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 'BenK' found 1030 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 52  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: F-150 fan clutch issue: second act

See that your TV is a 2007...OEM fill is good for 5yr/100K miles. I flush all of mine every 2 years and have switched all to American Green, except for the 2000 Mini Van Don't know which coolant yours has, as Ford changed it around those years going from HOATs to whatever it is then...till...today DO NOT peek (open to allow air in) and DO NOT mix different types of coolant...even though their bottles says you can... It took over a decade for these new coolants to settle down. I almost lost my big block and is where Deathcool was coined by me and my radiator shop guy (he and I went to school together...he took over his dad's radiator/AC business) He retired early due to the EXTREMELY high numbers of dealer work flushing DeathCool out. DexCool is one of the first OATs or non-silica based coolants Check if your radiator overflow bottle is pressurized or not...than if your radiator has a 'radiator cap' or not. That is how most OEMs solved the OATs/HOATs and air (O2) getting into the cooling system.... No longer need to open the radiator cap (they removed it for guys like me...as CAN NOT go without checking...drilled into my decades ago while learning HOW2 DIY/Care for my stuff...just look at the level in the pressurized overflow bottle Here is a good Ford article on that: Ford moves to single engine coolant for worldwide use, dated 2010May21 OATsHOATs OATs HOATs Coolant and a good one for Chrysler products here: Chrysler switches to OAT antifreeze for longer service interval Source: Automotive Engineering Magazine Ford moves to single engine coolant for worldwide use http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/8242_9015_ACT.jpg width=680 FordOverFlowBottle The 3.7-L V6 reservoir contains Ford's worldwide coolant choice—the orange-red organic acid technology formula—and a symbolic label on top with an OK for orange-red coolant and negative symbols for yellow or green antifreezes. Ford's strategy to tap its global engineering resources for new vehicles at lower cost relies on standardized production processes and reduced complexity. One subject area that is getting attention is the company's choice of antifreeze coolant. Although antifreeze is 93-95% ethylene glycol and is mixed 50-50 with water for use, the corrosion inhibitor package is specific. Ford uses three different ethylene glycol-based coolants in its cooling systems, each with a totally different corrosion protection chemistry, which if mixed in service, would weaken the one chosen for the factory fill. Further, sourcing and distributing three different formulas—with two different ones specified for the same engines in a number of cases (depending on the production line)—raise both logistical and cost issues. So Ford has begun a world-wide conversion to a single coolant, but that's not just a matter of a simple purchasing decision. The different coolant formulas are in place for technical reasons, and completing a changeover is a multiyear project that in some cases will wait for complete phase-out of engines. Ford Europe's influence Although antifreeze dye colors have no technical meaning, they do assist in identification. At Ford, there are three extended-life coolant formulas in current use. As an indication of how influential Ford Europe was in the decision-making process, the choice for worldwide use is an orange-red dye OAT (organic acid technology) formula, which has been the Ford-Europe production line coolant. An OAT formula has no silicates or phosphates, two of the traditional inorganic inhibitors used to protect the cooling passages of the engine and the water pump chamber. The Ford-Europe OAT formula contains sebacate and 2-ethyl hexanoate (2-EHA), a long-established combination of organic acids, plus a copper-brass inhibitor, typically tolytriazole or benzotriazole. It is similar to a "DexCool" formula GM has been using. The other Ford formulas are deep green and yellow. Deep green is a phosphated "hybrid" organic acid technology (P-HOAT) antifreeze. Phosphates are particularly effective in quickly re-protecting the chamber of a water pump that has been pockmarked by imploding coolant bubbles from cavitation. The