I would not have an issue pulling a 4K trailer with a current 4.3V6 and a 6 sp. That has more HP than my 5.7 Vortec V8 at 255 and 335 lb ft of torque. I have a lot tall geared rig despite 4.10 gears in the axel. I only have a 2.48 first gear, the 4.3 will have a 4.1 first gear and a 3.42 axel, or should have a 3.42 axel.
I've actually been toying with trading my 2000 C2500 on a new 1500 with a 7200 gvwr pkg if I could find one in a reg cab as I have, might lose 1000 lbs max of total payload, registered gvwr in Wa st will be 8K gvw as is my C2500, so no real loss there. Both will weigh in at about 4800 lbs empty. Towing upwards of 8K lbs of low frontal area rigs, ie bobcat, small trackhoe etc on an equipment trailer........WHat is not to like about the new rig frankly.
If the trailer is reasonably aerodynamic, should pull fine getting low double digits, ie 10-12 mpg towing, and low to mid 20s on the freeway, around 18 in town. That is what my older 4.3's got with less than 200hp doing what I just described, along with the 4 sp auto to boot, which is not as good as the newer 6 sp!
In regards to HD trucks -- buy the one you like. Trying to convince others that "your brand" is better is pointless. IMO, they are all very good right now.
You should put a pickup after that HD truck part, Otherwise, you might get some smart asset like me, saying a pickup is a light duty truck! no matter the badging or gvwr, as an HD truck is over 55K lbs gvwr! :D is under 13500, 13501-55K is a medium duty twuck!
I do agree with the buy what you want, ALL are better than they used to be. etc etc.
I would guess that the trucks no longer have a frontal area deduction because power is no longer a limiting factor in towing performance. In 92 a 454 or 460 probably made 230 horse a diesel made probably 180 or so. Now a base v6 makes 300 horse and a respectable towing engine is 350 to 400+. The limiting factor now has more to do with payload, stopping power, and stability than horsepower.
BUT< the new specs include a max frontal area of 60 or 80 sq ft to get the tow ratings. SO, with this in mind, if you are over this amount, one needs a deduct in the ratings no matter how little you think it may be. 3 sq ft of frontal area wind resistance is equal to the same HP as if adding an additional 1000 lbs of wt to a rig. No matter how much HP you have today vs yesterdays trucks, this same deduct is needed off of the total max trailer one can pull to keep the same performance.
I noticed this one time when I pulled a small trackhoe from Seattle to Ellensburg and back. I got 1-2 mpg more with the trackhoe at about 70Sq ft of frontal area and 15K lbs vs my TT at 15K and 90sq ft. I was able to pull the hills one gear taller and 5-7 mph faster. Yeah it was a 185/385TD, but none the less, I was faster. I noticed some of the same difference with my dmax between trailers also. If Fleets of Class 8 trucks are doing things with aerodynamics to get better mpg etc to there fleets, it effects us also. ALtho their savings are in the hundreds if not millions of dollars a year if they can get a .1-.3 mpg saving.
For a travel trailer, reduce the manufacturer's rating by at least 1/3.
I've recently discovered how much wind drag isn't figured into those numbers. I'd guess a TT about 8,000 would be a comfortable tow.
Ford figures their tow capacities with a 60 SQ foot front wall..
Is that the entire front surface, or just what is protruding up around the cab?
This would be the entire face showing to the wind in front of you, truck, trailer etc. If the trailer falls with in the frontal area of the TV, then generally speaking, the trailer does not add a lot of resistance per say. If the trailer face is wider, or taller than the truck, that is the area to be used for frontal area.
An older setups I used to have, one was pulling an equipment trailer total 15K gcw, with 70 sq ft of frontal area, needed about 105hp to motor down the freeway at 60 mph. Change the frontal area to my TT ie 90 sq ft, I needed around 135hp to go 60 mph. Same 135hp as a 25K rig with 70sq ft of frontal.
In 92 when I bought my TT, in the rv dealers showroom was a tow rating poster for Ford trucks. You got the max tow rating of 10K at the time IF you kept the FA to under 80 sqft, If 81-100, it was deducted 2500 lbs to 7500, 101-120 was down to 5K lbs total trailer wt. For the Aerostar van and Ranger pickup, max was 5000 lbs to 60 sq ft, 61-70 reduced 1000lbs, and 71-80 reduced 2000 lbs, over 80 or 120 for these rigs was not recomended you tow a trailer with your Ford truck.
