R-pod Owners Forum Homepage

This site is free to use.
Donations benefit a non-profit Girls Softball organization

Forum Home Forum Home > R-pod Discussion Forums > Reviews and General Information
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Towing rpod 192
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTowing rpod 192 - Event Date: 28 May 2020 - 30 Jun 2020

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Message
lostagain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Quaker Hill, CT
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2587
Direct Link To This Post Calendar Event: Towing rpod 192
    Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 4:12pm
I don't know how many elevators you maintained, OG, but relay logic elevators with motor generators were so unreliable that they required nearly weekly maintenance in high use conditions and monthly low use.  The modern micro-processors controllers with variable voltage variable frequency ac drives need maintenance even in the heaviest of use about every six months.  Sometimes the new stuff is more reliable.

As for the turbo boosted engines, they've been around for a very long time.  In fact, I had a Saab turbo that I put over 250K miles on with out a single repair and it would blow the socks off any comparable displacement naturally aspirated engine.

Again, it all boils down to catsup or salsa picante, each person has his own preferences and we should not have to defend what we like.  If you like your Prius, keep it until you run the wheels off as long as it fits your needs.  If you don't want an eco-boost engine, don't buy one.  You don't need to justify it to anyone. 
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 4:56pm
I explained the reasons why I preferred a normally aspirated engine, and I am far from unique in that opinion. I was not defending my choice nor was I asking you to defend yours. As you say, and I agree, it is a personal choice. You can drive whatever you want to.  

I've never looked once at an elevator controller, but I have designed, installed and maintained many control systems for complex solar and hybrid power systems. And ac motor drives are essentially inverters, which I am quite familiar with. If you read what I wrote you would notice that I said microprocessor controllers are more reliable than relay logic, not less. We agree! That was not always the case, of course, in the early days as with any new technology microprocessors were unstable and suffered reliability issues. And turbos are in no way analogous to microprocessors, they are inherently less reliable than normally aspirated engines while microprocessors are inherently more reliable than relays, for the same reasons. Less moving parts undergoing less mechanical stress.  

As for Saabs, I had an old 1969 95 (normally aspirated) for awhile. Nice car to drive but very quirky. Got rid of it when the timing chain started to make noise and I realized the entire drivetrain had to be removed from the vehicle to get to it. Not good. I'm glad you had good luck with yours but Saabs in reality have only a middling reliability record. Owners are a loyal bunch though, they were often called Snaabs back in the day LOL

1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
GlueGuy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2017
Location: N. California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2629
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 6:05pm
I will argue that a turbo V6 is simpler than a NA V8. Only 75% of the moving parts. And the extra 25% of parts in the V8 are the most failure-prone reciprocating parts. It is very old-school to argue that turbos add significantly to maintenance. 90+ percent of all diesel big rigs are turbocharged, and have been for decades. The turbochargers in EcoBoost engines are very, very reliable. If you think that turbos contribute significantly to reliability issues, your turbo-knowledge is still in the 20th century.

... and I still say for practical purposes that the 2.7L EcoBoost has more useable torque than a typical 5-liter-ish V8. Gander at the torque curve of the 3.5L EcoBoost versus a "higher horsepower" V8. At 1500 RPM the EcoBoost is generating 200 more ft-lb of torque than the V8. The V8 doesn't catch up until it's turning at 4700 RPM or so. That lower RPM torque curve is way more useable than the one in the V8. In other words, the V8 is screaming, and the EcoBoost is just toodling along. The 2.7L EcoBoost has a similar torque curve as the 3.5L, just a little lower. It still beats the V8 at 1500 RPM by almost 150 ft-lbs.


bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 6:41pm
.....As I guess is true of the majority of Ford mechanics, who work on all of them. 

Normally aspirated V8's are proven. They are simple beasts. Those reciprocating parts don't fail much, pressurized engines have much higher stresses. Old tech isn't inherently a bad thing, so I don't take being labelled as 20th century as the insult I expect was intended.  I would choose an old 1950's design normally aspirated Lycoming aircraft engine over a new high rpm blown Rotax too. Why? Because my life depends on it working and giving me fair warning when its getting tired.  

Obviously this is a sore point with folks who like the turbos. Drive what you want to.  I don't like or trust them, and I don't need one for high altitude driving. And, I can readily fix a normally aspirated V8 if I need to.  We'll just have to disagree on this. 
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
Grant177 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 15 Mar 2020
Location: Edmonton, AB
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by mjlrpod

I would think you would have no problem at all pulling a 177 with a frontier. I pulled my 172 all over the place and never had an issue.

It's not the weight.  It's the wind resistance.  I can pull it easily at lower speeds and then to 55-60mph.  Once the wind resistance kicks in...there is just nothing left without hammering on the gas pedal.


Grant
2011 R-Pod 177
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2020 at 6:18am
Originally posted by Grant177

Originally posted by mjlrpod

I would think you would have no problem at all pulling a 177 with a frontier. I pulled my 172 all over the place and never had an issue.

It's not the weight.  It's the wind resistance.  I can pull it easily at lower speeds and then to 55-60mph.  Once the wind resistance kicks in...there is just nothing left without hammering on the gas pedal.



You're right about wind resistance being the biggest horsepower consumer when towing at a steady 60 m/h. I've run the numbers and about 60% of the demand is air drag at 60, flat ground, no wind. The other 40% is rolling resistance which is proportional to rig weight. With my rig I'm at about 44 hp total, 27 aero, and 17 rolling. mpg about 13. 

That's cruising on flat ground. Climb a 10 degree grade at 60 and suddenly there is an additional roughly 150 hp requirement, for a total of close to 200 hp. Accelerating from 50 to 60 in 10 seconds requires a similar additional hp. These numbers are what they are due to weight, not aero drag, you have to convert fuel into energy and store it in the mass of the rig. Then you get to waste all that stored energy heating up your brakes later. 

See where I'm headed with this? It's climbing, passing, and accelerating that demands gobs of power, and that is because of weight. Just cruising along doesn't require that much, even dragging a trailer. Either tolerate slowing down on hills and slower acceleration rates (like semis do), tromp on that right pedal, or get more hp under the hood. There ain't no replacement for displacement (unless you like turbos) LOL
 


1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
lostagain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Quaker Hill, CT
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2587
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2020 at 8:41am
Almost every diesel tractor out on the road these days is turbocharged.  They run cleaner and are more fuel efficient, and last for hundreds of thousands of miles.  The Ford ecoboost engine is built more like a diesel engine, though fueled by gasoline.  It delivers torque almost like a diesel, which helps in windy conditions without having to maintain a low gear with the engine roaring at 4500 rpm, as would be necessary with a naturally aspirated engine.  But, the engine is new and has already been through two versions; the second, starting with the 2018 model year.  

So, for those who are risk averse to new engine technology, the old V-8 5L Vi-VCT is a sensible choice to tow in the 190 series weight class.  You pay with reduced fuel economy and lack of torque, but you gain in feeling more secure with engine technology that has been around for decades.  For those who are less risk averse, the ecoboost engine can be a good choice.  It offers a tremendous amount of hp in a small package, has torque and performance characteristics like a diesel, and is more fuel efficient and quiet.  

If you were to tow in identical conditions, either in the mountains or with high winds, I think the ecoboost or a turbo charged diesel will out perform the old naturally aspirated engines in every aspect, but that is nothing more than an opinion which, if you also have a buck, might get you a small coffee at McD's.  [Maybe someone should organize a test our here in NV where we have plenty of wind and high mountain passes.]

I have about 2000 miles on my new truck [dang you pandemic!, I've now cancelled 2 camping trips].  Without counting the 430 mile Las Vegas trip, my average mileage, according to the onboard computer, is 24.1.  When the towing trip from Las  Vegas in a windstorm is counted in the equation, the computer says my average mileage is 20.  That ain't bad.  And I expect the mileage to improve when I install the tonneau cover today.

Once again, there is no "right" answer to the question of which engine you should choose.  It's a matter of personal choice: bacon cured with salt and smoke or maple sugar and smoke.  Both taste really good in the early morning cooked over an open fire.
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2020 at 10:24am
LA, I agree with your sentiments that this is a personal choice with no "right" answer. I do not agree with your implication that somehow choosing  a normally aspirated internal combustion engine over a turbocharged one is impugned with the label of being "risk adverse" or out of date. If its a personal choice and there is no right answer, why does one choice still have to be better than the other? 

I own a hybrid drive vehicle, which is a much more advanced drivetrain than any of the alternatives we are discussing here. It is the most efficient gasoline powered vehicle on the planet and has a normally aspirated engine. If Toyota had a hybrid drivetrain better optimized for towing I would have that in my Highlander right now. I will happily purchase an EV as my next passenger car. Both hybrids and evs are compelling in terms of reliability and efficiency. 

OTOH there is nothing inherently more "advanced" or compelling to me about turbocharged engines, they have been around forever. They have their pros and cons. I don't drive at high altitudes so there is no compelling reason for me to have one. I simply prefer normally aspirated engines for the limited time remaining before battery technology reaches the point where internal combustion engines are no longer being sold. 

I'm not in the market for a pickup at this point anyway, my normally aspirated V6 SUV and utility trailer combo serves my needs much better. And I personally hope not to ever have to buy another ICE vehicle. But, the electric F150 is apparently coming in 2022. How about 1 million lbs tow capacity? I might sign up for that..... 


I think it is time to cease this turbo vs normally aspirated debate, it is obviously a sore point with some ecoboost owners and is going nowhere. Enjoy your turbo boost and be happy!
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
StephenH View Drop Down
podders Helping podders - pHp
podders Helping podders - pHp
Avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2015
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6288
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2020 at 10:46am
Nice marketing demo, but the comments highlight that the physics of that video are not that impressive. My Frontier could probably do the same thing. The Escape I used to have could probably have also towed that train. My beef with electrics is range. When we go to visit our daughters out west, I need something that can go without having to stop for hours of recharging every couple of hours. I don't see ICE's going away any time soon. Hybrids would be more of a solution until some form of energy storage can be made that overcomes the limitations of current battery technology that provides for high energy density and very fast recharge times.

An alternative might be inductive charging so that as a vehicle operates, it could charge from the roadway, but just imagine the difficulty of incorporating inductive charging into the millions of miles of highways we already have.
StephenH
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,...

ouR escaPOD mods
Former RPod 179
Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2020 at 11:43am
Electric motors can develop their full torque at zero rpm, that's why locomotives all use electric traction motors. I doubt any ICE vehicle can come close to beating an equivalent hp EV at starting something really heavy like 1 million pounds moving slowly. The real tow ratings are going to be good (look at Tesla X which does just fine) but not dramatically better than an ICE vehicle because they will still be suspension limited. Its still nice to know that the low end grunt is there though....

There are no specs yet for the F150 ev but some of the other ev pickups and SUV's have claimed ranges of around 500 miles. Cutting that in half or a bit more than half for towing (which we all see is about right) would still be around 250-300 miles range which would be OK (my Highlander's range is about 260 towing) with sufficient level 3 DC fast chargers, which take around 30-40 minutes. I'm OK to stop and rest for 30-40 minutes after driving 200 miles. That network isn't there yet except maybe Tesla's proprietary one is getting close, but its getting built out pretty fast. Gas fueling has only had about 100 years to get there after all. Will it be there in 2022? Not likely for most RV'ers but probably yes for most drivers who will be getting better range. By 2025? Probably yes for almost everyone, and by then there should be some nice used EV SUV's and pickups available. That's why I don't expect to have to buy another ICE, as long as my 2012 Highlander can go for another 4 or 5 years I should be good. 

Forget in road inductive charging, that is far more expensive infrastructure to build out than a level 3 network. Battery cost is dropping fast so its not like 500 mile range EV's are going to be a lot more expensive than gassers in a few years, 260 mile passenger cars like the Chevy Bolt are already down around 23-25K. I'd buy a Bolt tomorrow if my Prius became a problem, but I'd rather wait till Chevy puts nicer seats in the Bolt next year.....
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz