New Ford V8 Godzilla your not

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Metalman

We have a 27K with just over 30,000 miles. Our MPG varies from just under 7 MPG to as high as 11 MPG, depending of conditions and generator use. We normally pull a 12 foot dual axle trailer with a heavy motorcycle, tools, and other stuff. The average MPG is just over 8.

What I find interesting is that we had a 33 foot Holiday Rambler (class A) years ago with a 454 and a four speed and got about the same fuel mileage. No revving on that beast.

Talking about big-block Chevy pushrod V8, my understanding is that there is now a modern 540 cubic inch industrial version used by Generac on gaseous generators.

There is also a 4-cylinder version with same 4.5-inch bore and 4.25-inch stroke used on smaller generators. Since they run at 1,800 RPM, vibration from large-displacement inline-4 isn’t as big an issue.

I have thought Ford could do the same with 7.3L Godzilla, making a 3.6L in-line 4-cylinder for industrial applications like marine, generators, pumps, compressors, etc.

It would also be a great range extender for hybrid motorhomes and light trucks.

[kwplot34]

Originally Posted by chunker21

Reference the transmission, the Omni with F550 chassis and 6.7 diesel has the 10 speed transmission. In my opinion it's not really needed because in normal acceleration I go from 1-3-5 then up the sequence. Perhaps descending steep grades selecting a gear in the lower range would be useful but in most cases all the extra gears are more bragging rights than functional design. My Ram 1500 has and 8 speed and seems in normal driving to use them all.

Are you sure yours has a 10 speed? because mine has a 6 speed, there is a read out in the center cluster that shows what gear it's in and it only goes to 6.

[Bob Nodine]

It would be interesting to know the real reason Ford dropped the V10 and produced the 7.3 V8 to replace it. I suspect it had nothing to do with improving fuel mileage. Seems that when the V10 first appeared Ford was touting the modular design where the V6, V8, and V10 were all the same engine with different number of cylinders. None of those had turbos. Now they build a dual turbo V6 that outperforms the V8 in the F150 and they are using that V6 in Transits vans. Maybe the V10 was becoming an orphan and the pistons and rods were only used in the V10. Maybe they wanted to build a pushrod engine that did not take up so much space under the hood. For years I owned a 2007 Ford SportTrac that had an overhead cam 4.6 V8. When you raised the hood it looked like a 427. I just wish that Ford would have put at least one Turbo on the 7.3. Then it would truly be a beast. We love to drive our little Chevy Sonic RS with a turbo and six speed grade braking transmission. When you hit a hill in that little puppy you can feel the torque and it goes up in 6th gear.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Nodine

It would be interesting to know the real reason Ford dropped the V10 and produced the 7.3 V8 to replace it. I suspect it had nothing to do with improving fuel mileage. Seems that when the V10 first appeared Ford was touting the modular design where the V6, V8, and V10 were all the same engine with different number of cylinders. None of those had turbos. Now they build a dual turbo V6 that outperforms the V8 in the F150 and they are using that V6 in Transits vans. Maybe the V10 was becoming an orphan and the pistons and rods were only used in the V10. Maybe they wanted to build a pushrod engine that did not take up so much space under the hood. For years I owned a 2007 Ford SportTrac that had an overhead cam 4.6 V8. When you raised the hood it looked like a 427. I just wish that Ford would have put at least one Turbo on the 7.3. Then it would truly be a beast. We love to drive our little Chevy Sonic RS with a turbo and six speed grade braking transmission. When you hit a hill in that little puppy you can feel the torque and it goes up in 6th gear.

Lower cost to manufacture, lower cost to service and repair, lower fuel consumption, lower noise, lower vibration, smaller size, and I believe higher maximum GCWR, although I’d have to double check that last one.

Bob, the EcoBoost twin turbo V6 is not part of the same Triton Modular engine family line, which mainly included the naturally aspirated 4.6 V8, 5.4 V8, 6.8 V10 and later redesigns which include 5.0L Coyote V8 and other sizes like 5.2L V8. Ford has added blowers to some, but I don’t recall factory turbos or any V6 in that Modular family. Modular all share the same 100 mm bore spacing that added manufacturing flexibility.

I’m fairly certain commercial truck buyers pressured Ford to design a lower cost, more powerful, and simpler gasoline engine that could start replacing Diesel engines at the lower GCWR range.

[chunker21]

Originally Posted by kwplot34

Are you sure yours has a 10 speed? because mine has a 6 speed, there is a read out in the center cluster that shows what gear it's in and it only goes to 6.

Yep 10 speed and a very smooth shifting transmission. Using tow hauler and engine braking I get to see many of those gears. During normal shifting some of the gears are hard to detect the shift, that smooth. I like the combo.

[ducksface]

I'm indifferent due to
Indifference
And I'll never have to decide between the two.
But
I do appreciate the beta test group who buy first year vehicles.

[kwplot34]

Originally Posted by chunker21

Yep 10 speed and a very smooth shifting transmission. Using tow hauler and engine braking I get to see many of those gears. During normal shifting some of the gears are hard to detect the shift, that smooth. I like the combo.

Cool, didn't know that ford switched over to a 10 spd behind the diesel.

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by Bob Nodine

It would be interesting to know the real reason Ford dropped the V10 and produced the 7.3 V8 to replace it. I suspect it had nothing to do with improving fuel mileage. Seems that when the V10 first appeared Ford was touting the modular design where the V6, V8, and V10 were all the same engine with different number of cylinders. None of those had turbos. Now they build a dual turbo V6 that outperforms the V8 in the F150 and they are using that V6 in Transits vans. Maybe the V10 was becoming an orphan and the pistons and rods were only used in the V10. Maybe they wanted to build a pushrod engine that did not take up so much space under the hood. For years I owned a 2007 Ford SportTrac that had an overhead cam 4.6 V8. When you raised the hood it looked like a 427. I just wish that Ford would have put at least one Turbo on the 7.3. Then it would truly be a beast. We love to drive our little Chevy Sonic RS with a turbo and six speed grade braking transmission. When you hit a hill in that little puppy you can feel the torque and it goes up in 6th gear.

I believe you nailed it. Fewer parts and fewer parts bins. Common components between engines. GM took this concept to a new level back in the 1980s by simply gluing on a different name badge on identical cars. Thor does it with "sister product" motorhomes. Ford is simply consolidating components to economize.

And speaking of that Ford 10 speed tranny... it's paired with the twin turbo 3.5 liter 6 in my 2017 F-150. Insane acceleration, but the tranny struggles to find the "right" gear when cold. It typically skips 2 to 3 gears during normal acceleration, so what's the point of having 10 vs 6? I can still feel the shifts, but maybe a little smoother? But it's still not as smooth as the CVT we had in a former Subaru... THAT was a smooth tranny!

[Lt Keefer]

All this talk about MPG and engine performance in motorhomes makes no sense to me. I have had motorhomes since the 1980s and the thing about them is they all have had the same requirements. I load them up with stuff and go camping. Every one has gotten me to my destination and required fuel to be put in them every day. End of discussion.

[sportcoupe]

Originally Posted by Lt Keefer

All this talk about MPG and engine performance in motorhomes makes no sense to me. I have had motorhomes since the 1980s and the thing about them is they all have had the same requirements. I load them up with stuff and go camping. Every one has gotten me to my destination and required fuel to be put in them every day. End of discussion.

Technology moves on without you then.

Todays engines are twice as efficient with double the power and are 10 time more cleaner burning then the relics of the 80's past.

[DavidEM]

Originally Posted by sportcoupe

Technology moves on without you then.

Todays engines are twice as efficient with double the power and are 10 time more cleaner burning then the relics of the 80's past.

Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but in general .

David

[chunker21]

Originally Posted by DavidEM

Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but in general .

David

Disagree with you because it may be even an understatement. Le'ts step back a couple decades from his post to the mid 60's. To produce 400hp you had a 427 or 454 with high rise cams, triple carburetors and required a high lead content high octane fuel. Getting maybe 8-10mpg loping around town. My 69 corvette with the 350/350 got 12 and while fast, it loved gas stations. It actually had emissions. An air pump to dilute the exhaust stuff but of course I removed that belt.

I miss the intake and exhaust roar that was produced without the use of added on "noise chambers". I don't miss the poor economy, poor emissions control, poor reliability, and all the other things that went with older vehicles.

I'm not an envirio wacko, but do want to have clean air to breathe and water to drink. This who think EV is the answer don't know where electricity comes from and the frailty of wind and solar. For every source of power there are detractors. Want hydro, can't because of a snail darter, nuclear nope there's nuclear waste, wind kills birds, solar covers up field mice habitat, coal eww that's so "dirty".

Sadly though many of the "improvements" are not well thought out and only political solutions not a realistic answer to anything except a niche connected special interest. That last statement while totally accurate will probably get my PP slapped again.

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by Chateau_Nomad

......... But it's still not as smooth as the CVT we had in a former Subaru... THAT was a smooth tranny!

Cuz CVTs don't shift?

A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is an automatic transmission that can change seamlessly through a continuous range of gear ratios. This contrasts with other transmissions that provide a limited number of gear ratios in fixed steps. The flexibility of a CVT with suitable control may allow the engine to operate at a constant RPM while the vehicle moves at varying speeds.

I had to explain that to our salesperson when we were looking at CRVs in 2015.

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by chunker21

Disagree with you because it may be even an understatement. Le'ts step back a couple decades from his post to the mid 60's. To produce 400hp you had a 427 or 454 with high rise cams, triple carburetors and required a high lead content high octane fuel. Getting maybe 8-10mpg loping around town. My 69 corvette with the 350/350 got 12 and while fast, it loved gas stations. It actually had emissions. An air pump to dilute the exhaust stuff but of course I removed that belt.

I miss the intake and exhaust roar that was produced without the use of added on "noise chambers". I don't miss the poor economy, poor emissions control, poor reliability, and all the other things that went with older vehicles.

I'm not an envirio wacko, but do want to have clean air to breathe and water to drink. This who think EV is the answer don't know where electricity comes from and the frailty of wind and solar. For every source of power there are detractors. Want hydro, can't because of a snail darter, nuclear nope there's nuclear waste, wind kills birds, solar covers up field mice habitat, coal eww that's so "dirty".

Sadly though many of the "improvements" are not well thought out and only political solutions not a realistic answer to anything except a niche connected special interest. That last statement while totally accurate will probably get my PP slapped again.

Remember when the tobacco industry found doctors who would actually say they preferred Chesterfields... because they were "good for your health"?

You'll never get to the truth if you only listen to/believe those with an agenda. It takes a LOT of digging and research - then follow the money trail. West Virginia is the poster child...

[Pete'sMH]

Originally Posted by 16ACE27

Cuz CVTs don't shift?







I had to explain that to our salesperson when we were looking at CRVs in 2015.

Some folks are so bothered by CVTs that they sometimes are programmed to simulate shift points. Nissan did that for years. Never understood that but of marketing strategy!

[16ACE27]

Originally Posted by Pete'sMH

Some folks are so bothered by CVTs that they sometimes are programmed to simulate shift points. Nissan did that for years. Never understood that but of marketing strategy!

Yeah, there are some CVT shifters that have positions for "2" and "L" that just electronically hold the ratio progress at an artificially lower level to simulate lower gears.

[RACarvalho]

There is the market/official numbers/etc and then is reality.

And the reality is that to push a flat wall of 100sqft through air at 65mph takes a certain amount of energy and doesn't matter if you do that with an old detroit 2 stroke diesel or a brand new 0.25L 10 turbos "clean" engine, that required energy will be the same.

So it boils down to gains of efficiency with new tech but how much efficiency gain can you still get and how much will it cost?

Once I was towing a 9000lbs camper with a F150 and new 5L V8 and a friend behind me towing a 12000lbs camper with an "old" F250 6.2L V8...
He was doing ~ 1mpg better than me even though the numbers would suggest I should be doing better than him: Reality vs Marketing...

My MH with the 7.3L V8 did 8.5 mpg when not towing in its first long trip... Now it is doing 7.5mpg towing and I'm happy...

Why?

That F150 towing a 9000lbs camper was doing 8.5mpg ...

I'm hauling more than double the weight and fuel consumption increased only 12%....

[Chateau_Nomad]

Originally Posted by Pete'sMH

Some folks are so bothered by CVTs that they sometimes are programmed to simulate shift points. Nissan did that for years. Never understood that but of marketing strategy!

Agree it does feel odd at first, but I grew to love that little 2.1 Subaru engine mated to the CVT. Our son "inherited" it when we bought a new Toyota. It just felt like it had a much broader power curve - even for the small engine.

[txc2936@yahoo.com]

New 2021 THOR ACE 30.4, i tried driving at various speeds, etc. Probably average 8.2-8.5 mpg. This is with full fuel tanks and only 2 of us. 12MPG would be a dream. I can try 60 mph, but that would be a serious issue driving on I-95 around the Savannah area..

[MJC62]

Originally Posted by Lt Keefer

All this talk about MPG and engine performance in motorhomes makes no sense to me. I have had motorhomes since the 1980s and the thing about them is they all have had the same requirements. I load them up with stuff and go camping. Every one has gotten me to my destination and required fuel to be put in them every day. End of discussion.

Got a chuckle from this comment! A bit cynical, but the truth sometimes is. The first motorhome we bought years ago I asked the salesperson what kind of gas mileage I might expect. The guy laughed and said if I have to ask, I shouldn't be driving one. I have lived with that credo for our 30+ years of RVng.