โJun-21-2004 09:12 PM
We are getting closer to answers I am looking for etc.
โMar-19-2009 06:02 AM
โMar-19-2009 05:15 AM
Madhatter1 wrote:
Oh yeah, one more thing. I dare anyone with our high HP pickup diesels to try to go nose to nose with a F650 with a 300HP CAT or Cummins and think they have more power. Those engines have much more HP down low and therefore much more torque. My own 350HP 6.7 could not move what those trucks can move. Not a knock on our Diesels, just trying to show the point to the Gas only crowd. No offense intended for gas guys that see both sides.
"Those engines have much more HP down low and therefore much more torque"
. Notice the "much more HP" phrase. THAT is what people like me have been saying. If you have the HP - regardless of what rpm it is made at - then you will move the load (assuming that your vehicle isn't hamstrung by bad gearing in the tranny). Notice that I didn't say anything about gas or diesel or which one is better. I am just referring to power. If you change the gearing in your Dodge, you will either blow the doors off those F650's or reduce your Dodge's towing ability to that of a VW Rabbit - depending on what gears you choose. Gearing makes a HUGE difference in towing ability.โMar-18-2009 07:56 PM
โMar-18-2009 07:49 PM
โMar-18-2009 06:18 PM
โMar-18-2009 04:12 PM
โMar-18-2009 03:37 PM
blt2ski wrote:
"IF" you want to even things out, now you have to "spec" what the "specs" are as to which is better. A rig with 150HP 600 lb ft of torque at 2000 RPMs say diesel, or what ever fuel you want, vs a rig with 200HP and 600 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpms. The 200 hp rig will win! or should anyway. assuming everything else equal. But when one starts messing with the different variables involved, it is any body's guess as to which will be better at times. Sometimes a hei as Steve has will do as well as a diesel, other times, the diesel will do better, and others, jet fuel!
marty
โMar-18-2009 03:27 PM
โMar-18-2009 03:18 PM
GACamper wrote:
Here is the specs on the AGT1500 M1 Abrams tank. I guess it all depends on what you consider very little Torque....
MIL-SPEC
Designer: Chrysler Defense
Manufacturer: General Dynamics
Engine: Honeywell AGT1500 turboshaft
Horsepower: 1,500 @ 3,000 rpm
Torque: 2,750 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm
Shaft Rotation: Counterclockwise
Exhaust Temperature: 930 degrees F
Total Dry Weight of Engine: 2,500 pounds
Fuel Types: Diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel
Oil type: Synthetic
Transmission: Allison DDA X-1100-3B four-speed
Crew: 4
Length: 387 inches
Width: 144 inches
Height: 93.5 inches
Curb weight: 69.54 tons
Ground clearance: 19 inches
Ground pressure: 15.4 psi
3000 rpm
???????? The engine runs at either 22,500 rpm or 26,600 rpm (I forget now). The number they are quoting there is the output of the power pack that includes a reduction gear after the engine to get the rpm down to 3,000. If you accept the claim that that engine generates 2,750 lb-ft of torque, then I can claim that my DMax puts out 6770 lb-ft of torque (605 from the engine * 3 from 1st gear * 3.73 from the RE). So my little DMax STILL puts the Abrams engine to shame ๐โMar-18-2009 03:05 PM
dubdub07 wrote:
Now this is a smart dude! You must drive a Dodge!
โMar-18-2009 02:56 PM
BertP wrote:
When it comes to trying to figure out the capabilities of an engine, torque never matters. Only HP can tell you what an engine is capable of - just like the AGT1500 mentioned earlier that is in the Abrams tank. It develops very little torque but lots of HP. That's why it can propell a 70 ton behemouth at 50+ mph. And it will do it in exactly the same manner as a high torque 1500 HP diesel.
Bert
โMar-18-2009 12:28 PM
BertP wrote:
Sorry, Marty, I didn't mean to start another one of these wars. I'll retire for another while to give you a break ๐
Bert
โMar-18-2009 12:20 PM
โMar-18-2009 11:36 AM
โMar-18-2009 11:13 AM
mgratner wrote:
BertP,
What you said was silly. In 4+ years of fulltiming I have never been passed by a tank.This thread has gotten so far afield it should be closed.
Cigar Mike