The new specs do not include this kind of deduction, nor do you get a deduction if you need to start on a grade steeper than 12%. My sister has an 18% grade in front of her house, my drive way in an older home was just over 20, a client had one that was 33%! One can not pull those hills at max gcwr without literally stalling your rig out, blowing up a trans etc..........
The tow ratings need to include deductions for this type of issue.
A fellow that I have not seen post in awhile, delivers RV trailers. WORST mpg is a sts TT with aluminum siding, then a fiberglass version, then a front bedroom slide 5W, then an aluminum sided non front bedroom slide 5W, smooth fiberglass non bedroom slide 5W, best was an airstream, or at least on par with the fiberglss sided mid sized 5W.
Actually, the more you know about how to spec the correct truck for the job at hand, the more you realize that the J2807 specs are pretty meaningless. useless etc too!
One, 35 mph min on a 4% grade. Yeah at 100F with AC on, but that is still 5 mph below my states min speed on an interstate, which can be as steep as 6% for long stretches, short bursts to 8%. 40 mph on a 6% grade would be more meaningfull, at least then I am still at legal speed.
Min start is 12% grade. My sister lives on an 18% grade road. My old drive way was 20%, and a road I had to go up was 24.5% in the north end of Seattle. I also had a client with a 33% grade driveway off of lake Washington. That 12% minimum does not get you up the steepest of side streets if you have to around the greater Seattle area at sea level to 1000' elevation! 20 min, with a known deduction at 30 and 40% would be better so those of us that are more in the local road mix doing contruction would be better off than a hwy only user as the current spec is set for.
The frontal area is 60 sq ft for rigs under 8K IIRC, and 80 Sq ft for rigs over 8K. How many of you have rigs over 80sqft? probably most of you, so what is the deduction for those of you with front bedroom slide 5w's with 110-120 sq ft of frontal area? At one time, Ford had for full sized pickups, the ratings were up to 10K and 80 sq ft, 81-100 was deducted to 7500 lbs, 101-120 was 5000 lbs of trailer, no trailer over 120sq ft was recommended to be pulled by a full size F series pickup! Where is the equal deductions?
So yes, in a nutshell, the spec from a we are all equal is good! but from an end user that pushes the limits, total useless and meaning less numbers!
So how much do I have to derate the ratings if I want to go up a 30% grade vs a 12% grade. Much less the 20% grade of my driveway? 35mph is pretty dang slow up a 4% grade these days, granted in 100F heat with AC on, but still, 5mph lower than my states min on an interstate!
Well anyway, obviously my current feelings on the new rating system, better than the old, but still, useless for contractors or other folks that spend a lot of time on local roads where there is not a max % grade, as interstates have. Been stalled out below gvwr, also went up a grade at the same wt as the stalled out rig, with one rated half its wt, but went up at 150% of its rated gcwr!
When they start giving us multiple ratings per say like mdt and hdt trucks, ie how it will perform doing typical hwy work, 60 mph speed held on a 3% grade, and min 15% gradability, off road/contruction is 1% freeway grade at 55mph and a 30 to 70% grade it can pull......now I have numbers I can use, but current specs, still pretty useless knowing if I can get up a clients 100 yd long 33% grade driveway on Lake Washington. Or the 15-18% grades in downtown seattle, or the 23% grade for one block on Queen Anne Ave on the North side of Queen Anne Hill in Seattle! Probably stall the wanna be twucks out!
So if I understand this right, if jwco5.3 could clone his truck and trailer so everything is identical except the rear ratio on #1 is 3.55 and on #2 clone rig is 4.56, #1 has no trouble keeping up in the hills, because it has the same power?
I guess it could be so if the trailer is so light it never really makes either truck lug down at full power on a grade...
OK - so then a 450hp pickup truck can hook on the same load as a 450hp class 8 Freightliner and drive away with it then, right? Same power. Gearing doesn't matter.
The issue is as pointed out, At a given speed, the engine is turning more rpm, hence the motor is producing more HP at the higher rpm, so in a sense, it is producing more HP. The thing with gearing, be it in the trans, axels, or tire diam, is one has to have the correct HP at the speed you want to go for the total weight, and frontal area wind resistance one has. If you need a total of 300 hp to go 60 mph up a 4% grade, you motor only produces 250hp, you will NEVER go 60 mph up the hill, as you are 50 hp to little.
