T-Bonehead, the math whiz

From : transurgeon

Q: how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% yep 100% correct. - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

Replies:

From : tbone

i have a new power wagon and was wondering if anyone out there knew what the tire pressure is supposed to be. normally tires just say the max pressure but this one does not come right out and say it. there are 2 lines that say something like max cold 65 psi but what does that mean i checked mine the day it arrived at the dealer on the way home and they were all 40 psi and the tires seem very firm. i am towing a 27 ft travel trailer all the way from alberta to southern california and back and i want to be correct on my tire pressures. i dont feel confident asking the dealer. they will just tell me what they think and not what they know. any other pw owners or tire experts out that know there is a sticker in the drivers door jam that tells the recommended psi.. denny .

From : tom lawrence

final update - the head wrench called to let me know that the keeper pin in the limited slip had failed which allowed the disks to move around and wear out. likely that was the metal that caused the bearings to fail after only 89000 miles. so i get a rebuilt rear end new disks new bearing same old ring and pinion for a grand. if it works im happy. phil .

From : max dodge

i have this 01 dakota with ....would someone please tell me what this error is....and possible remedies......thx... and what is a pcm i learned chemistry in school and not dodge truck 2001 4.7 53k miles thanks for all of your help and sorry for the repost .

From : doc

with regards to k&n all dirt issues aside most people forget all about volumetric efficiency with regard to an air filters cfm rate. does k&n outflow most paper filters hell yes. a certain mustang site would disagree with you. how accurate or recent their testing is unknown to me at this point. however a standard wix or purolator paper filter specicific to a particular vehicle is capable of delivering more air than the engine can use assuming 100% volumetric efficiency. since most gas engines operate nowhere near 100% ve most are closer to 60-70% the paper filters are capable of delivering more air than the engine can realistically use. so in comes k&n with its higher cfm ratings compared to paper and what do you have unuseable air. sure it flows more cfm but the engine physically cant use it assuming its naturally aspirated. exactly. now toss in that extra 1% of dirt or 150% or angular velocity wtf were we talking about again oh yeah uhhhhh...........hmmmmmmm......... not sure it changes so often with tbone its hard to figure he knows what hes talking about let alone knowing what he is saying about that which he is talking. and as ive also said before its a matter of amusing myself by watching tbone spin his ass into a tizzy trying to show us how much he knows. in this case while his basic idea might be one view his math sucks ass. you speak the truth good sir! as do you. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. and what is being measured started with a value of 100% but you are attempting to use new values to make your point. 2% is only 1% more than 3% when the denominator of all three points is the same. youve been listen to gary blabber so long your starting to believe him. jerry its simply looking at the part of the situation that makes the most impact on an engine. many people want to know how much got filtered out. since its what gets in that is of interest to me i prefer to look at the other side of the equation. k&n would have you believe that they are right up there with the best and perhaps they are. but the truth is they let more dirt in and do little else. as ive said before its pretty much the owners decision. with regards to k&n all dirt issues aside most people forget all about volumetric efficiency with regard to an air filters cfm rate. does k&n outflow most paper filters hell yes. however a standard wix or purolator paper filter specicific to a particular vehicle is capable of delivering more air than the engine can use assuming 100% volumetric efficiency. since most gas engines operate nowhere near 100% ve most are closer to 60-70% the paper filters are capable of delivering more air than the engine can realistically use. so in comes k&n with its higher cfm ratings compared to paper and what do you have unuseable air. sure it flows more cfm but the engine physically cant use it assuming its naturally aspirated. now toss in that extra 1% of dirt or 150% or angular velocity wtf were we talking about again oh yeah uhhhhh...........hmmmmmmm......... and as ive also said before its a matter of amusing myself by watching tbone spin his ass into a tizzy trying to show us how much he knows. in this case while his basic idea might be one view his math sucks ass. you speak the truth good sir! doc /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. max dodge wrote no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. yup expressed as a percentage thats 150% soooooo 3% / 2% = 150% or 50% more than the original amount. sooooo if the original amount was 2% of the whole and we now let 3% of the whole its 50% more. the only thing fuzzy here is t-bones ability to look at whats being measured. and what is being measured started with a value of 100% but you are attempting to use new values to make your point. 2% is only 1% more than 3% when the denominator of all three points is the same. youve been listen to gary blabber so long your starting to believe him. jerry .

From : max dodge

http//utilityoffroad.com/forum/topic.asptopicid=4526 er 4x4 although it doesnt much look like it in the pictures. im thinking a tire upgrade is in order. -- nathan w. collier http//7slotgrille.com http//utilityoffroad.com .

From : mike simmons

that was not me again this time it was you. i simply said that you and gary use the percentages in a misleading manor and the only thing that really matters is what each filter lets in relative to the total volume of dirt if youre so damned concerned about what each filter lets in relative to the total volume of dirt then why do you deny that the k$n lets in 50% more than the oem i deny no such thing. i simply said and will continue to say that it is a meaningless value used by people like yourself to deceive. the only thing that really matters is that it filters within the required specifications. remember bonehead 3% / 2% = 150% does this make you feel better gary that you got me on a mickey mouse math error. did you figure out how a tc works yet or do i need to explain it to you again -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

my 99 ram 2500 has a short its drawing power from somewhere and killing the battery. . i have 220000 miles on the body. do you think the ignition is to blame if not possible solutionsplease help me.! i had a similar problem once it was the cable from the battery to the starter. it looked good but when i cut it in half it was green and junkified tm. the green oxidation over the years had built up resistance in the cable and would drain the battery in a few days. i tried everything else first. if you havent change the cable yet it might be the cause. -- moparman---remove clothes to reply! --scud coordinates 32.61204 north 96.92993 west-- .

From : arkcal

this tends to be caused by a clock spring failure. what model and year is the vehicle -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving the airbag light came on for an unknown reason in our truck and was wondering if any of you mechanics could help out with an answer on why and also how to fix it .

From : roy

user1686 wrote well we got the ram back... the shudder and noise turned out to be rear end again... last year when we had the horrible howling noise the dealer replace all the seals bearings etc. but not clutches or gears.. several of the folks here said that the gears should have been replaced also.. they opened the pumpkin and found metal in the oil again and this time did it right... new pinion etc... and also admitted that they should have done this the first time... even extended our warranty to cover rear end for another year.. it turns out that the new service manager found that there was a parts advisory in the computer that wasnt on the invoice calling for new gears... it seems to work great now and they didnt even try to get the $100 per occurrence charge on the extended warranty... and they even remembered to put the lsd additive in! thanks for the help folks!! mac please remove splinters before emailing sounds like a good dealer that stands behind their work. generally when bearing are worn bad enough to require changing them the gears should be changed because they will likely be worn too. the thing is that changing the gears especially the pinion add a whole new level of difficulty that most would rather avoid if possible. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

actually a lever creates torque yes it does when a force is applied to it. please show me where i said it did it all by itself. that line above says a lever creates torque. yep but it doesnt say it does it woutout input. 1 it creates nothing. wrong. if this were true then an engine could not create anything either since its crankshaft is a lever. 2 it changes direction of a force. actually it creates a torque 3 it cannot create energy force or anything else. you really dont have a clue. enough said im done. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

sorry max but you are the true master od semantics. in order for the converter to even get its name it has to convert or produce something. yes it converts no it does not produce. said that before. was wrong then still wrong now. that is one error for you. lol now you are lying to cover your lack of knowledge. 50 more points for me. lying about what this is getting old. the transmission also both transmitts but also converts and changes which also has it producing something thats two wrong for you. no it converts or changes it does not produce. again you are grasping at straws. you cant convert or change without producing something new. you are still wrong and getting becoming boring as well. and converting is just another way of producing something. thanks for agreeing with me. nope thats wrong. prove it - try again and i get more points for making you post more crap. as i do with you but i have more than enough points now. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : mike simmons

ill leave you to decide which is which whilst i attend to more important things like rearranging my sock drawer. mike ill bite.. how do you arrange your sock drawer by color by how thin the heel is sniff test curious minds need to know.... denny .

From : jerry

if it is reading high it can cause your mileage to drop because the computer will think that you are running lean and richen the mixture to the max.. they are available at most auto parts stores -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i would assume that with a bad o2 sensor it would decrease my mileage any recommendations on the best place to get a replacement tbone wrote if it is the downstream sensor then it could be indicating a bad converter. but bank 1 sensor 1 indicates that it is an upstream o2 sensor and would not be able to indicate the converters condition. -- get a free apple mini mac http//www.freeminimacs.com/r=14466563 .

