remember denny .

From : max340

while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know but budd!!!!! physics explains it all doesnt it or is that why drag racers constantly have one guy who experiments and tries different mixtures of fuels to get the correct burn rate for any given combination of conditions i mean if its simple physics why isnt there a computer program/application that spits out the correct fuel mixture so they can just fill the tank hell if it was an explosion there would be no need to worry about flame propagation and flame fronts and preignition. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

do you not know that an explosion can be a form of rapid combustion it can be but an ic engine burns fuel it doesnt explode it. since an explosion can be a form of combustion the last internal combustion engine was probably produced a few seconds ago with more to come. the reason its called an internal combustion engine and not the captured explosion engine is because there is a difference. if you are going to try to use the max altered definition method on me you have a lot to learn and need to return to your puppet master. predicted and realized...... sorry moron but it is very much an explosion although controlled that occurs during the combustion process. if the combustion is controlled its combustion if its uncontrolled its an explosion. in an ic engine its very controlled. if you look up combustion it says the act or process of burning not bursting forth. cut down on the number of times that you make yourself look like a complete stupid asshole. predicted and realized..... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net barfed out in message tbone wrote they are still fuel and air compressed and detonated and the explosive result captured and converted into mechanical energy and the physics behind this is the same as always. the great t-bone shares his incredible automotive knowledge again. and the moronic budd once again demonstrates both how desperate he is and how little he knows. funny though i thought that you were done here was that just another lie yeah tom you really understand how engines work. how could anyone doubt that you are the ultimate authority in how internal explosion engines work. do you not know that an explosion can be a form of rapid combustion btw when was the last one of these internal explosion engines made since an explosion can be a form of combustion the last internal combustion engine was probably produced a few seconds ago with more to come. if you are going to try to use the max altered definition method on me you have a lot to learn and need to return to your puppet master. around 1895 wasnt it when they discovered powdered coal wasnt a good fuel because it exploded instead of burning as i remember the article obtained from the smithsonian it darn near killed the inventor. you probably read it right off the press and you still got it wrong. the problem with coal dust was that it is unstable and to hard to control the force of the combustion explosion what a moron you have become. while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. oh really well lets look it up. from the websters new worl dictionary copyright 1976 - explode - 1. to cause a rapid violent change in 2. to increase very rapidly. number 2 sounds very much like your description above as applied to the exhaust gas volume mr. moron explosion - 1. an exploding 2. the noise made by exploding 3. a noisy outburst 4. a sudden widespread increase. in this one number 3 is the reason why cars have a muffler and number 4 is exactly what you said about the reason why exhaust gasses move faster than intake although you initially said that they moved at the same speed. sorry moron but it is very much an explosion although controlled that occurs during the combustion process. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know and you once again more than proved that with this newest load of incorrect moronic and senseless babble. rotflmbo!!! no i dont need to say anymore about it you just hung yourself. sorry budd but the only one who hung himself is you. perhaps next time you may want to curb you desperate need to prove me wrong until you have enough time to really think about what you are saying and you will probably cut down on the number of times that you make yourself look like a complete stupid asshole. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

oh really shooting fuel through a small valve to get it to spray seems like simple physics to me. now the controlling systems might be a bit more complicated but we are not talking about that. you might not be talking about it but i am. of course you are. you always try and change the subject when you argument fails you. that happens a lot. the physics that are responsible for making the engine run are unchanged even in these high tech fuel injected engines. yup but the physics that improve efficiency and power are not all that simple. yes they are it is the controls that have become complicated. they are still fuel and air compressed and detonated and the explosive result captured captured i thought it was an internal combustion engine. as such that energy is already in custody. you are correct convert would be a better word. again please indicate what was so different about them. lol indicate getting desperat again nope just laughing at your bullshit terms. it is amusing that you felt the need to whine about it though. who is whining besides you actually i think chapmans car did at least one version of it...... got a link this i would like to see. you obviously dont know who colin chapman is if you need a link. i know who he is. lets see his magic flying car. if that is all you see then you are not only poorly educated but missing true art in motion. i have other things to worry about. if you dont have an understanding of the differences between the vehicles that the gentlemen in my list came up with then your biggest worry is when to shut the hell up. why it never stops you. what does any of this have to do with the wear patterns of a 225 or even the reason that a straight series engine produces more torque than a v series or are you just trying to change the subject again to hide your lack of knowledge. really and who are these people lol if you havent figured it out from those that comment here a list would do little for your comprehension. lol iow you cant come up with one. besides your new pet budd the only one to make a comment was roy and it sounded more like he was calling you the class clown again. now if being thought of as a clown is a good thing for you then i need go no further. most people here including myself know that in reality you never actually have a point and really just serve as the group entertainment. so be it. far better than village idiot like yourself. only in that tiny little mind of yours. how does experimenting equate to confusion lol!!!!! ask edison that...... i would but he is dead so i am asking you once again... and im telling you once again to learn by experience instead of whining that the book didnt tell you it would be this way. i have what about you. all you seem to come with are urban legends that are usually known to be complete bs. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

you might not be talking about it but i am. of course you are. you always try and change the subject when you argument fails you. that happens a lot. lol!!!!!!! thats funny!!!!!... predicted and realized. yup but the physics that improve efficiency and power are not all that simple. yes they are it is the controls that have become complicated. lol bullshit. ask any machinist that does a lot of porting. theyll tell you its not a science but an art. as such its very difficult to use physics to predict exactly how a port will flow; you have to test it to see how well the porting worked. hell even nascar knows this with teams investing millions in cnc machines to duplicate the best port jobs. its not physics but a matter of experimenting testing and trying again when ya fail. captured i thought it was an internal combustion engine. as such that energy is already in custody. you are correct convert would be a better word. much better. you are learning already. you obviously dont know who colin chapman is if you need a link. i know who he is. if you know who he is then you know where to find his magic flying car. or do you need a link to locate your nearest blockbuster video why it never stops you. what does any of this have to do with the wear patterns of a 225 or even the reason that a straight series engine produces more torque than a v series or are you just trying to change the subject again to hide your lack of knowledge. damn you just follow that wheel wherever it goes...... the only one to make a comment was roy and it sounded more like he was calling you the class clown again. actually hattmakr commented as well and as i siad before better the class clown than the class buffoon. now if being thought of as a clown is a good thing for you then i need go no further. lol by all means go further shortly youll need a backhoe to get out of this hole youve spun into. i have what about you. all you seem to come with are urban legends that are usually known to be complete bs. lol please feel free to come up with facts that have proven reliable sources to back any of your claims to me being wrong. so far all you do is ramble on about how inept everyone else is demanding proof and then rejecting it if you dont like it. bring your own proof not name calling not denial not sexual innuendo. max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : tbone

while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know but budd!!!!! physics explains it all doesnt it it sure does you are just unable to understand it. or is that why drag racers constantly have one guy who experiments and tries different mixtures of fuels to get the correct burn rate for any given combination of conditions does this mean that the laws of physics no longer apply here lol. i mean if its simple physics why isnt there a computer program/application that spits out the correct fuel mixture so they can just fill the tank because perhaps there are just to many variables to take into account. sort of the same reason that they cannot predict the weather with 100% accuracy. hell if it was an explosion there would be no need to worry about flame propagation and flame fronts and preignition. once again you show your ignorance. please show me the definition that shows an explosion as only an uncontrolled event. the reason for all of these things is nothing more than keeping the explosion under control. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max340

no no elmer mumbled bugs just chewed on his carrot..... max and another name gets added to the easter egg list... g anyone else remember the bugs bunny episode where he encountered the spoiled brat that was hollering i wanna easter egg i wanna easter egg!!! max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : Annonymoustbone