organic acid inhibitor that classifies it as a "hybrid" OAT is sebacate. And there is also tolytriazole for copper-brass protection. Most Asian car coolants today contain a similar formula, although with other dye colors. Asian makers prefer phosphates to silicates, which display undesired effects in certain laboratory tests they use. Mazda was involved in development of the Ford 3.5-L and 3.7-L V6s and 2.3-L and 2.5-L inline fours, variants of which Mazda also uses, so many of the applications are filled with deep green coolant, the Mazda OE choice. Yellow is Ford's HOAT with silicates (S-HOAT) instead of phosphates. Silicates work the fastest to virtually "paint" the walls of the cooling system for protection, and they also re-protect water pump chambers pockmarked by cavitation. The silicates are in an inhibitor package with benzoate, the organic acid, plus nitrite to prevent diesel liner pitting, and benzotriazole for copper/brass protection. Silicates are widely employed in Europe, where phosphates produce scale deposits in a severe hard water test the European makers use. OAT for new gas and diesel V8s Unlike silicates and phosphates, which deplete as they go to work coating the cooling system, OAT-alone formulas have very long service life. But OATs work very slowly, perhaps taking over 5000 miles to form a protective oxide surface. So they are unable to provide the fast re-protection of cavitation-pockmarked surfaces in water pumps. If a cooling system is prone to cavitation and the vehicle is used in the kind of load service that is conducive to it, the pockmarking increases and can corrode, affecting water pump service life. As a result, Ford has continued with the yellow S-HOAT on the older 4.6-L and 5.4-L V8s and will not change, as these engines are planned for phase-out. Ford' two new gasoline V8s, the 5.0-L used in the Mustang and the 6.2-L for F-series trucks, as well as the new 6.7-L diesel V8, have been designed to minimize water pump cavitation. So they are being filled with the OAT right from the start. Ford said the cooling systems in its carryover V6 and I4 families also have been validated for the OAT (with cooling system modifications where necessary) and will get the OAT on a phase-in basis. The European-design models, of course, have been validated for the OAT from the beginning. Diesels normally require specific protection against vibration-induced cylinder liner pitting, typically a dose of nitrite in the antifreeze (as in the S-HOAT). However, Ford said its new 6.7-L diesel was engineered for minimal piston slap and the OAT alone would provide adequate protection against pitting. One of the organic acids, 2-EHA, is a plasticizer, softening some synthetic rubbers and plastics, particularly silicone gaskets and the Nylon 66 used for gasket carriers and radiator tanks. This was another reason for the continued use of the S-HOAT in the 4.6-L and 5.4-L V8s. All OAT-equipped engines have silicone-free gaskets and validated Nylon 66 radiator tanks. Systems with OAT antifreeze are more sensitive to low coolant levels, because the OAT provides best protection when in full contact with coolant passages. The issue is acute with cast-iron engine architectures, but one also exists with aluminum. However, Ford has been attuned to the low coolant issue even with its S-HOAT, and its engines have a cylinder head temperature sensor and/or coolant level sensor. For the OAT systems, the sensors combine with improved powertrain computer algorithms for detecting overheating and deploying the limited engine performance strategy Ford has been using to prevent damage to engines if coolant level drops significantly. Additionally, Ford upgraded cooling system seals, gaskets, and clamps, and it evaluated (reworking where necessary) the assembly line processes to ensure a full fill. Further, the antifreeze is mixed 50-50 with de-ionized water for consistent new vehicle protection across all product lines. The OAT carries a service recommendation for cars of six years/100,000 mi (161,000 km) for the factory fill, three years/50,000 mi (80,500 km) thereafter. The interval for diesels is six years/105,000 mi (169,000 km) for the factory fill in normal service, three years/45,000 mi (72,400 km) thereafter.
BenK 09/03/15 02:41pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Are the 2016 Ram HD’s Output Figures Bogus?

But....they/their marketing department is constantly being told via sales and assume many of their survey's that HP sells... Always has been and seemingly...will continue to be...HP is KING to their buyers...as this thread proves...right?
BenK 09/03/15 10:59am Tow Vehicles
RE: F-150 fan clutch issue: second act

Ford, so HOATs coolant. GM uses OATs coolant Both do NOT do well when the closed cooling system is exposed to O2 for long periods The A, or acid, reacts with the O, or organic coating material, to form gooey globules in the 'cool down' section of the radiators (main, heater core, etc) When O2 is added to that mixture The Acid etches all metal surfaces down to bare metal. Suspends the stuff etched off. Then the Organic coats the now bare metal...but it takes around 1,000 miles of driving to do so. If air, O2, gets in there, it will form a new 'rust' (oxide) coating on the metal and mix with the suspended, etched metal to form acidic globules If not out right blockage, coating to narrow the opening sizes That will then plug or partially narrow them down to a trickle. You can NOT see that with the naked eyeball... Hope they also flushed the whole system and not just put in a new radiator and new coolant. It is TOUGH to get out all of those gooey globules. Really needs 'cleanser' and through flushing If not, then a repeat all too soon... Carry an IR heat gun with you on the trip and check many, many, many spots of the radiator (top to bottom, side to side, diagonal, etc), all of the tubes/hoses/etc that go in/out of the radiator You might have a drawing with 'X' marks the spots you will be shooting to take a reading You might have an air leak somewhere that is allowing air (O2) into the cooling system HOATs and OATs work just fine...*IF*...air is NOT allowed in there once air gets in there, that gooey globules will form to both block and etch Posted 5/23/15 02.18pm I'd now suggest taking the main radiator out and have it boiled out or flow checked. All three systems of it...assume it has an engine oil and ATF section in addition to the engine coolant section...
BenK 09/02/15 08:05pm Tow Vehicles
RE: WD Hitch - What am I doing wrong?

Just back from an errand and saw/followed an Armada for a bit... See that, that Armada has a round tube receiver (torsion tube) and is bent to have an offset for the shank/PIN box Depending on the tube dia and wall thickness for 'this' trailer you are trying to setup the WD Hitch system...that receiver cross tube (torsion tube) might be bending/twisting to consume enough of the WD bar's tension before that force gets to the TV's frame...to NOT WD enough from the TV rear to front Agree, again, with Ron on needing to know the weights...especially the actual tongue weight
BenK 09/02/15 12:16pm Towing
RE: Contradicting Tow Vehicle Advise

Kinda sorta BS...most 'can' do it...it is whether it is REALLY rated for it, how long will it do it and finally...HOW WELL & SAFELY will it do it... Agree...best to actually weight the whole setup, fully loaded and axle by axle
BenK 09/02/15 09:35am Tow Vehicles
RE: WD Hitch - What am I doing wrong?

Know the OP said towing for a while, just to touch on some of the aspects of setting up...also for lurkers who might be reading 'cuz they also have an Armada... Goal is to have the TV leveled as per it's manual instructions for WD'ing. Some use height, others us weight transferred back to the front axle, etc Goal for the trailer is level at it's highest pointing and I prefer pointing slightly down What architecture is the Armada's receiver? I'm not familiar with it. If similar to the GM GMT800's, then the receiver is bending to consume too much of the WD Hitch spring bars tension before it will transfer to the TV's frame Tilting the head towards the trailer increases the angle of attack the bars (both round and trunnion) to the tongue...so it has more travel to be taken up for tension The tension on the bars will lift the rear of the TV and transfer (WD) weight to the TV's front axle and is where I seems the OP is having issues with. Why ask what the receiver architecture is (whether it is bending to consume some of the spring bar tension) or the WD bars are NOT rated high enough to transfer enough Take full sized 4x4 GM trucks with IFS...they have *TWO* spring systems. The bump stops are in contact with the lower arm at all times. How does the Armada's front suspension work? You might actually have to lower the hitch head even more...as the WD bars will "lift" the rear and transfer (WD) weight to the front axle. That might give the spring bars more room to tension (just like tilting the head back towards the trailer)
BenK 09/02/15 09:32am Towing
RE: This is interesting

Yup...cool until they install the strain gauge(s)...that will tell the OEM if/when over the OEM ratings...
BenK 09/01/15 01:41pm Towing
RE: Trying to decide if we need a bigger truck

Congratulations on your decision !!! Too many will 'try' to make their too small or just barely large enough...work at the hairy edge of it's ratings Please post back on this thread on how it goes in hopes other newbies will read and learn BEFORE they purchase a too small TV
BenK 08/31/15 09:43am Towing
RE: A shout out to the forum towing pros!

