40 mph uphill? Other Armada or Titan TVs?

[PaulandAnn]

I’ve been trolling this site for a year. There’s so much info I that haven’t needed to ask a question until now!


Tv: 2006 Armada LE 5.6L DOHC V8 with factory tow package. Tow rating 9000lbs. 305/385 hp/tq
105K miles, added external trans cooler, bypassing in-radiator cooler. Andersen WD hitch which I’m very happy with.

The Armada handles the trailer nicely, it’s the lack of power on the hills that makes the drive so stressful. I chill out once we're through all the hills.

Trailer: 21 ft Jayco. Factory weight with propane: 4385lbs estimate another 350lbs water, a couple hundred lbs food and whatnot. Lets say 5000lbs. (I've weighed the loaded tongue, but not the entire trailer)

(TV cargo: only 2 people and dog)

Driving up out of Phoenix to higher cooler elevations there are several hills/ridges on our way to 7000ft elevation. On every one, I eventually slow to 40mph. Is this normal? Neither trans or engine overheat. I have learned to ignore the “Tow Mode” and just downshift manually to get higher (3000-4000) rpms, for more power and lighter load on torque converter (keeping the trans temp down).

But meanwhile, monster 5th wheel “houses” fly by at 65mph on the same hill towed by their Cummins powered or whatever pickup trucks.

I don’t want a pickup truck. I don’t need one. In our SUV at all times, we have 2 child seats and a large dog crate.

I see the 2018 Ford Explorer with 6 cyl turbo Ecoboost has nearly 100lbs more torque and a 10 speed auto trans. Sounds nice, maybe what I need, but still too pricey.

Are other Nissan owners faring any better than me?

[jerem0621]

Change the exhaust on the Armada and make it sound better.... :B

[boggerr]

PaulandAnn wrote:
Well thanks again everyone for all of your input. I've read every post and am greatly encouraged to keep the revs up and not worry about it. Frankly to disagree with a couple of you, I hate the sound of the Armada running so hard. But the temp DOES stay down.

My DD and non-camping road trip car is a 2006 Pontiac GTO 6L LS2! Now THAT'S an engine I could listen to all day WO throttle!

Every time I struggle up one of those hills, with everyone flying by me, I fantasize about the next time I fly up that hill in my GTO... effortlessly!

Thanks again all.


Ford Expedition Twin-turbocharged ecoboost 3.5-liter V-6 375hp/470tq is on my wishlist for the next TV.

LS swap the Armada lol

[PaulandAnn]

Well thanks again everyone for all of your input. I've read every post and am greatly encouraged to keep the revs up and not worry about it. Frankly to disagree with a couple of you, I hate the sound of the Armada running so hard. But the temp DOES stay down.

My DD and non-camping road trip car is a 2006 Pontiac GTO 6L LS2! Now THAT'S an engine I could listen to all day WO throttle!

Every time I struggle up one of those hills, with everyone flying by me, I fantasize about the next time I fly up that hill in my GTO... effortlessly!

Thanks again all.


Ford Expedition Twin-turbocharged ecoboost 3.5-liter V-6 375hp/470tq is on my wishlist for the next TV.

[jerem0621]

I’d just let it rev. Foot to the floor, 5500 rpm if needed. It is designed for it. Sounds like a hot rod...enjoy.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

[boggerr]

richclover wrote:


The short answer is “yes”. I haven’t researched the engineering but I expect that my Turbo Cummins will make rated horsepower on I80 at 8000+ feet elevation in Wyoming. Same on I95 in Florida, but with little or no turbo boost.

My 235 hp Lycoming aircraft engine was rated at 2400 rpm and red lined at 31” manifold pressure. With the simple, manually controlled wastegate it would produce close to rated horsepower to 20,000’.

Agreed, rpm will affect turbo output, but given an appropriate control system and normal operating rpm ranges, I wouldn’t think it would affect automotive engine output that much. Peak torque output is certainly affected by rpm, IMHO.

Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on turbos:

“... A reduced density of intake air is caused by the loss of atmospheric density seen with elevated altitudes. Thus, a natural use of the turbocharger is with aircraft engines. As an aircraft climbs to higher altitudes, the pressure of the surrounding air quickly falls off. At 18,000 feet (5,500 m), the air is at half the pressure of sea level, which means that the engine produces less than half-power at this altitude.[20] In aircraft engines, turbocharging is commonly used to maintain manifold pressure as altitude increases (i.e. to compensate for lower-density air at higher altitudes). Since atmospheric pressure reduces as the aircraft climbs, power drops as a function of altitude in normally aspirated engines. Systems that use a turbocharger to maintain an engine's sea-level power output are called turbo-normalized systems. Generally, a turbo-normalized system attempts to maintain a manifold pressure of 29.5 inches of mercury (100 kPa).[20]...”

Well, I know absolutely nothing about turbo planes so I can’t compare it with a diesel truck. I understand what you are saying and am not arguing with anyone that a turbo is not going to out perform a N/A engine so if I’m coming across that way I do apologize.
What I’m trying to get at is RPM’s are your friend either with a turbo or N/A engine.
A turbo diesel will lose peak HP and torque at higher elevations but with all the newer technology it’s not as noticeable as older diesels. The one thing I have always encouraged folks with a diesel that are pulling loads is to install a EGT gauge and drive by that, especially at higher elevations and grades, I guarantee that most of those who are pushing their trucks up hill will slow down cause they are downshifting to increase RPM’s and get that turbo spooling at its sweet spot

[NRALIFR]

Paul, after all the replies you’ve received you know what you’re options are if you want to improve your performance at higher elevations. I won’t beat that horse anymore.

I did want to tell you though that you would be passing me going up those long steep grades in my first Diesel pickup hauling my first truck camper. The truck was a 1983 F250 with the 6.9L Diesel, about 160 HP/ 300 FtLb torque. No turbo. First year of Fords Diesel powered pickups. I was hauling a 3500 lb truck camper with it.

You talk about a dog in the Rockies! I chugged up many a grade in Colorado at 25 mph blowing black smoke like the Durango to Silverton trains. The hikers and bicyclers hated to see me coming up on them on those roads. I was slow, but not as slow as them and would eventually get past them. Got a lot of dirty looks, and worse. There wasn’t a dang thing I could do about it though.

I also had a 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, which was the first year of the 9th generation Tbirds. Turbo 2.3L 4 cylinder. That was a fairly large 2-door sedan that weighed about 3200 lbs IIRC. I took it to the Rockies several times as well, and it always surprised me how well those four little pistons performed at high elevations. Of course I was never towing anything, but I could pass everything going uphill! No Diesel truck of the day could even keep up. I loved that generation of Tbirds, and owned four of them before they were discontinued.

Times have sure changed.

:):)

[richclover]

boggerr wrote:

richclover wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
Not really totally true. Although a turbo MAY not keep all of it;s ability to increase power at high altitude, it will ALWAYS do better than a naturally aspirated motor. There are some variables in turbo systems on motors.... A variable vane turbo is one. The other is sizing. Many turbos control excess pressure by means of a wastegate that bleeds off excess pressure.... at altitude where there is less pressure, it will bleed off less if at all.

boggerr wrote:
Where is everyone getting the info that a turbo is the answer? A turbo diesel at higher elevations is going to lose turbo efficiency. Less air, less combustion temps = laggy turbo,

RPM’s is the answer. Run higher RPM’s on hills and watch your gauges.

...

I’m not disagreeing that a turbo will do better than a N/A eninge but I want the OP to understand that having a turbo is still going to feel the effects of higher elevations and downshifting is going to play a big factor on a turbo enonge.

Yes, VGT turbo and turbo sizing makes a huge difference but still need the higher RPM’s to keep those turbos spooling. As far as wastgates go, they are not opening at higher elevations cause of less air and less boost which equals to less horsepower.

So you think a turbo diesel truck or car is making the same HP at sea level vs one at higher elevation? What did that turbo plane do for RPM’s

The short answer is “yes”. I haven’t researched the engineering but I expect that my Turbo Cummins will make rated horsepower on I80 at 8000+ feet elevation in Wyoming. Same on I95 in Florida, but with little or no turbo boost.

My 235 hp Lycoming aircraft engine was rated at 2400 rpm and red lined at 31” manifold pressure. With the simple, manually controlled wastegate it would produce close to rated horsepower to 20,000’.

Agreed, rpm will affect turbo output, but given an appropriate control system and normal operating rpm ranges, I wouldn’t think it would affect automotive engine output that much. Peak torque output is certainly affected by rpm, IMHO.

Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on turbos:

“... A reduced density of intake air is caused by the loss of atmospheric density seen with elevated altitudes. Thus, a natural use of the turbocharger is with aircraft engines. As an aircraft climbs to higher altitudes, the pressure of the surrounding air quickly falls off. At 18,000 feet (5,500 m), the air is at half the pressure of sea level, which means that the engine produces less than half-power at this altitude.[20] In aircraft engines, turbocharging is commonly used to maintain manifold pressure as altitude increases (i.e. to compensate for lower-density air at higher altitudes). Since atmospheric pressure reduces as the aircraft climbs, power drops as a function of altitude in normally aspirated engines. Systems that use a turbocharger to maintain an engine's sea-level power output are called turbo-normalized systems. Generally, a turbo-normalized system attempts to maintain a manifold pressure of 29.5 inches of mercury (100 kPa).[20]...”

[crazyro]

stevemorris wrote:
that's for sure!! nothing sounds like a ram hemi at wide open throttle, 5000 rpm, in 4th or 5th gear(8 speed) going up a 16% grade!! yes I said 16%, only 2 km or so but steepest we saw was 17% going down and one at 16% going up

16%!!! :E

I mean, the 7% was plenty for our last trip. HEMI did sound great though!

[stevemorris]

time2roll wrote:
I see 2006 Armada makes 305 HP at 4900 rpm and 385 lb-ft torque at 3600 rpm.

When running hard I would probably hang around 3800 to 4800 rpm with that motor for as long as it takes. Usually just above peak torque will feel like the sweet spot for max power. With mine I often pull the lever to hold the gear and set the cruise control by the tachometer to just hold the rpm steady up the incline.

Running steady at full throttle up an incline is often the best part of the drive... for me. Back in the days of drag racing I would get to run full throttle for only 12 to 15 seconds. Running full out for a full 12 to 15 minutes is that much more satisfying.

that's for sure!! nothing sounds like a ram hemi at wide open throttle, 5000 rpm, in 4th or 5th gear(8 speed) going up a 16% grade!! yes I said 16%, only 2 km or so but steepest we saw was 17% going down and one at 16% going up

[badsix]

I wonder if you drop the rear gears a little, what gear ratio are they now. should be in the 370 to 410 range. also what gas do you run. I just got back from Alaska over 7000 mi. of hills and mountain passes. gas was cheep in Alaska so I ran premium for a few tank fulls. 5.3 GMC seem to run noticeably better pulling around 6800
Jay D.

[carringb]

Dave5143 wrote:
Conversations such as this one make me want to hug my F250 Diesel. Sorry, just saying.

Yeah, but you could buy four 2005 Armadas for the cost of one High Pressure Fuel Pump replacement in your truck.

[wnjj]

bartlettj wrote:
The other reason those turbo diesels are doing better is the torque curve. They're making double the torque at half the rpm of your Armada, and taking better advantage of the available gears and not worrying about not flooring it or the revs.

Double the torque at half the rpm gets you up the hill at exactly the same speed since you have to run in a higher gear to generate the same road speed.

What kills the high-revving engines performance is the gaps between gears that don't allow them to stay at peak HP for the needed road speed. That or if you are afraid to let it rev where it needs to.

[Dave5143]

Conversations such as this one make me want to hug my F250 Diesel. Sorry, just saying.

[rbpru]

Driving in the mountains 45 or 50 mph is all I usually want to do. At times if I am not familiar with the road, a lot less.

My rig will go a lot faster, but I see no reason for it.

[boggerr]

PaulandAnn wrote:

ps
A word about tow mode: Once I was cruising along in Drive at 60mph, on a long straight gentle rise. I looked down and the trans temp was nearly pegged. I down shifted manually and the temp dropped right down. So in tow mode by itself, evidently, I was cooking the torque converter.

That’s where things get crazy. The trans cools best with the converter locked but then you lose your your RPMs and start lugging. Try to run your RPMs up higher, you just need to find the happy medium of where pulls best and not burn things up. If it comes down to it and you can only do 45 on hills then enjoy the ride. You are going to get where you are going safe and without a burnt up TV.

I saw some one else post about power enhancers. Look into that if you’re not under warranty. If they sell programmers for yours it might have different tuning for the trans which could help