RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Search

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Help and Support  |  Contact



Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'blt2ski' found 337 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 17  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: The mysteries of Horsepower and other things explained

1. The Tundra is 381 HP, but has 4.30 gears compared to my 3.73. I am also running 285 tires, not the stock 245's. What's the math there? 2. Yes I do. I have 344.5 at the rear wheels. Dynojet 3. I am not sure exacly what RPM he was running. We have made this trip dozens of times. Surely at one poing the max hp was found. How come no one is asking me what my rpm's were? Argument slanted towards gas? So just because you wanted you boosted the HP on the Duramax by 25 and knocked 81 Hp off of the Toyota? I know they aren't the same trucks, but the pulling experience should be somewhat close according to the original statement. They aren't. One thing you have not taken into account, yes you are driving over a mountain, as turtle asked, not very well tho, how high is the mountain pass? 3000'? the toy is down some 3% in HP, 6000'? now he is down some 18% HP. A natural aspirated motor loses 2-3% per 1000' above sea level you are. A turbo/super charged motor generally speaking will not lose until 10K' elevation. Some as low as 8K, others as high as 15K'. Hence why turtle has the HP down on toyota. If you were both pulling a 6% grade at less than 1000', both should pull about the same, assuming the tranny and axle gearing work for the motor at hand, best interest, ie HP and torque curves. If not, then even if BOTH have the same motor, but different axel gears, a tranny, tire diam to name three things that can effect how well a rig will function, one may be better at a hill climb than the other. I've even seen where a lower HP rig can do better than the higher hp rig! All because of the drivetrain one has vs the other. Marty
blt2ski 01/28/15 07:07am Tow Vehicles
RE: Another Diesel vs. Gas topic...

No correct answer.... anyway, take tot he top gas vs diesel sticky thread. Marty
blt2ski 01/22/15 07:15am Tow Vehicles
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

I;ve personally been pulled over by way more CVEO's ie the real weight cops in a van or "HAVING" to go over to the weigh scales dues to my "real" gvw/gcw of the combo. I personally am more worried about what and how they can stop me than what will happen in a civil court. Also as noted by rafgo, one can be UNDER ratings and more more of a menace than over ratings! Yeah, been there done that too with a trailer and NO hitch wt, trailer was 8K lbs, dang near took me off the road with a truck tow rig that weighs 12K lbs! One can argue the variances of what they worry about being law per say. BUT, if you want the real ones from an LEO/CVEO stand point, look up your states laws as I liked earlier to the ones in Wa st, ie RCW46.xxxxx Then you can find the ones you can be cited for. In this state, being over a manufacture rating is NOT ILLEGAL! being over an axel per the road bed engineer design specs, will get you fined. It will NOT, nor is the federal law portion designed to put you in jail. Only for you to pay for the damage you are doing to the road driving over it. THIS is the what the weight law enforcement pays for. There are OTHER laws that will get unsafe rigs off the road! Marty
blt2ski 01/21/15 07:23am Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

Rule of thumb, use the same gear going down as you would going up. That was a good rule of thumb back about 10-15 plus years ago. With so many of our trucks able to pull typical freeway grades at the speed limit. using a gear or two below what you use going up might be a better option in all honesty! my 02 on this one...... Marty
blt2ski 01/19/15 05:04pm Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

