Losing interest in my F250 - Land cruiser?

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Hey, I'm not sure your "missing out" on anything, given your driving needs and knowledge of your TV. I loved driving my MB ML350, my Tahoe before I got my F150 EB to pull my 25. that was a game changer for me in towing and carrying gear like kayaks, generator, firewood, bbq, etc. I also recently lived in SD for 3 years. While there we had several treks thru Vegas on way to/from MT and we also visited Borrego Springs couple times a month in winter from Rancho Bernardo. Both those drives can be challenging for any tow vehicle with a larger AS. What I am sharing is with my 28', I feel very confident with the 3/4T diesel for my needs. Your 570 Land Cruiser is certainly a very nice vehicle especially for daily driving and carrying more passengers. I don't have those considerations. Ideal may be to have both

Thanks for putting your experience out here.

It helps others make a more informed decision.

Dan

[pteck]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Why do you take every comment as an attack?

He gave his experience of multiple vehicles then simply stated HE FELT MORE confident in his 3/4T truck. Did it hurt your sense of being?

Nor did he say “nothing else can possibly do a great job” as you belched.

This forum is for SHARING INFORMATION and your “greater than thou” responses gives it a horrible taste for others.

Get over yourself and contribute instead of looking for an in to attack someone’s comments. If you are “so smart” then use it effectively to influence an otherwise “poorly informed” member so they can make a better decision.

You obviously have a wealth of information, my suggestion is to share it, instead of throw it.

Moderator in 3,2,1...

It wasn't an attack. The point was to highlight the absurdity of the logic.

This thread is about someone who has an F250, who very well understands its current qualities, but is looking into other options. I happen to be one that owns and utilizes said other option. And sharing my experience and information.

Have you thought that maybe it is you and the other diesel bros that are attacking my perspective and experience as unsound?

I'm all for a civil and sound discussion. But I also recognize when people, you included, are just trolling for an argument.

[DBinSD]

Thank you for proving the point!

I'm sorry you are still hurt about the Torque beating the HP "up the hill" in four examples. Also about how you refer to Torque as ft-lb while being an "engineer" but hey, no hard feelings.

I am still waiting to see a print out of torque exceeding HP above 5252. That was the number I said HP "took over" or other words exceeded torque in gas motors. I am FULLY aware of what it is and the math behind it. You said it was wrong, prove that or get over it.

Either way, the only person that seems to insult is you. Take it elsewhere.

Otherwise, have an actual conversation and convey information.

[pteck]

Wow, Mr. 5252. You still don't understand...

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by pteck

Wow, Mr. 5252. You still don't understand...

Understand what Mr "Engineer"? That above 5252rpm HP will exceed Torque or below the Torque will exceed HP due to the mathematical given? What about that is wrong, please ?

Or was it the vehicles that excelled had more torque than HP in each class handily beating HP towing up hill?

I would like to know what in the above I did not understand.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by pteck

I get it, your god is better than my god. And all SUV's must perform the same. The fact that your 3/4T diesel performs well, means nothing else can possibly also do a great job.

My LX570 is my 3rd vehicle and is the families beast of burden. I much prefer my 650 ft-lb torque, 3400 lb commuter rather than another barge.

Oh, and my 27FB is 1" longer than yours

Happy camping

It's actually not; my bike rack extends 6" outside the bumper, so mine is longer. I could say mine is also more comfortable to live in than yours with the separate dinning area and L-shaped couch, has more storage outside with the twin beds! But, who cares...right? enjoy your LC...sounds like a great ride.

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by pteck

I get it, your god is better than my god. And all SUV's must perform the same. The fact that your 3/4T diesel performs well, means nothing else can possibly also do a great job.

My LX570 is my 3rd vehicle and is the families beast of burden. I much prefer my 650 ft-lb torque, 3400 lb commuter rather than another barge.

Oh, and my 27FB is 1" longer than yours

Happy camping

Do I understand correctly, you are calling your LX570 a barge? If my wife's RR HSE could pull our 30' classic we would try maybe. I do know that when it comes to going up or down mountains and stopping hard w/o going side ways or being pushed, I vote for our "barge". LX570 is a nice ride so is your Porsche. You might enjoy this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUwzWHD3Htg

And yes the RR beat by 8 seconds, previously held by Ferrari, the 99 turns .................

Best regards and Safe Travels

[pteck]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

It's actually not; my bike rack extends 6" outside the bumper, so mine is longer. I could say mine is also more comfortable to live in than yours with the separate dinning area and L-shaped couch, has more storage outside with the twin beds! But, who cares...right? enjoy your LC...sounds like a great ride.

The 28' is indeed a great floor plan. Had I had that option, I very well likely would have preferred it. The dining area makes a great addition to counter space for meal prep.

So others don't get confused, I'm not saying the LC/LX contests a 3/4T for towing superiority. Far from it. While it tows large size airstreams well, its specializations lie elsewhere. Compared to a 3/4T, that is explicitly designed for loads and hauling. But it also is a beast in its own right, with the LX weighing in at some 6200lbs. Aussies find that its extremely effective in towing their caravans through the bush and outback.

I'd like to see pics of your bike rack some time. Currently looking to do the same myself by installing a receiver to the rear bumper (yes I'm aware of the cautions).

[pteck]

Originally Posted by sbowman

Do I understand correctly, you are calling your LX570 a barge? If my wife's RR HSE could pull our 30' classic we would try maybe. I do know that when it comes to going up or down mountains and stopping hard w/o going side ways or being pushed, I vote for our "barge". LX570 is a nice ride so is your Porsche. You might enjoy this.

And yes the RR beat by 8 seconds, previously held by Ferrari, the 99 turns .................

Best regards and Safe Travels

Yes, even the LC/LX570 can be considered a barge to folks that live near the city. I've heard others refer to it affectionately as a Land Bruiser. Perception of size is all relative right? My AS, being lifted 3" sure adds to its perceived size as well.

I've seen clips of that vid, and the HSE is a beautiful rig. Will have to watch it in total once I get home this evening. Thank you.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Understand what Mr "Engineer"? That above 5252rpm HP will exceed Torque or below the Torque will exceed HP due to the mathematical given? What about that is wrong, please ?

Or was it the vehicles that excelled had more torque than HP in each class handily beating HP towing up hill?

I would like to know what in the above I did not understand.

Oh my God.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Thank you for proving the point!

I'm sorry you are still hurt about the Torque beating the HP "up the hill" in four examples. Also about how you refer to Torque as ft-lb while being an "engineer" but hey, no hard feelings.

I am still waiting to see a print out of torque exceeding HP above 5252. That was the number I said HP "took over" or other words exceeded torque in gas motors. I am FULLY aware of what it is and the math behind it. You said it was wrong, prove that or get over it.

Either way, the only person that seems to insult is you. Take it elsewhere.

Otherwise, have an actual conversation and convey information.

Torque and horsepower are different units of measure. One cannot “exceed The other”. One is force and the other is power. Static measurement and a measure of work done.

[DBinSD]

Good lord...

Obviously they are different or it would be TorquePower!

If you have TWO numbers from the Dyno. One is 780 lb-ft of torque and the other is 370 HP. WHICH number exceeds the other?

At a given rpm ONE of those are higher (exceeds) the other. Unless of course the process of measuring the two on a dyno is wrong as well?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Good lord...

Obviously they are different or it would be TorquePower!

If you have TWO numbers from the Dyno. One is 780 lb-ft of torque and the other is 370 HP. WHICH number exceeds the other?

At a given rpm ONE of those are higher (exceeds) the other. Unless of course the process of measuring the two on a dyno is wrong as well?

You have a dyno that measures hp? Interesting. The ones I used all measured torque. HP is a calculated figure. You can even use 5252 in the calculation, depending on your definition of hp.

No one is arguing with you that 780 is a larger number than 370. But nobody appears to be accepting that given the units attached to those figures, that one can exceed the other, or in your words, "take over". They are different things.

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by jcl

You have a dyno that measures hp? Interesting. The ones I used all measured torque. HP is a calculated figure. You can even use 5252 in the calculation, depending on your definition of hp.



