Have our trucks got too much power yet?

[4x4ord]

I've often thought about all the energy being wasted with braking applications and exhaust braking on down grades. It's only a matter of time before our rvs will have electric drive axles to help hold back on the down hill while charging a battery pack so the energy can be used to help push us up the up hill sections of our journey. Instead of having 500 hp under the hood we could get by with a more fuel efficient 300 hp diesel and have another 200 hp available at our trailer axles.

[wilber1]

A small engine at a higher power setting is more thermally efficient than a larger engine at a lower power setting. That's why the Rutan Voyager shut down its larger engine when it got to altitude and just used its smaller engine in cruise during its round the world flight.

[4x4ord]

Changing the tuning to lower power levels is just as apt to lower the fuel economy as it is improve it. I think gaining fuel economy during low load situations such as cruising down the highway empty would require a smaller displacement engine, lower boost, high fuel pressure and a higher compression ratio.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:
While I like 500 crank hp in stock form on a diesel truck, I don't like what they will have to do to get it there to keep emissions in check. That means pushing fuel systems to their limits and adding more unreliable emissions equipment. I am more of a fan of adding reliable power after it rolls off the assembly line.

It would be nice if they added the ability to change power levels on the fly like a tuner does. When you are not towing, it is safe to run higher powered tunes and switch to lower power tunes depending on load and temps. Although, most trucks(both gas and diesel) already do this without a switch and most people don't know it.

And you have engines with the CP4.2 pump producing 400hp and less.

[JRscooby]

bikendan wrote:

mkirsch wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
A plug in hybrid would work well as a tow vehicle, but the weight, cost and complexity makes it hard to recover any savings

Nobody ever promised any "savings" at least not any monetary ones.

You're supposed to spend as much as you can, "sacrifice" in the name of the planet, so you can show off how good of a person you are to everyone else. "See? I drive a HYBRID! It cost me a LOT of money, but I'm SAVING the planet, so it's worth it! Pat me on the back! Please?"

That's why the Prius nickname is the "Pious", because that's how their owners act.:W

This is why I do not recycle, or do any of the other things we should do. I know the planet will survive. Humanity? Not sure. And when I look around at the world, am told we are the greatest we have ever been, greatest country, and all that, I have to think, "If this is the best we can do, is it worth saving?"

[bikendan]

mkirsch wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
A plug in hybrid would work well as a tow vehicle, but the weight, cost and complexity makes it hard to recover any savings

Nobody ever promised any "savings" at least not any monetary ones.

You're supposed to spend as much as you can, "sacrifice" in the name of the planet, so you can show off how good of a person you are to everyone else. "See? I drive a HYBRID! It cost me a LOT of money, but I'm SAVING the planet, so it's worth it! Pat me on the back! Please?"

That's why the Prius nickname is the "Pious", because that's how their owners act.:W

[mkirsch]

Bedlam wrote:
A plug in hybrid would work well as a tow vehicle, but the weight, cost and complexity makes it hard to recover any savings

Nobody ever promised any "savings" at least not any monetary ones.

You're supposed to spend as much as you can, "sacrifice" in the name of the planet, so you can show off how good of a person you are to everyone else. "See? I drive a HYBRID! It cost me a LOT of money, but I'm SAVING the planet, so it's worth it! Pat me on the back! Please?"

[ShinerBock]

While I like 500 crank hp in stock form on a diesel truck, I don't like what they will have to do to get it there to keep emissions in check. That means pushing fuel systems to their limits and adding more unreliable emissions equipment. I am more of a fan of adding reliable power after it rolls off the assembly line.

It would be nice if they added the ability to change power levels on the fly like a tuner does. When you are not towing, it is safe to run higher powered tunes and switch to lower power tunes depending on load and temps. Although, most trucks(both gas and diesel) already do this without a switch and most people don't know it.

[JRscooby]

I think I have been discussing a idea kind of like this with MH and E-toad.

If you go back 25-30yrs, 220-300hp was what a typical truck pulling an RV had. Heck sold a 1992 F250 with the 7.3 diesel...it had 180hp from the factory and was a nice towing machine. Not the fastest up hills but never a question of making it.

Back about 40 years most freight trucks where running 290 or 318. And a transmission with a torque rating of 950 ft/lbs, was heavy enough for most.

[valhalla360]

4x4ord wrote:

If your right (and you're probably not far off) that the typical RV is only used 2k miles per year that means about 90% of a typical pick up's miles are spent without a trailer in tow. Even when the trailer is in tow only about 110 hp is required for cruising down the highway so we end up buying a 475 hp engine that gets employed for 1% of its life. The rest of the time a 220 to 300 hp engine would work just fine. In spite of that I agree with you that there might not be enough savings to warrant the the cost of electric drive trailer axles .... depends what they will cost.

If you go back 25-30yrs, 220-300hp was what a typical truck pulling an RV had. Heck sold a 1992 F250 with the 7.3 diesel...it had 180hp from the factory and was a nice towing machine. Not the fastest up hills but never a question of making it.

For 90% of RVs, the stock gas V8 with 350-390hp, is overkill. Of course, you have to keep in mind, the efficiency is a function of how many HP you ACTUALLY USE. Drop back to that 110hp and there isn't a lot of efficiency gains to be made with a smaller engine while rolling along the freeway at steady speeds.

[Huntindog]

Bedlam wrote:
You've been listening to Daryle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJcw4yoIseo

He got the idea for the song from me!:B

[Bedlam]

You've been listening to Daryle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJcw4yoIseo

[Huntindog]

4x4ord wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Commercial trucks things can be viable because they do 50-100k miles per year so even very small per mile improvements can be justified.

RV's...might average a couple thousand miles per year.

But even with trucks, freeway driving, there isn't a huge savings from going the hybrid route (even in mountains). Where hybrids shine is stop and go traffic....city busses, garbage trucks, UPS trucks but those have wildly different use patterns compared to the typical RV.

Keep in mind, once you get a diesel up in the 50-90% of max power range, you don't see a lot of difference in efficiency over that range, so there isn't a lot to gain.

If your right (and you're probably not far off) that the typical RV is only used 2k miles per year that means about 90% of a typical pick up's miles are spent without a trailer in tow. Even when the trailer is in tow only about 110 hp is required for cruising down the highway so we end up buying a 475 hp engine that gets employed for 1% of its life. The rest of the time a 220 to 300 hp engine would work just fine. In spite of that I agree with you that there might not be enough savings to warrant the the cost of electric drive trailer axles .... depends what they will cost.

Enjoy life. Drive it like you stole it.

There is not thing as too much power, its like a girl to pretty or too much money. or too much fun.

[4x4ord]

valhalla360 wrote:
Commercial trucks things can be viable because they do 50-100k miles per year so even very small per mile improvements can be justified.

RV's...might average a couple thousand miles per year.

But even with trucks, freeway driving, there isn't a huge savings from going the hybrid route (even in mountains). Where hybrids shine is stop and go traffic....city busses, garbage trucks, UPS trucks but those have wildly different use patterns compared to the typical RV.

Keep in mind, once you get a diesel up in the 50-90% of max power range, you don't see a lot of difference in efficiency over that range, so there isn't a lot to gain.

If your right (and you're probably not far off) that the typical RV is only used 2k miles per year that means about 90% of a typical pick up's miles are spent without a trailer in tow. Even when the trailer is in tow only about 110 hp is required for cruising down the highway so we end up buying a 475 hp engine that gets employed for 1% of its life. The rest of the time a 220 to 300 hp engine would work just fine. In spite of that I agree with you that there might not be enough savings to warrant the the cost of electric drive trailer axles .... depends what they will cost.

[Grit_dog]

FishOnOne wrote:
I'll take the 500 hp... Thank you very much!

I'm with Fish!

(Wait, did I just say that? Lol)

[valhalla360]

Commercial trucks things can be viable because they do 50-100k miles per year so even very small per mile improvements can be justified.

RV's...might average a couple thousand miles per year.

But even with trucks, freeway driving, there isn't a huge savings from going the hybrid route (even in mountains). Where hybrids shine is stop and go traffic....city busses, garbage trucks, UPS trucks but those have wildly different use patterns compared to the typical RV.

Keep in mind, once you get a diesel up in the 50-90% of max power range, you don't see a lot of difference in efficiency over that range, so there isn't a lot to gain.