Suburban gasser 7.4L, 4.1's, oversized tires and not corrected in the computer
Should be just a hair under 2,000 RPMs cruising at ~65MPH (4L80E OD = 0.75) if corrected in the computer, or the actual speed would be over 70MPH
subdash suburbandash mysubdash
Sign of the times...semantics or the evolution/slang usage in our language...
Just like when pointed out the difference between the original usage
vs todays usage of 'motor' vs 'engine'
Am going to start referring to an ICE's starter as a 'starter engine'...doesn't
sound right does it?...well at least to my earballs... :B
Lost to too many is that HP is derived from torque...if there is
no torque...there can be *NO* horsepower...
Or that there can be 1,000,000 ft/lbs of torque, but no HP...yet... :?
So, torque is power, HP is power...POWER is torque or HP in today's usage... :S
Ben, even these guys are screwed up.
Similarly, if the gear ratio is 3.08:1, then the output torque will be 308 lb-ft. It’s easy to see that the lower 4.10:1 gears put more power to the ground than the higher 3.08:1 gears. Keep in mind that the engine’s power has not changed but that the available torque to the tires has.
Even the writer of this article is trying to use torque and power interchangeably which you can't do. Then at the last he gets is straight and correct.
It's no wonder people are confused. :R
Ops...thank you for that PM...
Messed up...the maintenance schedules provided by the OEM in their
manuals...are the MAXIMUM recommended time and/or miles between
taking care of whatever it is you are looking at
You can go shorter time/miles or even longer...that choice is up to
the individual and the OEM can or not provide warranty if the owner
did not follow their recommendations and went past them...
Out of warranty, then do whatever, but I follow those guidelines anyway
as I keep my vehicles a long time
It appears we have some brake experts gathered here so I would like to ask about pads. Would a softer pad have better stopping performance?
Yes, but only in a narrow lower working temp range
Meaning that the softer pad will have higher braking when cold vs
performance (harder)...but...when these softer pads get hot (they
also have a lower temp working range)...they will NOT have as much
Also, how many times do you expect to brake HARD during a decent
down a mountain? Softer pads will heat up beyond their working range
and NOT do as well as a higher performance pad
This also applies to heavy traffic in the flats...where you use
the brakes a lot
For the sake of this arguement, we can assume there is no significant wheel slip. What type of pad material would give the shortest stopping distances?
Again, you need to define the context of your question
If stone cold in the morning, then OEM would...
If after a long decent on a mountain/hill/etc...and used the brakes
a lot...then the higher working temp range will...
Where I am at there are no long mountain grades to worry about. I do realize that a softer material will make more dust, and not last as long.
Sounds like OEM are best for you, but remember that if you ever
decide to go through a hilly area
Most diff ratios offered are about 10% apart...meaning about 10% more or less
power delivered to the drive axles...meaning that going from a
3.73 to 4.1 will have MORE power delivered...or going from a 4.1
to a 3.73 will have LESS power delivered
Sure, the new close ratio trannies does have lower first than before, because
they can with those extra gears...but going too low numerically on the diff can
have higher stresses on the diff gear teeth...'can', not for sure...it depends
Since new gear boxes has more gears and are close ratio...they on the other
end of 1st gear...has double OD's on most...so if me, I'd go lower (higher
numeric) diff ratios
On OEM warranty/maintenance/etc specifications...
They are the BARE MINIMUM's and are RECOMMENDATION's...meaning that
you don't have to, but then they don't have to warranty either...
As with all things, nothing is an absolute...other than death is...that
things like this has ranges for maintenance schedule and materials
I use the best can afford/find...not the bare minimum that seemingly
most do...but it is a free world...
Cheap and keep filling them from my working HDD's. Use them instead of the old
days with 8"...then 5.25"...then 2.5" floopy's then CD's and DVD's
Get a gun safe (have a six rifle) instead of an office safe. Both about the same
size will have the gun safe in the $200-$400 range....while the office safe
of similar size will be over $K
Then get a few small safes sized for files. Can stack a few of them next to
my rifles in that gun safe
Not just from thieves, but fire, which is the bigge
Gun safe is good for 2 hours fire and by then the interior gets to ~200*F, but
with the small file safe's...it will be days before their interior cooks
Main heat routing is via the bolts holding down the gun safe. Even though the
good ones will have another insulator for those bolts...it will bring the heat
into it during a fire
Costco has Seagate's for under $100 and in the 2TB to 4TB range. I like
Western Digital better, but they are not on sale often. Get mine from Amazon
Make a boot HDD with every new computer and store that in the safe within a safe
Then copy info to another 2-4 TB disk and store that in the safe within a safe...