on wed 17 sep 2003 204545 -0500 dperez@junonospam.com wrote well they may have gotten it... its been 2 weeks the check engine light isnt on and weve towed the 5th wheel a few hundred miles. and driven about 400 miles on the highway without the trailer. interestingly enough i dont know whether it was the engine problem or the problem where the transmission was randomly and intermittently locking and unlocking the torque converter very quickly but the mileage on the highway was a whopping 14.1. which is about 3.5 better than its been for the last year. with the trailer towing between 65 and 70 with the cruise on and overdrive off we got between 8 and 8.25 which is somewhere between 1.75 and 2.5 mpg better than it was doing before... so im not ready to replace it with a ford yet and the extended warranty has several months and about 7000 miles left on it til it hits the big 100k and like i said before - now theyve pissed me off. ill take this thing in if it takes 100 visits. ive got the time and ive got the annoyance and these guys were gonna fix this thing. well shit!!!!!!! i spoke too soon...... yup as of yesterday afternoon the check engine light is back on...... again...... so monday it goes back in for the sixth visit...... like i said ive got the time and these bloodsuckers got to toake the money once... now theyre gonna fix this thing if it takes 20 visits... at their expense. and 20 rental cars at their expense. unless dodge is a whole lot different than ford the dealer is gonna have a hell of a time convincing the factory warranty monitors that all these problems werent misdiagnosed! and an even harder time getting the factory to pay for the continued screwups... then again this is a 5-star dealer!!!!!!!! .

From : tbone

do you not know that an explosion can be a form of rapid combustion it can be but an ic engine burns fuel it doesnt explode it. lol. yes it burns it rapidly like in an explosion. since an explosion can be a form of combustion the last internal combustion engine was probably produced a few seconds ago with more to come. the reason its called an internal combustion engine and not the captured explosion engine is because there is a difference. no it is called that because the explosion is caused by combustion and it is not the engine that explodes it is the air fuel mixture within the cylinders. sorry moron but it is very much an explosion although controlled that occurs during the combustion process. if the combustion is controlled its combustion if its uncontrolled its an explosion. please show me the printed definition that makes this claim. if you look up combustion it says the act or process of burning not bursting forth. and no definition of explosion states that they can only be uncontrolled and one form of an explosion is combustion. any way you look at it you are still wrong as usual. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : roy

lol if you havent figured it out from those that comment here a list would do little for your comprehension. lol iow you cant come up with one. besides your new pet budd the only one to make a comment was roy and it sounded more like he was calling you the class clown again. no tom that isnt really correct. id suggest you reread the comments i made on 9/17 a little more carefully. roy .

From : budd cochran

max340 wrote while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know but budd!!!!! physics explains it all doesnt it lol if it did there would never be any miracles. or is that why drag racers constantly have one guy who experiments and tries different mixtures of fuels to get the correct burn rate for any given combination of conditions i mean if its simple physics why isnt there a computer program/application that spits out the correct fuel mixture so they can just fill the tank hell if it was an explosion there would be no need to worry about flame propagation and flame fronts and preignition. exactly. an explosion is a virtually as far as common time measurement goes an instantaneous burn. but in an engine you would end up with what amounts to a fuel/air bomb. rather destructive to say the least. fuel dragster and funny car mechanics dont even worry about flame rate too much they just try to get as much volume burning in the cylinders as possible within the short time period the closed valves allow. thats why you see the 8-10 foot flames from the headers on night races. budd .

From : aguy

on fri 26 sep 2003 153654 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote on fri 26 sep 2003 143141 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote max340 wrote well dude you otta know. you about as funny a car mechanic as there is. funny bizarre that is. you know what i mean. oh and roy sorry for the mindless comment. i just cant help myself. that wasnt bad. no apology needed dont even worry about flame rate ill let this pass thats a joke roy but its hard. no no no never pass on the opportunity for a cheap shot. ok thanks. thats pretty much my mantra im afraid. hey are we becoming friends .

