Continuing the Drove a Ridgeline Thread...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 03:22 PM
  #46  
gryph00f150's Avatar
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 1depd
It's the whole inertia thing. I think it was Issac Newton who stated, things in motion tend to stay in motion and things at rest tend to stay at rest, unless some outside force acts upon it. The amount of force needed to move 3000 lbs is greater than the force required to move 1500 lbs. This extra force as to be transmitted through something and in the case of the Ridgeline it is transmitted through the CV joints.

The payload just sitting there without moving the truck doesn't put any stress on the CV joints. The only time the joints are stressed is when the vehicle must move or the engine is used for braking. But then if the truck was just sitting there it would be undergoing very little stress on anything.
However maximum amount of force that can be placed upon the cv joints is the same regardless of the load. If the engine exerts "x" amount of rotational force then how can more rotational force be applied just because the load increases? The load rating is solely based upon the design parameters of the vehicle in terms of what the suspension will safely be able to handle and the brakes effectively control. There is no additional stress placed upon the cv joints just because of the amount of payload. As for physics class, ponder this,

F=ma

Where force(F) is equal to the mass(m) times acceleration(a). So therefore if an engine has a specific output or F, and the mass changes, then the resulting change would be in the acceleration. Otherwise the vehicle would be able to accelerate at the same speed regardless of Load. So once again I am still unclear as to where the additional rotating force placed upon the CV joints comes from. CV joints fail from adding additional rotational force, which you cannot do just by adding payload.
 
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 03:35 PM
  #47  
whitecrystal1's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,593
Likes: 0
Fuel Delivery...................... MPFI......................................... SEFI ............................(" ")


What is SEFI ?
 
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 03:51 PM
  #48  
Bighersh's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
Originally Posted by whitecrystal1
Fuel Delivery...................... MPFI......................................... SEFI ............................(" ")


What is SEFI ?
I thin kit means Sequential Electronic Fuel Injection.
 
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 04:16 PM
  #49  
Bighersh's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
Small Trucks Comparison)

2006 Tacoma. 2006 Ridgeline RTS. 2006 Frontier Crew.. 2006 Ranger FX4, SC. 2007 Sport Trac

Estimated Market Price: ........$24,099.13..........$28,508.91..........$2 3,117.61..........$24,399.51..........$29,468.27

Invoice: ..........$22,945.00..........$27,056.00.......... $22,120.00..........$23,262.00..........$28,009.00

List Price: ........$25,315.00..........$30,075.00..........$2 3,650.00..........$25,385.00..........$29,765.00

Vehicle Class: Small Pickup.......Small Pickup.......Small Pickup.......Small Pickup.......Utility

Satisfac. Rating: ..........100 out of 100..........75 out of 100..........100 out of 100..........82 out of 100..........82 out of 100

Performance:
Engine: ..........4.0L 6 Cyl...........3.5L 6 Cyl...........4.0L 6 Cyl...........4.0L 6 Cyl...........4.6L 8 Cyl.

Drive: 4WD-PT..........4WD-FT..........4WD-PT..........4WD-PT..........4WD-FT

Transmission: 5 speed Auto...........5 speed Auto..........6 speed Man...........5 speed Man...........6 speed Automatic OD

Compression: ..........10.00:1..........10.00:1..........9.70:1 ..........9.70:1.......... 9.80:1

Horsepower: ..........236 hp @5200rpm..........247 hp @5750rpm..........265 hp @5600rpm..........207 hp @5250rpm..........292 hp @5750rpm

Torque: ..........266@ 4000..........245@ 4500..........284@ 4000..........238@ 3000..........300@ 3950

Bore: ..............3.70..........3.50..........3.76.... ......3.95..........3.55

Stroke: ............3.74..........3.66..........3.62...... ....3.32..........3.54

Fuel Cap.: .......21.00 gal...........22.00 gal...........21.10..........gal...........19.50 gal...........22.50 gal.

Fuel Type: Unleaded>>> (All)

Fuel Delivery: .....EFI..........MPFI..........SEFI..........MPFI ..........SEFI

MPG City: ............17..........16..........17..........16 ..........14
MPG Hwy: ............21..........21..........21..........19 ..........20

Wheelbase: ........127.8"..........122.0"..........125.9".... ......125.9"..........130.5"

Overall Length: ....208.1"..........206.8"..........205.5"........ ..202.9"..........210.2"

Vehicle Height: .....70.1"..........70.3" ..........70.1"..........69.4"................72.5 "

Vehicle Width: ......74.6"..........77.8"..........72.8"......... .70.3"................73.7"

Seating Capacity: ......5...............5...............5........... ........5...................5

Front Headroom: 40.1"..........40.7"..........40.0"..........39.3" ..........Not Applicable

Front Legroom: 41.7"..........40.8"..........42.4"..........42.4" ..........42.4"

Rear Legroom: 32.6".......... 36.4"..........33.6"..........40.4"..........36.8"

Payload Capacity: 1405..........1558..........1246..........1260.... ......Not Applicable

Gross Weight: 5450 lbs...........6050 lbs...........5666 lbs...........5140 lbs...........Not Applicable

Towing Capacity: 3500..........5000..........6100..........N/A..........N/A

Final Assembly: USA..........CDN..........USA..........USA........ ..USA
 

Last edited by Bighersh; Dec 21, 2006 at 04:25 PM.
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 06:48 PM
  #50  
scott1981's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,103
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Originally Posted by gryph00f150
However maximum amount of force that can be placed upon the cv joints is the same regardless of the load. If the engine exerts "x" amount of rotational force then how can more rotational force be applied just because the load increases? The load rating is solely based upon the design parameters of the vehicle in terms of what the suspension will safely be able to handle and the brakes effectively control. There is no additional stress placed upon the cv joints just because of the amount of payload. As for physics class, ponder this,

F=ma

Where force(F) is equal to the mass(m) times acceleration(a). So therefore if an engine has a specific output or F, and the mass changes, then the resulting change would be in the acceleration. Otherwise the vehicle would be able to accelerate at the same speed regardless of Load. So once again I am still unclear as to where the additional rotating force placed upon the CV joints comes from. CV joints fail from adding additional rotational force, which you cannot do just by adding payload.
the point seems to be missed here. The CV is a moving part. It has joints and has to swivel everytime one rotation is made unless the arms are completely level. A axle shaft never swivels. Because the CV has moving parts where as the axle does not it is subject to wear. We all can atleast agree that the more strain placed upon a moving part the quicker it will wear. The point was not that if the bed were loaded the Cv would blow up, just that it is yet another weak link, another item to fail. The larger the load placed on it the more wear and tear the part will see, therefore making it a bad idea for towing or hauling on a regular basis.
 
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 08:21 PM
  #51  
gryph00f150's Avatar
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
I guess our points are completely different. I argue that there is no additional load placed upon the CV joint because the load is carried by the suspension through the wheels and tires to the pavement. Much like on a solid axle the load is carried through the suspension to the axle carrier and then through the hub, wheel and tire. I personally believe that the truck industry has not embraced an independent rear suspension because of the additional cost associated with it and the illusion that having a solid bar of steel is stronger than having 2 smaller arms. That is just my opinion however.
 
Reply
Old Dec 21, 2006 | 08:37 PM
  #52  
Stealth's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
I think the solid rear axle is stronger than the IRS. Plus the tire wear is greater on the IRS. Put any weight back there and the rear wheels will get negative camber. Not good for a hard working truck. OK for a wimp truck.
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.