Is Ford Running on Empty?

"David M" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:20:42 -0400, Mike Hunter rearranged some electrons
> to form:
>
>> The best definition is HP gets one speed, Torque get one going quickly
>> and
>> what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick,
>> even a
>> 4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and
>> keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does
>> so
>> well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque
>> curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> Horsepower (or any unit of power) is a force
> applied through a distance per unit time.
>
> force x distance / time. 1HP = 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute.
>
> Torque is force applied about a pivot.
> 100 pounds around a 1-ft radius is 100 lb-ft. 50 pounds around a
> 2 ft radius is ALSO 100 lb-ft.

What's your point?

Torque is analagous to force. In fact, it is rotational force.

And Horsepower = Torque (in ft-lbs) x angular speed (in RPMs) / 5252.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Jeff

>>
>>
>> "Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "John S." > wrote
>>>> On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
>>>> horsepower... Torque wins races!
>>>
>>> No offense, but if it was about torque, then we'd all drive John Deere
>>> tractors. It's not all about torque. The John Deere 6135 produces 600hp
>>> at
>>> 2100rpm and 1881 lb/ft of torque at a piddling 1600 rpm. 1/4 mile
>>> speed???
>>> 60 seconds??
>>> --
>>> Scott W.
>>> '68 Ranchero 500 302
>>> '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
>>> ThunderSnake #57
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
>>>
>
> --
> David M (dmacchiarolo)
> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> T/S 53
> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 21:30 1 user
>

"Carlton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:57:52 +0000, David M wrote:
>
>>
>> Horsepower (or any unit of power) is a force
>> applied through a distance per unit time.
>>
>> force x distance / time. 1HP = 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute.
>>
>> Torque is force applied about a pivot.
>> 100 pounds around a 1-ft radius is 100 lb-ft. 50 pounds around a
>> 2 ft radius is ALSO 100 lb-ft.
>
> Let's talk angular momentum.....
> That one gave me fits in Physics class....
>
> Thank goodness for my HP 41CV Calculator....

I have an HP 11C. Great calculator.

But I am not an old fart (although my nephew farts so much that if you
hooked his butt up to a tank, he could supply half the natural gas needs of
a small town).

Jeff
> (now you know I am an old fart!!!)
>
>

"Carlton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:44:09 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>> I have an HP 11C. Great calculator.
>
> Kool!
>
>> But I am not an old fart (although my nephew farts so much that if you
>> hooked his butt up to a tank, he could supply half the natural gas needs
>> of
>> a small town).
>
> I played in a band with a guy like that.
> He used to eat the worst food, like Indian food, White Castle and some
> seafood thing his wife made. Boolabase (Sp?) or something like that.
>
> He couldn't power a small town though because the amount of alcohol going
> into him was greater, energy wise, than the methane produced.
> A very inefficient machine his bowels were

Have you ever heard the word "oversharing?"

That is more than I wanted to know.

Jeff

>
>> Jeff
>
>

"Mark Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Whitelightning wrote:
> Displacement differences are made up by fuel injection,
> superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
> systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
> because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
> autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
> as much power as these new cars.
>
> Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
> has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
> as fast as many people think.
>
Can you take one of the new dodges, slap a set of 10 inch drag slicks,
and a set of slapper bars on it and pull the front wheels off the ground?
The 70 cuda's and challengers would do just that. with the 426 hemi ,
dual four barrels and four speed tranny. Stock off the show room floor
turn 1/4 miles in the low 13's at 104-113 mph . Car and Driver tested
the 2005 300 with the 5.7 and turned consistent 14.4 1/4 miles times,
which is not a shabby time by any means, but it aint a low 13 ether, and
the 2004 Pontiac GTO beats it at 13.3, with a 4.8 , again as tested by C&D.

The hemi is a good engine, but dodge is pushing it like its a 426, and it
aint,
and many buying it don't know no better any ways.

Whitelightning

Whitelightning wrote:
> "Mark Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Whitelightning wrote:
>> Displacement differences are made up by fuel injection,
>> superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
>> systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
>> because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
>> autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
>> as much power as these new cars.
>>
>> Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
>> has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
>> as fast as many people think.
>>
> Can you take one of the new dodges, slap a set of 10 inch drag slicks,
> and a set of slapper bars on it and pull the front wheels off the
> ground? The 70 cuda's and challengers would do just that. with the
> 426 hemi ,
> dual four barrels and four speed tranny. Stock off the show room
> floor turn 1/4 miles in the low 13's at 104-113 mph . Car and Driver
> tested the 2005 300 with the 5.7 and turned consistent 14.4 1/4
> miles times, which is not a shabby time by any means, but it aint a
> low 13 ether, and the 2004 Pontiac GTO beats it at 13.3, with a 4.8 ,
> again as tested by C&D.
>
> The hemi is a good engine, but dodge is pushing it like its a 426,
> and it aint,
> and many buying it don't know no better any ways.

The tests that I saw showed the Dodge SRT-8 Hemis
turning the 1/4 mile in 13.4 sec @ 105 mph.

That is done with the tires that were on the vehicle
when it left the dealer.

The SRT-8 is more powerful than just a regular Hemi equipped
vehicle.

Carlton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:29:55 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> > Well you would be wrong. I think you are confusing noise and thrashing
> > about with power.
>
> Actually I think my opinion is more in line with what the reviewers are
> saying.

It is a perception problem. People (even "professional" reviewers) ae
used to getting jerked around by the transmission during hard
acceleration. When they aren't, they assume the vehicle is slow. The
Freestyle is not going to outrun any hemi 300's, but it is certainly
not slow compared to other vehicles in it's class.

Here is alist of vehicles and a scrambled list of 0-60 times (from
Consumer reports) -

Match them up (answers below)

A - 2005 Saturn Relay 3 minivan, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
B - 2004 Pacifica AWD, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
C - 2005 Magnum SXT wagon, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
D - 2005 Freestyle SEL 4-door SUV AWD, 3.0-liter V6, CVT
E - 2005 Jeep Laredo 4-door SUV 4WD, 4.7-liter V8, 5-speed automatic
F - 2004 Lexus 4-door SUV AWD, 3.3-liter V6, 5-speed automatic

1 - 8.8 sec
2 - 8.8 sec
3 - 9.7 sec
4 - 10.2 sec
5 - 8.8 sec
6 - 9.1 sec

Here are the answers.
..
..
..
..
..
..
A - 4
B - 3
C - 2
D - 6
E - 1
F - 5

The Freestyle is in the middle of the pack, significantly faster than
the Relay, slightly faster than the Pacfica, and slightly slower than
the Magnum, Lexus RX, and Laradeo (0.3 sec - could you ever detect that
without electronic timing gear?).. However, the Freestyle has
significantly more interior room than all of them except the relay. So
I say that peopel that claim the Freestlye is slow or under powered are
ignoring facts. They are just missing the jerking around associated
with normal automatics.

Ed

Mark Jones wrote:

> Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
> has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
> as fast as many people think.

Tires!

Ed

"Whitelightning" > wrote in message
news:vlSug.3597$RV.2480@trnddc08...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Then how do you explain why the Camry is the number one selling car in
>> the
>> US?
>>
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
> because all you have to say to the common ignorant American consumer is
> that
> if its manufactured by any one but an American Corporation, it has to be
> better, and they
> believe it.

Now, wait a minute - 50 years ago nobody would have thought products made
overseas were better than those made in the U.S. We've changed, and it
wasn't because of greater ignorance.

Something happened that convinced a lot of regular people to swear an oath
against GM and Ford, or U.S. cars in general. I don't know anybody who'd
rather not buy US-made products generally, but I know lots of people who
wouldn't ever buy a U.S. branded car. Most of them will tell you how they
got that way, if you ask them.

Better to figure out the reasons for change, rather than just imagining that
everybody who changes does so by becoming more ignorant. That's not very
likely.

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for proving my point, about the importance of torque to HP!

I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was wrong. I didn't realize Camry's had
that much HP".

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:44bfda17$1@kcnews01...
>
> "Carlton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
BTW, I
> think calling the Freestyle an SUV is a misnomer (even if Ford claims it
> is
> one). It is nothing more or less than a Five Hundred Station Wagon. It is
> said that calling something a station wagon is now a bad thing.

You're right about this. Ford's SUV's start with E, including crossovers.
So the corporate position on the Freestyle is that it's a car. Cars start
with F, generally, so the Freestyle is being marketed as a car.