RE: HP RATINGS NEED

From: Tim J Koth (Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 16:19:51 EST


  Hey... lets get some serious metrics here... Like horsepower per cubic inch
.... or horsepower per DEPENDS necessary to prevent BVD leakage.....
sorry... left work early and am on third beer.......

----------- previous posts ------------

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:43:04 -0800
From: Stlaurent Mr Steven <STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil>
Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: RE: HP RATINGS NEED

Let us try that again the CC 4.7 is much lighter than the R/T 5.9 CC. The
numbers are upside down.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Barret, Matt [mailto:MATT_BARRET@earthtech.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:54 AM
To: 'dakota-truck@buffnet.net'
Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: HP RATINGS NEED

Weight ratio? of what, the engine itself?? yea, the 4.7L weighs about 60 or
70 pounds less.
Compare it to the truck weight, like the HP to weight ratio, ok, There is
very little difference.
The 5.9 would be .066 hp per lb, and 4.7 is .064 hp per pound.
furthermore, the 4.7L is 73 cubes smaller and has about 35 lbs less torque.
What are you comparing Steven??



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:49:46 EDT