Hoopty5.0

Ok, that's valid. What's a "safe" toungue weight? An example on the upper end of what I'd be towing has a tongue weight of 850 lbs. Would you say it's a) fine b) fine if you replace your bearings c) too heavy regardless of what you do

Heavy Example:
https://www.pplmotorhomes.com/used-r...-lite_rv-38025

Lighter (594 lb tongue weight) Example:
https://www.pplmotorhomes.com/used-r...agine_rv-37972

Thanks for the input.

BLDTruth

In that case (and I am speculating, big time), I don't think the tongue weight would be the issue - it would be the overall weight of the trailer. You would still want the F250.

I would let someone else weigh in on these "facts"

BLDTruth

Also - it can't be neglected that most stock wheel/tire configurations for these trucks are only C rated - to haul something heavy like that trailer legally you would need E rated tires, which means you would need at least 16" wheels, because as far as I know, they don't make E rated 15" tires.

Steve83

Yeah - HO roller truck cams.Do you plan to hook up to a 30' TT, rev the engine to 3200RPM, and then take off? The Lightning wasn't built for towing or off-roading.Try here:
http://www.nloc.net/vbforum/forumdis...n-1-LightningsI wouldn't put a $20 starter relay on my truck - much less, a $20 cam. Is this another garage-sale price?Well, getting rid of the MSD was a good idea, but it's not a gauge of what the headers cost. It sounds like you're getting your parts cheaper than normal, but that doesn't mean they're good, or that they'll do what you want them to.No, you've just already DECIDED to tear it down. You don't NEED to tear a block down just to fix a rusted intake bolt.Yes, no matter how you do it, and the installation instructions will tell you to re-check & tighten them every few months because the mfr. knows they're going to leak.Ceramic can tolerate high heat, and it slows it down slightly. It doesn't change the temperature significantly.So instead of 2000°, it'll be 1800 baking all that antique plastic, and helping the A/C keep you warm. I don't see any advantage. Certainly not enough to justify the meager or nonexistent change in performance. Ceramic is a cosmetic addition - not a performance-enhancer. It makes them look pretty for a LITTLE longer. But it cracks & chips easily; and oil leaks, road grime, bug guts, mud, & everything else gets baked onto it just as easily as onto bare steel (if not moreso).If you had installed a set before, you might be a little more pessimistic about marketing hype vs. real-world installation. This is a set I installed:


(phone app link)

The other captions in that album might interest you. Yes, that truck was heavily-modified, but none of those mods affected the distance between the engine & frame.

And it wasn't used for towing (or off-roading)....you'll wreck that ceramic coating, causing them to rust out.The 1st law of thermodynamics. Mechanical transfer of energy (as from the crank pulley to the belt to the WP/fan pulley) is about as thermodynamically-efficient as there can be. It approaches 100%, but there are small losses in flexing the belt & spinning the bearings. Converting from that mechanical energy to electrical (inside the alternator) is comparatively INefficient (approaching 40%, as evidenced by the vented housing to blow the wasted heat out). Pushing electricity (especially at high-Amp DC) through wires, relays, & connectors is also relatively INefficient (probably near 75%). Converting it BACK to mechanical energy at the fan motor is another big waste (again near 40%). Energy is not free - every bit that the truck uses (even the sound it produces just by passing through the air) comes from the fuel it burns. The more energy you waste, the more fuel you have to burn to get the same propulsion.Me, too: zero. It's as necessary as a fuel pump, so the energy it requires isn't "robbed" any more than the energy used to push the truck down the road or up a hill is "robbed".

