| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Stupid Question - Manual Locking Hubs - 4WD
The Ford hubs are vacuum operated, when in auto position and the four wheel drive knob is turned vacuum is applied to the front hubs and engages them, if vacuum is not applied to both hubs the front axle will not be engaged, then you need to turn them to the locked position,which manually locks the hubs, there are hoses running to each front steering knuckle, if these hoses are cracked or worn they will not apply vacuum and the hubs will not engage, there are seals in the front bearings that may also leak, the hubs them self have been pretty reliable, some cleaning and lubrication is some times required, I have left mine on both trucks in the auto position, the only problem I've had is they get difficult to turn if needed, which is the reason I remove them and clean them, Hope this helps
Give that man a cigar!
Ford knows the vacuum system leaves too much too chance, hence the manual mode.Well then I stand corrected on my previous post. I don't know when Ford started using vacuum, as the earlier (up to mid 90's) designs were mechanical as I described. Interesting thing is I remember Dodge using vacuum-operated automatic hubs in the 80's, and they were nothing but trouble. In the cold weather, the rubber seals would get stiff and leak, and if it was cold enough you could even freeze the vacuum diaphram and find yourself stuck in 2wd until the hubs warmed up! (Ask me how I know this!)
I couldn't agree more that a vacuum system is hardly fool-proof and not something I would want to rely on when it really mattered. Most everything else I posted remains valid. If you want to use your 4wd, and KNOW that it is going to be available when you need it, lock your hubs!
|
Caddywhompus
|
12/01/08 07:56am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Stupid Question - Manual Locking Hubs - 4WD
And I think your comments about auto hubs apply to older models, not the newer electronic shift on the fly models.I don't think auto/manual hubs on the Ford trucks are electronic in operation. At least they weren't last time I worked on one. In automatic mode, they use a mechanical cam system that uses the drive axle's rotation relative to the stationary wheel hub to drive a sprag gear towards the hub's inner splines. When the sprag contacts the hub, you get a connection and power transfer. That's why they do not engage immediately as some think, and why they don't stay engaged if you change direction. Some of the older ones didn't work at all in reverse.
Locking them in manually pushes a solid plate down in over the axle splines that meshes with the hub's splines. This effectively locks the hub to the axle shaft, and eliminates all of the above. Ford provides this feature as a value-added benefit to people who need it.
For 99% of the people who buy 4wd (and don't need it) auto hubs are plenty good enough and they may never tell the difference. For the rest of us, it's unacceptable.
And that electronic switch on your dash that kicks you in and out of 4wd is a completely separate system. All that is doing is engaging and disengaging the transfer case. The hubs remain mechanically operated.
Of course, I've focused in on what I know about the Ford trucks with the auto/manual hubs. There are all different kinds of systems out there and some DO use electronic and/or vacuum solenoids to engage the front hubs. These systems have their own strengths and weaknesses and are not addressed in this thread.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/29/08 02:42pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Stupid Question - Manual Locking Hubs - 4WD
You could also manually lock the hubs, but I don't know why you would need to.If you rely on the auto hubs, your front axle engagement is iffy at best. They are meant for the occasional "get you moving" 4x4 action, rather than down-and-dirty real off roading.
A couple things to know about the automatic hub function.
It can take up to 10 feet of forward motion to engage themThey may not work in reverse at all (depends on design)If they do work in reverse, it can take up to 20 feet of reverse motion to engage themIf you are rocking the truck, going from forward to reverse, the front axle will repeatedly disengage every time you change direction, then SLAM into engagementIf the haven't automatically locked, and the rear tires slip, they will SLAM into engagement and often fail if this happens
All these potential issue are solved by manually locking them in, which is why you have the option. Ford tried purely automatic hubs in the late 80's to mid 90's and they were a miserable failure. Most (including myself) replaced them with manual hubs that we could rely on even if they were still working (rare).