From : jerry

really how about where you said youll notice they specifically say applies to new cars and mention nothing about used vehicles. you were the one that specifically mentioned used cars not me. i thought that you were trying to make a particular point on something that i may have missed but now i see that you are just being an asshole. no tom - im not being an asshole at least im not trying to be. i will 100% guarantee that you were first to bring up the new vs. used point. its all here in this thread but im going to consolidate and heavily paraphrase for the sake of brevity - all the previous posts are right here in this thread if you care to fact-check it down to the relevant portions. tb thats you claimed or asserted or asked - whatever that a lemon law claim could help the owner of a 2000 ram with an apparent habitual problem. gg thats gary points out in his own unique way that youre incorrect tl thats me says that lemon laws are restricted to the first 2-3 years depending on the state. gives an example of njs laws. claims that no state extends ll coverage to 5 years tb re-claims that the warranty is in effect for 7 years so ll coverage should apply tl agrees with the concept of it should be covered under warranty but says it doesnt qualify for a ll claim. tb asks me please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon. note first time the concept of new car is brought up. tl posts a link to a site that says applies to new cars - as a direct response to your challenge of only a new car can become a lemon. tb argues that the op is the original owner so its not a used vehicle although no one ever claimed it was. tl claims tb is twisting things around... tb claims that i was the one who specifically mentioned used cars then calls me an asshole for it okay... now after looking through that i can see where the confusion came. when you said please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon i interpreted that as any car new or used can be a lemon. thats why when i posted the link i pointed out that it specifically said new and mentioned nothing about used. so if thats where the confusion originated and you didnt mean to imply that a used vehicle as opposed to new could be classified as a lemon then i apologize for making that inference although it seemed a pretty logical inference to make given the wording... oh - and i see youve resorted to name-calling... hmm... what was that you said about someone who does that lol it was not so much name calling as getting pissed for being lectured when i am already in agreement with you and then having to deal with garys childish actions on top of that well enough said. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

internal friction what exactly is frictioning how about the fluid both itself as well as its contact with the tc internals. youve got to be kidding me. 50 points to you if you can answer correctly 100 bonus points for explaining the path of the fluid path of the fluid lol now who is trying to change the subject to spin away from error. ill just add that 50 points to the thousands you have already gave me. looks like you cant answer either question. hint the fluid starts in the pan he he he. i knew he couldnt hes just tooeasy .

From : max dodge

gary is full of shit................. and the obligatory personal attack of course. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. max dodge wrote sorry trans....but if you go down to staples...im sure theyd be more than happy to sell you a calculator. the calculator would prove gary correct. 3/2 = 1.5 but 3% .03 / 2% .02 = 150% 1.5 some people need to realize that percentages are expressed differently when written as decimals. no they dont. the .03 and .02 are not a percentage of different whole portion or denominator. you can change a percentage to a decimal. you can divide add or multiply a decimal by a decimal but you cannot divide a percentage into a percentage. hoo boy ! this takes the f-ing cake decimal ........ a linear array of digits that represents a real number every decimal place indicating a multiple of a negative power of 10. for example the decimal 0.1 = 1/10 0.12 = 12/100 0.003 = 3/1000. also called decimal fraction. and this is relevant exactly why percentage ...... a fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example 0.98 equals a percentage of 98. no shit sherlock so when you change the 3% and 2% to a fraction/decimal with both from the same denominator you have created two new whole/denominators. wtf are you babbling about here from both with the same denominator to what gary is full of shit................. and the obligatory personal attack .

From : max dodge

are you still trying to pass of your stupidity as math........ a percentage is a certain proportion of a particular value. it always relies on 100% as the complete value and 0% as the non-existent value. therefore 200% is twice the complete value. to explain this an alloy may be 25% steel and 75% copper. therefore there is 3 times as much copper as there is steel. if an employee had a 200% increase in salary his salary would be 3 times as big. this is because he would have twice the complete value on top of his original salary. must not be able to find any little old ladies to rip off lately....... truly brilliant in the hypocrisy of it all. jerry whines about me coming just for an argument and then goes off and jumps in one for himself. must be a friggin amusement park. only i dont deny my motives. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. transurgeon wrote what part of 3% / 2% = 150% is wrong are you still trying to pass of your stupidity as math........ a percentage is a certain proportion of a particular value. it always relies on 100% as the complete value and 0% as the non-existent value. therefore 200% is twice the complete value. to explain this an alloy may be 25% steel and 75% copper. therefore there is 3 times as much copper as there is steel. if an employee had a 200% increase in salary his salary would be 3 times as big. this is because he would have twice the complete value on top of his original salary. must not be able to find any little old ladies to rip off lately....... jerry .

From : tbone

fair enough but that still doesnt change the fact this particular would fit within the lemon law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. yeah... and if my aunt had balls... does she bottom line - vehicle is too old - doesnt qualify under lemon law unless you can find me a state statute that extends lemon law protection to say 7 years and/or 70000 miles. fine. i thing that point has already been more than established. theres no almost qualifies or gee its so close... its black or white. it either does or it doesnt. in this particular case despite to your inference to the contrary it doesnt. is there a particular reason for you being such an asshole i simply said that it followed the general requirements as far as problems and attemps to repair to be covered under the lemon law and it does. i was unaware of specific state lenght of time requirements and thought that they covered the vehicle for the entire length of its warranty. now that i an aware of this limitation i am not arguing the point so what are you whining about. the part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same problem have been unsuccessful. we all agree that thats not right and can be addressed through other means. lemon law filings arent one of them. i am not saying that it is. i thought that it could be and now i know different so exactly what additional point are you trying to make -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : denny

unless i missed something which is entirely possible he is the origional owner of the vehicle so it is not a used vehicle unless you are indicating now youre twisting like a leaf... i said the lemon laws only applied to new vehicles. you said please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon. i did just that. now you want to spin it around to talk about original vs. second owners. i never said his truck was a used vehicle... my claim this whole time was that his vehicle was too old to qualify under a lemon law. really how about where you said youll notice they specifically say applies to new cars and mention nothing about used vehicles. you were the one that specifically mentioned used cars not me. i thought that you were trying to make a particular point on something that i may have missed but now i see that you are just being an asshole. now who is twisting like a leaf off of the lot and the law would apply to nobody. perhaps you might want to look at the third paragraph where it tlaks about the federal breech of warranty laws that also use the three repair attempt condition. even though the state lemon law might not help him the federal one might. but we werent talking about federal breech of contract laws... we specifically you were discussing lemon laws which are administered by the state and only apply for a limited amount of time to new vehicles in other words to the original owner. yea and your point is i simply made the comment based on your post that even though the state lemon laws will not help him the federal ones may. now i see that you are once again mentioning the original owner. unless the op in not the original owner perhaps you could tell me wtf that has to do with the discussion i simply gave a suggestion and i dont recall the handbook talking about any federal breach of warranty laws thats because they dont... because theyre not covered under lemon laws - which is what you initially suggested. you didnt even know the difference until you read the page that i linked for you. i dont recall saying that i did and i dont recall anything about any lemon law specifics either. it does mention in the fine print that certain states have some laws that can get your money back but no specifics imagine that. by the way - how is the restrictions of buyers remorse any more obvious than the limitations on the invocation of a lemon law claim because buyers remorse is what it is well who can argue with that definition.... it is what it is. fascinating... and your definition is smartass and usually doesnt appear years later but a warranty does last for years and a vehicle can become a lemon despite the industry definition at pretty much any time. wow... to hell with what the laws say... if i think something is so then its gotta be. where exactly did i say that or is this just another one of your half-assed interpretations yeah - you could refer to any vehicle at any point in its lifetime as a lemon - thats just a slang term. but when you start invoking lemon laws thats a specific legal remedy that has very specific restrictions placed on it so regardless of what you think or how you feel a 5-year old vehicle can not qualify for remediation under any states lemon law. period. end of story. the only person that you are arguing with is yourself. i simply made a suggestion and was told that there are limits on those laws and this vehicle didnt qualify. i dont recall arguing it or insisting that it did so wtf are you whining about -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

transurgeon wrote nope if you ask real nice ill give you a hint to where you wnt wrong otherwise ill carry out my promise of last week to just keep pointing out your errors for all to see damn tbone ............... just because i dont visit here very much lately doesnt mean you have to take my place in getting shade tree to cry and throw his tantrums for everyone. poor little fellow must have lost his pacifier again......... lol the sad thing it really just doesnt take much to get him going but it takes more than i have to get him to shut up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tb if the torque convertor and transmission are able to produce stuff can you come over and rig mine to produce beer while youre at it maybe you can tweak my differential to produce snuff as well...........that way when im out in the garage and want a beer and a dip i dont have to get out from under the truck. thanks pal! hey no problem bring that truck right over ill take care of it for you. you wont recognize it when im done. i never said that a tc and transmission can or does create power but they can and do create torque when needed. when you convert something are you not changing it when you change something have you not created something out of something else and if you have created something is that not a form of production and all of it can and is done without altering the power going in. you can listen to the spin masters if you want thats up to you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : denny

if the transmission could not produce anything there would be no need for it to exist. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. well as the name implies it transmits power it does more than that. it doesnt produce power correct and i never said that it did. thats the job of the engine. again correct but we are not talking about power we are talking about a specific component of power and that can be produced at the cost of the other component angular velocity. but the engine cannot transmit the power in the variety of ways its needed again correct because it cannot produce enough torque at the required rpms so the tc and transmission does it for the engine by reducing the higher rpm and producing added torque when needed. see i knew that we were on the same page. so there is a need for the transmission despite the fact that it produces nothing. now you fell on your face again. it does produce the required torque at the required time. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

where do you come up with these complete garbage. the converter / transmission combo does not lose anything so there is nothing to re-create. if thats correct then you are wrong about it producing anything as well. why it doesnt lose anything but it can and does waste some of the input power overcomming internal friction which results in it producing heat as well. now what were you saying hang on i think its a left turn right about ....... here! this line will be replaced by more tbone gibberish/spin just wait and see another sign that your argument is without merit and that should be what about 100 points for me. not that i need them with the huge boost gary has been giving me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

lol actually it is a measurement of angular velocity and anything that has a velocity contains energy which can be consumed or used to produce something else. rpms are just a unit of measure. you can jump on the semantics if you want but it really doesnt do much for your credibility. t-bone i understand you love these endless pissing matches and thats why i dont usually reply to your posts but youre heading down a really dark path if you try to compare your credibility in this group to mikes. dont go there.. denny .

