Search results

Ok, so by your expert opinion, 30+ HP, a full 10-13% of the engine HP is just spinning the hubs. Got it.

It's not as much as you are assuming. The only thing changing spinning here is the hub gears. 1HP=746W So a 225HP engine is putting out 167,850W, and if 30% efficient is taking in 559,500W worth of fuel. Now think about if you had a standard 1500W heat gun (a 2HP heat gun)... it would have...

It's operating at full RPM, not maximum power output possible for the engine (at any RPM) or full load for that RPM. You just hit the governor and it stops accelerating. It's making exactly as much power as necessary to maintain that speed, and that power requirement doesn't change because of...

It would certainly be a better. I believe you measured those results, and that you believe them, but you should have immediately known better (unless you just don't understand these topics well). What's wrong with your test? One single test Mostly just highway, at one speed (could be good...

The graph is created on a dyno, at 100% engine utilization, which is why I took the time to explain it so carefully. Either you didn't read it, or couldn't understand it. Maybe you're just trolling, but I'm not sure if you deserve that much credit. If you need 100HP worth of fuel to go 62MPH...

Yes, because it isn't just a simple "cut everything in half" problem. Here's how it works: If you are rolling down the highway at 62MPH, with the engine off/disconnected, you could add up all the resistances... aerodynamic drag, axle friction, tire rolling resistance, etc. Whatever that...

Best of luck to you. This is why my original statement was that there is no point arguing with such ignorance.

You are literally dropping the 2:1... taking it out. So, (ignoring the unused 1st gear) it turns a closer-ratio 6-speed transmission into a wider-ratio 4-speed (across the same 0-65MPH driving speed range). The fluid torque multiplication of the torque converter was there before, and is still...

Can't prove a negative.

I did read it. It just wasn't worth jumping into that circus.

I did, it's called physics. You can't drop the 2:1 in the hubs, and make the truck better at everything (e.g. MPG, speed, pulling, etc.). It's not even worth arguing with stuff so completely ignorant. It's snake oil.

They consider it because they don't understand physics.

Obviously, but it would give you the option to disengage it.

https://thosemilitaryguys.com/products/new-locking-fuel-cap-for-m939-and-m35a3-military-trucks-tan?_pos=2&_sid=f42e4dd5d&_ss=r

I recommend leaving them alone for now. I'm sure you have plenty of other things to check or rebuild, but I'd spend the time and money on something else (instead of the hubs), like putting good synthetic gear oil in the axles/hubs.

Realistically, there isn't much wear to account for. Our trucks aren't driven enough, or hard enough. So it's not similar to videos of people checking the slop on the ring and pinion of an axle with 100,000 miles on it. So "just setting them up the same as before" isn't a bad option, if you...

A cost per MILE figure probably isn't really accurate, especially with the great differences in how much they are driven. I've driven mine 2000 miles in one week, and 200 miles in a different year. If you aren't making repairs, just "regular maintenance" isn't bad. 5-7MPG (don't believe any...

Was there any trick to this?

I usually have one in the truck, yes, but it uses up a lot of air, so it drains the tanks and then you wait for it to refill. Instead of the impact gun, consider a torque multiplier plus a ratchet. The torque multiplier will let you loosen (or tighten) anything, and then the ratchet (or...