In addition to what Gary said, you can also have a low torque engine that produces a lot of horsepower, the catch being it'll only produce that power at very high RPM. The Honda S2000 is the perfect example of this. 240 hp at 7800 rpm, 162 lb-ft at 6500 rpm. To really experience this car, you have to keep the RPMs way up, or it'll be a dog. This is not easy on typical American streets.
Torque vs Horsepower. I like Torque!
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
Pretty well says it all
Sorry to hear that you may have gotten a bad one or had one in front of a improperly functioning transmission.
The 5.4L is hardly a gutless gas pig, and far from the weakest on the road. It is used in far more Ford service trucks than any other gas motor made by Ford in the past.
As far as mpg, I get 15mpg @80mpg all day long in my F150 Supercrew, with a full cabin and a 4-wheeler and gear.
I've driven many a F-250 equipped 5.4L trucks, and while they don't set any land speed records, they are hardly gutless.
I really doubt that the F-250 had the pedal to the metal, or it was loaded way down more than you describe. More than likely the F-250 was a ZF-5 or 6, and the owner didn't know how to tow with it properly. If it was an auto, it should have left you in the dust.
BTW, why were you going so fast, especially being overloaded???
After all, we are only hearing one side of the story.
[ November 17, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: 02supercrew ]
While I'm not going to defend the Ford, I can almost be sure that this truck had an automatic transmission while your Farmall has a manual transmission. This makes a big difference when it comes to power at the tires. Even the diesels loose alot of power when you put an AT behind them. Gear ratio has alot to do with it also.
I can also be sure that he was getting at least double, if not triple, the mpg you were getting. Chnaces are he was enjoying a much more comfortable ride too. A nice trade off considering he probably uses this truck as a daily driver too.
Now, get a real Ford F250 5.4L (manual transmission, reg cab, no AC, a gear ratio designed for work, etc...)to compare to your Farmall and I'd bet it would give you a run for your money while still being more comfortable and enjoying better gas mileage than your Farmall.
I can also be sure that he was getting at least double, if not triple, the mpg you were getting. Chnaces are he was enjoying a much more comfortable ride too. A nice trade off considering he probably uses this truck as a daily driver too.
Now, get a real Ford F250 5.4L (manual transmission, reg cab, no AC, a gear ratio designed for work, etc...)to compare to your Farmall and I'd bet it would give you a run for your money while still being more comfortable and enjoying better gas mileage than your Farmall.
Okay, first of all - alot of people buy 3/4 ton trucks because, while they don't use them to tow, they put them through severe service and the general thought is a 3/4 ton truck will hold up better.quote:
Originally posted by EmbarkChief:
I always thought the whole reason for buying/building a 3/4 ton or larger truck was for towing? If a 3/4 ton truck can't tow well, then what's it good for?In addition, why are you calling his IH a Farmall (wasn't that the AG devision of International?)? Its not a tractor.
Prior to '99 if you wanted a 4x4 Ford with a solid front axle you had to buy a 3/4 ton. The F150 & F350 had the "twin traction beam" front end.
Third, a high number of 3/4 tonks on the road today are bought as multipurpose vehicles - a daily driver and occational work truck.
And (I hate to admit this), some people buy 3/4 ton trucks because they look cool.
If I was going to buy a truck for the pure purpose of working / pulling, it wouldn't have an auto transmission. I would also make sure I bought a truck that was geared with this job in mind. Very few of these trucks I descibed exist at the dealerships and you rarely see them on the road.
My whole point being that the Ford F250 (probably built with comfort in mind and designed for comfort) was comapred to a Farmall pick-up (built for work). This is like comparing apples to oranges. A comparable Ford may have done much better than the one in question. In '73 pickup's were designed for work, today you have a choice.
As far as the Farmall name (it was not meant as a slam), this is just what I have called all International Harvesters for years. The fire department I used to work for had a '64 IH / Central pumper. I called that a Farmall too. This even includes the Cub Cadet up until MTD started to make the smaller ones. IMO, MTD never earned the Farmall nickname.
edit: as per the above link posted by Chris142, his truck isn't stock. I realize he wasn't putting Ford down, but many other have begun to slam the Ford. Once again, this is like comparing a Ford Taurus SHO to a regular chevy Lumina. His truck also has the 392 ci engine while the smallest engine available in that truck was a 345 ci. The 5.4L is the smallest engine available in the F250 - once again apples and oranges.
[ November 17, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: medic ]
Having the same discussion in another forum:
In general if you want to go fast use higher revs and more cylinders, which also means shorter strokes to keep piston speed down. If you want to move loads use fewer cylinders and longer strokes to get more torque at low rpms. Tractors tend to have have low rpm, long stroke engines. Racers tend to have high rpm, short stroke engines with lots of cylinders. Some extremes would be the 6 cyl 250cc GP bike that Honda ran in the 60s, which resulted in limits on the number of cylinders on GP bikes. Ford showed up at LeMans in the 60s with a 7 liter V8, and a bit later Porsche showed up with the 917 'Widowmaker', with a 12 cyl turbo 5 liter that in later versions was getting way over 1000 hp. Look at WWII aircraft, with lots and lots of cylinders. The most beautiful sounding engine that I've ever heard is the 12 cyl Rolls-Royce Merlin, used in a wide variety of aircraft but perhaps best known in the P51 Mustang. Contrast that with the inline six, which even in large displacements seems to be common in medium and heavy duty trucks. Making big, heavy things go fast seems to again call for more cylinders, as the engine in the M60 tank was a large V12 diesel, while the retrievers used a V12 gas engine.
The middle rated Cummins ISM only has 350 hp, which is really, really low for a an 11 liter engine, but it has 1350 lbs/ft of torque at 1200 rpm.
Cummins ISB Ratings (6 cyl 5.9 liter diesel)
Engine, HP, torque
ISB 275 660 @ 1600
ISB 260 660 @ 1600
ISB 260 550 @ 1900
ISB 245 660 @ 1600
ISB 230 520 @ 1600
ISB 215 520 @ 1600
ISB 200 520 @ 1600
ISB 185 420 @ 1600
The 2004 Saturn Vue’s V-6 generates 250 hp and 242 lb.-ft. of torque
Audi TT Roadster quattro
Standard Engine 3.2L 250 hp V6
Horsepower 250 @ 6300 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 236 @ 2800 RPM
2004 Saab 9-5 Linear has a 4-cylinder, 2.3 liter,
the high performance Aero has 250 hp with 258 lb.-ft. of torque.
In general if you want to go fast use higher revs and more cylinders, which also means shorter strokes to keep piston speed down. If you want to move loads use fewer cylinders and longer strokes to get more torque at low rpms. Tractors tend to have have low rpm, long stroke engines. Racers tend to have high rpm, short stroke engines with lots of cylinders. Some extremes would be the 6 cyl 250cc GP bike that Honda ran in the 60s, which resulted in limits on the number of cylinders on GP bikes. Ford showed up at LeMans in the 60s with a 7 liter V8, and a bit later Porsche showed up with the 917 'Widowmaker', with a 12 cyl turbo 5 liter that in later versions was getting way over 1000 hp. Look at WWII aircraft, with lots and lots of cylinders. The most beautiful sounding engine that I've ever heard is the 12 cyl Rolls-Royce Merlin, used in a wide variety of aircraft but perhaps best known in the P51 Mustang. Contrast that with the inline six, which even in large displacements seems to be common in medium and heavy duty trucks. Making big, heavy things go fast seems to again call for more cylinders, as the engine in the M60 tank was a large V12 diesel, while the retrievers used a V12 gas engine.
The middle rated Cummins ISM only has 350 hp, which is really, really low for a an 11 liter engine, but it has 1350 lbs/ft of torque at 1200 rpm.
