Looking at Toyota Tundra...

[r3gulator3]

Aluminum frames too?

No wonder the Chevy guys are laughing.

Funny because General Motors has been making the HMMWV or “Hummer” since 88 and it is all aluminum, even the frame. That includes the ones that go to war. Some get armor added.

 

[Duck]

Funny because General Motors has been making the HMMWV or “Hummer” since 88 and it is all aluminum, even the frame. That includes the ones that go to war. Some get armor added.

Which trucks were getting the boxed frames a while back? Rectangular square tube frames instead of the usual pressed C channel.

 

[r3gulator3]

Which trucks were getting the boxed frames a while back? Rectangular square tube frames instead of the usual pressed C channel.

I have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

[Electric Chicken]

Which trucks were getting the boxed frames a while back? Rectangular square tube frames instead of the usual pressed C channel.

All of them? Both my Fords are boxed. My dad's Dodge is boxed. My uncle's Chevy is boxed...

 

[Duck]

I have no clue what you’re talking about.

C-channel vs fully boxed frames? I guess GM has put...

Ok, had my chance to check out the new 2011 GM Super Duty trucks today....first thing I was going for was the frame.. The frame and chassis of the GM trucks are simpy impressive. After checking out the frame, I checked out the front suspensions..... WOW! WOW! WOW! The front suspension...

www.gminsidenews.com

 

[r3gulator3]

C-channel vs fully boxed frames? I guess GM has put...

Ok, had my chance to check out the new 2011 GM Super Duty trucks today....first thing I was going for was the frame.. The frame and chassis of the GM trucks are simpy impressive. After checking out the frame, I checked out the front suspensions..... WOW! WOW! WOW! The front suspension...

www.gminsidenews.com

HMMWV frame is tube like that. Amazing how much shit gets designed for the military and then utilized by the private sector.

 

[Electric Chicken]

That diesel may have the same HP as your V6 but it’s got 3x the torque.

Repeat: I have the 5.0 and no it doesn't have 3x the torque of anything. It actually has about 50 less. 338lb-ft in the diesel and 387lb-ft in the 5.0. 170hp in the diesel and 385hp in the 5.0

 

[r3gulator3]

Repeat: I have the 5.0 and no it doesn't have 3x the torque of anything. It actually has about 50 less. 338lb-ft in the diesel and 387lb-ft in the 5.0. 170hp in the diesel and 385hp in the 5.0

You can not use engine horsepower and torque ratings from before the mid 90s and compare them to the ones we have after that. They were measured in very different ways back then and found that your HO 327 in a 60s corvette with advertised 300hp is comparable to a 500hp out put in today’s market. You’re comparing two very different things. While yes the 6.9 advertised 170/338 as you mentioned I bet if you put it on a modern dynometer you’d find far more impressive results as far as those numbers go. You’re probably actually putting those numbers to the ground where as your 5.slow (apologies for jumbling with the V-6) is probably only putting 70% of that to the ground. Plus gasoline burns with about 1/3 the BTUs of Diesel in a combustion chamber. So that’s why you don’t have the pull.

 

[Duck]

5.slow

The one in my '88 F-150 is only good for making noise.

Ever since the muffler fell off, it's had this mean rumble to it. But a freakin' geo metro would probably blow it's doors off.

Ford never should have put a 302 in a truck. It's a car engine.

The straight six 300 is a far better engine for light duty truckular purposes.

 

[Electric Chicken]

You can not use engine horsepower and torque ratings from before the mid 90s and compare them to the ones we have after that. They were measured in very different ways back then and found that your HO 327 in a 60s corvette with advertised 300hp is comparable to a 500hp out put in today’s market. You’re comparing two very different things. While yes the 6.9 advertised 170/338 as you mentioned I bet if you put it on a modern dynometer you’d find far more impressive results as far as those numbers go. You’re probably actually putting those numbers to the ground where as your 5.slow (apologies for jumbling with the V-6) is probably only putting 70% of that to the ground. Plus gasoline burns with about 1/3 the BTUs of Diesel in a combustion chamber. So that’s why you don’t have the pull.

Got any documentation on how testing has changed?

So far I've only pulled my empty box, my empty flat, and my flat with the mower with both trucks. I can feel better pull in those situations with the newer truck. I have to try it with the flat and a real load though to see how the diesel compares closer to max.

Put another way, there's no way the diesel has 3x the torque as the gasser. That would be 1161ft-lb.

 

[r3gulator3]

Got any documentation on how testing has changed?

So far I've only pulled my empty box, my empty flat, and my flat with the mower with both trucks. I can feel better pull in those situations with the newer truck. I have to try it with the flat and a real load though to see how the diesel compares closer to max.

Put another way, there's no way the diesel has 3x the torque as the gasser. That would be 1161ft-lb.

Touché, I’ll dig around. And try to find you an inter web article. It was something I learned a long time ago in a class at Freightliner.

But. Again I was comparing a 2.7 V6 to your diesel.

 

[Electric Chicken]

Touché, I’ll dig around. And try to find you an inter web article. It was something I learned a long time ago in a class at Freightliner.

But. Again I was comparing a 2.7 V6 to your diesel.

Gotcha. I've never driven the 2.7, let alone towed with it. 5.0 and 6.9 feel about the same though. Mine both have 3.55 rears.

 

[r3gulator3]

Gotcha. I've never driven the 2.7, let alone towed with it. 5.0 and 6.9 feel about the same though. Mine both have 3.55 rears.

I bet you see the 5.0 fuel economy drop way more towing that the 6.9 does.

 

[Electric Chicken]

I bet you see the 5.0 fuel economy drop way more towing that the 6.9 does.

Probably.

 

[Gdjjr]

How dyno's have changed doesn't equal how power is measured.
Flywheel HP vs to wheels HP has not changed. The losses in the drive train have lessened from around 25% in the past to around 15% today. Also induction of air and introduction of fuel (and spark in gas engines) has greatly increased power output. Air and fuel delivery and amount (which is more accurate causing less waste with computer controls) increases efficiency which in turn increases power.

HP = torque x rpm divided by 5252.
As succinctly as I can: Diesels have higher static compression ratio which is how diesels *fire* vs other fuels (excluding nitro-methanol) which has to have a spark introduced (spark plug) to start the burn cycle. (there are variables involved like cylinder temp or too much ignition timing in the distributor (in engines of old, not with modern day computer controlled engines which have a coil and spark plug only ingintion) which can cause "pre-ignition" which isn't spark plug induced (but can blow the electrode off of a spark plug-LOL)
Industrial diesel engine HP is *sustained* (for hours on end) where gasoline (and other fuels are *peak* reached momentarily- a second or two at the most.

Diesels are in the neighborhood of 17:1 compression ratio vs gasoline (which will vary depending on use) anywhere from 7+:1 up to 16:1. The combustion chamber design in the head of the gasoline engine combined with the top of the piston shape is how the compression ratio is determined. 16:1 in gas (and pure methanol) engines is about max since higher than that will self combust causing detonation which is uncontrolled burn (similar to pre-ignition) which will cause engine damage up to and including catastrophic failure. Most diesels have a flat "combustion chamber" in the head and the top of the piston is then the combustion "chamber".
Diesels just naturally have more power as they have higher compression than gasoline (and other fuels excluding nitro-methanol which is whole nother can o worms).

There are *some* variables to the above, like propane, but that's a whole nother can o worms as well.

Turbo's increase the amount of air in the engine by forcing air into the cylinder, regardless of fuel type.
But, with any type fuel the more air in the cylinder the more fuel should be introduced (to maintain cylinder temp so pistons aren't over heated which is caused by running lean (not enough fuel) which just naturally equates to higher power numbers, regardless of fuel.

 

[Gdjjr]

Good chassis dyno video- I didn't hear them say what the numbers are, but, typically 410ci Sprint Car engines are 900 +/- HP at the "flywheel"- the car has to weigh 1400lbs after the race with the driver on board.



Correction he said 850 to 900 hp at the wheels

 

[Sinister]

I’ve heard that the mpg with 3.5 and 67 speed transmission drops terribly when it’s actually towing anything and because of the aluminum everything they’re pretty bad in the snow.

Not sure about my source though. He’s kinda stupid sometimes.

 

[Duck]

I’ve heard that the mpg with 3.5 and 67 speed transmission drops terribly when it’s actually towing anything and because of the aluminum everything they’re pretty bad in the snow.

Not sure about my source though. He’s kinda stupid sometimes.

I bet that 67 speed trans is heavy af though

 

[Ontario Outlaw]

I still don’t get the appeal of mini-trucks

I mean I guess they’re ok. But then people try to toe with them, and complain how poorly they toe

Or they complain how small the box is

Or complain how small the backseat is.

It’s a mini-truck. What did you expect.

 

[Sinister]

I still don’t get the appeal of mini-trucks

I mean I guess they’re ok. But then people try to toe with them, and complain how poorly they toe

Or they complain how small the box is

Or complain how small the backseat is.

It’s a mini-truck. What did you expect.

For the price you pay and the mileage you get I cannot fathom a justification for a mid size pickup.