Search results

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. The study that showed 22% improvement stated it was mostly due to final drive ratio and...

Sorry - others have claimed I'm trying to pump up sales because the designer of the ECO Hubs is appreciative of my review and programming his ECM so he is including my information with every sale in case people need my assistance with correcting their speedo or increasing their performance, etc...

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...

DUDE! Where did you get my picture!? That's amazing - I look exactly like that BTW. I'm quite a bit more bald though and my glasses are thicker and my lower lip can't cover my teeth quite as well but hey - that was probably using a Beauty Filter on my phone. I'm flattered :love: I don't charge...

And if you read the study they actually used a 4.5:1 FDR because they thought the theoretical FDR of 3.766 computed from the AMT transmission's top gear at 55 mph and the "selected efficient portion of the engine map" (1200 RPM) wouldn't provide enough power resulting in "frequent down shifts...

So did the Army ever do any testing that you can find with the 2:1 hubs removed? You illustrate my point - why didn't they do it? Was it because they "didn't think of it" or because it was off the table from the start due to "requirements" that only really apply to boundary conditions but must...

Well I estimated that for the cooling fan which is not 100% duty cycle. I'm not sure on the hubs but 1500w isn't going to do it. Not and have them uncomfortably warm to the touch with freeway speed air flowing over them for cooling. It's gonna take a HELL of a lot more than that. And whatever...

1500w heat gun would probably never get those hubs much more than warmish. That's a lot of steel connected to a lot more steel. I think your sense of how much power it takes to get that much steel "red hot" is severely lacking. You would need an acetylene torch with a good sized rosebud and even...

You're forgetting drivetrain losses from turning everything in the drivetrain at double the speed. My front hubs used to get too hot to comfortably leave your hand on. Now they are cold. Its takes energy to create all that extra heat. And the faster you go the higher drivetrain losses get. So no...

I know well what my truck got before the change. I drove it 2800 miles home when I bought it and stayed at 50 mph as much as possible. Fuel economy was right in line with what the 1078 got in our test. Maybe slightly worse with the 1079 box. The 3126b and the C7 are basically the same engine...

While that would be FUN! and also probably terrifying! it's sadly impossible with my setup. The dyno rollers are only 6' 10" wide and if they were wide enough for the FMTV I'm not sure the structure of the dyno itself would support the weight of the chassis. It is an AWD dyno though so the...

True - that data is available from the 3126 and C7 ECM. We could easily do this......

You keep trying to disprove the real world test results (which I assure you are real). I keep asking how I screwed up the test (and apparently everyone else that's done it) or how we can possibly explain the results of the test within whatever framework of reality you are prepared to accept. I'm...

That fuel consumption graph appears (although it's a pretty terrible image) to show 1400 to 1600 RPM as 10 gallons per hour while 2600 RPM is approaching 15 gallons per hour. That's 50% more fuel so that would not contradict our ~30% increase in economy for cruising at 55 mph in 6th gear. Part...

Actually the speed rating of the current Goodyear MV/T is "K" which is 68 MPH. Also I'm not affiliated or profiting from the ECO hubs other than my information being included for people looking to have their ECM reprogrammed.

It's a discussion. I asked questions. You aren't providing any answers? Lets just assume for a moment that I did actually get a 30% increase in fuel economy. I know you don't believe it - but as a thought experiment. Now work backwards from that assumption - how could it be possible? What would...

Those are just numbers in boxes - there's way too much left out to ascertain much of anything from that diagram. What were the test conditions (what speed for example?) and what assumptions were made due to "requirements" they were not allowed to change or even consider changing? Real world...

It gets rolling essentially the same in 2nd because you now can fully load the torque converter. You don't hit 7th till about 68+ MPH. Up to that point you are in 6th or 5th when it downshifts such as for passing (yes I frequently have to pass people now) or up grades. The engine is very...

There's always trade offs. No one said the truck would be "better" at pulling - or I missed it. Do you have that quote handy? MPG and speed is improved. Period. There's absolutely no argument you can present against this. I clocked over 10 MPG and I have personally done 85 mph. What are you...

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?