Originally Posted by
lancerman
I have admitted in all my discussions of crankwalk that it would take too much to actually prove the theory.
This is the first time I've heard it. If that's the case, my bad (but you certainly didn't qualify your claims in that way here).
It would take 100 cars with 50.000 miles each for starters.(not gonna happen) Yet the results would still be inconclusive because we dont even know the ratios of current 6 and 7 bolt walks.
The percentage of 6-bolts that walk compared to the percentage of 7-bolt 2g engines that walk (I assume this is what you're referring to) would not really matter, though. The test would incorporate two groups of 7-bolt 2g engines (two like groups), controlling for extraneous variables either directly or through a large, random sample size (I think the latter would be much more difficult), and making one group the nitrided crank group and the other non-nitrided. If 50,000 is the benchmark, so be it. After 50,000 miles, bring them in and check for crankwalk. If there is a significantly greater number of crankwalk victims in the non-nitraded group, and assuming we have adequately controlled for extraneous variables, then this would suggest that you're correct.
My conclusions could just as easily be proven by running 100 6 bolts without nitrided cranks for 50,000 miles ( not gonna happen either) For me that would also prove the theory for you it would not. Thats the difference between me and you. I know what the expected results would be, You say we cant predict the results and it needs to be tested.
This (placed in the aforementioned 7-bolt experiment) would actually only tell us about 6-bolt cranks.
I certainly know what results you expect. But, your expectations may not be met. That's why you test. The test allows you to predict results well.
I guess we will agree to disagree on the subject.
I disagree - j/k.