6000 Mile TT Towing Report
11-27-2012, 06:31 AM
#81
Senior Member
It's not that hard. I tow a lot and you need X amount of HP to pull Y amount of trailer at Z speed. The OP was able to get what he needed by upping his rpm at a reduced speed. It's not rocket science.
I know a lot of people like to say "low rpm torque is the key". That is true but only because it creates HP low in rpm which allows you to pull low in rpm.
My only comment to the guy using the 3.7 to tow across the states is "awesome". I'm not sure I would have had the guts to try it.
I know a lot of people like to say "low rpm torque is the key". That is true but only because it creates HP low in rpm which allows you to pull low in rpm.
My only comment to the guy using the 3.7 to tow across the states is "awesome". I'm not sure I would have had the guts to try it.
Last edited by Ssls6; 11-27-2012 at 06:47 AM.
11-27-2012, 09:13 AM
#82
Senior Member
Originally Posted by f150man3.5
The bigger motor will not have to push out more power going up said hill. It has more torque. Period. Low end torque. Period. Advantage "bigger" motor. Period
Power and energy are more accurate terms.
To make more hp you need more fuel, to make more torque you need more fuel.
The energy needed to make it up said hill is the same for both trucks.
Physics makes it impossible for one engine to make it up a hill easier than another. It is the same amount of work.
They just do it in different ways.
The following users liked this post:
isthatahemi (11-27-2012)
11-27-2012, 09:15 AM
#83
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jcain
For the exact same vehicle, in regards to weight, gearing and COD, ~125,000btu per gallon is a fixed ratio that cannot be altered and with regards to the 3.5,3.7,5.0 are all probably damn near the same efficiency with regards to combustion. Thus, will achieve nearly the same MPG given the same scenario to recreate. now, that being said, if i have a motor making 150% more torque, the chances of me not utilizing it are slim to NONE and will reward me with more fuel consumption and less mpg.
11-27-2012, 12:06 PM
#84
------Whatch this-------
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
The following users liked this post:
MXD (11-27-2012)
11-27-2012, 12:40 PM
#85
------Whatch this-------
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
PERFECT! This is what I was trying to say all along. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that in the real world of hills, starting, stopping and wind that the 3.7 is more efficient under load (with a trailer) than the larger options. The more powerful options have to work much less to make the same power which means that they make power more efficiently and they are more efficient at overcoming the real world scenarios I just mentioned. All of the calculations in the world only prove the efficiency argument in a perfectly controlled environment which is impossible in the real world. I gave up trying to explain myself but this video is what I was trying to say.
The OP proved my point by saying that he averaged 6mpg on the last day turning 4400 rpm for 750 miles. Can anyone here with a TT that weighs 3500 pounds and has roughly the same frontal area of the OP's trailer give us some mileage reports with the 5.0 or EB? I can guaranty you that it would be close to double that mileage. That was on page 1. Since then the OP has shoveled out 8 more pages of ridiculousness so I gave up.
Last edited by MXD; 11-27-2012 at 12:46 PM.
11-27-2012, 12:48 PM
#86
Senior Member
Hehe, the engine wasn't the only thing working harder on the Prius, the chassis was pretty over matched as well.
And the Beamer had to move a larger and less areo vehicle...
And the Beamer had to move a larger and less areo vehicle...
11-27-2012, 12:56 PM
#87
Five-0 Ret.
------Whatch this-------
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
11-27-2012, 11:04 PM
#88
Senior Member
Thread Starter
------Whatch this-------
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
They use more fuel with the smaller engine and pushing its power, compaired to using a bigger engine.
http://www.streetfire.net/video/143-...uel_180378.htm
PERFECT! This is what I was trying to say all along. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that in the real world of hills, starting, stopping and wind that the 3.7 is more efficient under load (with a trailer) than the larger options. The more powerful options have to work much less to make the same power which means that they make power more efficiently and they are more efficient at overcoming the real world scenarios I just mentioned. All of the calculations in the world only prove the efficiency argument in a perfectly controlled environment which is impossible in the real world. I gave up trying to explain myself but this video is what I was trying to say.
