RPMs While Driving

[Deleted member 1634]

This is a classic case of despite all the evidence, testing, knowledge, and facts, someone will always trust their gut, something they heard off-hand 30 years ago, or that one bad experience.

As an engineer, I know what it takes to certify a design and how much work, analysis, and testing goes into it. As well as how relatively simple most things are. Sure, corporations are greedy profit hungry monsters, but the people who work there aren't, especially the engineers.

I don't believe this engine is lugging. I believe that it is running at it's most efficient point. Especially with the 10 speed always being in the correct and most efficient gear. Better for the engine, better for the environment, and better for us. I'm not worried about the longevity of this powerplant.

Sponsored

 

[Dokkenmire]

Evidently there's going to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of busted cars and trucks in the very near future...everything has an 8 to 10 speed transmission or cvt in it now that keeps the revs as low as possible. Most transmissions have 2-3 overdrives now. I haven't driven any car or truck built in the last 10 years that didn't do this.

 

[Frenchy]

To put simple these trucks are made to run like this without any major problems. I myself do like the way the truck acts. If the truck doesn't need to be at a higher rpm then it wont all due to technology being perfected pver the years. When I am cruising at 70 my RPM's are close to 1,800. It doesn't bother me either since if you want good MPG then generally speaking you want a lower RPM. Hope that info helps you.

 

[Devil6]

Late to this thread. At 67 years old, I have been driving a long time, mostly manual transmissions. So, I think I can say I know what lugging an engine feels and sounds like. Our trucks are not lugging at the RPMs we are running. Besides the transmission senses the torque required and downshifts as needed.

That said this thread has devolved into more of an argument than a discussion. I am not sure why Devil6 feels the truck is lugging, or what he is basing this feeling on. But, he asked our thoughts, and they were given. No need for any snarky attitude or comebacks.

Have you ever operated any of your manual transmissions, non diesel, at 1,500 RPM? Throw in that the truck is fairly heavy and the engine is pretty small.

 

[Devil6]

gotta agree,

the reason we had a 55 MPH speed limit during the fuel crisis was the vehicle had to move less air and the engine turned at less RPM, increasing MPG's. More RPM, more fuel needed, my 2002 Honda S2000 would get 30 mpg on the highway (Rpm at 4000) and 8 mpg at the track (rpm staying between 6000-9000). Toyota Tacoma where talked about early and a major complaint about the 3rd gen was the Transmission up shifting to the highest gear too early to help the EPA MPG rating. But Tacoma only has a 6 speed transmission and not enough gears to make that work correctly.
I dont think an engine turning 1500 RPMs while cruising is a problem, my 2012 SLK350 turns 1800 RPMS at 75, I dont worry about it one bit.

These are all fair comments.

The problem is that at 60 MPH, using just using enough throttle to maintain speed, the transmission may not kick into a lower gear, the computer may adjust timing to prevent knocking and you may not feel the physical aspects of the engine laboring under excessive load.

In my opinion, this wouldn’t bother me except that at 1,500 RPM I don’t think the engine is making either 100 foot pound Of torque or horse power.

The engine may be lugging and we don’t know it.

On an aside, wind resistance overcomes aerodynamics at 60MPH. That was partially why there was a 5MPH buffer in the 80s. In comparison, your Honda is also an arrow compared to my brick Mustang.

Cannondale did some pretty interesting low speed aerodynamic work on their SystemSix and SuperSix bikes last year.

 

[Devil6]

This is a classic case of despite all the evidence, testing, knowledge, and facts, someone will always trust their gut, something they heard off-hand 30 years ago, or that one bad experience.

As an engineer, I know what it takes to certify a design and how much work, analysis, and testing goes into it. As well as how relatively simple most things are. Sure, corporations are greedy profit hungry monsters, but the people who work there aren't, especially the engineers.

I don't believe this engine is lugging. I believe that it is running at it's most efficient point. Especially with the 10 speed always being in the correct and most efficient gear. Better for the engine, better for the environment, and better for us. I'm not worried about the longevity of this powerplant.

I would agree that the engine is running at its most efficient point for coasting down hill.

American engineers and corporations do not have the work ethic of the Japanese. For sure I am specifically talking about Honda and Toyota but, how many Ranger frames do you think Ford wound have replaced had it been in Toyota’s position regarding frame rot? My guess- 0.

Plus, I had several GM engines that got daily maintenance blow up on me in very inconvenient situations in Iraq. That taught me some lessons about American engineers and corporations that aligned pretty closely with their old reputations from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Throw all of this together and then add CAFE or whatever environmental standards Ford is trying to meet to it and it is a fair arguement that Ford And their engineers may not have my or your interests at heart.

 

[Devil6]

What has any of this got to do with our Rangers running at 1500 rpm at 65 mph?

You said trust the engineers. It is proven to me, partially through the experience I shared, that I am responsible because you may not be able to trust “the engineers.”

this is the whole reason for the question I am asking.

 

[Ace Holliday]

You said trust the engineers. It is proven to me, partially through the experience I shared, that I am responsible because you may not be able to trust “the engineers.”

this is the whole reason for the question I am asking.

Your question was, “Does the forum have an opinion on this, running at 1,500 RPM?”

After reading all of the answers it is clear that the forum, (at least those members that participated), think it is not a problem.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

I would agree that the engine is running at its most efficient point for coasting down hill.

American engineers and corporations do not have the work ethic of the Japanese. For sure I am specifically talking about Honda and Toyota but, how many Ranger frames do you think Ford wound have replaced had it been in Toyota’s position regarding frame rot? My guess- 0.

Plus, I had several GM engines that got daily maintenance blow up on me in very inconvenient situations in Iraq. That taught me some lessons about American engineers and corporations that aligned pretty closely with their old reputations from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Throw all of this together and then add CAFE or whatever environmental standards Ford is trying to meet to it and it is a fair arguement that Ford And their engineers may not have my or your interests at heart.

Actually the most efficient point for coasting downhill is having the engine off. Obviously not realistically possible in most situations. But it's something I used to do for fun in my old stick shift Focus.

Thanks for denegrating my profession and all the hard work and extra hours we put in everyday. Really appreciate that. Majority of the engineers I work with do 50+ hours a week and lately have been spending some of those extra hours teaching asian engineers our practices and methods.

As far as the frame rot issue. The reason we don't know how Ford would react is because Ford's engineers designed a frame that doesn't rot out from the getgo. Can't say that about those Japanese engineers and extensive testing you speak so highly of.

Sure asian engineers were much better in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but nowadays things are much more even.

Every piece of evidence you have is based on old mistakes, a specific personal experience (from a non Ford company), and personal opinion.

We've answered your inquiry with our own personal experience, current engineering practices, and facts. You're free to still disagree, that's your right, but at a certain point neither side has anything new to add. It's up to you what you want to do about it. Either live with, "fix" it, or get a different truck.

 

[Michel Jeanneau]

These are all fair comments.

The problem is that at 60 MPH, using just using enough throttle to maintain speed, the transmission may not kick into a lower gear, the computer may adjust timing to prevent knocking and you may not feel the physical aspects of the engine laboring under excessive load.

In my opinion, this wouldn’t bother me except that at 1,500 RPM I don’t think the engine is making either 100 foot pound Of torque or horse power.

The engine may be lugging and we don’t know it.

If this engine were a Subaru FB 25 flat 4, which below 1900 rpm it makes barely enough torque to turn its own crankshaft, I'd be worried; however, if you take a look at first, the design of the 2.3 (long stroke=high torque), second at the tuning/turbo boost and gate settings, you will quickly realize just by looking at the steepness of the torque curve, that it indeed has plenty of torque at 1500 rpm to handle its own weight and the truck, especially at 60 mph...one little twitch on the skinny pedal and it downshifts to peak torque (310 lb/ft @ 3000 rpm). In comparison to my old Ranger with the 3.0 vulcan with a 5-speed manual and 3.73 gears, this combination truck engine/tranny has GOBS of low end torque; take a look at this shaft HP/torque curves someone plotted to compare a Chevy Colorado to a 2019 Ranger:

The solid green line is the Ranger Ecoboost....The 3.0 vulcan in my old Ranger was rated at 150 HP/185 lb.ft peak...at ~1650 rpm, the ecoboost makes almost as much as the vulcan did at peak...at 2000 rpm it makes more torque than the old SOHC 4.0!

not worried in the least...

 

[Big Blue]

Have you ever operated any of your manual transmissions, non diesel, at 1,500 RPM? Throw in that the truck is fairly heavy and the engine is pretty small.

Yes! But, you need to remember engines and engine controls were a lot different then. They have come a long way since then. These "pretty small" engines are putting out more power and torque than even V8s put out then. Remember when your car use to run on when you turned the key off? Well maybe you can't. Cars usually didn't go more 80,000 to 100,000 mile without a complete engine rebuild, if that long. As I said before if our truck sense they are in a situation that would cause lugging they will downshift. Smarter than some drivers.

Now before I violate my own rules of civility, I'm going to back out of this thread.

 

[RedlandRanger]

If this engine were a Subaru FB 25 flat 4, which below 1900 rpm it makes barely enough torque to turn its own crankshaft, I'd be worried; however, if you take a look at first, the design of the 2.3 (long stroke=high torque), second at the tuning/turbo boost and gate settings, you will quickly realize just by looking at the steepness of the torque curve, that it indeed has plenty of torque at 1500 rpm to handle its own weight and the truck, especially at 60 mph...one little twitch on the skinny pedal and it downshifts to peak torque (310 lb/ft @ 3000 rpm). In comparison to my old Ranger with the 3.0 vulcan with a 5-speed manual and 3.73 gears, this combination truck engine/tranny has GOBS of low end torque; take a look at this shaft HP/torque curves someone plotted to compare a Chevy Colorado to a 2019 Ranger:

The solid green line is the Ranger Ecoboost....The 3.0 vulcan in my old Ranger was rated at 150 HP/185 lb.ft peak...at ~1650 rpm, the ecoboost makes almost as much as the vulcan did at peak...at 2000 rpm it makes more torque than the old SOHC 4.0!

not worried in the least...

That graph says a lot. I'm amazed at how much torque these ecoboost engines have at relatively low RPM - they are approaching diesel engines.

For the comment about superior Asian engineering, I will relate an anecdote from my personal history. I owned an early 90's Nissan 2WD pickup. It was a great pickup until about 70k when a lifter pad decided to break off and punch a hole in the head which then allowed coolant to mix with the oil and create a brown milkshake in the engine. $1500 later and a refurbished head, I had my truck back. It is the only engine failure I've ever had in any vehicle I've owned.

I've owned mostly Fords for the past 30 years and never had an engine failure or any major failure at all - mostly just normal maintenance items (brakes, shocks, tires, battery, etc).

I'm confident the Ford engineers have designed these ecoboosts to cruise just fine at low RPMs. When they need more power they have it available. These ecoboost engines coupled with the 10speed transmission is truly an engineering marvel.

 

[NMBruce]

These are all fair comments.

The problem is that at 60 MPH, using just using enough throttle to maintain speed, the transmission may not kick into a lower gear, the computer may adjust timing to prevent knocking and you may not feel the physical aspects of the engine laboring under excessive load.

In my opinion, this wouldn’t bother me except that at 1,500 RPM I don’t think the engine is making either 100 foot pound Of torque or horse power.

The engine may be lugging and we don’t know it.

On an aside, wind resistance overcomes aerodynamics at 60MPH. That was partially why there was a 5MPH buffer in the 80s. In comparison, your Honda is also an arrow compared to my brick Mustang.

Cannondale did some pretty interesting low speed aerodynamic work on their SystemSix and SuperSix bikes last year.

I had a lot more written, but realized that You need to go with what you believe and I will do the same. I have no problem with an engine turning a low RPM at cruise and I believe it will be fine. So this will be my last comments about this.

 

[Apples]

Why would you worry about what the engine is turning when you're driving down the highway?

Just for the record... This is the reason Ford engineers designed the 10 speed automatic. If you want the RPM to be higher, step on the gas!

 

[db_tanker]

I keep it at 70 mph. that puts my RPM in my bone stock truck around 1800-1900 rpm.

This is giving me an average of about 24 mpg manually calculated.

At 70 in our Civic with the CVT its crazy...I can watch it on a safe patch of road and see the actual CVT working the RPM. it will range from 2100-2400 never hanging steady in one spot.

Sponsored