Congrat's on doing your self and learning the HOW2's !!! Too many (both dealer tech's and owners) do NOT step back to take a look at the Big Picture vs the setup adjustment goal Turn this dial, turn that knob, tilt this more/less, tighten/loosen, add/subtract washers, etc, etc and have seen newbies told to run in circles adjusting, readjusting because 'one' adjustment worked for that adviser...there is no "one size fits all" here. Myopic and needs the big picture view (60,000 foot level view of the goal) As it is a system made up of many components and sub-systems
BenK 08/31/15 09:40am Towing
RE: Payload rant (sort of)

I refer to their GVWR's...
BenK 08/30/15 05:55pm Towing
RE: Payload rant (sort of)

Curious...would this discussion be happening of folks were NOT using market badging, but their respective GVWR's and RGAWR's ? No difference when someone talks about their 'half ton'...one forum member posted that there are over 14 DIFFERENT F150's or half tons... Which one are you guys talking about here? This also touches on 'curb' and the mess with what folks 'think' it means... Or the mess with what folks 'think' payload/cargo/etc means... Also the mess with what folks 'think' MTWR (Max Tow Weight Rating) means... Finally, a ditto to 'dry' or OEM listed tongue weight means... http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/truck-sizes-classification-explained-from-tacomas-to-1613958192 width=680 http://www.autoblog.com/2005/09/27/a-brief-primer-on-pickup-truck-payload-capacities/ In a previous post, one of our commenters suggested that I did not understand payload ratings on trucks (actually, the commenter questioned my math skills in a manner that suggested he has access to my college transcript). I thought we'd clear things up a bit… Payload designations such as half-ton, 3/4-ton, and 1-ton are little but nods to the past practice of naming a truck according to its actual payload, and don?t accurately describe total or per-axle payloads. While some modern half-tons (such as the heavier crew-cab models) indeed have payload ratings close to 1,000 lbs, most are rated to carry around 1,500 lbs or so. 3/4- and 1-ton pickups can carry far more than their name would suggest. My 3/4-ton GMC has a GVWR of 8600 lbs, and thus can carry 3300 lbs in addition to its wet curb weight of 5300 lbs. In fact, the rear axle of my truck is rated for 6000 lbs by itself, and maybe has 2000 lbs on it when unladed. Total payload is thus limited in this case not by spring, axle, or tire capacity, but by the brakes. Most dual rear wheel 1-tons have GVWR somewhere north of 11,000 lbs and rear axle ratings of 9,000 lbs (the two extra tires allow for the extra weight), which gives them a maximum payload of up to 5,000 lbs or so. For the record, the 4 cubic yards of wet mulch shown in the picture above was well within my truck?s capabilities, but 3 cubic yards of damp sand may have been a bit too much. I like this one and best for folks who do neet listen to forum info... http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/03/the-weight-game-understanding-pickup-classes-and-where-they-came-from.html The Weight Game: Understanding Pickup Classes--And Where They Came From Posted by Mark Williams March 31, 2012 By Mike Magda Learning the idiomatic differences among modern half-, three-quarter- and one-ton pickups is a rite of passage in becoming a truck enthusiast. We understand truck lingo, and we use its terms fluidly when chatting with other enthusiasts at truck shows or at the 4x4 shop. Judging by questions in various web forums and talking with a number of clueless sales reps at dealerships, we’ve noticed that many people involved with trucks don’t get it. They either haven’t heard of certain terms or fail to grasp that these terms are no longer literal references to payload capacity. In today’s truck enthusiast vernacular, half-, three-quarter- and one-ton designations help differentiate consumer pickups by a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating, or GVWR. They help distinguish the “class” of truck we drive instead of trying to reveal a specific capability. But where did these terms originate, and how did they evolve into a different meaning within today’s truck lingo? We’re not completely sure, but with a little research we’ve developed a theory — albeit one with a couple holes that our readers might be able to help close. Defining Terms: GVWR GVWR represents manufacturer’s maximum allowable