But there are many ways to skin a cat, or cool an engine. The ones that use more energy are the ones that "rob" from your engine's BHP, your fuel tank, and your wallet. An e-fan system (in addition to simply being more expensive to buy/build) is like the Rube-Goldberg solution to engine cooling.1/2 would surprise me, too. It's more like triple.You missed the point of what you quoted. The operative phrase was "better economy from an e-fan". As bad as an e-fan system is, with very careful design, construction, sensing, & PCM programming, it CAN become very slightly more-efficient in the long run than a clutch. But only slightly, and only with LOTS of engineering. Anything you or I can add to these old trucks is negative work.Yes, just like today: they towed them with trucks built to tow campers that heavy, or they towed them with trucks NOT built to tow campers that heavy. Which do you want to do?You're misreading it, just like they want you to. Yes, the springs they supply are capable of supporting 900 more lbs. at the stock height than the stock springs. But that doesn't actually increase the truck's capacity. It LOWERS it, due to the added weight of the larger springs, heavier suspension struts, and lift blocks. Every pound of that new weight goes onto the SAME wheel bearings, axle tubes, & BRAKES. So until you replace all of them with parts also capable of carrying & STOPPING the extra weight, you've REDUCED what the truck can do safely.

Yes, you could replace them all & build a heavier truck, but it's a big waste of money compared to just buying one that was built that way to begin with.So would I. I don't even have an F150 - I have a Bronco, which is rated for even less. And I've towed a few 35' TTs, another heavier Bronco on a 2-axle flatbed trailer, an old 40hp tractor with lots of implements, loads of construction materials, skidsteers & mini-excavators, a jobsite office trailer, and (for VERY short distances) a stuck loaded cement truck & a stalled empty Peterbilt dump truck. I've also gone through 3 or 4 rear differentials, probably as many sets of wheel bearings & 4 driveshafts, 3 rear axle housings, 2 sets of rear springs, 3 front coils, a frame, and (when I rolled it towing a 2-door car) a body.You mean mine?

So do you want to join their ranks? You'll be much happier if you use the correct vehicle to tow that camper.That's certainly a consideration with ANYTHING you read on the interwebz, and it pays to skeptically scrutinize everything you're thinking about believing or acting on. Much of what I'm telling you is based on personal experience & education (in college & professionally), and a lot of it is documented in the pics & captions in my signature link (including most of the carnage).I don't recall anyone telling you differently. But I will say that, of all the engines & vehicles I've seen & worked on, the ones that the owners enjoy & use most are the ones that are simply MAINTAINED well. The ones that are heavily-modified for "performance" more-often end up gathering dust, requiring LOT$ of repair$, not running right, or just in junkyards.

My Bronco's little 4.9L (yes, I towed all that stuff with 6 cylinders) is as close to stock as a 23-year-old UNrebuilt engine can be, and even with something like 860Kmi, it still starts every time, runs well enough to go off-roading a few states away whenever I feel like it, and get the same ~12MPG that it always has (even when I set the cruise above 100mph). So I recommend you treat yours the same way, and I think you'll get similar performance & enjoyment from it. Mess with, and I doubt you will.

Hoopty5.0

I hear you and appreciate your input. This truck is not a daily driver and gets used sporadically. I enjoy working on stuff and don't think replacing (with the exception of the headers) Ford parts with Ford parts will be too much cause for concern. While you are correct in that the Lightning wasn't designed for towing, I wouldn't rev my engine to 2800 to take off either, given that it's only 300 rpm less than the 3100 I mentioned earlier. I can't see a down side to adding extra torque.

I doubt we even buy a camper and will most likely rent one once or twice before my wife decides its too much work and doesnt want to mess with it.

One final thought and we can move on. An alternator converts mechanical (kinetic?) energy in to electricity, right? Using the formula Power = (voltage)(amperage) and
1 horsepower = 746 watts - - -
Assuming I have a 130a alternator producing 14.2v, that's 1846 watts, or 2.5hp used to make 14.2v. You're no longer debating me, but the laws of physics.

