Free 7 Day Trial RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2019, 12:49 AM   #501
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albireo View Post
So say you......
Flattering, but I can't take credit.

Physics tells us this. I know it's hard for some of us that's been out of school for awhile.
pteck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 07:42 AM   #502
Dazed and Confused
 
Isuzusweet's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
1983 31' Airstream310
Hillsburgh , Ontario
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action View Post
Choose your driving range: 300 miles, 400 miles, or 500 miles. All ranges are based on an unloaded truck, with no cargo or trailer weights

>>>>>>>>>>>>Action
If I buy the 500 mile range, but only get 300 miles loaded and towing, stop for lunch, and in that 1/2hr get charged up to do another 300 miles; you have a problem with that?

Cheers
Sidekick Tony
__________________
Per Mare, Per Terram and may all your campaigns be successful.

ďItís a recession when your neighbor loses his job; itís a depression when you lose your own.Ē "Harry S Truman"
Isuzusweet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 08:17 AM   #503
Rivet Master
 
2017 30' Classic
Anna Maria , Florida
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4YZ View Post
I agree with that. Once battery technology is improved and recharge time drops drastically it will be game over.
We have been waiting for it for over 100 years. In the mean time we flew to the moon and back.
Maybe in another 100 years.
Fuel cells maybe batteries I don't think so.
This of course is one a man's opinion and we all know the value of opinions -
franklyfrank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 09:03 AM   #504
Rivet Master
 
2012 19' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklyfrank View Post
We have been waiting for it for over 100 years. In the mean time we flew to the moon and back.
Maybe in another 100 years.
Fuel cells maybe batteries I don't think so.
This of course is one a man's opinion and we all know the value of opinions -
Advancement in technology is occurring faster every year. Most are not aware of how much EV development is going on. It took 100 years to get to the Model T, and 10 years to go from golf cart batteries to 300 miles range. Donít worry, we can keep our diesel trucks for the foreseeable future but other things are coming.

I never thought Iíd see online banking or carry a computer in my pocket either. I just ordered a 3D printed front badge for my Ram Cummins to replace the goat head, while I was in an Airbus over France, and when I got home it was in my mailbox.
Countryboy59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 09:47 AM   #505
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isuzusweet View Post
If I buy the 500 mile range, but only get 300 miles loaded and towing, stop for lunch, and in that 1/2hr get charged up to do another 300 miles; you have a problem with that?

Cheers
Sidekick Tony
No problem; however, consider your driving from El Paso to Austin on 10...where you going to recharge?? Perhaps you want to go thru Capital Reef area, and you decide to boondock...fire that generator up and charge your electric truck every couple hours? You really have to look at the practicality of where/when you will need to charge if your thinking about a long trip...around town is one thing; pulling a TT on a trip is a ways off.
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 10:31 AM   #506
4 Rivet Member
 
Tuco's Avatar
 
1988 32' Excella
Ojai , California
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 275
Images: 1
HP vs. Torque

Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
You mean like how this diesel truck might need to?

https://youtu.be/YDY8obTyN9A?t=610

You diesel bros are missing the point. It's about HP. Not torque. Not diesel. Nor gas for that matter.
This is a much better comparison:

Ford - 450 hp and 935 lb/ft
Dodge - 385 hp and 930 lb/ft

The Ford has 65 more hp than the dodge and it shows in a drag race of the two trucks (go to 9:23 of the video). During the hill climb you would think the ford would win with more hp? Dead even race to the top. HP gets you there faster, torque keeps you there.

__________________
Dave & MJ
1988 32' Excella 1000 (Beauty)
1999 White Dodge SLT Laramie 3500 Dually, 4x4, 5spd, 5.9 CTD 265k+ (The Beast)
Tuco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 11:08 AM   #507
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
This is a much better comparison:

Ford - 450 hp and 935 lb/ft
Dodge - 385 hp and 930 lb/ft

The Ford has 65 more hp than the dodge and it shows in a drag race of the two trucks (go to 9:23 of the video). During the hill climb you would think the ford would win with more hp? Dead even race to the top. HP gets you there faster, torque keeps you there.
This is a joke of a comparison. One reviewer chose the Ford for the massaging seats and rear seat comfort, another chose the Ram for reasons similarly unrelated to the power or torque, apparently the thing they were testing. Those are fine criteria if that is what is important, just not related to the test. Shows the absurdity of the test.