weight for a fully loaded vehicle. This includes the vehicle weight, maximum cargo and passengers. The manufacturer establishes the GVWR based on considerable load-carrying criteria, including, but not limited to, axle capacity, wheel and tire combination, frame strength, and suspension components. A truck’s GVWR is usually listed on a sticker in the doorjamb and in the owner’s manual. Remember, GVWR changes considerably across a vehicle’s lineup. A 4x2 regular cab/standard bed with a V-6 will have a different GVWR from a V-8-powered 4x4 crew cab/long bed. Let’s define payload, since that term is part of this discussion. A vehicle’s payload capacity is calculated by subtracting the weight of the vehicle from the GVWR. For example, let’s say your truck’s GVWR is 6,800 pounds, and on the scale it weighs 5,375 pounds with a full tank of gas but no passengers or cargo. The maximum payload that particular truck can safely support is 1,425 pounds. One of the biggest misconceptions by first-time truck owners is that payload refers only to the cargo in the bed; however, the vehicle’s calculated payload includes all occupants, items stored in the cab and the tongue weight of the trailer when towing. http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20168e9704349970c-800wi width=680 A History of Payload Payload has been a measure of load-carrying capability for centuries. To meet commercial transport demands, engineers rated the payload capacity of ships, railcars and probably stagecoaches long before the first automobile — usually in metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms) or our current standard of a short ton equaling 2,000 pounds. In fact, trucks were given payload ratings before they were even invented. According to the book “Trucks: An Illustrated History 1896-1920,” a French engineer patented a design for a “4-ton truck” in 1828. When trucks started appearing near the turn of the century, most were described with a payload rating — and with good reason. They were directly competing against horse-drawn carts for moving goods. Advertising that these new vehicles could carry one or two tons of cargo with an engine rated at 20 or 30 horsepower was a distinct advantage. In 1911, Captain Alexander E. Williams wrote in the Infantry Journal that the military should put a greater emphasis on motor-powered vehicles. That same year the captain started conducting tests with one- and three-ton trucks, and he was charged with establishing specifications for a standard military truck. As early as 1913, the Society of Automotive Engineers and the Quartermaster Corps formulated detailed specifications for a standardized Army truck — but they were tabled briefly as the Calvary scoffed at the motor vehicle’s use in combat. Smaller Models Appear The Army did use trucks to move supplies when fighting Pancho Villa, then it used one-ton and larger trucks in World War I. Ford, which discouraged modifying its Model T into a truck, finally saw the potential for truck sales in 1917 and released the one-ton Model TT chassis. Other automakers ramped up truck production, mostly one-ton and larger trucks, for the war effort. When the fighting stopped, automakers recognized the value of an expanded truck line for commercial and agriculture purposes, and they offered different payload options, including half-ton and three-quarter-ton versions. Slowly, the automakers differentiated these payload classes with separate model designations. For example, Dodge had the half-ton Series RC truck and the three-quarter-ton Series RD in 1938. The military also stepped up its efforts to standardize trucks and established a wider range of payload classes, including quarter-ton (example: Jeep), half-ton (command cars) and three-quarter-ton (ambulances) in addition to the one-ton and larger trucks used for artillery, munitions and personnel transport in World War II. This classification mentality continued after WWII. In 1948, Ford designated its half-ton model as the F-1 followed by the F-2 (three-quarter-ton) and F-3 (one-ton). Ford, of course, expanded those badges to F-100/150, F-250 and F-350 by the late 1950s. Dodge used a variety of designations until the familiar D/W100, 200 and 300 models started in the late ‘50s. Chevy also used a quirky approach to model designations with its Series 1100 through 3800 lineup in the ‘50s, but in the ’60s the automaker established the more familiar C/K 10, 20 and 30 designations. http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20167646f04fe970b-800wi width=680 Looking For Help Here’s where the trail gets a little fuzzy, and we could use a little more insight from PickupTrucks.com readers who are commercial and military historians. The military likely stood by its payload designations, even as the growing auto industry evolved. If it needed a three-quarter-ton payload truck for flight line security, it got a truck with a payload capacity of at least 1,500 pounds. Whether or not there was an F-150 or C20 badge probably didn’t matter. However, as the consumer truck market grew, automakers added more payload capacity to their trucks wearing the familiar badging that originated with the traditional half-, three-quarter- and one-ton designations. I suspect the automakers then initiated a combative one-upmanship marketing game by increasing the payload numbers for those models. Something like: “My half-ton can outhaul your half-ton!” very similar to what we see today. So who kept the half-, three-quarter- and one-ton vernacular going, even though the automakers now had distinct model designations that no longer correlated directly to specific payload capacities? Our guess is that most consumer pickup buyers in the ‘60s and ‘70s were war veterans. When their sons took over the family business or went shopping for a ranch truck, they also talked in terms of half- or three-quarter-ton trucks, even though the payload capacities were much higher. It was most likely a matter of military language morphing into a popular colloquialism. And truck enthusiasts today continue to use those terms, much the same way they call any type of limited-slip differential a “posi” regardless if it truly is a Positraction unit. http://cars.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20167646f06df970b-pi width=680 Today’s Terminology In today’s consumer market, the designations for half-, three-quarter- and one-ton trucks are a little different. Ford still goes with F-150, F-250 and F-350, respectively, while Ram, Chevy and GMC follow 1500, 2500 and 3500 terminology. Some modern half-ton trucks have payload ratings above 2,000 pounds. And a good one-ton pickup can carry more than 5,500 pounds. Payload simply isn’t the determining factor for the traditional designations. Now they’re used to identify a general GVWR range. A half-ton or 150/1500 model typically falls under an 8,500-pound GVWR. A three-quarter-ton or 250/2500 model ranges between 8,500 and 9,990 pounds. A one-ton or 350/3500 truck is likely to be 9,900 pounds or more. Again, these are not official standards set down by a regulatory or engineering body. They’re just a reflection of today’s truck market. Ten years from now, the numbers may change and probably confuse even more new-truck buyers. Adding to the puzzle, of course, is the government. Hardcore truck enthusiasts and commercial operators know about federal truck classifications based on GVWR. They are: Class GVWR (pounds) Class 1 0-6,000 Class 2 6,001-10,000 Class 3 10,001-14,000 Class 4 14,001-16,000 Class 5 16,001-19,500 Class 6 19,501-26,000 Class 7 26,001-33,000 Class 8 33,000 and higher Categorizing these class designations can also be confusing when differentiating between “light duty” and “heavy duty.” For consumer vehicles, light duty is a half-ton truck, which can be Class 1 or 2, while heavy duty is a three-quarter- or one-ton truck, which is Class 2 or 3. In the commercial truck world, light duty is Class 1-3; medium duty is Class 4-6 and heavy duty is Class 7-8. It all depends on the context of the conversation. So, that’s our theory on how the various model designations evolved, based on researching truck books at home and military reference books. However, we’re sure we may have missed something and would love to hear back from any PUTC readers with their contributions to this topic. http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20167646f08f4970b-800wi width=680 Sources for this article include: An Illustrated History of Military Vehicles by Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks Military Vehicles from World War I to the Present by Hans Halberstadt Standard Catalog of US Military Vehicles, 1940-1965 Trucks: An Illustrated History 1896-1920 by G.N. Georgano and Carlo Demand Standard Catalog of American Light Duty Trucks by James T. Lenzke and John Gunnell
BenK 08/30/15 05:53pm Towing
RE: 2015 Silverado Navigation up, are you kidding???

Skip the first half if you already have a google account. Just go to the actual map usage section Had this on my smart phone, but too small hand held and smaller yet on the dash Plus, as Jeremiah said...a call disrupts the session...to have to touch and restart maps Asking if the OEM integrated Nav program has as much info? Don't think so, as they do not get local to your GPS XY coordinates as Google Maps. Those traffic conditions highlighted in green/yellow/red/etc are based on Internet traffic (local news, local traffic agencies, tweets, etc) to display conditions and offers to alternate routes How to Use Google Maps iPad App googlemaps googlemapsipad ipadmaps mapsipad
BenK 08/30/15 11:47am Tow Vehicles
RE: 8.1 versus 6.00

Gearing...HP and torque can be manipulated via gearing...to attain better MPG and lower RPMs cruising... Understand this and how it works for those who must "buy'm" pre-eng, but am hopeful it can be done on an older one... :B Should save me a few $K's vs buying new/newer This is where I'm going when rebuilding or updating my Suburban's 7.4L and 4L80E. +500 ft/lbs 7.4L and 1K Ft/lbs rated 4L80E GearVendors has either 0.70 or 0.50 at around $3K. They haven't gotten back to me on the ratios yet 7.4L will be forced fed. Not turbine, I don't like any of the potential routing schemes to date, so belt driven gear...with an intercooler of my design Then the diff will go to either 4.88's or 5.54's Gearing...so my 4 speed 4L80E will become an 8 speed with the GearVendors electronics that will shift in/out between the 4L80E's shift points 4L80E's gear ratios will have either a 0.7 or 0.5 gear split betwee these gear ratios 1........2.........3.........4.........R 2.48....1.48....1.00....0.75....2.07 vs the current 6L80E's gear ratios 1..........2.........3.........4.........5.........6.........R 4.027...2.364...1.532...1.152...0.852...0.667...3.064 Toss in my NP241 transfer case compound low gear ratio: 2.72 to 1 and I'll then have 16 gears, but this requires stopping and then manually pushing the 4x4/low button A lot of work, but since I keep them all a looooong time...going to try and update with this portion of my vehicle
BenK 08/29/15 02:36pm Tow Vehicles
RE: 2015 Silverado Navigation up, are you kidding???

Just another potential feeding opportunity from the OEMs...do you folks pay for updates to your computer/cell/etc ? If you do, I have a bridge in the middle of Nevada for sale with a bulls eye on your backs... One of my philosophies is to NOT get ancillary stuff and stick to their main competency... Like going to a steak house and ordering fish tacos, or going to a taco stand and ordering steak, etc... At best...their non-main competency offering will be mud hen 'just good enough' Unless I find that they went out and 'bought' another company that 'had' great products...but over time...muted to diluted by the bigger corporations middle management Have a dash or window mounted (suction cup) holder for my iPad Air, which has GPS and cell (it is also part of my cell phone plan, so can go cell tower to cell tower or both GPS & cell tower). Google maps or any 'good' maps app that has a GPS locational function. Updated often and 'auto update' is turned on mine Since Google Maps and the cell tower to cell tower locational thing...it also has updates to traffic. Found that out on my last trip from N Cal to S Cal visiting my grandson. 2.5 hour delay on I5 and maps started 'telling' me of it and offered a constant notice & possible side roads Think the cell tower to cell tower communications also has local traffic reports, tweets, etc calculated with my location...how else would it know that xx.xx hours or xx minutes to my destination using side streets?...or whether I took one of their suggestions... Each 'side road' notice came with both written and voice informing me that taking this other route would save me x.x hours or after a while changed to xx minutes Got lost taking their suggestion...trying my own short cut in a foreign neighborhood and Google Maps just recalculated a 'new' suggestion with a new xx.xx hours, or xx minutes to destination... Do know that I'm a HUGE NON-fan of "highly integrated' anything for my auto's... Ford Nav Voice turn by turn ipadair ipadgps ipadairgps Posted: 07/29/15 12:28pm My smartphone is better than the one on sisters and her husbands E series MB Smartphone is okay, but would like a larger screen...plus when the phone/text message comes in...kills the visual and have to re-initiate Am going to use my iPad Air and looking for a holder right now. Think found one at Amazon: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71pElo8Rn9L._SL1500_.jpg width=640 ipadmount ipadholder ipadairmount Not just right, yet...still looking Goes with my not liking 'highly integrated' stuff on my automotive Have three different GPS apps and one for when no cell coverage going up for oysters with GF. 100% GPS line of sight Wonder how often the on board DB has to be updated...and/or if automatic update or manual updates?
BenK 08/29/15 02:07pm Tow Vehicles
RE: 8.1 versus 6.00

4.10 gears only help when you are in 1st gear. I've never been down to 1st towing in the mountains. YMMV REthink that when someone in front of you or something in front of you forces you to stop on that incline...and have to get it going again...
BenK 08/28/15 10:25am Tow Vehicles
RE: A shout out to the forum towing pros!

Why too many of the 'advice' on these types of forums are provided as a 'one size fits all' by the advisors Why it is best to understand and know what the goal is in setting up... TV OEM's have different 'recommendations' for how much weight is WD'd back to their TV's front axle...others how much 'height' it should be brought back to, etc Goal is to have the TV loaded 'within' spec, front end brought back to whatever the OEM 'recommends' The trailer tongue is level at its highest pointing, to pointing slightly down That the WD Hitch system is setup properly and rated for the *ACTUAL* tongue weight and a bunch more 'details'...
BenK 08/28/15 10:24am Towing
RE: Why do passing trucks suck instead of blow?

Forgetting all about the many variables for this academic airfoil discussion... The 'tube' is in this case is not symmetrical, nor is it smoothed surfaces, nor it with both/all sides at the same speed relative to each other *AND* the surrounding surfaces (pavement), nor is this a designed airfoil, nor are the two surfaces attached to the same mass, nor does all of the examples while in school...or current examples have pivot(s) on the surfaces in question, and a big etc *IF* one was to take the airfoil example, then go there to then ask which one has more surface and mass Which one has the better shape to create lift?...like these examples: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Examples_of_Airfoils.svg width=680 airfoil airfoils airfoilexample
BenK 08/28/15 10:17am Towing
RE: 2015 GM hitch

How much $$$ would it cost to relieve the necessity to 'watch it', or 'keep an eye on it'...? About $200 or a bit more for the BEST traditional designed receiver and about 1 hours labor to replace any OEM receiver... If me, I'd just change it...but that is just my point of view
BenK 08/27/15 10:04am Towing
RE: Trying to decide if we need a bigger truck

If you are asking then you may already know the answer. :) Had a cousin trade to get a bigger truck to pull the new RV for safety reasons. Well stated !!! I'll not seek approval from others who have ZERO skin in MY FAMILIES SAFETY That risk management decision (gambling) is mine and sure...seek opinions to help me make up MY MIND
BenK 08/27/15 10:02am Towing
RE: Has anyone ever mounted solar panels to a tow vehicle?

Here is where I'd love to have for my TV...and where am noodling where to mount the batteries... Pulling Hills: Torque vs. Horsepower electrodynamics dynamics electricmotor dcmotor 1,500hpcontinuous Now that sodium-ion batteries are no longer just a prototype and into development...am hopeful they will be commercially available when I get to this dream of mine...
BenK 08/26/15 01:59pm Tow Vehicles
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 52  
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