As for the thread topic...marketing wins over technology every time on these forums...
Kinda sorta agree and dis-agree on the "myth about warped rotors". Generally
speaking, it is improper bedding or need to re-bed...but have come across
many which were actually warped (dial indicator said so)
New myth in the making...modern friction material does NOT out-gas...nope, not
They do not out-gas as much, but they still do for as long as they have
binders (glue to hold the friction material together).
Even ceramic...unless pure/solid ceramic racing pads...
But full metallic (sintered) has no binders, so no out-gasing of binders
Science...AKA "The Laws of Physic's" and "The laws of Thermal Dynamics"
in discussion here, so here are some of my thoughts...or IMHO...
Braking with automotive brakes using friction brakes is the conversion
of Kinetic Energy into heat
The heat is generated at the point of friction. That means where the
friction material touches the drum/rotor and since most have disc
these days...will reference disc brake terminology (though also applies
to shoe/drum setups
That heat goes someplace(s). Into the air right there, but a very
small amount. To the friction material, but friction material is NOT
a good conductor of heat...on purpose. Most of that heat goes to
the rotor...on a metal rotor. Plastic rotors are designed to absorb
that heat better/faster than the pad
The rotor must be able to absorb, but there needs to be a temp differential
No differential and it will *NOT* absorb and the larger the differential,
the faster it will absorb
The mass determines how much it can absorb quickly and hold that heat.
Then the metrics of rejection of that heat, which has thickness
of that path to the rejection spot/area/etc. The material characteristics
also come into play here, as is the shape (the why of a 'heat dam'
between the rotor and hub on 'some' single piece setups).
Thinner or less mass will have less thermal pathways to the rejection
area of design
An oblique moment #1...the centrifugal inertia must be taken into account
at this point by the designers, as the acceleration/deceleration
rates must be within design criteria (how fast it will spin up with
X amount of torque and stop with Y amount of braking). Dia of the
rotor, thickness (weight), etc
Part of that is the shape of the centrifugal vanes (straight, curved,
how many, etc). That also is factored by the dia of the rotor and
the expected dia of the tire vs the expected RPMs of that tire in
'normal' to top end usage
There is also a 'crush' component to that design, as when heated
to the upper end of design usage specifications...the metal will
soften (most are designed to the neighborhood of 1,400*F usage
top end) and the platters can be crushed (bent inwards to create a
The platter thickness, the vent area thickness and the vanes (number
of them, placement of them, etc) along with expected material
removal during expected service life must be designed in
Part of (just part) the design is the density, porosity (voids), etc
of the cast iron (ditto plastic) rotor specification, as are the
spec's for the other components of any braking system
Oblique #2...the friction material likewise has a crush specification
and that is to OEM PSI's expected/spec'd to the mating components
Some aftermarket stuff for race or track can crush OEM friction
materials...AKA crumble at their high end temps
Once the heat is generated...it is absorbed by both the friction
material and rotor material. One of the 'whys' caliper pistons is
turned backwards (as asked of me by some) and is to limit the amount
of surface area touching the pad backing plate...to reduce the thermal
pathway back into the caliper
That YouTube link is correct, but not an absolute as too many will
think...hearing him say that the new binders out-gas "LESS", which
means they still do...to produce a high PSI area of gas to float the
pad friction material off of the rotor surface...AKA fade (just one
aspect of fade)
Back on the out-gas relief routs....
Holes were cool and still so much so because of the marketing employed
to sell them...
Drilled holes will crack. Cast in holes has less stress raisers
but they are still there (just less), but EXPENSIVE to cast them in
Holes do reduce the mass, so acceleration/deceleration inertia is
less...but...since less mass...less thermal capacity...in absorption,
moving it around and rejection
Slots has less material removed, so has more mass than holes. A good
thing in this regard, but less mass never the less
Oblique #3...the why of that cut/cast-in slot on most pads today.
Even OEM, or the better ones. That is an out-gas slot to allow
out-gases from floating the pad off the rotor surface, but that is
factored by the surface area in contact with the rotor...
Some longer pads has two or more of these out-gas slots cut/molded
into the friction material
Notice that they are NOT open all the way to the backing plate and
that is because once the friction material has worn down there...they
need all the surface area then can get in contact with the rotor...but...
a losing proposition, as the friction material will have less mass
to both hold and transfer that heat...they will over heat easily,
but braking is #1 to the designers to meet their design specifications
There is much, much more science to this and the above are just some
of the high points to get the science across...I hope... :B
I've gone back to OEM rotors for my Suburban. The cyro/slotted rotors
were cool and EXPENSIVE, but they too heat checked (micro cracks
that propagated into clean through cracks)...so why bother...
Valve train and what drives them...comments below IMHO...
Gears are best, but they make more noise and tougher to design on OHC
Chains are easier to design on OHC, but they have an over shoot so
the tensioner has a double duty job. Too much tension and the lube
and drag becomes an delicate balancing design act
Synthetic belts were to save all of that, but they too have issues.
Advertised no to little stretch, lower mass/inertia, lighter, etc, etc...
Longevity issues and failure mode is catastrophic on an interference design
Turtle...betcha the Porsche 911's of old had a much longer chain...gave
up trying to help a buddy trying to save a few pennies...that thing
must have been over 10 feet long
That was also too small (narrow) and stretched and quickly if the
driver nailed it too often
Think these new engine designers has the chains just large enough
for their middle of the bell curve drivers. Those who nail it often
will stretch them...meaning that going from idle (~800 RPM) to over
3,000 in a couple of seconds places tremendous stress on that
chain...on these small sports car engines...that some times meant
to well over 5,000 RPMs in a couple seconds...
Lists like these is like naming EVERYONE who helped you get to the podium...there
will be one too many left off...plus the who owns who is in a constant change
So, I take these kinds of things with a large grain of salt...and know that
they have their own predispositions...
As for Tesla...based originally on a Lotus body design...this is the first
year that they have made a profit...then the BILLIONs of bucks from the IPO
provided the money for his endeavors (SolarCity, SpaceX, etc) and NONE of them
are profitable to date
CR...PhD's galore...just like the PhD's on my Skunk Works at Labs...perfectly
fine PhD's in their field...but also morons that designed un-producible stuff...
CR praised a Toyota...then outed that they didn't actually test it...they finally
admitted that their 'praising report' was based on their own historical data on
Toyota vs any others...
Oh well, another filter for me on the value 'to me' on advice based on CR...
Ah...Consumer Reports...of course will not even take the info with a grain of salt...
CS is okay for kitchen stuff...even their high end stereo stuff isn't good enough
Take a look at who fills out their survey's...their own customers and use this
as an example all the time (have to, too often)...
Was already going to no renew my CS subscription, as all of their recommendations
didn't come close to what my preferences were...
One year they rated the Matador as their #1 choice and their customers bought
in droves...and the next couple years...these same members of their herd rated
the Matador as the worst ever...
Nope, not my kind of survey...nor results...
Personally do NOT skimp on this kind of component...not likely to have to buy
them again...ever if taken care of...
Agree, if the OEM lug nut was torqued that high to break apart the outer covering...the
studs are most likely over tightened too...
I'd replace them all...again, not likely to have to do that again, ever if taken care of
The OP can check them often...if they will NOT hold...they have stretched past
the yield point and will NEVER be able to hold...with breakage point very near...
This makes you stand out and above the herd...plus am betting you actually
read the fine print plastered all over brochures...and another betcha
also understand what that fine print does to those ratings...
Oh well, you are a rarity...now back to the normal stuff...
As always, only all-new or significantly updated vehicles were eligible to participate.
Am I the only one who reads further than the title of a story or headline?
BTW, for last years test, the Tacoma, the GM midsize twins and full size twins, and the Nissan XD competed. So, Bias against GM must skip a year, since the Chevy Colorado won last year.
IT all depends on how you drive, where you drive (terrain, inclines,
headwinds, etc, etc) and more etc, etc
A bit over the OEM rating won't have the wheels instantly fall off...but....they
will fall sooner...
Note that the OEMs are required to meet min performance criteria set
by the government regulatory agencies.
That is at the maximum rating (GVWR, F/R GAWR, GCWR). Meaning things
like stopping distance...NOTE that if over the OEM ratings...it will
take longer to stop. Not maneuver as well, etc, etc
Additional comments embedded below in red
I am looking at buying a new TT and want to make sure I am looking at models I can tow safely and easily. I understand I will need a Weight Distributing Hitch. To be honest I've had a hard time getting a clear answer on this from TT dealerships or my vehicle dealership. Every time I enquire I just get the "Oh your fine, you can tow anything" answer.
It is their job to sell...and...it is their paycheck for rent/food/etc
that is on the line for 'them'
You, the OP, need to understand that and read up to learn how the
OEM ratings systems works...first decide if you believe in them or not
If not, then do whatever but know that you have taken all the OEMs in
this food chain off the warranty hook (if any left) and the biggie
Liability hook...to own it yourself (maybe your insurance too)
This isn't sitting well with me so I thought who better to ask then real RVrs. I know its all about the specs of the tow vehicle so I will do my best to provide this below.
2014 Ram 1500 Big Horn 5.7L Hemi w/ Tow package Crew Cab 6'4" box
From The Sicker on the door:
GVWR 6800 LB low end of the lowest class pickup/SUV...many
are in the +7K lb range
GAWR Front 3900 LB
Rear 3900 LB
Again, on the low side of the lowest class pickup/SUV.
Example is the next higher class pickup/SUV will have FGAWR in the
+4K range and RGAWR in the +6K range
Info- Tire and loading
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed 1070 lbs. (this one confuses me)
This is specific to each tire, so check your tire sidewall and that
weight rating is at the sidewall listed max PSI
Towing- 10,000 lb.
Payload- 1520 lb.
MTWR (max tow weight rating) listed of 10,000 has fine print at the
bottom of that manual section...it stated base or curb vehicle with
tow option and one 150lb driver.
Any other options will have their weight subtract from that MTWR pound
Payload is what the TV is rated for as built from the factory
If I have left out any relevant info please let me know. I am a little new to this so I may have missed something.
Finally, I will be traveling with my wife and two young children. Basically I just want to know what weight of TT I should be looking at.
Any help will be much appreciate
Oh...suspect all advice on these freebie forums...it is worth the price paid... :B
Meaning...so many insist that XYZ fixed their problem and is the end all
for EVERYONE else...but...that depends on so much...like is their setup
EXACTLY like others, etc
Why the long thread...covers most areas and note that many of them
over lap to mask the true root cause of whatever problem(s) trying to solve.
Or use them as the end goal for the setup
Suspect my comments too...just learn the general areas of this control
system. Know their dials/knobs looking for the root cause of any issues
There is no one best one size fits all, but found & continue to find that
most who have helped are not adjusted well...and sometimes not correct
First, the trailer brakes are normally not adjusted tight enough and
suggest carrying an adjustment spoon no matter which brake controller.
From OEM on board, highly integrated to after market.
Check them at each stop and re-adjust them as needed.
Wiring, first thing is to note that most trailer OEMs only provide a
'just good enough' harness (wire gauge sizing), connectors and run them
in series. Parallel (think spider) is best/better. Second, the harness(s)
all the way back to the TV's controller needs to be in good order.
The TV plug at the receiver some times has an El Cheapo that does NOT
home in well and sometimes too much play to cause intermittent connections
If after market, the TV brake pedal light switch must be adjusted so
that just a tiny amount of foot pressure will turn on that switch.
Plunger types (think door bell button) are tough and becomes intermittent
if too close
My GM OEM brake pedal switch is not adjustable and has one of the smallest
switch points have found to date. Takes about 1/64" movement to turn
on that switch and way before the MC piston even moves
That has the trailer brakes turn on before the TV's turn on (leads the
TV). This is has the whole setup act as one while braking
The controller has two main adjustments and will only comment on them.
The OEM IBC (integrated brake controller) sometimes has several more.
Boost and gain.
One is the min level pre-set and has to do with how the trailer brakes
are sized, setup, work, etc. Think of it as if too low, there is no
braking of significance by the trailer
Other is the ramp the brake controller will follow once it is turned on
Finally, all the above is factored by the sensor that the controller
Some use the TV MC fluid PSI sensor. Some (most after market) uses
an accelerometer to sense the rate of deceleration and will provide
more power to the trailer brakes accordingly...ditto MC fluid PSI
senses...the more PSI...the more power is sent to the trailer brakes
This is why the trailer wiring MUST be top notch, as with poor wiring,
all the power in the world sent back there will be lost to high resistance
These are the basics, IMHO, and key to setting up the TV/Trailer to
brake as 'one'...
Turtle, knew that but stayed out of the all too common should I use premium or not...
Admit that am not as up to speed on DI as could be and will bone up on your link later
Also know you know this stuff, so academic for you and discussing for others
In order to gain as much PSI on the piston tops, ignition timing has always been before TDC...AKA advanced timing...this also now has DI squirt before that ignition spark, as the fuel has to be in there before the spark
This discussion started out, for me, on the intake valve getting fuel to carbon up on the manifold side
Overlap is who that fuel gets pushed back into the manifold side of the valve and my point or really a question/comment...why not close it before the fuel squirt?
Thanks for the replies. I'm surprised at the one reply stating less than 1 mpg difference.
Can go the other way too, albeit mostly for lower class TV's...as going
to a MPG ratio might have the TV then close/at/over the ratings to get
WORSE MPG towing heavy
Decide if MPG is more important than towing performance/ratings if towing