Changing gear size

[Erikclaw]

.5" seems to be normal, but a whole inch off is kind of lame.

 

[Dzchey21]

I always felt that my truck on 37s with 3.73s felt great, it got out of the hole just fine and was perfect at 2000 rpm on the high way

Tank is just mad because he doesnt have the power to turn his tires without 4.56s LOL j/k tank

 

[Jeff@Spartan]

.5" seems to be normal, but a whole inch off is kind of lame.

Yeah. I had a set of 305/55/20 Toyo's that I ran with my 20x9 BMF's. They were supposed to measure 33.2" on a 9.5" wide wheel. They measured 32" exactly mounted.

 

[Erikclaw]

Maybe when they just come out of the mold and not mounted is how they measure these things. Just like how being in cold water can make a measurement off too. Shrinkage

 

[TANK'S 250]

Tank is just mad because he doesnt have the power to turn his tires without 4.56s LOL j/k tank

LOL...Ask anyone who has ridden in my truck...I could smoke my 41's.....but thats because I have a manual tranny....LOL LOL LOL

 

[Charles]

Now I am getting an English education also. Thanks for this. I really appreciate to know all the money I spent on education and experiences I have had growing up was a waste and I could have just been educated on both from you. Thanks

If you had everything so well under wraps, then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of what you asserted in this thread was incorrect?

People as on the ball as you seem to think you are take pause in situations like that and reassess the situation as well as their own position. You have shown the true nature of your character however, in the fact that after being shown wrong, not even due to logic alone, but also due to actual experiences of multiple individuals that support that logic, you do not in such a case admit error, but instead fall back on a childish defense mechanism of sarcastic references to your own alluded mental warehouse of knowledge.

BTW, you were also wrong about singles vs duals as well, but I didn't feel the need to delve into that. Given your recent persistent need to continue being less than bright, I figure I'll throw that out there now too. Two sh*tty little tires do not necessarily offer more stability than one high strength tire. All they offer is redundancy. If this were untrue then super singles would not exist in the heavy truck arena, nor would their use be so prevalent.

 

[KPSquared]

tbsimmons - If you happen to have lost your ass recently, I think Charles just found it and has offered to hand it to you . . .LOLwned:

 

[tbsimmons]

Just a difference of opinion on ideas is all it was too me. Some people like a dually for weight some dont, some like to have highway gears some dont.

 

[Charles]

...

 

[tbsimmons]

I was not going to respond to continue this argument but with the smart ass comments and personal attacks on character, I decided what the hell. Stating someone doesnt have character that you have never met is amazing to me.
Here goes:
Dually vs. SRW – Suspension is negligible because anything can be upgraded.
You stat that a SRW is better. If you towed much of anything with pin weight then you would know that you are overloading not only your tires but also the truck. The most common tire that you are defending the size of is from a 35-37 range. So that means that if you take the weight rating which most are in the 3-3500 range with some in the 4000# but I dont remember any in that range that are 20's, but might be wrong have not looked at that size in a while.
So if you put these tires on the back of a truck and had a trailer with 4500# pin weight and you use the 3500# tire that only leaves you 2500# for the weight of the ass end of the truck. Last I looked these trucks weigh in the 8000#+ range. So to me unless the front of the truck is 5500+ and the rear is only 2500 then I guess you are fine, but still maxing the tires out. Either way what tires you put on the truck you are over weight with a CC SRW 4x4 having around 3000# of cargo give or take the options of the pick up. Get in a wreck and you will be writing a lot of checks to everyone.
Now your super single comment, they suck ass in the mud. The fronts on our tractors have them but the rears are duals, reason, the super singles could not get traction with them, just sat on top and spun. For duals you have 4 sidewalls and not 2. For us, not the super single 22.5 guys, means you have double (For the sake of argument) the force acting to make a tire roll over. My tires on my dually are rated at 4300 per tire in duals. And 4600 in singles. Which is a little more than any 2 on a SRW, again not counting the super singles which not to many people have on a F250.
I hated feeling the back of my F350 SRW with 18000# fifth wheel behind me when the wind is blowing. It will move the ass end of the truck any place it wants. I could feel the tires getting to the point of rolling over. Not a good feeling. Reason for the Dually. Not for ease of use, miss my SRW, it was for driver feeling and being stressed when the wind blew.
Gearing - Mechanical Advantage is lost when you change the tire size at all more so if going from say a 33 to a 40., which is 18%. The mechanical advantage which is used to get things moving, more so when you are grossing in the 22000# range and for me is in the 28000# range, which that 18% can mean a lot on a hill or to just get the train moving. The reason that a lower value gear can be used in the new trucks compared to the old, with new transmissions is first gear is 3.96:1 and the 5R110 is 3.1:1 IIRC. Now take that with tire size and you can run a larger tire on the 2011's than the 08-10's and still have the same mechanical advantage with the torque of the engine being the same, which it is not.
Now using a certain gear over another. For the best mileage you are going to have to get the transmission and engine at peak efficiency, which are not the same rpm. This is without thinking of what the truck is going to be used for. I will take you application you are arguing tall gear tall tire. In a 6.0 which I think you have, the peak torque is higher than a 6.4. This is why when I switched from 3.73's to 4.56's keeping my speed constant I did not take a hit in mileage, of course I didnt and dont drive 90 in my trucks. Reason is, I was lugging the engine in the places I drive and had to be into the turbo more with 3.73’s. In the 6.4 I have found if you keep the RPM around 2000 then you are good for mileage, off throttle power without downshifting, again purpose of the vehicle. For the 6.4 and 35's wanting to cruise at 80 at 2000 rpm would be about a 3.73. Now for towing much weight on anything but the flats you dont want that RPM, the truck will downshift too much. I like cruising towing 18000# behind me for the RPM to be in the 2250 range, again less downshifts, TC locked and much easier on the tranny, it stays much cooler. Now with the same tire towing at 73 MPH you are at a 4.56 gear. 2000 drops you down to 65. Any hill around me will make my truck down shift if I am at 2000 rpm with my trailer, again I don’t live I the flat lands. This is a reason I have 34” tires and 4.88’s, 2250 puts me at 65, I tow between 60-65. Now tuners can change all of this, but we all know that tuners can mask the need for other things.
Singles vs. Duals – I have never done a single conversion on my truck. From the guys that have done them and posted about them either:
1) Don’t tow
2) If do don’t tow a lot of weight
3) Went back to compounds
4) Or tow light and deal with the lag.
If this is wrong please correct, but that is what I remember I read.

 

[TyCorr]

I
I hated feeling the back of my F350 SRW with 18000# fifth wheel behind me when the wind is blowing. It will move the ass end of the truck any place it wants. I could feel the tires getting to the point of rolling over. Not a good feeling. Reason for the Dually.

Ummm...no...

Ive only felt that once. I had goodyear wranglers that were E rated put on my 3/4 ton chevy dmax and it was marshmallowy. Put Michelin LTX a/s on it in E rating and it was gone. Pulled 14k lb trailer and couldnt tell it was back there other than when I turned or saw it in the mirror changing lanes.

Im not saying yours didnt do that, just that IVE NEVER SEEN or FELT that. :shrug: I only tow about 50k miles a year though so I dont have a clue what Im talking about.

 

[tbsimmons]

Then it is not an UMMM.....NO... then is it?
If you have never seen or felt it why did you stat it in your first sentence?
Couldnt tell it was back there, yep hear that all the time from people defending a SRW over a dually. Even friends do it towing around the same weight as I do till they tow with dually, guess what they go and buy a dually.
You must know a lot towing that much then.

 

[TANK'S 250]

Now tuners can change all of this, but we all know that tuners can mask the need for other things.
.

yup...

...tuners mask the need for the change...but the tranny still takes the brunt of the abuse from the lack of gearing...

 

[97powerstroke]

Get a gear vendors overdrive and you can have the best of both worlds

 

[Charles]

I purposefully deleted my entire response over an HOUR before what you responded to, and only MINUTES after submitting it for the sole purpose of avoiding any more communication with a dumbass.

Would the Mods please return my deleted post to full working order now. Thanks.

 

[Charles]

Nevermind, never having closed my browser it was still in the history.

Just a difference of opinion on ideas is all it was too me. Some people like a dually for weight some dont, some like to have highway gears some dont.

Difference of opinion. Is that all...


Well, thanks to the magic of transcript.... lets check!

Beating a car from 70 to 80 does not say a thing. That could be from a number of things. You were not in OD yet and did not need to downshift. He had to down shift 2 gears and was not in the power band when he down shifted, etc.

