Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Question on power and engine life tradeoff

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,279
    Rep Power
    21

    Question on power and engine life tradeoff

    Starting a new thread so I don't hijack.

    Pismo posted a note about relatively cheap, reliable HP. The dyno #s for the setup are at this link.

    http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/a...502mpidyno.jpg

    All of which makes me wonder something, though I'm not sure anyone is likely to really know. When an engine is hopped up like that (from say, a stock 502 making 415 HP @ 5000 RPM to about 500 HP @ 5000), how large is the cut to engine life if you only CRUISE the motor and don't run it wide open?

    An example makes it clearer. Let's say you propped your 415 horse stock 502 for max speed at 5000RPM, as most people would. 65 mph, say. Then, suppose you propped your 500HP 502 with a steeper pitch, so that it ran that same 65 mph down at 4100 RPM, where it makes 415 horsepower. And you never ran it above 4100. (Dream on, I know...)

    1. If you stayed below 4100, and ran at the same speed profile (x hours at 6 mph, y hours at 35 mph, z hours at 50 mph, t hours at 65 mph) with the two engines, is there a big difference in engine life? Which engine wins? (The 500 will have more power behind each explosion, and thus more loading on some parts. But it will have about 20 % fewer explosions, running at 4/5ths the RPM ALL the time.)
    2. Are you likely short on torque at low rpm with the 500HP motor, such that getting on plane with the steep prop could be a challenge?

    Put another way, can your performance upgrade dollars be used to add engine life instead of extra speed, such that you can drive the boat the same as with the stock motor, but make it last longer? Or is that only (or much better) done by adding cubes, dropping rpm further, and burning more gas?
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,291
    Rep Power
    23
    This ought to be interesting. I have some thoughts, but not so much first hand experience, so I will let the more qualified jump in.

    Standard thinking has always suggested that it is bad to lug an engine. Everything I have ever read from Mercruiser, Crusader, etc., has said the boat/engine/propulsion package should always be propped so that the engine will reach the WOT rpm range for that engine, when the boat is "normally" loaded. They also state that a prop that prevents the engine from reaching that range, will harm the engine. I have read the same thing in most of the Boating magazines too.

    I guess that being said, building a more powerful engine (500 vs 415 in your example) that will turn the correct max rpms using a higher pitched prop, when run at 4,100 rpms and the higher speed generated by the higher pitched prop, would NOT be lugging. I would further hypothesize that it would be more fuel efficient at that speed than the 415 hp engine because it wouldn't require WOT to hit that rpm.

    And yes, the steeper pitch prop would make it much harder for the boat to get on plane, etc for the 415 hp engine because of the lesser torque/hp in the lower rpm range.

    Am I close?
    “Oh right, because you walked into strippers discount warehouse and said ‘Help me showcase my intellect.’” - Archer

    Bill
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    1985 Donzi Criterion SS
    1967 Donzi 16 Ski Sporter, C16-409, Has a new home!
    38' Carver Aft Cabin
    1968 Sea Ray SRV 180 w/1975 70 hp Evinrude
    10" RIB w/15 hp 1984 Evinrude

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,683
    Rep Power
    34
    I believe I agree w/Bill.
    The easiest way to increase power is to increase engine speed, more pulses per second!
    Our problem is the speed limitation of the outdrive. I think it's kind of like aircraft engines where the limiting factor is prop tip velocity. A 400 HP reciprocating, direct drive, aircraft engine will have quite a large displacement due to the maximum speed of 2,700 RPM, or so.
    So maybe a very modestly tuned 572 is the answer.

    Or, maybe find a very short planetary gear reduction box, then just crank it up faster.
    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    32
    I don't think it's a matter of the HP you get as much as it is the load vs rpm underway

    an engine at 1-3" of vacuum is under much more load than one at 10"
    Charter Member - WAFNC, SBBR, KWOSG
    1955 Perfect Mate
    1986 Hornet III, 502-415 TRS

    www.donzi.org


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,553
    Rep Power
    16
    Many marine V-8 factory engine owners/operation manuals that came with some of our boats over the last 50+ years stated that the boat should only be propped to allow the engine to reach 4400-4500 maximum RPM at wide open throttle.
    The factory manuals also said to limit sustained wide open throttle operation to only short brief bursts.
    Several also mentioned to avoid over-propping & engine overloading & lugging.

    Running this factory suggested way I suspect will give you maximum engine life span.
    I guess we have to always keep in mind that these basic V-8 engines are really very old 50s & 60s automotive & truck designs ?
    Pushing them beyond their original design intentions will surely limit their runnig life span.
    The famous Rolls~Royce Merlin V-12 aviation engine, used in fighter & some bomber warplanes during WW II, got gradually pushed to higher & higher horsepower as the war continued on.
    As the engine's horsepower went up throughout the war~~~The engine's total running hour lifespan dropped dramatically.
    The very last models of the R~R Merlin used in the P-51 Mustang fighter only lasted a few hundred total running hours before needing a total engine re-build.
    Last edited by silverghost; 01-13-2012 at 01:32 AM.
    "BENCHSEAT 18" ~~YellowJacket~~ project owner~
    1929 Chris~Craft 28' Tripple Cockpit Mahogany Speedboat / A-120-A 845 Cu.In. 375 H.P. Chris~Craft V-8 racing engine.
    24' American Skier
    Super Eagle 454 HO Skiboat
    1991 454 SS Chevy Super Sport Pick-up for towing my "Toys".

    There is no such thing as going too fast ~ ~~
    OR~ Being too old~ for a new "Toy"!

    Brad Hunter
    Huntingdon Valley Pa (Just outside Philly)~
    Ocean City NJ
    silverghost1926@msn.com
    215 947 4676 (PA Home)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    0

    Retired drag racer

    My 2 cents. As most of you know there is no such think as true HP rating it is a calculation of RPM and torque which are both able to be quantified. In my engine world (pro stock and top sportsman) we rarely talked HP.
    All motors are basically pumps and when you move into high performance all elements must be considered from cam selection to heads to exhaust and yes carburation. Although marine is new to me principles remain the same. I might suggest that once a motor is built it be run on a dyno to achieve max performance and provide a specific baseline to work from. It is well worth the $500 to assure motor is well sealed and provide good info to work from.
    We often built motors and if they didn't hit dyno numbers desired they never went in car and were pulled apart for changes.
    But have a good shop do it I have seen $80,000 motors grenade on the dyno. Lots of smoke.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,848
    Rep Power
    22
    This is exactly why I like overpowered boats. Not for top end but for cruising all day below 3000rpm where the engine will live forever (at good speed due to the larger prop) . Got over 3000 fresh water hours out of my last boat engine with no internal work because of this.
    Cheers,
    Pismo
    1996 22 Classic
    Red with Stainless Windshield
    Stock Gen VI 502 Magnum MPI-415hp
    Stock Bravo I
    25" Mirage Plus
    74.5mph best @ 5050rpm GPS (Speedo said 80)
    27" Labbed Mirage Plus
    75.5mph best @ 4800rpm GPS (Speedo said 82)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    0
    Honestly I think engine builders know the secret to this puzzle. There is a reason why Merc makes a 502 415hp and not 450 or 500. One is cost, other is longevity and warranty. There is a reason why a Teague engine carries such a limited warranty yet a 496 has a 3 or 5yr. I understand your thinking about a cruise from say 36mph at 3k to a cruise at 42mph at 3k due to a larger prop. My money is still on the 415 lasting longer even if run at a higher rpm to make 42mph. I also know a 500hp engine at 3k is going to eat much more fuel than a 415 at 3k or even 3300. Look at cars. If I run a 6cyl at 65mph in a SUV it may get 20mpg. Put a V8 in it and you may drop to 17 at the same speed. Punch that to 500hp and you may get 12. This is real world although many use the "theory" that a car going 65 uses the same hp to maintain that speed no matter what engine and therefore should do the same MPG. Same goes for boats. Run a 16' OB with a 4cy 115 at 40mph and do the same with a 225 Pro-max and even though the 225 is "loafing" it will burn more than the higher reving 115. Which lasts longer...the one with less cyls in my opinion.

    I cruise at 2900 or so which is 35-38mph depending on load. At this rate it should live forever, the salt I think will take her before she grenades however. I know many who have over 3000 hours on cruiser engines and in my opinion they run harder than ours do. My bud's 454's run at 32-3500 all day long pushing 30,000lbs. They redline at 4200. That is equiv to you guys running over 4k all day long. Most marine engines die from water intrusion or lack of maintenance, not from hours of operation.
    Nick
    1994 22' Classic-454 B1 Red & white
    1981 13' Whaler sport(original owner)
    South Tampa Bay, FL "May I mamoo dogface to the banana patch?"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    490
    Rep Power
    15

    Thoughts...

    Well, I have tried lots of different props on two different 454 engines in the past couple of years in my '88 22C. When I bought the boat it basically had the stock engine with a BIG Holley on it and a 27P which ran it up to close to 70 mph at about 4,800 rpm. This engine, which had lord knows how many hours on it blew on me while running it hard with a 23P prop at somewhere in the 5,400 rpm range. Bought a Bill Dennis built 454 claimed to have 490 hp, put a 26P+ prop on. Ran it through a break in process of never exceeding 2,500 rpms except for occasional up to 4,000 rpm. Within a month after the 20 hour break in period I was running WOT to avoid a pontoon that suddenly moved into my path, hit a big wake, went airborne ( prop completely out of the water I am told ) and within a few minutes this engine locked down with a broken piston. Obviously whatever I end up with this time, it will have some sort of rev limiter. Anyway, my choices right now are a 454 stroker at 482 CUI and a 540 CUI, both well built. I am thinking that as someone above correctly noted, these are all basically truck engines and should not be run at high rpms for other than short periods that either should work, but should use a prop that will get the rev limit back in the 4,600 - 4,800 rpm range. Lower than that is said to really put a load on the stock Bravo One outdrive, but I am definitely not an expert on that. Have read on this site that the Bravo One in stock form is good for up to 600 hp. Key does seem to be keeping the rpm down on these big blocks, at least running WOT for very brief periods. Just my observations after trashing two engines in a couple of years, which is not an inexpensive proposition...
    Oledawg
    Raconteur, bon vivant, curmudgeon
    Other duties as assigned


    Lake Tillery, NC
    - Heart of the Uwharrie Mountains

    '88 Donzi Classic 22 "Bad Nuff" - 482 stroker 454, Bravo One, Solas 4 blade, Red/White hull, White Deck ( "drivin" boat )

    '87 Correct Craft Riviera "Oledawg" - 454 PCM ( "cruzin" boat )


    "A man without a boat is a prisoner" - Faronese proverb

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    21
    I think that heat and detonation are the major factors.Higher Hp has more of both. Higher octane fuel and high shear oil can counter act some, but there will always be more mechanical heat stress in a higher Hp Motor. The combustion charge is hotter, therefore that extra heat is dissipated through the block and all of the mechanical parts.A lower Hp at high load also creates heat.So at some point there would be a sweet spot on were both would be generating the same internal heat dissipation ratio.But detonation will always be more of a factor as Hp is increased.

    Now if you cryo all of the parts and block, heat would not be a factor
    http://www.torquecars.com/tuning/cry...treatments.php
    machinist ,bore it deeper,ream it bigger, and lap it to a fine finish



    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...=2&theater

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    887
    Rep Power
    0

    What engine would win?

    I think for the same reason a SBC marine engine with light internals would be a poor choice to SC.
    I would also think, that the "heat" generated to an engine with strong internals would have better
    longevity....regardless of being over-propped with higher rpm's........Boy!!...if they can only make
    lightweight diesel!
    1983 Cigarette 35' Mistress
    1976 Magnum 27' Sport
    1986 Donzi 18' Classic
    NEVER FORGET 9/11

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,279
    Rep Power
    21
    Lots of interesting comments, thanks. Don't hold back on more if you have them.

    The more I read, the more I keep coming back to the idea of building about a 600+ cu in big block with a really modest cam. Maybe 450 HP. Something that would rev down there with the 385 HP 502. Just needs a drive that can handle the torque. FWC. Long life. Not so much top end, but effortless FAST cruising forever.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,683
    Rep Power
    34

    B.M.E.P. is the aqnswer

    to picking an engine. It's a way to compare different engines for a given application and to look at the loads w/o installing the engine in question and looking at the manifold vacuum like Jim suggested (Jim knows what he's talking about.....at least he does about engines).
    The reason it's so useful is because it's completely calculated.
    Here's an article describing the principles, and there's some interesting anecdotal information a bout actual engines.


    http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine..._yardstick.htm

    - Brake Mean Effective Pressure -

    BMEP: An important performance yardstick

    We have presented the topics of Thermal Efficiency and Volumetric Efficiency as methods for estimating the potential output of a given engine configuration.
    Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) is another very effective yardstick for comparing the performance of one engine to another, and for evaluating the reasonableness of performance claims or requirements.
    The definition of BMEP is: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.
    Note that BMEP is purely theoretical and has nothing to do with actual cylinder pressures. It is simply an effective comparison tool.
    If you work through the arithmetic (presented at the bottom of this page), you find that BMEP is simply a multiple of the torque per cubic inch of displacement. A torque output of 1.0 lb-ft per cubic inch of displacement in a 4-stroke engine equals a BMEP of 150.8 psi. In a 2-stroke engine, that same 1.0 lb-ft of torque per cubic inch is a BMEP of 75.4 psi.
    (The discussion on the remainder of this page is with respect to four-stroke engines, but it applies equally to two stroke engines if you simply substitute 75.4 everywhere you see 150.8)
    If you know the torque and displacement of an engine, a very practical way to calculate BMEP is:
    BMEP (psi) = 150.8 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

    (Equation 8-a, 4-Stroke Engine)
    BMEP (psi) = 75.4 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

    (Equation 8-b, 2-Stroke Engine)
    (IF you prefer pressure readings in Bar rather than PSI, simply divide PSI by 14.5)
    (IF you are interested in the derivation of those relationships, it is explained at the bottom of this page.)
    This tool is extremely handy to evaluate the performance which is claimed for any particular engine. For example, the 200 HP IO-360 (360 CID) and 300 HP IO-540 (540 CID) Lycomings make their rated power at 2700 RPM. At that RPM, the rated power requires 389 lb-ft and 584 lb-ft of torque respectively. (If you don't understand that calculation, CLICK HERE)
    From those torque values, it is easy to see (from Equation 8-a above) that both engines operate at a BMEP of about 163 PSI (12.25 bar, or 1.08 lb-ft of torque per cubic inch) at peak power. The BMEP at peak torque is slightly greater.
    For a long-life, naturally-aspirated, gasoline-fueled, two-valve-per-cylinder, pushrod engine, a BMEP over 200 PSI (13.8 bar) is difficult to achieve and requires a serious development program and very specialized components.
    For comparison purposes, let's look at what is commonly believed to be the very pinnacle of engine performance: Formula-1 (Grand Prix).
    An F1 engine is purpose-built and essentially unrestricted. For 2006, the rules required a 90° V8 engine of 2.4 liters displacement (146.4 CID) with a maximum bore of 98mm (3.858) and a required bore spacing of 106.5 mm (4.193). The resulting stroke to achieve 2.4 liters is 39.75 mm (1.565) and is implemented with a 180° crankshaft. The typical rod length is approximately 4.016 (102 mm), for a Rod/Stroke ratio of about 2.57. These engines are typically a 4-valve-per cylinder layout with two overhead cams per bank, and pneumatic valvesprings. In addition to the few restrictions stated above, there are the following additional restrictions: (a) no beryllium compounds, (b) no MMC pistons, (c) no variable-length intake pipes, (d) one injector per cylinder, and (e) the requirement that one engine last for two race weekends.
    At the end of the 2006 season, most of these F1 engines ran up to 20,000 RPM in a race, and made in the vicinity of 750 HP. One engine for which I have the figures made 755 BHP at an astonishing 19,250 RPM. At a peak power of 755 HP, the torque is 206 lb-ft and peak-power BMEP would be 212 psi. (14.63 bar). Peak torque of 214 lb-ft occurred at 17,000 RPM for a BMEP of 220 psi (15.18 bar). There can be no argument that 212 psi at 19,250 RPM is truly amazing.
    However, let's look at some astounding domestic technology. The 2006 Nextel Cup engine is a severely-restricted powerplant, being derived from production components. It uses a production-based cast-iron 90° V8 block and 90° steel crankshaft, with a maximum displacement of 358 CID (5.87 liters). A typical configuration has a 4.185" bore with a 3.25" stroke and a 6.20" conrod (R/S = 1.91). Cylinder heads are similarly production-based, limited to two valves per cylinder, but highly developed. The valves are operated by a single, engineblock-mounted, flat-tappet camshaft (that's right, still no rollers as of 2007) and a pushrod / rocker-arm / coil-spring valvetrain. It is further hobbled by the requirement for a single four-barrel carburetor. Electronically-controlled ignition is not allowed, and there are minimum weight requirements for the conrods and pistons.
    How does it perform? At the end of the 2006 season, the engines were producing in the neighborhood of 825 HP at 9000 RPM (and could produce more at 10,000 RPM, but engine RPM has been restricted by means of a rule limiting the final drive ratio at each venue). (NOTE: As of early 2010, those same engines are now exceeding 860 BHP, with RPM restricted by the same "gear rule".) 825 HP at 9000 RPM requires 481 lb-ft of torque, for a peak-power BMEP of nearly 203 PSI (14.0 bar). Peak torque was typically about 520 lb-ft at 7500 RPM, for a peak BMEP of over 219 psi (15.1 bar).
    THAT is truly astonishing. Compare the F1 engine figures to the Cup engine figures for a better grip on just how clever these Cup engine guys are.
    To appreciate the value of this tool, suppose someone offers to sell you a 2.8 liter (171 cubic inch) Ford V6 which allegedly makes 230 HP at 5000 RPM, and is equipped with the standard OEM iron heads and an aftermarket intake manifold and camshaft. You could evaluate the reasonableness of this claim by calculating (a) that 230 HP at 5000 RPM requires 242 lb-ft of torque (230 x 5252 ÷ 5000), and (b) that 242 lb-ft. of torque from 171 cubic inches requires a BMEP of 213 PSI (150.8 x 242 ÷ 171).
    You would then dismiss the claim as preposterous because you know that if a guy could do the magic required to make that kind of performance with the stock heads and intake design, he would be renowned as one of the pre-eminent engine gurus in the world. (You would later discover that the engine rating of "230" is actually "Blantonpower", not Horsepower.)
    As a matter of fact, in order to get a BMEP value of 214 PSI from our aircraft V8, we had to use extremely well developed, high-flowing, high velocity heads, a specially-developed tuned intake and fuel injection system, very well developed roller-cam profiles and valve train components, and a host of very specialized components which we designed and manufactured.
    DERIVATION OF THE BMEP EQUATIONS

    The definition of BMEP (as stated at the top of this page) is: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.
    Putting that definition into mathematical format, therefore,
    HP = BMEP x piston area x (stroke / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000
    Working through that equation in terms of a single cylinder engine, BMEP (in PSI) multiplied by piston area (square inches) gives the mean force on the piston during the power stroke. Multiplying that force by the stroke (inches divided by 12 changes the units to feet) gives the net WORK (in foot-pounds) produced by the piston moving from TDC to BDC with the BMEP exerted on it throughout that motion. (Clearly this is not an attempt to represent the reality in the combustion chamber. As previously stated, BMEP is simply a convenient tool for comparing and evaluating engine performance.)
    Next, power is defined as work-per-unit time. Therefore, multiplying the WORK (ft-lbs) by the RPM, then multiplying by power-pulses-per-revolution (PPR) gives the net (brake) power (foot-pounds per minute in this example) produced by one cylinder. (In a single-cylinder engine, PPR is either 1 for a 2-stroke engine or 1/2 for a 4-stroke engine.)
    Since one HORSEPOWER is defined as 33,000 foot-pounds-of-work-per-minute, dividing the WORK (ft-lbs) by 33,000 changes the units from foot-pounds-per-minute to HP.
    Since it is clear that piston area x stroke is the displacement of one cylinder (in cubic inches), then the equation can be simplified to:
    HP = BMEP x (displacement / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000
    Horsepower is also defined as:
    HP = Torque x RPM / 5252
    Substituting that equation into the preceding one gives:
    Torque x RPM / 5252 = BMEP x displacement / 12 x RPM x PPR / 33000
    Reducing that equation gives:
    BMEP = (Torque x 12 x 33,000 / 5252) / (Displacement x PPR)
    Evaluating the constants, 12 x 33,000 / 5252 = 75.39985, which can safely be approximated by 75.4. Simplifying the equation again gives:
    BMEP = (Torque x 75.4) / (Displacement x PPR)
    It is also clear that because the equation includes PPR, it applies to engines with any number of cylinders by using the total displacement, total brake torque, and correct PPR.
    Suppose, for example, that you measured 14.45 lb-ft of torque from a 125 cc (7.625 CID) single-cylinder 2-stroke engine at 12,950 RPM, you would have 35.63 HP (285 HP per liter, quite impressive indeed). The BMEP would be:
    BMEP = (14.45 x 75.4) / (7.625 x 1) = 142.9 psi (9.85 bar)
    That BMEP (9.85 bar) is an impressive number for a piston-ported 2-stroke engine. However, suppose someone claimed to be making that same torque from a single cylinder 4-stroke 125 cc engine at 12,950 RPM. The power would be the same (35.63 HP, or 285 HP per liter). The power density would not necessarily set off alarms, (the 2008 2.4 liter F1 V8 engines approached 315 HP per liter), but the BMEP would cause that claim to be questioned:
    BMEP = (14.45 x 75.4) / (7.625 x 1/2) = 285.8 psi (19.7 bar)
    That BMEP (19.7 bar) is clearly absurd for a normally-aspirated engine. Professor Gordon Blair stated that exceeding 15 bar of BMEP in a N/A engine is virtually impossible, but that was a few years ago. NASCAR Cup engines are now approaching 15.6 bar
    Clearly, the difference between 2- and 4-stroke engines is simply a factor of 2, because of the fact that a 2-stroke cylinder fires once per revoultion whereas a 4-stroke engine fires only once per two revolutions. The equations can be simplified further by incorporating that PPR factor in the constant 75.4 and eliminating PPR from the equation, therefore making the constant for a 4-stroke engine 2 x 75.4 = 150.8. That produces the equations shown at the top of this article, which use the full engine displacement and measured torque.
    BMEP = 150.8 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

    (Equation 8-a, 4-Stroke Engine)
    BMEP = 75.4 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

    (Equation 8-b, 2-Stroke Engine)
    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    32
    now, take that same Nextel engine and bump the c/r about 4 to 5 points more...

    Charter Member - WAFNC, SBBR, KWOSG
    1955 Perfect Mate
    1986 Hornet III, 502-415 TRS

    www.donzi.org


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    545
    Rep Power
    0

    ....

    [ QUOTE=$originalposter]{$pagetext}[/QUOTE]

    ...sheesh...have I taught you nothing ?? I have at least 10 cases, shrink-wrapped, palletized, and otherwise properly stored of "Slick 50"....

    Call me.

    It's all about "liquid" ball-bearings...


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •