Automatic or manual for towing

[Will]

Well, I don't think you're stupid. But if you knew me personally, we would have an entirely different relationship. We would be friends because we are both straight shooters--that's why we argue. The difference is I demand facts and evidence; I'm not a romantic. You know you are. I repect that because I also appreciate some things as art forms. I do like the things that you like. 300-6s, carbs and big-blocks and NP435s. The difference is, you think they are better. I see them as relics. Not without use, but relics. You could watch an Accura TL blow the doors off of a Boss 302 Mustang in a quater-mile and not accept the result. I will support my argument with documents or tests. I'm willing to be proven wrong--and have been. Then I figure out why I was wrong, not call foul at the results. I don't present my feelings as information. I hate these arguments, but since its all on record, I can't let ignorance (it means lack of knowledge, not stupid) go. For instance, the TV cable is extremely easy to set correctly and you are right; if it isn't set correctly it will toast the tranny quickly.

I do not look for trouble. I am out to get nobody. My first commitment is to the truth though. I have no feelings for any machine. I do not know what made you how you are or what made me how I am. But if we were each given something different to put in each hand and told to pick the best thing, we would each pick the opposite thing. And I would be right. I do not let anything clutter my mind.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Maybe we would be friends...i dunno. Truthfully i have no problem with you besides the fact you seem to think anything over 5 years old is junk, unless its got a bowtie and a 6.2.

Ive had alot of bad experinces with automatics...one with a manual (it was in a 4x4 87 Ranger my buddy had with the POS MItsu), but one compared to 20 or so with autos (mainly 700R4's and AOD's).

I personaly had an Escort with a POS auto that i had rebuilt 4 times, an 94 E150 with an auto that was rebuilt 3 times, my dad had a 94 F250 he had rebuilt twice, my buddy had a 92 GMC he had rebuilt 5 times (one time went out with a load of 500lbs in the bed), finally put a TH 350 in it and it held for long enough to sell the truck.
These are just a few examples. Ive never, EVER besides once had/seen a stick shift go out, and that is under very hard use.

As far as Carbs and big blocks and 4sp's. Pick up a hot rod magazine when they run an article about old road tests. Some of those cars were cranking out high 12's from the factory on Polyglass tires. Put some decent rubber under there and they would have no problem running with any modern "sports car", atleast in the 1/4 mile.

Its true, i dont come up with many facts to support whatever, but im not a liar and i dont have time to spend endless hours digging up facts. Truthfully its boreing. I state what i know and if you dont believe me im sorry.

Alot of the dyno sheets you post look like ones from desktop dyno anywyas...no offense, but you can input numbers into that program to look anyways you want. I could take an S2000 engine and make it look like it had the low end of a 460.

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

Desktop dyno? I don't know what that is. I post stuff from the factory tests. I prefer side by side tests though.

 

[racsan]

ive had one manual trans failure, my '93 ranger lost 2nd gear @ 80K. but it had low fluid level when i bought it. ive seen several auto failures myself, they have their place, but im still a bit leary of them. one place i wouldnt want a stick is plowing snow. i do think overall a manual will go many more miles than a auto before needing a rebuild. bands wear a little every time it shifts, they "eat" themselves up over time, little by little. i also think the old-school 3 speed auto were much more trouble free than the newer electronically controlled overdrives. seems like a C-6 or TH400 would last forever while a E4OD or TH700R4 might last the life of a vehicle or crap out every 50K. seems a shame that alot of new trucks are only available with a automatic, and floor-shift at that! i still morn the passing of the 300 as a production engine too.

 

[Will]

When you had a 6 cylinder 25 years ago everyone made fun of you and gave you wedgies. Now, everyone thinks they are the bees knees.

It's the femaninization of society.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

or...


its record high gas prices and the fact that todays 6 cylinders make more power and get better mileage than yesterdays v-8s

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Said it once ill say it again. Ill put a 300 against any 302 or 305 thats stock, not in a drag race, but for pullin.

later,
Dustin

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Well, considering a stock 302 produces more torque AND horsepower than a 300... I would have to say the 302 would make the better tow rig.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

10ftlbs at 1000+RPM more.

Drive both of them...numbers dont tell the whole story.

At the 300's peak of 1600RPM (or 2000 for EFI ones), its making 265ftlbs....at that low RPM's i doubt a 302 is making 200.

later,
Dustin

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Okay, so run a slightly higher rear end ratio. You then allow the 302 to reach its torque sooner while multiplying those +10lb-ft even more. Plus, the 302 won't puke at highway speeds.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the 300 really does have an impressive torque curve, comparing a 302 and a 300 is really apples and oranges IMO. the 300 is more comparable to a smaller deisel in that the torque comes on fast and it pukes out on the top end.

either are good motors, i just dont think they should be compared to one another when they both have completely different intentions in life.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Not really fair either though.

You could get a 2.3L to outpull a 4.0L if you gave the 2.3L 5.13's and the 4.0 3.08's.

The only way to fairly compare engines is in identical trucks (same gears, trans, everything), and you take a 302 with 3.55's or a 300 with 3.55's and that 300 will outpull it everytime.

I do agree though, they arnt the greatest above 55MPH. But like wicked said, the 300 was designed to be a slow spinning, grunt machine and the 302 was designed to be a high whinding perfomance engine.