Cummins ISB Ratings (6 cyl 5.9 liter diesel)
Engine, HP, torque
ISB 275 660 @ 1600
ISB 260 660 @ 1600
ISB 260 550 @ 1900
ISB 245 660 @ 1600
ISB 230 520 @ 1600
ISB 215 520 @ 1600
ISB 200 520 @ 1600
ISB 185 420 @ 1600
The 2004 Saturn Vue’s V-6 generates 250 hp and 242 lb.-ft. of torque
Audi TT Roadster quattro
Standard Engine 3.2L 250 hp V6
Horsepower 250 @ 6300 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 236 @ 2800 RPM
2004 Saab 9-5 Linear has a 4-cylinder, 2.3 liter,
the high performance Aero has 250 hp with 258 lb.-ft. of torque.
Ok I'm not going to add on to the flamage here but just to put in my own opinon.
Horsepower is cheap, anybody can put on another 30-50 extra horses in there engines and gain a few mpg's. Also anybody can build a 350 or 302. Very well common engines for making more HP. Torque and strength is what you buy. IMO, I like trucks with both torque and strength, I like HP but for what I do on occasions which is hauling logs for the winter, sometimes I do have to rescue friends in the ditch.
Sticking to the topic at hand, Internationals in the golden ages of old school were very rugged trucks. Rock crawling, a walk in the park. My dad had a 72 International Scout with the 4banger in it, I'm 90% sure it was a 4banger anyway. Not a very pleasent looking thing but was tough as iron. He got rid of it 5 years ago because the bodies on those were known to rust out and rust out badly! When he ditched the Scout for a Ramcharger, the passenger side floorboard gave away but it still ran like a winner. My dad was telling me when he was a few years younger than me, his dad had a 197? International Travelall I believe it was called with a 400 4bbl under the hood. I never saw it though but from pictures, ugliest Suburban on steriods I've ever seen, but it was a tough work horse. Internationals were not very pretty looking things but they were built to last and more for the work oriented type of person,,,,,,AR
Horsepower is cheap, anybody can put on another 30-50 extra horses in there engines and gain a few mpg's. Also anybody can build a 350 or 302. Very well common engines for making more HP. Torque and strength is what you buy. IMO, I like trucks with both torque and strength, I like HP but for what I do on occasions which is hauling logs for the winter, sometimes I do have to rescue friends in the ditch.
Sticking to the topic at hand, Internationals in the golden ages of old school were very rugged trucks. Rock crawling, a walk in the park. My dad had a 72 International Scout with the 4banger in it, I'm 90% sure it was a 4banger anyway. Not a very pleasent looking thing but was tough as iron. He got rid of it 5 years ago because the bodies on those were known to rust out and rust out badly! When he ditched the Scout for a Ramcharger, the passenger side floorboard gave away but it still ran like a winner. My dad was telling me when he was a few years younger than me, his dad had a 197? International Travelall I believe it was called with a 400 4bbl under the hood. I never saw it though but from pictures, ugliest Suburban on steriods I've ever seen, but it was a tough work horse. Internationals were not very pretty looking things but they were built to last and more for the work oriented type of person,,,,,,AR
I has been done multiple times. A SuperCrew 4X4 ORP 5.4L pulling a 5x10 loaded uhaul trailer (1250 lbs empty) 800 miles - 17 mpg.
Sounds about right. The 4.6 and 5.4 engines get very similar mileage. IMO, the 2 differences between the 2 engines is overall displacement and exhaust tone. 4.6 has a deeper throatier sound. Buddy of mine in Houston has a 98 F150 with the 4.6 with true duals and packs. You can tell the difference if it's a 4.6 or a 5.4,,,,,AR
Actually, back in the IH heyday pickups were referred to as "Binders", as in "Corn Binders". Having grown up around IH trucks, I never heard them referred to as Farmalls, which was normally reserved for tractors. Binderbulletin.org is a great source of info about them.
But I guess if you remember the days when they were called binders you're really showing your age!
Wow! This thread really took off
I wasn't overloaded. According to my owners manual my truck pulling a trailer that is equipped with brakes can gross 13K. I was probly 12,800.
My truck seemed to cruise at this speed comfortably and traffic was very light.
IMHO I don't consider 62mph too fast for conditions. The setup did not sway or do anything weird.
I do know that a blown tire or other mechanical problem and I could have rolled it into a ball very quickly.
The F-250 sounded like it was working pretty hard. On the hills I could hear the engine fan and the exhaust sounded like an air hose. But I wasn't in the Ford to see how hard it was pulling.
And as far as calling it a "Farmall" or "Cornbinder"............I always referred to it as a "thirteen letter sh*tspreader" because there are 13 letters in "International" and I.H. was known for their farm implements that spread manure.
Ya thats prolly true..I managed 9mpg empty and 7 mpg loaded.
I always thought the whole reason for buying/building a 3/4 ton or larger truck was for towing? If a 3/4 ton truck can't tow well, then what's it good for?
"Sorry to hear that you may have gotten a bad one or had one in front of a improperly functioning transmission.
The 5.4L is hardly a gutless gas pig, and far from the weakest on the road. It is used in far more Ford service trucks than any other gas motor made by Ford in the past.
As far as mpg, I get 15mpg @80mpg all day long in my F150 Supercrew, with a full cabin and a 4-wheeler and gear.
I've driven many a F-250 equipped 5.4L trucks, and while they don't set any land speed records, they are hardly gutless.
I really doubt that the F-250 had the pedal to the metal, or it was loaded way down more than you describe. More than likely the F-250 was a ZF-5 or 6, and the owner didn't know how to tow with it properly. If it was an auto, it should have left you in the dust.
BTW, why were you going so fast, especially being overloaded???
After all, we are only hearing one side of the story."
One side of what story?
The 5.4l before the helped it in 2004 was a gutless dog. Why do you think they upped the power by 40hp??? YOu go to any towing forum, you won't hear much nice about it's performance. I do really like Ford, I am thinking of getting a new F350 with the powerstroke. But, that 5.4l is hardly good for towing. I hooked up our 5k lb. trailer to it, it was a joke. Maybe I am just too used to 3/4 ton trucks that have power.
I seriously doubt you can get 15mpg in a loaded screw...my brother in law had one, even without the family, he was lucky to get 13mpg.
The 5.4L is hardly a gutless gas pig, and far from the weakest on the road. It is used in far more Ford service trucks than any other gas motor made by Ford in the past.
As far as mpg, I get 15mpg @80mpg all day long in my F150 Supercrew, with a full cabin and a 4-wheeler and gear.
I've driven many a F-250 equipped 5.4L trucks, and while they don't set any land speed records, they are hardly gutless.
I really doubt that the F-250 had the pedal to the metal, or it was loaded way down more than you describe. More than likely the F-250 was a ZF-5 or 6, and the owner didn't know how to tow with it properly. If it was an auto, it should have left you in the dust.
BTW, why were you going so fast, especially being overloaded???
After all, we are only hearing one side of the story."
One side of what story?
The 5.4l before the helped it in 2004 was a gutless dog. Why do you think they upped the power by 40hp??? YOu go to any towing forum, you won't hear much nice about it's performance. I do really like Ford, I am thinking of getting a new F350 with the powerstroke. But, that 5.4l is hardly good for towing. I hooked up our 5k lb. trailer to it, it was a joke. Maybe I am just too used to 3/4 ton trucks that have power.
I seriously doubt you can get 15mpg in a loaded screw...my brother in law had one, even without the family, he was lucky to get 13mpg.
Hmmm, that's better than my brothers '74 with the 345 ci ever got
- Status
Similar threads
