4.30 Axle availability
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
CAFE only applies to vehicles below 8500 lb gvw, so super duty trucks are exempt.
No matter what anecdotal information one reads on the internet, the 3.73 will provide better fuel economy than 4.30s.
The 4.30 will allow higher gvw ratings, , but at a cost in increased fuel consumption.
Ford engineers aren't as stupid as some seem to believe.
No matter what anecdotal information one reads on the internet, the 3.73 will provide better fuel economy than 4.30s.
The 4.30 will allow higher gvw ratings, , but at a cost in increased fuel consumption.
Ford engineers aren't as stupid as some seem to believe.
Its obvious you have not worked on too many vehicles, especially Ford vehicles over the years. If you had you would see some of the mistakes (often really dumb ones) that have been made by Ford engineers.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 23
I have 3.73's in my '11 as well as my '03. My '95 has 4.10's, far superior. Any difference in mpg's could never be worth the real world use ability difference of the lower gear ratio, if there is in fact any difference to be found at all mileage wise.
Problem is I'm a tight wad so I never buy a new off the lot truck and I always say that when I have an issue that's when I'll gear it up proper. That's what happened with my '95, but none of the newer stuff yet.
Problem is I'm a tight wad so I never buy a new off the lot truck and I always say that when I have an issue that's when I'll gear it up proper. That's what happened with my '95, but none of the newer stuff yet.
More Turbo
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 585
Likes: 11
From: Upper penninsula
You are operating on outdated information. We are already in phase one for Medium and Heavy duty vehicles.
No, real world not anecdotal. We have tested mpg with the same truck configurations (6.2l vs 6.2l and 6.2l vs 6.8l), on the same roads, same trips, same driving conditions etc. The difference is tiny as I have said before. And we are not the only ones that have come to that conclusion.
Its obvious you have not worked on too many vehicles, especially Ford vehicles over the years. If you had you would see some of the mistakes (often really dumb ones) that have been made by Ford engineers.
No, real world not anecdotal. We have tested mpg with the same truck configurations (6.2l vs 6.2l and 6.2l vs 6.8l), on the same roads, same trips, same driving conditions etc. The difference is tiny as I have said before. And we are not the only ones that have come to that conclusion.
Its obvious you have not worked on too many vehicles, especially Ford vehicles over the years. If you had you would see some of the mistakes (often really dumb ones) that have been made by Ford engineers.
Actually. I worked directly with Ford Light Truck Engineering for about twenty five years, starting in the mid 80s.
I also worked with the EPA, DOE, and EMA in the 2007-2009 timeframe
when the medium and Heavy-Duty rules were being developed. I left the industry seven years ago and didn't realize things moved forward. There wasn't much progress yet when I retired.
A casual search suggests that the fuel economy rules are gams of CO2 per ton mile, which explains the dramatic increase in rated gvwr and gcwr over the past few years.
It's relatively easy to increase capacity as opposed to improving aerodynamics or powertrain efficiency.
It's also easy to call out "dumb" ideas when one is an observer, with no involvement or responsibility,rather than a participant.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
puddintank
2017 - 2022 Super Duty
0
Feb 1, 2017 05:03 PM
Ziska
Car/truck Buying Advice
2
Aug 9, 2016 04:39 AM
GammaDriver
1997 - 2003 F150
5
Nov 23, 2012 11:39 PM
