As usual thanks for all the great repluies guys. it was just a faulty sending unit, replace it and now sitting at idle is about 170 to 180.
As usual thanks for all the great repluies guys. it was just a faulty sending unit, replace it and now sitting at idle is about 170 to 180.
62,000 horses....dawm, your gettin me all excited now!!!! :winkn: :hyper:
Screaming Metal,
I get more excited about the torque. That horsepower was at 118 rpms, so the torque was 2,759,525 lb/ft.
And why were still not seeing new engine designs that use heat transfer is beyond me. We use all this fossil fuel to build a fire in a hole to push a piston down a single time. Then we dump all that heat we generated into the tailpipe and into the radiator, to get rid of it. We spent good money to build that heat, why do we want to give it away for nothing?Heat transfer, what a fun little science.
Dont we use wasted energy potential with a turbo charger Mike?And why were still not seeing new engine designs that use heat transfer is beyond me. We use all this fossil fuel to build a fire in a hole to push a piston down a single time. Then we dump all that heat we generated into the tailpipe and into the radiator, to get rid of it. We spent good money to build that heat, why do we want to give it away for nothing?
Why? Can no one see the wasted energy potential?
Thanks for your reply i never new it was THAT much of a difference.Rick,
The turbo does pull heat from the hot, expanding exhaust gases. I had a diesel with pyrometer probes mounted pre turbo AND post turbo. The pre turbo is the only one you need to pay attention to, but to support your correct theory, at a boost of 30 psi there was more than 400 degrees differance.
Putz,
Your right, there has to be a temp differential for transfer to occur. Air is not as good of a median for transfer of heat than a liquid. Your engine transfers its heat via the water jacket via a liquid median to the radiator for the inefficeint means of water to air.