Search results

Interesting question. Can you clarify what you're getting at? Neither truck is going to generate more hp at 70mph regardless of rpm. They will be generating the exact same power assuming they are holding a steady 70mph and not accelerating. But the truck running higher rpm's will have the...

Yep, that makes perfect sense if you're running 1750-ish with 3.21 gears.

No, not really. Kind of a myth these days. It applied several decades ago when engines came out of the factory with overly tight tolerances. 60-65mph should be a good range for highway MPG. Mine starts to take a dive at 75.

Ok, I will grant you that it's plausible if the scenario results in the the 3.92 truck spending more time at lower rpm than the 3.21 truck. Not sure that's going to happen very often.

3.21s have a fuel efficiency advantage (albeit small) under virtually all scenarios. 3.92s have the advantage in virtually everything except fuel efficiency. I agree with this. If my dealer would've had 3.92 on the lot, I would've gotten it. But since I don't tow (at all), I have no regrets.

No way. All else being equal, I'd say 1-2mpg tops.

Yes, these are new marine engines. I never personally had problems with my marine engines, but I kept mine in a garage so the reduction in temperature swings helped delay fuel "souring" and phase separation. But all you have to do is talk to a marine mechanic and they'll tell you how much...

The marine manufacturers would disagree. They specifically state that their systems are designed to tolerate up to 10% ethanol, which is fine except when the fuel sits for too long, either in the tank or inside the engine. Granted, very very few vehicles sit with the same fuel in the tank for...

I think that's a fair concern and cheap insurance if you are driving only 40-50 miles per week. I've seen what ethanol fuel does to marine engines so I find it hard to believe that automotive systems are immune. E10 still goes bad much faster than ethanol-free.

Running non-ethanol fuel will help with mileage a little but no enough to make up for the additional cost.

I see what you mean. A little shady but not really charging twice. But if one dealer in the area starts doing it, I can see why the others might follow suit. Otherwise it appears they are $1500-$2000 overpriced.

Wow, that's definitely sucky.

Of the paperwork showing you were charged twice.

Fair point. You might choose power running boards or 4-corner air suspension because you will enjoy using them. Who chooses e-Torque because they will enjoy using it? More likely, they choose it because they HOPE it will save a little fuel and the HOPE it won't have problems.

I think this is a real possibility. It won't be cheap, but it will be necessary to keep these trucks on the road for 12-15 years or more.

Yes, but these are additional parts (actually one additional part, the 48v battery, and one much more expensive part, the MGU) compared to the alternative. It's about the likely incremental cost of the eTorque vs non-eTorque version.

I have eTorque and I like it, but I think it is a legitimate concern. After 8 years, the battery will have to be replaced, no doubt. They are expensive and will likely become more expensive and difficult to come by because it is a system that is not widely used in the automobile industry and...

Torqueage

It's all about TORQUE . . . not horsepowers.

Ok, so I have to admit: I made a Costco run this morning with the wifey. It's only 6 miles away but the Big Ho' almost overheated because Oikos yogurt was on sale and I have 3.21 gears. Good thing it wasn't time to replenish my supply of Benefiber or I likely would've never made it home...