Here we get our first glimpse into your lack of reading comprehension. The roll ons started at 70 to 80 and ended north of 130. Everyone other than you got it fine. At all times we must remain cognisant of your later SA comments about receiving an education about blah, blah and blah, so on and so forth while we read through blunder after blunder.

Regardless...

The reason you are having traction problems is not power, it is gears.
When you dont have enough gear you shock the drivetrain more, ever heard of flashing a converter. That is what you are doing.

Hmmm. So I guess chopping the throttle because the rear of the truck is in the next lane and those pesky black marks and blue smoke rolling out the wheel-wells is all the work of me pulling through the converter. Neverminding for a minute that I have my trans set to Lock the TCC the minute the truck hits 28mph and leave it that way....

Is it an opinion that I had traction issues with the Toyo OC AT's repeatedly, to the point of selling them for the MT ATZ's? Ah... no, lol. The truck repeatedly spun the tires with the converter locked in 3rd gear. 640+hp and those tires did not hook on my truck. Converter was locked up solid.

For anyone keeping score, that's error numero dos.

Daily driving a tractor, well when you use these trucks for what they were built for I would blow your drivetrain up I bet in one trip to the beach. Try towing 18000#, 13.5' fiver up a LONG 7+% grade and see what the tranny temp does with 37's and 3.73 gears.

MontEagle is 6% and I have repeatedly pulled 17,000 up it with the cruise set at 65mph (55mph speed limit) and the trans temps were fine with the 4R.

As for the nature of the thread, with respect to gearing.... on the EXACT SAME stretch of interstate, hauling the EXACT SAME load, at LESS SPEED, my F550 with 4.88 gears MELTED its ZF6 in a mere 4 trips, whereas my F-250 went for dozens of trips before such a problem with 3.73 gears in the rear! They both failed in IDENTICAL fashion. Each of them started popping out of 4th gear under load and the fluid was scorched black in each case, even though in each case it had less than 50,000 miles on it.

Key takeaway..... it didn't make too much of a *** what gears I was running now did it? They both suffered the same fate. The 550 sooner probably due to the 3000 additional pounds of the truck itself.

Each of those trucks has towed as much as 23,000lbs, just not for any long duration at 7% or more, although towing 23,000lbs my truck with the 3.73's has been through the hills around my house a few times where the grades are 8%+. While the 550 has to downshift once or sometimes twice due to being tuned at ~300rwhp, my truck barels on at full speed with light throttle, 3.73 gears and all.

Clearly the gearing is not the determinant of trans temp, nor what you can and cannot tow. In this case, one truck having a 4R100 with a large ford cooler and copius amounts of horsepower to use at will makes all the difference in both towing strength, and trans temp. 4.88 gears would be an unecessary hinderance in my truck, and 3.73's wouldn't make the trans in the 550 run any hotter, it would just run one gear lower than it does now and melt down the driveline just the same.

Again.... we should clarify, this wasn't my nor your opinion.

So you think you can take a 400 HP Porsche, I doubt it. There is a thing that is power to weight ratio. Hell I doubt 600 HP Superduty would take my non-stock 96 Impala that is more than 1500# heavier with a little more than 400 to the wheels. Too much weight and rolling resistance.

Who said my truck was 600.00hp? And mainly.... you talk in terms of hypotheticals, when my example was the C63 AMG benz that I DID kill..... twice....

If you want to run around in a big hypothetical circle-jerk with power to weight ratios, you should have started there.




Our second installment:

Been around long enough, more so racing gas engines. This is not my first go around with a Diesel, my last truck was an 04 F350 SRW that was not stock.
But stating that a 3/4 ton can handle a load better than a 450 is down right wrong. No matter if you use a steel rod for rear springs, 2 tires on the road is not going to handle the weight better than 4. Been on both sides and can vouch for that one. Remember my 350 SRW was not stock, including the suspension.

Well..... you're wrong. Aside from the exceptionally better braking, my F-250 on 35 x 13.5 R18 Load Range E tires handles the loads BETTER than my F-550 on the stock sized and rated duals.

In fact, as soon as I get away from the interstate I often drop the load at the office and switch back to my truck for the trip up through the hills to my house for STABILITY on the windy, hilly roads up there. I don't run the full trip with my truck as much anymore because of legality and the desire to lessen the amount of extra-curricular stress I put on it when I can.

The ONLY thing I miss when in my truck are the larger mirrors, and the larger service brakes. Period. I own both.... currently, as well as an F-350 dually, which is a complete joke compared to either.