A little of what Mkirsh says, IE the speed of which you travel is true!! altho frankly, to me slowing from say 60mph on a typical 3-5% freeway mtn grade is not a big deal to me. BUT, as noted before, when I can not get up a given grade in 1st or reverse, still under gcwr etc. NOW I have an issue. As I can not GET TO the end place I am trying to get to. Being over a gcwr is generally speaking, nothing unsafe per say. You only slow down, or may not meat the engineer minimum max grade one can go up before literally stalling out. For the new SEA specs, this is a whopping 12%. My sister has an 18% side road in front of her house. I have a client with a 30% grade driveway from a water front home on Lake Washington. So I am under gcwr by a few hundred lbs at the bottom of either dead end place. Only way out is up, BUT, I can not pull the grade with the trailer/load at hand! If you are an out of the way forest service road camper, unlike a lot of folks that are only on asphalt or concrete. you could be REALLY SCREWED in a situation like this! This is not so much a total HP or torque issue as it is how low an overall low first or reverse you have. Some can be helped with 4lo. BUT, if your grade to get out of, is a rake roughed up concrete 25-30% grade with a few hairpins, you've now blown up a transfer case or equal! For me it is NOT the freeway grade slowing down, but as it was with the examples I gave earlier, not getting up the hill in first! After that incident, I figured out, one can find formula's for how steep a grade you can go in low gear based on power, turns out torque is used in this formula. If you want to know how fast or fastest you can go on say a 5% grade, that will be based on HP. There are a number of other factors to be included. Wind-age, frontal area, aerodynamics, tires as in number of them, type ie bias vs radial and traction vs a hwy and st 75-85% sidewall to tread width ratio vs lower profile in the 50-75 range. Lower profile gets more hp to the ground, as does radial to bias, and a hwy tire uses less HP than a traction tire. Using AC, or for that matter, JUST having an AC pump uses 5 or so HP at the flywheel. A single wheel rig with 20" of tire per side, uses less HP than an equal dually, as a 20" wide single weighs less than two 10" tires on rims totaling 20" of tread width to the ground. If you go to some of the truck manufactures that build MD to HDT trucks, you can find the formulas to figure this out. It is not just an engine axel ratio that can make a difference as the LD truck manufactures, and some members of RV net will lead you to believe. The first thing I do when specing a truck, is get the payload needs I need, then spec the drive train to HOW I am going to use the rig. Not how some engineer in Detroit thinks I should be speced. My 96 6.5td could pull a 20K load up a 30% grade. My 2005 dmax, with 50% more hp and torque, might make it up a low to mid 20% grade before stalling out at 20K lbs. Yet the 05 is rated some 10Klbs MORE than the 96. All because the 05 at 20K on a freeway grade can go 55-60, where as the 96 was doing 40-45 or so. Marty Marty
blt2ski 01/19/15 05:03pm Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

Sorry, just having a little fun with the preciseness of your calculations. :B No harm, no foul ;) Towing at or slightly over GVWR and/or GCVWR, you want to be sure all braking systems are in good working order. Under. At or slightly under. I thought I'd read earlier in the thread that being right at the limit could be a problem, but when I re-read it (see the next post I wrote above yours) I see there's no real concern. One thing to remember about GCWR, it is generally a go power rating. So if you pull the same trailer with a smaller motor, than the larger one that is rated higher, the chassis will handle the trailer assuming everything is loaded to spec. BUT< speed up a grade will be slower than with the larger motor. On the other hand, as happened to me back in the day. I went up a hill at 12K with a C2500 at 12K gcwr, GCWR was 8500, gvwr is 8600, Grade was around 20%. Meanwhile the almight 4bbl 454 in my C3500 dumptruck with the almighty Turbo 400, not to mention a dually! sat at the bottom of the same driveway, blowing up its tranny. Dispite a 16K gcwr, and it was combo'd at 12K also! At the end of the day, just because you are under a manufacture rating etc, does not mean it will always work for your application. I never once felt white knuckles in my 96 CC at 16 to even 20K gcw. Dispite the 12500 gcwr GM gave it. In fact, it usually out did, never stalled out on a grade compared to either the 88 or 89 454's I had with 16K gcwr's. They stalled out on any grade over 15-20%. Just because it is rated to a given number, does not mean it will do what YOUR specs are. The specs are based on an engineer that is not using the rig as you might might. Because of my experiences with light duty truck gcwr's, I do not follow, nor believe them to be true ratings, at least as to HOW I use the trucks. A few I can believe, others, not worth their wt in gold! marty
blt2ski 01/18/15 11:02pm Towing
RE: Go Seahawks!!!!

Starting to look like NE again in the Bowl. Still in 1st half, look what the sea birds/chickens/dogs/hawks and cheese head game.....somebody came from behind to give all folks heart attacks....... Not saying it will happen or not.....just sayin! Wish I would have been drinking during the seahawk game, might have thinned my blood enough to not have a heart attack at the home team.. That fake FG was ala Efron Herrera in the late 70's with Jack Patera as coach........... Marty
blt2ski 01/18/15 05:50pm Around the Campfire
RE: Standard vs long bed

First twuck I bought had a std 8' bed. Every one since is a std 8' bed. It would be WONDERFULL to have a pickup with a LONG bed....10' or so. One can then put a cross bed tool box, and still have room for a 4x8' sheet of plywood IN the bed, along with a trailer hooked up.......To do that without a flat bed would be nice! Oh, anything less than 8' is a short bed! I still remember back to 81 a year out of HS and buying my first twuck. Even had a whopping 105hp 292 I6 in it! now if it does not have 300-400+ ponies, people think it is a weak motor! marty
blt2ski 01/17/15 09:54pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

To the OP...yes you could park it and not wear them out from being used...but then you still have to maintain them...meaning from rotting out just sitting there... Why did you, the OP, post this in the first place?...as you surely understand the principle of it all with your comeback comment of parking it... I thought it obvious that I was being facetious. I don't want to abuse my truck but I do intend on using it. Not really knowing what "abuse" might be I thought I'd ask here from those that may have been there done that. What I've gleaned from this weird thread is that tire and axle ratings are probably all that really matter. Well, that and having a front license plate. :R I'm under on tire, axle and combined weight. If I were to be over a couple hundred on GVW it likely doesn't matter except to the weight police. The reality is in red, only the RV>NET weight police will give you any bother. Most LEO/CVEO troops will allow upwards of 1000 lbs before truly citing you for being over wt per say. And that overweight is generally speaking based on your paid for gvw, assuming you have a paid for tonnage plate. Its a lot like going 60 in a 55, it takes a certain amount over the speed limit for the leo to pull you over and ticket you. Marty
blt2ski 01/16/15 09:41pm Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

If you really want to read a LOT, go HERE you will see the tonnege fees, how it applies, in fact, ALL of the states motor vehicle rules. In the paying for tonnage fee, there again, is no reference to the manufacture ratings............. Marty
blt2ski 01/14/15 11:08pm Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

For what it is worth, HERE is a link to the Wa state weight rules, what you need to follow etc. No where does it say you are limited to the manufacture gvw/gaw ratings. You buy tonneage by 2000 lb increments, you are legal to that per ton amount. My 8600 gvwr per GM has a paid for registration of 8K lbs, That is ALL I am legal too. My MDT dumptruck, per Navistar, is 18200, I have a 26K paid for gvwr, I have been pulled over as high as 27K lbs, with no wt ticket, etc. Only a 10day get registered to 28K until that registration expired 3 months down the road, then it was legal to go back to 26K. My 05 dually 3500, was licensed at 14K, I am legal to that amount. There are a few others on here that have trucks licensed in Wa st, we all have the same requirements, and most will quote what I have quoted too. Marty
blt2ski 01/14/15 10:59pm Towing
RE: Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