Of course the Ford won the drag race, because it has more hp and they took advantage of it. OTOH they drove the two trucks up the hill at 2400 rpm. That rpm has no relation to peak power, but the reviewers didn’t seem to understand that, they expressed confusion. Pretty laughable. If they had wanted to test max hp, they would have had to run the trucks at the rpm where they make peak hp. 2800 for the Ford, 3000 for the Ram. At 2400 rpm I would wager they make similar hp, as evidenced by their similar times. That is how physics works. You proved the claim, same hp gets you there in the same time. Torque isn’t a factor.

In the digital camera world, there is a name for those who focus on specs vs real world capabilities, eg those who focus too much on the numbers. Measurebators. Seems to fit here with these reviewers.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 11:56 AM   #508
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
This is a much better comparison:

Ford - 450 hp and 935 lb/ft
Dodge - 385 hp and 930 lb/ft

The Ford has 65 more hp than the dodge and it shows in a drag race of the two trucks (go to 9:23 of the video). During the hill climb you would think the ford would win with more hp? Dead even race to the top. HP gets you there faster, torque keeps you there.

Both great trucks. Both beastly motors. With that kind of HP, maintaining speed limits will never be an issue.

As this test is done on public roads, excess power is just that. In an unbounded test, like the drag race, the vehicle with the most HP will surely get to the top first.
pteck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 12:54 PM   #509
Rivet Master
 
2012 19' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
Both great trucks. Both beastly motors. With that kind of HP, maintaining speed limits will never be an issue.

As this test is done on public roads, excess power is just that. In an unbounded test, like the drag race, the vehicle with the most HP will surely get to the top first.
One good point lost in this presentation: I wish I could put the mirrors from my Ford on my Ram. The Ram mirrors are the only thing (besides the goat head which Iím replacing with a Cummins badge) I donít like about my truck.
Countryboy59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 01:01 PM   #510
CLOUDSPLITTER "Tahawus"
 
ROBERT CROSS's Avatar

 
2003 25' Classic
Zanadude Nebula , Milky Way
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18,505
Images: 1
"So, to each HIS own" you are kidding correct?😳


Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveSueMac View Post
Let me tow my 6000# AS and fit another 1500# of human, canine, and gear while going 500 miles between charges, a 30 minute 100% recharge, and the ability to do 60-62 MPH for days....Iím all in!
Well, I'm not concerned...I won't be depleting any of Earth's resources when that threshold is met...🤔

"we are all traveling the same road, some of us just further along than others"
RLC

Bob
🇺🇸
__________________
Tahawus

Love for the Adirondacks

Instead of going to íStarbucksÖI make my own Coffee at home, yell out my name rong, then light a five dollar bill on fire.
RLC
ROBERT CROSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 01:17 PM   #511
Rivet Master
 
SteveSueMac's Avatar

 
2012 27' Flying Cloud
W , New England
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS View Post

"we are all traveling the same road, some of us just further along than others"

RLC



Bob



Iíll buy that
SteveSueMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 01:20 PM   #512
4 Rivet Member
 
Tuco's Avatar
 
1988 32' Excella
Ojai , California
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 275
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
This is a joke of a comparison. One reviewer chose the Ford for the massaging seats and rear seat comfort, another chose the Ram for reasons similarly unrelated to the power or torque, apparently the thing they were testing. Those are fine criteria if that is what is important, just not related to the test. Shows the absurdity of the test.
I could care less who's rump was heated to perfection while simultaneously being massaged. That was not the point of this post whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
Of course the Ford won the drag race, because it has more hp and they took advantage of it.
We agree that HP = Acceleration

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
OTOH they drove the two trucks up the hill at 2400 rpm. That rpm has no relation to peak power, but the reviewers didn’t seem to understand that, they expressed confusion. Pretty laughable.
Both trucks were run up the hill flat out. They didn't drive them at 2400 rpm. It's where both trucks stabilized moving the same load up the same hill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
If they had wanted to test max hp, they would have had to run the trucks at the rpm where they make peak hp. 2800 for the Ford, 3000 for the Ram.
Don't you think that if reaching peak HP was important to towing that both these manufacturers would have programmed their transmissions to achieve that at all costs? They didn't because both engines achieve their best HP vs Torque at 2400 rpm. Those of us that tow with these trucks know this form experience. Spinning the motor past 2400 rpm gains you very little extra performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
At 2400 rpm I would wager they make similar hp, as evidenced by their similar times. That is how physics works. You proved the claim, same hp gets you there in the same time. Torque isn’t a factor.
I would take that bet in a heart beat!

1. We have both seen HP curve's on many different engines. If an engine has more peak HP it will have more HP across the entire operating band. So at 2400 rpm the Ford will have ~16% more HP than the Dodge. The curves don't lie (and we both know EXACTLY what they look like).

2. You stated above that the Ford reaches peak HP at a lower rpm than the Dodge (2800 vs. 3000 rpm). That means the HP curve is shifted to the left and at 2400 rpm the Ford will have more HP than the ~16% delta against the Dodge at 2400 rpm.

Again, if HP really meant so much in lifting 37k+ lbs of weight from the bottom of the grade to the top it would show in the time to get there wouldn't it?
__________________
Dave & MJ
1988 32' Excella 1000 (Beauty)
1999 White Dodge SLT Laramie 3500 Dually, 4x4, 5spd, 5.9 CTD 265k+ (The Beast)
Tuco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 01:38 PM   #513
Vintage Kin
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,014
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydad View Post
Slowmover; you do realize that your comments are sometimes very confusing and certainly sound out of date when talking about technology of today's TV's? Why so condescending all the time when folks are posting info about the latest technology??
TT antilock disc brakes

1). Your trailer is NOT so equipped.

2). Your truck DOES NOT engage & apportion the TT brake contribution with the exhaust brake in use. (Gee, my big truck does).

All of which means that the MOST VULNERABLE moments of your trip — a mountain descent — you make worse by your denial of what matters. A tow vehicle that can barely stop itself, much less take the burden of TT brake fade.

Adverse winds on a mountain have the power to almost instantly roll the whole rig. No warning.

Why doesn’t that get people’s attention?

That problem is taut hitch rigging. (Brought up to you before). And YOU MUST maintain enough space out ahead to simultaneously stand on the throttle while completely closing the TT brakes to stop sway.

This is the single set of procedures to avoid a catastrophic accident. (And guess what? It’s all easier when the TV has a performance design. Not a one ton).

Get out there and practice this. Full throttle & max TT brake application on a 7% downgrade.

Come back and tell us:

1). What space out ahead is needed?

2). And what should be the max descent speed?

Give it three seconds AFTER you hit the controls. Which is more time than you’ll be allowed.

Will it be a half-mile?

Will it be at 1002 or 1003 count your damned drums can’t hold back a 9,000-lb pickemup under full throttle?

And — having tested & taken the matter seriously — you can tell us when your appointment is with ZANETTI in Weatherford to install the full TUSON CORP TT antilock disc brake package plus their controller and trailer-mount anti-sway.

The number of bandaids needed by one tons should make them prohibitive. It doesn’t change their basic, unavoidable problems.

A gasser 1/2T with IFS, rack & pinion, on-road CLOSED-SHOULDER TIRES and some suspension suppleness (meaning far better than OEM shocks) as well as rear panhard rod PLUS a Hensley-patent hitch AND a Solo set of axle weights BEFORE hitching that refelects good FF/RR weight balance . . .

Hell, could’ve had a car or SUV for all that trouble. As I’d bet the items IMPOSSIBLE to carry in passenger compartment or TT don’t add up to much. Destroying the “need” for a pickup while vacationing.

Go on vacation and turn it into work. Makes no sense: Slowing early in traffic (handicap). Getting off the road in bad weather. (Handicap). Worse fuel mileage. (Handicap). Unable to steer out of problems (handicap). Worse accident outcomes solo or towing (HUGE handicap). This list goes on.

It isn’t diesel versus gas anymore. That’s about ten years back. Same for engine power. (250-HP tows ANY of them with NO problem).

