rancherman

That's why I only use the ultimate stuff on the more 'permanent' type joints! Dang, after my maiden voyage yesterday... 'first long trip after front end rebuild and both axle fluid service' my pinion seal on rear axle is passing some oil.. I'll check the breather.. about 10 years ago, I was out in a pasture fixing fence with it.. and I got tangled up in a blob of barb wire, which wrapped around the drives shaft about 12,000 times, and promptly and effectively wiped out the original seal. Here I was, under the truck in a wide open praire, 3 miles from the nearest road, 10 miles from the nearest house, and a lightning storm bearing down on me.. Talk about the mission impossible theme song kick in! After about an hour of maniacally yanking and cutting barb wire off the DS, I was able to get the hell out of there! All I had was my stupid fencing pliers. Hopefully it's just the breather tube being blocked now, but something tells me the aftermarket seal I put in 10 years ago is toast..

csm.. not sure where you are headed with the torque is static. static to me means 'stationary', 'unchanging'. Torque output is certainly 'changing' in our engines. all dependent on how much fuel and air is above each piston when it fires. There certainly is a top limit. Is this what you are referring to? Lots of fuel and air and low resistance behind the crank means the engine accelerates. when the rolling resistance equals the torque output, the speed stabilizes. when the rolling resistance exceeds the torque output, the speed goes down. rolling resistance here means everything trying to hold the truck back. friction, gravity if on a hill, the acceleration of a mass, air resistance.. everything. When we accelerate this engine and want it to accelerate it up to 60.. we increase the torque output by adding more fuel and air to the top of the piston.. causing it to push down harder on the crank... which is the exact mirror of what a dynameter is 'sensing'. it's reading this 'down pressure' at the end of the crank.. Well, the increased torque has to go somewhere! it goes to the ground.. and accelerates the truck. When the truck reaches 60 mph, we ease up on the fuel and air, which equalizes the amount of torque going out the engine, and what this truck needs to maintain 60 mph. If the engine can produce 450 lbs of torque at max fuel.. and the vehicle needs 100 lbs. (from the crank) just to pull it through the air at 60 mph.. the difference is how hard it'll accelerate at max fuel. ( I didn't allow for accelerating the mass of the truck here) We increase or decrease the amount of torque coming out the rear of the engine.. to meet or change the trucks requirement. we want to accelerate.. we increase torque. we want to maintain speed starting up a hill, we then increase the torque by adding fuel. we want to slow down, we remove the torque (fuel) when we want to just hold the truck at a certain speed, we back off the throttle and when the speed is met, we have equalized the engines torque output and what the truck needs to travel at this speed. look at what is happening when we take a vehicle out to see what it has for top speed (the truck with our 450 lb torque) going down a flat road, we mash the throttle to wot. Max fuel. Lets assume there is no computer to limit top mph. no limits on Injection pump rpm either. No defueling anywhere. .. a mile or so later we feel or see the truck no longer accelerating. It is maxxed out. We can say the trucks needs are equal to the engine output. because of torque, the engine was able to accelerate. As the resulting rpm climbs, our well known formula shows the net result, or quantity of work being done (in HP) The excess torque caused the engine to accelerate, and when the trucks drag equaled the torque output, it stabilized in speed. HP= T*RPM/ 5252 With a max torque output of 450, (our example engine) HP goes up for only one reason! RPM CHANGE. without torque, you can't overcome resistance, and rpms can't climb. HP numbers suffer (do not change) The 1hp = 550 per foot per second is just another way of that formula.. it was derived from it! why do we downshift to help accelerate? to increase the torque to the wheels. Why do we have to downshift to help our engine overcome a hill? to increase torque to the wheels. Transmissions are torque multipliers. I can see where a lot of guys will now say "well, when you downshift, the engine rpm goes up, raising the hp". Which it does! We made life easier on the engine by downshifting, which allowed it to accelerate to the higher rpm in the first place. Torque requirements have eased. Our formula proves this. When our increased torque come out the back of the transmission.. the resulting overall driveline torque output to the ground is much higher, causing the truck to either accelerate, or maintain speed on a hill.

