Gees Goob! what the hell don't you understand here?? The Ranger has 225ft/lbs of torque and reaches its peak torque at 2750rpms, While the Frontier reaches its peak torque of 200ft/lbs at 2800rpms, Do the damn math man@! The Ranger is the better puller and hauler here as far has engine/drivetrain are concerned. With the new 4.0 SOHC the weak 3.3 would have fallen even further behind, Walla! bandaid time from cash strapped Nissan, a supercharger to just meet the normally aspirated engines from other companies. The Rangers torque/HP curve is much better than the Frontier. While the Frontier only reaches 200ft/lbs at 2800rpms (I though cncman had posted 3000rpms??) The Ranger has already reached its peak Torque of 225ft/lbs at 2750rpms. Get a brain man, the Ranger has already yanked the boat out of the water while your Frontier is still struggling, easy enough for you? Oh, by the way, don't preach physics to me, you'll lose, unless of course your a teacher now of physics?? Yes, I do have brains, lots of them.. bring it on...
vince I brought it and you came out looking bad.You have shown you have no grasp nor understanding.No,I am not a techer of physics.I just know internal combustion engines and how and why they run. Just look at your last postyou fall all over yourself with nothing but drivel. Take for example,your claim on the hp/torque curves.We do not have them.I have not seen them on either truck.All we have is peak hp and peak torque.We do not have the graph. How do you figure the Ranger has a better torque curve? Show me the numbers at various rpms.Is the Ranger a flat curve?You do not know,so give it up.It is just a waste of time even trying to deal with a person who has no grasp of what he is talking about nor the ability to understand.
Got bbrains?You answered that,They are missing. LOL!!!!!!!!! LOOOOOOOOO oooooooooo seeeeeeer!!
Frontier gets 905 of it's twist at 1500 rpms,(i.e. at the low end where you need it). Great torque in this truck. It comes right at you when you with just a tap of the pedal. Towed my boat up a very steep and very slippery ramp the other night and the truck just grabbed and hauled with no effort.
I live in Denver, and there is going to be a 325xi. The AWD costs about $1,750 and I'll have to drive both to see if it's worth it vs. a 325i with snows (if the 325xi comes with sport tires, I'll need snows, anyway). I definitely think once I get it, my wife will learn to drive a stick real fast and may want me to drive her I30 (which would be OK occasionaly, as long as she doesn't think it's gonna be a regular thing).
Go for the AWD. You won't regret it. You won't have to get snows, so you'll save $500 right there. I'm sure you'd more than the inital $1,250 on the back end.
Plus, it should perform great in the winter, summer, or whenver the road is a bit slippery.
On which tires come with the AWD. If they are all-season, I won't need snows. If they are summer sport tires, I still will. You are probably right about the resale, though (although it's pretty tough to beat the resale on ANY 3 series right now).
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to test them both out. Poor me.
Twist and turn in the wind Nissan boys, the Frontier only has 200ft/lbs of torque. Keep twisting and turning those numbers to make 200ft/lbs at 2800rpms more than 225ft/lbs at 2750rpms. LOL! I notice gooba you've stopped with the physics, good choice. I proved you wrong, no buck up. The Ranger has a more torque to pull and haul or tow than your Frontier. Ok, the Frontier may be RATED for 5K lbs but I would put my money on the Ranger on which truck could tow a 3K load up a 7%grade faster...
So Vince, where are you numbers for the 4.0. I know they are a little better than the comparable 3.3.
But what does this say about you. All you do spout out crap right or wrong with no PROOF. WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS Vince? We all know you can't produce them.
All you play is a game of I say this and you say that. But no one has proved anything.
SHOW US THE CURVE for the 4.0. Use post 582 as a template because we know your too lazy to read everything and write an original response. Does how you act in these forums represent how you are in real life? Did you gloat to the Frontier guy when you looked under his truck about how bad of a purchase he made on his truck?
I don't even expect you to answer this post, because you probably won't read it. But hey, what can I do.
vince,I stopped with the physics because you did not understand it.I expected a higher level of understanding from you and when I failed to get that I tried a new approach.In essence the only thing you proved is your lack of understanding and knowledge. All you have is those 2 numbers vince.You have nothing else.YOU brought up the efficient use of hp and when I showed you that the Frontier was more efficient you conveniently forgot about that and went back to your usual torque schtick. I may try this one more time. You are correct that torque is the force that it takes to move the vehicle.Remeber that you can have torque present and if it does not move the object then no work is accomplished.Once the force moves the object then work is done.Once work is done then the calculations can be made on how far and how fast. It takes more force to move a vehicle at rest then it does in motion.You want less torque and more hp to maintain a high speed.
One last thing vince,you WANT to make your peak torque higher in the rpm range so that you can take advantage of the gearing.Otherwise you lose your mechanical advantage in the lower gears. Give it up vince.You are embarassing yourself more then you normally do.
And the crowd goes wild.vinnie,that had to leave a mark.Can you say woooooooooooooo?LOL!!!!!!!!
"you WANT to make your peak torque higher in the rpm range so that you can take advantage of the gearing. Otherwise you lose your mechanical advantage in the lower gears."
This is absolutely incorrect, especially for a truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle). Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
But, what would possibly be gained from running at a higher rpm (like you suggest with a higher peak)? You're just creating more engine wear and decreasing the engine's efficiency.
Just take a look at engines in semis. They require torque first and foremost. Most redline at 4000rpm or less.
This is absolutely incorrect, especially for a truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle). Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
No,I was correct.You are right in the fact that you want a flat torque curve.That way you get the most torque throughout the rpm range.Your statement about gearing is correct to a point. look at the Lightning you were talking about. The spec on the Lightning was 360 hp @ 4750 rpm and 440 ft/lbs of torque @ 3000 rpm.The truck has a rear end ratio of 3.55.The transmission gears break out as follows:
1st 2.71 2nd 1.53 3rd 1.00 4th 0.71
The ratios as they apply in each gear with the 295/75ZR-18 tire will follow.The tire dia is 28.452 inches.
1st 8.938 2nd 5.028 3rd 3.55 4th 2.88
When you take the numbers that Ford provides as far as performance and apply it you will see the difference. The only part that was posted was the max speed in each gear.The rpms was calculated based on tire dia and applicable gear ratios.
Now,if you plug in the numbers with the power band of 3000 rpms then you see a change.I used 3000 rpms because that is the peak torque that Ford gives.The peak torque is given at wide open throttle.
As you can see the higher up in the rpm range you go the faster you are able to go.
Your comparison with the semi engines is not really a valid comparison.True, they have alot of torque and about half the horsepower.They also are not designed to run usually above 3000 rpms and have 18 speeds to get there.Their power band is idle to 3000 rpms.It is very narrow and in order to keep it there they added the different gearing to keep the engine within that narrow power band.If they did not do that they would lose the torque multiplication of the gearing for pulling such heavy loads.This entails not just the transmission but a 2 speed axle and an under and overdrive.Putting something like this on a regular truck is not productive,nor would people like to shift 3 times going across an intersection.
But, what would possibly be gained from running at a higher rpm (like you suggest with a higher peak)? You're just creating more engine wear and decreasing the engine's efficiency.
From the perspective of engine wear you do not gain much.It will wear more at these rpms,but remember that they were designed to run there at times.The efficiency of the engine at speed is at its best there.You are getting the maximum that the engine can give you.If it cannot produce at the speed it was designed to give peak hp or performance then it is not efficient and needs to be repaired. As I had said earlier,when you look at drag racing,torque gets you started down the track,hp carries you the rest of the way.In Nascar,Mike Beam was asked about the difference in torque and hp and he said : When you go to Martinsville, you need a lot of torque. At Charlotte and places like that you need a lot of horsepower.
Now that I got that out,I want to ask why does it seem that the Nissan guys have to put up numbers and tech data and other people do not?i know I have posted explanations and data as well as other people and when it is all said then it starts to get taken apart.It would not be so bad if there was participation during the debate.I guess it sort of peeves me with comments like Uh no,You are incorrect etc.And it is ALWAYS the Nissan post that is wrong.NEVER vince ot VERY rarely a Ford guy.Where was your data at while that was going on?I hate to say this,and it is hard but I would rather deal with vince,at least he did participate although he is usually wrong and in a place only he knows about.Rod Serling has nothing on you vince.
I don't need numbers, statistics, or other technical data. It's just common sense. Throwing numbers at an argument doesn't make it correct.
There are three drawbacks to having a higher peak in torque for normal driving:
(1) You are running at a higher rpm and are causing more engine wear when running at a lower rpm.
(2) Your engine is less efficient. More rpm means more gas and more money out of your pocket.
(3) You have to wait longer for power off of idle. So, you'd be stuck on the boat ramp or out on a trail or at the home improvement store with 1500lbs of rock in the bed.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove with your example of a Lightning. I'm not quite sure how a drag racer with a truck bed really compares to how we use our trucks.
Yes, torque does peak at 3000rpm. But, it doesn't fall off like a stone as your analysis seems to suggest.
Power effeciency increases right up to its peak horsepower @4750rpm. Remember that whole "lifting a suitcase" example I posted a little bit ago? This is why at WOT, the tranny would shift at approximately 4750rpm. After those rpm, the amount of worked performed decreases creating a decrease in the rate of acceleration.
I don't need numbers, statistics, or other technical data. It's just common sense. Throwing numbers at an argument doesn't make it correct.
You are correct.I just wasted my time for nothing.Now and in all future debates numbers.technical data and statistics are not relevant nor will they be used. Common sense? You are right.My perspective on it is different then yours.What I was saying was common sense. 1)In order to make more torque and hp in an engine you have to change something in how it burns the fuel it is getting in the combustion chamber.It all boils down to how efficiently you burn the fuel at the top of the piston.You accomplish this in different ways.You can put longer rods in the engine which will give the engine more torque by having the piston stay at the top of the stroke longer,which results in a more efficient combustion.You also gain because it is also flowing more air/fuel into the cylinder.Another way is by changing the camshaft.To produce torque/hp at the lower rpm range you run a shorter lift longer duration camshaft.If you want to get more torque /hp out of the same engine you put a higher lift shorter duration camshaft in.It changes your efficiency and power band higher in the rpm range.It all depends on when you want your power. The key is in the gear factor.To stay in your power band and not have your torque drop off when you shift,you need to keep the rpms up.If you are towing a heavy load in your bed,and you take off in first gear,you wind the motor up to the peak torque rpm and you shift.What happens?Your engine lugs down and you have to try and gain it back.You push it to the floor and the truck picks up speed until you have to shift again.Your loss will be more pronounced because you have lost the torque multiplication of the lower gearing.A heavy enough load on a grade and you may not be able to pull it in a higher gear.The only way to alleviate that problem is by adding more gears to the truck.
You said:
I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove with your example of a Lightning. I'm not quite sure how a drag racer with a truck bed really compares to how we use our trucks.
Yes, torque does peak at 3000rpm. But, it doesn't fall off like a stone as your analysis seems to suggest.
I gave that as an example and illustration on hp and torque. I never said nor implied that the torque falls off like a stone.I just said that the torque does not get any better after that rpm,and that the hp is still rising.I thought I illustrated that pretty well considering I did not have the hp/torque curves to work with.
You said:
Isn't this EXACTLY what a debate is supposed to be?
If you are so offended by someone disagreeing with you and explaining why, then why are you on a board called "Frontier vs. Ranger"?
I am not offended by somebody disagreeing with me.I would ask you something else but you said that numbers,statistics,and technical data were to be eliminated. That being the case I could not expect you to present those things during the discussion.
So,I guess the bottom line on the discussion is common sense says that if you want the best performance from your truck's engine you run it at the higher rpm to maintain it in the power range.It also tells us that hp keeps building until it reaches it's peak while the torque starts to drop off.Common snese says that the engine runs it's most efficient at the peak rpms and not below.Anything below,you are wasting fuel and not burning it efficiently.If you were,you would not be able to reach the peak rpms.
Now that we have eliminated the technical data,numbers and statistics from the discussion then that changes the complexion of the debate.
cncman,you were right on the safety aspect of the Frontier.It is superior to the Ranger.You saw an accident with a Frontier and the guy walked away.Common sense says the Frontier is superoir to the Ranger.
mahimahi,you tow with your Frontier quite a bit and have no problems with it.That shows that the Frontier is a better tow platform.Common sense says that you would have had trouble and that you would not have bought it and towed with it if this was not the case.
The off road capabilities leaves no doubt that the Frontier is the better vehicle.I have driven both and the Frontier out performed the Ranger.The Ranger could not navigate the same terrain the Frontier did.Common sense says the Frontier is better.
Hp and torque.The Frontier is by far the better vehicle.It generates power through out the rpm range and does it with less engine.More power with less cc,common sense says Frontier has the better engine.
cthompson21,I like this alot better.Why clutter up the debate with all that trivial meaningless nonsense?
Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows that numbers and data can be manipulated to show any point.
I know this isn't court, but a prosecutor doesn't make a point and say it's common since, he has to show evidence to prove his point. Show some links to some credible resources about torque and maybe we can get this specific debate over with.
Gooba's last post shows that all the frontier owners have there wants satisfied by their purchase, but no one is going to change their choice. Anyways we know VINCE would never buy any thing except Ford (even if there was a undisputably cheaper, more reliable, more powerful, and ascetically pleasing (to Vince) alternative to the Ranger). Since he will only buy Ford, why argue with him? If Vince really wanted real power and was a true truck buff like he claims he would have got a full size, and not a compact truck.
You are correct to a point.True, numbers and statistics can be manipulated.I guess now the question is what constitutes a credible resource?Their numbers could be manipulated the same as anybody else.Besides,what is to say they are right and I am wrong? If you think I am wrong,show me where.Prove your point. My last post about common sense was meant to be saracastic.After proving my point in the debate,it turned to we do not need numbers etc and it all boils down to common sense. Your last paragraph was right on the money.
I'm not diputing you or anyone, but everyone that posts says they are right. While I side more with you and your posts, maybe a document from Ford or another dependable Autosite could finish the argument quicker.
I don't think anyone in this topic is qualified to say who is right or wrong. Vince may be in the tech field, but if I had to work with him, I'd have to hurt him (he's just this annal retentive arrogant guy who always has to be right).
My last paragraph in my last post is pretty good. In fact everytime VINCE posts something my reponse will include that. You'll notice in all his topics he plays in, Ford is always best, never does any product surpass a Ford product in any area and even you CTHOMPSON have to agree any manufacturer can't be best at everything (but you can be close).
Here's the VINCE Clause - We know VINCE would never buy any thing except Ford (even if there was a undisputably cheaper, more reliable, more powerful, and ascetically pleasing (to Vince) alternative to the Ranger). Since he will only buy Ford, why argue with him? If Vince really wanted real power and was a true truck buff like he claims he would have got a full size, and not a compact truck.
What's this? You just love to take what someone says and twist it into something else.
First, you made a statement.
Second, I said that I disagreed and explained why.
Third, you threw numbers at your statement that did not support your argument.
Fourth, I said that your example didn't relate to your point. You can just use your common sense (aka brain without using examples, numbers, statistics, etc...)
Fifth, you start flaming me.
If you had just said that it's best to have a broad powerband with constant or slightly increasing torque from idle to redline, I would have agreed with you.
But, you didn't.
If you'd actually like to continue to discuss this topic intelligently without the flames and smarta$$ remarks, I'd be happy to do so. If not, I'm through.
There's been way too much of that stupidity on this board from both sides, and I don't want to be involved with it.
I haven't seen a dyno from a stock OHV 4L. The dyno plots that I've seen are modded 4L's from the guys at www.fordranger.com.
I would think that most people who dyno their trucks have mods and pleanty of 'em.
It's been a while since I've read or posted over there. But, for anyone who's interested, I'm sure that you'd get some help in tracking down some data.
You said: First, you made a statement No,first vince made a statement,in fact numerous statements in relation to the "weak" 3.3L,as well as torque being the only thing that mattered.He explained his understanding of torque and hp.I then explained where his thoughts were wrong.As the debate progressed back and forth I tried to substantiate my statements.Now you have to remember that vince has been basically running with his normal rants and I did not see you enter into the debate when he made his statements.When you entered it was after I had posted some numbers to back up my statements. At that point you said:
Uh, no.
The Ranger outruns the Frontier from 0-60 and in the quarter. Even the current "weak" OHV 4L outruns the new S/C Frontier in both dashes. Plus, it'll tow more than either of them.
While you may want to take the scientific road to explain it, the simple fact is that the Ranger puts more power to the ground more efficiently than the Frontier.
I think you may be overlooking a few variables.
Now,I ask,did anybody ask you to back up those statements?No. You did come back and post:
In any case, horsepower does not exist without torque. (Torque can exist without horsepower) And: Without torque, you couldn't pick up that suitcase. Hence, you'd have no horsepower either. They're really just two different measurements about the force being applied.
Which is true to a point.It was well said.Torque can exist without horsepower but the rest of it is once you move it you have hp.The example of the suitcase was good.It also said that if the suitcase was bolted to the floor the torque was there but there was no movement.If you unbolted it then the torque was applied and you have hp.
Now vince,comes back and I explain some more things to him.You choose to reenter the debate after I had posted some things to back up my statements.You had nothing to say about vince's arguments and statements.
You reentered by posting:
This is absolutely incorrect, especially for a truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle). Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
I then attempted to show you how what I was saying translated into real numbers and how it worked with the gearing and power bands.
You decided to post:
I don't need numbers, statistics, or other technical data. It's just common sense. Throwing numbers at an argument doesn't make it correct.
I did not think I was throwing numbers at it.i was using it to illustrate it.
You posted:
Power effeciency increases right up to its peak horsepower @4750rpm. Remember that whole "lifting a suitcase" example I posted a little bit ago? This is why at WOT, the tranny would shift at approximately 4750rpm. After those rpm, the amount of worked performed decreases creating a decrease in the rate of acceleration.
That proves my argument.You stated it right there.Power is hp.You just gave the peak hp rpm.You had the transmission shift at the peak hp,not at the peak torque.My point exactly.The peak torque rpm was at 3000.You also said power efficiency.That is correct.The engine is the most efficient at the peak hp rpm.
You said:
Third, you threw numbers at your statement that did not support your argument.
Fourth, I said that your example didn't relate to your point. You can just use your common sense (aka brain without using examples, numbers, statistics, etc...)
Well,I think I already covered that.My numbers did support my argument and my example did relate.You stated it earlier.
As far as twisting the statements,I continued the debate based on the interpretation of the statements made.
Flame you?I did not think I did.I was saracastic yes.You have to remember that I was initially posting to vince's statements when you decided to enter the discussion.If you look back on the posts I do not recall ANY Ford person say enter into the debate when vince makes his statements.Only when a Nissan guy is trying to explain something to vince does a Ford person jump in and tear down the Nissan guy's statement.I guess I did not expect the posts from you that I got.I thought that you should have come into the debate when vince started.You see vince makes those short irritating wild statements and only a Nissan person refutes it.We usually go into an intelligent discussion and support our statements,and we get taken apart,but not vince.I thought you should have jumped in at what vince had to say.
I actually thought I was helping you to see my point of view.I see I was wrong.
I have no wish to get into a discussion with Vince. I disregard people who's only intent is to start flame wars and bashing on these boards. I was in no way implying that I agreed with his statements.
I was just voicing my opinion that I disagreed with your statements of:
(1) "Guess what, you eat the dust from a Frontier. While you are dropping off the Frontier is still pulling."
(2) "you WANT to make your peak torque higher in the rpm range"
Then, I stated why. I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with Vince's posts. I was (to an extent) ignoring them.
If you're offended by someone voicing their opinion about what you post on an open forum, why not just privately converse with Vince? His e-mail address is on his profile.
BTW, you don't need to worry about explaining horsepower vs. torque to me. I understand it quite well.
In simplest terms, an engine produces torque. Torque turns the wheels. Horsepower is the relationship of torque over time. As horsepower increases, the rate of acceleration (or amount of work performed) increases. Beyond the horsepower peak, acceleration slows (diminishing returns).
Different types of engines are produced to do different things. Big diesel engines like the ones in semis are made for maximum twist (high peak torque at low rpm). Race car engines are made for maximum horsepower (perform the most amount of work) in their operating range. The engines in consumer vehicles are somewhere in between. And, gearing (to an extent) can befit most engines to a certain purpose. It may not be cost effective or feasible in a consumer vehicle, but it is possible.
In my own truck, I would prefer for the engine to reach its peak torque at idle and remain there until redline. But, this isn't quite possible. So, I'll settle for a peak amount of torque at the upper end of my normal operating range (about 3K rpm) with as close to peak as possible from idle up to that 3K.
As for horsepower, I'm not too concerned. I'm running at about 190 at present, which is more than enough. I only like to do mods that increase efficiency too (gotta improve that lackluster mpg somehow).
After posting on here for six months or so I see a difference between myself and other on here. The difference I see is that I will disagree with a Nissan owner just as quickly as I would if it were an owner of another type of vehicle, if the point or fact was wrong. I think I've disagreed with keanec and croy2...but no hard feelings towards either one, as they have disagreed with me, no big deal. But I have yet see somebody in the Ford arenadisagree with each other. The way I see it is if you're wrong...your wrong. You know if a Ford guy posted right after a Vince post and said that he was wrong(if he was), wouldn't lessen that "Ford Guy's" support for the product he bought. I don't think that if I disagree with a fellow Nissan owner that my or his support for Nissan is lessened. So why won't a fellow Ford owner come out and disagree with Vince? I 'feel' that none of the fellow Ford owners agree with him because after he posts there's a 'silence' on the board from the rest of them. So I'm saying go ahead and be free...let it out we won't think less of you guys. In fact I'll have more respect for you because it shows that you have enough confidence in yourself you won't need his comments for help.
Man, sorry guys, I have about fallen asleep the last 25 posts or so! JK! but I do think everyone has made their points on what torque and HP is and what they do. Mahi, actually I have seen several posts where ford owners disagree with each other, when someone that owns a ranger comes in and talks about their bad experience with rangers, (loki something or other) Certain ford guys disagree and say it is just their bad luck, or there is only a small batch of bad 4.0l's that have to be replaced within 20,000 miles. Or they should just live with it for the privellage of owning a ford!
YOu guys take it easy on CT, if he bails out, we won't have any intelligent ford arguments! Oh BTW, I don't know if you guys have seen the artists rendering of the new fullsize truck from Nissan, actually, I don't think it is officially released, my service manager's rep from Nissan emailed it to him, I will try to post it somewhere on monday. It really, really looks good, I think everyone will agree, very clean lines, but kind of classy, only thing I am not sure of is the roofline looks like it steps up in the back like the Xterra, I don't see the point there, also shouldn't we be on frontier vs ranger III by now????
I think I'm the only other Ford guy besides Vince to post on this board. If you'll go back, you'll actually see things that I disagree with Vince on. I don't post to him directly because in the past my questions and comments were by and large ignored.
Comments
Yes, I do have brains, lots of them.. bring it on...
Just look at your last postyou fall all over yourself with nothing but drivel.
Take for example,your claim on the hp/torque curves.We do not have them.I have not seen them on either truck.All we have is peak hp and peak torque.We do not have the graph. How do you figure the Ranger has a better torque curve? Show me the numbers at various rpms.Is the Ranger a flat curve?You do not know,so give it up.It is just a waste of time even trying to deal with a person who has no grasp of what he is talking about nor the ability to understand.
Got bbrains?You answered that,They are missing.
LOL!!!!!!!!! LOOOOOOOOO oooooooooo seeeeeeer!!
Plus, it should perform great in the winter, summer, or whenver the road is a bit slippery.
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to test them both out. Poor me.
But what does this say about you. All you do spout out crap right or wrong with no PROOF. WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS Vince? We all know you can't produce them.
All you play is a game of I say this and you say that. But no one has proved anything.
SHOW US THE CURVE for the 4.0. Use post 582 as a template because we know your too lazy to read everything and write an original response. Does how you act in these forums represent how you are in real life? Did you gloat to the Frontier guy when you looked under his truck about how bad of a purchase he made on his truck?
I don't even expect you to answer this post, because you probably won't read it. But hey, what can I do.
All you have is those 2 numbers vince.You have nothing else.YOU brought up the efficient use of hp and when I showed you that the Frontier was more efficient you conveniently forgot about that and went back to your usual torque schtick.
I may try this one more time.
You are correct that torque is the force that it takes to move the vehicle.Remeber that you can have torque present and if it does not move the object then no work is accomplished.Once the force moves the object then work is done.Once work is done then the calculations can be made on how far and how fast.
It takes more force to move a vehicle at rest then it does in motion.You want less torque and more hp to maintain a high speed.
One last thing vince,you WANT to make your peak torque higher in the rpm range so that you can take advantage of the gearing.Otherwise you lose your mechanical advantage in the lower gears.
Give it up vince.You are embarassing yourself more then you normally do.
And the crowd goes wild.vinnie,that had to leave a mark.Can you say woooooooooooooo?LOL!!!!!!!!
This is absolutely incorrect, especially for a truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle). Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
But, what would possibly be gained from running at a higher rpm (like you suggest with a higher peak)? You're just creating more engine wear and decreasing the engine's efficiency.
Just take a look at engines in semis. They require torque first and foremost. Most redline at 4000rpm or less.
truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm
as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle).
Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing
can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
No,I was correct.You are right in the fact that you want a flat torque curve.That way you get the most torque throughout the rpm range.Your statement about gearing is correct to a point.
look at the Lightning you were talking about.
The spec on the Lightning was 360 hp @ 4750 rpm and 440 ft/lbs of torque @ 3000 rpm.The truck has a rear end ratio of 3.55.The transmission gears break out as follows:
1st 2.71
2nd 1.53
3rd 1.00
4th 0.71
The ratios as they apply in each gear with the 295/75ZR-18 tire will follow.The tire dia is 28.452 inches.
1st 8.938
2nd 5.028
3rd 3.55
4th 2.88
When you take the numbers that Ford provides as far as performance and apply it you will see the difference.
The only part that was posted was the max speed in each gear.The rpms was calculated based on tire dia and applicable gear ratios.
