Automatic or manual for towing

[racsan]

a 302 isnt bad with 4.10's dad had a '89 bronco with a 302, creeper 1st 4 speed and 3.55's that pulled a 24' travel trailer on a regular basis. did the job, he replaced it in '96 when they got a 27' trailer with a new 351/E4OD bronco. while its a better tow vehicle, when not towing the 302 '89 was much better with fuel consumption. the 300 is a excellent motor, makes its power down low, lots of torque. wish it could (easily) be put in a ranger chassis. we had a '74 2wd F250 with the creeper 1st 4 speed and 3.73's , did nearly everything we asked of it. retired in '91 because the cab mounts were so bad that the steering became impossible. it was replaced by a '77 with a 400, C6, and 4.10's full-time 4wd. the snowplowing beast, and 9 mpg, no matter how lightly you drove it.

 

[Will]

When I say towing, I don't mean pulling. I mean you send that fawker up the on-ramp, merge into traffic and stay in traffic. A 300-6 pulls just fine. It's got a nice feel to it.

And it absolutely sucks when you try to take it up the on ramp with anything more than a riding mower on a utility trailer. It doesn't have any stinkin POWER. Torque is motionless, it needs a time element to bring it alive.

Remember this picture?

It shows how much torque is available at any give speed between a Honda Ridgeline and a typical F150. Clearly, the F150 is the superior puller because of it's barnyard gear. But guess what--the F150 is in the way before the first intersection is done with. Also, I did not take into account the torque converter, which is very loose on the Honda.

I'm not inventing this shit. I'm trying to present the truth in a way you can understand it. Anywhere over 18mph, everybody stomps the gas in their best gear, doesn't matter what you have hitched to it--that is irrelevant--the Honda has more the torque. From a stop, the F150 has more.

As to owning an auto--yes, my current truck does have one--by choice. But my B2 is a manual and my Honda Civic is a manual and my RV (converted International DTA360 schoolbus) is a manaul. But I have already stated my extensive professional offroad experience and having used both tranny types--I reject the reasons you put forth for clutches being better than torque converters, Dustin.

 

[07rangersport]

When I say towing, I don't mean pulling. I mean you send that fawker up the on-ramp, merge into traffic and stay in traffic. A 300-6 pulls just fine. It's got a nice feel to it.

And it absolutely sucks when you try to take it up the on ramp with anything more than a riding mower on a utility trailer. It doesn't have any stinkin POWER. Torque is motionless, it needs a time element to bring it alive.

Remember this picture?

It shows how much torque is available at any give speed between a Honda Ridgeline and a typical F150. Clearly, the F150 is the superior puller because of it's barnyard gear. But guess what--the F150 is in the way before the first intersection is done with. Also, I did not take into account the torque converter, which is very loose on the Honda.

I'm not inventing this shit. I'm trying to present the truth in a way you can understand it. Anywhere over 18mph, everybody stomps the gas in their best gear, doesn't matter what you have hitched to it--that is irrelevant--the Honda has more the torque. From a stop, the F150 has more.

As to owning an auto--yes, my current truck does have one--by choice. But my B2 is a manual and my Honda Civic is a manual and my RV (converted International DTA360 schoolbus) is a manaul. But I have already stated my extensive professional offroad experience and having used both tranny types--I reject the reasons you put forth for clutches being better than torque converters, Dustin.

I have to dispute that graph. First of all the ford has a 3.50 rear end ratio while the honda has 4.4. That is a HUGE difference in itself. Second My dad used to tow a 21 foot travel trailer that weighed around 5000# loaded with a 1980 f-250 300-6 4 spd. That truck dragged the trailer ANYWHERE it wanted. Granted the 300 doesn't have much in the top end, but getting the load moving is most of the battle. It doesn't take much power to keep the truck and trailer moving once it is up to speed. O yeah the truck had 3.55 gears. Pretty sh!tty gears for towing. Yes I agree that the 300 is a pulling motor. But that same 300 will pull 5000# with no complaints, it's a workhorse. Try doing that with a honda.

 

[Gotta_gofast]

I have to dispute that graph. First of all the ford has a 3.50 rear end ratio while the honda has 4.4. That is a HUGE difference in itself. Second My dad used to tow a 21 foot travel trailer that weighed around 5000# loaded with a 1980 f-250 300-6 4 spd. That truck dragged the trailer ANYWHERE it wanted. Granted the 300 doesn't have much in the top end, but getting the load moving is most of the battle. It doesn't take much power to keep the truck and trailer moving once it is up to speed. O yeah the truck had 3.55 gears. Pretty sh!tty gears for towing. Yes I agree that the 300 is a pulling motor. But that same 300 will pull 5000# with no complaints, it's a workhorse. Try doing that with a honda.

The reason the ridgeline is geared so steep is because of its ability to use the gear. If you dropped a steep gear ratio like that in the 300, it would puke out because of the 300's terrible midrange-upper rpm.

 

[Will]

That is the gear about every F150 of the era had.

A Ridgeline will have no trouble with 5,000#.

Getting it moving from a stop isn't a problem. Keeping it going on a level grade isn't a problem. Keeping it going 70mph on the interstate up a grade IS a problem. It's a horsepower problem, by definition. I don't understand why people fail to see that. Guess what? 250hp is MORE that 120hp. Over twice as much. That's real. Horsepower IS torque with a time factor involved. Torque is stationary. Torque, at a measured distance and time is horsepower. These Hondas are meant to put out the torque where it is needed--on the ground. If you are expecting some peaky thing that you can't feel the push, you are mistaken. Our Pilot will throw you back in the seat. It's a heavy, sturdy car and I am up to a towing competition--with a 5,000# limit because it's my wife's car. I have a constant 6%, one mile grade nearby. But we've been through this for years. It's boring.

 

[fastpakr]

Exactly - gears in any vehicle are (or at least should be) selected to match the engine's RPM range with the needed road speed. With a 300I6 and a 4 speed trans, 3.50's are about as short as you can go and still run on the highway at all. To put those same 3.50's in the Ridgeline or limit the F150 to 50mph with the 4.40's would cripple the vehicles. Arguing that the 4.40's are an advantage/handicap one way or the other is meaningless. Each set is correct in its application.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have to dispute that graph. First of all the ford has a 3.50 rear end ratio while the honda has 4.4. That is a HUGE difference in itself. Second My dad used to tow a 21 foot travel trailer that weighed around 5000# loaded with a 1980 f-250 300-6 4 spd. That truck dragged the trailer ANYWHERE it wanted. Granted the 300 doesn't have much in the top end, but getting the load moving is most of the battle. It doesn't take much power to keep the truck and trailer moving once it is up to speed. O yeah the truck had 3.55 gears. Pretty sh!tty gears for towing. Yes I agree that the 300 is a pulling motor. But that same 300 will pull 5000# with no complaints, it's a workhorse. Try doing that with a honda.

3.5X gearing is super common for a Ford, and actually is better than some of the ratios they cooked up... I bet a fair amount of trucks had a higher ratio yet.

 

[TinyBear]

Honestly a lot of the pickup and Suv guys buy A lot more vehical than is needed to haul a load. People seem to opt to buy much larger car/truck with bigger engines than needed for the "JUST IN CASE" excuse. Truth of the matter is a lot of times that ends up costing one WAY more than it would to have rented a vehical if that just in case came true.

My IDEAL tow rig for my needs is what i bought. a 2008 Ranger 2wd Sport with a 3.0L V6 and an auto trans. It has plenty of grunt to tow two bikes around when needed and is plenty enuff for hauling my yard waste to the dump every few months.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Honestly a lot of the pickup and Suv guys buy A lot more vehical than is needed to haul a load. People seem to opt to buy much larger car/truck with bigger engines than needed for the "JUST IN CASE" excuse. Truth of the matter is a lot of times that ends up costing one WAY more than it would to have rented a vehical if that just in case came true.

you can say that again.

im right there with you man. when i purchase a vehicle, i purchase one that will best fit my needs. hense i have a ranger that hardly ever sees pavement unless it has a trailer hitched to it...and other then that i drive an escort.

 

[Will]

See that wide path going up the hill right there? That's not a road. That's a firebreak. It goes up 600' from the road at the bottom to the top. If you see the grid coordinates at the bottom there and type them in you will find yourself on Camp Pendleton. To the east of you two miles away is Los Pulgas, which is the home of the 11th Marines--I spent about 2.5 years of my 10 stationed there. I hiked, ran and drove all the hills there--and pretty much everywhere else on Pendleton. But that firebreak in particular was a lot of fun. It's nearly impossible to climb on all fours, let alone in a vehicle. I've been up it in a Hummer. At the top you can see the ocean. You have to stand on the seat to see and use the throttle lock. It's not like a twenty-foot scary climb where your wheels come up and you have a beer. It's 600 vertical feet all in one damn scary climb. You would not make it up that hill in a Jeep. There are holes from the dozers kicking out stones and one bounce and you are over backwards and it's hundreds of feet down the wrong way. If you get stopped for some reason and have to push in the clutch, you are probably dead.

 

[racsan]

ive always found the 3.73 ratio a good choice for most engines ive had. the few 3.55 ratios ive drove were fine as long as i wasnt pulling something. 4.10's are awesome pulling gears but really have the rpms up there if you have no overdrive.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 300 has the torque to deal with 3.55's, a 302 needs 4.10s to even compare.

My dad had a 94 F250 Regcab/longbox 2wd with a 300, E4OD, and 3.55 rear.

He hooked on a 4horse all steel gooseneck trailer, with 4 horses, (not sure of the weight, but probley up around 10K), and pulled it down the Turnpike no problem at 70MPH with the Air on and O/D engaged.

On ramps were a bit tricky ill admit, but from stop light to stop light you barely knew it was there.

How is torque stationary? Maybe with an engine on a stand it is, or while your ideling in park. But as soon as you drop it in gear that torque is turned into motion. Torque is a measure of how much "twist" you (or in this case, engines) can exert. If the engine cant exert the torque (twist) to move the trans, driveshaft, diff, axleshafts,and drive tires then your going no where.

Say your trying to break a bolt loose....is it harder to break it initally (this is like your engine moving it from a dead stop), or after its turning (this is while the vehicle is in motion). Of course your high revving jap engine is going to be faster then my 300, it'll turn 6500rpm, a 300 barely gets 4000. A 5.9L Cummins in a School bus has 190HP. Your pilot makes 265 or so right? So your pilot engine can move a school bus better then a cummins? Or are you going to try to say "diesel torque is different then gas torque".

I always find it curious you (will) pick the absoulute crappiest year of 300 to compare it to. You dont need much torque to keep things rolling.

I said before, 5000lbs on my F150 and your Pilot....you'll get me, no doubt. But the HEAVIER things get, the closer that 300 is going to come. You said it yourself, the 300 is stronger from a dead stop. That is the point where there is no momentum whatsoever, and its up to the engine to get it rolling.

Lets do my kind of tow test.....3 full gravity wagons, a steep hill, and a soft dirt corn field. Your bonsai mobile wont stand a chance.

Its ok though, ill get the last laugh 20 years from now when my F150 is still running strong and hauling around empty beer cans that used to be your pilot.

later,
Dustin

 

[TinyBear]

Well for once i gona agree with Rusty.

The Honda Pilot vs Ford F150 is kinda a silly comparison but for me id be much more comfy using the Ford in that application. See Unibody has a GREAT advantage over a body on frame pick up when it comes to road going handling. Unibody is a very Ridged design by nature BUT i fear that under HIGH load torquing situations that rigid unibody could experiance cracks after prolonged use were as the Tried and True Body on frame design has proven its self not only in pickups but were it really counts BIG RIG's partially due to that flex being their. Granted the Honda will probly NEVER see enuff TQ nore Load to cause this issue.

The other reason id choose the F150 over a Honda is if you were to start that little race mid way up that hill from a STOP id have more faith in the 300 getting the load going much easier than the Honda.

But honestly if i was towing 5000lbs up a 6% grade on a reg basis Neither the Honda nore Ford F150 would be my first choice. Id much rather find my self a older Diesel Truck, Preferably a 80's Ford with 6.9L or Mid 90s GM with 6.5L BOTH would need to be MODDED as the 6.9L have crappy heads and need a Turbo and the 6.5L have CRAP Injection Pumps (I have had 3 of em run away).

Either of these would get that load up a hill MUCH easier and quicker and get better mileage doing so. On top of that they would undoubtably last long under that use as well as either the honda or 300 ford. I personally had a 1994 F250 with a 7.3IDI turbo Diesel and for towing it was GREAT but i never did need that much truck. I can say with 5000lbs+ of gravel in a 1000lbs Trailer i was able to drive at 120km/hr up a LONG (2kms) 6% grade in overdrive and not loose any speed).

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Id put a 300 upagainst a 7.3 or 6.9 for longivety (sp?)

The 6.9L or 7.3L are both very unfair comparisions seeing as how they are a helluva lot larger then the 300.

But for the 300's size, and what it had to compete against (the 4.3L, 3.9L mopar, 292, 225, etc) it did awesome. Any inline 6 that can stick with a V8 for towing and last 300,000+ miles is a great engine.

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

Well for once i gona agree with Rusty.

The number of people on each side of an argument doesn't change the truth. The plain and simple truth is that more horsepower will win. A 300 is so shockingly lacking in power--half of the 3.5--that it stands no chance. It would be the stupidest bet ever made to bet the 119hp motor against the 255hp motor in any load situation.

Rusty, torque is measured without reference to motion. The dyno I worked with when my wife was doing her thesis was a giant electric motor that was floating and free to rotate. The thing that prevented it from rotating was a load cell--a weight scale. With the gas motor running (a 4.6 Ford in her case) you turn on the electric motor and measure the actual force that the gas motor is resisting the electric motor with. The load cell has no idea of anything but the weight that is pushing on it. That's how torque is measured there is no time or motion involved--it's a straight force measurement.

Horsepower is calculated from that force measurement. Horsepower is all about production. Torque doesn't do any work, it just shows a number. Horsepower does work. With a certain amount of horsepower, I can climb that hill with that load in a certain amount of time. My pretty green and red picture shows exactly what the 300-6 with the granny gear is better at than the Honda 3.5. Shrugging something into motion. After that, it's going to get it's ass kicked HUGE. The 3.5 gulps in huge amounts of air and burns huge amounts of fuel and converts it into a lot more power than the 300 can achieve. More than twice the amount. Your homerism would empty your wallet if you were willing to bet me.

The 3.5 has a huge transmission, huge radiator and it's easily equipped to deal with the power it makes. I would not enter it into a demolishion derby with an old F150, but it's a lot more of a vehicle than you give it credit for.