Chris_1

iTrader: (1)

There's a couple of valid points made in those 3 pages of thread; One is that the HO cam for trucks is very different than the one for Mustangs.
HO simply means that they changed the firing order so it would run smoother at higher rpm but the grind for a car is to produce max hp at rpm - the truck is ground different to produce more low end torque. Because Mustangs weigh so much less they don't need the bottom end torque required to get a heavy truck moving.
If you put a car cam in a truck it will be a dog getting off the line at every stop sign or traffic light. So worth thinking about.
The e-fan energy thing; energy is energy, the alternator doesn't produce it more efficiently than the engine. It takes a certain amount of energy to turn a fan enough to cool the motor, whether the alternator produces the energy for an electric motor or the clutch fan does the cooling; the motor still has to turn the belt to provide the energy so it's a wash or as was pointed out the extra energy required to push the electricity around would probably make the electric fan option less efficient.
The motor might rev faster if you were on a quarter mile track because you have some power stored up in the battery but it's still going to have to be replaced so the efficiency level drops off again.
A 30 foot trailer behind a 1/2 ton pickup is not going to be a pleasant drive. The truck's not built for it and the trailer will be pushing you all over the place - you won't like it and yes a good crosswind will scare the hell out of you and your passengers both (not to mention everybody else on the road around you).
Plus you're likely to get pulled over and your holiday will pretty much end right there. The gvw of your truck, minus the weight of the truck, you, your passengers, your fuel, your camping gear, suitcases and anything else you put in the truck leaves you a few thousand lbs (maybe) of trailer you can pull legally.
A 30' trailer will be way over that before you pack any food or refreshments in it. If you get pulled over (and you will if they see you pulling a trailer that big with an F150) that's it. Big fine and you're going to have to find a bigger truck to tow the trailer home - because there's no way they're going to let you tow it another foot.

Just a bit of food for thought.

Hoopty5.0

So if the electric fan is a terrible idea, why are AAALLLLLLLL new cars and trucks sporting electric fans (some even have electric steering now). The logic there really doesn't add up to me.

2.5 hp, I'm sticking to it.



As for the trailer stuff, the point is made, I understand that now.

BLDTruth

Some good spirited debate in here. I love it.

Th e-fan thing? It all depends. If you drive a lot on the highway, or otherwise in a generally cool climate, an e-fan is going to save you money, because it will rarely click on when you are at speed, and thus you will see mpg increases because there is no drag on the engine. When properly configured, an e-fan will outperform (better cooling, mileage, and power) a clutch fan any day of the week and twice on sunday in all but the most extreme circumstances. Your A/C will blow colder, etc. There are a lot of reasons to do an e-fan as long as it is configured correctly. There are a lot of reasons to keep the clutch fan too. The main reason being, towing.

Eric Fullerton

Personally as to the electric fan, I believe; when it is running it is probably more efficient to run it off of the belt. Any savings would be from running it only when necessary. Winter for instance, you could probably leave it off most of the time. Freeway driving also, you seldom even need it, Even when the clutch is disengaged on the clutch fan, it is making drag. So even if it is a less efficient way to cool the radiator, the off time would more than make up for that

Steve83

It doesn't look like you understand how things really work. That's the ideal math - but as I said: neither the alternator, the wiring, nor the fan motor is 100% efficient. Your hp number only includes what leaves the alternator as electric current - it IGNORES the losses between the crank & alt, inside the alt, in the wiring, and in the fan motor. So it's really more like 10hp out of the engine for peak alternator output.

But the e-fan load is only ~30~60A depending which fan you choose. Using your math, that's ~.6~1.2hp. Take a look at the fan motor on your A/C outside unit - it's probably ~.25hp, and it moves a LOT more air than the fan on your truck. So try to guesstimate how many hp the stock fan needs - my guess is ~.1hp.That's right , but not the way it looks like you meant it.It's hard to believe you actually believe that. There are 1,000 ways to skin a cat or spin a fan, and they're NOT all equally-efficient.Having made those calculations a few times, I can say for sure that it's NOT.Right. By a WIDE margin.I've explained that 2x now, already. They're engineered to be SLIGHTLY more efficient. Nothing you can put together will come close.That's a whole other kettle of worms.You don't seem to understand how a fan clutch works. If the air coming through the radiator is cool enough, it disengages. If the air gets too warm, it engages. So a clutch fan only pulls power off the engine when needed.No, it's not. At highway speeds, it can actually pinwheel a tiny bit of energy back into the belt, reducing the engine load (not enough to matter). An e-fan can't do that at all.