1st 45 mph 4750 rpm
2nd 80 mph 4750 rpm
3rd 125 mph 5240 rpm
4th 140 mph 4762 rpm
Now,if you plug in the numbers with the power band of 3000 rpms then you see a change.I used 3000 rpms because that is the peak torque that Ford gives.The peak torque is given at wide open throttle.
1st 28.4 mph
2nd 50.5 mph
3rd 71.6 mph
4th 88.2 mph
Take the truck to redline of 5250 rpm and you start getting into the hp.
1st 49.7 mph
2nd 88.4 mph
3rd 125.2 mph
4th 154.4 mph-calculated potential top speed
As you can see the higher up in the rpm range you go the faster you are able to go.
Your comparison with the semi engines is not really a valid comparison.True, they have alot of torque and about half the horsepower.They also are not designed to run usually above 3000 rpms and have 18 speeds to get there.Their power band is idle to 3000 rpms.It is very narrow and in order to keep it there they added the different gearing to keep the engine within that narrow power band.If they did not do that they would lose the torque multiplication of the gearing for pulling such heavy loads.This entails not just the transmission but a 2 speed axle and an under and overdrive.Putting something like this on a regular truck is not productive,nor would people like to shift 3 times going across an intersection.
But, what would possibly be gained from running at
a higher rpm (like you suggest with a higher
peak)? You're just creating more engine wear and
decreasing the engine's efficiency.
From the perspective of engine wear you do not gain much.It will wear more at these rpms,but remember that they were designed to run there at times.The efficiency of the engine at speed is at its best there.You are getting the maximum that the engine can give you.If it cannot produce at the speed it was designed to give peak hp or performance then it is not efficient and needs to be repaired.
As I had said earlier,when you look at drag racing,torque gets you started down the track,hp carries you the rest of the way.In Nascar,Mike Beam was asked about the difference in torque and hp and he said : When you go to Martinsville, you need a lot of torque. At Charlotte and places like that you need a lot of horsepower.
1st
There are three drawbacks to having a higher peak in torque for normal driving:
(1) You are running at a higher rpm and are causing more engine wear when running at a lower rpm.
(2) Your engine is less efficient. More rpm means more gas and more money out of your pocket.
(3) You have to wait longer for power off of idle. So, you'd be stuck on the boat ramp or out on a trail or at the home improvement store with 1500lbs of rock in the bed.
Yes, torque does peak at 3000rpm. But, it doesn't fall off like a stone as your analysis seems to suggest.
Power effeciency increases right up to its peak horsepower @4750rpm. Remember that whole "lifting a suitcase" example I posted a little bit ago? This is why at WOT, the tranny would shift at approximately 4750rpm. After those rpm, the amount of worked performed decreases creating a decrease in the rate of acceleration.
Those engines produce nearly their torque peak right off of idle, and the torque curve is plateau flat right up to their redline.
If your hypothesis was correct, we wouldn't see engines like these in semis (where producing torque to get a 50,000lb load moving was paramount).
Isn't this EXACTLY what a debate is supposed to be?
If you are so offended by someone disagreeing with you and explaining why, then why are you on a board called "Frontier vs. Ranger"?
Alright, I qualify all of my previous remarks with "I believe your opinion about XXXXX to be incorrect because ______"
I think I am the only other "Ford guy" besides Vince to post on this board. Please don't associate me with him.
I don't need numbers, statistics, or other
technical data. It's just common sense. Throwing
numbers at an argument doesn't make it correct.
You are correct.I just wasted my time for nothing.Now and in all future debates numbers.technical data and statistics are not relevant nor will they be used.
Common sense? You are right.My perspective on it is different then yours.What I was saying was common sense.
1)In order to make more torque and hp in an engine you have to change something in how it burns the fuel it is getting in the combustion chamber.It all boils down to how efficiently you burn the fuel at the top of the piston.You accomplish this in different ways.You can put longer rods in the engine which will give the engine more torque by having the piston stay at the top of the stroke longer,which results in a more efficient combustion.You also gain because it is also flowing more air/fuel into the cylinder.Another way is by changing the camshaft.To produce torque/hp at the lower rpm range you run a shorter lift longer duration camshaft.If you want to get more torque /hp out of the same engine you put a higher lift shorter duration camshaft in.It changes your efficiency and power band higher in the rpm range.It all depends on when you want your power.
The key is in the gear factor.To stay in your power band and not have your torque drop off when you shift,you need to keep the rpms up.If you are towing a heavy load in your bed,and you take off in first gear,you wind the motor up to the peak torque rpm and you shift.What happens?Your engine lugs down and you have to try and gain it back.You push it to the floor and the truck picks up speed until you have to shift again.Your loss will be more pronounced because you have lost the torque multiplication of the lower gearing.A heavy enough load on a grade and you may not be able to pull it in a higher gear.The only way to alleviate that problem is by adding more gears to the truck.
You said:
I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove
with your example of a Lightning. I'm not quite
sure how a drag racer with a truck bed really
compares to how we use our trucks.
Yes, torque does peak at 3000rpm. But, it doesn't
fall off like a stone as your analysis seems to
suggest.
I gave that as an example and illustration on hp and torque.
I never said nor implied that the torque falls off like a stone.I just said that the torque does not get any better after that rpm,and that the hp is still rising.I thought I illustrated that pretty well considering I did not have the hp/torque curves to work with.
You said:
Isn't this EXACTLY what a debate is supposed to
be?
If you are so offended by someone disagreeing with
you and explaining why, then why are you on a
board called "Frontier vs. Ranger"?
I am not offended by somebody disagreeing with me.I would ask you something else but you said that numbers,statistics,and technical data were to be eliminated. That being the case I could not expect you to present those things during the discussion.
So,I guess the bottom line on the discussion is common sense says that if you want the best performance from your truck's engine you run it at the higher rpm to maintain it in the power range.It also tells us that hp keeps building until it reaches it's peak while the torque starts to drop off.Common snese says that the engine runs it's most efficient at the peak rpms and not below.Anything below,you are wasting fuel and not burning it efficiently.If you were,you would not be able to reach the peak rpms.
cncman,you were right on the safety aspect of the Frontier.It is superior to the Ranger.You saw an accident with a Frontier and the guy walked away.Common sense says the Frontier is superoir to the Ranger.
mahimahi,you tow with your Frontier quite a bit and have no problems with it.That shows that the Frontier is a better tow platform.Common sense says that you would have had trouble and that you would not have bought it and towed with it if this was not the case.
The off road capabilities leaves no doubt that the Frontier is the better vehicle.I have driven both and the Frontier out performed the Ranger.The Ranger could not navigate the same terrain the Frontier did.Common sense says the Frontier is better.
Hp and torque.The Frontier is by far the better vehicle.It generates power through out the rpm range and does it with less engine.More power with less cc,common sense says Frontier has the better engine.
cthompson21,I like this alot better.Why clutter up the debate with all that trivial meaningless nonsense?
I know this isn't court, but a prosecutor doesn't make a point and say it's common since, he has to show evidence to prove his point. Show some links to some credible resources about torque and maybe we can get this specific debate over with.
Gooba's last post shows that all the frontier owners have there wants satisfied by their purchase, but no one is going to change their choice. Anyways we know VINCE would never buy any thing except Ford (even if there was a undisputably cheaper, more reliable, more powerful, and ascetically pleasing (to Vince) alternative to the Ranger). Since he will only buy Ford, why argue with him? If Vince really wanted real power and was a true truck buff like he claims he would have got a full size, and not a compact truck.
If you think I am wrong,show me where.Prove your point.
My last post about common sense was meant to be saracastic.After proving my point in the debate,it turned to we do not need numbers etc and it all boils down to common sense.
Your last paragraph was right on the money.
I don't think anyone in this topic is qualified to say who is right or wrong. Vince may be in the tech field, but if I had to work with him, I'd have to hurt him (he's just this annal retentive arrogant guy who always has to be right).
My last paragraph in my last post is pretty good. In fact everytime VINCE posts something my reponse will include that. You'll notice in all his topics he plays in, Ford is always best, never does any product surpass a Ford product in any area and even you CTHOMPSON have to agree any manufacturer can't be best at everything (but you can be close).
Here's the VINCE Clause -
We know VINCE would never buy any thing except Ford (even if there was a undisputably cheaper, more reliable, more powerful, and ascetically pleasing (to Vince) alternative to the Ranger). Since he will only buy Ford, why argue with him? If Vince really wanted real power and was a true truck buff like he claims he would have got a full size, and not a compact truck.
http://www.inu.net/davidstua/horsepower_and_torque.htm
http://allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html
http://www.efleets.com/servicesense/02_01/FC03a.html
http://home.fuse.net/pagrosse/math.html
http://www.motorhomepower.com/power.html
http://www.cranecams.com/camshafts.htm
http://www.owneroperator.com/archives/0899specs.htm
I hope this is enough.
First, you made a statement.
Second, I said that I disagreed and explained why.
Third, you threw numbers at your statement that did not support your argument.
Fourth, I said that your example didn't relate to your point. You can just use your common sense (aka brain without using examples, numbers, statistics, etc...)
Fifth, you start flaming me.
If you had just said that it's best to have a broad powerband with constant or slightly increasing torque from idle to redline, I would have agreed with you.
But, you didn't.
If you'd actually like to continue to discuss this topic intelligently without the flames and smarta$$ remarks, I'd be happy to do so. If not, I'm through.
There's been way too much of that stupidity on this board from both sides, and I don't want to be involved with it.
I would think that most people who dyno their trucks have mods and pleanty of 'em.
It's been a while since I've read or posted over there. But, for anyone who's interested, I'm sure that you'd get some help in tracking down some data.
First, you made a statement
No,first vince made a statement,in fact numerous statements in relation to the "weak" 3.3L,as well as torque being the only thing that mattered.He explained his understanding of torque and hp.I then explained where his thoughts were wrong.As the debate progressed back and forth I tried to substantiate my statements.Now you have to remember that vince has been basically running with his normal rants and I did not see you enter into the debate when he made his statements.When you entered it was after I had posted some numbers to back up my statements.
At that point you said:
Uh, no.
The Ranger outruns the Frontier from 0-60 and in
the quarter. Even the current "weak" OHV 4L
outruns the new S/C Frontier in both dashes. Plus,
it'll tow more than either of them.
While you may want to take the scientific road to
explain it, the simple fact is that the Ranger puts
more power to the ground more efficiently than the
Frontier.
I think you may be overlooking a few variables.
Now,I ask,did anybody ask you to back up those statements?No.
You did come back and post:
In any case, horsepower does not exist without
torque. (Torque can exist without horsepower)
And:
Without torque, you couldn't pick up that
suitcase. Hence, you'd have no horsepower either.
They're really just two different measurements
about the force being applied.
Which is true to a point.It was well said.Torque can exist without horsepower but the rest of it is once you move it you have hp.The example of the suitcase was good.It also said that if the suitcase was bolted to the floor the torque was there but there was no movement.If you unbolted it then the torque was applied and you have hp.
Now vince,comes back and I explain some more things to him.You choose to reenter the debate after I had posted some things to back up my statements.You had nothing to say about vince's arguments and statements.
You reentered by posting:
This is absolutely incorrect, especially for a
truck. You want your torque to come at as low rpm
as possible (or feasible in a consumer vehicle).
Then, you want a broad, flat powerband. Gearing
can then help the engine to stay in its powerband.
I then attempted to show you how what I was saying translated into real numbers and how it worked with the gearing and power bands.
You decided to post:
I don't need numbers, statistics, or other
technical data. It's just common sense. Throwing
numbers at an argument doesn't make it correct.
I did not think I was throwing numbers at it.i was using it to illustrate it.
You posted:
Power effeciency increases right up to its peak
horsepower @4750rpm. Remember that whole "lifting
a suitcase" example I posted a little bit ago?
This is why at WOT, the tranny would shift at
approximately 4750rpm. After those rpm, the amount
of worked performed decreases creating a decrease
in the rate of acceleration.
That proves my argument.You stated it right there.Power is hp.You just gave the peak hp rpm.You had the transmission shift at the peak hp,not at the peak torque.My point exactly.The peak torque rpm was at 3000.You also said power efficiency.That is correct.The engine is the most efficient at the peak hp rpm.
You said:
Third, you threw numbers at your statement that
did not support your argument.
Fourth, I said that your example didn't relate to
your point. You can just use your common sense
(aka brain without using examples, numbers,
statistics, etc...)
Well,I think I already covered that.My numbers did support my argument and my example did relate.You stated it earlier.
As far as twisting the statements,I continued the debate based on the interpretation of the statements made.
Flame you?I did not think I did.I was saracastic yes.You have to remember that I was initially posting to vince's statements when you decided to enter the discussion.If you look back on the posts I do not recall ANY Ford person say enter into the debate when vince makes his statements.Only when a Nissan guy is trying to explain something to vince does a Ford person jump in and tear down the Nissan guy's statement.I guess I did not expect the posts from you that I got.I thought that you should have come into the debate when vince started.You see vince makes those short irritating wild statements and only a Nissan person refutes it.We usually go into an intelligent discussion and support our statements,and we get taken apart,but not vince.I thought you should have jumped in at what vince had to say.
I actually thought I was helping you to see my point of view.I see I was wrong.
I was just voicing my opinion that I disagreed with your statements of:
(1) "Guess what, you eat the dust from a Frontier. While you are dropping off the Frontier is still pulling."
(2) "you WANT to make your peak torque higher in the rpm range"
Then, I stated why. I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with Vince's posts. I was (to an extent) ignoring them.
If you're offended by someone voicing their opinion about what you post on an open forum, why not just privately converse with Vince? His e-mail address is on his profile.
BTW, you don't need to worry about explaining horsepower vs. torque to me. I understand it quite well.
In simplest terms, an engine produces torque. Torque turns the wheels. Horsepower is the relationship of torque over time. As horsepower increases, the rate of acceleration (or amount of work performed) increases. Beyond the horsepower peak, acceleration slows (diminishing returns).
Different types of engines are produced to do different things. Big diesel engines like the ones in semis are made for maximum twist (high peak torque at low rpm). Race car engines are made for maximum horsepower (perform the most amount of work) in their operating range. The engines in consumer vehicles are somewhere in between. And, gearing (to an extent) can befit most engines to a certain purpose. It may not be cost effective or feasible in a consumer vehicle, but it is possible.
In my own truck, I would prefer for the engine to reach its peak torque at idle and remain there until redline. But, this isn't quite possible. So, I'll settle for a peak amount of torque at the upper end of my normal operating range (about 3K rpm) with as close to peak as possible from idle up to that 3K.
As for horsepower, I'm not too concerned. I'm running at about 190 at present, which is more than enough. I only like to do mods that increase efficiency too (gotta improve that lackluster mpg somehow).
sorry guys, I have about fallen asleep the last 25 posts or so! JK! but I do think everyone has made their points on what torque and HP is and what they do. Mahi, actually I have seen several posts where ford owners disagree with each other, when someone that owns a ranger comes in and talks about their bad experience with rangers, (loki something or other) Certain ford guys disagree and say it is just their bad luck, or there is only a small batch of bad 4.0l's that have to be replaced within 20,000 miles. Or they should just live with it for the privellage of owning a ford!
YOu guys take it easy on CT, if he bails out, we won't have any intelligent ford arguments! Oh BTW,
I don't know if you guys have seen the artists rendering of the new fullsize truck from Nissan, actually, I don't think it is officially released, my service manager's rep from Nissan emailed it to him, I will try to post it somewhere on monday. It really, really looks good, I think everyone will agree, very clean lines, but kind of classy, only thing I am not sure of is the roofline looks like it steps up in the back like the Xterra, I don't see the point there, also shouldn't we be on frontier vs ranger III by now????
I am not offended in any way if someone disagrees with me.The point was it seemed that only the Nissan person got disagreed with.
You mentioned your mpg.What haveyou done and considered?
this topic is being "frozen." Please continue these discussions in Topic 2267 Frontier vs Ranger - III. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host