Your automatic locking hubs have a manual override, so you can drive around in 2wd and use the control in your cab to engage 4wd as needed and they will do their job. But as I mentioned, they are meant for short-term "get you moving" type driving. For serious off-roading when you need to depend on them, lock them in. And yes, you can leave them locked in manually and still switch from 2wd to 4wd from the cab, just with slightly reduced fuel economy. This is very useful when the weather gets sour and you never know when you might need real honest reliable 4wd action without worrying about when the auto hubs might choose to engage.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/29/08 10:22am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: RVIA Promotes Improved Trailer Design
No, European trailers get by with low tongue weight because the vehicles they tow them with lack the power to get the trailer up to 75MPH. That 50MPH speed limit mentioned in the article is quite optimistic.Someone should tell that to the Europeans! I've spent a lot of time in the UK and seeing Ford Focus-sized cars towing "Caravans" down the "Motorway" and 65-70mph is a very common sight. Traveling at 50mph on a British motorway, even in the slow lane, is a recipe for disaster.
European trailers tow better due to superior design. The Superior design is driven by the fact most customers will be using small to mid size sedans as their tow vehicles, so they don't have the luxury of using weight and mass to stabilize the rig.
Also they don't use WD hitches across the pond, so high tongue weights are out of the questions. Adding a WD hitch to the equation would only improve the ability for a small car to tow a reasonable-sized trailer.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/27/08 09:00pm |
Towing
|
|
RE: airbags and equalizer hitch
The general rule is that the Weight Distributing hitch should be setup to level the rig WITHOUT the assistance of airbags or helpers. The airbags can then be used to bring the rig back to level if you add weight to the bed AFTER the trailer has been hitch and leveled with the WD hitch.
The reality is that airbags and helper springs are actually more useful to handling loads that are in the cargo area of the vehicle, like heavy loads in the bed, lots of people in a van, or the pin weight of a 5th wheel. The downfall to using them is that they do not redistribute weight like the WD hitch does, so besides restoring everything to level they do little to improve handling.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/19/08 08:43am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
..Only way I'd want an AWD vehicle for slippery roads or off-roading, is if it had a way to 'lock' the transfer case, so you could have TRUE 4 wheel drive. Haven't looked much at AWD systems, but I don't believe many offer that. That, or maybe one of the 'smart' AWD systems, that is able to sense which wheels are slipping, and re-distribute power accordingly.
Without either of those, an AWD vehicle is an absolute waste of money, IMO. You'd actually be better off in a 2WD with a limited slip differential, than just an AWD with open differentials and transfer case. With an AWD like that, if just ONE of your 4 wheels starts slipping, you go nowhere. Very easy to get stuck.
Will
Will, you need to familiarize yourself with some of todays modern AWD vehicles. There is no need for a locking transfer case. For years Subaru offered 50-50 torque split in their awd cars with a manual transmission. The used a viscous coupling. Almost all have a for of traction control now that will transfer power away from slipping wheels.Keith is right Will.
Now I'm not a big fan of the "FWD until slip, then activate the rear wheels" style of AWD that is so common on today's cars. It's just not as good as the truly symmetrical AWD on Subarus, Audis, and some other premium brands. All that said, there isn't an AWD system I've ever heard of that will ONLY send power to the first wheel that slips. Every one of them has the ability to at MINIMUM get one front and one rear tire turning. If what you said was true, I would agree with you that AWD would be useless and far less advantageous than RWD with a locker. But it just isn't so.
And I can also tell you that a truly symmetrical AWD system like Subaru offers can and will get you places in the snow that a 4X4 would have trouble. I have personally driven through snow that came up on the hood. Secret is good tires!
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/17/08 02:37pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: TV Manufacturers' Definition of "Tongue Weight Rating"
The only time I've ever seen tongue weight limitation published for a vehicle, is when said vehicle comes with an OEM hitch receiver attached. The tongue weight ratings always closely (though not exactly?) coincide with the ratings etched into the receiver hitch.
For example, on my two current vehicle, the Subaru has a maximum tongue weight of 240 pounds, guess what the OEM hitch is rated for? That's right, 240 pounds. The Freestar has a limit of 350 pounds, guess what the OEM class II hitch is rated for? Yep again, 350 pounds.
I have seen a few examples (generally trucks) which had special circumstances. Sometimes a car-maker will (for money savings) install the same hitch on several versions of like vehicles. The hitch will be rated for the heaviest-duty vehicle, and be over-rated for the lighter-duty versions. Again, generally speaking the lighter-duty vehicle is not going to be damaged by carrying the higher tongue weight PROVIDING it hasn't exceeded it's GVWR and GAWRs/
Personally, I have always considered tongue weight as cargo or payload. I figure you can carry as much as the vehicle is rated to carry under the GVWR and/or GAWRs assuming you aren't limited by the hitch.
I have many times upgraded my hitch to a higher rating or class to carry a higher tongue weight than originally spec'd in the manual. I have NEVER exceeded my payload or axle ratings by doing so.
And for the record, I really thought that EVERY manufactured hitch was V-5 rated. Certainly, every one I've ever seen was. The only exceptions are the rare custom ones that some people have made, which of course don't require and DOT certification.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/17/08 01:42pm |
Towing
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
AWD getting people into trouble??? Common statement from 2wd folks - who didn't buy an AWD vehicle themselves...Sorry Bro, I have a Subaru and before that a Bronco, and before that a Jeep, and before that a Mazda 323 AWD...etc. I've been driving 4x4 and AWD for as long as I've been driving. My statement remains true, people who don't fully understand the systems get lulled into a false sense of security and end up over-driving their capability.
AWD does nothing to keep you out of the ditch. People end up in the ditch because they lost control. Having only 2 (or 1) wheel driving makes it very hard to completely loose control of a vehicle because the non-driving wheels will help keep you tracking straight. It's just like having a vehicle with a locking diff vs. an open one. The open diff will spin one tire and maybe leave you stuck, but it rarely fishtails because the other non-spinning tire holds it stable. Lock up the diff and you may not get stuck, but you will drive out sideways. All 4 wheels driving is great until all 4 wheels loose traction! It's fine for me and the wife because we both understand how the system works (OK me more than her) and drive accordingly.
Actually, my AWD vehicle has NEVER gotten me stuck. Period. And I'm including the times of pulling a boat and trailer on soft sand beach heads during summer months. Try doing that with a FWD vehicle. I do it all the time. You can do plenty with only FWD if you drive correctly.
Look Spike, obviously you know how to handle your AWD vehicle as well, and that's fine. I'm just nervous about all the people flocking to SUVs and other AWD vehicles because of a perception of increased safety and stability in inclement weather. Yeah, I love my Subaru and I look forward to snow because (let's be honest) it's damm fun to drive in the snow. But when I drive to work in the winter and count 5-6 SUVs in the ditch for every 1 2wd car it makes a firm and definite statement about the general lack of understanding how vehicles like ours function. People should ALL find an empty parking lot and take a RWD, FWD and AWD vehicles out for a few donuts. SO MUCH would be learned. Sadly, this is not the case, and even when someone does try the cops ticket him for reckless driving (yeah, in an empty parking lot!)
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/17/08 01:22pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
Hi folks,
We looked at and test drove 2 used Freestars and a brand new Flex.
They want $38,500 for the AWD Flex we drove. They want $14K for a 2005 Freestar with 115,000 kms and $11K for a 2006 Freestar with 105,000 kms. The newer, cheaper one is a little more beat up if you're wondering why it costs less.
We parked the Freestar and the Flex side by side and opened up the rear hatch. The Freestar has about twice the cargo capacity with the three row seating in place. This is a huge factor for us as we have four kids and will usually be using the third row when towing and camping.
I also liked the 2nd row captains chairs and the easy access for the kids to the third row. You have to flip the second row seating to get to the back of the Flex. A little more tricky for getting in and out at school.
I have read on line that the Freestar was hard on gas for a mini-van. It can't be as bad as the 1986 GMC Suburban with a carborated 350 we are currently driving while we sort through this.
The class 3 hitch I had bolted on the back of my Grand Caravan should fit on the Freestar, right?
DW like the Flex, but budget and common sense should prevail, I'll let you know what we end up getting.
I just pulled an add off autotrader.ca for a 2005 Freestar with the same stuff as the 05 here and 112,952 kms. It's in southern Alberta, but they're only asking $9,993.Yep, you just discovered why a lot of us can't stop talking about the minivans. True, the SUVs are often marketed as the real "utility" vehicles, but the minivans have real utility to offer?!
I know what you are talking about with the fuel mileage. It was something I worried about when I bought mine, because CR and EPA both published some really dismal numbers for the vans. The truth is, ask any Freestar owner, our 3.9 version gets combined city/highway mileage of 22, highway trips peak at 26 and towing the trailer (3500 pounds!) drop's it to 17-19. So even when towing right at the maximum published rating, I get better mileage than CR believes I should get empty. Go figure.
The hitch should be purchased for the Freestar, I wouldn't try to make the other hitch work. The vehicles are not built the same, and the attachment points under the vehicle are not in the same place. I highly recommend the Hidden Hitch (I bought from JCWhitney) class III for our vans. It tucks up behind the bumper very nicely and only the receiver is visible. The unit is rated for 350/3500 weight carrying and 550/5000 weight distributing, so more than you will likely ever need.
When we travel with ours, my wife will take turns driving which really helps out. Prior tow vehicles were not as stable on the road as the Freestar, and the "sensation" of towing that many people think is normal frightened her too much. With the van, and a proper setup, towing with 2 fingers on the wheel is truly possible and miles roll by without any puckering when semis pass.
And just so you know, I had a Chrysler minivan once as well. I'm actually a big fan of the Chrysler brand. I used to work at a Chrysler dealership as a tech, so I know the good and bad aspects. When they went to the "jelly-bean" body style the vans got really weak in my opinion. The Freestar may share a body style with the Caravan, but mechanically the similarities end there. Just look underneath one, hopefully next to a Caravan for comparison. Now the brand-new ones with the new 4.0 liter motor MAY be worth a look as well, but I've seen very little about them so I can't endorse.
Let me know if you have any other questions from an owner. I know I like to do all my homework and talk to owners before I drop a briefcase full of cash on some salesman's desk, so don't be afraid to ask.
-Jimmy
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/17/08 12:30pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
Caddywhompus,
Thanks for your advice. We're off to the Ford dealer now to look at a 2005 Freestar. Not sure what the mileage is, but they are asking $10K.
Do they come with tow packages,oil and tranny coolers? Do you even need one? We should see a big improvement going to a 4.2 litre over our 3.0 litre Caravan.
We'll still look at the Flex. Looks like it would be hard for the kids to get in and out of the 3rd row, plus the money they want, ouch.
I know what you mean about AWD getting people in trouble. We get 6 months of winter driving here. I was thinking AWD would be good for getting around town before the plows have been out.
Thanks for the point in the right direction. I'll let you know what we think of the Freestar.
The 4.2 (or even 3.9) liter Freestar is a HUGE improvement over the Chrysler 3.0 liter, pulling or not. You won't be disappointed.
Yes, Freestars can have towing packages. However, I wouldn't get too hung up on it. Mine doesn't have a factory towing package, I just added the requisite items myself. These vans are built pretty stout and do not need all the extra stuff a lot of others do.
$10k for an 05 is about right, maybe a little room to haggle. Let me know what you end up doing.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/16/08 05:26pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
I can tell you with obsolute confidence that the Freestar is every bit as capable of a tow vehicle as the Flex.
The OP mentioned in his post that he was looking at AWD, and his DW had balled up the minivan on an icy road. Is the Freestar available with AWD or stability control?I missed the AWDpart, though stability control is available on most vehicles.
