Forum Discussion
Ron_Gratz
Jul 20, 2015Explorer
rhagfo wrote:The math was okay, but I inadvertently calculated aerodynamic drag using speed in ft/sec instead of speed in mph as required by the formula I was using.
I am wondering about your math?:h If it only takes 156 hp to go 40 mph, then why was the OP struggling to maintain 40 mph, his 2005 6.0 should have more than 160 hp.
Well yes it does rated at 360 hp, so why then the issue, maybe not 60, but should have been and easy 50 mph.
My previous post has been edited to show the corrected numbers, and new numbers for the effect of rolling resistance.
The OP's engine, when new, might have been rated at 300 hp.
But, there is no way of knowing how much power was being delivered to the rear tires on the trip up Black Mountain.
As Marty has stated, the actual power being transmitted to the pavement might have been significantly less than the engine's rated power.
Ron
About RV Tips & Tricks
Looking for advice before your next adventure? Look no further.25,103 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 21, 2025