From : max dodge

tb if the torque convertor and transmission are able to produce stuff can you come over and rig mine to produce beer while youre at it maybe you can tweak my differential to produce snuff as well...........that way when im out in the garage and want a beer and a dip i dont have to get out from under the truck. thanks pal! doc .

From : azwiley1

seems like he spends all day playing on the computer while his mommy is at work. beekeep .

From : tbone

yeah it was howling at me so i took it in and they said $1000 to $1500 depending on what they find when they take my 98 ram 5.9l 1500 slt laramies limited slip apart. boo hoo! only 89000 miles! phil .

From : max dodge

where do you come up with these complete garbage. the converter / transmission combo does not lose anything so there is nothing to re-create. if thats correct then you are wrong about it producing anything as well. hang on i think its a left turn right about ....... here! this line will be replaced by more tbone gibberish/spin just wait and see give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. in fact it loses about 4-8% as heat yep something else that the tc and trans can produce. so..........your latest claim is that a converter/transmission combo re-creates the lost energy out of nothing where do you come up with these complete garbage. the converter / transmission combo does not lose anything so there is nothing to re-create. it converts 4 - 8% of the energy it receives into heat. we call it a loss because that is not what we want done with the energy but your attempt at spin and i really hope that it is spin did little to change the subject. the fact is that it does produce heat as well as torque from the energy being put into it and you have yet to prove anything different. but keep trying it is most entertaining. you really are a tool and you really are a fool. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

yep something else that the tc and trans can produce. so..........your latest claim is that a converter/transmission combo re-creates the lost energy out of nothing you really are a tool dammit garys up by 50 points again. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. in fact it loses about 4-8% as heat yep something else that the tc and trans can produce. so..........your latest claim is that a converter/transmission combo re-creates the lost energy out of nothing you really are a tool .

From : max dodge

it was a simple math error gary get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. the tc produces torque and consumes hp in the form of rpm to do it. no laws were violated there is no magic here. lol um better not forget that the formula for hp it might help ya here...... -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. it was a simple math error gary get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. the tc produces torque and consumes hp in the form of rpm to do it. no laws were violated there is no magic here. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving you flunked percentages and fractions in 4th grade didnt you 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

sorry max but you are the true master od semantics. in order for the converter to even get its name it has to convert or produce something. yes it converts no it does not produce. said that before. that is one error for you. lol now you are lying to cover your lack of knowledge. 50 more points for me. the transmission also both transmitts but also converts and changes which also has it producing something thats two wrong for you. no it converts or changes it does not produce. again you are grasping at straws. and converting is just another way of producing something. thanks for agreeing with me. nope thats wrong. try again and i get more points for making you post more crap. .

From : max dodge

im not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. you cant just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a k&n. the 98% figure for paper and the 97% figure for k&n came from k&ns website and are from testing they claim to have run. if youd like to dispute those two figures youll have to find a place that did an objective test on the k&n. however having looked for such testing in the past youll likely find what i did and that is that k&n does not filter as well as a good paper filter. i know a mustang site did a very comprehensive flow/filtration test on a number of different filters of two basic styles cannister and flat element. they found the k&n to be mid pack on both styles and worse than a couple of the well known brands. good luck in your search. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. the fallacy in mds statements are the numbers he begin with. k&ns efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. he conveniently chose the low end for his math. paper filters are all over the board. even though you cant see any holes some of them are as bad as 93%. im not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. you cant just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a k&n. .

From : max dodge

if the transmission could not produce anything there would be no need for it to exist. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. well as the name implies it transmits power. it doesnt produce power thats the job of the engine. but the engine cannot transmit the power in the variety of ways its needed so there is a need for the transmission despite the fact that it produces nothing. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. this coming from the one that cannot figure out that a transmission doesnt produce anything nor does it come forth with anything. if the transmission could not produce anything there would be no need for it to exist. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. keep digging. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. no he said converts rpm to torque hence the name torque convertor if yer gonna quote someone then you find out what they said. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : mike simmons

t-bone five years is patently ridiculous! first of all lemon laws vary from state to state there is no uniformity in time and mileage nor in the relief the consumer is entitled to. i am aware of that and that is why i asked the question but thanks for pointing out the obvious. secondly a lemon is commonly defined in the industry as a vehicle that for whatever reason has been improperly assembled and thus causes the owner an inordinate amount of aggravation in getting corrected. thank you for the industry definition. that make a few things clearer having said that a true lemon would exhibit its flaws early on in the ownership experience thus the reason for the time limit in state lemon laws. fair enough but that still doesnt change the fact this particular would fit within the lemon law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. the part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same problem have been unsuccessful. problems that occur later in the vehicles life can and many times do! occur due to the owners driving habits lack of maintenance etc. which im sure hmmmm maybe not! even you would agree are not the manufacturers responsibility. if the failure occurs do to the above conditions then yes i do agree but that has nothing to do with the problem here. the problem here is that they have been unable to fix the problem after repeated attempts even though the part is still under warrantee and they are responsible to make whatever repairs they do perform correctly or make good to the customer in some way. do you not agree i agree that they have an obligation to the customer to make things right. i was just pointing out the fallacy of your previous suggestion that he persue the lemon law. it doesnt apply in this case. mike -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

mroberds@worldnet.att.net wrote is there some vital function for these rubber bands or are they just an installation aid never did figure out what they ware for but i got done with the brake job and tested it around town and on the freeway and it stops well. it should... one of the old front calipers was completely frozen! the van has just been on a trip from oklahoma to indiana and performed well so i guess the rubber bands arent vital. matt roberds .

From : transurgeon

actually a lever creates torque yes it does when a force is applied to it. please show me where i said it did it all by itself. right up there a lever creates torque lol you are really not very good at semantics arguments but now that you bring it up unless the fulcrum is centered on the lever the force of gravity alone will cause it to produce torque. are you really this desperate unless you can show me where i specifically stated that it can produce torque without input of any kind you are just desperately reaching and making an ass out of yourself. a lever is a simple machine that converts or creates torque at the pivot point when a force is applied to the lever. you do know that a crankshaft is also a lever being acted on by the connecting rods and producing torque from that right no response here gary i wonder why not. because i dont respond to attempts to side-track the current discussion how is it changing the discussion poor attempt at spin there gary but dont worry we all know the truth and your level of desperation when you admit your fuck-up over a lever creates torque then ill move on to your crankshaft thing and demolish it too no need to since levers do create torque and until you prove otherwise you are once again full of it. hint better start proof-reading before you post bonehead bonehead huh sorry max you have no chance of catching up to me now. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more jesus mary and joseph you are one dense fuck you really need to relax gary this level of temper is not healthy. it is ok to admit that you might be wrong every now and then you will feel much better. i said several posts ago the torque converter changes high-rpm /l ow torque horsepower input to low rpm / high torque horsepower output so you are saying that it converts rpm to torque. well that sounds like it producing torque to me. glad you could admit to your error here. no i said converts how exactly does it convert it if it reduces rpm and builds torque then it is producing more torque at the cost of rpm. and i never said that the transmission increases torque that was your spin on it that is because it can and has nothing to do with spin. im just glad to be able to help you further your career with knowledge. you really need to go to the public library and find chiltons # 7412 automatic transmoission repair manual and read the chapter on torque converter operation i know how they work. that is not the issue. what is the issue is that nothing can increase something without producing more of it regardless of the method. so............youre into perpetual motion machines now this silly ritual of declaring yourself the winner of arguements in the face of overwhelming evidence ot the contrary is getting tiresome hahahahahaha look who is talking. yup im calling you a lying waste of oxygen who spins his ass off when he cant back up what he said .

From : snoman

actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. you really do want another ass-kicking dont you please tell us how a simple lever with no outside influences can create torque go ahead braniac impress us lol do you really like being an idiot where did i say no outside force was needed. right here actually a lever creates torque yes it does when a force is applied to it. please show me where i said it did it all by itself. right up there a lever creates torque a lever is a simple machine that converts or creates torque at the pivot point when a force is applied to the lever. you do know that a crankshaft is also a lever being acted on by the connecting rods and producing torque from that right no response here gary i wonder why not. because i dont respond to attempts to side-track the current discussion when you admit your fuck-up over a lever creates torque then ill move on to your crankshaft thing and demolish it too hint better start proof-reading before you post bonehead -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on thu 23 jun 2005 005539 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. nope. it cannot produce torque anymore than it can create it. it can however transmit it. hence the name transmission. thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. btw i think roget can help you with your problem understanding create and produce as being pretty much the same in the context which you used them. -- .

From : tom lawrence

so what the powertrain has 10 years or100000 miles since when this isnt a hyundai... or was that kia .

From : max dodge

sorry max but the percentage thing isnt the subject of the thread. but hey ill admit that i wasnt paying attention and got the percentage thing wrong as far as the 3% / 2% thing wrong big deal. the fuzzy math thing is still correct and is also not the subject of the thread at least not the intended subject. the actual subject was garys attack on a poster about being accurate on the inability of production of torque from a transmission and then went on to prove himself wrong. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving as is your defeat in the actual thread subject. tbone wins!!! he gets the tbone math answer as his share of the goods.....so lets see.... 3% / 2% = 1.5% gary will get the real math share at..... 3% / 2% = 150% winner tbone.... wait um..... tbone ya wanna calculate that again -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. ignoramus13822 ignoramus13822@nospam.13822.invalid wrote in message on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. lol and i made that same argument more than once my mistake. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i know that but a percentage of a percentage is just fuzzy math. i never said that the math was incorrect which is something that gary just doesnt seem to get. it is called fuzzy math because it doesnt always accurately represent a given situation. small percentages can sometimes reflect huge numeric differences and microscopic differences can be reflected with huge percentages both of which can deceive the person reading them especially if the percentage is all that they see. no you wrote 3% / 2% = 1.5 % you really need to stop digging its not helping and you really need to stop proving my point. like i said when you think that you are right you fight like hell even to the point of starting all new threads on the subject. where are the threads or even responses on the origional quadcab thread point made conversation over. your surrender is noted as is your defeat in the actual thread subject. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

wrong again max. you can produce something without creating it. not really and the trans cant either. so unless its a produce stand its not producing without actually making creating building assembling growing etc..... when someone produces a deck of cards at the weekend poker game he didnt create them he just brought them forth. the trans doesnt bring forth a damn thing. pretty much the same thing the tc and trans do with torque when needed. nope not the same thing at all. the convertor converts and the transmission transmits they dont produce bring forth build grow make assemble or otherwise do anything they merely transfer power. im thinking brother maynard should bring forth the holy hand grenade for you. with your understanding of number value youd count to 3 stop and continue with 6 never knowing why the damn thing went off in your hands. then all wed have to worry about is the horrible beast with the long ears and sharp pointy teeth. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. nope. it cannot produce torque anymore than it can create it. it can however transmit it. hence the name transmission. btw i think roget can help you with your problem understanding create and produce as being pretty much the same in the context which you used them. wrong again max. you can produce something without creating it. when someone produces a deck of cards at the weekend poker game he didnt create them he just brought them forth. pretty much the same thing the tc and trans do with torque when needed. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

as is your defeat in the actual thread subject. tbone wins!!! he gets the tbone math answer as his share of the goods.....so lets see.... 3% / 2% = 1.5% gary will get the real math share at..... 3% / 2% = 150% winner tbone.... wait um..... tbone ya wanna calculate that again -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. ignoramus13822 ignoramus13822@nospam.13822.invalid wrote in message on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. lol and i made that same argument more than once my mistake. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i know that but a percentage of a percentage is just fuzzy math. i never said that the math was incorrect which is something that gary just doesnt seem to get. it is called fuzzy math because it doesnt always accurately represent a given situation. small percentages can sometimes reflect huge numeric differences and microscopic differences can be reflected with huge percentages both of which can deceive the person reading them especially if the percentage is all that they see. no you wrote 3% / 2% = 1.5 % you really need to stop digging its not helping and you really need to stop proving my point. like i said when you think that you are right you fight like hell even to the point of starting all new threads on the subject. where are the threads or even responses on the origional quadcab thread point made conversation over. your surrender is noted as is your defeat in the actual thread subject. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

ignoramus13822 ignoramus13822@nospam.13822.invalid wrote in message on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. lol and i made that same argument more than once my mistake. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i know that but a percentage of a percentage is just fuzzy math. i never said that the math was incorrect which is something that gary just doesnt seem to get. it is called fuzzy math because it doesnt always accurately represent a given situation. small percentages can sometimes reflect huge numeric differences and microscopic differences can be reflected with huge percentages both of which can deceive the person reading them especially if the percentage is all that they see. no you wrote 3% / 2% = 1.5 % you really need to stop digging its not helping and you really need to stop proving my point. like i said when you think that you are right you fight like hell even to the point of starting all new threads on the subject. where are the threads or even responses on the origional quadcab thread point made conversation over. your surrender is noted .

From : max dodge

trey wrote given this countrys eating habits... it could be detrimental to the publics health.. since people will be driving along someone in a fry-oil burner will pass them and then they will want to go get fries. great marketing for the fast food chains though. i dont think that it has anything to do with particles. potatoes have oils as well and some of it must leach out into the cooking oil. when i worked at the drive-in as a cook god that was a long time ago we had a few deep fryers and the one used for fries could only be used for fries. if you fried anything else in it it would taste sort of like french fries and the fries afterward would taste like crap until you changed the oil. i would assume many things have oils that will exchange with the cooking oil and youwill not be able to get it out but on the good side many say that it actually smells good unlike diesel -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving could something like that be filtered out how small are these particles im sure little bits of potato cant be all that good for the engine. i would think that it is the residual smell from the food that was cooked in the used oil. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving there recently were two stories in the connecticut press about burning used cooking oil the first was a woman who was burning waste cooking oil from chinese restrauants... all positive press the second was two- three weeks ago where a guy in winsted ct had converted his vw bug to burn waste cooking oil and a black bear trashed the rear window to get to the oil smell. picture in the paper showed a car i wouldnt wantto drive tochurch in on sunday but he supossedly got great milage when th think heated up and he converted from disel to french fry oil. the down side is his neighbors complained whenever he came home because everyone ended up smelling like they worked at bugger king. jem could the smell be from the oil not burning hot enough or is that just the inherent smell of cooking oil it would be interesting to see a comparison between used cooking oil and fresh cooking oil. it definitely smells different. i put b20 in my truck for the first time and not only does it run better it smells better. .

From : tbone

great way to earn money - read now!!!!! how to turn $6.00 into $6000.00!!!!!!!! read this now it could change your life it did mine!! i found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. a little while back i was browsing through groups just like you are now and came across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of $5.00! so i thought yeah right this must be a scam but like most of us i was curious so i kept reading. always it said that you send $1.00 to each of 6 names and addresses stated in the article. you then place your own name and address in the bottom of the list at #6 and post the article to at least 200 groups there are thousands. no catch that was it. so after thinking it over and talking to a few people first i thought about trying it i figured what have i got to loose accept 6 stamps and $6.00 right then i invested the measly $6.00. well guess what!!!....within 7 days i started getting money in the mail! i was shocked! i figured it would end soon but the money just kept coming in. in my first week i made about $25.00. by the end of the second week i had made a total of over $1000.00!!! in the third week i had over $10000.00 and its still growing. this is now my forth week and i have made a total of just over $42000.00 and its still coming in rapidly. its certainly worth 6 stamps and $6.00; i have spent more than that on the lottery!! let me tell you how this works and most importantly why it works.....also make sure you print a copy of this article now so you can get the information off of it as you need it. i promise you that if you follow the directions exactly that you will start making more money than you thought possible by doing something so easy!! suggestion read this entire message carefully! print it out or download it follow the simple directions and watch the money comes in! its easy its legal. and your investment is only 6 stamps and $6.00. important this is not a rip off it is not indecent and it is not illegal and it is virtually no risk - it really works! if all the following instructions are adhered to you will receive extraordinary dividends. p.l.e.a.s.e note please follow these directions exactly and $50000.00 or more can be yours in 20 to 60 days. this program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants. please continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. you will now become part of the mail order business. in this business your product is not solid and tangible its a service. you are in the business of developing mailing lists. many large corporations are happy to pay bug bucks for quality list. however the money made from the mailing list is secondary to the income ehuch is made from people like you and me asking to be included in that list. here are the 4 easy steps to success step 1 get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper please put me on your mailing list. now get 6 us $1.00 bills and place one inside each of the 6 pieces of paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope to prevent theft. next place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. you should now have 6 sealed envelopes each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase your name and address and a $1.00 bill. what you are doing is creating a service. this is absolutly legal!!! you are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it! like most of us u was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspect of it all. so i checked it out with the u.s. post office 1-800-725-2161 and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses. 1. r. overton p.o. box 188818 so lake tahoe ca 96151 2. kevin lee 8377 apt. 1 montgomery run rd. ellicott city md 21043 3. stephanie hicks 1283 evening canyon henderson vn 89014 4. s. george 130 goshawk walk covington ga 30014 5. tristan jorgenson 4564 s. harrison blvd apt 14 ogden ut 84403 6.j. hammer 19538 145th ave e yelm wa 98597 step 2 now take the #1 name off the list that you see above move the other names up 6t becomes 5 5 becomes 4 etc.... and add your name as number 6 on the list. step 3 change anything you need to but try to keep this article as close to the original as possible. now post your amended article to at least 200 groups. i think there are close to 24000 groups. all you need is 200 but remember the more you post the more money you make! this is perfectly legal! if you have any doubt refer to title 18 sec. 1302 & 1341 of the postal lottery laws. keep a copy of these seeps for yourself and whenever you need money you can use it again and again. please remember that this program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the di

From : carolina watercraft works

on wed 22 jun 2005 182258 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote yes but now you are doing conversions. you are converting from a percent to a whole number and that in itself makes it fuzzy. thats not so. percentages are not fuzzy. 1 definition a percent is 1/100. 1/100 of what. sounds fuzzy to me. 2 definition one percent of something is that something multiplied by 1/100. please define something. still sounds a bit fuzzy. therefore a percent of a percent is 1/100 multiplied by 1/100 or 1/10000 or 0.01%. but what does this equate to in the real world oh yea nothing. for example 20% of 20% is 20/100 multiplied by 20/100 or 400/10000 or 4/100 or 4%. 4% of what and in relation to what sorry still fuzzy. all of the above is defined quite precisely and there is no degree of fuzziness. it is not so much in the definition as it is in the usage. if percentages are given without the numbers that they are derived form they can be nothing but fuzzy. i hope that you realize that all percentages are fuzzy by nature because they dont truly represent anything other than a ratio and when you divide multiple percentages you even further distort the truth. percentages are a simple pre-algebra notion and are quite simply and precisely defined. and in their simplicity they can be used in the most fuzzy of manors. i can say a 150% increase which sounds huge but in reality could be very small. its the words such as huge and small that are fuzzy not the idea of a percent or a percentage change. unless you know what the percentage of change is in relation to it is every bit as fuzzy. i could get a 150% pay increase and if i were a corporate exec stealing $10000000 a year it in fact would be huge but if i was only making minimum wage i would still barely be making enough to put food on the table. that is interesting but has little to do with the precise definition of a percent. sure it does amd is a perfect example of why they can be fuzzy or used in a misleading manor. .