On the other hand, if the motor produces 350 hp at say 6000 rpm, and 300 at 5000 rpm, you could, WITH the correct gearing, theoretically go 60 mph up the 4% grade, IF, you can get the motor to turn 5000+ rpm in a gear, tire diam combo, that will net you 60 mph! If you have a gear that is too slow ie say a 4.88 vs 4.56, OR fast ie taller than 4.56 for matter, you will not hit 60, you will be slow, if you gear it correctly, then you can go 60 mph.
Clear as mud eh!
Michelin's and there owned Uniroyal, BFG and Kelly springfield tires seem to have a love or hate relationship with people on here. I would take firestone or Firebombs as they were called a decade or so ago with some issues on Explorers. ANyway, michiblows are not my favorite tire, as I have yet to get one to go over 35K miles with out a tread seperation or a blow up. Coopers have been over all the best for how I drive. With Toyo's M55 the absolute best tire I have gotten from an overal mileage at just under 80K miles. Otherwise, 40-50K is normal, Coopers I usually get about 50-55K or there abouts.
I will also say, I am about as hard or harder on tires as anyone per my tire dealer!
Toyo M55's! Or a cooper brand tire. I have yet to get a michiblow to go over 35K miles, ie it blew up. BFGs I have gotten AT's into the mid 40K rangem just wore them out. Coopers a bit more miles, usually mid 50's.
With this in mind, My tire dealer mentioned I am about as hard on tires as they come. The best I have gotten in about 75K out of the M55's. The way I am on tires, if I get 50-60K, I'm HAPPY! that is loaded, towing etc day in and out. If not doing this, then you should get more miles than I do, but upwards of double!
Changing the rear end gearing will not give you more power. It may allow you to pull a hill in a higher gear but in the end you will probably take about the same amount of time to pull a long grade and at near the same speed.
Only changes to the engine will give you more power.
That's true but lower rear gears can make the difference between staying in a particular gear and dropping down one more. With the wide spread between gears in a 4-speed that can make a lot of difference in road speed, though not as much with 6+ speeds.
With out saying this is true, but also willing to say false on the going down a gear may or may not keep you up to speed. My old 96 SW K3500 with 4.10sm frankly would have been better with 3.73s. If I could not hold direct, I had to go into 3rd with a 5 sp manual. I then pulled the hills at about 2600 rpm as that was a good rpm for long hauls up hills which was a drop from about 48-50 down to 35mph. I could get to redline at 47-48 in 3rd, but the motor did not like that. If I would have had a taller 3rd, ie the NV56000 6 sp, or a 3.73 or 3.42, I probably could have settled in at about 40-45mph in the gear below direct, as I had the HP at 2600 and above to go 40'ish, but the gearing tween the trans and the axels, along with my tire diam, did not work well.
So at the end of the day, one should really do some math with some figures to figure out if one truly will do better with lower or taller gears, or keep as is. As one person also pointed out, reality is, if one truly wants to go faster per say, HP is your friend, you may have it in the motor to gain 5 mph, then again, you may not!
I do this for the trucks, trailers I run at max sidewall pressures. My trucks, especially the rears. The 70 or 75 series tires we seem to be getting on newer rigs today is more susceptible to the middle wearing out if you run max psi and then run the rig empty for long periods say commuting. A pizza cutter tire, ie an 85 series this does not seem to be an issue. I was able to run 70 psi in a 235-85-16 empty on a pickup and get full tire width contact, where as a 245-75-16 was in the 55-60 range. Both tires have the same total wt at psi etc per a tire chart.
My old dually, I only need 50-55 when empty, then again, it only had 3-3200 lbs on it. Single tired rigs seem to have 2100-2400 ont he RA, so again, no need to have full psi. Rides really rough too.
The visual with water, dust etc seems to give me a pretty good clue if I have too much psi in the tires. I have never weighed ea tire. I do go thru the DOT scales to see how I am doing on axel wts at times. but otherwise, no need to weigh, as ea trip will be slightly different per say.
