Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-12-2019, 01:44 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,282

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 78
Thanked 221 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
I found something quite interesting when poking about with Honda's K series. Turns out the engine in cars like the older Type R, TSX, Civic Si, don't actually go rich even at WOT. That's true of most stock engine maps. Honda chose instead to pull timing to prevent knock. Now, admittedly this also has a fuel economy impact, since your peak cylinder pressure is farther from optimal crank angle.
Correct, many older engines did not run rich at WOT until about 3500-4000rpm. Stepping hard on the gas is less detrimental in those cases.

Everything newer though does go rich. All of the Toyota [A/N/Z/G/U]R engines do for example.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-12-2019, 09:28 AM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,594

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 24.41 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
90 day: 39.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,356
Thanked 1,491 Times in 944 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
Correct, many older engines did not run rich at WOT until about 3500-4000rpm. Stepping hard on the gas is less detrimental in those cases.

Everything newer though does go rich. All of the Toyota [A/N/Z/G/U]R engines do for example.
I'm getting a bit off topic here, but this is in reference to engines as new as engines as new as 2015. I don't know if the revisions which got direct injection started going rich under heavy load, but that would be in the last 4-6 years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 10:23 AM   #13 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 703

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 18.97 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 52 Times in 39 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarcus View Post
You can't talk rear end gear ratios without talking transmission gear ratios. The internet is telling me your transmission has 3.9:1 first and 0.8:1 fifth. Picking your rear end ratio to me is really about a trade-off in first and fifth, would you rather have a lower first or a taller fifth. For any other gear, you could just shift to alter the ratio but you can't go lower than first or higher than fifth.

In my experience I would prefer the 3.55 to the 4:10, as long as you don't think you will have a problem in first taking off loaded. With 3.9:1 first I don't think you will, but you know your engine/torque curve better than me. The fact that your donor vehicle is set up that way from the factory tells me it can't be that bad.

I would much rather have to downshift on the hills than to be downshifted all the time. To me a truck that drives around all the time in OD and never needs to downshift for steep hills is over-geared IMHO. It also seems you already own the matching 3.55 and would have to purchase the 4.10 front, so I would try it out before spending additional cash.

My brother said the same thing about already having the 3.55's. The donor zf trans has a 5.72 1st and .76 od with a 5.24 reverse. Either way I get the best of both ends, lol. 3.55 it is. I'll have 5 gears in the basement after the swap if I need them.
__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 11:46 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aardvarcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Evensville, TN
Posts: 574

Deep Blue - '94 GMC Suburban K2500 SLE
90 day: 23.75 mpg (US)

Griffin (T4R) - '99 Toyota 4Runner SR5
90 day: 25.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 195
Thanked 474 Times in 259 Posts
Yea with a 5.72:1 first I would use the 3.55 without question.

I put a modified NV4500 in my 1994 K2500 Suburban which has a 5.61:1 first, the suburban came with 4.10 gears and first is way low. I will be swapping in 3.42 gears (tallest I can swap in factory diffs) when the project gets to that point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 12:18 AM   #15 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 7,404
Thanks: 0
Thanked 762 Times in 673 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by royanddoreen View Post
might be a crazy thought, but can you match rpm by having two different o.d. size tires from front to back?
Makes me remind those Japanese and Korean cab-forward minitrucks with smaller rear wheels and a higher differential gear. But those were used in order to allow a lower boarding height, not to compensate for mismatching differential ratio in a 4WD version (which I have only seen on SRW and matching differential ratio). AFAIK the only 4WD applications with wheel sizes mismatching between the front and rear axle are agricultural machinery.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 11:31 PM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
I think, if you're using 3.55 gearing, it's easy to just shift up one gear if you really need to, and get the same towing as the tow package in final gear.

You can also play with about 12-20% of gearing difference, by adjusting the tire circumference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:10 AM   #17 (permalink)
MP$
 
diesel_john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 592
Thanks: 5
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
Send a message via MSN to diesel_john
My vote would be for the 3.56 rear. And 3.55 front.
I assume the two speed transfer case will take care of the torque needed in 4wd.
I tow in direct drive in the trans. its less efficient than over drive but less heat in the trans.
I am all for overdrive under light to medium loads but it is not quite as efficient as the numbers would suggest in my experience with heavy loads. IMO the gears are there to use and take strain off the clutches and engine. But i like to shift.
I also like manual unlock front hubs for maneuvering in close quarters while needing low transfer case. That way i idle in low low and back trailers with my front hitch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:25 AM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Alpine
Posts: 48

R2 - '13 Chevy Volt
Team Volt
90 day: 20764 mpg (US)
Thanks: 50
Thanked 15 Times in 10 Posts
You don't say what motor you have (unless I missed it) or how heavy you need to tow.

I have a '94 F-350 diesel with zf5 and 3.55 gears from the factory. I can pull up to about 20k gross comfortably (with intercooling) and love the gearing when unloaded. 2000 rpm @70mph. These motors will pull all the way down to 1200 rpm. I do wish my zf5 had the lower first great sometimes.
__________________
2̶0̶1̶3̶ ̶V̶o̶l̶t̶ ̶-̶s̶p̶o̶r̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶g̶r̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶l̶o̶c̶k̶
2013 Volt- wife wanted one too. Bye Leaf
2017 Volt Gen2 Red like all cars should be.
1997 Landcruiser (Bruiser) -sadly gets about 11.5 MPG...
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2019, 10:44 AM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 127
Thanks: 26
Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
My towing rig is a '96 F250 7.3L diesel automatic with a 3.55 rear differential. My travel trailer weighs in at 6000 pounds, and the truck at about 9000, totaling about 15,000 pounds which is the listed GCVWR for the 3.55 gears in that year.

If I towed more weight I'd have opted for the 4.10 gears that were available that year; but I don't, and I didn't.

My normal towing speed is about 60mph, which equates to about 1500RPM. I normally average about 14MPG towing.

When not towing on the highway, I can get about 23MPG at 55 MPH and 21MPG at 70 MPH.

I have all the power I need in the hills and dales, so am happy with the whole setup, which I've been using since I purchased it new in 1996.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 08:00 PM   #20 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 703

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 18.97 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 52 Times in 39 Posts
A little revival here...

I can't use the 4wd front axle. It's a leaf spring and the knuckles won't fit on my brother's coil front axle. I can't use leaf spring because my snow plow is mounted where the leaves/shackles go. I guess it's more 2wd this year until I can find chevy knuckles.

__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com