Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: WEIGHT vs HORSEPOWER/TORQUE (Read 645 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WEIGHT vs HORSEPOWER/TORQUE

Yahoo Message Number: 18593
Good morning all,

I am comparing the 2000 Single axle 40 ft coach with 2006 42 ft coach with TAG axle, both using a Cummins engine.
If I take the raw numbers (see below) it looks like the 2006 is way underpowered compared to the 2000 because of the additional weight penalty.
Is this really so or am I missing something? I do not have Torque curves or gear ratios available to compare, maybe that is where the 400 makes up the difference and of course the mpg is probably 6 compared to 8.
Any words of wisdom from the group? Anyone made this switch to a larger coach and if so any observations?

Thanks in advance, David.

HP TORQUE GCWR WT/HP RATIO
2000 Intrigue Cummins 350 1050 #/ft 32000 # 91.43
2006 Allure Cummins 400 1200 #/ft 55000 # 137.50

Percent change +14.28% +14.28% +71.87%

David & Karen

2000 Intrigue 11062
40 ft Single slide. PT
2002 Odyssey TOAD

Re: WEIGHT vs HORSEPOWER/TORQUE

Reply #1 –
Yahoo Message Number: 18595
David,

To me it looks like your 2000 Intrigue GCWR number is low. But your basic concept is no doubt correct. In school, one of the first dynamic formulas that they drilled into us was F=m(a) (or Force equals Mass times Acceleration). So as your mass goes up, you'll need more force to maintain the same rate of acceration.

Weight vs. Power is everything, especially when climbing hills. I recently drove a used 38' triple slide 2004 Monaco Diplomat. I believe that it had a 350 Cummins ISC. Gosh was I disappointed after that test drive. It was lazy and underpowered. It probably weighed in the neighborhood of 30,000 lbs. But my old 36' '95 Intrigue (Probably 26,000 lbs) with a stock 300 Cummins could have run away from that Monaco. I also drag race a Super Comp Dragster. Power to weight is key. If I want to accelerate faster? I'll need to trim some lbs or increase the power. But keep in mind....if you want more power, you'll have to burn more fuel. I met a guy sporting a 45' Monaco with a 500 HP Detroit in it. He said he could fly up any hill at 65, but he only got 4.7 mpg. The choice is clearly yours.

Hope that helps.
Mike

'95 Intrigue 10061

Re: WEIGHT vs HORSEPOWER/TORQUE

Reply #2 –
Yahoo Message Number: 18614
You have to feed the monster......more weight, more power, more fuel.

Jim hughes

2000 Allure #30511

Quote from: Mike Brundage
> David,

To me it looks like your 2000 Intrigue GCWR number is low. But

your

Quote
basic concept is no doubt correct. In school, one of the first > dynamic formulas that they drilled into us was F=m(a) (or Force > equals Mass times Acceleration). So as your mass goes up, you'll > need more force to maintain the same rate of acceration.

Weight vs. Power is everything, especially when climbing hills. I > recently drove a used 38' triple slide 2004 Monaco Diplomat. I > believe that it had a 350 Cummins ISC. Gosh was I disappointed

after

Quote
that test drive. It was lazy and underpowered. It probably

weighed

Quote
in the neighborhood of 30,000 lbs. But my old 36' '95 Intrigue > (Probably 26,000 lbs) with a stock 300 Cummins could have run away > from that Monaco. I also drag race a Super Comp Dragster. Power

to

Quote
weight is key. If I want to accelerate faster? I'll need to trim > some lbs or increase the power. But keep in mind....if you want

more

Quote
power, you'll have to burn more fuel. I met a guy sporting a 45' > Monaco with a 500 HP Detroit in it. He said he could fly up any

hill

Quote
at 65, but he only got 4.7 mpg. The choice is clearly yours.

Hope that helps.

Mike

'95 Intrigue 10061

Quote from: F102508@A...
> Good morning all,
>

> I am comparing the 2000 Single axle 40 ft coach with 2006

42

Quote
ft coach

> with TAG axle, both using a Cummins engine.
>

> If I take the raw numbers (see below) it looks like the

2006

Quote
is way

> underpowered compared to the 2000 because of the additional

weight

Quote
penalty.
>

> Is this really so or am I missing something? I do not

have

Quote
Torque

> curves or gear ratios available to compare, maybe that is where > the 400 makes up

> the difference and of course the mpg is probably 6 compared to

8.

Quote

> Any words of wisdom from the group? Anyone made this

switch

Quote
to a

> larger coach and if so any observations? > >

> Thanks in advance, David.
>

> HP

TORQUE

Quote
GCWR

> WT/HP RATIO
>

> 2000 Intrigue Cummins 350 1050 #/ft

32000

Quote
#
> 91.43
>

> 2006 Allure Cummins 400 1200 #/ft

55000