Those who start with a clean sheet come out ahead. The TT was the worst problem to solve, but its all too evident by default TV choice that understanding the design differences that make an AS superior are less important to the owner than was the interior decoration.

.
slowmover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 02:23 PM   #514
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,021
Responses in blue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
I could care less who's rump was heated to perfection while simultaneously being massaged. That was not the point of this post whatsoever.

Exactly. Yet that is the thing that the test was able to conclude. Which makes the rest of the test useless

We agree that HP = Acceleration

No, I think we agree that more hp = faster acceleration

Both trucks were run up the hill flat out. They didn't drive them at 2400 rpm. It's where both trucks stabilized moving the same load up the same hill.

That is a function of programming and gear ratios. Unless you have a CVT. So not a power test, let alone torque.

Don't you think that if reaching peak HP was important to towing that both these manufacturers would have programmed their transmissions to achieve that at all costs? They didn't because both engines achieve their best HP vs Torque at 2400 rpm. Those of us that tow with these trucks know this form experience. Spinning the motor past 2400 rpm gains you very little extra performance.

No, I don’t think that peak power is important to towing. And it would be crazy for manufacturers to program their transmissions to run at peak hp. So why does the test spend so much time on it, then the reviewers fail to test it and are surprised by the results. If diesel owners don’t want to run past 3000 rpm, which is understandable, then they should stop quoting the hp figures that are only available at those elevated rpms.

I would take that bet in a heart beat!

You shouldnt. If two trucks of very similar weight climb the same hill in the same time, with similar air resistance and similar drivetrain losses, then physics tells us that they made essentially the same hp at the rpm they were operated at. That is how the math works.

1. We have both seen HP curve's on many different engines. If an engine has more peak HP it will have more HP across the entire operating band. So at 2400 rpm the Ford will have ~16% more HP than the Dodge. The curves don't lie (and we both know EXACTLY what they look like).

Not true. Engines are tuned for different torque characteristics across the operating range depending on the application. Look at the torque curves for multiple versions of the Cummins 6.7 in different applications, as offered by Cummins. Torque rise is what they are generally optimizing here.

2. You stated above that the Ford reaches peak HP at a lower rpm than the Dodge (2800 vs. 3000 rpm). That means the HP curve is shifted to the left and at 2400 rpm the Ford will have more HP than the ~16% delta against the Dodge at 2400 rpm.

Again, if HP really meant so much in lifting 37k+ lbs of weight from the bottom of the grade to the top it would show in the time to get there wouldn't it?

Yes it would. And since it doesn’t, we know they made very similar hp numbers.

QED
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 03:35 PM   #515
Rivet Master
 
DewTheDew's Avatar
 
2017 27' Flying Cloud
Frederick , Maryland
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
TT antilock disc brakes

1). Your trailer is NOT so equipped.

2). Your truck DOES NOT engage & apportion the TT brake contribution with the exhaust brake in use. (Gee, my big truck does).

All of which means that the MOST VULNERABLE moments of your trip ó a mountain descent ó you make worse by your denial of what matters. A tow vehicle that can barely stop itself, much less take the burden of TT brake fade.

Adverse winds on a mountain have the power to almost instantly roll the whole rig. No warning.

Why doesnít that get peopleís attention?

That problem is taut hitch rigging. (Brought up to you before). And YOU MUST maintain enough space out ahead to simultaneously stand on the throttle while completely closing the TT brakes to stop sway.

This is the single set of procedures to avoid a catastrophic accident. (And guess what? Itís all easier when the TV has a performance design. Not a one ton).

Get out there and practice this. Full throttle & max TT brake application on a 7% downgrade.

Come back and tell us:

1). What space out ahead is needed?

2). And what should be the max descent speed?

Give it three seconds AFTER you hit the controls. Which is more time than youíll be allowed.

Will it be a half-mile?

Will it be at 1002 or 1003 count your damned drums canít hold back a 9,000-lb pickemup under full throttle?

And ó having tested & taken the matter seriously ó you can tell us when your appointment is with ZANETTI in Weatherford to install the full TUSON CORP TT antilock disc brake package plus their controller and trailer-mount anti-sway.

The number of bandaids needed by one tons should make them prohibitive. It doesnít change their basic, unavoidable problems.

A gasser 1/2T with IFS, rack & pinion, on-road CLOSED-SHOULDER TIRES and some suspension suppleness (meaning far better than OEM shocks) as well as rear panhard rod PLUS a Hensley-patent hitch AND a Solo set of axle weights BEFORE hitching that refelects good FF/RR weight balance . . .

Hell, couldíve had a car or SUV for all that trouble. As Iíd bet the items IMPOSSIBLE to carry in passenger compartment or TT donít add up to much. Destroying the ďneedĒ for a pickup while vacationing.

Go on vacation and turn it into work. Makes no sense: Slowing early in traffic (handicap). Getting off the road in bad weather. (Handicap). Worse fuel mileage. (Handicap). Unable to steer out of problems (handicap). Worse accident outcomes solo or towing (HUGE handicap). This list goes on.

It isnít diesel versus gas anymore. Thatís about ten years back. Same for engine power. (250-HP tows ANY of them with NO problem).

Those who start with a clean sheet come out ahead. The TT was the worst problem to solve, but its all too evident by default TV choice that understanding the design differences that make an AS superior are less important to the owner than was the interior decoration.

.
The way you talk one would expect rolled and wrecked trailers every two miles on highways. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I believe you are overstating the situation.
DewTheDew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 07:03 PM   #516
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
I could care less who's rump was heated to perfection while simultaneously being massaged. That was not the point of this post whatsoever.



We agree that HP = Acceleration



Both trucks were run up the hill flat out. They didn't drive them at 2400 rpm. It's where both trucks stabilized moving the same load up the same hill.



Don't you think that if reaching peak HP was important to towing that both these manufacturers would have programmed their transmissions to achieve that at all costs? They didn't because both engines achieve their best HP vs Torque at 2400 rpm. Those of us that tow with these trucks know this form experience. Spinning the motor past 2400 rpm gains you very little extra performance.



I would take that bet in a heart beat!

1. We have both seen HP curve's on many different engines. If an engine has more peak HP it will have more HP across the entire operating band. So at 2400 rpm the Ford will have ~16% more HP than the Dodge. The curves don't lie (and we both know EXACTLY what they look like).

2. You stated above that the Ford reaches peak HP at a lower rpm than the Dodge (2800 vs. 3000 rpm). That means the HP curve is shifted to the left and at 2400 rpm the Ford will have more HP than the ~16% delta against the Dodge at 2400 rpm.

Again, if HP really meant so much in lifting 37k+ lbs of weight from the bottom of the grade to the top it would show in the time to get there wouldn't it?
Tuco, I know you're trying to translate your experience. Really, in this topic, you could benefit more to listen and learn as your basis of understanding is flat out wrong by how you're trying to characterize it. Not trying to undermine you. Just trying to help you understand that you're arguing against what academics teaches us as truth.

HP is not just acceleration. HP is the very definition of the ability to do work against time. Acceleration, moving a load, moving a load up a mountain, etc.

Even at less than peak HP, it's still about HP. Because power is synonymous with HP. To hammer that home, HP means power. Early torque lower in the rpm band allows more HP to be made at that point in the powerband. HP is THE measurement describes how quickly work can be done, and that includes of torque, rpm, and time. So we're not dismissing torque.

A load does not care what rpm an engine runs at. It does not care that it is motivated by diesel, gas, or EV energy. Simply that there is power (HP) applied to do work against it to move it.
pteck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 02:17 PM   #517
4 Rivet Member
 
Tuco's Avatar
 
1988 32' Excella
Ojai , California
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 275
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
Tuco, I know you're trying to translate your experience. Really, in this topic, you could benefit more to listen and learn as your basis of understanding is flat out wrong by how you're trying to characterize it. Not trying to undermine you. Just trying to help you understand that you're arguing against what academics teaches us as truth.

HP is not just acceleration. HP is the very definition of the ability to do work against time. Acceleration, moving a load, moving a load up a mountain, etc.

Even at less than peak HP, it's still about HP. Because power is synonymous with HP. To hammer that home, HP means power. Early torque lower in the rpm band allows more HP to be made at that point in the powerband. HP is THE measurement describes how quickly work can be done, and that includes of torque, rpm, and time. So we're not dismissing torque.

A load does not care what rpm an engine runs at. It does not care that it is motivated by diesel, gas, or EV energy. Simply that there is power (HP) applied to do work against it to move it.
I have to admit this post really pissed me off (as it was intended I'm sure). I was up half the night wracking my brain as to why Torque trumps HP in a hill climb and Diesel is better than gas or electric. Real world use cases told my senses that I was right, but for the life of me I couldn't get to the right math to solve the issue. I changed the way I was searching the internet this morning and finally found the answer! I couldn't have picked a better video to showcase the point either. HP shined in the drag race, but with the same weight, rear gear and transmission gear (rpm) similar torque produced similar time to the top of the grade. Now I think i'll let you two engineers figure it out on your own. I'm more than satisfied with the knowledge I gained on my own despite your incorrect information. We can continue this conversation once you have learned the error of your ways! Until then know i'll be laughing every time you post about how great HP is in towing!

Dave
__________________
Dave & MJ
1988 32' Excella 1000 (Beauty)
1999 White Dodge SLT Laramie 3500 Dually, 4x4, 5spd, 5.9 CTD 265k+ (The Beast)
Tuco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 03:02 PM   #518
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
I have to admit this post really pissed me off (as it was intended I'm sure). I was up half the night wracking my brain as to why Torque trumps HP in a hill climb and Diesel is better than gas or electric. Real world use cases told my senses that I was right, but for the life of me I couldn't get to the right math to solve the issue. I changed the way I was searching the internet this morning and finally found the answer! I couldn't have picked a better video to showcase the point either. HP shined in the drag race, but with the same weight, rear gear and transmission gear (rpm) similar torque produced similar time to the top of the grade. Now I think i'll let you two engineers figure it out on your own. I'm more than satisfied with the knowledge I gained on my own despite your incorrect information. We can continue this conversation once you have learned the error of your ways! Until then know i'll be laughing every time you post about how great HP is in towing!

Dave
Note; it seems to be the same folks on these posts, who claim to be the "experts" on the diesel, HP, Torque, etc., etc., who "do not" own nor have experienced a newer 3/4-1T diesel powered TV. Seems they are so fixated on chest thumping as an expert. As many of us have said, doesn't matter what you "think" you know about towing with your TV; if "you" have not experienced cruising up/down/around challenging Rocky Mountain type highway's at 60-65mph, and 1500RPM with your TV in automatic cruise with auto engine brake engaged, effortlessly pulling a 27' thru 30'AS, you really don't know what your missing....all that with 1800-2300 lbs+ payload capability. Purchased my new diesel for that job 18 months ago and it does it very well...crow all you want about your Toyota or Lexas suv, or what ever your TV; but you just don't understand what we are talking about when we owners share our experience here as being different with the newer diesels. No disrespect intended.
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 03:03 PM   #519
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewTheDew View Post
The way you talk one would expect rolled and wrecked trailers every two miles on highways. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I believe you are overstating the situation.
I think he's (Slowmover) a troll...not sure why he is so fixated in insulting folks with his jiberish? Could be wrong...been wrong before...once!
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 03:13 PM   #520
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,021
Dave

If your goal is to prove that torque matters more than hp, you should find a way of proving it. (You won’t find it on YouTube, but you can enjoy searching....). You posted a video that shows there was no difference. That doesn’t prove anything. Maybe consider that there was no difference because both trucks were painted white, as long as you are casting about for arbitrary reasons.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Single 15,000 btu verses dual A/c in FC 25' ljsigman Furnaces, Heaters, Fireplaces & Air Conditioning 16 02-01-2018 04:43 PM
FB verses RB Dwain 2005 and newer - Bambi all models 20 12-19-2017 07:19 PM
15 '' D rated verses 16'' E rated Tires hodges53 Tires 9 07-25-2014 08:16 PM
4 speed verses GV Chuckles Mechanics Corner - Engines, Transmission & More... 19 06-06-2010 11:19 PM
Tongue weight verses tongue height - level the WD hitch? HowieE Hitches, Couplers & Balls 12 11-17-2007 02:02 PM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.