RE: Tip for Ford Owners or anyone with a transponder key
The first thing I do with all my Fords is have a 3rd key made that stays at home. As long as you have 2 keys programmed already, the cost of adding the 3rd is about $30 from my Ford dealer. The only time you pay those excessive fees is when you only have 1 key to give them. The system is programmed to accept additional keys as long as 2 programmed keys are available.
RE: How close to GCWR can you get?
If the rear axle can carry 8000 pounds, and the front 5000 pounds (total to 13k), but the vehicle can only safely stop 9k total, that will be the GVWR.
Actually a vehicles braking capacity equal the vehicles axle ratings. Thats one reason why many states/provinces weight regs allow the sum of the GAWR to = the trucks GVW. The axle manufacturer rating don't apply.
NHTSA says this about components of the GAWR:
"Gross Axle Weight Rating is the rated load-carrying capacity of an individual axle and wheel assembly. (It represents the load that may be steadily sustained by the components in the system; i.e., tires, rims, hubs, bearing, axles, brakes, suspension, sub frame, etc. with the GAWR limited by the components with the lowest working rating".
and this from;
RMA
• GAWR: Gross Axle Weight Rating (for each axle) -
The maximum weight rating that the components
(tires, rims/wheels, brakes, springs, and axle) of
each axle are designed to support. This is
determined by the lowest design capacity of any
component. In other words, if the wheels have the
lowest design capacity of any component on that
axle, installing tires with a higher load capacity
does not increase the GAWR. By regulation, the
tire load rating times the number of tires on that
axle must equal or exceed the GAWR for that axle.
Dexter says the same so if the truck has 8000 RAWR and 5000 FAWR = 13k total. Then the trailers 7k tandam axles has 14k of braking gives the truck and trailer a 27k combined braking capacity (GCW).
Actual stopping power is not included in either of those quotes. Only the weight of the braking system that must be supported. Braking is set by GVWR, and is typically lower than the sum of the two GAWRs on most light-duty trucks.
RE: How close to GCWR can you get?
I disagree completely that GCWR is "purely" a performance rating."The GCWR is a function of the torque output of the engine, the capacity and ratios of the transmission, the capacity of the driving axles and tyres, and the ability of the chassis to withstand that powertrain torque."Sounds like a performance rating to me. No mention of braking, control, safety or even tow rating.
RE: How close to GCWR can you get?
To many people on this thread are mis-interpreting the ratings and abbreviations. Some ratings are more important than others, and it doesn't take an engineer to understand why. What it takes is an open mind and a willingness to learn rather than be led around by salesmen.
GVWR is the maximum amount of weight the vehicle can carry and stop safely. If you load a vehicle to maximum GVW, the brakes and suspension must be able to control and stop this load because no trailer brakes are in play to help you. GVWR is intended to be applied to the guy loading his pickup with gravel and finding out he can't stop at the redlight. If you look in every towing manual I have ever seen, a statement to the effect of "Trailer brakes are required for trailers over XXX" or "Trailer brakes required if GCW exceeds GVWR of the vehicle". These statements speak directly to the stopping power of a vehicle. I try to stay under GVWR, but if a trailer has brakes I don't stress about going a little over as long as the tires can take it.
GAWR ratings are weight carrying ratings. How much weight can a given axle carry. If the rear axle can carry 8000 pounds, and the front 5000 pounds (total to 13k), but the vehicle can only safely stop 9k total, that will be the GVWR. Those same axles installed under a different truck with different brakes will require a different GVWR. GAWRs I follow, because the failure is losing a wheel bearing or snapping a spindle. That is a safety issue, no question.
GCWR is purely a performance rating. Often people put more value in this spec than is really there. The intention is that if you follow the GCWR of the vehicle, you should have a minimal set of performance specs you can rely on. For example, you should be able to hold speed on a grade, accelerate onto a freeway, start out on a hill...etc. That is why it varies with axle ratio and powertrain choice even in the same body. Exceeding the GCWR only means you cannot guarantee you will meet those specs anymore. At no point is vehicle braking or handling a part of the GCWR rating! However many people have found the performance is still acceptable even at or over the GCWR. This is personal preference, and everyone's opinion of "Acceptable" will be different. Take two identical 1500 Chevy trucks, one with a V6 and 3.42 axle, and the other with a V8 and 3.73 axle. The second truck will have a MUCH high GCWR because the pulling power is greater, but the V6 truck is no less safe at the same weight. It will just be slower, and probably less reliable in the long run.
Some people will want to pull 80mph up a 8% grade, with the front and rear AC on, vehicle and trailer both loaded to max GVW and never hear the engine drop out of overdrive. These people SHOULD follow GCWR, or even better the 80% rule. That is the peace of mind you buy when you follwow the GCWR spec to the letter.
Other people (myself) don't mind hearing the sweet sound of an engine working up a hill. I don't mind an occasional downshift, nor do I mind slowing down some going up a grade. I figure as long as I can hold the same speed as the big rigs, I am still safe. For me, I have often exceeded GCWR with various vehicles and never had a problem. I have never been unsafe, never had a towing-related repair, and I never overheated.
Personally, I would put my Freestar towing 105% GCWR up against most 3/4 ton trucks without a trailer for a handling, braking and stability tests. And that is from experience. Will the van be slower in the 1/4 mile, sure. Do I care? Nope. Not as long as I can accelerate with enough power to safely merge onto a freeway! I will take stability, braking and handling over acceleration every time.
So there are multiple perspectives, and no blanket statement that covers everyone's needs. Some people say you can never have enough truck. I say you can easily have too much truck. The cost and penalty of owning/operating a 3/4 ton truck is rarely justified for the weekend warrior. If I would have waited until I could afford and maintain a 2500 truck before I first took my family camping, we never would have made it out there. Instead, I took our Honda Civic with a 1500 pound tow rating, hitched up an 1800 pound popup, and put 160k miles on that car camping, commuting, and towing without a repair. And I am sure glad I did.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
Maybe an oblique view of 'MINE' might help some understand my
side of the coin.... :)Ben, I couldn't agree more. Your entire post speaks what I have been trying to say, but better worded. Thank you. I know we don't always agree, but I guess we found one thing!
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
How many manual transmission devotee's would order an optional manual transmission that added to the cost of the truck?I want the manual transmission, but I wont pay more for it. That is ridiculous considering the cost of an equivalent automatic is easily twice the manual, PLUS the additional computer needed to control the shifting.
How much would the manual transmission devotee's be willing to pay for that transmission?I would say the option to NOT have the automatic should save me at least $1000 on a new vehicle purchase
How many manual transmission devotee's would not spend the extra money and just buy the standard automatic transmission?I did, but not for money, for equipment. As I stated before, manual transmission have been in decline ever since the OEMs started bundling automatics in every option package above base. As a consumer, I was forced to decide which I wanted more; leather seats, moonroof and killer stereo, or manual transmission. My preference would have been to be able to get both, and in a perfect world it should have saved me money, not cost anything more.
Automatic transmissions are fluid pumps, and not 100% efficient ones. That is where the heat comes from, and heat is wasted power. This is simple physics. Do manual tranny make heat? Sure, any time metal rubs against metal heat will be generated. But nothing close to the heat loss an auto generates. Ever notice manual transmissions don't need tranny coolers?
And one more thing, the mileage figures everyone is relying on to make it seem as though automatics get equal or better mileage that manuals is fabricated marketing BS. They are designed to convince consumers "on the fence" that the automatic comes at no cost. It is just not true. Every manual transmission vehicle I have owned since the early 90's (earlier cars had no published stats) got 2-3mpg better than the EPA sticker said it would. My 04 Subaru Forester easily got 34-35mpg in typical highway driving, yet was only rated for 30. A close friend had the exact same car with automatic, and besides it being much slower off the line, it only averaged 25mpg instead of the EPA quote of 29.
In contrast, every automatic vehicle I have bought got slightly WORSE mileage that the EPA sticker. Of course, your mileage may vary.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
The real reason people quit buying sticks (and quit learning to drive them) is because you cannot drink Starbucks coffee and text while driving a stick. Today for many people, driving the car is secondary to doing all the other things people do behind the wheel.
I prefer to be a driver who is engaged in the driving experience and my daily driver is a 5 speed stick (yes, even in heavy Houston stop and go traffic every day). I wish more tow vehicles had the option of auto or stick.
...so because after 45 years of driving stick shift vehicles, I decide I will let the superior performance of today's automatic transmission do the shifting I am no longer an "engaged" driver...does this mean, that in your opinion, 98.5% of the HD pickup purchasers are not engaged in the driving process but instead are just drinking "Starbucks"?
Why is it when the facts are put in play and the numbers tell the story, the manual shift fanatic's have to hoist their "manly" flag and denigrate the vast majority of the truck ownership? The real folly in their argument is in another number altogether...the vast majority of us here grew up on manual transmissions...we have lived the manly life of playing with the stick...and we have seen the light...we do not buy stripped down trucks, we let the transmission shift itself and we enjoy the ride...
RegardsThe real decline of manual transmission had nothing to do with consumer demand, not initially at least.
It came when car makers wanted to start limiting the variations available to lower costs. They push people into automatics by putting the manual option (if one exists) only on the stripper models, and usually with the smallest engine. Want any creature comfort whatsoever in your ride? No problem, but it comes packaged with the automatic transmission.
I could have had a 6-speed manual in my Fusion, but only if I bought the base model car. Since I wanted the SEL model with the killer stereo and moonroof, I had to get an automatic. Given the choice, it is the ONLY thing I would change about this car.
When I bought my most recent manual transmission vehicle, it was a 2004 Subaru Forester (since traded in). I did my homework, and the manual transmission Forester had HIGHER tow rating, HIGHER economy, and LOWER purchase price. However, finding one turned into a hunt. I ended up driving 3 hours to a dealership to buy the ONLY 5-speed Forester on the lot. And of course, it was the stripper 2.5X model so I had to skip all the cool luxuries like climate control. However that vehicle ran twice as fast out of the hole as the same model with an automatic (test drove both), and it shifted like butter with zero clutch effort. My wife loved it also.
No, you aren't going to convince me or anyone else that driving an automatic is better. Frankly, it sounds like you are too busy trying to convince yourself.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
Maybe we have different perspectives. I'm talking about traffic that is moving too slow for first gear....so you are constantly in/out with the clutch. Nope, I have driven through all sorts of traffic, and probably in worse places than you. I think the worst was London, but LA is pretty close. I rarely need to use the clutch more than a couple times in the average traffic jam.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
I have well over a million miles in manual shift trucks and cars...If I never drove another mile in a manual shift vehicle, I would not be troubled. So, ability to operate the vehicle does not enter into the equation.
I have put a couple of clutches in manual shift vehicles...I have never put an automatic trans in any vehicle. With today's modern automatics, the performance advantage for a manual shift is gone...that advantage now resides in the automatic. Regardless of what the most experienced manual shifter guy thinks, he can not match the speed and accuracy of the truck computers and the transmission mechanicals when making gear decisions...you just do not have enough information...let alone the physical ability to act that fast...if you do not believe this, ask yourself why the fastest cars at the drag strip have been automatics for decades...
The death knell for manual transmissions was when they no longer were going to be listed as standard equipment. This phenomena was only about 15 years too late. The take rate for manual transmissions has been below 50% for decades...in 2010, the manual take rate was less than 1.5%...yet manufacturers still provided the manual as standard equipment when the customers were telling them different. When GM and Ford upped the power to levels only their automatic transmissions could handle, it was the end of the road for the manual. How would these manufacturers ever recover their R&D and manufacturing costs? They would have a hard time selling these costs to the 98.5% of the buying public who purchase automatics. How much would the "now" optional manual transmission cost the loyal manual transmission customer?
With development costs running over $10 million, likely a low number, and a miniscule 1.5% take rate, the manual transmission would cost at least $2,000 or more. How many of the manual transmission guys would spend $2,000 for a truck that also has less power. Keep in mind that Ram, the only manufacturer offering a manual transmission in a HD pickup, only sells that truck in the detuned version. It is highly likely that when the 2013-14 HD numbers are tabulated, Ram will see the light and the manual transmission will quietly slip away into the history books as a great idea that outlived it's time...
RegardsInteresting thinking, very American.
Curious why manual transmissions remain the preferred option in MOST of the rest of the car-driving world. (Such as in England, where you pay twice as much to rent a rare automatic transmission car.) Could it be that manual transmissions are more efficient by design, and therefore allow the use of smaller, lower horsepower engines that get better mileage?
I agree modern automatics are much better than even a few years past. The 6-speed in my Expedition is one of the best-shifting automatics I have ever driven, and I sure hope it goes 200k miles at least, but if I could have got one, I would have taken the 6-speed manual in a heartbeat, and so would my wife.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
I don't understand all this nonsense about driving stick being a PITA in traffic. Actually, my automatic cars irritate me more in traffic than the stick ones. They are always hunting between gears as traffic speeds and slows, and most of those shifts are unnecessary. Unnecessary shifting causes wear and heat in the transmission. I often find myself manually over-riding even an automatic transmission in heavy traffic, forcing it to hold 1st or 2nd until I feel an up-shift is worthwhile. Holding a gear allows me to finesse my speed, avoid being on the brakes, and maintain a speady speed thru the traffic jam as much as possible.
So driving stick in traffic was no different, I generally kept it in 1st if cars were moving real slow, second otherwise, and just gently modulate the throttle as needed. In my Subaru, I could leave it in 1st and let the car idle it would hold a perfect walking pace. If you pay attention to the cars in front of you (and we all should) it's not hard to predict the slowing, and let off the gas enough slow without braking, then roll on the gas smoothly when it's safe.
Have owned and driven nothing but stick cars (until this last generation) since I started driving, they are still me preference. I would own them now if it was reasonable to get them anymore. Everything from my first car (85 Daytona 5-Speed) to trucks (90 Bronco 5-speed) and even minivans (88 Voyager 5-speed) was stick for 16 years. Not a one of them ever let me down. I never replaced a clutch that I wore out. Consider that minivan had 300k miles on it when we junked it, that's saying something. The automatics however, are a different story. My luck with autos is they generally last about 100k miles on average, some more, some less. Thank goodness the new ones are much sturdier, (why I finally buckled and bought a couple) but nevertheless someone who exclusively drives an automatic has replaced one at least once. Towing only accelerates the process.
RE: Manual Transmission? Yea or Nay?
Given the choice, I would take a manual transmission in ANY tow vehicle over an automatic. Way more advantages than disadvantages. I know autos have come a long way, and I don't hate them like I used too, but nothing compares to a human being with a brain who can choose the gear based on what he sees ahead of him.
RE: Ordered new Laptop Workstation
have the pictures backward?
notice/reality are separate things, your test only shows reads not writes, there is a performance boost on read.
regardless the redundancy is well worth any form of penalty, i use raid1/raid 5 everywhereNo the pictures aren't backward. I think if you look at the overall score you will see the difference. The single drive peaked out at a higher speed, but couldn't get there until the blocks were huge. The R1 array has a slightly lower peak speed, but much more of it available across the range. Kinda like the torque of a V8 against a import 4 cylinder.
I admit the write tests weren't part of the freeware benchmark I found. Day-2-Day usage in the month since I made the change has shown nothing but positive.
Agree on the Raid arrays. I use R5 where it makes sense, but it is unusual for a laptop to have more than a single drive bay, much less 3 of them. The data security is the big thing. I back things up TOO my laptop now, instead of away from it. ;)
One more detail, the power consumption did go up by about 8-9W now that I am spinning two drives. So battery life would be slightly degraded. I guess that is the only negative I have noticed.
RE: Ordered new Laptop Workstation
No problem.
One more thing I thought I would add. There are actually 2 drive bays in these laptops. I got my boss to by me a second 750GB drive and installed it in the open bay. I then went into the BIOS ans switched the boot from "primary hard drive" to "RAID controller". Once I booted into Windows, the on-board RAID controller took over and allowed me to build a RAID 1 mirrored array on that second hard drive. It took about 5 hours to mirror the initial data, but I could work while it was migrating.
Now that it's done, I get the exact same write speed, 2x read speed, and the security of knowing I can lose either drive and simply replace it and the array will rebuild. Probably the best upgrade I've done to this machine.
-Jim
there is a write hit on raid 1 regardless of what you see, its just the way it works
on another note if your plans are in fact to do a raid 1 always make sure to get an identical drive as the original for optimal performance,
when we do raid configs we always try to buy identical drives from the same lot, hopefully with adjoining serial numbers
Good point about the identical drives. We actually ordered a replacement from HP so it was identical to the OEM drive.
I have noticed no performance hit writing, and significant performance boost in read operations. Boot time even went down. Here are the benchmarks I captured.
Single OEM C-drive
https://www.box.com/shared/static/4f0zrxmqjp5fw6hjnik4.png
RAID 1
https://www.box.com/shared/static/hin30zb9hrvvialbp1dw.png
RE: Ordered new Laptop Workstation
No problem.
One more thing I thought I would add. There are actually 2 drive bays in these laptops. I got my boss to by me a second 750GB drive and installed it in the open bay. I then went into the BIOS ans switched the boot from "primary hard drive" to "RAID controller". Once I booted into Windows, the on-board RAID controller took over and allowed me to build a RAID 1 mirrored array on that second hard drive. It took about 5 hours to mirror the initial data, but I could work while it was migrating.
Now that it's done, I get the exact same write speed, 2x read speed, and the security of knowing I can lose either drive and simply replace it and the array will rebuild. Probably the best upgrade I've done to this machine.
-Jim
RE: Ordered new Laptop Workstation
I am still not clear if you are merely loading CAD files to the cloud for group access, or if the CAD development program itself is also available in the cloud, like the word processor of Google docsThis is what I do for a living these days. I am an application engineer for Autodesk products. I specialize in AutoCAD, Inventor and Vault, as well as the Product Design Suite. The answer to you question is both. Autodesk 360 allows you to upload and share CAD files with others, even outside of your network, via the cloud. There is ALSO an AutoCAD 360 product that runs on the cloud and gives you most of the capabilities of AutoCAD, but in a cloud application. I have played with it, it is functional but wouldn't be my first choice nor should it be considered a replacement for AutoCAD (at this time).
And the the OP, I run the same laptop for work, and the company uses the same laptop for all our training centers. I got mine last November when they were still cutting edge, so you probably paid a good deal less, but the machines work flawlessly. In total we have about 50 of these machines that are either dedicated to an AE (like mine) or used for our classrooms. They run the software, including Inventor, fantastically. And we have had very few warranty failures as well.
One thing you want to make sure it you run the AUTODESK CERTIFIED graphics drivers. These will likely NOT be the newest ones available on Nvidia's website, but they ARE the ones that are tested for stability and performance with the Autodesk products. If you run a newer driver and experience problems Autodesk will have you roll it back to an older certified version before they will help you. Rolling back a graphics driver can be a HUGE pain in the butt, so avoid it by running the Autodesk driver right from the start. Here is the link for the correct driver for your laptop per Autodesk
RE: Airbags for Van
I put Air Bags in our Freestar, not so much for towing as the WD hitch kept the van level easily, but more for loading it up with boy scouts and gear. Installation was not that hard, although in hindsight I should have done it on a warmer day. The hardest part was flattening the bladders enough to stuff the bag in between the coils and get positioned properly. Once they were inside the coil, the rest was cake. I wouldn't hesitate to do this yourself if you can change your own oil. Just be patient and mindful of where the air lines run. I ran mine under the axle to the driver's side hub, and zip-tied it to the brake line so the two flex together before routing it up to the shraeder valve (which in my van I mounted inside the emergency jack compartment for protection.
-Jim
P.S. I LOVED the Airbags. I ran 5psi (the minimum) in them when empty, and you couldn't even tell they were there. When loaded, I would go up to about 15psi and you couldn't even tell there were 7 people plus a weekend's worth of gear in the van!
RE: Shelby Raptor
Carol Shelby is dead. As much as it hurts to admit, I can't seem to understand why they would continue to market his name when he obviously is not able to endorse, much less design, these vehicles.
And while I agree his name should be treated with respect, I don't agree it belongs only on Mustangs either. Carol re-designed MANY cars including the Shelby Charger my dad drives around on sunny days. In fact, one of his most profound successes (after the Cobra) was the Dodge Omni GLHS.
The picture of this Raptor with the Shelby stickers on it stinks of misplaced marketing and makes me sick.
OK, Lets be clear about this. This isn't a truck you can just order from Ford. You supply a donor Raptor to the ShelbyAmerican Co. along with $18 grand, and they build you one. So if the company that has his name on it, and says it's been in business since 1962 is building, and badging them, how is that misplaced marketing?Simple, because the man who's name is splashed down the side had NOTHING to do with the vehicle.
RE: Number gurus can you help me run some weights?
I wouldn't let the weight police scare you off the X. Your weights are under the axle limits in both scenarios. If you add more weight to the tongue of the travel trailer, you adjust the WD hitch to take it back off.
This is one time I agree with the RV dealer. Numbers on paper tell half the story. The other half is your own statement about how well the truck towed the trailer. That tells me more about safety than any rating ever will.
Truthfully, I wouldn't hesitate to tow your trailer with my wife's Expedition, which is officially only a 1/2 ton.
I also wouldn't take two vehicles camping just to keep the kids out of the truck. That's just darn silly.
-Jim
RE: Shelby Raptor
Carol Shelby is dead. As much as it hurts to admit, I can't seem to understand why they would continue to market his name when he obviously is not able to endorse, much less design, these vehicles.
And while I agree his name should be treated with respect, I don't agree it belongs only on Mustangs either. Carol re-designed MANY cars including the Shelby Charger my dad drives around on sunny days. In fact, one of his most profound successes (after the Cobra) was the Dodge Omni GLHS.
The picture of this Raptor with the Shelby stickers on it stinks of misplaced marketing and makes me sick.
