• Welcome to H4O! For a reduced ad experience, please login or register with the forum.

Why I5 hummers with 35's can't climb overpasses

CaseyS

Well-Known Member
Messages
755
Location
Louisiana
So I was playing around with some fuel mileage calculations the other day and came up with some interesting finds. One of the things that is published on the Cummins engine is specific fuel consumption. Knowing my average fuel mileage I am able to calculate a few things.

Using an average highway mileage of 19.0 MPG at an average speed of 72 MPH yields 3.79 GPH of fuel consumed.
Turning 2300 RPM, and using a BSFC of 0.37 #/hp-hr from this chart gives 72.2 HP to drive down the highway (with 7.05 # fuel per gallon). This accounts for drag, driveline loss, and all inefficiencies. (On a side note you can see what the fuel consumption will do if I regear to a lower RPM)



So given 72.2 HP @ 2300 RPM, 164.8 ft-lbs required to keep me moving - on level ground.

If we add even a moderate 5% grade for an overpass is 5%*5280 = 264 ft/mile or 316.8 ft/min vertical rise at 72 MPH.

With a 5200 lb vehicle at 316.8 ft/min = 1.64e6 ft-lbs/min. Divide by 33,000 ft-lb/min per horsepower and we require another 49.9 HP to maintain speed up the grade.

So 72.2 HP + 49.9 HP = 122.12 HP required to maintain speed up the grade. At 2300 RPM that's 278 ft-lbs required to deliver that power. Neither the 3.5 or the 3.7 can deliver that torque at that speed. I think the 5.3 can. The only choices for the I5 are to a) lose speed b) downshift or unlock the torque converter to get the RPM up to deliver the power.

That's why the transmissions hunt trying to cruise at highway speeds especially on hills. The engine just can't deliver the necessary power at cruise RPM.
 

08H3

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,367
Location
United States
I have no idea what you said, however you did prove that with a fancy chart, and enough numbers you can make anything sound convincing, so color me impressed. :thumbs:
 

LagunaH1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,730
Location
Idaho
Really interesting insight!

If I understood correctly, this is all based on knowing specific fuel consumption for the engine?

Man, if only that was published for the 6.5 TD. I'd love to do a similar calculation for my H1, just for fun
 

06 H3

a.k.a. "The Jackal"
Messages
9,496
Location
Meridian, ID
You sound like you know what your talking about so I believe and even if I didnt I can tell you H3s with 35s and stock gears suck on hilly freeways. Trying to keep up with traffic at 65-70 requires a downshift or slow down sometimes both.

37s and 5.13s is better then 35s and stock 4.56s but it still is no rocket....
 

4speedfunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,250
Location
Tardville
The chart is all jibber-jibber to me...but I completely agree with the outcome. Diesels are fundamentally different from gasoline motors and they love to be loaded. The more you load em...the more efficient they get. In fact, if you try to ease the load on a diesel, (like running too low of a gear ratio)...it will often blow right past its torque band, and you just end up wasting fuel with no perceived increase in performance. But if you hook a trailer full of gravel to it...it suddenly comes alive like no gas motor can! I don't have any numbers or graph-charts to explain it...but, I've driven enough of each to understand the difference and how awesome diesels can be.

Someday.
 

LagunaH1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,730
Location
Idaho
Both my vehicles are Diesels. I can absolutely confirm what 4Speed is saying: if I nail the throttle on the Passat TDi while in the lower end of the torque band the car surges forward with SO much power. If I get the revs up too high, then not much is happening.

Same thing with the H1: Put my foot in it at around 1500 - 1700 RPMs and it will pulls stumps but it is not a quick accelerating truck
 

SuperBuickGuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,403
Location
Woodinville, WA
this is why I keep preaching more gears and bigger motors to get better fuel economy. An extreme example - my parents had a GMC class C (23') motorhome that struggled to get 9 mpg with a 400. They now have a Class A motorhome with efi 454 power (and don't start about efi, it's not all that as I got the same mpg with my Class A, 454 carb'd version) that gets 11-13 mpg. With that said, my Class A was a bit smaller, but had a turbo 400 whereas my parents have a 4L80e... the only time there would be an issue for me keeping up was in the hills, that extra gearset really made a huge difference (remember, everywhere I go is either up or down)... I honestly believe that my Alpha would get better mileage with a 6.0 LS motor - and I am going to test that, maybe sooner since I saw a bit of metal on my drain plug tonight...
 

CaseyS

Well-Known Member
Messages
755
Location
Louisiana
19mpg. Is that all downhill?
My H3 has never seen 19mpg at 72mph. 15mpg; yes, from Colorado Springs to Denver on I-25. 19mpg, I wish.

I'm not burning gasoline
big%20happy%20smile.gif
That figure is correct. If I slow down a bit its over 20. I can also accelerate from 70 to 75 up an overpass in 4th gear converter locked. No hunting.
 
Last edited:

cbetts

NERD!!!
Messages
3,188
Location
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Us owners of manual transmissions would agree. Many times, I just let it bog down a bit for small hills and take the speed hit over downshifting to maintain current speed. However, I do get a little more power delivered to the wheels since I am not losing any at the torque converter.
 

SuperBuickGuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,403
Location
Woodinville, WA
I'm not burning gasoline
big%20happy%20smile.gif
That figure is correct. If I slow down a bit its over 20. I can also accelerate from 70 to 75 up an overpass in 4th gear converter locked. No hunting.

yeah yeah yeah... tell you what.... let's have a race :D while soul-sucking Camrys get better mileage, I'll keep my soul and my smile in a Hummer.
 

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
Nice analysis Casey :thumbs:

Here's a chart for an engine similar to mine:

Cummins_5.9L_B5.9-175_BSFC.gif


Interestingly, the lowest BSFC is .328 lb/BHP-hr at 1600 RPM. This appears to be LOWER than the lowest BSFC listed in Casey's 4BTA chart. Strange...

It does drive home a point though - when it comes to diesels and fuel economy, speed (RPM) kills. From the looks of it you should be able to net a couple MPG increase with taller gearing.
 
Last edited:
S

SedonaBound

Guest
Good post. The power curves are different for the 3.5/3.7, but the result is the same; it takes a given HP for a given speed/load and power is a function of engine rpm (and fuel). The H3s were cursed with a 4 spd auto trans mated to an engine that had absolutely no margin for cruising at highway speeds on grades in top gear. A 5-speed would have made it so much better; but that was never going to happen with GM, who designs vehicles for drive trains instead of vice-versa. I never was able to drive a 5 spd manual...it has to be better on grades than the lurching downshifts of the automatic. When we moved from sea level to 5000 ft elevation, and where trips are long; the ol' 3.5 just couldn't hack it for me on the grades. And that was with 33s. The 5.3 in my H3T is just barely adequate. It gets a workout on the grades too; just not as hard as the five-banger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Judas

Member
Messages
5
Location
Montana
That is not true, my 09 h3 has a 5speed manual powered by the 3.7. Running 33's. It's not a drag racer but she will pull the divide on i90 between billings and butte at 70.mph. I do have to drop to 4th gear but still well within the rpm range. I have no real mods save for royal purple through out. Mines stock but still funs fine offroad too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

deserth3

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,078
Location
Conroe, TX
Get over this already...
I didn't buy my H3 to win races. I bought it to go off roading and know at the end of the day it would take me home too. Without doing 10k in mods to it like you do with a Jeep.
 

4speedfunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,250
Location
Tardville
I'll put my 5.13-geared, AT-equipped, 3.7L up against any other 5-cyl. out there. I'll eat you alive 0-60...and 0-30 is approaching detached-retina range. No wheel-spin. Just mash it to floor, and watch it bark the 37"s on the 1-2 shift about 20 feet out of the hole. Make sure you have a good grip on the wheel.
 

rsc

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Location
Tulsa
4.86 would be ideal but you can't fit them up front stock. I would actually prefer a 5 speed transmission or a 4 speed with 1:0.85 or 1:0.9 in overdrive. The stock 1:0.70 is way to high, especially for our power curve on 35's.
 

cbetts

NERD!!!
Messages
3,188
Location
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
4.86 would be ideal but you can't fit them up front stock. I would actually prefer a 5 speed transmission or a 4 speed with 1:0.85 or 1:0.9 in overdrive. The stock 1:0.70 is way to high, especially for our power curve on 35's.

Yeah, the AR5 works will. Still needs a slightly different ratio on third and fourth. Still better than than before when they had the same ratios as the Solstice.
 
Top