From : tom lawrence

and the other wheels were chalked with what no matter what the color i dont think chaulk chalk would do much to hold a vehicle. wheel chocks on the other hand would be a very good idea .

From : tbone

i just bought a 2005 power wagon 2500. i have only driven it 200 km on the highway now since i got it a few days ago and the computer says i am getting 11.8 mpg. this sounds really bad. my window sticker did not show an epa rating and when i called the dealer they just said that it will get the same as the 1500 with hemi with to me sounds like a quit bullshit answer. anybody else out there driving a 2500 ram with hemi that can tell me what kind of city/hwy gas mileage i can expect i imagine that the gas mileage will increase after break in period of the truck right i am also planning on towing a 5500 lb dry travel trailer across country with it and was hoping for 10 mpg with that but if it is 11.8 mpg with no load i am concerned ! you bought a big truck with a advertised hi-performance engine. what the heck did you expect you might pick up a couple mpg when it loosens up a bit and when you start to drive like you have a egg under the gas pedal. what you have is pretty much what you are going to get. i still dont understand why people buy something as large as a full size truck and with such horrible aerodynamics a big engine 355 or 410s and then bitch about horrible mileage. roy .

From : tbone

yea depending on if they think it needs new gears or not. welcome to the wonderful world of the pos dc 9 1/4 rear. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving yeah it was howling at me so i took it in and they said $1000 to $1500 depending on what they find when they take my 98 ram 5.9l 1500 slt laramies limited slip apart. boo hoo! only 89000 miles! phil .

From : tbone

most of mds statements are a fallacy and if you hang around here long enough you will see that. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving the fallacy in mds statements are the numbers he begin with. k&ns efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. he conveniently chose the low end for his math. paper filters are all over the board. even though you cant see any holes some of them are as bad as 93%. im not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. you cant just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a k&n. .

From : the guy

on wed 22 jun 2005 145431 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired sorry gary that would be you. since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 it wouldnt but what does this have to do with anything. these two numbers will always = 1.5 when divided this way regardless or the units or the size provided that they are the same iow .0000003 / .0000002 = 1.5 just like 3000000 / 2000000 = 1.5. the reason that it is fuzzy math is because you are playing with the units to make the equation say what you want it too rather than the actual value of 1.5 iow fuzzy math. perhaps a better defense would be the battery must have been low in my slide rule. just let it go and dr. greasemonkey will think he is the superior intellect. then he will disapear for awhile while he reads thousands of posts looking for a mistake or typo so he can do it all over again and give his selfesteem a boost. i see what you mean. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

t-bone five years is patently ridiculous! first of all lemon laws vary from state to state there is no uniformity in time and mileage nor in the relief the consumer is entitled to. i am aware of that and that is why i asked the question but thanks for pointing out the obvious. secondly a lemon is commonly defined in the industry as a vehicle that for whatever reason has been improperly assembled and thus causes the owner an inordinate amount of aggravation in getting corrected. thank you for the industry definition. that make a few things clearer having said that a true lemon would exhibit its flaws early on in the ownership experience thus the reason for the time limit in state lemon laws. fair enough but that still doesnt change the fact this particular would fit within the lemon law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. the part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same problem have been unsuccessful. problems that occur later in the vehicles life can and many times do! occur due to the owners driving habits lack of maintenance etc. which im sure hmmmm maybe not! even you would agree are not the manufacturers responsibility. if the failure occurs do to the above conditions then yes i do agree but that has nothing to do with the problem here. the problem here is that they have been unable to fix the problem after repeated attempts even though the part is still under warrantee and they are responsible to make whatever repairs they do perform correctly or make good to the customer in some way. do you not agree -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on thu 23 jun 2005 085625 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote wow this reminds me of the great aadt k&n filter debate!!!! years later and it is still going on. damn oh yeah. yawn. tbone wrote as harry potter would say mischief managed. lol quoting a kids movie as support! too funny. .

From : mike simmons

you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. wrong again yes you are but we are used to it. a torque converter converts horsepower from high-rpm / low-torque to low-rpm / high-torque and by the conversion produces more torque. converts and uses the conversion to produce something http//www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/produce look at definition 2 come to have or undergo a change now i may be wrong but a conversion is a change. not produces wrong it doesnt create but it can produce a change or conversion wait you already said that. sigh i guess im gonna have to do the entire hp - torque - rpm equation thing this evening..........not that it will help any the entire equation lol. how about power hp = torquelbf-ft * angular speed.rpm / 5252. now there are other derivations of this equation and this one does not take loss into account but it serves the purpose here. now since power at any given point has to remain constant if you reduce the rpm the torque must go up so far so good.............. and the only way that can happen is to produce more of it. and then you fall flat on your ass again no that would be you. while the production is being done by a simple mechanical advantage it is still being done. its not production idiot its conversion if you increase something you are producing more of it regardless of the method. god you are soooooo fucking dumb................................. pkb -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

lol keep daydreaming. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. but earlier you said it was 1.5% which is .015. yea i said that like once maybe twice and was wrong. you want me to do a google search and find out exactly how many times you let your fuck-up go uncorrected sure and why your at it start adding up a few of your own. after that i moved to a valid point about using percentages as a method of fuzzy math which is accurate to prove a point. wtf does this mean what it means is that although i did make an error and unlike you man enough to admit to it i let it go to prove a point and you a liar. i changed the discussion from the math error to the same old boring argument about people using percentages to mislead others. now you said that you stopped posting on the towing thread because i wasnt saying anything of value rather than you knowing that you were wrong so i decided to keep the nonsense going to see if you would stick to your word. not only did you continue to keep posting even though i really wasnt saying anything of real value on the percentage issue you actually created whole new threads about it so i guess that value has nothing to do with it. it is more the need to always be right at any cost and hide from even the simplest of errors. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

sure it does. it brings forth the torque it received from the tc which brings forth the torque it received from the engine. transmitts and brings forth mean pretty much the same thing here. nope. not at all. the converter converts and the transmission transmits nothing more nothing less. your usual grab at semantics to save your sorry knowledge base isnt working. sorry max but you are the true master od semantics. in order for the converter to even get its name it has to convert or produce something. that is one error for you. the transmission also both transmitts but also converts and changes which also has it producing something thats two wrong for you. nope not the same thing at all. the convertor converts really what does it convert and what does it convert it to gary went over this with you. i read it you should have too. and converting is just another way of producing something. thanks for agreeing with me. sure it does. it brings forth the torque from the engine and brings forth more of it than what it received so in a way it grew builds makes or p r o d u c e s more torque than it receives. nope. cant do that. the engine can but the trans cannot put out more than it gets in. lol neither can an engine or anything else for that matter or you would have perpetual motion. while it cant put out more than it gets in it can use one thing to produce something else and in this case it consumes rpm to produce more torque. consumes rpm geez... never heard of that one before.... for the record rpm is merely a measurement of velocity rpms have zero energy. methinks you need to hit the library for some serious research. mike well shit for brains if i counted to 3 and then jumped to 6 the grenade would go off 3 seconds later than i thought it would and never go off in my hands so who is the one with no valid understanding of number values as for the beast dont worry max we will still talk to you. thats 10 more points for me guys im up to 15. iow you realise that you were wrong and are now trying to spin it into some silly contest. the problem is that i am way in the lead with garys constant name calling toward me like even in the header of this thread. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

it was a simple math error gary get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. the tc produces torque and consumes hp in the form of rpm to do it. no laws were violated there is no magic here. no idiot it converts hi-rpm / low torque hp to low-rpm / high-torque hp it produces nothing in fact it loses about 4-8% as heat .