Something else to blow your mind...... the factory rated towing capacity listed in my owner's manual is HIGHER for a SRW truck of the exact same configuration as compared to that of a DRW. I personally think this due to added vehicle weight of the dual laden vehicle, but regardless I find it humurous in light of this topic.

I read that wrong but it is still hard to believe when a rolling brick in the 8000# range and 600 HP can take a car that is 4000# and over 400 HP. SO he is in the 13 HP per # and the Benz is in the 10# per HP. Plus wind resistance at that speed in a rolling brick. Now I could believe it from a Dig for a quarter mile. But hell that Benz would most likely stay with or beat my moms 535i twin turbo that would hand my Impala its ass at pretty much any speed above 60, from a dig it is a different story, reason is weight and wind resistance. I doubt a 600 HP rolling brick could have stayed with either one.

First off..... seeing as how it already happened, it should have been a clue that you were in error. But.... by the numbers.... my truck at the time had just put down 644rwhp at ~70lbs of boost. At the time I ran the Benz I was running ~80lbs of boost because I just so happend to have been tuning the chargers when I ran across the Benz that day and didn't have time to mess with anything when I saw a chance to give him a run. However..... if we simply use the dyno-verified value of 644, that means that my 6800lb truck (with me in it) had a weight to power ratio (your choice, not mine) of 10.5lbs per Hp.

Looking at Mercedes literature, the C63 AMG lists a curb weight of 3924lbs. Toss in a couple 180lbs guys like were in the one I toasted, and we're at 4284lbs as tested, lol. That means that to match my weight to power ratio, that car would have to put down 408rwhp. The car is specified to produce 451bhp. In order for that engine to pull 408rwhp the driveline would have to rank a 9 some odd % parasitic loss. Good luck with that...

Secondly.... this is still only taking into account the peak power figures, and even then, based on the printed literature of the OEM in the case of the Benz. The fact of the matter is, the powerband ratio of my diesel is probably a great deal wider than that of the benz, in that it produces upward of 600hp over a great rpm ratio, accounting for the fact that the benz would wax and wain as I came by it, while my diesel was just shoving onward with greater and greater force as it ate it's way toward redline, largely in a single gear, OD.

The Benz only remotely stayed with me due to aero drag. Otherwise an equally shaped vehicle to the benz, but with my engine and weight would have walked away from it to an even greater extent.



Next two:

For a lifted truck to overcome the wind resistance at that speed I would bet that he would have to have around 10.5-11 HP per # to overcome a car built to cruise at over 100. That would put him in the 6300-6600# range. A good comparison is look at cars running turbo or superchargers. They MPH way better for the same ET than these trucks. Weight and wind resistance kills the MPH.

I had the units backwards and cant edit the top one. It is # per HP.
So He is at 13#/HP and the Benz is in the 10#/HP.

These two are the reason for my having stated that the majority of your assertions were incorrect, as these two are logically good.

After reading the above you now know however that my ratio was in fact 10.5 lbs per Hp and that of the Benz was in fact worse going off of direct published data.... neverminding for the moment the fact that I already outran one.... twice.

Been on both forums long enough and by the join date not much shorter than you.
Anything is possible, my 04 was lifted 6" with springs I had made for the rear a little more spring rate than a 1 ton and ran the 2" 3/4 ton blocks with air bags. I never said that it could not be done, just said that 2 tires on the road is not as stable as 4 because I have done it, too much sidewall give in my opinion or at least with the pin weight of my Toyhauler. Even with a 7000# tow behind I could tell a difference with the dually. That was the reason I got a dually. Didnt like the wind moving me any more with the SRW. I dont think the lift has too much to do with it, if done right and not too tall, but the pin weight plays a major roll.

Two tires of equal performance, dimensional and strength characteristics would under normal circumstances be better than one for stability in terms of weight carrying capacity, however, since you do not have the constraint of tire spacing as you do with duals, with a SRW configuration you are free to run a MUCH.... MUCH higher capacity tire as a single than you could as a dual without spacers and such to keep them apart. In this reality, it is not hard to have a high quality single that outperforms a crappy little stock tire in a DRW configuration. The sidewall flex on our bone stock F-350 DRW is far greater than on my truck with the 35 x 13.5 R18 MT ATZ's. The dually gets thrown all around in the windy roads near my house and my truck is rock solid. I dread having to tow anything with that truck. It is squirrelly with far less weight on it than my truck will run without an issue at all.

