Ford Forums banner

Dyno results for 351 Cleveland

35K views 107 replies 26 participants last post by  battered_bronc 
#1 ·
xxx
 
#2 ·
That is not a bad figure.

What heads, ignition, exhaust, mainfold, are you running?

That's roughly 192 rwkw so considering everything thats ok.

But as said a gazillion times before, take dyno figures lightly.

Does it feel better?
 
#4 ·
Heads are 2V closed chamber with the chambers opened out. They have been mildly ported (whatever you get for $400) Intake is an Edelbrock Performer. Exhaust is a 2.5" twin with Genie tri ys and an X pipe. Ignition is an MSD magnetic inductive ready to run type.
 
#5 ·
xcgxl said:
258 at the rear wheels is like 310-325 at the flywheel. FWHP for the factory 4V Clevelands was only 320-335 so be happy with what you've got goin' on under the hood.

TTNOS8 said:
But as said a gazillion times before, take dyno figures lightly.
I don't know whoever said to take dyno figures lightly, but they're usually the best indication of output available. ETs are arguably worthwhile, but traction losses and bad chassis combinations can slow a car such that ET is meaningless when trying to "reverse engineer" engine power.

258 RWHP is a good number for a peak in a daily driver. 320-ish at the flywheel is just perfect. You can't really use much more than that on the street anyway. Everyone wants more power, but most cars can't use it and still actually ride and drive like a car on the street.

I say your numbers are great. Enjoy it.

:davis:
 
#6 ·
davis said:
I don't know whoever said to take dyno figures lightly, but they're usually the best indication of output available. ETs are arguably worthwhile, but traction losses and bad chassis combinations can slow a car such that ET is meaningless when trying to "reverse engineer" engine power.

:davis:
Its been an arguing point in this forum for a while now.

I personally find the sometimes called "GAY Chassis Dyno" very useful, and a great tuning, arguably the best in chassis tuning tool. Others do not share the same thoughts. All opinions really.

Apparently the figures can vary alot across Australia, I wouldn't actually know because my vehicles are only dyno'd on one dyno which I trust, because it proves itself over and over. Oh, and their good blokes!

Shoot out Modes, difference in air temp, humidity, tyre size, etc, etc are why people get so upset about figures, but hey, 258RWHP is good. Go from there!
 
#7 ·
davis said:
258 at the rear wheels is like 310-325 at the flywheel. FWHP for the factory 4V Clevelands was only 320-335 so be happy with what you've got goin' on under the hood.

On a Dyno Jet maybe, but not on a Dyno Dynamics!

I don't know whoever said to take dyno figures lightly, but they're usually the best indication of output available. ETs are arguably worthwhile, but traction losses and bad chassis combinations can slow a car such that ET is meaningless when trying to "reverse engineer" engine power.

I respectfully disagree. A dyno is the worst method of calculating actual HP.

Also ET is virtually meaninless in calculating HP - you must use MPH, which is a very accurate method. Unlike ET, driver ability or chassis setup doesnt adversly effect MPH to any appreciable degree. Being a drag racer, and engineer, i would have thought you would have known that!


:davis:
..
 
#9 ·
Add to Racer's sentiments there Davis, simple laws of physics that to move a given mass over a set distance which results in a certain speed is all you need to calculate true HP, in the most accurate way possible. And ET hasn't got bugger all to do with it.

If a dyno gives you a near enough reading of what the car calculates back to on the 1/4 then it's a good dyno in my view and/or atleast has been calibrated correctly. Here in OZ the range is about +/- 30% across the country, so unless as TTN said it's the same dyno in each instance, then it can be pretty meaningless.

Either way xcgxl, it's doing what it's supposed to be doing and gives you a good benchmark to work against.
 
#10 ·
Racer, please try not to quote me using your words such that it is difficult to distinguish who said what.

MPH is (respectfully) BULLSHIT. You can stick a 4.88 gear in a 3600# car and have it run mid 12s at under 100 MPH. How much HP is that? Math says 260-ish RWHP. Somehow I'm thinking that a big block 427 is making more than 260-something RWHP.

I've seen funny cars go up in smoke down the track and run only 140 MPH. How much HP is that? What is being measured, how much traction is lost going down the track? A friend of mine runs 7.20s in a 3200# car on 10.5W tires smoking them the entire length of the track. How much power is he making?

A dynamometer is by definition a device for measuring mechanical power. From the available torque, horsepower is calculated using engine RPM and simple math.

Try not to tell me what I should know or not. I stand by what I said. A dyno is the best way to tell power. A POS dyno is just as good as a POS anything else.

I think that the point some may try to make is that the actual numeric output from a dyno is not to be compared to other dyno figures, as was stated previously "take dyno figures lightly." I read this to mean that dyno output figures vary between different dynos. From the perspective of one guy makes XYZ power at ABC dyno and EFG power from OPQ dyno, the numbers are meaningless. One the same dyno, assuming that it is fairly consistent, the measurements can be used to properly tune the vehicle for best power given the dynamics of the environment.

Maybe some hardware out there sucks, and yes, we largely use DynoJets for chassis dynoing in Arizona. However, my comments are related to all dyno types whether engine or chassis.

They are the only way to accurately measure engine power, when properly calibrated and used by an astute professional. Any bloke can misuse even the simplest measuring device. I don't suppose that anyone here ever cut a board too short in their lives, regardless of what they "should" know or not.

Your argument that driver ability and chassis setup doesn't adversely affect MPH is BULLSHIT. Try this. Launch your car at the lowest possible RPM to get it moving. Stay in first gear the entire length of the track with your foot mashed to the floor and the engine bouncing off of the rev limiter. What happened to your MPH and how much power did your engine make? I'm guessing that your MPH will be WAY OFF. Are you saying that your engine makes more power in 2nd gear than 1st just because it allows the rear wheels to turn more rapidly?

As a racer, I know what you mean by using MPH to see if your power is off, but it is still very dependent on known good data and consistent driving ability AND making a good run down the track. If you don't think that driving affects MPH, get out of the groove and see if your MPH slows. It will, as will your ET. It doesn't mean that you're making any more or less power. MPH just tells you how much power you effectively used, not how much power you've got available.

One day on one of my blown big block cars, I jumped the boost up to 22% over driven, ran both sides of the track repeatedly as a result of traction loss. Had this whole "S" thing going down the track. I don't think it got over 100 MPH without me having to brake to get it to return somewhere near to the middle of my lane. It was probably making about 1150-1200 HP on that day, certainly more than enough to overpower the chassis. Still ran like an 11.25. For a 3500-3600# car, how much power does my 100 MPH pass say that I make? How much will MPH be affected if you stutter and miss a shift? Driving has a lot to do with ET and MPH and bad driving will make both worse.

Racer said:
Being a drag racer, and engineer, i would have thought you would have known that!
The more I learn about what is happening during each pass (from data capture/analysis), the more I realize that I know nothing. I've designed dozens of pieces of hardware and written software to support my data collection and analysis of what happens everytime I strap in and light it up. I even built a small, high speed CMOS imager running at 110 frames per second to take pictures of my tires throughout passes. I used a scaled background behind the tire so that I could see how much growth they underwent, how much deflection and distortion due to high speed and wind drag...can you even imagine all of the "tire" data I collected? Several gigabytes of video data alone. I wrote an image processor to calculate the variation in tire size from frame to frame so that it plotted a graph of tire changes for the course of the entire pass. I had such meaningful information as average tire size, peak tire growth and maximum launch distortion values at the end of it all. I tried several different brands and types/compounds of tires. I had a whole slew of information about which grew more/less, distorted more/less and when I was done, I was still left wondering how to actually use all of that data to actually do anything meaningful at all. I even thought about trying to sell it to a tire manufacturer to use in some marketing effort. You can almost imagine a series of still frames of OUR TIRE versus COMPETITOR'S where our's is somehow supposedly better and this picture supposedly proves it.

The truth in knowledge is realizing that you know nothing. What an excellent oxymoron.

:davis:
 
#11 ·
STROKEXD said:
Add to Racer's sentiments there Davis, simple laws of physics that to move a given mass over a set distance which results in a certain speed is all you need to calculate true HP, in the most accurate way possible. And ET hasn't got bugger all to do with it.
No, but traction and driving do and so does air density when you have to push the same car through denser air, you loose MPH. If you bring your own air with you, as in blown applications, are you making more or less HP as a result of the reduced MPH?

Simple laws of physics is BULLSHIT. There is nothing simple about them and they are all extremely subjective to the application and collection of useful and accurate data used to run the math we associate with them. Ignoring some data is just as likely to produce errors in such "simple" calculations, too.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up ET. My exact words were:

davis said:
ETs are arguably worthwhile, but traction losses and bad chassis combinations can slow a car such that ET is meaningless when trying to "reverse engineer" engine power.
However, when you use HISTORICAL data against recently observed data, both ET and MPH are useful in determining whether you're making the power you should be for a known environmental situation. Neither one alone or together are the Holy Grail in defining what kind of power an engine is capable of making. At best, they can be an approximation of how much power was USED to accomplish a given task.

If we want to get "simple" about it, we reduce the number of variables as much as possible such that we have an approximation that is as "accurate as necessary." Quoting physics and formulas don't account for what really happens throughout an entire pass. We don't need to be so accurate that we factor in how much fuel weight was used between the 1st and 2nd second of the pass...it isn't as if we're on a trip to the moon and need to burn 10,000# of fuel per second to reach escape velocity. And, while we're at it, those of you not correcting for wind speed have no business in suggesting that MPH is somehow inextricably tied to some equation that is "simple." A nice little 15 MPH tail wind will skew the results just as much as a similar head wind. Are you making less power if you run a pass in a 100 MPH head wind? What rules of physics apply to that "simple" equation? Let's say that your car only does 100 MPH in a full pass. Does that mean that you're making zero power? What happens if you're "driving" a Vespa? Is the power output of it negative?

...hey, but just think about how well your hood scoop is going to be working for you in that 100 MPH head wind!



:davis:
 
#12 ·
davis said:
Racer, please try not to quote me using your words such that it is difficult to distinguish who said what.

MPH is (respectfully) BULLSHIT. You can stick a 4.88 gear in a 3600# car and have it run mid 12s at under 100 MPH. How much HP is that? Math says 260-ish RWHP. Somehow I'm thinking that a big block 427 is making more than 260-something RWHP.

I've seen funny cars go up in smoke down the track and run only 140 MPH. How much HP is that? What is being measured, how much traction is lost going down the track? A friend of mine runs 7.20s in a 3200# car on 10.5W tires smoking them the entire length of the track. How much power is he making?

A dynamometer is by definition a device for measuring mechanical power. From the available torque, horsepower is calculated using engine RPM and simple math.

Try not to tell me what I should know or not. I stand by what I said. A dyno is the best way to tell power. A POS dyno is just as good as a POS anything else.

I think that the point some may try to make is that the actual numeric output from a dyno is not to be compared to other dyno figures, as was stated previously "take dyno figures lightly." I read this to mean that dyno output figures vary between different dynos. From the perspective of one guy makes XYZ power at ABC dyno and EFG power from OPQ dyno, the numbers are meaningless. One the same dyno, assuming that it is fairly consistent, the measurements can be used to properly tune the vehicle for best power given the dynamics of the environment.

Maybe some hardware out there sucks, and yes, we largely use DynoJets for chassis dynoing in Arizona. However, my comments are related to all dyno types whether engine or chassis.

They are the only way to accurately measure engine power, when properly calibrated and used by an astute professional. Any bloke can misuse even the simplest measuring device. I don't suppose that anyone here ever cut a board too short in their lives, regardless of what they "should" know or not.

Your argument that driver ability and chassis setup doesn't adversely affect MPH is BULLSHIT. Try this. Launch your car at the lowest possible RPM to get it moving. Stay in first gear the entire length of the track with your foot mashed to the floor and the engine bouncing off of the rev limiter. What happened to your MPH and how much power did your engine make? I'm guessing that your MPH will be WAY OFF. Are you saying that your engine makes more power in 2nd gear than 1st just because it allows the rear wheels to turn more rapidly?

As a racer, I know what you mean by using MPH to see if your power is off, but it is still very dependent on known good data and consistent driving ability AND making a good run down the track. If you don't think that driving affects MPH, get out of the groove and see if your MPH slows. It will, as will your ET. It doesn't mean that you're making any more or less power. MPH just tells you how much power you effectively used, not how much power you've got available.

One day on one of my blown big block cars, I jumped the boost up to 22% over driven, ran both sides of the track repeatedly as a result of traction loss. Had this whole "S" thing going down the track. I don't think it got over 100 MPH without me having to brake to get it to return somewhere near to the middle of my lane. It was probably making about 1150-1200 HP on that day, certainly more than enough to overpower the chassis. Still ran like an 11.25. For a 3500-3600# car, how much power does my 100 MPH pass say that I make? How much will MPH be affected if you stutter and miss a shift? Driving has a lot to do with ET and MPH and bad driving will make both worse.



The more I learn about what is happening during each pass (from data capture/analysis), the more I realize that I know nothing. I've designed dozens of pieces of hardware and written software to support my data collection and analysis of what happens everytime I strap in and light it up. I even built a small, high speed CMOS imager running at 110 frames per second to take pictures of my tires throughout passes. I used a scaled background behind the tire so that I could see how much growth they underwent, how much deflection and distortion due to high speed and wind drag...can you even imagine all of the "tire" data I collected? Several gigabytes of video data alone. I wrote an image processor to calculate the variation in tire size from frame to frame so that it plotted a graph of tire changes for the course of the entire pass. I had such meaningful information as average tire size, peak tire growth and maximum launch distortion values at the end of it all. I tried several different brands and types/compounds of tires. I had a whole slew of information about which grew more/less, distorted more/less and when I was done, I was still left wondering how to actually use all of that data to actually do anything meaningful at all. I even thought about trying to sell it to a tire manufacturer to use in some marketing effort. You can almost imagine a series of still frames of OUR TIRE versus COMPETITOR'S where our's is somehow supposedly better and this picture supposedly proves it.

The truth in knowledge is realizing that you know nothing. What an excellent oxymoron.


Take Care.

Rob!
:davis:
Well I'm going to get stuck into you a bit here Davis because you've got a really major flaw in your logic here.

It is obvious that the said Funny Car with a 5000HP capability only used 800HP on that particular run (because he blew the motor). The maths to derive HP from his mph and mass would show this. Same as if he blew the motor on the dyno, it would only show 800HP wouldn't it? So it doesn't invalidate anything Racer or myself are saying about the formulae to derive HP.

Ditto your mate with the 3200# car. Grab his mph at the end of the tyre slipping run, use the vehicle mass and distance covered, and you will derive the ACTUAL HP THAT WAS APPLIED ACROSS THE RUN. Still an accurate measure of the HP APPLIED, tyre slip or not. No-one ever said it didn't take into consideration frictional losses (drivetrain, tyres, slippage etc).

So yeah, one would be a peanut if you used such a tyre slipping run to make a statement of the motors HP, as the mathematical calculation would show you the HP the car had applied in that run. NOT what the motor was doing.

Obviously in these scenarios HP was washed away on tyre slip and other factors.

But this is where your logic is a bit off and your examples null your own argument: It wouldn't be any different if the car was on a chassis dyno and the tyres fried up. You still get a HP reading on the meter, but the HP that wasn't applied that could have been, went out as friction and heat on the tyres. No rocket science there.

I maintain my stance on this topic as per my other threads on this subject. That is, notwithstanding ridiculous scenarios such as blown motors and massive tyre slippage, deriving HP from 1/4 mile mph is the most mathematical appropriate and correct method in theoretical physics for calculating HP.

So yeah, it's no mystery, one then makes their own inference about how much 'went out' on drivetrain losses etc AS YOU WOULD ALSO DO on a chassis dyno. There is no difference.

EXCEPT the one difference that makes the 1/4 mile HP calculation method the most intelligent one to use.

WHY? Because you don't need to calibrate a 1/4 mile, and 1kg on the South Pole is the same as 1kg on the North Pole. You can't say the same with Dyno calibrations.
 
#14 ·
PS Davis just read your 2nd post that came through when I was typing the last one...

You're way over complicating things with fuel weight and a whole stack of other variables for the purpose of what we are talking about.

It doesn't need to be that complicated, but my point is, for the sake of this disccusion, your arguments against it also all apply to the scenario of a car on a chassis dyno. The "what ifs" can go on forever and do not validate what you were originally trying to say, which is in physics terms, factually incorrect. So it is curious and very humurous you are saying "bullshit" to others when you are missing such an obvious point in your own logic.

All this is very simple theoretical physics. Move a mass at a certain speed over a certain distance and you derive the effort required to do that task.

So from that I CAN PROMISE you as if Newton himself was standing right beside me telling me this, in the case of calculating HP from a 1/4 mile run IT IS THE EXACT HP applied by the whole vehicle across the run. Wind force etc and all the other variables don't affect the formulae or trueness of the result because they are already incorporated in the data. Can't you see that?

Another point is, which is the crutch of this discussion, is it is technically impossible for a dynometer to ever provide the exact mathematical HP as can be done with the 1/4 mile method.

Note I am NOT making inferences about the motors HP. All the variables you mention will then come in to play when one wants to take it back to what the motor was producing. Then one uses more arbitary methods, or other more complicated physics formulae if you want, to calculate the motors HP by including reducing fuel weight calculations, frictional losses, air friction drag coefficents etc etc and you will get close to a quantifiable measure of the MOTORS true HP at any given point in time on the run.

But that IS NOT what we are disagreeing on or even talking about.

Just see that a whole raft of variables will always likewise apply in the dynometer situation as well, and that is what nulls what you are trying to say. Take a more 'helicopter' point of view of the pure physics involved and I think you will come to see what I am saying.

LOL What version of Netwonian physics do they teach in the US? :insane: Nah but seriously, believe me I'm up with all the theory, more than likely to a deeper theoretical level than you would have ever gotten into in your Engineering line, so I can tell you are missing some basics here.
 
#15 ·
davis said:
I don't know why you guys keep bringing up ET. My exact words were:

Quote: Originally Posted by davis
ETs are arguably worthwhile, but traction losses and bad chassis combinations can slow a car such that ET is meaningless when trying to "reverse engineer" engine power.

Davis yes indeed they were your words. Just that "us guys keep bringing up ET" gets me a bit.

It was mentioned only once each by the way, but since you ask why:

ET's hasn't got anything to do with anything relevant;
it's not applicable to this method of deriving HP on the track; and most importantly;
Your comment seemed to imply you thought it did have something to do with something.... :zzz:
 
#16 ·
This is a very interesting topic. It would be great to flesh it out and have all points of view expressed. That way something meaningful would come from all the typing!

I have some views I would like to express, but I have to go out now. It would be disappointing if the thread was locked before I have a chance.

Please try not to get into personal attacks. I know it's hard when you feel you're being attacked, but we're just talking cars here guys.
 
#20 · (Edited by Moderator)
STROKEXD said:
HP from 1/4 mile mph is the most mathematical appropriate and correct method in theoretical physics for calculating HP
OK ***. Tell me how much HP is used by a 3600# car crossing the finish line at 1 MPH?

Are you saying that another 3600# car crossing the finish line at 1 MPH with a 40 MPH head wind uses more, less or the same amount of HP to accomplish that goal?

Show your math or quit running your mouth. You keep talking like HP isn't a measurement of work over time and that some final calculation is somehow meaningful with regard to the output of the engine. You criticize my use of variables as being overused in the same voice that you use to say that you somehow have an exact expression of the total HP used simply by looking at the MPH figure at the end of the pass. I say BULLSHIT. You're dropping variables or your calculations are as far out as your idea of a "simple" formula that will accurately characterize total power involved in making a certain MPH number. Either retract your insults about my education, physics and logic or prove yours using the math you suggest that you concur with Newton on.

Let's see it, *****. What are you actually producing with such a calculation? The sum of all power values used to produce the MPH? The HP *average* throughout the pass? What is so EXACT that you're spewing on about?

Then, once you get all of that done, at what MPH did the guy who jumped on his brakes just before hitting the MPH lights do to your "formula?" What happened to your math when a bloke has a 15 MPH head wind or even a 15 MPH tail wind? Come on out with your supposed EXACT science that is so perfect that you throw insults as me like you're some kind of expert and I'm not quite out of toilet training just yet.

Put your proof where your mouth is or get off your soapbox.

:davis:
***** edited by xa coupe ******
 
#21 ·
brenx said:
My only comment sorry just had to say "It's not how much power it has got. It's how you drive it."

You can have all the power in the world and still drive like shit.

Brenden

That is the most SANE thing said on this thread!

...and I have first-hand experience in that particular department:

I just wonder how much power I made/used/whatever STROKEXD knows EXACTLY running a 68.26 MPH pass upside down?


:davis:
 
#24 ·
Davis nothing's changed and you still are complicating simple physics, and if you think I insult you with saying what I said, then sure go right ahead and be insulted by it. That's your choice. But you do seem a bit sensitive.

xacoupe said the same thing in fewer words. "Regardless of all the variables, it takes x horsepower to move a car of x weight to x speed at the end of the 1/4 mile."

What part of that can't you grasp?

And of course, as Newton's un-waivering laws of physics show you, the HP that was used on the run is provided as the end result.

All of your extreme examples are still applicable to the method. As long as your prepared to see that a car blowing up on the dyno (for example) as a likewise scenario and measure of HP THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON THAT PARTICULAR RUN as the same thing, then I think you'll get to what your not seeing clearly in all this.

But your use of extreme examples does give me cause for a big chuckle because now .... what thread was it that you ...ah... took a pretty heavy opinion on someone using extreme examples of rod and stroke dimensions to prove a point....mmm :HAHA: :HAHA: :HAHA:
 
#25 ·
So point by point since you ask so nicely.


davis said:
OK ***. Tell me how much HP is used by a 3600# car crossing the finish line at 1 MPH?
Well not much HP at all. A fraction of a HP, it's about .3 of HP. I'm sure you can use a calculator so check it out yourself as well..


davis said:
Are you saying that another 3600# car crossing the finish line at 1 MPH with a 40 MPH head wind uses more, less or the same amount of HP to accomplish that goal?
Well the head wind cancels out, and is incorprated in the calculations. So two cars (A & B) of the same weight both finish the line at 1mph. Except car A had a 40mph head wind.

Pretty darn clear to me that for the two of them to finish at the same mph, car A must have had a lot more HP than car B.

But this is not a real world scenario is it? Because your example compares apples to oranges.

Let's say then, both car A and B are running at the same time with the same 40mph head wind.

Then in the example you gave, car A would end up at 1pmh and car B at something less than <1mph.

Then, now we have the same conditions, you could just use Newtons mysterious formulae and work out what each cars HP was. Real simple stuff.


davis said:
Show your math or quit running your mouth. You keep talking like HP isn't a measurement of work over time and that some final calculation is somehow meaningful with regard to the output of the engine. You criticize my use of variables as being overused in the same voice that you use to say that you somehow have an exact expression of the total HP used simply by looking at the MPH figure at the end of the pass. I say BULLSHIT. You're dropping variables or your calculations are as far out as your idea of a "simple" formula that will accurately characterize total power involved in making a certain MPH number. Either retract your insults about my education, physics and logic or prove yours using the math you suggest that you concur with Newton on.?
Well it's not my math, it is established physics theory chum. If you still think it's bullshit then you seem a tad conceited to me. Are you right and all the textbooks and theoretical physicists in the world wrong then?

So accordingly not going retract anything I said about you, as my summation seems somewhat warranted..


davis said:
Let's see it, *****. What are you actually producing with such a calculation? The sum of all power values used to produce the MPH? The HP *average* throughout the pass? What is so EXACT that you're spewing on about?

Then, once you get all of that done, at what MPH did the guy who jumped on his brakes just before hitting the MPH lights do to your "formula?" What happened to your math when a bloke has a 15 MPH head wind or even a 15 MPH tail wind? Come on out with your supposed EXACT science that is so perfect that you throw insults as me like you're some kind of expert and I'm not quite out of toilet training just yet.

Put your proof where your mouth is or get off your soapbox.

:davis:
***** edited by xa coupe ******
Already covered this. It is really clear and simple! One could say "What happens to the dyno print-out when you pull off 3 ignition leads during the run". Well you get less HP don't you.

It is as nonsensicle as your examples, and they do not negate the theory. That is the bit that I'm amazed you can't see Davis.

I do remind you again it is not "my exact science". It's established theory chum. And pretty simple laws of physics at that. If you want some more proof go read some textbooks.
 
#26 ·
:popcorn:STROKEXD & davis going at it hammer and tong :popcorn: =

:hl: Priceless :hl:

Back on subject though :s6:. I think you might be able to gain a little more HP by switching the inlet manifold. The edelbrock performer tops out at 5500rpm(use wise), so if your cams power band is from 2700-6000 you are probably restricting it a little manifold wise?
Someone else might know more on this subject, anyone?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top