The OP proved my point by saying that he averaged 6mpg on the last day turning 4400 rpm for 750 miles. Can anyone here with a TT that weighs 3500 pounds and has roughly the same frontal area of the OP's trailer give us some mileage reports with the 5.0 or EB? I can guaranty you that it would be close to double that mileage. That was on page 1. Since then the OP has shoveled out 8 more pages of ridiculousness so I gave up.
The OP proved my point by saying that he averaged 6mpg on the last day turning 4400 rpm for 750 miles. Can anyone here with a TT that weighs 3500 pounds and has roughly the same frontal area of the OP's trailer give us some mileage reports with the 5.0 or EB? I can guaranty you that it would be close to double that mileage. That was on page 1. Since then the OP has shoveled out 8 more pages of ridiculousness so I gave up.
Both of you struggle when it comes to reading comprehension. One more time, maybe I should type it a lot slower, in a bigger font.
A re-post.
If the 3.7 was able to go as fast as I wanted, or could safely go, and it has lower Brake Specific Fuel Consumption that the 5.0, how would the 5.0 do it more efficiently? ........
I was getting the mileage benefits of the more efficient engine the vast majority of this trip, running 2400 rpm in 5th. Not bashing the 5.0, it is just not as efficient as the 3.7.
...
This trip was a on-off. 80% of 15-20 000 miles a year is usually highway travel, and on that alone the 3.7 saves over 10% on fuel over the 5.0 @ 70 mph.
I was getting the mileage benefits of the more efficient engine the vast majority of this trip, running 2400 rpm in 5th. Not bashing the 5.0, it is just not as efficient as the 3.7.
...
This trip was a on-off. 80% of 15-20 000 miles a year is usually highway travel, and on that alone the 3.7 saves over 10% on fuel over the 5.0 @ 70 mph.
.....
To put it simply, the 3.7 is more efficient from a starting point, I see no reason under moderate load, why the efficiency curve would go under the 5.0's. Ignoring operation above 4000 rpm of course, as full throttle enrichement at those RPM's can throw things out of whack.
I also the point that if 300 hp does the job, (and I wasn't full throttle at 6Krpm anyhow), then why buy the 5.0? Because I feel sorry for revving it? not me. If it could have pulled 3rd, that would have helped, but I don't base my engine choice on the hardest hour the truck is likely to face in it's lifetime.
To put it simply, the 3.7 is more efficient from a starting point, I see no reason under moderate load, why the efficiency curve would go under the 5.0's. Ignoring operation above 4000 rpm of course, as full throttle enrichement at those RPM's can throw things out of whack.
I also the point that if 300 hp does the job, (and I wasn't full throttle at 6Krpm anyhow), then why buy the 5.0? Because I feel sorry for revving it? not me. If it could have pulled 3rd, that would have helped, but I don't base my engine choice on the hardest hour the truck is likely to face in it's lifetime.
11-29-2012, 04:02 PM
#89
Senior Member
You note about Toyota applies to both their engines. ;-)
My comment about acceleration and mileage, was basically that rate of acceleration does not affect the overall towing mileage. Again, verified through actual testing. Speed attained, and brake usage are the bigger factors.
I'm surprised to hear so much push back on the FACT that smaller engines are capable of better mileage.?
My comment about acceleration and mileage, was basically that rate of acceleration does not affect the overall towing mileage. Again, verified through actual testing. Speed attained, and brake usage are the bigger factors.
I'm surprised to hear so much push back on the FACT that smaller engines are capable of better mileage.?
Comeon man....
11-30-2012, 06:38 PM
#90
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Didn't you say you only got like 5 or 6mpg wide-open in your little 3.7 pulling ONLY 3500 lbs?? (And yes, running 6k rpm when your redline is 6500 is considered running "wide-open") My 5.0 would pull 3500lbs up a 6-7% grade and get 12-13 all day long. You should run for office, your logic makes no sense. I understand however, you bought a 3.7, and are trying your darndest to make it better than every other Ford engine out there, even with all of these dyno sheets proving otherwise.
Comeon man....
Comeon man....
Hopeless. Nothing but conjecture and speculation from theorists.
I was pushing a 30 mph headwind while travelling an average of 75mph over rolling terrain. Are you aware that would be the equivalent wind drag of travelling over 100 mph? That is effectively double the wind resistance! No way anyone is getting much better in a gas truck under those circumstances.
...
...
Last edited by isthatahemi; 11-30-2012 at 06:42 PM.