From : transurgeon

no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. but earlier you said it was 1.5% which is .015. yea i said that like once maybe twice and was wrong. you want me to do a google search and find out exactly how many times you let your fuck-up go uncorrected sure and why your at it start adding up a few of your own. after that i moved to a valid point about using percentages as a method of fuzzy math which is accurate to prove a point. wtf does this mean what it means is that although i did make an error and unlike you man enough to admit to it i let it go to prove a point and you a liar. i changed the discussion from the math error to the same old boring argument about people using percentages to mislead others. now you said that you stopped posting on the towing thread because i wasnt saying anything of value rather than you knowing that you were wrong so i decided to keep the nonsense going to see if you would stick to your word. not only did you continue to keep posting even though i really wasnt saying anything of real value on the percentage issue you actually created whole new threads about it so i guess that value has nothing to do with it. it is more the need to always be right at any cost and hide from even the simplest of errors. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. wrong again yes you are but we are used to it. a torque converter converts horsepower from high-rpm / low-torque to low-rpm / high-torque and by the conversion produces more torque. converts and uses the conversion to produce something http//www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/produce look at definition 2 come to have or undergo a change now i may be wrong but a conversion is a change. not produces wrong it doesnt create but it can produce a change or conversion wait you already said that. sigh i guess im gonna have to do the entire hp - torque - rpm equation thing this evening..........not that it will help any the entire equation lol. how about power hp = torquelbf-ft * angular speed.rpm / 5252. now there are other derivations of this equation and this one does not take loss into account but it serves the purpose here. now since power at any given point has to remain constant if you reduce the rpm the torque must go up so far so good.............. and the only way that can happen is to produce more of it. and then you fall flat on your ass again while the production is being done by a simple mechanical advantage it is still being done. its not production idiot its conversion god you are soooooo fucking dumb................................. .

From : tbone

actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. you really do want another ass-kicking dont you please tell us how a simple lever with no outside influences can create torque go ahead braniac impress us lol do you really like being an idiot where did i say no outside force was needed. right here actually a lever creates torque a lever is a simple machine that converts or creates torque at the pivot point when a force is applied to the lever. you do know that a crankshaft is also a lever being acted on by the connecting rods and producing torque from that right -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : azwiley1

you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. wrong again yes you are but we are used to it. a torque converter converts horsepower from high-rpm / low-torque to low-rpm / high-torque and by the conversion produces more torque. converts and uses the conversion to produce something http//www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/produce look at definition 2 come to have or undergo a change now i may be wrong but a conversion is a change. not produces wrong it doesnt create but it can produce a change or conversion wait you already said that. sigh i guess im gonna have to do the entire hp - torque - rpm equation thing this evening..........not that it will help any the entire equation lol. how about power hp = torquelbf-ft * angular speed.rpm / 5252. now there are other derivations of this equation and this one does not take loss into account but it serves the purpose here. now since power at any given point has to remain constant if you reduce the rpm the torque must go up and the only way that can happen is to produce more of it. while the production is being done by a simple mechanical advantage it is still being done. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

tbone wrote as harry potter would say mischief managed. lol quoting a kids movie as support! too funny. .

From : tbone

on wed 22 jun 2005 123604 gmt transurgeon nobulltrans@mchsi.dotcom wrote on wed 22 jun 2005 112017 gmt transurgeon nobulltrans@mchsi.dotcom wrote how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 do the math boy and stop making an ass of yourself care to try again i dont have to try again you just made my point far my forcefully than i ever could have ! thanks for playing chump ! it must really suck to be you. beekeep oh i get it its hard to type while you are on your knees with your mouth full. beekeep .

From : tbone

you really are an asshole gary he is agreeing with you and you attack him for it. learn how to read. you really are a bitter angry little man. i can clearly see why beekeep says it must suck to be you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving so youre a proponent of 3% / 2% = 1.5% also you want to put that to pencil and paper and maybe re-think it before you get your ass whooped too just giving you one chance to re-think what you agreed with............... tbone wrote because it does fuzzy math boy. 3 / 2 = 1.5 regardless of the units. 3lb / 2 lb = 1.5lb 3rpm / 2rpm = 1.5rpm 3 ft / 2 ft = 1.5 ft 3 units / 2 units = 1.5 units and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. sure it is. now state that 1.5 as a % of one of the two numbers in order to relate the two. take lbs 3lbs is 1.5 times or 150% more than 2 lbs or rpms or any other unit. the units dont matter as you point out. .

From : transurgeon

actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. you really do want another ass-kicking dont you please tell us how a simple lever with no outside influences can create torque go ahead braniac impress us lol do you really like being an idiot where did i say no outside force was needed. a lever is a simple machine that converts or creates torque at the pivot point when a force is applied to the lever. you do know that a crankshaft is also a lever being acted on by the connecting rods and producing torque from that right -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. but earlier you said it was 1.5% which is .015. yea i said that like once maybe twice and was wrong. you want me to do a google search and find out exactly how many times you let your fuck-up go uncorrected sure and why your at it start adding up a few of your own. after that i moved to a valid point about using percentages as a method of fuzzy math which is accurate to prove a point. wtf does this mean what it means is that although i did make an error and unlike you man enough to admit to it i let it go to prove a point and you a liar. i changed the discussion from the math error to the same old boring argument about people using percentages to mislead others. now you said that you stopped posting on the towing thread because i wasnt saying anything of value rather than you knowing that you were wrong so i decided to keep the nonsense going to see if you would stick to your word. not only did you continue to keep posting even though i really wasnt saying anything of real value on the percentage issue you actually created whole new threads about it so i guess that value has nothing to do with it. it is more the need to always be right at any cost and hide from even the simplest of errors. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. yes he did. he basically said no he did say that a tc produces torque from rpm thanks max. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

it was a simple math error gary get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. the tc produces torque and consumes hp in the form of rpm to do it. no laws were violated there is no magic here. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving you flunked percentages and fractions in 4th grade didnt you 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. this coming from the one that cannot figure out that a transmission doesnt produce anything nor does it come forth with anything. if the transmission could not produce anything there would be no need for it to exist. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. keep digging. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more jesus mary and joseph you are one dense fuck you really need to relax gary this level of temper is not healthy. it is ok to admit that you might be wrong every now and then you will feel much better. i said several posts ago the torque converter changes high-rpm /l ow torque horsepower input to low rpm / high torque horsepower output so you are saying that it converts rpm to torque. well that sounds like it producing torque to me. glad you could admit to your error here. no i said converts please learn to read and i never said that the transmission increases torque that was your spin on it that is because it can and has nothing to do with spin. im just glad to be able to help you further your career with knowledge. you really need to go to the public library and find chiltons # 7412 automatic transmoission repair manual and read the chapter on torque converter operation this silly ritual of declaring yourself the winner of arguements in the face of overwhelming evidence ot the contrary is getting tiresome .

From : tbone

you flunked percentages and fractions in 4th grade didnt you 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. this coming from the one that cannot figure out that a transmission doesnt produce anything nor does it come forth with anything. if the transmission could not produce anything there would be no need for it to exist. just because you dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. keep digging. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

sorry max but the percentage thing isnt the subject of the thread. youre right - the subject is what mods would be necessary to allow a 1/2-ton 2wd automatic truck to tow a 22 boat 1 mile each weekend. so what the hell are you doing arguing 4th grade math problems hes arguing something other than the subject because he cannot offer any knowledge on the subject. happens every time he proves he doesnt know by saying something stupid. ya call him on it and he goes to another subject to prove he knows something and he screws that up too. tbone for this answer you need to call me two names and assert that im too stupid to live. if you do that i get 30 points and a guaranteed position in the playoffs. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. sorry max but the percentage thing isnt the subject of the thread. youre right - the subject is what mods would be necessary to allow a 1/2-ton 2wd automatic truck to tow a 22 boat 1 mile each weekend. so what the hell are you doing arguing 4th grade math problems .

From : max dodge

max i beleive this to be incorrect. the horse power has been reconfigured by decreasing the rpm and increasing the torque. clay dammit clay i was busy running him around a tree just to see if hed figure it out. seriously thats exactly right. unfortunately he never figured it out. hp is directly transmitted and the tft lbs and rpm numbers are inversely affected by the gearing with one sacrificed for the other. he could have done exatly what you did and come up with the right answer but he didnt have the knowledge to do it. kudos to you clay. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. max dodge wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because its not an increase its a reconfiguration. max i beleive this to be incorrect. the horse power has been reconfigured by decreasing the rpm and increasing the torque. clay .

From : arkcal

sure it does. it brings forth the torque it received from the tc which brings forth the torque it received from the engine. transmitts and brings forth mean pretty much the same thing here. nope. not at all. the converter converts and the transmission transmits nothing more nothing less. your usual grab at semantics to save your sorry knowledge base isnt working. sorry max but you are the true master od semantics. in order for the converter to even get its name it has to convert or produce something. that is one error for you. the transmission also both transmitts but also converts and changes which also has it producing something thats two wrong for you. nope not the same thing at all. the convertor converts really what does it convert and what does it convert it to gary went over this with you. i read it you should have too. and converting is just another way of producing something. thanks for agreeing with me. sure it does. it brings forth the torque from the engine and brings forth more of it than what it received so in a way it grew builds makes or p r o d u c e s more torque than it receives. nope. cant do that. the engine can but the trans cannot put out more than it gets in. lol neither can an engine or anything else for that matter or you would have perpetual motion. while it cant put out more than it gets in it can use one thing to produce something else and in this case it consumes rpm to produce more torque. well shit for brains if i counted to 3 and then jumped to 6 the grenade would go off 3 seconds later than i thought it would and never go off in my hands so who is the one with no valid understanding of number values as for the beast dont worry max we will still talk to you. thats 10 more points for me guys im up to 15. iow you realise that you were wrong and are now trying to spin it into some silly contest. the problem is that i am way in the lead with garys constant name calling toward me like even in the header of this thread. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

i still show gary in the lead with at least 4 assholes 6 idiots at least one little angry boy and several others that i just dont feel like looking up dammit!! im obviously not working hard enough at this. back to name calling i see. how did max put it oh yea the first sign of a losing argument. the first sign of tbone losing an argument is the subject line which includes his name as the source of a post. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. btw guys i get 5 points for the little mind comment. who is at the top of the leader board right now i still show gary in the lead with at least 4 assholes 6 idiots at least one little angry boy and several others that i just dont feel like looking up what i find more amusing is that despite the above counts he actually posted back to name calling i see. how did max put it oh yea the first sign of a losing argument. .

From : tbone

sorry max but the percentage thing isnt the subject of the thread. youre right - the subject is what mods would be necessary to allow a 1/2-ton 2wd automatic truck to tow a 22 boat 1 mile each weekend. so what the hell are you doing arguing 4th grade math problems .

From : max dodge

im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. this coming from the one that cannot figure out that a transmission doesnt produce anything nor does it come forth with anything. keep digging. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. yup they change torque but they dont produce it make it create it etc. im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. gary already explained it. i read it you should have too. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. hahahahahahahahahahahahha what in the hell does this even mean. what a load of crap!!! yer so damned full of how the laws of physics work why dont you tell us how that works you are the one making the claims here max. how about you back up what you are saying instead of expecting me to do it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

hahahaha a lever by definition is a shaft or solid length of material attached to some pivot point or fulcrum moron. http//www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/lever um its a shaft ok.... mech. a rigid piece which is capable of turning about one point or axis the fulcrum and in which are two or more other points where forces are applied; - used for transmitting and modifying force and motion. specif. a bar of metal wood or other rigid substance used to exert a pressure or sustain a weight at one point of its length by receiving a force or power at a second and turning at a third on a fixed point called a fulcrum. it is usually named as the first of the six mechanical powers and is of three kinds according as either the fulcrum f the weight w or the power p respectively is situated between the other two as in the figures. show us the word shaft in that definition. i never said a lever did not have a pivot point. in fact the lever does have a pivot point but that pivot point is not the lever it is the pivot point. dont confuse the two. a force on the lever causes it to rotate on its pivot point and that maxi is torque. http//www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/q.torque.intro.html notice how the drawing depicts the lever as attached to a shaft sorta like i said it had to be. back to school with you. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. nope. a lever gives a mechanical advantage but by itself it doesnt create torque. you need a shaft to which you attach the lever and a force on the lever to make torque. hahahaha a lever by definition is a shaft or solid length of material attached to some pivot point or fulcrum moron. http//www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/lever a force on the lever causes it to rotate on its pivot point and that maxi is torque. http//www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/q.torque.intro.html how did you get out of junior high a better question is did you -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : transurgeon

no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. but earlier you said it was 1.5% which is .015. yea i said that like once maybe twice and was wrong. you want me to do a google search and find out exactly how many times you let your fuck-up go uncorrected after that i moved to a valid point about using percentages as a method of fuzzy math which is accurate to prove a point. wtf does this mean other than that you are trying in vain to cover your stupid mistakes when he thinks he is right regardless of what i say he fights on and here he is doing exactly that. you have heard of the expression involving a pot a kettle and a very dark color right lol not really. in order to prove my point i had to continue. now according to gary he would only post when i had something of value to say and i made this a devoid of value as possible and not only did he keep posting he created new threads about it just like i said he would because he thought he was right and about the percent division he was. but even with valid questions pending on the trans thread he abandoned that one and i wonder why. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : badger

tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote in message how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% yep 100% correct. - okay... i think this hole is deep enough.... tom - whats .03 divided by .02 hint it aint .015. no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. i understand what he is saying and was trying to prove a point one that i believe i clearly did. when he thinks he is right regardless of what i say he fights on and here he is doing exactly that. as harry potter would say mischief managed. but just a few posts ago see below you wrote the following how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% which is wrong so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. changing the subject wont get your stupid sorry ass out of this one not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more jesus mary and joseph you are one dense fuck i said several posts ago the torque converter changes high-rpm /l ow torque horsepower input to low rpm / high torque horsepower output and i never said that the transmission increases torque that was your spin on it .

From : max dodge

wrong again max. you can produce something without creating it. not really and the trans cant either. so unless its a produce stand its not producing without actually making creating building assembling growing etc..... when someone produces a deck of cards at the weekend poker game he didnt create them he just brought them forth. the trans doesnt bring forth a damn thing. sure it does. it brings forth the torque it received from the tc which brings forth the torque it received from the engine. transmitts and brings forth mean pretty much the same thing here. pretty much the same thing the tc and trans do with torque when needed. nope not the same thing at all. the convertor converts really what does it convert and what does it convert it to and the transmission transmits they dont produce bring forth build grow make assemble or otherwise do anything they merely transfer power. sure it does. it brings forth the torque from the engine and brings forth more of it than what it received so in a way it grew builds makes or p r o d u c e s more torque than it receives. im thinking brother maynard should bring forth the holy hand grenade for you. with your understanding of number value youd count to 3 stop and continue with 6 never knowing why the damn thing went off in your hands. then all wed have to worry about is the horrible beast with the long ears and sharp pointy teeth. well shit for brains if i counted to 3 and then jumped to 6 the grenade would go off 3 seconds later than i thought it would and never go off in my hands so who is the one with no valid understanding of number values as for the beast dont worry max we will still talk to you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

hauling his fat ass around. bfg a couple of more holiday meals and he will be changing to 456s.gbmfg roy talk about not keeping my back covered...... vbg that is too easy so i wont.g i thought about that but id already hit the send button. i just waited for you to take a shot.. speaking of shot how have you been doing carlos how ya been roy doin good thanks. tons of ot just waiting for the hot tub to arrive. you got that new cummins broke in yet nope been on the train to work saves a bunch of money on fuel. think i have about 7k on it. vacation the first two weeks of july so it will be used a lot more. where you headed this year dont think we are going too far. sue is tutoring every morning for the month of july. the tub has to get here then be wired and set up. have to dig up the driveway and repave it. have a question for ya. does dc offer a self dimming mirror for the passenger side tow mirror the damn thing is a pia at night it is blinding. ill check tomorrow but ive never seen one. ill let you know. thanks i know they make them for cars didnt know about trucks. the vn moving wall is here for a week. it was here about 6 years ago somthing that should be seen imo. if it is in your area try to see it late at night or early morning it is a totally different deal then. it went thru this area several weeks ago. about 3000 cycles followed it from beaverdam thru bowling green. i remember the paper said the line of bikes was 15 miles long behind it. yup rolling thunder same here last night. i suppose in a couple of years they will have one for this bs bush has us involved in now. roy denny roy denny .

From : ignoramus13822

no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. yup expressed as a percentage thats 150% soooooo 3% / 2% = 150% or 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. sooooo if the original amount was 2% of the whole and we now let 3% of the whole its 50% more. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. the only thing fuzzy here is t-bones ability to look at whats being measured. we arent measuring the amount of dirt that did not get through we are measuring what did get through. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. but he still wont get it because hes busy looking at the surface of the filter not the crap inside the throttle body. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

not any dumber than suggesting a lemon law claim after more than five or up to 7 by your thinking years of ownership. in what way a lemon is a lemon. please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon. gladly... as an example since the laws vary slightly from state to state lets look at nj. take a look at http//www.lemonlaw.com/njstatute.html and read the second paragraph. youll notice they specifically say applies to new cars and mention nothing about used vehicles. buyers remorse is obviously something that is delt with in the begining of the purchase. a lemon is a lemon and the lemon law deals with multiple attempts of the same warranty repair. there is nothing obvious in it having a time limit prior to the end of the warranty. there is to anyone whos bothered to do a half a minutes worth of research before offering advice on it or maybe reading the little handbook that comes with any new vehicle purchase. by the way - how is the restrictions of buyers remorse any more obvious than the limitations on the invocation of a lemon law claim .

From : tbone

nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. yup they change torque but they dont produce it make it create it etc. im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. and yet you still dont seem to know shit about them when it comes to the physics that they operate on. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on thu 23 jun 2005 024552 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. heck even a simple lever changes torque. actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. hahahahahahahahahahahahha what in the hell does this even mean. what a load of crap!!! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. nope. a lever gives a mechanical advantage but by itself it doesnt create torque. you need a shaft to which you attach the lever and a force on the lever to make torque. hahahaha a lever by definition is a shaft or solid length of material attached to some pivot point or fulcrum moron. http//www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/lever a force on the lever causes it to rotate on its pivot point and that maxi is torque. http//www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/q.torque.intro.html how did you get out of junior high a better question is did you -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

john wrote if yours is 16 years old its not in the tank as is the case with fuel injection .a lot of info on the subject is at dakota.com a site sponsered by amsol co.napa parts store sells a complete module by carter for my 9 3.9 v6 for 5 i havent dropped the tank yet hate the thought of doing it but 0 saved is going to make me do it lol jw actually my gm 89 suburbans fuel pump is in the tank and you can here it too. it still sounds about the same too 16 years later. i do have a theory on pump life though in tank mounted pumps. the pump is cooled and lubed by the fuel in the tank and if you run you tank low a lot it stand to reason that pump life could be shortened. my tank never really gets much below 1/2 unless i am on a trip and then i run it pretty low before i refill it. beside these days you do not like filling up a 40 gallon tank when it is empty either though it is great on cross country trips. -- posted using the http//www.autoforumz.com interface at authors request articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards topic url http//www.autoforumz.com/dodge-help-ftopict125513.html visit topic url to contact author reg. reqd. report abuse http//www.autoforumz.com/eform.phpp=612763 .