An E rated tire of the same size as a D rated tire, will carry the same load at the same pressure up to the max of the D rated tire. The E rated tire has the ability to carry a higher pressure, hence a heavier load.
A tire pressure load chart works, I use the chalk method. Ie put some tire chalk on the tread, drive down the road, if all of the chalk goes away in a 100 yds or so, you either have the correct pressure, or too little. If a partial goes away, ie the middle only, you have too much psi. You can see the same effect after going thru a puddle and stopping a few yds later, or if the middle has dust, the outer does not.....
Not sure there is truly a right or wrong way per say. Other than, not fun to see the middles wear out of the tread before the outer. Then you know you had too much psi, and wore out the tire too soon!
2011 F250 diesel had 3.55 with 20" wheels or optional on others. All others had 3.31. So 3.55 is the best available for pulling power.
Not true. The 3.31 and 3.55 are rated identically on towing capacity.
The 20" wheels come with 3.55 but because the tires are taller than the 18" that have the 3.31 you effectively have the same rear end. This is why if you look in the brochure the towing capacity for the 3.55 is no higher than the 3.31.
The only difference between the two would probably be the weight of the tires. If the 20" tires weigh more, you might get slightly less fuel economy.
No need to muddy the waters, 3.55 is better than 3.31, period..
THere is no muddying the waters with his quote, both rigs will have the same speed shift points, both will be going the same speed at a given rpm etc. A rig with 3.42 gears and 28' diam tires, is also going to have the same performance as a rig with a 3.73/30" combo, which is the same as a 4.10/33" combo. The only real issue as noted, is the heavier the tires, the worst the mpg, or if one set of tires is wider, also worst mpg. Hence why sometimes one needs to go to the next lower ratio when upsizing tires, to get a few more rpm to handle the heavier wt of the tires.
Also, rig with 4.10's using a .75 od is doing the same rpm, same maybe a bit less hp to the ground than a rig in direct with 3.08's. assuming everything else is equal.
more than one way to skin a cat in how to gear vs not gear a rig etc.
I had a co-worker who wanted to regear early 2000's GMC 2500 with a TBI 350. Had stock 3.55, and he put 33" tires on it. He had a small toy hauler trailer. He was thinking 4.10, I told him with the 33" tires and hills where we live he should go 4.56 to keep the 350 in it's power curve. He went 4.1, told me after his first tow he wish he had listened and gone 4.56.
If you decide to sell and get something more recent, get a 6spd. The 6spd pretty much makes the axle ratio a non-factor.
I'd bet this was a late 80 to mid 90 motor if it is a tbi. The vortec went from about 95-2000 or so, then that motor ie 5.7/350 was discontinued about then in favor of the 5.3.
That difference in RA is not worth the worry about! Buy it and be happier!
BUT, going over a pass that is that high, unless you are switching from a non forced induction motor to a forced induction one ie a turbo or super charged motor, you will probably not notice much difference when towing over the divide at 8-12K' elevation. A non turbo has lost upwards of 20-30% of its HP at those elevations. A turbo motor will start to lose 2-3% at 10K' or there abouts, vs a non turbo losing 2-3% per 1K' starting at sea level.
He is correct on the early 4.3s. Many did not make it past 125-150K miles before needing rebuilds. Been there did that done that in an 89 Astro.
Point we can all make, is ALL the manufactures had some motors that were work horses, others, they made them because why?
While some complain about the GM6.2, it did exactly as they designed it to be, a high mpg 305V8 equal. It got 20-22mpg, had a whopping 100-130hp like the 306 gas V8 at the time, got 200-300K miles out of the motor. overall a good motor for what it was designed to do. BUT, a lot of folks thought, oh, a diesel, has chest thumping power etc, which it did not.
Navistar was the one that decided to discontinue the T444e/7.3PSD motor. The VT365/6.0 was a temp 5 yr replacement until the 6.4L version could get all the tweeks out of it, and get if ok'd to use. Ford was not the one that "CHOOSE" the 6.0 motor. What in reality happened, is the Ford engineers took a motor that was probably good to Xhp and Y rpm, added some HP and rpm beyond what it was designed for, hence the issues IMHO. The 6.4 may have had the same issue, as the V8 motors for IHC were in reality, a V6 motor if you will when compared to some of the bigger I6 motors which were the SB8/BB8 motors for that sized rig.