2011 5.0 L F-150: from 3.31 to 3.73
11-07-2011, 08:08 PM
#101
Eco-5.0-Eco again
Enjoy the multiplied torque!!!
11-08-2011, 11:46 AM
#102
On more meds than ymeski
Yup, 3:73s are an all around great gear choice for trucks and performance vehicles. Could you imagine buying a Mustang Gt and realizing after you take delivery that it has 2:73s? It happened to me back in 1998, what a cruel joke...the car barely cut a 15 second run in the 1/4. 3:73s cut nearly full second off the 1/4 mile time...the car was a totally different vehicle after the install.
Enjoy the multiplied torque!!!
Enjoy the multiplied torque!!!
11-08-2011, 12:44 PM
#103
Senior Member
Originally Posted by my67falcon
Yea, my '90 GT had the killa 3:08's Those didn't last long.
11-08-2011, 01:06 PM
#104
Senior Member
Engineer Mike - Nothing like arguing theory and leaving out facts.....
3.73's lessen the time the engine spends outside of the power band when accelerating by effectively closing the spacing on the lower ratios. There is a smaller drop-off in acceleration when the less time is spent in the less than optimum rpm that the engine drops to immediately after an upshift.
So theoretically you are correct that you cannibalize acceleration in one gear, with the earlier upshift. A mathematical calculation yielding the amount of torque put down over a period of time will favor lower gears in almost all circumstances. Add in the multiplying effect of the torque converter, and the very large difference in torque is substantial.
Also, all the accelerative gains are kept, free and clear, once you reach the point where the truck with a numerically high gear ratio is in a numerically higher gear, while the final drive ratio is the same as the numerically lower truck. That is also a critical point, as a few percent torque at higher speeds makes a big difference, when vehicles of similar power are considered.
Another thing you are leaving out Mike, is that most drag vehicles are geared to effectively use all the available ratios to obtain it's top speed in whatever circumstance it is racing under. That is a universal tenet of race car setup.
Another side of drag racing theory that you are being misleading about, is the effect of 60 foot times on ET. But that's a whole 'nother Oprah.
Engineers have a real mental block when it comes to the practical. Not because theory is wrong, but because most engineers pigeon-hole thing down to a breadth they can comprehend, and omit the other factors.
Just keepin it real.
3.73's lessen the time the engine spends outside of the power band when accelerating by effectively closing the spacing on the lower ratios. There is a smaller drop-off in acceleration when the less time is spent in the less than optimum rpm that the engine drops to immediately after an upshift.
So theoretically you are correct that you cannibalize acceleration in one gear, with the earlier upshift. A mathematical calculation yielding the amount of torque put down over a period of time will favor lower gears in almost all circumstances. Add in the multiplying effect of the torque converter, and the very large difference in torque is substantial.
Also, all the accelerative gains are kept, free and clear, once you reach the point where the truck with a numerically high gear ratio is in a numerically higher gear, while the final drive ratio is the same as the numerically lower truck. That is also a critical point, as a few percent torque at higher speeds makes a big difference, when vehicles of similar power are considered.
Another thing you are leaving out Mike, is that most drag vehicles are geared to effectively use all the available ratios to obtain it's top speed in whatever circumstance it is racing under. That is a universal tenet of race car setup.
Another side of drag racing theory that you are being misleading about, is the effect of 60 foot times on ET. But that's a whole 'nother Oprah.
Engineers have a real mental block when it comes to the practical. Not because theory is wrong, but because most engineers pigeon-hole thing down to a breadth they can comprehend, and omit the other factors.
Just keepin it real.
wow, so you hate engineers and think they are stupid. great. except that you've got it wrong.
I think you're confusing the fact that when an engineer is explaining something to a regular person, sometimes they have to dumb it down or risk talking over people's heads. Engineers tend to have a very good understanding of not only the big picture but also the components that are part of that picture. We break things down because factors do affect each other and understanding each component leads to a better understanding of the whole.
OP: Glad to hear your 'level of satisfaction' has increased.
11-08-2011, 05:04 PM
#105
Wow, had to take a deep breath after that read. I do not have the 5.0 as the OP has, but wanted to throw out a few thoughts on my set up. I have the ECO with 4.10's and could not be happier with the combo. It gets 15.3 MPG city. 70 MPH is just a needle width over 2000 RPM.
Once it gets in 6th gear it will really hold it before a down shift is necessary. I believe I seen it lug down to 40 MPH in 6th up a hill, of course this was behind slow traffic so I was not in to the throttle to ask for more MPH. Just saying it has enough grunt to hold it.
I can see both sides of this discussion. IMHO, data that applys to a drag car and it's gearing does not always translate to a truck that is being worked. It's a game changer when you put a 10,000 lbs trailer behind these 1/2 ton trucks.
If you are buying a truck to utilize it similar to a passenger car, then airplane gears are fine. Put a load on or work it like a truck, then lower gears will begin to shine. I'm not so much worried about getting the load rolling in 1st gear, but rather the abilty hold a given speed up a hill while in the higher gears.
Just a few thoughts from Joe six pack. Anyone buy in?
Once it gets in 6th gear it will really hold it before a down shift is necessary. I believe I seen it lug down to 40 MPH in 6th up a hill, of course this was behind slow traffic so I was not in to the throttle to ask for more MPH. Just saying it has enough grunt to hold it.
I can see both sides of this discussion. IMHO, data that applys to a drag car and it's gearing does not always translate to a truck that is being worked. It's a game changer when you put a 10,000 lbs trailer behind these 1/2 ton trucks.
If you are buying a truck to utilize it similar to a passenger car, then airplane gears are fine. Put a load on or work it like a truck, then lower gears will begin to shine. I'm not so much worried about getting the load rolling in 1st gear, but rather the abilty hold a given speed up a hill while in the higher gears.
Just a few thoughts from Joe six pack. Anyone buy in?
11-08-2011, 07:27 PM
#106
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Wow, had to take a deep breath after that read. I do not have the 5.0 as the OP has, but wanted to throw out a few thoughts on my set up. I have the ECO with 4.10's and could not be happier with the combo. It gets 15.3 MPG city. 70 MPH is just a needle width over 2000 RPM...
Interestingly enough, my big truck (2004 International semi) came originally with 3.73, 10 Speed tranny and 22.5 tires. The sticker on the door said the original tire was a 295 (low profile) so I switched to that and had the CAT dyno-tuned and did a couple of mods mostly to improve fuel mileage. With 3.73 in my truck and 550 HP and 2,050 lb-ft torque (flywheel) I was only able to do 57-58 MPH and still stay within fuel efficient RPMs (1300 - 1350 for the CAT), but that truck was an ASSASSIN going uphill!
I remember all these KWs and Petes passing me on level ground but once we hit some big hills (CO, CA, MT...) I was passing them like there was no tomorrow.
I had so much torque at the wheels that I remember once driving in Texas on Hwy 59 between Texarkana and Houston TX during light rain, and I had my rear wheels SPIN when going uphill. Boy, I missed that power sometimes
I later switched to 3.42 to be able to do 65 MPH and couldn't stand the loss in acceleration and driver's fun factor, so went one step back to 3.58. It's almost perfect but ... once you experience that amazing thrill during acceleration, you'll always remember it
And that's why I have 3.73s in my Ford and I"m never never NEVER
going back to 3.31s.
Last edited by smd5231; 11-08-2011 at 07:30 PM. Reason: error
11-08-2011, 07:41 PM
#107
wow, so you hate engineers and think they are stupid. great. except that you've got it wrong.
I think you're confusing the fact that when an engineer is explaining something to a regular person, sometimes they have to dumb it down or risk talking over people's heads. Engineers tend to have a very good understanding of not only the big picture but also the components that are part of that picture. We break things down because factors do affect each other and understanding each component leads to a better understanding of the whole.
.
I think you're confusing the fact that when an engineer is explaining something to a regular person, sometimes they have to dumb it down or risk talking over people's heads. Engineers tend to have a very good understanding of not only the big picture but also the components that are part of that picture. We break things down because factors do affect each other and understanding each component leads to a better understanding of the whole.
.
In this case it lead to someone talking down to others, and postulating an incorrect hypotheses. And when one's qualifications are flaunted to drive home their opinion.
Maybe let's just discuss the gears, and leave the ad hominem issues for another forum :-)
Last edited by isthatahemi; 11-08-2011 at 07:48 PM.