Ronmar
Well-known member
- 3,576
- 7,053
- 113
- Location
- Port angeles wa
Yea, what inefficiencies?
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
You're confusing me with someone else. I haven't said anything about you selling anything. But you're doing an awful lot of chest thumping, to help prove your points, I guess.The automatic is not significantly more inefficient when the TC is locked. Why do you suppose the ENTIRE automotive industry has adopted automatics for better fuel economy and control? Also it's a 5 speed up to their test speed not a 4 speed, and if you surpass 65 mph you can easily get into 7th gear making it a 6 speed. My 3700SP works great along side the ECO hubs. I daily drive my truck, do all my own work, and if it sucked at any aspect of how it operates you can bet I would switch back in an instant - it wouldn't cost me a dime. So what exactly is my motivation to continue to defend my position here? If you think a couple of $400 ECM flashes is the reason you are sadly mistaken - I don't own a performance shop with a chassis dyno to make $400 once every couple months when someone decides they need their speedo to read correctly. I have a $40,000 saltwater aquarium in my lobby - this service ain't even paying for fish food pal.
It's hard to argue that the automatic's inefficiency is insignificant, while also arguing that the hub heat is very significant. The automatic transmission generates way more heat than the hubs (or a manual transmission), so much that it has its own cooling system. Do AMTs have cooling systems? I googled it, but couldn't find anything.The difference in manual vs. auto efficiency is negligible. It's not just that people are lazy - it's that automatic's have caught up and surpassed manuals in terms of performance and economy. And when you consider the need to eventually replace the dry dual-clutch (AMT's use twin clutches to shift between twin input shafts typically) when it wears out they typically have increased cost of ownership compared to automatics. Check out the complete cluster-F that is the Ford Powershift. The technology hasn't really taken off compared to true automatics and CVT's.
I think ultimately eliminating the entire drivetrain in favor of electric third members is probably the future. Hopefully someday I can yank the entire drivetrain and install batteries in it's place to power these:
Back to this point for a moment. Your own data on the 3116 shows a 50% increase in Fuel consumption between 1200RPM and 2600RPM at full load (dyno test). Now you also say at some lower load, that consumption delta drops all the way down to 5%. That didn't make any sense to me but I figured that is easy to test.So at 2600RPM the engine might need 10gal/hr of fuel to make 100HP, and at 1200RPM it needs 9.5gal/hr. That's a 5% change, not a 50% change, like you suggested.
Spot on! That's exactly what's at work here.. Once I identify this type of behavior, any hopes for a productive discussion ceases and I simply enjoy it for what it is; entertainment... Thanks for posting the link!There are people that never admit they are wrong and don't have the ability to apologize.
![]()
We all know people who just can’t apologize — well, here’s why
Non-apologizers are maddening to be around, especially when they’re clearly in the wrong. Here’s what drives their unrepentant ways and what you can do, from psychologist Guy Winch.ideas.ted.com
Kinda what I figured we would see. There's a small factory's worth of machinery being flung around at high speed in our drivetrain. Running all that stuff at double the speed is going to require fuel.Back to this point for a moment. Your own data on the 3116 shows a 50% increase in Fuel consumption between 1200RPM and 2600RPM at full load (dyno test). Now you also say at some lower load, that consumption delta drops all the way down to 5%. That didn't make any sense to me but I figured that is easy to test.
So my first test was to check my fuel flow at 1200RPM in neutral and then compare it to my fuel flow at 2400RPM in neutral. My results are in the video linked below, but the summary is 1.3gph at 1200, 4.0 at 2400. That is quite a bit more in-line with your CAT Dyno data. Well above 5%
IMG_1916.MOV - Google Drive
Note: in these videos, RPM is upper left, Fuel Flow in GPH is Lower Left.
So then I thought I'd try to test your idea with a road test. My understanding of your position, is that it takes X fuel to do a given speed in the LMTV and if the only variable is the RPM, then again, there will not be a dramatic difference, even 5% is suspect.
I apologize in advance for the videos of my test, it is tough to film and keep your eyes on the road and your speedo at the same time. Basically I tried to hold the engine as close to 42 as possible, as that was basically at redline in 3rd gear for the high-rpm test. The videos linked below show the full test, it took me roughly 40 seconds on both tests to get the speed (and fuel flow) stabilized, and they were both taken at the same start and end points.
This is the low RPM video, and you can see that most of the time it is between 4-6 gph
IMG_1915.MOV - Google Drive
This is the high rpm video and you can see that most of the time it is between 7-8 gph also, the boost is significantly higher on the high RPM test and my temperature was rising rapidly. This is basically how my truck ran before the ECO hubs, mega boost and fan kicking on every 2 minutes to maintain highway speeds.
IMG_1917.MOV - Google Drive
Again, my testing showed a much greater than 5% difference in fuel consumption when the only variable was engine RPM. I am curious what I am missing here with my tests.
Thanks for doing the test. And yes, that is my position that you should not see a huge difference between the two.Back to this point for a moment. Your own data on the 3116 shows a 50% increase in Fuel consumption between 1200RPM and 2600RPM at full load (dyno test). Now you also say at some lower load, that consumption delta drops all the way down to 5%. That didn't make any sense to me but I figured that is easy to test.
So my first test was to check my fuel flow at 1200RPM in neutral and then compare it to my fuel flow at 2400RPM in neutral. My results are in the video linked below, but the summary is 1.3gph at 1200, 4.0 at 2400. That is quite a bit more in-line with your CAT Dyno data. Well above 5%
IMG_1916.MOV - Google Drive
Note: in these videos, RPM is upper left, Fuel Flow in GPH is Lower Left.
So then I thought I'd try to test your idea with a road test. My understanding of your position, is that it takes X fuel to do a given speed in the LMTV and if the only variable is the RPM, then again, there will not be a dramatic difference, even 5% is suspect.
I apologize in advance for the videos of my test, it is tough to film and keep your eyes on the road and your speedo at the same time. Basically I tried to hold the engine as close to 42 as possible, as that was basically at redline in 3rd gear for the high-rpm test. The videos linked below show the full test, it took me roughly 40 seconds on both tests to get the speed (and fuel flow) stabilized, and they were both taken at the same start and end points.
This is the low RPM video, and you can see that most of the time it is between 4-6 gph
IMG_1915.MOV - Google Drive
This is the high rpm video and you can see that most of the time it is between 7-8 gph also, the boost is significantly higher on the high RPM test and my temperature was rising rapidly. This is basically how my truck ran before the ECO hubs, mega boost and fan kicking on every 2 minutes to maintain highway speeds.
IMG_1917.MOV - Google Drive
Again, my testing showed a much greater than 5% difference in fuel consumption when the only variable was engine RPM. I am curious what I am missing here with my tests.
Appreciate you taking the time to look at my videos and coming up with the numbers.That's a 41.3% reduction, which is a highly unexpected finding. It doesn't line up with anything (e.g. my theory that it should be as flat as the torque curve, your theory that it should cut in half like the two RPMs on the fuel consumption chart, the theory that removing the hubs is required to get improvements, or any of the engineering studies about possible fuel consumption improvements).