What a climb

[Chance]

Power required to climb grades is not rocket science — it’s fairly straight forward.

Starting this year the same 350 HP Ford engine could end up in a GCW 12,000-pound E-350 Axis 24.1 (or small Class C), or also in a GCW 24,000-pound Challenger pulling a toad, so it will be interesting to read reviews describing engine performance.

If one goes up a mountain pass at about 30 and the other at 60 MPH, how can it not affect the perception of how strong the engine performs?


Anyway, a variable that shouldn’t be ignored is that larger and heavier motorhomes that will climb at reduced speeds will have the additional disadvantage of wider transmission gear spacing, which can make a bad situation even worse. It depends a lot on luck, because sometimes engine RPMs could be in ideal power range, and other times not so much.

[Bob Denman]

Originally Posted by The_Breeze

LOL. But what happens when I reach the summit? How do I deploy the wings?????

This guy will let you know... once he figures it out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hIsWx5qbQs

[The_Breeze]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

This guy will let you know... once he figures it out!

That had to hurt...

[The_Breeze]

Originally Posted by ducksface

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...T6qtkrV9gGIKLh

We pulled this at 60 to 65mph on the straights.
Not a problem at all.
Almost 11,000ft.
We did it twice last year.

No towed - correct?

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by Chance

Power required to climb grades is not rocket science — it’s fairly straight forward.

Starting this year the same 350 HP Ford engine could end up in a GCW 12,000-pound E-350 Axis 24.1 (or small Class C), or also in a GCW 24,000-pound Challenger pulling a toad, so it will be interesting to read reviews describing engine performance.

If one goes up a mountain pass at about 30 and the other at 60 MPH, how can it not affect the perception of how strong the engine performs?


Anyway, a variable that shouldn’t be ignored is that larger and heavier motorhomes that will climb at reduced speeds will have the additional disadvantage of wider transmission gear spacing, which can make a bad situation even worse. It depends a lot on luck, because sometimes engine RPMs could be in ideal power range, and other times not so much.

350 HP? I thought the 7.3 was 430 HP and 475 Ft-LBF of torque.

[ducksface]

Originally Posted by The_Breeze

No towed - correct?

No towed.
Sorry. Forgot about your car.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

350 HP? I thought the 7.3 was 430 HP and 475 Ft-LBF of torque.

That rating applies to pickups.

In motorhomes, the standard 7.3L V8 (not the Economy versión available only in E-Series as an option) is rated 35% higher power than the V10 at maximum torque (260 vs 350 HP), so it’s likely that a 45 MPH climb in 3rd gear will improve speed significantly with new V8.

The heavy duty truck rating seems to cut off both power and torque numbers at 3,900 RPMs, which we know won’t apply in the real world unless Ford governs the engine to 3,900 RPMs (and I doubt they would). The pickup rating is 475 lb-ft at 4,000 RPMs, but the F-53 and E-Series rating is 468 lb-ft at 3,900 RPMs. The torque curve for pickups also passes through 468 lb-ft at 3,900 RPMs but keeps going, suggesting to me it’s the same or very similar engine.

A similar HD truck rating for 3-valve V10 was 288 HP at 4,000 RPMs (378 lb-ft) and 424 lb-ft at 3,000 RPMs (242 HP). Regardless of which rating scale they use, I expect the Premium 7.3L V8 should easily pull away from V10 in the mountains.

[cbach]

Assuming 17 straight up? Should try 89A out of Sedona sometime. It's a steep SOB with a section of switchbacks that would test a V-10 to its limits.

[halfprice]

Originally Posted by cbach

Assuming 17 straight up? Should try 89A out of Sedona sometime. It's a steep SOB with a section of switchbacks that would test a V-10 to its limits.

We stayed in Sedona a few days while enroute to Albuquerque for the ballon festival. I read 89 had a 30 ft length restriction due to the switch backs. We went south to hit the 17 north to flagstaff. I don't remember the 17 being a steep climb.

Bill are we talking about the same 17???

Jerry

[ducksface]

The 17 climbs from 1100 to 7100 ft in about 139 miles.
It might average 2 or 3 percent climb with one 6 or 7 percent 5 mile length south of Camp Verde.
It's an exhausting crowded road with many brush fires and accidents. And few ways to detour around it.
My Record for starting from Flagstaff to Phoenix is 8hours. Three brush fires on three attempts to circumvent the fire on the 17 and then a 18 wheeler did a slow roll over a airstream at about 15mph.

Phoenix to Flagstaff about 6 hours.
Truck five cars ahead of us caught wwaaayyy biggg fire at the same time a motorcycle fatality hit the 89, 12 miles away.


A climb for sure, but the traffic is the killer.

Two hills close to me.
I 40 east into kingman
I 40 east into Williams.

17 is a comparative cake walk.

[cbach]

Originally Posted by halfprice

We stayed in Sedona a few days while enroute to Albuquerque for the ballon festival. I read 89 had a 30 ft length restriction due to the switch backs.

Jerry

50ft limit from my memory. Wouldn't bother me in the Magnitude, as it drives like a big pickup and has gobs of power

[halfprice]

Originally Posted by ducksface

The 17 climbs from 1100 to 7100 ft in about 139 miles.
It might average 2 or 3 percent climb with one 6 or 7 percent 5 mile length south of Camp Verde.
It's an exhausting crowded road with many brush fires and accidents. And few ways to detour around it.
My Record for starting from Flagstaff to Phoenix is 8hours. Three brush fires on three attempts to circumvent the fire on the 17 and then a 18 wheeler did a slow roll over a airstream at about 15mph.

Phoenix to Flagstaff about 6 hours.
Truck five cars ahead of us caught wwaaayyy biggg fire at the same time a motorcycle fatality hit the 89, 12 miles away.


A climb for sure, but the traffic is the killer.

Two hills close to me.
I 40 east into kingman
I 40 east into Williams.

17 is a comparative cake walk.

Well I drove from Phoenix to Sedona the to flagstaff. It must not have been that steep because I sure don't remember the motorrhome struggling at all

Or its my old timers that just doesn't remember

Jerry

[Chance]

Originally Posted by ducksface

.....cut.....

Two hills close to me.
I 40 east into kingman
I 40 east into Williams.

17 is a comparative cake walk.

That one I recall well — won’t forget. Was descending westbound towing a trailer.


I found this page with descriptions of many of these roads. Around 6% grades comes up often, with a few up to 8% or higher.

https://www.mountaindirectory.com/sample/arizona.html

[Bob Denman]

Let's face it.
As we age: ALL hills seem steeper!

[KBlanchard]

Originally Posted by TurnerFam

yes, agreed, as I don't understand why some feel that 'just because' they could only 'climb' up the mountain at 45 that it's somehow dismantling their manhood... RVs aren't race cars. If it gets you there, it got you there.

I would mind driving 45 everywhere. I like taking my time and enjoying creation.

[Glensouth]

I have a Thor 35sf with the power stroke. Can’t compare it to the v10 in performance and quietness. It never downshifts on hills, just powers up them. It performs better in the Colorado mountains than the dp I had with the Cummings 8.3.

[Pete'sMH]

Originally Posted by KBlanchard

I would mind driving 45 everywhere. I like taking my time and enjoying creation.

I agree! It took me a good two years of retirement and RV travel to learn to slow down and enjoy the trip. Lots less stress in my life now. Doesn’t bother me to drive in the truck lane every once in a while.

[Bob Denman]

I agree! At this point: what's the hurry?

[The_Breeze]

Originally Posted by halfprice

We stayed in Sedona a few days while enroute to Albuquerque for the ballon festival. I read 89 had a 30 ft length restriction due to the switch backs. We went south to hit the 17 north to flagstaff. I don't remember the 17 being a steep climb.

Bill are we talking about the same 17???

Jerry

You don't mention where 89 was restricted but I found this and it's 10' wide, 80' long before you require an escort. Just FYI for your future plans?

"State Route 89 (Logan Canyon) between RP 373 and RP 415. (1) Vehicles or loads exceeding 10' in width and/or 80' in length require one certified pilot/escort vehicle. (2) Vehicles or loads exceeding 12' in width are prohibited" .(re: state of utah - Utah Department of Transportation")

Attch:
https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/ucono...10332179676963

[Chance]

Originally Posted by TurnerFam

yes, agreed, as I don't understand why some feel that 'just because' they could only 'climb' up the mountain at 45 that it's somehow dismantling their manhood... RVs aren't race cars. If it gets you there, it got you there.

I agree, and in a similar way don’t understand the fascination with being able to climb mountains in high gear so that the transmission doesn’t have to shift down, even though that’s exactly what transmissions are designed for.

When young, I really enjoyed downshifting my 4-speed Mustang under full throttle. I loved the sound of the V8 at higher RPMs, and apparently it stayed with me, because I don’t mind a smooth downshift or two. Often it’s still fun, not something to be avoided. Granted, the V10 is not a good example because it’s rough at higher RPMs.

Regarding “dismantling their manhood”, your comment reminded me of old-school cycling coaches/managers at professional level that insisted professional men cyclist should be able to climb mountains using tall gears. They preached small chainrings and large cogs were for wimps. However, their teams climbed at such low cadence (RPMs) that they couldn’t develop power, and therefore were much slower up the mountains.

Eventually they got tired of losing and equipped racing bikes with lower gearing for mountainous stages. Guys can only fight science so much before they finally accept reality.