From : aguy

on fri 26 sep 2003 143141 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote max340 wrote while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know but budd!!!!! physics explains it all doesnt it lol if it did there would never be any miracles. or is that why drag racers constantly have one guy who experiments and tries different mixtures of fuels to get the correct burn rate for any given combination of conditions i mean if its simple physics why isnt there a computer program/application that spits out the correct fuel mixture so they can just fill the tank hell if it was an explosion there would be no need to worry about flame propagation and flame fronts and preignition. exactly. an explosion is a virtually as far as common time measurement goes an instantaneous burn. but in an engine you would end up with what amounts to a fuel/air bomb. rather destructive to say the least. fuel dragster and funny car mechanics well dude you otta know. you about as funny a car mechanic as there is. funny bizarre that is. you know what i mean. oh and roy sorry for the mindless comment. i just cant help myself. dont even worry about flame rate ill let this pass thats a joke roy but its hard. too much they just try to get as much volume burning in the cylinders as possible within the short time period the closed valves allow. thats why you see the 8-10 foot flames from the headers on night races. budd .

From : tbone

max340 wrote while explosions are a form of combustion it has no place in a gasoline engine. the fuel/air mixture burns extremely rapidly it does not explode mr. automotive genius. is this one of the basic things about engines you claim i dont know but budd!!!!! physics explains it all doesnt it lol if it did there would never be any miracles. do you and maxi now own and operate miracle engines lol. oh hell who am i kidding if they still run with the two of you are their mechanics it must be a miracle. or is that why drag racers constantly have one guy who experiments and tries different mixtures of fuels to get the correct burn rate for any given combination of conditions i mean if its simple physics why isnt there a computer program/application that spits out the correct fuel mixture so they can just fill the tank hell if it was an explosion there would be no need to worry about flame propagation and flame fronts and preignition. exactly. an explosion is a virtually as far as common time measurement goes an . oh really please show where that exact definition is located. but even with your lame definition a two cycle

From : denny

im usually friendly to everyone until messed with. this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g denny .

From : roy

im usually friendly to everyone until messed with. this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g eating a huge handful of carrots. vbg roy denny .

From : max340

lol iow you cant come up with one. besides your new pet budd the only one to make a comment was roy and it sounded more like he was calling you the class clown again. no tom that isnt really correct. id suggest you reread the comments i made on 9/17 a little more carefully. oops thats gonna leave a mark........ max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g no no elmer mumbled bugs just chewed on his carrot..... max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! .

From : max340

on sat 27 sep 2003 005744 gmt roy batty tyrell@mac.com wrote 99 ram van 5.9l right signal is clicking and flashing at what seems exactly twice normal rate. left signal is normal speed. the blinker module is in the left dash fuse area and both blinkers appear to be run by the same module. one thing that is maybe a clue i dunno - back when i owned a car whenever i had a trailer hooked up to the car and the trailer tail lights spliced into my cars system the blinkers would blink at twice their normal speed. must have had something to do with the added load. anyway not a thing thats a real serious issue but curious. what does a blinker module cost if that needs replacing what say you my guess would be a bad bulb or a flasher on the way out... i had a cougar that started flashing faster on one side and it was the flasher unit... .

From : denny

no no elmer mumbled bugs just chewed on his carrot..... max and another name gets added to the easter egg list... g anyone else remember the bugs bunny episode where he encountered the spoiled brat that was hollering i wanna easter egg i wanna easter egg!!! max i have add and my friends dont understand look!! a chicken!!! i know im not old enough to remember those old cartoons. i dont know about all the other geezers in here........ denny .

From : tbone

why not all the stores already have their christmas decorations for sale. they should be decorated within a week. talk about killing the spirit of the season. and they wonder why they get less sales every year. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving im usually friendly to everyone until messed with. this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g eating a huge handful of carrots. vbg better cut the shit. im getting ready for easter. remember denny easter just a tad early arent ya roy .

From : roy

im usually friendly to everyone until messed with. this is the one that im just gonna keep my mouth shut on.. just walk away mumbling to myself. g eating a huge handful of carrots. vbg better cut the shit. im getting ready for easter. remember denny easter just a tad early arent ya roy .