Ford 7.3 Liter Triton engine?

[Chance]

Regardless of what we call it, the 7.3L pushrod V8 seems to be a great success for heavier truck and motorhome applications, which is what it was designed for.

It’s a simple design, and fuel economy seems good under heavy loads. On first long trip my son is getting just over 11 MPG with a 28-foot E-450 B+ by driving at modest speed. My smaller and lighter old E-350 Class C with V10 was never that good.

It’s possible a higher-tech engine like 5.0L Coyote could improve fuel economy a little in motorhomes the size of an Axis, but I’m not sure it would be worth the extra complexity and cost of the DOHC engine design.

[Chateau_Nomad]

Looks like the YouTube folks got a new engine and are now happy. I have the twin turbo 3.5 liter in my 2017 F-150... no issues at all with it. Granted, different engine... but same roots. Lots of Debbie downer talk about how the turbos would never last... Also lots of "Covid" assembled products in the market today.

[Chateau_Nomad]

I got a peace of mind talk from my mechanic, who has worked in the bus garage servicing municipal busses using the Triton V-10 for years. He said they're legacy workhorses with all the bugs fixed. Sometimes old school is comforting.

Regarding "efficient" motorhome engines... poor aerodynamics and weight (friction) is the enemy. The forum has had several discussions about all the trade offs for fuel economy - which nearly always come back to downsizing, reducing weight and better aerodynamics.

It's telling when nearly every gasoline engine motorhome excluding class B van builds struggle to clear 10 mpg. The engines seem to be purpose built more for torque/horsepower and durability than fuel economy. Averaging 5,000 annual mileage, a couple mpg either way isn't significant... that percentage change could come from a headwind alone.

I think Ford saves the "exotic" turbo boosted engines for passenger cars/pickups. There's not enough gain to be realized for motorhomes. My thinking is the Godzilla engine will be the mainstay gasoline class A and C (cutaway/stripped chassis) MH engine for quite some time.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Chateau_Nomad

......cut....

Regarding "efficient" motorhome engines... poor aerodynamics and weight (friction) is the enemy. The forum has had several discussions about all the trade offs for fuel economy - which nearly always come back to downsizing, reducing weight and better aerodynamics.

It's telling when nearly every gasoline engine motorhome excluding class B van builds struggle to clear 10 mpg. The engines seem to be purpose built more for torque/horsepower and durability than fuel economy. Averaging 5,000 annual mileage, a couple mpg either way isn't significant... that percentage change could come from a headwind alone.

......cut.....

Unless a person is 100% clueless, they should already know that a gasoline van requires much less power to cruise down the road than does a Class A the size of a Challenger. That part is easy.

What many people apparently struggle to understand (or perhaps don’t want to accept) is that when modern engines are sized in proportion to required power, their efficiency is not all that different. Granted, there are minor “engine efficiency” differences, but none close to explain why a van camper uses half the fuel of a large Class A.

Buyers can blame low engine efficiency (and often do), but in the real world, if they want better fuel efficiency, they need to take responsibility for the motorhome they chose in the first place.

As an example, if we use identical gasoline engine performance of 0.40 pounds per horsepower-hour for comparison, a van requiring 60 HP to cruise at 64 MPH would get ~ 16 MPG, while a Class A requiring 120 HP at same 64 MPH would get ~ 8 MPG.

The part that seems to confuse many is that to achieve the same level of efficiency, an engine for a 60 HP load could be roughly half as large as one optimized for 120 HP. Hence why vans from Ford and RAM have engines 3.5 ~ 3.6 liters in displacement, and large motorhomes have (or had) engines 6.8 ~ 7.3 liters in displacement.

What is important is that in no way does 8 versus 16 MPG mean that Class A engine is less efficient than a van’s smaller engine (it may or may not be), it only means the larger engine is being asked to work roughly twice as hard.