Fact. It's not my opinion. If you put a G-meter in the trucks you could record the additional lateral sway if a person felt so inclined.



And I can't help but laugh at the thought of grabbing a dually because you need better traction, lol. I'll try to remember that the next time I'm dragging my 550 up my driveway with the tractor because it can only rarely get a load of hay to the top without spinning down, whereas my 250 on 13.5" wide all terrains goes straight to the top in 2wd every....single....time...

Anyone that has EVER owned a dually KNOWS that they are PA....***ING....THETIC on snow, ice, mud, wet grass, fresh banana peels, so on and so forth...

 

[fbilly420]

Good read Charles

 

[tbsimmons]

I purposefully deleted my entire response over an HOUR before what you responded to, and only MINUTES after submitting it for the sole purpose of avoiding any more communication with a dumbass.

They were still there when I responded. Look another personal attack. Do you get something out of attempting to degrade people. I could care less what you think of me. Learned a long time ago that the only people that I give 2 ****s of what they think, Boss and family. The others you can live without.

Deference of opinion. Is that all...

Yes that is exactly what it is.

Here we get our first glimpse into your lack of reading comprehension. The roll ons started at 70 to 80 and ended north of 130. Everyone other than you got it fine. At all times we must remain cognisant of your later SA comments about receiving an education about blah, blah and blah, so on and so forth while we read through blunder after blunder.

If you are so good of a reader you would have read that I stated that I read that wrong. But I guess anyone else’s opinion don’t mean **** to you and everyone should take your word as gospel.

Hmmm. So I guess chopping the throttle because the rear of the truck is in the next lane and those pesky black marks and blue smoke rolling out the wheel-wells is all the work of me pulling through the converter. Neverminding for a minute that I have my trans set to Lock the TCC the minute the truck hits 28mph and leave it that way....

Is it an opinion that I had traction issues with the Toyo OC AT's repeatedly, to the point of selling them for the MT ATZ's? Ah... no, lol. The truck repeatedly spun the tires with the converter locked in 3rd gear. 640+hp and those tires did not hook on my truck. Converter was locked up solid.

For anyone keeping score, that's error numero dos.

No I stated after that you either have more power or less weight in order to beat the cars that were stated you had. I could give too ****s on what cars you can beat. But stating you have 600 and not stating the truck is on the light side is leading people to think, hey I have upwards of 600 HP I can take a 400+ HP sports car when they are in an 8000# sled.

MontEagle is 6% and I have repeatedly pulled 17,000 up it with the cruise set at 65mph (55mph speed limit) and the trans temps were fine with the 4R.

If you would have read further in my responses I stated that I never said that it cant be don’t, that it shouldn’t. Hell like I also stated I did it with my F350 SRW, just that I did not feel safe doing so.

Key takeaway..... it didn't make too much of a *** what gears I was running now did it? They both suffered the same fate. The 550 sooner probably due to the 3000 additional pounds of the truck itself.

Could have been anything, but saying that the 4.88’s cant handle weight is just wrong or the weight caused the failure. Hell they could have been out of oil, water intrusion, bad set up.

Each of those trucks has towed as much as 23,000lbs, just not for any long duration at 7% or more, although towing 23,000lbs my truck with the 3.73's has been through the hills around my house a few times where the grades are 8%+. While the 550 has to downshift once or sometimes twice due to being tuned at ~300rwhp, my truck barels on at full speed with light throttle, 3.73 gears and all.

Like I have stated a tuner, which you have more than that, masks the need for other things. Again difference of opinion. But large tires and stock gears with stock tranny’s have been blowing up for a while. Many people have done it. Maybe not you but I am sure you have heard or read that this guy but 40’s on his truck with 3.73 gears and wondered why he was going through transmissions or rear ends.

Clearly the gearing is not the determinant of trans temp, nor what you can and cannot tow. In this case, one truck having a 4R100 with a large ford cooler and copius amounts of horsepower to use at will makes all the difference in both towing strength, and trans temp. 4.88 gears would be an unecessary hinderance in my truck, and 3.73's wouldn't make the trans in the 550 run any hotter, it would just run one gear lower than it does now and melt down the driveline just the same.

I bet your tranny is not stock, if it was it would toast, if it is stock Ford should take it and bronze it for display. What I have experienced with the tuning in these trucks is the TC locks at a certain MPH, which is set by gear size. You can not lock a TC earlier with 3.73’s than with 4.88’s without having some drawbacks. One which would be the turbo not staying lite. But you are correct that you an just downshift the truck and effectively get the same gearing I guess I don’t know the gear ratios of the 4R never had one so never really cared.

Again.... we should clarify, this wasn't my nor your opinion.

Again why is your experiences gospel and everyone elses is just BS. I don’t get it.

Who said my truck was 600.00hp? And mainly.... you talk in terms of hypotheticals, when my example was the C63 AMG benz that I DID kill..... twice....

Good for you it was stated earlier in the thread that you had 600HP.

Well..... you're wrong. Aside from the exceptionally better braking, my F-250 on 35 x 13.5 R18 Load Range E tires handles the loads BETTER than my F-550 on the stock sized and rated duals.

Good for your truck. I have never esperienced a single tire holding weight better than duals. The only place I have been that I miss a SRW, the beach. Duals suck ass. My stock tires did not do to well at work in the mud the new ones I don’t have a problem. Of course I don’t have a problem in a 2wd Tacoma Prerunner either.

In fact, as soon as I get away from the interstate I often drop the load at the office and switch back to my truck for the trip up through the hills to my house for STABILITY on the windy, hilly roads up there. I don't run the full trip with my truck as much anymore because of legality and the desire to lessen the amount of extra-curricular stress I put on it when I can.

Well your experience with a SRW is exact opposite than mine. If it wasn’t do you think I would have got a payment, HELL NO!!

Something else to blow your mind...... the factory rated towing capacity listed in my owner's manual is HIGHER for a SRW truck of the exact same configuration as compared to that of a DRW. I personally think this due to added vehicle weight of the dual laden vehicle, but regardless I find it humurous in light of this topic.

It doesn’t surprise me. My brothers 06 F350 CCLB DRW is not much more than his old 06 F250 CCSB 4x4. But years make a huge difference. 05 they changed them and raised the capacity. My bothers 06 F250 was a lot more than my 04 F350 SRW.

First off..... seeing as how it already happened, it should have been a clue that you were in error. But.... by the numbers.... my truck at the time had just put down 644rwhp at ~70lbs of boost. At the time I ran the Benz I was running ~80lbs of boost because I just so happend to have been tuning the chargers when I ran across the Benz that day and didn't have time to mess with anything when I saw a chance to give him a run. However..... if we simply use the dyno-verified value of 644, that means that my 6800lb truck (with me in it) had a weight to power ratio (your choice, not mine) of 10.5lbs per Hp.

Like stated in the thread you had 600HP in a truck that after weighing many of them, was in the 8000# range.

These two are the reason for my having stated that the majority of your assertions were incorrect, as these two are logically good.

After reading the above you now know however that my ratio was in fact 10.5 lbs per Hp and that of the Benz was in fact worse going off of direct published data.... neverminding for the moment the fact that I already outran one.... twice. [/QUOTE] Well like said before, it was stated that you had 600 HP and the weight was never posted till now.

Two tires of equal performance, dimensional and strength characteristics would under normal circumstances be better than one for stability in terms of weight carrying capacity, however, since you do not have the constraint of tire spacing as you do with duals, with a SRW configuration you are free to run a MUCH.... MUCH higher capacity tire as a single than you could as a dual without spacers and such to keep them apart. In this reality, it is not hard to have a high quality single that outperforms a crappy little stock tire in a DRW configuration. The sidewall flex on our bone stock F-350 DRW is far greater than on my truck with the 35 x 13.5 R18 MT ATZ's. The dually gets thrown all around in the windy roads near my house and my truck is rock solid. I dread having to tow anything with that truck. It is squirrelly with far less weight on it than my truck will run without an issue at all.

I don’t think either one of us is running stock tires. I don’t know what comes on the F350 anymore have not looked. But I am not disagreeing with you on that statement. I had Toyo’s on my SRW and they did good. But the pin weight of 4500# cramming down on a tire in a turn. I will take my dually. It has not moved, I have to look at either the trailer in the mirror or the bushes most of the time to see if the wind is blowing. I don’t know what you tow but a 13.5’ 42’ long fifth wheel is a rolling brick that catches anything. Again our experiences are opposite.

Fact. It's not my opinion. If you put a G-meter in the trucks you could record the additional lateral sway if a person felt so inclined.

Don’t disagree. My dually does not move side to side as bad as my SRW did.

And I can't help but laugh at the thought of grabbing a dually because you need better traction, lol. I'll try to remember that the next time I'm dragging my 550 up my driveway with the tractor because it can only rarely get a load of hay to the top without spinning down, whereas my 250 on 13.5" wide all terrains goes straight to the top in 2wd every....single....time...

Anyone that has EVER owned a dually KNOWS that they are PA....***ING....THETIC on snow, ice, mud, wet grass, fresh banana peels, so on and so forth...

I should have been a little clearer, my definition of a tractor is what we use to move rigs, a Semi. When I stated the super single I should have been more clear of what vehicle it was going on. The stock tires I had on my dually you are correct they sucked ass in the mud, snow, ice, etc. They were the continental tires and were off my truck in about 13000 miles because of it.

 

[Charles]

My thoughts are not "Gospel". But what was in question wasn't opinion, it was factual information. And when things are factual and objective they are valid on their own, independent of any opinions. That doesn't make it "gospel" because I happen to state it. It is true in and of itself.

Comments along the lines of , 'no single tire handling as well as a dual setup' are simply untrue. Obviously single tire setups exist that have more weight carrying capacity and better handling characteristics than that of some other dual setups. Things like this are not subjective in the least.

The fact that a diesel truck like ours running a 5:1+ R&P ratio will never outrun a sportscar like the C63 AMG from an 80mph roll-on is equally objective. The rpm is simply not there. Auxiliary transmission ratios and such could be employed to offset such a final drive, but in the amount necessary to overturn such a ratio, the needed auxiliary ratio would be impractical and urealistic in practice.

The biggest issue is your having held me as a liar by stating that my direct account of outrunning the benz flat-out never happened. Hello.... you called me a liar bud. Right off the bat.

You also called me a liar about traction issues with the toyos by telling me I was actually pulling through the converter, like I was a small child unsure of his surroundings.

And you couldn't figure out why my replies to the guy that just told me I was FOS twice were less than angelic?


Making matters worse is the fact that my truck is not even that strong, nor that fast. Making your questioning the thought of trouncing a little sportscar all the more annoying.

I'm simplying explaining to you why my return tone was the way it was.

 

[TyCorr]

Ummm...no...

Ive only felt that once. I had goodyear wranglers that were E rated put on my 3/4 ton chevy dmax and it was marshmallowy. Put Michelin LTX a/s on it in E rating and it was gone. Pulled 14k lb trailer and couldnt tell it was back there other than when I turned or saw it in the mirror changing lanes.

Im not saying yours didnt do that, just that IVE NEVER SEEN or FELT that. :shrug: I only tow about 50k miles a year though so I dont have a clue what Im talking about.

Then it is not an UMMM.....NO... then is it?
If you have never seen or felt it why did you stat it in your first sentence?
Couldnt tell it was back there, yep hear that all the time from people defending a SRW over a dually. Even friends do it towing around the same weight as I do till they tow with dually, guess what they go and buy a dually.
You must know a lot towing that much then.

The bolded parts above, read them again. Another blunder in the Reading and Comprehension section of this test.

Another Ummmmm....nooooo. My last dually was a 96 f350 cc/lb drw 460ci 5spd. I realized back then when the lightduty diesel segment came to life with the availability of the powerstroke in the superduties that I didnt need that bs anymore. Ran wide tires and lift on that truck, towing for 245k miles. Now its got 265k, 3.73's, 37's AAAND a stock 4r100 AUTO. Ouch the fact I made that automatic last for that long in those very conditions that you said it wouldnt or couldnt has to hurt. Reality crumbling all around you.

I have a 2012 chevy duramax 2500 hd cc/lb 4x4 that i just got and when I went to look at it they tried to talk me into the handicapped version of what i got. The dually! That thing felt, maneuvered, and handled like a lawntractor. I guess in the twelve years since I last owned a dually they havent been able to make them appealing enough to get people who actually tow with them back on board to buy those crippled tractors.

Ive got to ask, TB simmons, how many miles a year do you put on that truck? Not too many or you'd have a newer dd, towrig. If I manage 40-50k a year running in-state then you gotta be killin the odometer in that f450? Right? Ive already got 13k on my 2012...Im not sure Ive even had it two full months yet:shrug:

I dont even consider towing as much of my job. Yet I still managed 40 and some odd thousand on a 2011 and got rid of it for being crappy.