copper seems to be the cure all to all our woes! joint paint, and now improving engine performance! I know when my cows are short on copper, the normally black angus will have a pretty good reddish tint down their backlines.. "works by increasing vapor pressure". "causing a cleaner burn". .. how would higher vapor pressure cause a cleaner burn? I remember the magnets from yeara ago attached to the fuel lines.. supposed to 'charge' the gasoline, so theoretically would make any heavy droplets stick down to a hot surface, which would help with the total gasification of the fuel before entering the combustion chamber. I suppose the copper is somehow temporarily changing the electron bond somehow.. This is all I'm going to interject.

let me edit.. I type faster than my brain! I misspoke about the engine #2, It will in fact pull away from the slower governed #1.. as long as the hill they are on isn't overpowering the torque output. It surely will keep on going right up to it's top governed speed if allowed, and the operator wants it to. ...THE EXACT SECOND this motor reaches 3400 rpm, AND WAS STILL PULLING FULL FUEL. we can cheerfully say that motor MADE double the horsepower... after the truck levels off at 110 miles per hour, fuel should diminish, and so will the torque output. horsepower AT THAT TIME is diminished. (although, at 110 mph, full fuel might be required to sustain the speed? LOL) our trucks are pretty big bricks! This why HP is such a fleeting value. Now I understand why rolling dynameters need calibration.. they need to make sure the test subject is fully loaded. If not, how could they even begin to realize potential HP! This is using a magic injection pump... one that will go to full fuel within say 10 rpm drop from desired rpm. (wouldn't that be a hoot to drive??) Oh, remembering my old days of drag racing.. Torque gets the car off the line, and HP gets it across the finish line first. Very true. High torque at high rpm will in fact get us across the finish line first. HP is much sexier and quicker to say!

Just got home from my 250 mile round trip out into the hill country of Ne, and brought home some cows. Believe me, This has been bugging the hell out of me. First of all, I decided to call on the big gun. My Dad was an mechanical engineer, and I had quite an upbringing as a kid. a lot of principles were hammered home.. Almost Nazi style. Now, 45 years later, some of these principles are a little hard to bring out of the archives! My career path took me out of the loop for studying and practicing the sciences. Dad passed about 10 years ago, I sure miss being able to call him up and quiz him about how to build this, or what materials to use here.. So, I did the next best thing! I called my Uncle John. He is a tenured physics professor and rabid car builder. perfect. I had him view my miserable attempts at explaining how the HP= T*RPM/5252 applies here. He said: We all had some valid points, but more interestingly was some points were correct, but for the totally wrong reasons. First off: My analogy of the 2 electric motors with identical torque, but double the speed. motor #1 would indeed have 1 horsepower, and would lift the 550 lb weight in 1 second. Motor #2 would then indeed have 2 hp. only because it's turning 2x the speed. It would indeed lift the weight at 2x the speed as the 1 horse motor. I was wrong there. He said I need to forget the initial acceleration of this weight.. and concentrate ONLY on the performance of the weight going up the rope. he said both motors will struggle momentarily as they spin up to speed.. Motor 2 will struggle just a tad longer ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS HIGHER TO GO.. AND spin up time will be longer. This is no consequence. It's the performance of the speed of the weight After the initial acceleration. What this boils down to, is torque is what moves the weight at the certain speed. John pointed out that it doesn't take any more energy to move the weight upward regardless of speed (well until air resistance becomes a factor!) since both motors are equal torque, they are able to lift the exact same amount of weight. Motor #2 will do it 2x faster, not because of the HP, but because it's wired to run that rpm in the first place. John said we need to look at HP as an 'after effect'. It's the PROOF of work being done, or the potential of work to be done. again, this is after both motors have accelerated the weight to it' full potential.. then the test begins. Now, look at it this way: after the test, we can now measure the performance of both motors. #1 did a 1 foot per second, #2 did it in half the time. both with identical torque. Because of this fact, the #2 motor did in fact move the weight in half the time, it should be considered 2 hp. HP again should be looked at as the 'after effect'. Why? John told me to visualize both motors doing their finest with the weights attached.. and pulling the weight up a 100 foot cliff. (for better visualization here). Halfway up both runs, I take an additional 55 lbs and put on each as they buzz by. Both motors will suffer proportionally, actually this would be 10%. means Motor #1 is now hoisting the weight 10.8 inches per second, and motor #2 would be hoisting the weight 21.3 inches per second. Now, lets apply this to 2 identical cummins powered vechicles. both are bone stock. but one will have a governor that stops ALL rpm progression beyond 3400.. and the other having this stop @ 1700. Both will have identical fueling properties. Engine 'a' will be exactly double the HP of Engine 'b'. This is because of the doubling of the rpm. Both here have exactly the same torque. (same fueling, same air) Both are also geared identically too. What's the difference? MAX SPEED. Both will accelerate side by side.. and when the governor kicks in on the slow motor.. that truck will march along @ what, 55 miles per hour... while the other truck continues up to 110. Why? not because of the HP. it's because the governor allowed it to. This is where we need to look at HP as the AFTER EFFECT. Yep, that motor propelling the truck down the road at 110 mph was indeed making double the horsepower... only because it was allowed to spool up to double the rpm.. But no more fuel for the acceleration, than the first motor was added. The acceleration and maintenance level of fueling is next on the list; John told me about the 'butt feel' of why our trucks seem to 'hold better' at 2500 rather than 16-1700 starting point.. Look at where we are at on the torque curve. Even though 1700 and 2500 are pretty even for torque, the guy that is @ 1700 is right on the brink of falling off the cliff.. The guy already @ 2600 has 900 rpm of 'play' before the truck falls off. John said momentum helps.. for a split second! not what I'd call a real helper! So, lets now apply this to the 2 cummins powered trucks from the last paragraph. Lets send them both down the road @ 55 mph. (remember, the one truck is governed for 1700, and this is all it has) Both are turning the same rpm.. both are burning identical fuel. Both are producing identical torque... they have to be, otherwise one would be traveling faster than the other.. Since both are fueled identically, the outputs will be identical right up to the point the slower governor stops all upward rpm change. this is where the faster engine begins to pull away from the slower one horsepower wise.. and we are now looking at the electric motor example from waaay above! Both motors are identical in torque, but because of the rpm difference, the faster one is double the horsepower. What really needs to be said here is.. no diesel 'makes' torque, (above what is required to maintain a rpm at a no load situation) unless it's needed. If I keep my foot on the throttle, and have a no load situation on the engine, only a very little amount of fuel is required to maintain the set rpm. It takes very little fuel to keep a non loaded engine at a set rpm. If we could measure the amount of this torque, it'd be minimal to say the least. So, back to our 2 identical trucks. traveling side by side. Both are CAPABLE of maxing out the torque at say 450 ft. lbs. In order to maintain 55 mph, let say they need enough fuel to produce 120 ft. lbs at the crank to maintain this speed. Or about 40 horsepower. Lets now introduce them to a hill. still side by side. who thinks the double hp truck will walk away from the other one? It's a tie. sorry. both will lug to death at the exact same rate. Both are putting down the exact same torque to the rear tires, both are injecting the same max fuel. Why doesn't the double hp engine pull away? because it's not turning the rpms to PRODUCE the double HP. Since it didn't make the rpms, it never reached it's potential.. this is where we need to look at HP as an after effect. You must have torque, AND rpm to produce HP. John basically told me this as the exact same way he has answered a lot of gear heads in his classes. He also kicked my *** for a couple of knuckle headed answers I gave as well. "bench racers" will conjecture.. and myths are rampant.. but physics are physics. I offer my humble apology for any bad thoughts I might've had over the past days posts. Robert, rancherman

another thing.. back in my caveman days of running a prehistoric water brake.. We'd for fun 'see' what the max was. We'd crank her down until there was zero throttle response. (maxed out so to speak) we'd throttle back say 100 rpm from max, crank down the brake, and see if it would spool back up. typically, there was about 35-40 percent difference in torque from rated.. to max. So, what does the gerbil wheel do here, that 'maxes' out our engines? This doesn't necessarily mean it needs to stall rpm progression, I'm sure they have algorithms that can figure amount of torque to accelerate a loaded drum to speed... This is probably where the 'calibration' part comes in.. to build a certain amount of load for each particular vehicle.. Can't really figure the same load for my Toyota.. It might not even get the wheel turning! (hell, It probably couldn't climb the ramp up to it!) with it's pounding 140 ft. lbs of torque!

I certainly will.. when I know im going to reuse them! I had all 4 out in less time than it would've took me to walk across the shop to grab the air hose and nozzle..

Again, no.If your example engine is 2 horsepower, which can move the weight in half the time(which it certainly can)or double the original weight @ normal speed.... the torque MUST double. Your example is impossible to achieve. why?? this theoretical engine doing the work is maxed out. there is no more rpm because it's at the end of it's rope. So, the only way to double the HP, is to DOUBLE THE TORQUE. Why not just double the original motor speed to do the same you ask? well, sure! that would double the HP! unfortunately the original motor has nothing left to give! *this is how max values are based.. otherwise it surely wouldn't be a true test. Now, lets take a simple electric motor. lets say one is 1750 rpm, and 1 horsepower. lets also take another similar frame motor that is brushed for 3500 rpm and is rated at 2 horsepower. now attach both of them to our test mule! guess what? The poor 2 hp motor will never spin up to speed.. it'll smoke it's way all the way up. why? The torque load will prevent the weight from going up any faster than 1 foot per second.. (jus working the formula backwards here too) This is figured on the original motor being able to do 2 things! Maintain it's rated rpm of 1750, AND maintain 1 foot per second. if we were to add ONE more pound of weight to the test mule, rpms would suffer. and the weight would no longer make the voyage in one second. It's at the end of it's rope! So now we throw the 2 hp motor on the mule. lets even give it a chance to spin up to full speed before we engage the pulley! guess what'll happen! The 550 lb weight will drag that motor down so it's buzzing away at half speed.. Why? because 550 lbs will slow this motor to 1 foot per second.. because it's got just enough torque to move the weight 1 foot per second. If it had double the torque, and the same rpm, it could be geared up and move the weight at 2 foot per second.. as long as the gear box was 100 percent efficient. This example is based solely on 2 parameters! The ability to maintain speed of 1 foot per second, *means the motor cannot deviate from it's rated rpm and exactly 550 lbs. Even one tenth of a second off the pace is a failure.

Ya know, I just thought of something. who in their right mind hits a hill at 1600 rpm, and floors it all the way to the top? NOBODY. It's suicide to expect this engine to produce it's max torque value for any length of time. What is MAX torque value anyway?? answer; the absolute end of any rpm gain. finito, the end. Do this on a daily commute, and it's lites out for even the baddest cummins ever screwed together. life on the gerbil wheel is easy compared to a 3 mile long run. Why> because it's short. very short. Our engines are rated at wot balls out max production. Sure, the max numbers are quite neat to brag about, but when that 3 mile hill lures me up to the summit, I use the transmission, not the over fueled engine. for torque multiplication to the tires. I say overfueled, because that's exactly what any engine is considered that should only do it for a few measly seconds. Ah, can you tell me just how bad your truck falls on it's face @ 1600? I'll tell you right now. my bone stocker when loaded with a 20k load will quickly lose it's 2500 on a grade, (forcing a wot situation.. which I will not tolerate) What I am saying, is I can keep throttle in mid fuel AND maintain 1600-1700. It'd be painfully slow, what? 45 mph? Those max torque readings are from full fuel, wot. The difference is we are not driving a load wot.. any distance. Lets face it, going up hill, @ 2500, you are a lot closer to that point already. Tach numbers say nothing about how much fuel is being injected.. and as everyone knows, the more fuel and air, the more TORQUE will be sent to the rear wheels. I don't know what mods you've done to your truck.. maybe you are well above the stock torque @2500, which is fine and dandy. But your 1600 level may not be linear to your performance @ 2500. Instead of the huge jump at your 2500, you are only gaining a little at 1600? Possible the wider gap is what you are feeling/complaining about? Again, my truck at it's peak torque curve of 1700-1800 is a rock for holding rpm constant. At less than full fuel to boot. I can't say that at 2500. I'd have to bury the throttle, and this is not how a diesel should be operated. This is all when loaded. I'm doing this exact scenario tomorrow morning. I'm headed out to Valentine Ne to pick up some cows. I'll make notes of me rolling through the Sandhills on the way home! (experiment, if you will call it that)

uggg. Acceleration comes from applying more torque to the rear wheels than the total resistance from gravity, road and wind resistance, and vehicle/load mass are trying to hold the vehicle back. I see what you are saying about rolling over the hill starting at 2500 rpm.. I too have experienced this with a lot of heavy hauling over the years! I don't lug on purpose either, any engine that does not respond to additional throttle is considered lugging in my camp. Doesn't have to be a lot of response, but some.. we call it 'free to accelerate'. If I'm running half throttle @ 1700, and desire more rpm, I mash down a little harder.. if I can't see or hear a fairly immediate response in the tach... I downshift.. Please don't lecture me on how to handle a load. I've certainly paid my dues. pickup trucks and small 20k loads are not exactly a trip down extremist path for me. Please consider this: lets take a load, one that will certainly tax our engines. Start up a 4% grade, say 2 miles long. First pull will be started at 1600, (which I've never pulled down into in the first place) 1800 I'm more comfortable with anyways.(only from a bearing and piston longevity standpoint) Then do it again starting @ 2500. In 5th (straight through) MY trucks will all be in 4th by the time I'm at the top of the hill anyways. Soon as I burn off the momentum from hitting the bottom of the hill @2500, I'll be in 5th, then in 4th. After you burn off the momentum from the original speed the 2500 rpm gave you for 'free'... that is when the true test should start. You are comparing apples and oranges. I'm all ears and eyes for this mysterious 'horse-o-meter' Please post.

I remember reading in a bluechip article about their 'box' would do this, and it's expected... at a certain setting. IIRC either chip or doug added to the article about some other sort of 'early warning' of the 44 when the lope suddenly started (without a tuner that is)

I thought the sure fire way to 'see' if cross over tubes leaked.... was to park the truck uphill overnight. and see if it starts easily the next morning? Then I'm wondering if your 'lope' is a stuck timing advance piston.. which hasn't come back to 'home' after your hard pull? You've proven the injectors are ok.. other than a crossover tube, or too much timing at idle.. air in the line (how dare air being in Mikes' line!) That's about all there is with a lope.. edit,, this is about lope isn't it? I was directed to this thread from another post dealing with lope.. But Mikes talking about a slight miss here.. which is it??

Just did mine 2 weeks ago.. This was my first rebuild on phenolic pistons. The steel band on the edge of my pistons was rusted away, so I wasn't too gentle on yanking them out. Snapped onto them with a vise grips, and twisted/pulled em right out. IIRC 45 torx was the size I used, only because one side was too tight for a 47. Funny how rust and or dirt can change how a socket feels!! I think I had less than 18 bucks in each side for new hardware, pistons, seals, and dust boots. The new slider pins were not torx.. just a normal hex head. Used permatex brake lube (purple stuff) I also tried those speed bleeders (one way check ball inside) I gotta admit, they worked! Those were about 7 bucks for the pair.

Yep. HP IS real. It's a number on a piece of paper. I can see it on paper, we both can write it down on a piece of paper!! (it's a simple answer to 2 basic inputs) we can 'see' horsepower in amount of work done, (pile of dirt in one hour) or who crosses the finish line first in a timed event... it's the 'result'. When we stomp the accelerator, it's torque we feel. we don't 'feel' horsepower. Ya gotta have torque FIRST. Torque makes speed. If the load overcomes the torque, it cant spin up. No way around that. Without torque, there is no way an engine can spin up to speed. No speed, No horsepower. Again, Hp is just a figurative number or quantity of the amount of work done in a specific time. How do you measure work? how heavy the box is, and how many boxes are moved per hour. Same here. How much twist ( torque) *how heavy a box can be lifted* and how fast the twist is * how fast the box can be moved from point a to point b* I love arguing this, cause it's been misinterpreted for eons. Perhaps if I wasn't a dumbass 'farmer' It'd be easier to accept. But, I won't lose sleep over it. Thousands and thousands of mechanical engineers have paid a lot of money to get their degrees, and they all learn from the same book they read the first day: 'modern internal combustion engineering 101'. There isn't a 'dynameter' ever built or used today that has a 'horsepower sensor' They'll certainly have a horsepower output reading... but the ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET THAT OUTPUT is using SIMPLE math from gathering torque, and speed. Yep, your correct that any algebraic equation can be solved with 2 inputs, to derive a 3rd. we can find T, we can find HP, we can find rpm. with any of the 2. I learned that in 7 th grade. BUT, when someone give you a HP 'number' as one of the 2 inputs, you gotta remember that number was not from a sensor. it was already derived from the torque vs. speed equation, FIRST. Oh almost forgot to add to my post above, those total 'torque to the ground' figures! After calculating the final axle ratio torque output, I should've mentioned that we need to re figure for the height of the tire. .... Lets say our 800 ft lb motor in 5th is going through a 3.54 axle. Should then be 2832 raw torque coming out the end of the axle... to a distance of 1 foot from centerline. I forgot to factor in the height of the average tire of say 31 inches! (or 15.5 inches radius) That will be a 23% reduction in torque right off the bat from tire height. My bad! AH, You're correct on the 5th gear part.. Perhaps if they named the ' 5th gear countershaft' (the gear that ties the input gear to the CS) a different name (such as mainshaft to countershaft gear) ... I would've caught it! I see now that 5th is indeed straight though! which brings me to the last part, the difference we feel @ 1600 vs. 2500 in the same gear. (thanks for clarifying which gear you were in) If cummins' numbers are correct, theoretically, the 1600 should hold the rpm steady far easier than the 2500.. Are you misinterpreting the fact it's more difficult to ACCELERATE going up a hill with 1600 as the starting point?? look at it as TOTAL engine demand. 1st, you need to maintain speed. It takes X amount to maintain speed. it's pretty easy to see a truck in 5th gear @ 1600 rpm will be going a lot slower than the same truck already turning 2500. So you have momentum already on your side... and the resulting ability to MAINTAIN isn't as taxing to the torque output of this engine. When you approach the same hill @ 1600, you have far less momentum, and now we have 2 needs to be met. The original torque to MAINTAIN, plus now we need additional torque to replace the lost momentum (accelerate) because the momentum was never there to help out. Maintaining rpms, and accelerating, are 2 very different load demands on an engine with finite amount of torque. I don't have the long grades you western guys have, but I do have the loads! Can you explain to me how I hit the bottom of the hill at 2500, in 5th gear, and within 1/2 mile up the grade my rpm is now 17-1900 and HOLDING?? why does it hold there?? It's called getting back into the torque sweet spot. or 'torque rise'. when the load is greater than what 5th gear can hold, I shift down again.. If horsepower was such the savior, I wouldn't have lost the rpm @ 2500 in the first place. Torque is the ONLY thing coming out the end of the crankshaft.

Speaking of LS additives, Mopar's used to be whale oil/blubber .. At least up into the late 70's!

My old dynameter was a simple water brake. hook her up to a garden hose. input shaft coupled to the engine, going into a torque converter looking apparatus. instead of a output shaft that spun, it was a simple load bar hooked to a 'scale'. To increase drag, I simply screwed down on a wheel, which adjusted the position of the fins in the 'torque converter'.. and the resulting drag was measured at the output side of the load. There was 2 gauges. first one measured rpm, second one was what was being read on the scale. From that, it's easy to calculate HP. When we take a NV5600's gear ratio, 1st 5.63 2nd 3.38 3rd 2.04 4th 1.39 5th 1.00 6th 0.73 Reverse 5:63 and attach it to an engine of say 800 ft. lbs. We would expect an output shaft torque of 4504 in 1st, 2708 in 2nd, 1632 in 3rd, 1112 in 4th, 800 in 5th, and 584 in OD. (before gear box inefficiencies) Now, multiply each of THOSE by the rear axle ratio.. 3.54 or 4.11 to get the actual 'to the ground' applied torque... Minus the inefficiencies of the gear box and right angle direction change of the rear axle. Theoretically, It shouldn't matter what gear we are in when calculating HP. 'as long as gear box inefficiencies are not a factor' Torque to the ground will be much higher in lower gears, as well as much slower rpm. Math is math. but like I said before, large gear/small gear differences make up a huge part of the driveline loss. Straight through would be best, but my NV's aren't built this way. 5th is 1;1 but is running through a countershaft. It's not ideal, but the gear size is as close to 'efficient' as we can expect. We are applying almost 50% more torque to the ground in 5 gear @ 2500 rpm, as compared to 1600 rpm in 6th. This is the only reason it feels 'more powerful' at high engine speeds. 50% change is HUGE on a butt dynameter!

Close, but not quite. At the end of the day, torque is useless without SPEED HP is nothing but an equation of torque versus speed. Torque is measurable, HP is calculated. always is, always will be. HP is just an answer to a simple algebraic equation. At the end of the day, without SPEED torque is useless. You can't ever, ever, ever have SPEED without enough torque to spin up a given load. How fast it spins up, and maintains, is torque. All day long. Look at a gas motor, where the torque falls flat on it's face a little more than halfway up the rpm scale... and HP starts to decline too.... The only reason HP doesn't fall off as quick as the torque, is the SPEED of the engine. The amount of twist is less, but the speed of the twist is still getting a lot of work done. But not as much per hour. This may help. It's from my combustion engineering handbook: HP=(RPM * T) / 5252 T would be torque, not time. I've had this argument with a lot of people ever since my high school physics days. Ya can't rewrite basic physics. edit, I took your numbers from above, and plugged em in to the well known equation. ding. spot on. Those cummins boys got it spot on. Imagine that. What most don't realize is, ANY TRANSMISSION loses efficiency in any direction away from 1:1 ratio. 1st gear for example, is terrible efficiency. Does a fantastic job at increasing torque.. When in straight through gear (which mine is not.. they go through a counter shaft too) that is when it's close to 100% efficiency. I'm not talking about torque multiplication. (which is what a transmission is, a torque multiplier) I'm talking about the power loss through a very large gear, and a smaller gear. This too is a simple physics phenom. A simple 6:1 gear is not going to increase torque the full 600% Closer to 550% One that is 1:1 will be much closer to being 100% efficiency.

If you still have the tag... Take the BOM (bill of material) number off of it. then go to this site http://www2.dana.com/expertforms/deabill.aspx and type in your BOM. You'll get a list of EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know (parts lists, differential, gear ratios) about that particular axle!

Mike, all the pics you've attached in the last week or so are only coming up (my end anyway) with the little black square with the 'x' inside, and the corresponding jpg number When I click on it, it doesn't come up. Other members attached pics seem to be coming through

curious Since HP is just a dumb mathematical number derived from torque vs speed. And torque should be measured by how a shaft responds to increasing loads... Does anyone KNOW whats going on with the drum when the green light goes off? Is it a simple constant load, or is it being increased or varied as drum rpm goes up as well? I've measured a lot of engines with the pto method. Run the engine up to rated speed, and start increasing the load to a certain rpm drop. The 'difference' is then calculated to a torque measurement, and from that HP is easily calculated. Granted, this way is for true 'rated' HP, one where the engine could withstand this load continuously, day after day. Point I'm trying to ask is; unless the load increases, (which on a could be programmed to change several times a second) and engine performance is instantly measured Nothing really can't be compared and then calculated! a simple spin up from zero to 100mph means nothing on a static load... unless it's timed. All I've ever seen is a quick spin up... and a bunch of guys huddled around a computer screen and giving high 5's...

Mike, have you done both direct and SNUBBED at the same time too? ( same brand of gauges as well)

Did ya get the miss fixed?

I agree too with Mike on the seal leaking! if the dang seal is going to leak.. it's because it's either shot, or the vent is plugged. Draining it so leak quits is just dumb.. Around here, when something suddenly stops leaking.. it means its out of oil!

I went with Mobil 1 75-140 'LS'. Both front and rear. 8 quarts total, iirc 3.5 front, 4.5 rear. and Permatex 'Right stuff' on the covers.

you'll find the frrp will do a much better job at pushing the fuel thru the small lines rather pulling it. (heck any pump does that) Plus you'll have the frrp away from the hot and vibrations of the engine...( the caveat to this is a REALLY cold location for the pump's intake screen) my current cobbled up configuration (CCC) is a Fass drp 02 in stock location, stock lines from tank, big line kit left over from previous failed FRRP .. and a 100 micron screen right beside the starter. When that jells up.. its easy to throw the hood open, and blast it with the heat gun.. Sometimes I luck out and am only 15 miles from home! Keep in mind, we are all on borrowed time with any of these pumps. So start your research now what will be the next 'best gosh dang fix'. Good luck and welcome to the fray.