Compare the 300 to other "Fullsize" 6 cylinders like the 4.3L, and the *puke* 4.2L, the 292 and the slant 6, the 300 is head and shoulders above those engines.

later,
Dustin

 

[fastpakr]

Not really fair either though.

You could get a 2.3L to outpull a 4.0L if you gave the 2.3L 5.13's and the 4.0 3.08's.

The only way to fairly compare engines is in identical trucks (same gears, trans, everything), and you take a 302 with 3.55's or a 300 with 3.55's and that 300 will outpull it everytime.

I do agree though, they arnt the greatest above 55MPH. But like wicked said, the 300 was designed to be a slow spinning, grunt machine and the 302 was designed to be a high whinding perfomance engine.

Compare the 300 to other "Fullsize" 6 cylinders like the 4.3L, and the *puke* 4.2L, the 292 and the slant 6, the 300 is head and shoulders above those engines.

later,
Dustin

Requiring the same gear ratios is absolutely RETARDED.

Select the gear ratios that are right for each truck. How it ought to be configured on the street is what matters.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Granny low is not a "Barnyard gear"

Its a "clutch saver" gear.

Ive used granny low all time in my 78 when starting off with a heavy load. Not that i couldnt take off in second i just dont see the point in doing that to the clutch. You can shift out of granny 1st while rolling. You just cant shift into it (unless you double clutch and pray)

Also, most of the 4sp granny lows have a low reverse gear as well, which really saves the clutch when trying to back a heavy trailer up.

Ill take a 4sp over an automatic anyday. Will the only reason you think an auto is better is because you have one. Dont get me wrong the TH400 is probely the best or second best slushbox ever made (Rivaled only by the C6), but i have seen automatics grenade when used hard, with a stick shift you'll lose a clutch first, which is better then losing the whole tranny.



Its not the converter. Its the low end torque of that 6.2L letting itself be known. I gurantee with my 78 Ford with the T18 i could do the same thing from a dead stop, the only time i would be at a disadvantage is if we both started up that hill in second gear, cause your auto can downshift to 1st on a roll, my 4sp cant (unless i get lucky), in that case ill floor it, open the secondaries, and that old 400 will grunt its way up the hill.

With an automatic you dont really get full lugging abilty of the engine. Its really limited by the holding power of the fluid, clutch packs etc. With a stick shift its limited by the clutch, but i trust a clutch to grab more then a fluid coupling.

Also, to set the record straight, the M5OD does not have the lowest ratio of all 5sp trannys in rangers, the TK5 does with a 3.96 1st.

Truthfully, i think O/D in worthless in a work truck. Your not supposed to pull anything in that gear and if your using the truck the way it was ment to be used then you dont use that gear anyways and most O/D autos are weaker then there 3spcounterparts.

later
Dustin

The creaper 4spd for all practicality is a 3 speed. Fully loaded my dad's '80 one ton still rarely needs first, and I would almost swear that reverse is even slower than first. That is fine if all you ever do is tow, but it is extremely annoying as you cruise down the highway with your engine beating its guts out trying to do the speed limit. My dad's truck is a service truck first and foremost loaded down with tools, it desperatly needs an overdrive for highway travel. Pulling the gooseneck with a load, no you wouldn't need it but hauling whatever it can haul in the back or the empty trailer (before or after a delivery) it feels like it needs one.

The torque converter is a power mulitplier and makes a fool out of a clutch. We have a Case 800 with Case-O-Matic, pretty much has a standard tranny but with a TQ in place of the clutch, it starts out unlocked and once you get things moving you flip a lever and the TQ locks up into direct drive. We also have a 830 Case, same thing but with a slightly bigger engine and a standard clutch, the 800 will out lug the 830 starting a load, and like Will said it is variable with the throttle, rev it up and it builds more pressure and feels like you let out on the clutch a little more. Both are diesels and the 830 has a bigger motor (and bigger sheetmetal). Case later sold the design to Caterpillar.

When Case came out with the design they took the leading competitor's tractor (I think it was a Super M) with their rated plow and socked it down in the ground until they stalled it. The shut the switch off, got the Case with a torque converter and its rated plow, plowed around the foundered tractor, hooked a chain on it and it started the whole rig with the Farmall's engine still in gear and both plows in the ground.

Our 830 in front, 800 in rear, to stay on topic the JD 4430 to the side was just happening to be getting a clutch (just by chance, it is the only picture I have of the two tractors together):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/85_Ranger/Tractor Ride/Picture146.jpg?t=1233131734

its kind of funny that the local ford dealership can keep TWO transmission guys busy all day long replacing/repairing auto transmissions under warranty (read: not lack of maintenance), when we rarely (as in once) had 5 speeds in for R&R's.

Now that you can only really get a manual in a Mustang or a Superduty that isn't that fair of a comparison. If every manual that went off the lot blew up you would probably still be working on more autos.

or...


its record high gas prices and the fact that todays 6 cylinders make more power and get better mileage than yesterdays v-8s

But with todays economy I would rather have the higher fuel bill of yesterdays V-8 over the payments of todays V-6, or even my not quite yesterday's V-8.

 

[Ozwynn]

Well, considering a stock 302 produces more torque AND horsepower than a 300... I would have to say the 302 would make the better tow rig.

a 302 make for a really shitty tow rig. a 351 is an improvement.

small blocks are a waste of space that is better served by a big block or a slow revving 6cyl for towing anything over 5000 pounds.