Oyaji

I am pretty certain that torque wrenches, including the beam type, do move as you apply torque in order for the pointer to move along the scale for measurement don't they? Even you say "watch the pointer...rise..." which clearly indicates movement, however small, as the pointer is directly connected to the wrench shaft. . OK then, since you insist, toss the beam torque wrench in my example and substitute a preset "dial-in limit" torque wrench. You will not see the pointer move, but you will feel the "clik" when you exceed the preset dialed-in torque threshold (whatever the setting), so you know you are generating torque without movement, work, and power. . Like the example better now? :)

.Thank you for your "interest". If and when it becomes appropriate to do as you ask, not only you but a whole lot of pickup drivers (not just Comanche drivers, either) will be quite interested, I hope. . Until that time, you'll just have to be patient. . Meanwhile, I'll continue to post what I can that is hopefully of value (technical and /or entertainment), in the hopes that if/as/when I need to ask for help that it will be forthcoming.

Have you done a compression test?.

. No, I think it best to just read as you go your own way. It will be interesting to follow your progress, but you are going down a path I won't be taking. I am interested in economy and utility, and am reluctant to depart from safety and reliability. To be honest, I am not sure where you are going... but it looks to be fun, a bit dangerous, and expensive. :)

.For some reason I always had trouble with getting an intuitive grasp of electricity, but isn't it better to say power is E*I? Then you are there - a kilowatt is 1.34 horsepower.

. Same as I mentioned at the outset of the thread, there are 2 ways: to increase torque by increasing BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure, or more force on the piston, which is more "push" per stroke), or by increasing RPM (getting more "pushes"/strokes per minute). . It's the same for all Otto cycle engines - you can do either or both sorts of modifications until you start bending things from too much "push" or until the engine starts flinging parts off from too much "spin". . From here on the talk should be about how much increase that a stock engine can take, or about what modifications to make to which parts that break first, and the ensuing shift of failure to other parts as you continue to modify the engine beyond stock in the effort to increase power.

. I think you would benefit from a review of the definitions of power and torque. Though I doubt you would agree, pretty much everything you had to say was in support of my first post in this thread. . You asked "How do you "twist" something without power?" Here is an example for you: clamp the square end of a spring-beam torque wrench into a bench vise. Pull on the handle, and watch the pointer on the torque scale rise. You are generating torque, but doing no work because you have not moved anything, nor are you generating power, because power is a measure of how fast work is done. Another example: sitting on the lowered tailgate of your MJ generates torque about the tailgate hinge equal to your weight times the distance you sit from the hinge, but doing so does no work nor generates any power at all. . Horsepower and torque are related, just as I said in more detail in my first post, but torque alone does nothing at all.

. Dead on - nice catch, should have had my coffee this morning before posting. :) . Post edited to correct error - thank you.

It might do for a very small car (like an old Triumph Spitfire: small, light, and very low profile) as long as you had no need for acceleration or top speed, but such are just too small for a Comanche (unless they make bigger ones than I know of). I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread the acquaintance who put a 3-banger 17 or 22 HP Yanmar diesel (same as used in Kubotas I have seen) into his street dune buggy - he had very dismal results (he was shooting for 100+ MPG and 75+ MPH, but fell short at 50 MPH and never would admit his MPG - I estimated ~60-65 MPG). . Those small Yanmars are just too underpowered, too inefficient, and too heavy for this purpose. If there are some bigger ones that make more power, I fear they will also be too heavy for the power they produce - for a tractor engine where weight adds traction that is fine though.

I'll try... tell me how I do (it may take several posts). . There are 2 basic ways to increase horsepower in an internal combustion Otto cycle engine: by increasing torque, or by increasing RPM. Since torque is just twisting force, it is not a measure of power: it does not describe useful work. But "torque events" (like one revolution, for example) combined over time do describe work. If you increase the magnitude of the individual "torque events", then the same number of them will add up to a greater amount of work done, thus more power. The other way is to increase the number of "torque events" by making more of them rather than increasing their magnitude: more revolutions at a given torque equals more work done, thus more power. . Increasing torque depends on BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure). This can be increased by raising compression ratio and by increasing the amount of combustibles of the intake charge. There is an upper limit on compression ratio that depends on a number of factors that ultimately change the nature of the combustion event from a progressive burn to detonation; among them are octane rating of the fuel, spark advance, and engine design (intake charge distribution, combustion chamber shape, materials, and cooling). Increasing combustibles can be done in several ways also: increasing volumetric efficiency (by adjusting camshaft profile and timing, and by intake passage optimization or "porting"), forced induction (supercharging), and substitution of a better oxidizing agent than atmospheric air (ie, NO2 [edit: N2O - good catch Mvusse - guess I should have had my coffee this morning before posting - thanks!]). Note that increasing combustibles depends on extraordinary methods to enhance the amount of oxygen in the intake charge, as gases are notoriously harder to get into an engine than liquid fuel! . The remaining avenue for increasing power is by increasing revolutions of the engine. The upper limit is ultimately what the materials used in the engine can withstand before they fling themselves apart from the strain (or buckle from the stress). For the best materials out there this is around 20,000 Gs (if memory serves). Practical considerations are crankshaft stroke (short stroke = smaller radius of rotation = smaller G-load at a given RPM), crankshaft and engine block twist (dependent on both design and manufacturing expertise), careful attention to balancing of all components and their final assembled state, and esoterica such as supersonic flow through intake valves. . I'm sure I left some things out, and could go into greater detail on any of the points I mentioned, but that is what comes to mind this early morning. I hope others contribute here as well, as I would welcome interchange with them on what was once a favorite subject of mine.

Oy vey - you've already fallen down the rabbit hole then. You're in good company though, and I am sure the guys out there ahead of you will be full of advice. .

Which why? By the way, this Jeep will not see salt, maybe sea salt, but definitely not see salt. . Good deal regarding salt. Though you are still on the warm side of the Mason-Dixon line, I feared you might have salted roads in winter. . You said you wanted to protect your investment in tires as the reason for front end upgrades, but I don't think you have any worries from the added height from the tires. Have you put a lift under it already? If so, then these guys can advise you, but if not, again you have no worries about protecting tires unless they rub. If they do, I think you'd be better off to just adjust your steering stops instead of lifting a street truck. . Maybe I am misreading your goals?

Wondering how it fared in the rollover - pics? . Just a reminder: you might want to save the 5-speed out of it before it goes to the junkyard.

. Family videos? That dig must be your obtuse way of dodging the allusion that your brake pedal goes to 11 and has electrolytes. . Yuk-yuk.

ummm... why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrVCjnRdB_k .

I'm assuming you're still referring to braking force and contact area of the braking surfaces. If that's the case, let it be heard that area plays no part in friction, and I've done several labs demonstrating this. Force due to friction is dependent on only two variables; the force pushing the two surfaces together, and the coefficient of friction (a constant which is determined by the material(s) of the surfaces). . Simple experiment to demonstrate this: . . . For the mass shown in red, use a brick. Measure the force needed to move the brick with it laying on its side, then stand it on end, repeat, and compare the results. The force needed will be the same no matter what the contact area. . This holds true for non-deformable surfaces; it goes out the window when the surfaces are deformable. That's why I mentioned there is a very small contribution from area - in the case of brake friction material it is negligible though.

5th wheel on a long bed Metric Ton package maybe? Longer wheelbase would make for a more stable towing platform, and the 5th wheel hitch would distribute load weight better.

You're right, of course. It's a combination of area and pressure, which together result in force. That's why the trick of using smaller wheel cylinders on the AMX was a tolerable work-around when removing the proportioning valve from an AMX -- the brakes themselves remained the same (same swept area), but the smaller cylinders at the same peddle pressure transmitted less overall force to the drums. . Still off, and I too was off in that I was incomplete in what I said: it isn't only force applied, but also the moment via which it acts. In the case of brakes, the moment is the distance from the center of the drum or rotor to the centroid of the area of the friction material (for drums, this is the radius of the drum, but for rotors it is the intersection of the lines of an "X" drawn from the corners of the brake pad, or the average radius of the friction portion of the rotor). Area has no influence on force; measured in PSI on the friction material, adding area reduces pounds per square inch but does nothing at all to the total amount of pounds of force applied. Zagscrawler was dead on target when he spelled it out thus: "Small masters + huge pistons + tight tolerances + pedal force multiplication = massive stopping force." A small master cylinder adds mechanical advantage, as does a larger slave (the compliment of which you mentioned in your example of using a smaller slave to reduce force on the AMX to delay rear wheel lockup). Tight tolerances are required for this because although force is multiplied, the distance through which it acts is reduced (as it is on the short end of a lever). Pedal force multiplication comes from either a longer pedal (not practical) or from power assist (a brake booster). . Adding bigger tires adds another variable: the torque moment that road force acts through is increased with increasing tire diameter, which makes brake upgrades important if it is impossible to lock wheels under braking after adding bigger tires. Another related braking problem that comes with bigger tires (and the lifts that so often accompany them) is that the center of gravity of the truck is raised, which changes nosedive and weight distribution under braking and would require a change in proportioning valve bias in order to avoid early rear-wheel lockup.

. Sounds like your target is not so different from mine, but I am not as inclined toward style. I am definitely of the "form follows function" school of thought. If it is performing its intended purpose, then the form it takes will look right - it will look as it should because it performs as it should. . There are a number of things my truck will have to do well (or well enough). I need four wheel drive because I still pull trailers not infrequently. I hate getting stuck out behind the barn on wet grass after a rain has caused the tires on the loaded trailer to sink far enough that I'll have to get the tractor out to move it if I don't have 4x4. I also need to be able to drive across sand to launch a boat from the beach. One thing I DON'T need is major flex or clearance: both mountains and boulders are in conspicuous short supply down here on the flatlands of the coastal plain. That is good because I am frugal and out to get the best fuel economy I can, and stuff like high lifts and big tires crush gas mileage and bring with them all sorts of other problems and considerations. . The Comanche fits the bill as a basic platform, and will need little modification from stock to suit my needs. This is good because some of the best minds in the country (even the world) were hired by the manufacturer as engineers, and it is hard for me to think I could all by myself do a better job than all their combined expertise. When I do depart from the basic platform I want to make sure that I do not degrade the performance already designed in at the factory. . To that end I am looking to go 31" tires little or no wider than stock, on 16 or 17 inch rims to preserve road handling by limiting sidewall height (and thereby limiting sidewall flex under cornering load). They'll be an all-season road tire (with tread as aggressive as is available for a road tire), 6-ply rating (or better if I can get them) so I can air them up good and hard for load carrying capacity and for reduced rolling resistance to retain or improve fuel economy. I expect I'll be running either 3.55 final drive with a 5-speed, or 4.10s with an AW4 so as to maintain proper gearing. If I can't lock the brakes, I'll try to find bigger rotors/drums that will fill the bigger space inside the wheels. I'll add them if the cost is not prohibitive, otherwise I'll go the route of increasing brake pressure with a better booster so that I can lock the wheels on demand. I may add an inch of lift, but only if it adds load capacity and retains road handling - otherwise I just don't need it. I may "down-cam", giving up some top-end horsepower to boost bottom-end torque and fuel economy, depending on the truck I end up getting and whether or not I can source a cheap VM 2.5 (or better) bolt-in diesel for a swap. I'll probably end up adding a number of gadgets (I think an ABS project with custom chip programming would be really cool) if I find them useful, but I don't expect to depart very far from the pretty darn good foundation I started with by fixing things that ain't broke. . Earl, as I read you I think your goals for a street MJ are not so far off what I am after. Here is one more consideration for you - if you do go with aluminum for your tie rod, expect electrolysis between dissimilar metals, made worse by the road salt in your environment. I think you could spend your money more wisely on other upgrades that will do a lot more for you, but what the hell - buy you some "man-bling" if it makes you happy. :)

I wonder how much of the touted improvements to braking I hear are merely greater pedal sensitivity. Real braking performance is measured as stopping distance, not how little foot pressure needs to be applied at the pedal. Ultimately, the limit is being able to lock the wheels on a non-ABS brake system, so if you can lock them with a given brake system, it is not possible to improve beyond that. As vehicle weight increases, it becomes harder to lock the wheels, so it is with increasing vehicle weight (ie, increasing payload) that increased pedal sensitivity would show improvement in stopping distance. . Depending on how much a pickup is used as a truck (and not as a passenger car), proportioning valves can be very important in maintaining control/avoiding rear wheel lockup without ABS because the weight distribution changes dramatically with any load change in the bed. . An aside comment: Eagle, you are off base about braking being dependent on swept area (it has an influence, but very small). Braking is instead dependent on force applied. All other things being equal, area determines the life of the friction material.

I think the reason they say not to use any of the VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) on electrical parts is simply because in our litigious society (wherein lawyers can bleed you white if liability can be proven) any screw-up, no matter how ridiculous or whose fault it might be, is too much for any manufacturer to risk. VOCs are highly flammable, so on electrical components there is a chance of starting a fire... but only if there is any left on your parts! Those compounds evaporate very quickly, plus you can tell by the smell if there is any remaining. Most of it will be gone in 5 minutes or less; if you leave it out in the sun it should all be gone in an hour. . With regard to wiring, vinyl/PCV insulation might lose some plasticiser to solvents, which would make the wires less flexible... but they sure will be clean!

Takes me 1 minute with channel-lock pliers... but I have a feeling my sensor is different from what you have.

Trichloroetylene used to be available once upon a time - I used to use it... dunno if you can still get it. It was used as an industrial degreaser for electrical and other parts for the aviation rework facilities of the US Navy and their suppliers around here, before they out-sourced it to God-knows-where: Trichloroethylene The chemical compound trichloroethylene (C2HCl3) is a chlorinated hydrocarbon commonly used as an industrial solvent. It is a clear non-flammable liquid with a sweet smell. It should not be confused with the similar 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which is commonly known as chlorothene. . The IUPAC name is trichloroethene. Industrial abbreviations include TCE, trichlor, Trike, Tricky and tri. It has been sold under a variety of trade names. Under the trade names Trimar and Trilene, trichloroethylene was used as a volatile anesthetic and as an inhaled obstetrical analgesic in millions of patients. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene .

Anybody ever seen a CB mounted from the ceiling, above and behind the rear-view mirror? . I have had that idea ever since I first bought my '92 Laredo XJ, which has an overhead console with some empty space - maybe enough to hold a small CB radio. Might have to get a bit creative to provide venting to prevent the radio from overheating... One other big consideration: I am leery of having sharp corners to bang into anywhere in the interior (particularly in potential range of my head!).