help and knowledge for best puller

[Will]

I don't think Honda ever built a grain truck.

To me towing is you hook up whatever trailer you are going to use and go take it somewhere. The guy that started this thread is presumably looking for a truck to haul an RBV on a trailer. Maybe 5,500-7,000# depending on the trailer. I often go 400 miles to wheel. I often go over mountains. Nothing would please me more than to have you put your Ranger on a trailer and hook it to your F350 and convoy to Kentucky next time I go down there. You can say bad things about my 6.2 and pound your chest over your 300 or 400. The first 7% grade is going to show what's what. And we'll see who gets there first and who burns the most money in gas--never mind the price of diesel right now. Those are relevant things to this discussion. I already have years and thousands of miles with this truck doing exactly what I stated and I know exactly what my truck can do.

So lets do it. I'll let you know when and we'll spend a weekend down there doing a little work for Sparkz and get some camping in.

And I'm not an asshole. I'm a nice guy. We just differ in opinion and we shouldn't be getting angry about it.

 

[thegoat4]

Yeah well i think your an asshole. Yeah I said it.

Ban me.

Im sick of not being able to voice my opinions without you coming up with some damn contridiction to everything....

Dude, as much as you have the right to voice your opinion, he has the right to voice his.

And in my opinion, he's generally more informative than you are, doesn't throw tantrums, and knows how to spell. Once you're through being mad you should try to learn from him.

 

[2manyfords]

300 I6 to a 3.5L Pilot engine... completly different animals.

Yes the Honda engine would hand the 300 it's ass in a drag race but pulling all day long I doubt the 3.5L would hang on and the 300 could run all day at WOT... IMHO

 

[chittybangbang]

I don't think Honda ever built a grain truck.

Just think if Honda made a real worktruck...I'd buy one over a Ford any day.

 

[ZMan]

Dustin..

The 300 and 400 were good pullers IN THEIR TIME. Their time ended DECADES ago. You can't compare them to anything modern, like a 99-03 Powerstroke. They're old technology, get with the times man.

Sure, when you compare a 96 460 to a 96 7.3, some would rather have the 460. But compare it to any diesel made recently, you'd rather have the diesel. I've put a few thousand miles on a couple '94 460s and they pull a load, and got 7mpg doing it. Not really anything to write home about in my opinion. With the aftermarket available today I would MUCH rather have the 7.3, a couple upgrades and you're light years ahead of the 460 in terms of power AND mileage. Unfortunatly you pay more outright for a diesel now because everyone wants one.

 

[predator]

not to mention that diesels tend to last longer and hold more value, i see early 80's dodges with the cummins still getting 5-6k around here and they get 20 mpg, and there is alternative fuel options, biodiesel, WVO, they will even run on gas if they really have too...the best engines in the world dont have spark plugs.....

 

[ArcticRaiders]

From my experience of using a truck to pull and as a DD I think a 95 Ford F-350 with the 7.3 powerstroke in it with the banks turbo system is a great way to go. This truck was designed and used to pull a trailer with harleys on it around the US then my friend purchased it and uses it more as an everyday driver in Alaska. I borrowed it for awhile when I didn't have a vehicle and I was impressed with the fact it was getting around 18mpg. Also everything we seemed to pull wouldn't put any strain on it. I used it to pull my ranger from Alaska to Colorado about 3 years ago and the mpg did not change. And not to mention it has a 300gallon tank mounted in the bed that we easily got all the way through Canada on before we had to refuel with any gas, and it still didn't change the mpg of the truck. This was the second 95 F-350 I dealt with as my father had one too but didn't have the banks turbo system on it. I know it was also the main truck used up on the Northern Slope in Alaska but I haven't kept up on that so I am not very sure what they use now. But I would recommend a 95 F-350 whether or not it had the banks turbo system on it.


p.s. I also saw someone run a low 10 second at a local dragstrip. Though a couple weeks later he blew the engine.

 

[predator]

its cool to see a 10,000 pound truck beat the snot out of these 2500 pound cars and then drive themselves home afterwards!!!!

 

[Will]

I spent way too much time on this but it does a decent job of showing the difference between these vehicles. The first graph shows the torque curves of the best low-rpm specs I could find for the 300-6 superimposed over the Honda 3.5 in the 2005 Pilot. I think it's what you'd expect from a modern 4-valve motor with variable valve timing, variable intake geomety and 90 less cubic inches--it gives up a chunk of low rpm torque and lays waste above 2500rpm.

Now, you add the vehicle to the motor. The granny gear of the 300 would be somewhat offset by the torque converter of the auto, but I left it off because I don't know what the curve would look like. Nevermind, it doesn't matter in the end. What does matter is that a race above 20mph, doesn't matter the weight, the Honda will easily win. The Honda will get any load moving--with the converter it will have 4,400ft# of torque at a dead stop with the pedal to the floor compared to 5,700ft# for the Ford as most converters give a 2:1 torque multiplication at stall. Then the Ford will pull away until it reaches about 20mph, and the Honda will be coming for it after that. I can't put a time function on a 2D graph like this, but it wouldn't be long before the Honda went by. And with a 2.73 ratio in the axle or in a truck without the granny gear it would be even less of a race.

In this graph, whoever has the most torque at a given mph has a greater acceleration at that mph. The Ford is the clear winner below 20mph, above 20mph, the Honda will pass it up. the baseline is ZERO foot lbs, so the Ford truck has twice the torque at the wheels for a bit (not accounting for the TC of course) and the Honda has twice for a lot. And what is also interesting to note--the Honda doesn't shift into second until 48mph--which says a lot for its powerband.

I attached a doc from my spreadsheet.

No Honda did not design this to tow heavy stuff anyore than an Explorer is meant to. But with a HD tranny behind it it would do fine in a grain truck. If you look at where you shift, the little chip of rpm doesn't mean much. At 2500rpm where you might cruise down the road, the 3.5 makes more torque than the 300-6. And accelerating hard, it has such a long powerband it will never fall down below 3800 anyway--which is why I attached that doc so you could see the shift revovery points.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Wow, Will needs some extra credit or something for all that, but I can't help but think doing 48 mph in first gear would be little hard on things. What kind of RPM's that thing turning at that speed? There has to be a rev limiter or something in there after a certain point.

At any rate if you are pulling a RBV around with a 3/4 or 1 ton truck and are not getting a diesel a 6.8 V-10 will make a fool out of just about anything else (including some diesels). Sure they get 12-14 mpg, but then most diesels are hoping for upper teens now after the low sulfer fuel came out, and that stuff is already bumping $4.00 per gallon in places now. The new ones make more power than some of the competitors diesels, and are quicker off the line with a load than their diesel counterpart (powerstroke) and can maintain speed just as well. All they are is a 5.4 with two more cylinders, so they are still a fairly robust engine that just won't quit pulling.

 

[Will]

The Honda revs to 6300 on its own before it shifts. It likes it. I wouldn't drive it there all the time, but you bet your ass I would to win a bet with it. It's a suprising little motor.

You are saying a V10 is quicker with a load than a Powerstroke? I don't think I'm going to jump on that bandwagon. It's a beast, but it's 200ft# down. If I had to have a gasser, I would have to get a V10 or even a 5.4. I like those motors because they are real truck motors--not short stroke things meant to boast big numbers. I want the engine to run it's best right at cruising rpm. But no gasser is a match for one of the newer diesels. 650ft# is way out of the league of any gasser ever made.

LINK

Could be how it is controlled though if you have direct experience. Driving Sam's 2002 7.3 diesel I was a little disappointed driving it with the pedal. I'm used to stomping and going. But when you turned the cruise control on, it definately came to life. They take a lot of fuel away from you when you use the pedal on his truck. You can't even hold a hill without downshifting. But when you thumb the cruise on you don't even notice the hills.

I have noticed no difference in fuel economy with low sulpher. It doesn't smell as bad and the price is a little higher. Gas is higher now too though.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Darn, I forgot about the new 6.4, I was still stuck on the 6.0 which only has about 100 more. Considering the weight difference it could be plausable. I haven't been around either, just talked to people. Diesel here is about where gas was 2 weeks ago pricewise, for some reason it has been going down lately.

Here is the best I can muster, I don't have all those fancy charts.
http://www.fordf150.net/2007/2007-ford-f250-superduty-specifications.php

 

[rusty ol ranger]

5000lbs isnt shit for anything though will, espically a 1 ton of any vintage......a BII is not enough to judge on somethings towing abilty.

My 400M pulled a 2000 F150 Ext Cab 4x4 with a lift and 35in tires up to traverse city. Granted thie hills arnt as steep as in the rockys, but it didnt even know it was back there.

I guarentee with a BII on a Tandem you wouldnt notice a difference from empty with either truck, your 6.2L or my 400. The only difference would be my Dually would ride better with the extra weight.

Will...also.....i dont have my 83 F150 anymore, i have my 96 and as much as i hate to say it the EFI 300's make a lil more horses then the Carbed ones.....but torque is roughly the same, and those numbers you got are dilluted espically for torque.

Hook a backhoe, or bulldozer, or a mudtruck behind that 3.5L and behind my 300, aim them up a steep hill, and then we'll see what the true truck motor is.

.....and like stated eariler, I could run 100% throttle in 1st gear up a 5 mile grade all day long and not harm my 300....do that with your 3.5L, the oil pressure needle will be spun clear around.

Also....another thing that makes Diesels a bad choice, most of the country is going to low sulpher fuel, meaning, its hard on the older ones injector pumps and valves, increasing matience costs.

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

I like making charts because it helps visualize things.

Honestly, I don't care about what would win. I just don't like homerism.

For me there are two things I want in a tow vehicle.

#1--make it as cheap as possible to operate. Anything under 20mpg empty stresses me. We have one new family car and I don't want another payment.

#2--I want to drive 5 over everywhere I go and I do not want to shift down for hills. I like to get there, not hold the steering wheel watching school busses blow past me on hills.

Otherwise, I don't care what it is. It's my own experience that the 6.2/6.5 with a turbo offers the best combination. It's a humble truck. But it meets all of my criteria. I can understand people have heard of bad experiences but I don't care. In fact, it keeps the parts cheap.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I like making charts because it helps visualize things.

I appreciate it too, I just wish stuff like that was more available, just showing where the peak is at doesn't really show much of the whole picture.