Oh yeah, and I travel at 0.107896 MACH on a daily
basis too.
--- Tim J Koth <Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com> wrote:
> 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??
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:49:46 EDT