v10 thor Hurricane 34R gas mileage

[Chance]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

......cut..... The "big improvement" with the Godzilla V8 never materialized because you are still pushing a heavy wall down the road - it requires a specific amount of energy.

I recall purpose of Godzilla V8 was to improve on V-10 in many ways, but a big improvement in fuel economy wasn’t one highlighted. Ford said Godzilla is more efficient, but I expect that’s limited to 5% or less . Everything else being equal, I would be surprised if large Class A fuel economy improved more than 1/2 MPG by switching from V-10 to Godzilla.

Like you implied, if anyone is looking for significant MPG improvement, the easiest path is to reduce size of the “heavy wall” being pushed down the road.

[paulwadley]

I have a 2022 Miramar built on a 2021 Ford F53 V8. While towing our 2014 Ford Flex at 60 mph, I get 7.7 mpg. We just returned from a trip to Utah and back and got that average. That is approximately 1400 miles round trip. I did lower it to 55 mph while in California as per California law while towing. I also carried a full tank of water(100 gallons). We used our onboard water since the weather temps dropped to the teens at night.

Paul

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by Chance

I recall purpose of Godzilla V8 was to improve on V-10 in many ways, but a big improvement in fuel economy wasn’t one highlighted. Ford said Godzilla is more efficient, but I expect that’s limited to 5% or less . Everything else being equal, I would be surprised if large Class A fuel economy improved more than 1/2 MPG by switching from V-10 to Godzilla.

Like you implied, if anyone is looking for significant MPG improvement, the easiest path is to reduce size of the “heavy wall” being pushed down the road.

The V-10 became an oddball for Ford. Although it was a very successful legacy engine, it became the black sheep of sorts amongst a family of V-8 engines.

IMO, Ford engineering was probably tasked with developing a V-8 replacement that fit the use case of the V-10. I'm thinking it was more of a parts bin and fit issue (economy of production) rather than making a "better" engine. When Henry Ford could buy black paint by the truckload CHEAP... you can have ANY color, so long as it's black.

[RACarvalho]

As all scams, the "green" initiative uses terms redefinition to lure society into its rabbit hole.... (Stop rant... )

What does "Fuel efficiency" means??? mpg???

What about weight and the work being performed???
If you convert all cars in the world to electric the global fossil fuel consumption will only drop by 10% !!!!
Why?
Because WORK is what requires ENERGY and most of fossil fuels are used to do WORK , mostly moving heavy weight (Planes, ships, trains, etc).

So a better "fuel efficiency" measure should consider how much work is being done by the used fuel....

For example, MY MH does 7.5 mpg moving ~26000lbs (towing a car) @ 65mpg ....
My son Mazda3 does 45mpg at same speed moving 2675lbs

So if you divide the weight being moved by the mph you get that the MH does 3466 lbs/mpg and the Mazda does 59 lbs/mpg....

Which means:
The motorhome is 58 times MORE FUEL EFFICIENT in moving weight than the MAzda!!!

This is the true "fuel efficiency" measure but they don't want to talk about it because private jets are the worst in the world ....

[MJC62]

Motorhome and gas mileage should never be said in the same sentence. Or the same paragraph for that matter.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by MJC62

Motorhome and gas mileage should never be said in the same sentence. Or the same paragraph for that matter.

Mine is polar opposite opinion.

The bigger they are, the greater the opportunity for savings. Nothing personal, it’s just in the math.

[Dan-sr@perra-us.net]

Originally Posted by 1Hurricane

wondering why no one talks about how to improve the ford 3valve V10 engine gas mileage...

So where is the O.P.? Where is his take on everything discussed here? Seams like all he really wants is to have people beat one of these.

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by Dan-sr@perra-us.net

So where is the O.P.? Where is his take on everything discussed here? Seams like all he really wants is to have people beat one of these.

OP has a habit of starting a thread and not returning to the Forum for months.

His last thread on this subject is here:

https://www.thorforums.com/forums/f2...nce-31826.html

[Muggs]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

As all scams, the "green" initiative uses terms redefinition to lure society into its rabbit hole.... (Stop rant... )

What does "Fuel efficiency" means??? mpg???

What about weight and the work being performed???
If you convert all cars in the world to electric the global fossil fuel consumption will only drop by 10% !!!!
Why?
Because WORK is what requires ENERGY and most of fossil fuels are used to do WORK , mostly moving heavy weight (Planes, ships, trains, etc).

So a better "fuel efficiency" measure should consider how much work is being done by the used fuel....

For example, MY MH does 7.5 mpg moving ~26000lbs (towing a car) @ 65mpg ....
My son Mazda3 does 45mpg at same speed moving 2675lbs

So if you divide the weight being moved by the mph you get that the MH does 3466 lbs/mpg and the Mazda does 59 lbs/mpg....

Which means:
The motorhome is 58 times MORE FUEL EFFICIENT in moving weight than the MAzda!!!

This is the true "fuel efficiency" measure but they don't want to talk about it because private jets are the worst in the world ....

A fair amount of people these days ignore effectiveness or even results.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

As all scams, the "green" initiative uses terms redefinition to lure society into its rabbit hole.... (Stop rant... )

What does "Fuel efficiency" means??? mpg???

What about weight and the work being performed???
If you convert all cars in the world to electric the global fossil fuel consumption will only drop by 10% !!!!
Why?
Because WORK is what requires ENERGY and most of fossil fuels are used to do WORK , mostly moving heavy weight (Planes, ships, trains, etc).

So a better "fuel efficiency" measure should consider how much work is being done by the used fuel....

For example, MY MH does 7.5 mpg moving ~26000lbs (towing a car) @ 65mpg ....
My son Mazda3 does 45mpg at same speed moving 2675lbs

So if you divide the weight being moved by the mph you get that the MH does 3466 lbs/mpg and the Mazda does 59 lbs/mpg....

Which means:
The motorhome is 58 times MORE FUEL EFFICIENT in moving weight than the MAzda!!!

This is the true "fuel efficiency" measure but they don't want to talk about it because private jets are the worst in the world ....

Using this convoluted and backwards math, (or better said — upside down, as in inverse), all you have to do is modify your motorhome to only get 1 MPG, and you will improve it to 26,000 lbs/mpg.


If so, you will be 440 times better than your son’s Mazda.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

Using this convoluted and backwards math, (or better said — upside down, as in inverse), all you have to do is modify your motorhome to only get 1 MPG, and you will improve it to 26,000 lbs/mpg.


If so, you will be 440 times better than your son’s Mazda.

Good catch but the argument still stands correcting the math:
The motorhome makes 195000 lbs.miles/gallon and the Mazda does 120375 lbs.miles/gallon which means the MH is 62% more fuel efficient than the Mazda....

It is not how many mpg the equipment does but how much work ones can do for that cost.

It is just stupid to only focus on how much a certain equipment cost per mile w/o considering what it does.

If humanity had done that in the past we would still be transporting things by sailing ships and horse and buggy...

I'm not saying we should not work to make things more efficient , I'm questioning and pointing the fact that what people where brainwashed to consider efficiency is not.

So from any angle you look (lbs.miles/gallon or environment impact), to focus only on mpg to reduce fossil fuel consumption calling that efficiency is just plain stupid.

[EA37TS]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

Good catch but the argument still stands correcting the math:
The motorhome makes 195000 lbs.miles/gallon and the Mazda does 120375 lbs.miles/gallon which means the MH is 62% more fuel efficient than the Mazda....

It is not how many mpg the equipment does but how much work ones can do for that cost.

It is just stupid to only focus on how much a certain equipment cost per mile w/o considering what it does.

If humanity had done that in the past we would still be transporting things by sailing ships and horse and buggy...

I'm not saying we should not work to make things more efficient , I'm questioning and pointing the fact that what people where brainwashed to consider efficiency is not.

So from any angle you look (lbs.miles/gallon or environment impact), to focus only on cars mpg to reduce fossil fuel consumption is just plain stupid.

Who cares? Not many folks because they ask about MPG and not WPG.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by EA37TS

Who cares? Not many folks because they ask about MPG and not WPG.

Anyone that values their life should care.

The reason is the consequence of accepting a lie and act on it:
This lie and the acts associated with it have led to increased poverty and misery into society, as simple as that.

In my last trip I paid $4.25/gallon to top my MH fuel tank and that was not a huge deal to me but for that single mom working two jobs to make the ends meet that had all the costs of her transportation increased because of that lie it maters and a lot.
Poverty brings violence and down the road we may be ok paying $10/gallon to go on vacation using our MHs but if your family is killed in a robbery at at rest stop by the kids of that single mom it would be too late to fix the consequences of that lie.

On the other hand, if we focus on true efficiency, we would stop making the lives of the poor more miserable and would focus on discussions that really bring value to society.

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

As all scams, the "green" initiative uses terms redefinition to lure society into its rabbit hole.... (Stop rant... )

What does "Fuel efficiency" means??? mpg???

What about weight and the work being performed???
If you convert all cars in the world to electric the global fossil fuel consumption will only drop by 10% !!!!
Why?
Because WORK is what requires ENERGY and most of fossil fuels are used to do WORK , mostly moving heavy weight (Planes, ships, trains, etc).

So a better "fuel efficiency" measure should consider how much work is being done by the used fuel....

For example, MY MH does 7.5 mpg moving ~26000lbs (towing a car) @ 65mpg ....
My son Mazda3 does 45mpg at same speed moving 2675lbs

So if you divide the weight being moved by the mph you get that the MH does 3466 lbs/mpg and the Mazda does 59 lbs/mpg....

Which means:
The motorhome is 58 times MORE FUEL EFFICIENT in moving weight than the MAzda!!!

This is the true "fuel efficiency" measure but they don't want to talk about it because private jets are the worst in the world ....

You don't divide the weight by the MPG - you divide the weight by the gallons used to move that weight OR multiply the weight by the MPG to get milesPounds per gallon.

It still makes the Mazda more efficient, but less than twice as efficient, not "58 times".

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

You don't divide the weight by the MPG - you divide the weight by the gallons used to move that weight OR multiply the weight by the MPG to get milesPounds per gallon.

It still makes the Mazda more efficient, but less than twice as efficient, not "58 times".

That is what I did on post 31 above.
Still, the MH is 62% more efficient than the Mazda.

[Muggs]

Adding actual work done (move mass) adds a real dimension to operating effectiveness.

When we bought RV, had been towing with Suburban 1500, 12.5 mpg at regular highway speeds at GCVW of 11,800. Some of the guys asked how much extra towing with Vegas? I told them was negligible. Is now 10 mpg at 18,000 GCVW with added plus of now stay at track instead of hotel. A/C to cool off, place to nap during cleanups and somewhere to carry all extras I used to have to be selective about. The loss of 2.5 mpg is well offset by other things.

Good reason rail used to calculate tons/mile in fuel effectiveness.

[Muggs]

Interesting overall:

2007 Chevy Suburban 1500 20 mpg (no trailer) 6,000 lbs
2014 Nissan Altima 35 mpg 3200 lbs.
2016 Thor Vegas e450 10 mpg 12,500 to 18,500 lbs
2019 Chevy Traverse 28 mpg 4500 lbs.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Muggs

Interesting overall:

2007 Chevy Suburban 1500 20 mpg (no trailer) 6,000 lbs
2014 Nissan Altima 35 mpg 3200 lbs.
2016 Thor Vegas e450 10 mpg 12,500 to 18,500 lbs
2019 Chevy Traverse 28 mpg 4500 lbs.

This gives:
2007 Suburban: 120000 lbs.miles/gallon (Close to the Mazda !)
2014 Nissan Altima: 11200 lbs.miles/gallon (Worst than Suburban!)
2016 Vegas: 125000 lbs.miles/gallon (better than Suburban on worst case scenario
2019 Chevy Traverse: 126000 lbs.miles/gallon (only 5% better than Suburban)

Some other numbers from our home "fleet":
2006 BMW X5: 93040 lbs.miles/gallon
2019 Buick Envision: 126750 lbs.miles/gallon
2016 Vulcan 900: 40860 lbs.miles/gallon

[Chance]

Airliners can be compared in similar manner with most new airplane models getting around 100 passenger-miles per gallon — more or less. Not trying to be accurate.

In traveling for camping or touring this entire discussion is academic and means nothing because we are not a business moving freight or passengers for money/profit. My wife and I travel for the joy of it, so all I need to know is that when I downsized and went from 8 to 16 MPG, I reduced fuel in half. That’s the efficiency that matters to me.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

Airliners can be compared in similar manner with most new airplane models getting around 100 passenger-miles per gallon — more or less. Not trying to be accurate.

In traveling for camping or touring this entire discussion is academic and means nothing because we are not a business moving freight or passengers for money/profit. My wife and I travel for the joy of it, so all I need to know is that when I downsized and went from 8 to 16 MPG, I reduced fuel in half. That’s the efficiency that matters to me.

It is the same dilemma, it is called operating costs, just different targets.
You can and/or want to downsize but others can't or don't want to give up space and/or convenience so you are becoming more cost efficient in traveling , not necessarily more efficient in fuel consumption.
This is a very important concept because drives policy and development of society.