But as an owner of several AWD vehicles I can honestly say AWD is not going to prevent his wife from rolling another car. If anything, it increases the odds of ending up in the ditch because of the false sense of security it provides. I love my AWD Subaru, but it is much more useful in preventing me from getting stuck than it is for keeping me on the road. For keeping a vehicle on the road and rubber-side down stability control or ESP is much more important and available on almost any vehicle these days.
I personally think a lot of people buy AWD for the wrong reasons, and later regret it. When I drive to work in the winters and see cars in the ditch, they are mostly SUVs.
But of course, to each his own.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/14/08 12:11pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
$40k! Wowza!
A friend at work here just bought an 06 Freestar for $9000 with 30k miles. I can tell you with obsolute confidence that the Freestar is every bit as capable of a tow vehicle as the Flex. I don't know if you have to have new, but if you want to save some money the 04-07 Freestars are one of the best deals on the market right now in that they have little market value, but a LOT of ability and utility. Ours has been nearly perfect in 75k miles and it was one of the first models!
Good Luck!
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/14/08 07:41am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Moving from Columbus OH to Anchorage AK
Question?
Why not get yourself a nice 6x12 enclosed trailer and tow it to AK with your MDX? The Acura can tow very nicely, and I would think a 1 bedroom apartment could be packed into a pretty small trailer.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/13/08 07:08am |
Towing
|
|
RE: Ford Flex as a TV?
For reliability information, look at the Ford Freestyle and Taurus X, both of which share basic engine and powertrains with the new Flex.
I would think the Flex would be a perfect tow vehicle for a popup at least.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/13/08 07:03am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: GM's 1500 truck w/4.3 V6 as a tow vehicle
I am one of the few who have done what you are describing.
I had the 4.3 HO in a '95 Astro van and pulled a 20' Coachman travel trailer for 3 seasons with it. My trailer was about 4500 pounds fully loaded, and full height and width so maximum frontal area.
I had the proper setup, everything I needed to safely put this combination together.
Overall the 4.3 did a decent job, most of the time it was all the power I needed. I did run into a couple issues with overheating on extremely hot days. When the outside temp got over 90, and the front and rear AC was running in the van, I couldn't keep the temp from climbing on the freeway. I don't speed when towing, so I'm talking about trying to hold 65mph. If I turned off the AC, or slowed down to 55mph then I could manage the temp and keep it down. I think the van just had marginal cooling capacity. On these days I generally stayed off the interstates and kept to secondary roads and the problem wasn't an issue.
I also had 3.42 gears, which worked fine because I never towed in OD so running in 3rd gear at 65mph had be taching 2800rpm, perfect for the 4.3 and right in the meat of the power curve. Taller gears would have only made it easier to pull in OD, something I never really wanted to do.
Now your truck is newer, but also heavier so try to figure out how that may or may not effect the expected performance. I couldn't speculate on that.
We replaced that van with an 04 Freestar when they first came out and have been very pleased with the better towing ability. Even though these vans are rated lower, they are much better pullers in actuality. I would pull a 4000 pound loaded trailer with the Freestar long before I would go back to another 4.3 powered vehicle. There are plenty of threads on this forum discussing the under-rated towing capacity of some minivans, if that interests you. I know I would rather drive one across country than a work pickup!
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/13/08 07:00am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chevy Traverse - top Tow Vehicle
Caddywhompus,
I tend to agree with your posting about minivan towing capabilities, but I disagree with the following.
I was simply pointing out that the model we are discussing has minivan heritage.
Minivan heritage? Besides the fact that it is available with the similar seating configurations as a GM minivan, it has no relation to a GM minivan. The last model GM minivan had it's heritage to a platform that was created in the early 90's, if not late 80's. The Lambda platform is brand new. If you line up the specs of a Lambda vs the GM minivans (particularly a GMT200 or GMT201) you will see drastic differences. However, the Lambda specs (axle rating and GVWR) are more in line with the now obsolete long wheelbase Trailblazer and Envoy. In fact, the last time I checked they had the same exact GVWR. Not to shabby for a FWD vehicle. Agreed, mostly. But you guys are hung up on details, not looking at the big picture.
Let me put it this way, if minivans were still selling and GM wanted to stay in the minivan game, this new platform would most likely have also underpinned the new 2009 Venture. It only happens to have an SUV body because THAT is what people want to buy these days, and GM wants to sell us exactly what we desire to own.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/07/08 11:53am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chevy Traverse - top Tow Vehicle
2. A minivan doesn't have to fold in half to have towing problems from lightweight construction. My 2,700# popup totally maxxes out my FAWR (even though my wdh setting is quite modest). More beef there would be fine with me. The rear springs are very soft. Again, I'd not mind more weight aft combined with stiffer springs and consequently tighter shocks. I can see that my tire alignment isn't ideal when setup for towing and only a couple hundred pounds under GVWR. I don't tow THAT many miles that it messes up my tire life much, but it still would be nice to maintain ideal alignment under full load. You get the idea.Yep, it's one of the reasons I don't put the Honda at the top of the minivan pile when it comes to towing. Everything you describe above is local to YOUR choice of van. I have none of those problems with the Freestar, and people who went with the Toyota Sienna are likewise very happy.
Other than that I agree in principle with most of your comments, but I reiterate that I am not/was not GM bashing. I was simply pointing out that the model we are discussing has minivan heritage.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/07/08 09:51am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chevy Traverse - top Tow Vehicle
The Traverse has no more relation to the old Venture than the current Sienna has to a Camry. That's either ignorance or blatant GM bashing.Nope, not bashing. I even said I wouldn't discount the vehicle as being a poor tow vehicle because of it's design. But like it or not, these new CUVs (and GM is not alone here) ARE based on the learning and evolution of FWD unibody vehicles, namely minivans. Some things have changed because of the times, but it would be foolish to believe the new 6-speed auto and 3.6 liter motor wouldn't have eventually found there way into a minivan if the market was still buying them.And note my previous comment. Per objective EPA testing, the FWD Traverse gives up nothing on mpgs compared to the Honda Odyssey EX/LX.Yep the mileage estimates are decent, a move in the right direction for sure. But take that new 3.6 DI motor and 6-speed transmission and place it in a lighter, lower, more aerodynamic vehicle (like a minivan) and you will get another 2-3mpg, AND more real-world cargo and utility from the vehicle. But then of course you couldn't show your face at the local country club if you rolled into the SUV parking area with a minivan. *GASP* What would the neighbors say! The Horror!I wonder if there might actually be some extra structural benefit to the extra steel in a Traverse compared to a Sienna.... Nah, couldn't be.The real question is; Have you ever seen, or heard, or even read of a minivan failing by it's structure because it was towing a trailer? If not, then the additional bloated mass of the new CUVs wasn't added to promote better towing as higher structural rigidity wasn't necessary.
You would think the ditches would be littered with minivans folded in half reading half the posts on this forum.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/06/08 11:37am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chevy Traverse - top Tow Vehicle
The C + D test is referring to AWD, not FWD, which I clearly stated in my initial post.The Traverse and all it's like cousins are FWD-based designs. The AWD package is nothing more than an add-on, same as most FWD-based vehicles with AWD optional. The basic design is very similar to the Chevy Venture (and Equinox) and Pontiac Montana. Sure, there are some differences mostly having to do with automotive technology advances, but basically it's a minivan without the practical advantages of one. The Chevy Traverse is to the Venture as the Honda Pilot is to the Odyssey and the Toyota Highlander is to the Sienna.
All that said, being FWD is not a problem for someone like me (obviously) and I wouldn't discount one as a potentially very good tow vehicle. All I'm saying is that any real utility this new line of vehicles offers was already available to those who knew where to look.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/06/08 08:44am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chevy Traverse - top Tow Vehicle
Will got the point.
|
Caddywhompus
|
11/06/08 08:40am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