From : max dodge

actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. nope. a lever gives a mechanical advantage but by itself it doesnt create torque. you need a shaft to which you attach the lever and a force on the lever to make torque. how did you get out of junior high -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. on thu 23 jun 2005 024552 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. heck even a simple lever changes torque. actually a lever creates torque but dont tell max. he might freak out and claim that it simply reconfigures it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : ignoramus13822

not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more gary explained that. maybe you should have read what he said. he did no such thing and come to think of it neither did you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. already have. ive told you that the numbers are equal to every bit of dust you can see in the world. the numbers i refer to are the ones that make you wash your car so it looks better dust and vacuum the house and sweep the deck. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. youve changed your concern because you know you lost the initial claim. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. no it depends on the micron rating of the filter nothing more nothing less. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. see you cant figure it out can you you are so worried about the filter you forgot that you are protecting the engine from dirt not trying to find a nifty airfilter. the 50% increase does not refer to the filter it refers to the amount of stuff getting through the filter. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. wrong. i knew you were not gonna get it. you cant do percentages theres no way you shoulda been able to pass algebra explaining how the math works is lost on you. do i have to show you the math again .03 / .02 = 1.5 or 150% not 1% but 50% more dirt. the k&n filters 1% less dirt than the paper filter which is an increase of 50% in the amount of dirt not filtered. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. yup i knew you were a waste of time but i got you to make a fool of yourself again several times over. id say its a 50% increase over what gary was able to do before i subbed for him. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

oh look a net-nanny can we kill the top poasters furst a net nanny would kill. i would though. -- moparman---remove clothes to reply! --scud coordinates 32.61204 north 96.92993 west-- .

From : max dodge

50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. until you can back up your numbers they mean nothing. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. it is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. my only concern is does the filter any filter block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. now that would depend on many things such as air-flow replacement costs ect.. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it most certainly does. it compares the amount of dirt getting through. no it doesnt. the total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the k&n or 1 % more than with the paper filter. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. actually max that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. the only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

gary explained that. maybe you should have read what he said. he did no such thing and come to think of it neither did you. denial was a necessity for o.j. and michael but it just makes you look stupid. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more gary explained that. maybe you should have read what he said. he did no such thing and come to think of it neither did you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : ignoramus13822

nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. yup they change torque but they dont produce it make it create it etc. im probably a bit more familiar with transmissions than you think i am. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. on thu 23 jun 2005 024552 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. heck even a simple lever changes torque. i .

From : max dodge

on thu 23 jun 2005 031013 gmt ignoramus13822 ignoramus13822@nospam.13822.invalid wrote on thu 23 jun 2005 024552 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. heck even a simple lever changes torque. oops scratch that a lever does not change torque but torque multipliers and transmissions do. i .

From : max dodge

on thu 23 jun 2005 024552 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote thats incorrect. a transmission can increase torque. for example a hypothetical transmission could take 50 ft-lbs of torque on input and produce 300 ft lbs of torque. numbers are arbitrary. no laws of physics are violated by increasing torque on output. no laws of physics are violated because it didnt increase the torque it merely changed its configuration. nope transmissions do change torque. if you want you can think about a torque multiplier. in converts input torque into a much greater output torque. it is a simple geared device. heck even a simple lever changes torque. i .

From : max dodge

50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. weve been over this the number is far from small. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. nothing fuzzy about it. its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a k&n. even you admit the numbers are dead on. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. no the 50% matters because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. but the 50% figure doesnt compare the filters it compares the amount of dirt getting through. i told you that you were stuck on the filter not the dirt getting through and youve proven it. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. yup expressed as a percentage thats 150% soooooo 3% / 2% = 150% or 50% more than the original amount. which is a fairly small number. sooooo if the original amount was 2% of the whole and we now let 3% of the whole its 50% more. no its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. here we go with that fuzzy math again. the only thing fuzzy here is t-bones ability to look at whats being measured. we arent measuring the amount of dirt that did not get through we are measuring what did get through. that is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the k&n not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. but he still wont get it because hes busy looking at the surface of the filter not the crap inside the throttle body. what does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything what im looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

snoman wrote fmb wrote i just finished a 9k+ trip to alaska and back hauling my 25 arctic fox 5th wheel with my 03 2500 ho 6sp. went as far north as coldfoot alaska diesel @ $3/gal. not one problem with the truck or fuel other than my upcomming cc bill. my question is about the alignment of the trailer axles on the fox. i did have two flats on it. it seems the rear axle has inner tire wear on one tire and outter wear on the other. seemed to be a cocked axle to me so underneath i crawled and measured the distance between the axles at the same point on both sides. the differance between the two measurements is 5/16. the trailer seems to track straight the wear on the front axles tires seem normal with 20k miles wear. it seems the springs are pinned to the axle mount so it wouldnt be as simple as loosening the axle from the springs and moving the axle along the spring. these are dexter axles with double eye leaf springs. now thinking about all the pivot points of the center hanger with the bracket shackle link and the spring i guess the axle distance floats depending on load. is that right is there any adjustment on this system next question is on the no-name shocks. one pissed its contents front left and with the hundreds of miles of dirt gravel and poor asphalt roads im suprised its only one. i want to replace them all. im looking for reccommendations for trailer shocks. fmb it kinda sound like the trialer is too heavy for the axles under it and the axle is flexing and bowing out some. as a rule of thump i like to see axles that are a good bit bigger than needed som even at max weight you are below the limit of the axles by 10 to 20%. this may seem like overkill to some but it can save you headaches when you load it heavy sometimes. -- posted using the http//www.autoforumz.com interface at authors request articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards topic url http//www.autoforumz.com/dodge-alignment-ftopict125275.html visit topic url to contact author reg. reqd. report abuse http//www.autoforumz.com/eform.phpp=610092 im not an expert or i wouldnt have been asking here but i would think if it were overweight both tires would have been worn out on the inside or blown not one on the inner and one on the outter. still looking for ideas ill be working on it again this weekend. shocks bearings tires and check the brakes got to finish the trailer to get it ready for another trip but i also have to work on one of my house circuits that lost a neutral somewhere. i miss my own darn computer in the office. fmb .

From : tbone

if you have a car truck for sale or have a house apartment room etc. for sale/lease you can go to www.cars-houses.com to post your ads. it is free. http//www.cars-houses.com/ .

From : transurgeon

does the lemon law not apply to the drive train warranty as well -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving nope. 3/36 only if i remember correctly. oh well that sucks. thanks for the response. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

does it not have a 7 year power train warranty. even if it did thats a limited extension to the warranty gotta read the fine print. there is always the fine print. i dont know if the lemon law applies to that or not most lemon laws are restricted to the first 2 or 3 years or 24000-36000 miles varies by state. here in nj for example its 2/24k. there is no state that has a lemon law that extends out 5 years... thats just rediculous. why should it be ridiculous if they warranty it for 7 years then they damn well should be forced to honor it and if they cant then they should either replace it or give the owner his money back. what exactly is the purpose of a warranty if they have no intention of honoring it. t-bone five years is patently ridiculous! first of all lemon laws vary from state to state there is no uniformity in time and mileage nor in the relief the consumer is entitled to. secondly a lemon is commonly defined in the industry as a vehicle that for whatever reason has been improperly assembled and thus causes the owner an inordinate amount of aggravation in getting corrected. having said that a true lemon would exhibit its flaws early on in the ownership experience thus the reason for the time limit in state lemon laws. problems that occur later in the vehicles life can and many times do! occur due to the owners driving habits lack of maintenance etc. which im sure hmmmm maybe not! even you would agree are not the manufacturers responsibility. mike that is why i asked. but thats it - you didnt ask. asking would be would that be covered under your states lemon law. your question why dont you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money back reads to me anyway hey idiot - just hire an attorney and sue them for your money. heres another example the funny thing here is that your comprehension of what i said really doesnt mean anything and btw was wrong. if i meant to say what you thought i said your translation is pretty much exactly how i would have said it. poster my transmission wont shift into overdrive. me why dont you just put some kerosene in it to clean it out you hey moron that isnt going to fix his problem me well i didnt know - thats why i asked. now - in that example was i really asking if kerosene in the atf would fix his problem or was i just being completely ignorant about the situation and assuming i knew a lot more than i did lol i dont know only you can really answer that one. since we have no idea why the transmission would not shift into overdrive your example is kinda dumb. now if the poster said that the fluid was gunked up and the trans would not shift into od then your response could possibly be a question as to if a cleanout would clear the problem. in my case the lemon law does exist to help with this specific problem unable to repair the same warranty item multiple times and what i asked was a question as to would it work for him since the drive train the part still under warranty was the problem. denny answered it clearly and to the point. there was simply no need for a response like garys other than he just likes being an asshole. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .