LT-1 vs. PCM GT-40
kdaug...@aol.com
I read with great interest the lengthy discussion regarding the merits of
the LT-1 engine, and the possible problems. I went back to last January's
issue of WaterSki Magazine to see how much faster the LT-1 was than the
PCM GT-40. I was surprised to notice that the Correct Craft Ski Nautique
with a GT-40 engine actually beat the Mastercraft ProStar 190 with a LT-1
engine! It was not until the LT-1 was coupled with a PowerSlot
transmission that it beat the PCM GT-40. I found that quite surprising,
because if I am not mistaken, many MasterCraft purchasers forego the
PowerSlot transmission to save money. Does that mean I could get more for
my money (more speed, acceleration, and torque) by buying the less
expensive Correct Craft Ski Nautique GT-40? If I am not mistaken, that
combination is still less than a MasterCraft ProStar 190 with an LT-1,
with or without the PowerSlot transmission.
kengi...@aol.com
Until someone actually puts an LT-1 and GT-40 in the same hull, we'll
never know for sure who is king. For me, the LT-1's advanced control
system is the deciding factor. Besides, it is absolute gorgeous.
Don't most people assume that the Nautique is a bit quicker? The flip
side to getting a bit speed is the wake size and shape. The new 190 has
more hydrodynamic resistance, but it delivers flatter wakes with less
rooster tail at slower speeds.
As an example, our '94 205/LT-1/1:1 (old hull design, lots of spray,
larger wakes) with my wife, three boys, lots of gas for a big wakeboard
wake and lots more fiberglass was exactly, dead heat the same speed as a
friend's '96 190/LT-1/1:1 (new hull design, NO spray, smaller wakes) with
himself, his son, and as little gas as he can get away with for even
smaller wakes.
If you want fast an I/O or outboard is the ticket. Have fun with your
choice, it's pretty un-nerving, isn't it!
Kevin Cook
kdaug...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I went back to last January's
> issue of WaterSki Magazine to see how much faster the LT-1 was than the
> PCM GT-40. I was surprised to notice that the Correct Craft Ski Nautique
> with a GT-40 engine actually beat the Mastercraft ProStar 190 with a LT-1
> engine! It was not until the LT-1 was coupled with a PowerSlot
> transmission that it beat the PCM GT-40.
In what way do you mean faster? Out of the hole or top speed. A MC with
the powerslot tranny is faster out of the hole than a non powerslot but
it has a slower top speed.
Kevin
kdaug...@aol.com
According to the test results of WaterSki Magazine, the PCM GT-40 engine
in the Ski Nautique significantly outperforms the Indmar LT-1 engine in
the MasterCraft ProStar 190 in acceleration. It ends up 0.1 MPH slower at
the top end, though. When the PowerSlot transmission is added to the LT-1
engine, the ProStar 190 wins in every category except for handling.
This is my question: I am not familiar with the prices of these engines
and transmissions, but I have a guess. Does the LT-1 cost significantly
more than the GT-40? If so, is the GT-40 the most "bang-for-my-buck"?
Does the PowerSlot transmission cost signifantly more than a standard
transmission? Do many MasterCraft purchasers forego the PowerSlot option
because it costs too much? If so, would they have not done better
spending their money on a GT-40?
Here are the stats on the WaterSki Magazine test of the LT-1 and the PCM
GT-40 from January 1996.
GT-40 in a Correct Craft Ski Nautique, 14x16 RH OJ Legend Prop
Top Speed: 46.5 MPH
Time to 36 MPH: 4.83 seconds
Distance to 36 MPH: 156 feet
Time to 40 MPH: 6.32 seconds
Distance to 40 MPH: 239 feet
Handling course: 20.15 seconds
Noise: 89/92/93 db
Chevy 350 LT-1 EFI in a MasterCraft Sammy Duvall 190, 13x13 OJ Prop
Top Speed: 46.6 MPH
Time to 36 MPH: 5.57 seconds
Distance to 36 MPH: 187 feet
Time to 40 MPH: 7.12 seconds
Distance to 40 MPH: 272 feet
Handling course: 21.69 seconds
Noise: 87/94/98 db
Chevy 350 LT-1 EFI Powerslot in a MasterCraft ProStar 190, 14x18 OJ Prop
Top Speed: 48.2 MPH
Time to 36 MPH: 4.47 seconds
Distance to 36 MPH: 146 feet
Time to 40 MPH: 5.6 seconds
Distance to 40 MPH: 210 feet
Handling course: 20.28 seconds
Noise: 88/93/99 db
For those of you who know a lot about transmissions, is the acceleration
gain of the Ski Nautique GT-40 over the MasterCraft LT-1 without the
PowerSlot due to the PCM PowerPlus gear reduction transmission?
Mark Kovalcson
kdaug...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Is the acceleration gain of the Ski Nautique GT-40 over the > MasterCraft LT-1 without the PowerSlot due to the PCM PowerPlus gear > reduction transmission?
It makes a big difference. Don't forget that the 351 also has a little
more low end torque whereas the LT1 revs a little higher.
More torque generally equates to better acceleration.
More horsepower generally equates to higher top end.
Gear reduction gives you more torque by putting your engine at a better
position on its torque curve at normal non-barefooting speeds.
An ideal torque curve would be perfectly flat.
An ideal HP curve would be a straight line going from 0 to MAX Horse
power at 0 to Redline. With your redline is dictated by when your
engine would blow apart.
More stroke usually equates to more torque.
More bore usually equates to more horsepower.
It is much easier for an engine with a short stroke to spin really fast.
The length of the stroke vs the bore for a given displacement is a trade
off.
2 valves per cylinder tends to provide more torque.
4 valves per cylinder tends to provide more horsepower and be more
efficent.
There are many other factors that effect this though
Push-rods are becoming obsolete and are harder to quatrovalve then over
head cams. Single Overhead Head Cams are about equivalent to push-rods
in effect. Dual Overhead Head Cams change the torque curve by giving it
two humps which widens the torque curve out making it more ideal. It
also generally increase horsepower.
Electronic fuel injection helps the torque and horsepower curves by
metering better fuel mixtures than a carberator can which helps to
create flatter torque curves and straighter horsepower curves.
--
Check out the Skiers of Knoxville Web Site
http://www.public.usit.net/kovalson
kengi...@aol.com
Again, comparisons are meaningless unless the two motors are put into the
same hull, on the same day. The Ski Nautique and ProStar 190 have
different wakes, spray, and rooster tails. As different as these
characteristics are, the power required to push the two hulls must
certainly be different also.
Mark Kovalcson
Since you can only get an LT1 in a MasterCraft, and a Monsoon on a
Malibu, I think these one boat wonders are useless in comparisons.
PCM sells the GT-40 to many boat companies, as does Mercruiser with its
Black Scorpion.
I think that these two engines should be the ones really compared.
I would never buy a non-mainstream engine unless there were a really
compelling reason. Neither the Monsoon or the LT1 possesses one.
David Krohne
The LT1 in my Firebird Formula looks pretty similiar to the one in my
boat. The odds are the annual production of this engine in Camaros,
Firebirds, and Corvettes is close to a hundred times that of the total
inboard market. Seems like a pretty mainstream engine to me.
I agree that the only way to compare different engines' performance
characteristics is in the same boat. (I mean the same boat, not just the
same model.) To do this, an engine swap is required. Trailer Boats
Magazine has done this a few times with outboards and at least once with
stern drives. I don't know of any tests with inboards being published in
this manner.
Dave
kdaug...@aol.com
Subject: Re: LT-1 vs. PCM GT-40
From: kengi...@aol.com
Date: 4 Dec 1996 05:29:31 GMT
Again, comparisons are meaningless unless the two motors are put into the
same hull, on the same day. The Ski Nautique and ProStar 190 have
different wakes, spray, and rooster tails. As different as these
characteristics are, the power required to push the two hulls must
certainly be different also.
Response by Ken Daughters:
Yes, yes, of course we are comparing different hull designs, but that is
not my question. In essence, I am asking which set up is going to give me
the most bang for my buck? Does the LT-1 cost significantly more than the
GT-40? I don't know, but let me guess: it does. Does the LT-1
significantly outperform the GT-40, compensating for its increased cost?
I don't know, but let me guess: from the numbers I'm reading in the
WaterSki Magazine test, no it doesn't. Therefore, logic would tell me the
most bang for my buck would be with the GT-40.
Similarly, let me ask the question of the transmissions. How much does
the PCM PowerPlus transmission add to the cost of the boat? How much does
the MC PowerSlot add to the cost of their boat? Which transmission gives
me the most bang for my buck?
I understand that you bought a MC 205 LT-1, without a PowerSlot. I may
have forgotten, or have you mixed up with someone else, but I think that
is what you have. Why didn't you buy it with a PowerSlot? Was it too
expensive of an option? Did you not need that low end torque? Spending
the exact same amount of money you spent on an LT-1 and transmission,
could you have afforded both the GT-40 and a PowerPlus transmission, thus
being able to afford better acceleration and low-end torque?
Please note I am not criticizing the LT-1. From all I've heard it's a
dandy of an engine. I'm just asking questions from the standpoint of a
power vs. price ratio. I am not even sure of the prices of the engines
and transmissions, because the talk I've heard is mere hearsay, and you
know, none of us can trust hearsay. Asking the group should give me a
more accurate picture. Surely someone out there in cyberspace knows the
prices of these relative to their benefit. Hey, if price were not an
issue, I would probably choose a Callaway SuperNatural 383.
Ken Daughters
kengi...@aol.com
Interestingly enough, in May 1993 Trailer Boats Magazine swapped out and
tested engines with three different fuel systems in one boat, a Ski
Nautique. The engines were PCM's carburated 300, throttle body EFI 310,
and multiport EFI 310.
The results were...well...you decide. The 0-30 MPH times were:
Carburator - 4.3 seconds
Throttle body - 4.5 seconds
Multi-Port - 4.4 seconds
At ALL speeds below 40 MPH, the carburated motor got better fuel economy.
To quote the magazine, "...considering the measured difference in
performance, the carburator still looks pretty good."
It's no wonder that "some guys" were slamming MasterCraft saying that
carburation was better than fuel injection. In the PCM case, that was
probably true.
So....are they dialed in yet? I would say the GT-40 is, except I've heard
that they still don't have a single point serial diagnostic port. I am
curious if this is correct. Can someone please confirm or deny?
kdaug...@aol.com
In article <19961205005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kengi...@aol.com writes:
>Interestingly enough, in May 1993 Trailer Boats Magazine swapped out and
>tested engines with three different fuel systems in one boat, a Ski
>Nautique. The engines were PCM's carburated 300, throttle body EFI 310,
>and multiport EFI 310.
>
>The results were...well...you decide. The 0-30 MPH times were:
>
> Carburator - 4.3 seconds
> Throttle body - 4.5 seconds
> Multi-Port - 4.4 seconds
>
>At ALL speeds below 40 MPH, the carburated motor got better fuel economy.
>
>
>To quote the magazine, "...considering the measured difference in
>performance, the carburator still looks pretty good."
Response by Ken Daughters:
Thank you for responding to my inquiry. Yes, on a price/performance
ratio, I would have to say that the most bang for my buck would be a
carburated engine. If there was some overwhelming reason why I would want
Multi-port Fuel Injection, such as reliability, cold weather starts, easy
idling, then I would have to compare Multi-port Fuel Injection engines
with each other and see which was best at a price/performance ratio. That
is what I was asking. Did you see my post regarding the prices of the
GT-40 and the LT-1? I would be very interested to hear your reply to
that. If you indeed did not purchase a PowerSlot transmission with your
LT-1, I would be interested in hearing why.
kdaug...@aol.com
Somebody has implied that Correct Craft has a design flaw with their
transmission and needed to add Isodamp CN material to deaden the
vibration. That made me curious, so I went back to last January's
WaterSki magazine test reports to see how loud the CC Ski Nautique really
was. I was expecting it to be horrendous, having read that post. These
are the results:
Correct Craft Ski Nautique GT-40: 89/92/93
MasterCraft ProStar 190 LT-1 PowerSlot: 88/93/99
MasterCraft Sammy Duvall ProStar 190 LT-1: 87/94/98
Notice that the CC SN is quieter than either of the MCs both in the middle
of the boat and at the stern. That's where I would have expected that
horrendous noise from that awful design flaw. Does that mean that there
is no design flaw, or that the Isodamp CN really works?
Ken Daughters
Mark Kovalcson
kdaug...@aol.com wrote:
> If there was some overwhelming reason why I would want
> Multi-port Fuel Injection, such as reliability, cold weather starts, easy idling, then I would have to compare Multi-port Fuel Injection engines with each other and see which was best at a price/performance ratio.
Don't forget that little non-linear response when the second two barrels
on the carberator kick in, novices flooding engines and better exhaust(
ie. not much uncombusted fuel coming out to smell up the air)
Kevin Clark
kdaug...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Somebody has implied that Correct Craft has a design flaw with their
> transmission and needed to add Isodamp CN material to deaden the
> vibration.
Don't believe everything you read...ESPECIALLY on Usenet Newsgroups!
Kevin Clark
Dallas, Texas
John
Very true...
BTW there was a problem with a gear noise whine in the 1990 PCM
1:1.23 transmission because of the tolerance on the bevel of
the gears. PCM and CC replaced these at no cost. It wasn't a CC
design flaw it was a PCM problem and it was taken care of.
Isodamp was not put in for this problem. I believe it was put
into to help dampen the hull noisy in rough water. In CC's own
words "Isodamp CN is then affixed to the inside walls and
bottom to greatly reduce structure borne noise. In a side by
side comparison, the advantages offered by Isodamp are clearly
apparent."
kengi...@aol.com
I was the one who made the comment about ISO Damp CN. The real noise the
mat is intended to dampen is the chatter when turning to the right. I was
told this by a guy at Correct Craft's 800 number. A very pleasant fellow,
who admitted there is an "off side" turn which causes resonance. He said
all inboards do it.
I called him right after demo-ing a '94 SNOB with the 310 Holley/ProTec.
I was very concerned that the particular boat I was in had two problems
which would need to be repaired before I bought it: that harsh chatter and
acceleration hesitation. The CC guy also admitted that the throttle body
wasn't the smoothest, and maybe I should consider a '95 with the
multiport.
When I got frustrated with the CC dealer based on some ethical and legal
issues related to taxes, we went to the MC dealer and told him of our
intentions to buy a CC and gave him one chance. When we demo-ed a 205
with an LT-1 1:1, it had neither hesitation or a perceptible "off side"
turn direction. After a few minutes skiing behind it, that was all she
wrote.
When we were looking at CC, I was under the impression that propellors
affect the rooster tail. I still believe that, based on observation and
some other things like Water Ski magazine's test on 13x13 propellors which
describes the rooster effect of each. Based on my beliefs, I asked the CC
dealer if I could get the 310 motor with a 1:1 to lower the rooster for my
wife and kids. The answer was no. When the checkbook was in hand for the
CC, I was going to reluctantly accept the Power Plus, even though I didn't
want it.
It was an added bonus for us when the 205 the MC dealer had was spec'd
exactly the way I would do my dream boat: 205, LT-1, 1:1, purple/teal
exterior, stone interior, tandem trailer.
I have put a 4 blade on the boat and it rips. I am the only one who likes
a full throttle punch out of the hole, but I know what's coming and how to
hang on and pull up without getting killed. I like the punch for
consistancy, whether my wife or a friend is driving, it's always the same
experience getting up.
I guess the bottom line is how much pull do you need? We wake board 90%
of the time now. You just blip the throttle to pull someone up. My LT-1
is functionally overkill, but I still love it.
I think a 1:1 with a 4 blade is perfect, cause you get the power pull
without the buzz of a PowerSlot planetary gear set or a Power Plus bevel
gear set.
Finally, if you're going to put out $30K for a boat, the extra $1K or so
for an option transmission is background noise. I personally didn't want
it for functional reasons.
crm...@aol.com
In article <32A4C3...@usit.net>, Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net>
writes:
>More stroke usually equates to more torque.
>More bore usually equates to more horsepower.
>
>
Isn't that backwards? How about it motorheads?
Bob Muse
CRM...@aol.com
kdaug...@aol.com
Dear Ken Gibbons and the group,
Regarding IsoDamp CN, and gear reduction transmissions:
Thank you for your lengthy and informative reply. Your response was very
logical and agreeable. Your boat sounds beautiful, and perfect for your
needs. The purple/teal/stone is a very nice combination. The 205 is a
great boat, and from all I hear, the LT-1 is a sweet engine.
Regarding the "left-turn growl," I, too, was curious what caused it. I
contacted the engineering department at CC, and they said it is caused by
compressed air from the prop hitting the rudder. They said it was only an
irritating noise, and nothing to worry about. With the new '97 design, CC
says the problem has been corrected. (Any of you who have driven the '97,
do you agree?) I gather it is more a function of the new progressive
pitch 4-bladed prop than anything else. As you probably heard, CC
sharpened the drive shaft support arm and the rudder, and added a keel
relief pocket. They changed the angle of the drive shaft from 16 degrees
to 14. They also tightened the attachment for the swim platform. All of
this was to reduce noise and drag, except for the keel relief pocket,
which is supposed to reduce the rooster tail. I have heard reports that
the '97 is much quieter than the previous models.
I am very curious about your remark that a 1:1 transmission would reduce
the rooster tail for your wife and kids. I don't know much about this, so
could you please tell me more about the effect that transmissions have on
wake characteristics?
I was under the impression that rooster tails were due to the effect of
water displaced by the boat hull crashing back together after boat has
passed. You seem to indicate that the type of prop and transmission also
has a lot of effect of the rooster tail. Would you please elaborate?
CC tapered the transom 15% on their new '97 trying to increase the canoe
effect of allowing the displaced water to regather in a less violent
manner. Would you say the shape of the transom makes any difference in
the rooster tail? Would a right-angled boxy transom produce a larger
rooster tail than a canoe shaped transom?
Ken Daughters
Mark Kovalcson
Think about it a little. Increased torque is like using a longer lever
to move an object. In this case the longer the stroke the more torque
you get.
Have you noticed many of the new Japanese engines with short strokes rev
really high. Usually their engines have a higher horsepower number than
torque number. My Miata used to rev to 7,000 rpm easy.
My F150 with the straight 6 has a really long stroke and is the exact
opposite. It is about 160 Horse power and about 300 ft/lbs of torque.
A Ford 5.0 liter V8 actually has a little more displacement but less
torque than the straight six. It does however have more horsepower.
Does that help any ? I am a motorhead BTW.
hamm...@aol.com
In article <19961207030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kengi...@aol.com writes:
>The real noise the
>mat is intended to dampen is the chatter when turning to the right. I
was
>told this by a guy at Correct Craft's 800 number. A very pleasant
fellow,
>who admitted there is an "off side" turn which causes resonance. He said
>all inboards do it.
Correct Craft is correct! You demo'd a boat with a gear reduction in a
Nautique, and a 1:1 in the M/C, I have driven the power slot M/C many
times, put it in to a right turn and apply the gas and it growls just as
much. Bigger props will growl more than smaller props because there is
more prop wash hitting the rudder. It's like holding a paddle flat
against the output of a fire house and then turning it on edge. The bigger
the prop the bigger the hose.
The new 97's have been engineered to eliminate this common noise and is an
awesome boat to drive! Drive one to believe it!
Kevin Cook
All of this talk about all inboards having a "growl" when turned is making
me wonder what in the hell you guys are talking about. I have been driving
these boats since 1980 and have never heard a MC growl in a turn. I have
heard the CC do it but the last CC I drove was an '82 2001 and I was
informed that it had to do with the tracking fins and it was more of a
whine than a growl. (This is not a flame on CC) Can someone please explain
this growl to me? I think I would like to test drive a Nautique, I love my
MC but I would love to see how the CC is after reading all of the positive
posts you guys are putting up about them.
Kevin
kengi...@aol.com
>Subject: Left-turn Growl and Rooster Tails
>From: kdaug...@aol.com
>Date: 7 Dec 1996 20:10:38 GMT
>Message-ID: <19961207201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>I am very curious about your remark that a 1:1 transmission would reduce
>the rooster tail for your wife and kids. I don't know much about this,
so
>could you please tell me more about the effect that transmissions have on
>wake characteristics?
I probably don't know much about it either, except for my own observations
and what I have discussed with others. Apparently there was a thread
about this last year, I need to read it with www.dejanews.com
If I am off-base, I apologize. But here is what I have noticed. When I
went from a three blade to the four blade, the rooster tail increased
somewhat. I assumed it was from more prop surface area. I have a friend
with a boat IDENTICAL to mine, except he put this monster prop on that
looks like three frying pans on a hub. He wanted lower RPMs and OJ
obliged. His LT-1 turns up 3200 RPM at WOT. His rooster tail is
significantly larger than mine. I don't know why this is so, it doesn't
make sense. I have even leaned over the back seat to watch the water
coming off the transom to see if there was something obvious. There
isn't.
Obviously, the reduction ration affects the right size of propellor to
use. When CC told me that prop size affected rooster, it got me thinking
more about it. That's why I wanted a 1:1(smaller prop) when I was
considering CC.
kengi...@aol.com
Not to flame, but this was my experience. When demo-ing the SNOB, it
growled when rounding the tight turn at a pylon at the end of a course. I
described it once as sounding like a machine gun, or maybe a drum roll.
Sorry, that was my impression. But once I learned that it wasn't a bent
drive shaft or something, it was a non issue other than an annoyance.
My MC 205 absolutely does not growl. As have said before, it has to do
with the rudder offset from the shaft centerline. How the prop impulses
hit the rudder differently. Some say that this odd MC design is so you
can remove the shaft easily. How often do you remove your shaft? I never
have either.
I would love to demo the '97 Nautique. Heck, I liked the 94. We just
liked the MC better...FOR OUR FAMILY'S PARTICULAR NEEDS.
mqual...@aol.com
Hammer is right about the gear reduction. Any 14 in column will growl in
a turn more than the 13 in column. On a CC it will be to the left and an
MC powerslot the right.
Mark
Mark Kovalcson
Please don't lump your perfect experiences in with those of the real
world. On some the lakes around here there can be enough trash in the
water that drive shafts and props get damaged regularly. I considered
myself luck to go a few years without damaging either. I know of 5
people in my club who have replaced their drive shafts in three years.
One ski member with a thicker diameter and more expensive PowerSlot
drive shaft has replaced his twice.
Steve
kdaug...@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding the "left-turn growl," I, too, was curious what caused it. I
> contacted the engineering department at CC, and they said it is caused by
> compressed air from the prop hitting the rudder. They said it was only an
> irritating noise, and nothing to worry about. With the new '97 design, CC
> says the problem has been corrected. (Any of you who have driven the '97,
> do you agree?) I gather it is more a function of the new progressive
> pitch 4-bladed prop than anything else. As you probably heard, CC
> sharpened the drive shaft support arm and the rudder, and added a keel
> relief pocket. They changed the angle of the drive shaft from 16 degrees
> to 14. They also tightened the attachment for the swim platform. All of
> this was to reduce noise and drag, except for the keel relief pocket,
> which is supposed to reduce the rooster tail. I have heard reports that
> the '97 is much quieter than the previous models.
Ken,
I have driven both the 97 Ski and SNOB and both boats are much quieter
than my 96 SNOB. As for the growl, it is now a non issue. Folks that
want to harp on the CC growl will now have to preface their statements
with the words pre 97 boats. As a Correct Craft owner I am telling you
that the 97 Ski and SNOBs are better boats than the 96s. I'm not not
saying their better than any other brand of boat. You make that
comparison for yourself.
Listen to what people say about the different boats in this group. But
don't believe a word of what you hear. Keep those thoughts in the back
of your mind and go out and drive/ski the boats for yourself. These
thoughts make good reference points, but are all tainted by personel
bias and in some cases ignorance, especially in the case of brand
comparisons. Not to mention business alliances.
This goes for my comments too. I'm a owner not a dealer, so my pride
may be involved in brand comparisons but not my livelihood.
Steve Henderson
Ski...@pacbell.net
crm...@aol.com
In article <32AA34...@usit.net>, Mark Kovalcson <kova...@usit.net>
writes:
>Have you noticed many of the new Japanese engines with short strokes rev
>really high. Usually their engines have a higher horsepower number than
>torque number. My Miata used to rev to 7,000 rpm easy.
>
>
yes but aren't they 4 valve engines which inherrently need to rev to get
their power anyway? My reference is the chevy 454. It has a huge bore,
don't know about the stroke and it only has about 230 hp in a truck (the
marine engine is higher for some reason). But, it does have loads of
torque. It reaches peak torque at about 2000 rpm if I remember correctly,
and don''t stomp the gas too hard at a red light or you won't move due to
the spinning rear tires. that is why I thought the way I did.
Bob Muse
CRM...@aol.com