Titan Vs F 150

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by rtc1184

wow your truck has lived on 13psi of boost? impressive. the stillen supercharger is only 5psi boost and makes 167hp for the titan if my calculations are correct 167 plus the 317 stock makes 484hp on 5lbs of boost so i dont think someone getting 508rwhp is alot considering the things he did to get the. cams s/c and exhaust on an 06 titan would easily make 508 rwhp so that isnt a comparable statement.

Your math isn't correct, adding a gain to a flywheel number to come up with what? Come on. And that 508 rwhp and 618 ft-lbs SAE was made on a tuned 9 psi turbo kit with an engine that was 100% otherwise stock. Using your math that would be 578 hp and nearly 700 ft-lbs...but I know better.

Originally Posted by rtc1184

and as far as the rearends go they have had issues cause the truck debuted in 04 when did ford debute? and they still have the same issues, recalls on the 6.0 diesels.

How do you go from rearends to 6.0L diesels? There are recalls and TSB's on every vehicle but I've never seen new-in-the-box rear axle assemblies stacked up in a dumpster. That pic was posted on these forums somewhere...

Originally Posted by rtc1184

i am not a fan of dodge, but when it comes to motors dodge will eat the ford market on hp and torque so if it came down to it i would take dodge making a motor for the titan vs chevy or ford, but you keep buying your ford,

Dodges are good on paper, and it ends there. Too many restrictions with the engine management system to push them as far as they could be (now why does that sound familiar?). They don't have the aftermarket like GM and Ford though and as such I haven't seen a DCX Hemi Ram make 800+rwhp/900+lb-ft with ANY combination of parts. I've seen Ford and GM trucks make those numbers though.

Originally Posted by rtc1184

i have owned all of them ford, dodge, chevy and now nissan and imo personally my 07 titan has out performed and durability than any of the other ones. i drive the crap out of my truck and not a problem one yet, knock on wood. so i am completely happy with the performance of my truck in all aspects and especially for the price. something ford can not even come close to touching.

Gee...I've owned GM, Dodge, Chevy, Nissan, Toyota, and Ford and all have had their pros and cons. I can say the Ford has not had a problem that I didn't cause though and it's put up with plenty of abuse. I'm happy with what I buy just as you are.

[HawaiiTitan]

Originally Posted by Blown330

Your math isn't correct, adding a gain to a flywheel number to come up with what? Come on.

It's comical when people pull numbers out of left field.

Originally Posted by Blown330

Dodges are good on paper, and it ends there.

Aww c-mon, last time I checked Lightning's, Syclone's, Typhoon's, SSR, SS's, and SC HD's have NEVER run 12.74@109mph in the 1/4mile in Bone Stock condition.... but a RC Ram SRT-10 has. Dodge has the only truck that's capable of high 12's@107-109mph 1/4mile times in factory bone stock condition, hows that only good on paper?

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by HawaiiTitan

It's comical when people pull numbers out of left field.



Aww c-mon, last time I checked Lightning's, Syclone's, Typhoon's, SSR, SS's, and SC HD's have NEVER run 12.74@109mph in the 1/4mile in Bone Stock condition.... but a RC Ram SRT-10 has. Dodge has the only truck that's capable of high 12's@107-109mph 1/4mile times in factory bone stock condition, hows that only good on paper?

I meant the DCX Hemis in particular in the context of that comment.

[HawaiiTitan]

Doh! lol, gotcha, they are another story hehe.

[HawaiiTitan]

EDIT:
What's the main reason, the thin sidewalls? They can't do any amount of boring and have enough cylinder wall left. Have to be sleeved to up the displacement.

[miketan]

Originally Posted by Blown330

Strictly speaking, the other guy is correct. Talking around 20 lb-ft of difference based on the ratings given by the manufacturers...not much.

Man, you Ford guys crack me up! The Titan has 385 lb-ft of torque at 3400rpm. The 5.4L SOHC 3v has 365 lb-ft of torque at 3750rpm. Using 3rd grade arithmetic, that means the Titan has 20 lb-ft MORE torque at 300 rpm LOWER in the powerband. How is the other guy right?

If you look at the total picture you'd notice the that while the 5.4 would get a bigger hp bump from the 4V heads it would do very little for torque (use the 4V Navigator motors compared to the 2V engines for reference).

Looking at the total picture, I see that the 5.4L desperately needs HP not TQ. Going to a DOHC 4v per cylinder setup would increase HP dramatically. However, we're talking Ford here, so I'm not sure if it could be done. Look at the fiasco they had with the '99 Mustang Cobra's. The DOHC 4v 5.4L Triton seems to put out about the same HP/TQ numbers as the SOHC 3v engines. Maybe it's the variable cam timing that helps the 3v modular motors perform so well.. Maybe they should try VCT on the underacheiving DOHC 4v versions as well?

The 5.4's are built to make torque, they do that very well. With a 4.165" stroke (far more than the VK56's) they are not rev happy anyway. Just not an architecture that lends itself to making power n/a. To take full advantage of the 4V heads would mean trying to wring those engines well past 6,000 rpms.

365 lb-ft for the top tier gas powerplant is rather weak these days. Everyone else is at 375 lb-ft or higher with the top engine option. 400 lb-ft will soon be standard. You can always design a large bore/short stroke motor for more a torque, look at the Endurance. If HP was a primary concern, they could've easily upped it to 400hp+. However, the Endurance was primarily designed for relatively heavy vehicles so torque was more important than all out HP. However, it's hard to design a small bore/long stroke motor for high HP. Ask any 305 SBC guy. Alternately, I don't think you need to spin the 5.4L past 6000rpms to take advantage of 4v heads. If it had a larger bore, it would be easier to create more HP and retain TQ. That's why the 5.6L Endurance is a better engine overall. It has more torque at a lower rpm and still has more HP with just a tiny .2L displacement increase. Ford screwed up, but at least they got the frame right.

To put it in perspective, at 6500 rpms the 5.4's pistons would be moving more than 1,000 fps faster than the Titan's. The cost isn't in the heads, it would be putting in a rotating assembly and bearings to handle the stresses. They do love boost and nitrous though and psi for psi they respond better than anything else out.

I don't think you'd want the Endurance spinning at 6500+rpms either. The DOHC 4v heads do provide an advantage, centrally located spark plug location for optimum targeting. Also, there's no complicated rocker arm assemblies to reduce valvetrain efficiency either.

The '09's might get 4V heads along with a larger bore 4.6-based 5.0...all speculation though. The F-150's will finally be getting the "big bore" Modular they need so don't think that they will be behind the horsepower dept. for much longer.

I don't think that at all. However, it sure is taking them a long time to get competitive in the powertrain department. The current 3v Triton is an outdated small bore/long stroke design that needs major changes to the shortblock to support future HP increases. The Endurance just needs VCT on the exhaust cams, tubular headers, perhaps hotter cams and WOT ECU programming ala UpRev and 400hp/400TQ would be within easy reach. You don't even need to touch the all aluminum short block or rotating assembly.

As for the "more valves equal better breathing"...I really wouldn't use that assumption as the GM LSx and DCX Hemi heads outflow EVERYBODY with 2 valves. There's a lot to be said for applied computational fluid dynamics (GM does this better than anyone save Ferrari).

I would. It takes a larger 6.0L LS1 based Vortec engine to produce the same power as the smaller 5.6L Endurance. Remember, the Endurance is DOWNRATED by Nissan. The 2v pushrod design was probably deficient in the HP department, but had good torque. So they upped it to a jaw dropping 367hp for marketing reasons, but sacrificed TQ (only 375 lb-ft) in the process. The problem with GM and DCX is that they have to periodically increase the displacement to make any significant increases in power N/A. With a large bore/short stroke DOHC 4v design, you can remain at relatively small displacement levels and create insane levels of power.

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by miketan

Man, you Ford guys crack me up! The Titan has 385 lb-ft of torque at 3400rpm. The 5.4L SOHC 3v has 365 lb-ft of torque at 3750rpm. Using 3rd grade arithmetic, that means the Titan has 20 lb-ft MORE torque at 300 rpm LOWER in the powerband. How is the other guy right?

Go back and READ the post. Talking about off idle torque...not peak. If you are going to comment at least try and know what is being talked about in the first place.

Originally Posted by miketan

Looking at the total picture, I see that the 5.4L desperately needs HP not TQ. Going to a DOHC 4v per cylinder setup would increase HP dramatically. However, we're talking Ford here, so I'm not sure if it could be done. Look at the fiasco they had with the '99 Mustang Cobra's. The DOHC 4v 5.4L Triton seems to put out about the same HP/TQ numbers as the SOHC 3v engines. Maybe it's the variable cam timing that helps the 3v modular motors perform so well.. Maybe they should try VCT on the underacheiving DOHC 4v versions as well?

You obviously don't know enough about the subject at hand. The 4V heads flow very well so that obviously isn't the issue. It's about RPMs and that's where the 5.4L has problems.

Originally Posted by miketan

However, it's hard to design a small bore/long stroke motor for high HP. Ask any 305 SBC guy. Alternately, I don't think you need to spin the 5.4L past 6000rpms to take advantage of 4v heads.

Let's see...the 5.4 came out in 1997. The VK56 came out in 2004? So yeah, virtually a clean slate engine that could take advantage of a lot of technology advances. You are not bringing up anything new here as the modular engine's architecture has been brought up and discussed repeatedly. New would involve the upcoming 6.2L Mod gassers that can easily make 400hp/400ft-lbs n/a while still SOHC.

Originally Posted by miketan

I don't think you'd want the Endurance spinning at 6500+rpms either. The DOHC 4v heads do provide an advantage, centrally located spark plug location for optimum targeting. Also, there's no complicated rocker arm assemblies to reduce valvetrain efficiency either.

The VK56 can handle higher rpms a lot better. As for the rest of this...what and why was any of it brought up?

Originally Posted by miketan

I would. It takes a larger 6.0L LS1 based Vortec engine to produce the same power as the smaller 5.6L Endurance. Remember, the Endurance is DOWNRATED by Nissan. The 2v pushrod design was probably deficient in the HP department, but had good torque. So they upped it to a jaw dropping 367hp for marketing reasons, but sacrificed TQ (only 375 lb-ft) in the process. The problem with GM and DCX is that they have to periodically increase the displacement to make any significant increases in power N/A. With a large bore/short stroke DOHC 4v design, you can remain at relatively small displacement levels and create insane levels of power.

You are vastly under educated about the LSx heads if you believe they are deficient the HP department. You think F-body guys would be swapping 5.3L Vortec truck heads onto their cars if they would be sacrificing topend gains? GM engines are incredibly de-tuned in OEM specs and the factory intake and exhaust systems basically force them to breathe through a straw. The stock DCX 5.7L Hemi heads flow as well as many aftermarket racing heads. Sorry, you need to do a considerable amount of research before touching this subject again.

[miketan]

Originally Posted by Blown330

Go back and READ the post. Talking about off idle torque...not peak. If you are going to comment at least try and know what is being talked about in the first place.

What the heck is this off idle torque you keep referring too? The Titan puts out more TOTAL torque at a LOWER rpm. If anything, the Titan has more off-idle torque. If there's MORE torque at a LOWER rpm, how can you say the 5.4L has more? The Endurance has so much torque off idle that I have to gently squeeze the pedal down from a stop or it'll jerk me back into the seat. I never heard anything so ridiculous as this "off-idle" torque excuse. The 2wd Titan's have a 40mph WOT throttle restriction. That's an ECU tuning issue, not a engine powerband issue.

You obviously don't know enough about the subject at hand. The 4V heads flow very well so that obviously isn't the issue. It's about RPMs and that's where the 5.4L has problems.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. Small bore/long stroke motors like the 5.4L are good for TQ, but not so good for high HP levels at relatively mild displacements. I understand the rpm issue. Even though the 5.4L is a undersquare engine, it could benefit from adding 4v heads with cams tuned for more high end power. Remember the Cobra R? 385hp/385tq. If Ford used that 5.4L in their "premium" models, they wouldn't had to go to the less than adequate 300hp/365tq 3v SOHC version in the Navigator.

Let's see...the 5.4 came out in 1997. The VK56 came out in 2004? So yeah, virtually a clean slate engine that could take advantage of a lot of technology advances. You are not bringing up anything new here as the modular engine's architecture has been brought up and discussed repeatedly. New would involve the upcoming 6.2L Mod gassers that can easily make 400hp/400ft-lbs n/a while still SOHC.

Oh brother. Your not going by the "our engine is older than yours" defense are you? It may have debuted in '97, but the SOHC 3v VCT version came out in 2005. A full year after the Titan debuted. The LSx motors are just as old and they're keeping up quite nicely albeit with displacement increases to pump up the torque peak.

I'm not sure what you mean by more technological advances. The Triton and Endurance have basically the same technology. The Endurance can go on for another generation without significantly increasing the overall displacement or changing the block to remain competitive. If it takes a 6.2 Mod motor to beat the Endurance, so be it. However, if Nissan decides to increase the Endurance to 6.2L and toss it into in a future Ram based Titan equivalent, you Ford guys are going to be crying the same "why are we so slow compared to them" tune again, I wasn't trying to bring up anything new to you. After all, if anyone know modular motors, it would be a Furd guy. I was just trying state the facts to make them clear for myself and others who may read the post.

The VK56 can handle higher rpms a lot better. As for the rest of this...what and why was any of it brought up?

Because there are additional benefits with a DOHC configuration You can place the spark plug in the center of the cylinder head chamber. Placing it in the center provides the best (optimal) path for ignition. SOHC heads generally place the cam down the centerline (middle) of the heads making a centrally located spark plug location nearly impossible.

You are vastly under educated about the LSx heads if you believe they are deficient the HP department.

Who said they were deficient in HP? I never said the LSx heads were deficient in the HP deparment. They're deficient in LOW END torque. GM sacrificed TQ to upstage everyone at the time with their 367HP rating on the 6.0L. I've driven a few LSx cars/trucks and the lowend TQ is pitiful. You've got to rev them high. This is good on a relatively light vehicle like a 4th gen F-body or C5 Vette, but with a heavy vehicle like a truck with a 4sp auto and mild gears they suck.

You think F-body guys would be swapping 5.3L Vortec truck heads onto their cars if they would be sacrificing topend gains? GM engines are incredibly de-tuned in OEM specs and the factory intake and exhaust systems basically force them to breathe through a straw.

I think you may need to stick with the Mod motors because your knowledge on the LSx is misleading. LSx motors are not severely detuned from the factory. The factory intake wasn't that restrictive. In 2001, they all got the better flowing LS6 intake. The exhaust wasn't that bad either especially if it had the SLP catback exhaust option. If anything, it was the gears. The gears were generally too high (numerically low) for the powerband. That's why 4.10's are a nice upgrade for the 6-speeds.

The stock DCX 5.7L Hemi heads flow as well as many aftermarket racing heads. Sorry, you need to do a considerable amount of research before touching this subject again.

Your defending the stock Hemi? Now I've heard everything.lol! A 345hp engine with as you put it, "racing style" heads, that pumps out a paltry 249RWHP on average. Now, that's funny.lol! You've pretty much defended every engine configuration out there except the I-Force V8 from Toyota. However, since the I-Force is a lot like the Endurance, you'll probably leave that one alone I guess.

[Juday]

Here we go again...

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by miketan

What the heck is this off idle torque you keep referring too? The Titan puts out more TOTAL torque at a LOWER rpm. If anything, the Titan has more off-idle torque.

Using the manufacturer's advetised numbers the 5.4L make 328 ft-lbs at 1000 rpms and the 5.6L makes 308 ft-lbs. 328 > 308 THAT is off-idle torque and if you'd done your math correctly you'd have know that.

Originally Posted by miketan

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. Small bore/long stroke motors like the 5.4L are good for TQ, but not so good for high HP levels at relatively mild displacements. I understand the rpm issue. Even though the 5.4L is a undersquare engine, it could benefit from adding 4v heads with cams tuned for more high end power. Remember the Cobra R? 385hp/385tq. If Ford used that 5.4L in their "premium" models, they wouldn't had to go to the less than adequate 300hp/365tq 3v SOHC version in the Navigator.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. My knowledge of the Ford modulars outstrips yours by a vast margin though. You know how the Cobra R got that much hp using 4V heads (which, btw are a better version than the 4V head the Navigators got. but we both know you don't know as much as you think you do about these motors.)? Having a 6500+ RPM redline. Know what kind of internals Ford put in those hand built motors so they could reliably turn that much RPM? Carillo BILLET I-beam rods. Pretty damned good connecting rods for a naturally aspirated motor only making 385 hp. The Ford GT supercar's connecting rods aren't that good. Good logic there pal, a hand built, low production mill to put in trucks that sell hundreds of thousands of units per year. Any more gems like this?

Originally Posted by miketan

Oh brother. Your not going by the "our engine is older than yours" defense are you? It may have debuted in '97, but the SOHC 3v VCT version came out in 2005. A full year after the Titan debuted. The LSx motors are just as old and they're keeping up quite nicely albeit with displacement increases to pump up the torque peak.

Going back into what you don't know about other makers motors. GM could keep up like that because the LSx architecture allowed for whole engine blocks to be revised without having to make huge changes to the heads, intake manifolds, and exhaust manifolds. Any idea how many separate engines blocks have been cast between the Gen III and Gen IV motor familys? Try 5. Know how many block revisions Ford's done for the 5.4L? 1. For the 4.6L? 1, and that was going from the iron to aluminum WEP blocks. Ford's taken this long to come out with a whole new set of castings because they had to re-tool their whole operation from the 5.4's because the 6.2L's are significantly longer. GM's never had to do that and the VK56 is just a tall deck version of an existing engine Nissan had.

Originally Posted by miketan

If it takes a 6.2 Mod motor to beat the Endurance, so be it. However, if Nissan decides to increase the Endurance to 6.2L and toss it into in a future Ram based Titan equivalent, you Ford guys are going to be crying the same "why are we so slow compared to them" tune again, I wasn't trying to bring up anything new to you. After all, if anyone know modular motors, it would be a Furd guy. I was just trying state the facts to make them clear for myself and others who may read the post.

Roush has a 6.2L prototype making 850+hp n/a on E85 with SOHC heads. I seriously don't think the next gen modulars are going to have a problem keeping up with Nissan. Oh...and unlike the current 5.4L, these have enough room to go up to 7.0L. That's a fact you need to make clear for yourself.

Originally Posted by miketan

Because there are additional benefits with a DOHC configuration You can place the spark plug in the center of the cylinder head chamber. Placing it in the center provides the best (optimal) path for ignition. SOHC heads generally place the cam down the centerline (middle) of the heads making a centrally located spark plug location nearly impossible.

DOHC won't solve the hp problems of the 5.4L in naturally aspirated form. Are you really this dense? What part of terminal piston velocities do you not understand? See above Cobra R example and consult a high school physics textbook if you still don't get it.

Originally Posted by miketan

I think you may need to stick with the Mod motors because your knowledge on the LSx is misleading. LSx motors are not severely detuned from the factory. The factory intake wasn't that restrictive. In 2001, they all got the better flowing LS6 intake. The exhaust wasn't that bad either especially if it had the SLP catback exhaust option. If anything, it was the gears. The gears were generally too high (numerically low) for the powerband. That's why 4.10's are a nice upgrade for the 6-speeds.

Yeah, not detuned at all. Kinda at odds with the 2008 Trailblazer SS I was helping a friend tune last weekend though. If I thought you had a clue about fuel and timing maps and how they relate to these LSx engines I'd post them. You have absolutely no idea how much power GM leaves on the table with those vehicles between the fuel/spark tables and the torque management setup. I've seen 20+hp peak to peak and over 30hp across the curve gained just from tuning a 5.3L Silverado on our local 87 octane and you are telling me GM doesn't significantly detune these engines. You, sir, crack me up.

Originally Posted by miketan

Your defending the stock Hemi? Now I've heard everything.lol! A 345hp engine with as you put it, "racing style" heads, that pumps out a paltry 249RWHP on average. Now, that's funny.lol! You've pretty much defended every engine configuration out there except the I-Force V8 from Toyota. However, since the I-Force is a lot like the Endurance, you'll probably leave that one alone I guess.

I'm just going to quote part of an article Popular Hot Rodding did on the DCX Hemi heads. Unlike you, I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due.

Flow Capability
We can see that Chrysler's engineers were targeting the best two-valve head possible. There are two important questions that need to be asked here: How well did they succeed for the head in stock form and, since no aftermarket heads are available, what is its porting potential? The graph, Fig 3, gives the answers here and you are going to like them. First, the intake port. The stock port with its 2-inch valve flowed a whopping 270 cfm at only .600-inch lift. It hit the peak flow figures, which are produced at .700-inch lift on a stock LS6, at only about 375 thousandths lift. This is good news but there is a lot more. Peak figures are not the whole story. Good mid-range figures are also important. The new Hemi did extremely well here. At 250 thousandths lift, the stock head was nearer a $10,000 Winston (Nextel) Cup head than it was to even a good modified parallel-valve head.

A check on the intake port velocity (Fig 4) showed the intake to be a super high-speed port with valve-to-port areas very similar to what is seen in Formula One. Velocity probing showed 90 percent of the port flows at a velocity greater than 90 percent of maximum. This is far better than a typical 23-degree performance head for a small-block Chevy or, for that matter, the LS6.

The exhaust port showed the same high-function trend by hitting 161 cfm at 600 thousandths lift through its 1.55-inch valve. It also had a far better than average port velocity and velocity distribution (Fig 5).

We spent a day and a half on the flow bench in an effort to find out what this head does or does not like in the way of port mods. We are sure there is much still to come, especially with some bigger valves, but we did find what it took to produce, at 600 thousandths lift, some 302 cfm on the intake and 195 cfm on the exhaust. As the nearby photos show the work to achieve this proved simple. In essence, the porting involves little more than just tidying up what Chrysler's engineers provided in the first place (great job guys).

Anybody who really has a clue about those engines know they are extremely limited from the factory. That is strictly a tuning issue. Had Chysler not saddled those engines with a garbage control system they'd be kicking Titan, Toyota, Ford, and GM *** with minimal effort. I can see things for what they are, I don't let some petty bias pin blinders on me.

[ZeroPt99]

[TitanGreg06]

Why does it matter if ford has more off idle torque if they cant get it to the ground? Have you seen what stock F-150 dynos? Its sad, really sad for pick up. The Titan gets it power to the ground (where is matters). You said dodge looks good on paper but then you go a quote what ford says on paper? The Titan out performs the F-150 in the real world case closed, nothing you can say will change that till ford learns how to build a truck.

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by TitanGreg06

Why does it matter if ford has more off idle torque if they cant get it to the ground? Have you seen what stock F-150 dynos? Its sad, really sad for pick up. The Titan gets it power to the ground (where is matters). You said dodge looks good on paper but then you go a quote what ford says on paper? The Titan out performs the F-150 in the real world case closed, nothing you can say will change that till ford learns how to build a truck.

Where the hell did I quote what Ford says on paper? Only sources I've used are Ford's and Nissan's advertised ratings and I QUOTED Popular Hot Rodding. Have I disputed that a Titan is quicker than a F-150? No. How about you not put words in other peoples' mouths. Ford knows how to build a truck they just haven't suited it with engough engine. That will very soon change though and you'll see what a large bore, over-square Modular can do. As for power to the ground issue, the damn trucks are turning the most over-built rear axle available in a 1/2-ton truck. If Ford had put 8.8's behind the 5.4's then it would be a different story (probably very similar to the Titan's story at that). I personally don't mind as I like the fact my stock rear end can take the abuse of launching a 5,000+ lb truck making 476 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on drag tires...

[Blown330]

Originally Posted by TitanGreg06

Why does it matter if ford has more off idle torque if they cant get it to the ground? Have you seen what stock F-150 dynos? Its sad, really sad for pick up. The Titan gets it power to the ground (where is matters). You said dodge looks good on paper but then you go a quote what ford says on paper? The Titan out performs the F-150 in the real world case closed, nothing you can say will change that till ford learns how to build a truck.

Where the hell did I quote what Ford says on paper? Only sources I've used are Ford's and Nissan's advertised ratings and I QUOTED Popular Hot Rodding. Have I disputed that a Titan is quicker than a F-150? No. How about you not put words in other peoples' mouths. Ford knows how to build a truck they just haven't suited it with engough engine. That will very soon change though and you'll see what a large bore, over-square Modular can do. As for power to the ground issue, the damn trucks are turning the most over-built rear axle available in a 1/2-ton truck. If Ford had put 8.8's behind the 5.4's then it would be a different story (probably very similar to the Titan's story at that). I personally don't mind as I like the fact my stock rear end can take the abuse of launching a 5,000+ lb truck making 476 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on drag radials...