Just saying these new large gasoline engines like Ford 7.3L Godzilla are also designed for fuel efficiency; but since Ford doesn’t prevent Thor from building a 25,000-pound motorhome that is 13-feet tall and 8’-6” wide on an F-53 chassis, fuel economy will suck. Bottom line is that engine differences play a much smaller role than the physical attributes of the motorhome.

[Chateau_Nomad]

Anyone who has ridden a pedal -powered bicycle any distance should also EASILY understand power "efficiency". It's not too hard to understand the difference in power needed pedaling uphill into a headwind vs downhill with a tailwind... there's your difference between a class A and a van.

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by Chateau_Nomad

Anyone who has ridden a pedal -powered bicycle any distance should also EASILY understand power "efficiency". It's not too hard to understand the difference in power needed pedaling uphill into a headwind vs downhill with a tailwind... there's your difference between a class A and a van.

That's not a difference in efficiency, that's a difference in power required to do the work for different cases. The efficiency of the machine (bike) is the same in both cases.

To use bikes as examples of efficiency you would need to use the same course for two bikes.

One bike can be a 20" fat tire mountain or beach bike with low tires.
The other can be a 27" racing bike with tires pumped up to the max.

Obviously the race bike will be more efficient and take less energy to complete the course than the other, less efficient bike.

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

That's not a difference in efficiency, that's a difference in power required to do the work for different cases. The efficiency of the machine (bike) is the same in both cases.

To use bikes as examples of efficiency you would need to use the same course for two bikes.

One bike can be a 20" fat tire mountain or beach bike with low tires.
The other can be a 27" racing bike with tires pumped up to the max.

Obviously the race bike will be more efficient and take less energy to complete the course than the other, less efficient bike.

You have to give me a break... I'm a struggling armchair engineer with a layman's brain!

[ducksface]

Is this thread really only about Matt saying Triton?
He's darling, but certainly he's not the brightest fish in the tree.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

It’s possible a higher-tech engine like 5.0L Coyote could improve fuel economy a little in motorhomes the size of an Axis, but I’m not sure it would be worth the extra complexity and cost of the DOHC engine design.

I doubt that.
I had a F150 with that engine towing a 9000lbs camper (total 14000lbs GCWR) and it would do 8.4mpg in the best of days with a low 7mpg towing in the winter against strong winds.
I can get 7.4mpg anyday with my MH (V8 engine) towing a car... Thats 26000lbs....
(mpg always at 65mph)

So you you get 12% worst fuel economy but you haul 86% more weight....
That is huge gain.

The coyote is an amazing engine but it was designed to deliver power not to be efficient under load.

[saddlesore]

Originally Posted by EA37TS

Most folks doing the reviews are sales people and don’t know anything at all about what they are selling.

Yup.. Just like that Most RV sales persons Have never owned an RV themselves.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

I doubt that.
I had a F150 with that engine towing a 9000lbs camper (total 14000lbs GCWR) and it would do 8.4mpg in the best of days with a low 7mpg towing in the winter against strong winds.
I can get 7.4mpg anyday with my MH (V8 engine) towing a car... Thats 26000lbs....
(mpg always at 65mph)

So you you get 12% worst fuel economy but you haul 86% more weight....
That is huge gain.

The coyote is an amazing engine but it was designed to deliver power not to be efficient under load.

Your comments are out of context — what you quoted me saying doesn’t apply to your conditions at all.

Additionally, at 65 MPH on the highway, weight is not as important as aerodynamic drag. Your conclusions regarding poor fuel economy based solely on weight are therefore flawed. They don’t really apply.

If I were to haul a one-ton pallet of pavers inside my van at 65 MPH, it would make minimal difference on MPG. On the other hand, if I tow a one-ton empty compact camping trailer, it reduces fuel economy (MPG) by over 1/3. Same weight but completely different results due to adding aerodynamic drag.

Anyway, not to beat a dead horse because it gets tiring, I expect your 9,000-pound camper trailer was significantly larger than an Axis I referred to. And if we combine the aerodynamic drag of an F-150 pickup on top of that large trailer, I am certain it is more than that of an Axis 24.1 or similar.

There really is a reason some Axis owners now report 10 ~ 11 MPG instead of the typical +/- 8 MPG large Class As report most often. What I implied was that perhaps 10 ~ 11 could be improved slightly into 11 ~ 12 MPG range with a smaller 5.0L V8, but may not be worth extra cost or complexity.

By the way, sizing engines in proportion to load is not rocket size. Smaller Class Cs and also Class As built on E-Series chassis were often powered by 5.4L Triton V8 instead of 6.8L V10 in order to improve fuel economy. And it worked with smaller rigs reporting up to 12 MPG.

Years ago Thor marketing told me the original Axis 24.1 did not have the 5.4L V8 because they knew Ford was discontinuing that engine. And for what it’s worth, the 5.0L Coyote in newest F-150 is both more powerful and fuel efficient than the now-discontinued 5.4L Triton V8.

[ducksface]

500hp coyote has same(ish) torque at the same (ish)rpm as our v10's.

If it were substantial difference, I'd have installed one by now.

Hp goes fast. Air resistance negates that.
Torque gets you to, and keeps you at, that fast the hp creates.

Torque climbs hills.
Hp does not.

There is no advantageous advantage outside of a laboratory and talking points to swapping a v8 ford of any sort or displacement or year into a triton v10 engine bay.
This may change as godzilla aftermarket equipment unleashes the potential. Mainstream aftermarket has little/nothing of value for the v10

Or I'm horribly wrong.

And
It just doesn't matter due to none of you are doing an engine swap and you buy what is available. Only the Godzilla will be offered as gas.

And
If ford were discontinuing, why would Thor care? They don't warrant the engine, ford sells legacy parts and service, and Thor's firewall fits any engine.
You were marketed.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

Your comments are out of context ... They don’t really apply.

Your mental exercise and conclusions don't stand the test of reality.

It happens to be that I had the opportunity to tow that camper together with a friend that was towing his 12000lbs camper with a F250 with the 6.2L V8 and a 6spd transmission (my F150 had the 10spd).
We rode the same stretch of highway at the same speed at the same time and his rig did 1mpg better than mine.
He was way heavier than I and with a older "less efficient" power train and yet did better on fuel consumption....

Efficiency in burning fuel is nothing if you don't define what you are trying to accomplish.
We all could go camping using a Mazda 3 and do 45mpg on highway but the Mazda rear seat is not as comfortable as the King bed in my MH...
Weight carrying and how much it cost to carry is important for RVing for influence what you get(comfort/feature available) for the $ you are spending...

Aerodynamics:
A F150 (or superduty) IS more aerodynamic than an Axis not only because of the shape but also because of a smaller frontal area.
And those, the shape and frontal area, are the reason Axis burn less fuel per mile (again, doing what?) than "normal" A rigs....

Axis front are slopped compared to the vertical wall that regular class As front and I'm almost sure that in most cases Axis frontal area are smaller than As, therefore they use less fuel because they are doing less work (moving less air and less weight yet in a more efficient way than regular class A).

My friends 12000lbs camper had a very slopped front cap compared with mine that was a vertical wall and that is one of the (main) contribution factors for fuel consumption results we saw.

As for weight, comparisons of "fuel efficiency" is meaningless if you are not comparing the same work.

A diesel pusher hauling 40000lbs and doing 6mpg is way more "fuel efficient" than an Axis doing 12mpg at hauling weight (gives you way more comfort and features per $ spent on fuel)....

My point with the Coyote vs Godzilla is that Godzilla was designed to have optimal fuel consumption AT HEAVY LOADS while the Coyote was designed to deliver optimal power at heavy loads.

Optimal power requires fuel and this is the reason that for carrying load all the time (a MH is a truck that never unloads its cargo) Godzilla IS more fuel efficient than Coyote.

Hope this clarifies...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

Your mental exercise and conclusions don't stand the test of reality.

....cut....

Hope this clarifies...

Not at all. You and Duckface have a nice day. You’ll need to argue with someone else though.

[ducksface]

I'm not arguing.
I'm stating inargubale facts.

[Chateau_Nomad]

So... to the original intent of this post. ...

Is it accurate to say that the "Triton" family of engines is retired by Ford... i.e. no longer manufactured? And when referring to a "Triton" Ford engine, it would mean a legacy engine? ...if they're no longer in production.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Chateau_Nomad

So... to the original intent of this post. ...

Is it accurate to say that the "Triton" family of engines is retired by Ford... i.e. no longer manufactured? And when referring to a "Triton" Ford engine, it would mean a legacy engine? ...if they're no longer in production.

Exact same truck engines referred to by Triton name may no longer be manufactured, but they were part of the “Modular” engine family which evolved over the years and are still in production.

I know Wikipedia is not the final word or infallible, but it’s one place you can start researching if it is really that important to you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine


“The Modular engine family started with the 4.6L in 1990 for the 1991 model year.[1] The Modular engines are used in various Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles. Modular engines used in Ford trucks were marketed under the Triton name from 1997–2010 while the InTech name was used for a time at Lincoln and Mercury for vehicles equipped with DOHC versions of the engines. The engines were first produced in the Ford Romeo Engine Plant, then additional capacity was added in Windsor, Ontario.”

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by Chance

Exact same truck engines referred to by Triton name may no longer be manufactured, but they were part of the “Modular” engine family which evolved over the years and are still in production.

I know Wikipedia is not the final word or infallible, but it’s one place you can start researching if it is really that important to you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine


“The Modular engine family started with the 4.6L in 1990 for the 1991 model year.[1] The Modular engines are used in various Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles. Modular engines used in Ford trucks were marketed under the Triton name from 1997–2010 while the InTech name was used for a time at Lincoln and Mercury for vehicles equipped with DOHC versions of the engines. The engines were first produced in the Ford Romeo Engine Plant, then additional capacity was added in Windsor, Ontario.”

I'm only interested if the Triton engine of any flavor is still being used on any Ford stripped/cutaway chassis... specifically ones utilized by the motorhome industry.

Every Ford chassis destined for motorhome use seems to have the newer 7.3 liter Godzilla engine. I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity... so in lieu of any different info, I'm going to assume (per Wikipedia) the Triton is no longer a thing with motorhomes; replaced with the Godzilla.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Chateau_Nomad

I'm only interested if the Triton engine of any flavor is still being used on any Ford stripped/cutaway chassis... specifically ones utilized by the motorhome industry.

Every Ford chassis destined for motorhome use seems to have the newer 7.3 liter Godzilla engine. I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity... so in lieu of any different info, I'm going to assume (per Wikipedia) the Triton is no longer a thing with motorhomes; replaced with the Godzilla.

As far as I know that is correct.



FYI: Just a little related trivia.

Replacement of Modular V10 to present Godzilla V8 in E-Series Cutaway and Stripped chassis also included for a couple of years the 6.2L V8 which is not related to either the discontinued V10 or present Godzilla. The larger F-53 chassis transitioned from V10 to Godzilla directly, but the smaller E-Series transition was a bit more involved.

Since the E-Series made use of both the 5.4L V8 (standard) and 6.8L V10, and Ford discontinued 5.4L V8 manufacturing first, it substituted the 6.2L V8 for a couple of years. When 7.3L Godzilla volume was available, Ford then replaced both the 6.2 and 6.8 with the new engine.

Also of historical interest to me is that Ford offers 2 versions of the 7.3L Godzilla V8 in E-Series, the economy and premium, which simulates from marketing perspective previously offering two engine sizes.

I have never seen a motorhome listed for sale with the 6.2L V8. I would guess the optional V10 was included with the “motorhome package” when RV manufacturers ordered their E-Series chassis.

[Jimbo56]

I’ve always wondered why Ford doesn’t use the 6.7L turbo diesel in an F53 chassis. My old set up with a 2015 F350 dually diesel pulling a 12000 lb 5th wheel used to get 15 to 17 MPG. And went up Black Mountain on I40 in NC like the trailer wasn’t even there.