No one is arguing with you that 780 is a larger number than 370. But nobody appears to be accepting that given the units attached to those figures, that one can exceed the other, or in your words, "take over". They are different things.

Yeah I guess it’s rocket science to apply the calcs to the torque measurement of the dyno to come up with the HP but, whatever you say.

Let me ask it this way then;

A single engine at 3700rpm produces 455 T/290HP then the same engine at 5500 rpm produces 310T/395HP.

At the given rpms what do you say is doing the “work” in order to tow the trailer?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Yeah I guess it’s rocket science to apply the calcs to the torque measurement of the dyno to come up with the HP but, whatever you say.

Let me ask it this way then;

A single engine at 3700rpm produces 455 T/290HP then the same engine at 5500 rpm produces 310T/395HP.

At the given rpms what do you say is doing the “work” in order to tow the trailer?

It doesn't matter what rpm it is at (unless it is zero). The work is being done by the engine and is measured by the hp.

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by jcl

It doesn't matter what rpm it is at (unless it is zero). The work is being done by the engine and is measured by the hp.

One does not exceed the other?

Why do tractor trucks have 1800 lb-ft of torque and only 350 HP yet tow 80k pounds? Why not 1800hp and 350T if the HP is doing it all?

I understand the math and definition about HP and the difference to torque and the gearing.

If torque is the reason for acceleration then what part does it play in towing or are you saying it does not?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

One does not exceed the other?

No. The digits do, but the units are different so you can’t contrast them directly. A 15 oz weight weighs less one pound. 15 is more than 1. Does the smaller weight exceed the other? That is essentially what you are arguing.

Originally Posted by DBinSD

Why do tractor trucks have 1800 lb-ft of torque and only 350 HP yet tow 80k pounds? Why not 1800hp and 350T if the HP is doing it all?

Because commercial truckers are driven by cost per mile and not 1/4 mile times. 350 hp is all it takes to tow that load, accepting a slower rate of acceleration.

Originally Posted by DBinSD

I understand the math and definition about HP and the difference to torque and the gearing.

If torque is (not) the reason for acceleration then what part does it play in towing or are you saying it does not?

Very little. Wheel torque matters. That is why recommendations abound to use a 3.73 rear end ratio instead of a 3.0. Flywheel torque is mainly for advertising purposes. What higher engine torque does do is reduce the need to shift. In the age of ten speed automatics, that is of little real consequence IMO.

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by jcl

—— snip——-

Very little. Wheel torque matters. That is why recommendations abound to use a 3.73 rear end ratio instead of a 3.0. Flywheel torque is mainly for advertising purposes. What higher engine torque does do is reduce the need to shift. In the age of ten speed automatics, that is of little real consequence IMO.

JCL,
I do very much appreciate your time and efforts in explaining without being childish. Also your ability to articulate.

Could you then, please explain the results in post #71 where the two trucks w/ higher torque lower HP towed considerably faster than the two w/ higher HP lower torque if torque does not play a role in towing loads?

[DBinSD]

my apologies, this post 71
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...ml#post2089200

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DBinSD

JCL,
I do very much appreciate your time and efforts in explaining without being childish. Also your ability to articulate.

Could you then, please explain the results in post #71 where the two trucks w/ higher torque lower HP towed considerably faster than the two w/ higher HP lower torque if torque does not play a role in towing loads?

Post 71 is about body on frame and CoG. (Edit- I see our posts crossed)

Are you referring to an “Ike Gauntlet” article? If so, then I can’t explain it. But I can list some of the many variables that might.

1. Turbo vs NA considering the altitude of 11,000+ feet
2. Transmission programming, ie gear selection during the run
3. Gear ratios as they relate the target (desired) road speed to where the engine is on its power curve at that road speed
4. Actual hp vs published. My BMW 3.0 twin turbo had a claimed 300 flywheel hp. Many dyno tests had it making that at the rear wheels, after approx 10% drivetrain loss.
5. Advertising revenue associated with the testing agency
6. Lack of independent validation
7. Operator error
8. Test conditions. I am accustomed to correcting tests to SAE standard conditions for temperature, fuel spec, etc.

I am sure there are more, but there is a start.