[Re$iliant68]

Zimphire, as a fellow pro neon guy, I would think that you'd be all too familiar with peopel being like "Oh its a neon!? Its domestic, it must be unreliable! And I heard something about a headgasket, What a horrible horrible car!"

Thats what Justin was doing. Only differnt car.

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Re$iliant68:
Zimphire, as a fellow pro neon guy, I would think that you'd be all too familiar with peopel being like "Oh its a neon!? Its domestic, it must be unreliable! And I heard something about a headgasket, What a horrible horrible car!"

Thats what Justin was doing. Only differnt car.

- Ca$h

Er when did I mention domestic cars vs imports in my post? I am talking about your persistent posting about how this and that car could beat this or that car in a race. Not many people care about such a thing. Not many people race their cars. And you know, not many people in here gave me crap about me buying ,my Neon R/T.. which makes me believe they were just giving YOU crap.

[raskol]

my car is faster/bigger/better looking/has more truck space-wheel-windows-knobs-fiddle-sticks-doodads-whatchamacallits-doohickies-thingamajigs and uses more gas than yours does.

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by raskol:
my car is faster/bigger/better looking/has more truck space-wheel-windows-knobs-fiddle-sticks-doodads-whatchamacallits-doohickies-thingamajigs and uses more gas than yours does.

See, that is what THEY want. I am more like, I think it looks nice, and it will get me from point A to point B

[G4ME]

I still think the BMW can kick your SVX ass!!

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


See, that is what THEY want. I am more like, I think it looks nice, and it will get me from point A to point B

I can agree with that...except I want to make sure the car doesn't end up leaking oil all over Point A and getting almost killed trying to get onto the freeway with the other people going to B and make sure I can survive if one of the crazy speeding bastard truckers on the Interstate from A to B almost crushes me.



What's wrong with your Mustang, anyway? One of my co-worker had the entire gauge cluster fail on her 98. Twice. I thought that was classy...

--Josh

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:


What's wrong with your Mustang, anyway? One of my co-worker had the entire gauge cluster fail on her 98. Twice. I thought that was classy...

* Unknown new rattling noises daily. Those are scary.

* Convertible top leaks from the back. Have to take to trim shop to get fixed.

* Cruise Control nonexistent *2nd time in past 3 months*

* Air Conditioner died during the heat of the summer

* Leaks all kinds of nice fluids.

Those are my problems.

General Complaints

* Rear wheel drive sucks in the snow

* The shocks are nonexistent

* It rides terribly.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:
See above

Well, all the noises and such suck. That's no fun.

As for the general stuff, much snow do you get in Evansville? I'm in Terre Haute, and we don't get a whole lot here I guess (it'll be my first winter). Unless you're not in Evansville.

I can see how rwd + snow would suck for a person who likes the whole A to B part of driving. As a person who grew up driving a Chevy C-10 pickup w/ a 5 liter V8 mated with rwd in Minnesota, I learned how to drive in the snow. Having learned how to drive a stick, I can say learning to drive rwd in the snow is similar: there's a learning curve and the possibility for Very Bad Things� to happen, but once you learn it's very fun. Nothing like pushing around turns at 30. Fun for the whole family

I will agree on the ride portion, at least in tight turns. I will never buy another car without independant rear suspension. The fianc�e's Cougar owns my car in turns

--Josh

[scottiB]

A guy in my band has the RSX-S, and I took it for a brief spin last week--basically blasting down the freeway and back again with a little zooming around traffic. It's a nice, tight car with a build quality that nothing American can touch in the price range--or at all: thin, even gaps between body panels. It's just very well made. It feels very light. Wonderful car.

Not much to be said about storage, though. The Golf's hatch might be small, but folding down the rear seat gives it a nice, square box.

Yeah, Mustang's are rough, creaky, and not a great year-round driver, but it's the last American muscle car--and that's pretty cool.

[DaKiwi2788]

Originally posted by Re$iliant68:


Shut the hell up. Maybe you'd be a little 'mad' if you were a member here for 3 freaking years and you got banned for no f*cking reason. Anyway, the reason I'm not civil is that your lovely 'boyfriend' here didn't show me any respect in another thread about me getting banned, so I ask you DaKiwi, why should I respect him? And one final thing: I really don't care what you think, so go put on some more make up and head over to glamour shots.

- Ca$h

Respect??? YOU are talking to ME about respect?! Ha! That's a joke!! Do you even know the meaning of the word? It is one thing to have opinions and speak out for what you believe or don't believe in, but you really cound benefit from some people skills. Telling someone what they believe is wrong....is just plain ignorant. That goes for both sides of the arguments.
Why should anyone respect you after being banned yet again? No one cares, and you just don't get that. You need to take your problems with the administrators up with them and leave the forums out of it. You want attention, and that's all you are seeking.
And it's not just Justin that you aren't respectful towards. It's every single person who doesn't have the same narrow-minded point of view that you do.
And one final thing: I didn't expect you to care about what I thought - you obviously don't give three sh*ts about anyone but yourself. I'd be more than glad to go put on some more make up though, but the Clinque lady told me you just bought the last of the pink lipstick yesterday. Bummer! Maybe we could be friends and share.
A girl could only hope....

[DaKiwi2788]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Nicely put!

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:

As for the general stuff, much snow do you get in Evansville? I'm in Terre Haute, and we don't get a whole lot here I guess (it'll be my first winter). Unless you're not in Evansville.

During the school year ~8 months I am in Lafayette, which is further north than Terra Haute. Now THAT is snow

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by scottiB:
Yeah, Mustang's are rough, creaky, and not a great year-round driver, but it's the last American muscle car--and that's pretty cool.

Unless its a V6 Automatic (Hey, I didnt buy it)

[sek929]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


Unless its a V6 Automatic (Hey, I didnt buy it)

Well thats your problem right there, a Mustang without a V-8 is like a 1.8T without the T.

If you have the loot and like the RSX, get it. As always the Honda made engine will outlive the rat and Cher. And hell, I think the car is dead sexy. But if your a performance nut there are a slew of other choices way better (and cheaper) than the RSX.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


* Leaks all kinds of nice fluids.

what color fluids?

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by Nimisys:


what color fluids?

its water, and gas sometimes...

[argod]

How to bake a potato: Honda v. Ford
http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=41025

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


its water, and gas sometimes...

water is normal, gas is not... quick question your non-working AC, does the blower work? if it doesn't try turnbing your AC on and park the car for about 10-15 minutes with ac on full and the car in one place... if it is dripping water ( not coolant) then your AC is fine but your blower most likly has a blown fuse

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by Nimisys:


water is normal, gas is not... quick question your non-working AC, does the blower work? if it doesn't try turnbing your AC on and park the car for about 10-15 minutes with ac on full and the car in one place... if it is dripping water ( not coolant) then your AC is fine but your blower most likly has a blown fuse

I got the AC fixed in the summer. Cost me $400 bucks. Some big part died that caused it to cool the air.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by argod:
How to bake a potato: Honda v. Ford
http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=41025

funny the ford potato would do better and they could garuntee more better potatos of varyous sizes and shapes, because they have looked into and controlled as many varibles as possible...

[appledude83]

Whoa I just noticed this thread, I'm thinking about getting one of these myself. They look way awesome, and I hear they are pretty speedy. Looks like a chick magnet to me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:

* The shocks are nonexistent

* It rides terribly.

Sports cars like the Mustang have stiffer suspension. I kinda like to feel the road more, plus you can handle the corners a lot better. My Neon R/T has stiffer suspension than my Sport did, and I like it a lot better.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by scottiB:


Yeah, Mustang's are rough, creaky, and not a great year-round driver, but it's the last American muscle car--and that's pretty cool.

Er it is?

[Justin W. Williams]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Sports cars like the Mustang have stiffer suspension. I kinda like to feel the road more, plus you can handle the corners a lot better. My Neon R/T has stiffer suspension than my Sport did, and I like it a lot better.

Yeah, but the cars turn ratio is terrible. Pulling a U-Turn is more like hard turn, reverse, back up, finish turn. LAME.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Justin W. Williams:


Yeah, but the cars turn ratio is terrible. Pulling a U-Turn is more like hard turn, reverse, back up, finish turn. LAME.

your not going to like the acura much better then... i thought you said your mustang was a 98 vert.. if so your turning diameter: 38.3feet
RSX Stype: 38.1 feet

the 99 redesign:38.1feet

the current 03's: 37 feet

the 89.. 37.8 feet

[dav]

Originally posted by DaKiwi2788:


Telling someone what they believe is wrong....is just plain ignorant.

not really. if someone believes the world is flat, it wouldn't be ignorant to tell them they are wrong. but i think you're referring to manner in which the person is told they are wrong. ?? (in which case there's plenty of blame to go around here)

rsx - (imho) looks ok, too expensive for what it is. i think you'd be paying for appearance, and some implied value from the manufacturers name.

[scottiB]

Zimphire wrote regarding the Mustang being the last American-made muscle car:
Er it is?

That's still in production, yes. The Camaro and Firebird have been discontinued this past year.

The 'stang is an admirable achievement considering that it's still based on the Fox platform which it shared with the Ford Fairmont(!). It, though, needs a from -the-ashphalt-up revamping--no matter how much sweet-tweaking the engineers perform on a 23 year-old chassis.

Ford did revamp the Mustang and modernize at the end of the 80s with a radical redesign, front wheel drive, turbo-charged engine, a platform shared with the Mazda 626 to be called the Mustang IV. The Mustang-nation revolted saying that no 'stang would ever have FrontWD, no V-8, and a Japanese platform. Ford recanted, but still needed to introduce the car since so much had been invested: enter the Ford Probe.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Re$iliant68:
Originally posted by sek929:
Man so many cars to talk about here.

Lets start with the RSX (lets make believe you are gonna buy a type S). Beautiful cars, they really are. Acura has made a gem in the styling department.

GEM!? You have to be kidding. The old integra looked MUCH better than the RSX. The RSX is taller, squattier, and fatter (heavier, in reality and looking). If you want a kickass acura, get an integra. The RSX is just hideous.


And the type S's 200 HP six speed would lead most to believe it has some real power, this is wrong. The real number to look at is its scant 142 LB-FT of tourque. Horsepower does not really exist, it is a mathematical equation based from tourque. Ever wonder why Ca$h hates S2000s? Its because athough they sport 240 Horsepower, they only have 150 LB-FT of tourqe.

You partially got it. Thats PEAK horsepower. PEAK. As in, the most it makes at one specific RPM. Hondas engines are pretty impressive in 'peak' hp ratings, and mediocre in 'peak' torque numbers. However, that doesnt tll the whole story. Take for example my old neon (now sold). 132hp. Peak. VS. Civic with VTEC. 150hp. Which is faster? The neon. Why? It has a very broad powerband. The civic would only make power upwards of 5500rpms. The neon would enter its powerband at about 3000. So at 3500rpms, the neon wa making way more power than the civic.


Then theres that pesky 6-speed, know what it basically means? That you will just be shifting alot more often, wow thats cool.

Sorta. Like I said, Honda engines have sucha narrow almost useless (and very annoying) powerband that they NEED more gears... to help stay in the powerband. On engines with a broad powerband, you don't need the extra gears.

Subaru 2.5 RS is my second choice of favorite car I could afford (your taste in cars never ceases to amaze me Nimisys). The naturally aspirated Boxer 4, which are about as tough as farm tractors, makes 165 Horses and 166 LB-FT, plus that AWD system will be very useful in nasty weather.


Good car. But I have a better idea. How about 230hp, 230 ft lbs of torque, all wheel drive, 155mph top speed, and all the luxurious pimp ass options you could think of? Yeah. The SVX.

and a sweet modded one:

It'll blow a 2.5 RS outta the water, and for a lot less money.

- Ca$h

Well, I can claim expertise on only some of the matter being discussed here.

Sek929 you're kinda off with the torque/power thing. Ca$h, you're a lot closer, although I don't think you understand all the intricacies of the issue. That's OK though.

Power is NOT some mathematical abstraction- it is very real. Power tells you how quickly the engine can deliver energy, energy which will go into the kinetic energy of the car. Power is what matters, and don't let anyone try to tell you differently.

So where does torque fit in? Well, the short answer is that it doesn't (unless you happen to work for Honda and are designing powertrain parts). The torque the engine is making at the flywheel has nothing to do with how hard the car's accelerating. If an engine is making 200 horsepower, the car will accelerate just as hard if the engine is making 100 lb-ft of torque as it would with 500 lb-ft of torque. That's a fact.

So why bother saying torque at all? Ca$h is definitely hot on the trail here. If Honda advertises a "200 horsepower" engine, the engine doesn't ALWAYS make 200 horsepower. It will make 200 horsepower only when two conditions are met:
(1) The engine must be at wide open throttle (ie. the driver must have his/her foot mashed to the floor)
(2) The engine must be at its peak RPM.

If you look at more detailed specs for the car it will say something like this: 200 hp @ 6000 RPM. That's telling you that the engine's power peak is at 6000 RPM. If you looked at how much power the engine was making at any other RPM, it would be less. (And again, these numbers are for wide open throttle only.)

Now, as you might imagine, two engines can have the same peak power, and one can still be a "better" engine than the other. What really matters is the shape of the power curve. Does the engine have a high power peak but then drop off sharply, or does it have a broad power band? Obviously, the latter is better for performance.

This is where the torque number comes in. It turns out that the "torque" an engine makes is also a peak value, and it subjected to the same two conditions I mentioned above. But, the torque peak is always at a lower RPM than the power peak, so looking at the torque peak can give you some idea of how much power the engine makes in the lower RPM range. Consider two engines that both make 200 hp @ 6000 RPM, but one makes 250 lb-ft of torque @ 3500 RPM and the other makes 150 lb-ft @ 3500 RPM, then obviously the first engine is better. Why, though? The reason is because the first one has a broader power band - the torque itself is not what makes it better.

Now, there really is no substitute for looking at the power curve. But, on the fly, you can make a first approximation by looking at that torque number. And this is generally one of the reasons why people say that Honda engines suck- their power bands have no width. You HAVE to be running the engine damn close to that peak RPM or else the motor's not putting out any decent power. This is generally true of smaller-displacement engines. Larger-displacement engines tend to have much nicer (that is, wider) power bands. I would take a 4 liter 200 hp engine in my car over a 2 liter 200 hp any day of the week.

I hope that clears everything up for everybody.

[sek929]

Good thing you stopped by Fryce, its always nice to have someone who knows exactly what they're talking about. I never profess to know all there is to know about engines, I know bits and peices. I knew that tourque is not the end all be all and I do know of powerband and all that good ****, I guess I am just to lazy to type it all out like you, hehe.

V-tec is not god, I hope we all learned that today.

[Nimisys]

Fyre4ce, your off on one importpant part though... engines do produce power but the power they produce is torque or rotational energy. HP is a function of torque: HP=(torque * RPM)/5252

so unless a dynometer is "corrected" (such as for vehicles not able to hit 5252 rpm) HP and Torque will always be the same at that rpm.

as for how HP comes into play then if torque is where it is at:

OK. If torque is so all-fired important, why do we care about horsepower?
Because (to quote a friend), "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*.

For an extreme example of this, I'll leave carland for a moment, and describe a waterwheel I got to watch awhile ago. This was a pretty massive wheel (built a couple of hundred years ago), rotating lazily on a shaft which was connected to the works inside a flour mill. Working some things out from what the people in the mill said, I was able to determine that the wheel typically generated about 2600(!) foot pounds of torque. I had clocked its speed, and determined that it was rotating at about 12 rpm. If we hooked that wheel to, say, the drivewheels of a car, that car would go from zero to twelve rpm in a flash, and the waterwheel would hardly notice :-).

On the other hand, twelve rpm of the drivewheels is around one mph for the average car, and, in order to go faster, we'd need to gear it up. To get to 60 mph would require gearing the wheel up enough so that it would be effectively making a little over 43 foot pounds of torque at the output, which is not only a relatively small amount, it's less than what the average car would need in order to actually get to 60. Applying the conversion formula gives us the facts on this. Twelve times twenty six hundred, over five thousand two hundred fifty two gives us:

6 HP.

Oops. Now we see the rest of the story. While it's clearly true that the water wheel can exert a *bunch* of force, its *power* (ability to do work over time) is severely limited.

full article: http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
Fyre4ce, your off on one importpant part though... engines do produce power but the power they produce is torque or rotational energy. HP is a function of torque: HP=(torque * RPM)/5252

so unless a dynometer is "corrected" (such as for vehicles not able to hit 5252 rpm) HP and Torque will always be the same at that rpm.

as for how HP comes into play then if torque is where it is at:

<snip>

full article: http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Well, first of all, I wasn't "off" on anything. However, I did simplify my explanation so that people in the forums here would understand what I was trying to say without having to wade through equations. I am an engineer and I do thoroughly understand the issue.

One other thing that bugs me before we start: "horsepower" is not a quantity, it's a unit of measurement. "Power" is the quantity it measures. Power can also be measured in other units, like watts. It's like the difference between "dollars" and "price." You don't walk into an art gallery and ask, "What's the dollars on this painting?" You could ask, "How many dollars is this painting?" but that's a little awkward- what if the price of the painting is in German marks? So, relating to an engine:

"How much horsepower does this engine make?" - This is wrong and you'll look like a fool. "Horsepower" isn't a thing you can measure.
"How many horsepower does this engine make?" - Better, but somewhat awkward, and you're specifically asking for your answer in a particular unit.
"How much power does this engine make?" - Best.

Now on with the show:

I understand that power and torque are mathematically related. And actually, the equation you gave was wrong. The real equation relating power and torque is:

(power) = (torque)(rotational speed)

This equation is the rotational form of the equation:

(power) = (force)(velocity)

Both of those equations are fundamental, and will work with the quantities expressed in ANY units. You could put torque in kilogramforce-furlongs and rotational speed in rotations per month and the equation would still work. However, the power you got out would be expressed in some really crazy units which probably wouldn't make sense. The equation works very nicely when you express torque in newton-meters and rotational speed in radians per second- power is then expressed in watts.

But, for some really weird reason which I don't understand, engine builders and automotive engineers love to express power in horsepower, torque in lb-ft, and rotational speed in RPM. If you know ahead of time that you're going to use a certain set of units, you can put in the necessary conversion factors and then "strip" the equation so it no longer has units in it. This is a sin to physicists and mathematicians, but it's what we have to work with. So, if you agree to use horsepower, lb-ft, and RPM, then the equation becomes:

(power) = (torque)(rotational speed)/5252

This is the equation you found on the web page, and it's correct, but ONLY for those specific units- if you wanted to use kilowatts for power, or newton-meters for torque, the equation doesn't work any more.

Now, it's INCORRECT to say that "power = torque at 5252 RPM." The two quantities are completely different and they cannot be compared. It's like this: if you just paid $50 for a new pair of shoes, and your apartment building is 50 feet tall, it would be wrong to say, "The height of my apartment building equals the cost of my new shoes!" for the exact same reason. There is no way to compare dollars and feet, even if the numbers themselves happen to be the same. If you converted the cost of the shoes to German marks the "equality" breaks down. Exact same deal.

And yes, I understand what the web site is trying to say. That's one way to look at it. And it IS very possible to analyse the performance of a car based on the torque curve of its engine. If you're doing that, then you have to deal with all the gear ratios and reductions and rolling radii of the tires, etc. The torque at the crankshaft goes through all kinds changes before it actually reaches the wheels. The analysis CAN be done (and I have done it) but power is much easier for a layperson to understand.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. By extension, it tells us that the power at the crank of the engine equals the power at the wheels! (There are some frictional losses, but it's still a lot easier than looking at torque, and torque has frictional losses too.) Once we know that, we can use the second equation I wrote up (P = F*v) to calculate the acceleration of the car. The force (which we'll from now on call "thrust") is simply equal to the power the car's making (at the wheels) divided by how fast it's moving. If you like, we can substitute in using Newton's 2nd law (F = m*a) and we get:

(acceleration) = (power)/(mass * velocity)

That's saying that the more power your car has, the harder it will accelerate (duh). It also says that the lighter the car is the harder it will accelerate (also duh). But it also says a third thing: the faster the car's going the slower it will accelerate. This may not have been so obvious, but it's true. Try it next time you're driving around, but please be safe. Accelerate briskly from a standing start and feel how hard the car pulls. Then go onto a highway, cruising at 70 mph, and plant the gas pedal to the floor. The car accelerates much more slowly.

I believe this concludes our physics lesson for today...

Any more challengers?


PS - It's "dynamometer," not "dynometer!"

[Nimisys]

So, if you agree to use horsepower, lb-ft, and RPM, then the equation becomes:

(power) = (torque)(rotational speed)/5252

This is the equation you found on the web page, and it's correct, but ONLY for those specific units- if you wanted to use kilowatts for power, or newton-meters for torque, the equation doesn't work any more.

Now, it's INCORRECT to say that "power = torque at 5252 RPM." The two quantities are completely different and they cannot be compared. It's like this: if you just paid $50 for a new pair of shoes, and your apartment building is 50 feet tall, it would be wrong to say, "The height of my apartment building equals the cost of my new shoes!" for the exact same reason.

math lesson time.. as long as units are HP (power) Ft-lb (torque) RPM (rotational speed) then if RPM = 5252, Torque=HP, WHEN RPM = 5252. thats simple math.

HP is still a funcrtion of the measured torque produced by an engine at a given RPM... please show mnay any tool that measures the HP (power) directly..

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Nimisys:


math lesson time.. as long as units are HP (power) Ft-lb (torque) RPM (rotational speed) then if RPM = 5252, Torque=HP, WHEN RPM = 5252. thats simple math.

HP is still a funcrtion of the measured torque produced by an engine at a given RPM... please show mnay any tool that measures the HP (power) directly..

First issue: My point about the numbers and units was: Essentially, what's going on in that equation is that the three quantities (power, torque, and rotational speed) are stripped of their units, and manipulated as pure numbers. And this is bad form. It's kind of like not wearing your seatbelt- makes no difference as long as you don't get into an accident, but it's bad form. And thank you, I understand the math of that equation.

Second issue: I've run a dynamometer many times, and I know quite well how they work. Actually, it's very possible to build a device which would measure power directly: a calorimeter. Most dynos are not done that way because it' usually easier, cheaper, and more accurate to use a strain gage and measure torque. But the point (which I think you might be contending) is that torque and power are both very real physical entities. It's not the case that power is some theoretical number which can be calculated based on a few simple physical factors. Power is the rate of energy delivery.

Did that make sense?

[Nimisys]

not contesting power isn't a seperate force.. just saying that HP is directly related to the amount of torque produced at any given rpm

[DaKiwi2788]

Originally posted by dav:


not really. if someone believes the world is flat, it wouldn't be ignorant to tell them they are wrong. but i think you're referring to manner in which the person is told they are wrong. ?? (in which case there's plenty of blame to go around here)

Yes, I am referring to the manner. I am not trying to place blame either. I'm simply saying manners never hurt anyone.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
not contesting power isn't a seperate force.. just saying that HP is directly related to the amount of torque produced at any given rpm

Right... which is exactly what I've been saying all along. Look at my second post (first post lacked technical content).

(power) = (torque)(rotational speed)

I don't think we actually disagree on anything, but I'm not sure.

[Re$iliant68]

Well here's what we can agree on:

RSX= Fat, heavy, underpowered, wrong wheel drive (for you Fyrce), and has no torque. And its slow.

- Ca$h

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Re$iliant68:
Well here's what we can agree on:

RSX= Fat, heavy, underpowered, wrong wheel drive (for you Fyrce), and has no torque. And its slow.

- Ca$h

Yeah, I remember seeing a review of the car somewhere and they said its six-speed transmission had about half the gears that the car should have to drive it well (ie. it had a very narrow power band).

And yeah, FWD sucks balls.