Been pulled over in pickups, mdt's etc, I have YET to get a overweight ticket being over the manufacture gvwr or gawr's! even 150% one time. Your state will give you as noted, up to 20K per axel and 34K per tandem. or a minimum of 500 lbs per inch width of tire, BEFORE you are over the road bed design load limits. THIS is what the LEO will cite you for. For the majority of RV folks, you will never get close to this amount. Probably about half of it! You can as noted, get a ticket and will be taken off the road if it appears you are operating in an unsafe mode, Can not stop in x' from 20 mph on a level ground, ie a field test your brakes work. They can make sure ALL brakes are functioning appropriately etc. As a couple of different CVEO's that I know, have had classes from etc will tell you, They can get you off the road if you should be! BUT, doing 60 in a 55 is probably not unsafe per say, nor more unsafe than being 500 lbs over a gvwr. BUT, with this in mind, I have seen an older couple in a square body Dodge, with a cummins, pulling a 5w, the truck and trailer were WELL under manufacture ratings, and Fed Bridge law amounts. In the meantime, it was swaying some 12-24" to ea side, which there is a law in the state of washington that woul get this person ticketed, and OFF the road. I have had a trailer that was 8K total, behind my 12K empty dumpt truck, nearly take me off the road...... The trailer had no hitch wt, started swaying, I stopped with the electric brakes. BUT, it was an UNSAFE, but legal from a wt standpoint! Nor could I go the freeway speed limit and not sway. So, at the end of the day, over or under wt, over under speed limit, ALL 4 or combo of the questions the OP asked, you can be safe, to unsafe! Marty
blt2ski 01/14/15 12:08am Towing
RE: 2007 GMC Savanna CV 4.3l and GVWR Questions

If you stay in the under 1000' elevation range, ie mostly in FL, you should generally speaking do fine to about 5K maybe 6K with that motor. BUT
blt2ski 01/13/15 11:51pm Towing
RE: If You Could Only Watch 1 Game, Which 1 Would U Watch?

UW vs OSU tonight at 7 pacific. What R the other games being spoken about?!?!?!? Marty
blt2ski 01/02/15 05:33pm Around the Campfire
RE: Tongue weight

I would do that with my old 05 dmax dually with a 2.5" reciever with out thinking twice. (emphasis added) Well, there's your problem, LOL! Think twice!! (Boy did you ever walk into that one!) :D Just kidding... couldn't pass up an opening like that. OUCH!!!!!!! Dang it your right, I thought.........OUCH........ dang did it again, and hurt me poor brain electron. I would still move it with that truck. Not sure about not needing permits etc as noted. That would have to be done. Unless this can be done on some side streets etc. Even then, it it takes one Leo to make it hurt BIG TIME. Marty
blt2ski 01/01/15 05:18pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Tongue weight

I would do that with my old 05 dmax dually with a 2.5" reciever with out thinking twice. Marty
blt2ski 12/31/14 11:12pm Tow Vehicles
RE: A good round of golf is ...

When I come home with at least two balls........ Marty
blt2ski 12/21/14 08:42pm Around the Campfire
RE: Fords 6.7 Scorpion Diesel motor

Ford's track record with building diesels... 3 attempts now, since Navistar got smart and dumped Ford. 6.0, 6.4, now 6.7. Nothing has changed, when it comes to their engineers designing diesel engines. Cummins track record? Duramax track record? You tell me. Ford 6.0 Powerstroke is a Navistar VT 365 Ford 6.4 Powerstroke is a Navistar Maxxforce 7. The Ford 6.7 Scorpion was designed and built by Ford. All previous engines were built by Navistar, including the 7.3. Ford has tweaked ALL of the diesels since they have used them from Navistar. The only one maybe not tweaked, and even then I would not bet on it is the IDI6.9. The IDI7.3 max HP/torque from navistar is 175/335, I have one, pretty gutless overall in a 26K navistar MDT. For tweaked it to 185/385 to keep up with the 6.5td specs. The turbo idi7.3 was also a tweaked motor, as that motor was never designed to have a turbo on it, as was the idi6.9. BUT a lot of folks put one on it, including Ford for a year. With a few overheat issues if you had the auto and AC option. You got one or the other, or similar overheat issues the GM had with the 6.5td. The T444e/7.3psd was maxed at 235/620 from navistar and ~2800 rpm. Ford took it to 275 and the upper 500 lb range with 3500 rpm. Do not recall what all Ford did to the 6.0 ad 6.4, but I am pretty sure the let them also go beyond the 2800 navistar limited them to to get into the 300+ hp range. The 6.0 was an intermediate motor tween the 7.3 and 6.4, never to be put into production for long. Marty I had an 88 F-250 Custom with the 7.3 IDI... and as I recall, it was a California model, and was not even 175 HP, something like 170 or 168HP, if I recall correctly, to make CARB happy. 260k miles on it when I sold it with 5speed overdrive manual for $5000 in 2001. Delvac 1300 always 15w-40... 21 to 22 mpg empty on highway at 60-65 mph, lots of times to Mammoth Lakes and back to L.A. Could very well have been that low. The 5.9 had a 160/380-400 spec IIRC when it first came out. With the IDI 7.3, there were three HP specs, IIRC 135, 155 and 175. Mostly put in bus's doing local school routes. Did not need a lot of HP to move loads to 26K, with speeds to 35-45 mph typical. A diesel with gas power specs when Navistar got out of building gas engines. Price a bit more than gas, but not enough to scare folks. IIRC it was a $2K option for my rig. The DT360 equal to a B5.9 would have been over 6K for a 185/500 or so torque rig. I have 135K on a 92, not sure a 500K mile motor is any better at $6k extra vs a 100K mile motor for a general mileage stat before rebuild with my 7.3. Still runs, but it is tired. Are you sure you had a 7.3 in 88? or was that one of the first years? thought it was a 6.9 about then......but memory could be screwing with me too! Marty
blt2ski 12/17/14 11:36pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Fords 6.7 Scorpion Diesel motor

Ford's track record with building diesels... 3 attempts now, since Navistar got smart and dumped Ford. 6.0, 6.4, now 6.7. Nothing has changed, when it comes to their engineers designing diesel engines. Cummins track record? Duramax track record? You tell me. Ford 6.0 Powerstroke is a Navistar VT 365 Ford 6.4 Powerstroke is a Navistar Maxxforce 7. The Ford 6.7 Scorpion was designed and built by Ford. All previous engines were built by Navistar, including the 7.3. Ford has tweaked ALL of the diesels since they have used them from Navistar. The only one maybe not tweaked, and even then I would not bet on it is the IDI6.9. The IDI7.3 max HP/torque from navistar is 175/335, I have one, pretty gutless overall in a 26K navistar MDT. For tweaked it to 185/385 to keep up with the 6.5td specs. The turbo idi7.3 was also a tweaked motor, as that motor was never designed to have a turbo on it, as was the idi6.9. BUT a lot of folks put one on it, including Ford for a year. With a few overheat issues if you had the auto and AC option. You got one or the other, or similar overheat issues the GM had with the 6.5td. The T444e/7.3psd was maxed at 235/620 from navistar and ~2800 rpm. Ford took it to 275 and the upper 500 lb range with 3500 rpm. Do not recall what all Ford did to the 6.0 ad 6.4, but I am pretty sure the let them also go beyond the 2800 navistar limited them to to get into the 300+ hp range. The 6.0 was an intermediate motor tween the 7.3 and 6.4, never to be put into production for long. Marty
blt2ski 12/17/14 08:44pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Fords 6.7 Scorpion Diesel motor

Jim, 10-13% is easy, normal etc for local roads here at sea level in the greater Seattle area. I know of a few close to 25% that I have had to pull trailers up, granted equipment trailers. stalled out on a few of them too! I have yet to find an "in the mountain(s)" road that is bad as some in downtown Seattle proper, or the road I used to live on to one of the local foot hills, elevation 550'! I'm not worried about mountains, unless towing the ski hut to a local ski area to spend the weekend in it! Then it can be downhill on a 3-5% grade with ice and snow. That gets interesting! Marty
blt2ski 12/17/14 06:51am Tow Vehicles
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 17  
Next


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:

© 2015 RV.Net | Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS