 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / June 2007Pros and Cons of the Ford V-10 motor on a medium sized Class C. (??)
How much worse gas mileage can one expect on the Ford V-10 vs. the Chevy 6.0 Workhorse engine ? What is the reliability factor on both ? Thanks, >How much worse gas mileage can one expect on the Ford V-10 vs. the Chevy >6.0 Workhorse engine ? That more of a religious question, than something that's going to provide you with an empirically determined answer. For the past 10,000 miles, I've been getting 9.41 mpg (US) on my 32' Winnebago Adventurer Ford V10; about 1 mpg better than when it was new. Somewhat better that most are getting; which I attribute to random good luck rather than good management. Albeit, I probably driver a little slower than most. >What is the reliability factor on both ? Good, but they both come with their unique set of warts. 1) I chose Ford based upon what I believe to be better reliability. Not that I had any choice in '99, because Ford was the only option. Chevy decided to get out the motorhome chassis business that year, because they couldn't hope to compete with Ford, the overwhelming favourite. 2) I chose Ford, because I do all my own repair work. I also have a couple of Ford cars, and they are all pretty much the very same. If you learn how one works, then you understand how all the others work. So I only need one set of manuals, CDs and DVDs to cover everything I own. (Of course with a Winnebago, *complete* parts, electrical, appliance and plumbing manuals are also available for free online!!) Winnebago is the *ONLY* RV manufacturer to offer this kind of customer support at any price!! My experience with Ford has been really good. I have an OLD '94 Lincoln Town car, which has the same modular V-8 Triton engine. It's been pretty much trouble free over than last 13 years and 100,000 miles. And that's why I'm still driving it! Chassis repairs on my 8 year old rig with 60,000 miles, have cost $70 for a new coil. >How much worse gas mileage can one expect on the Ford V-10 vs. the Chevy >6.0 Workhorse engine ? In a Class C motor home, I would go with Ford V10 hands down. I am not a Ford fan but that V10 is a good motor and will easily out pull the 6.0 on that chassis. If it was between a 5.4 and 6.0 it would be 6.0 and if it was between a 6.8 and 8.1 it would be 8.1. > What is the reliability factor on both ? Thanks, The Ford V10 is a proven engine and has been around longer than 6.0. There where some problems with earlier V10's blowing out spark plug but they were not really blowing out per say. Ford used wrong plug style and torque to install them and they worked loose over several thousands of miles to the point they finally flame cut threads in aluminum head and plugs blew out. If you checked your plugs every 5K or so to see if they needed retorquing on older style engines or used a different plug style and torque there was not a problem. (5.4 blew them out too as the 6.8 is a 5.4 with 2 cylinders added) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com 99 32 Coachmen Class C - 94,000 miles - 7.5 to 8.5 mpg - replaced only anti lock break sensor and a new chassis battery at 5 years Very Happy Traveling > How much worse gas mileage can one expect on the Ford V-10 vs. the > Chevy > 6.0 Workhorse engine ? What is the reliability factor on both ? > Thanks, Thanks for the responses. I didnt know the Ford V10 has been out for quite awhile; thought it was relatively new. It just seems like a whole lot of engine for a 25' Class C . that im seriously considering buying . Id imagine the chevy 6.0 litre would have been ample for the job and might give a couple mpg better (??) . Anyways, id rather trade some mpg in order to have a very reliable engine . Im encouraged to hear about its dependability -- ive never owned a Ford vehicle of any kind so have no experience whatsoever with them. Thanks again. >Thanks for the responses. I didnt know the Ford V10 has been out for >quite awhile; thought it was relatively new. It just seems like a whole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >its dependability -- ive never owned a Ford vehicle of any kind so have >no experience whatsoever with them. Thanks again. Like I said earlier, I am no Ford fan but that 6.8 is a good engine and a better engine for a motorhome like that than a 6.0 and I never heard anyone complain about a MH have extra power but many about them having not enough. You might get a but less MPG but that is a good motor that V10 and will power your chassis fine and it has a lot more torque than 6.0 and torque is what gets you moving and up the hills. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > Thanks for the responses. I didnt know the Ford V10 has been out for > quite awhile; thought it was relatively new. It just seems like a whole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > its dependability -- ive never owned a Ford vehicle of any kind so have > no experience whatsoever with them. Thanks again. I really don't see any reason the 6.0L wouldn't be as long lived as the Ford V10 or the GM 8.1L engines. The 6.0L is one of the new breed of engines designed to give high hp and torque in a lighter package. That said though, I doubt it would get better mileage than either of the other choices as mileage would be more related to wind resistance (frontal area) of the motorhome. Like others have said, the Ford V10 is a proven performer and is hard to beat for dependable performance. Hugh Dave in Lake Villa wrote: . I'd imagine the chevy 6.0 litre would have been ample for the > job and might give a couple mpg better (??) . One gallon of gas is going to get you just so far down the road no matter what engine you have. Unless you have a giant engine of some kind, most engines will get about the same mileage. If you have a 6.0 engine and a 4.11 rear end it will turn more RPM's per mile than a 8.1 with a 3.70 rear end.  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:26:22 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote: >If you have a 6.0 engine and a 4.11 rear end it will turn more RPM's per >mile than a 8.1 with a 3.70 rear end. There is more to it than that though because in the case of a 8.1, it has a lot more torque and its torque peaks at a much more usable and lower RPM. (also when a engine operates at or near its torque peak under a heavy load it uses the least abmout of fule per HP hour produced. Lightly loaded a 6.0 would get better MPG but under a heavy load the 8.1 would do better because it would not hacve to work as hard to make same HP to move load. The 6.8 does not have quite the lower RPM power of 8.1 but it has a lot stronger mid range than any 6.0. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com snipped > There is more to it than that though because in the case of a 8.1, it > has a lot more torque and its torque peaks at a much more usable and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I don't think with heavy loads it makes a difference. Our '03 Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi gets 9.2 mpg towing our 30' HR Alumascape trailer. I doubt very highly that a "bigger" gas engine would do any better. I do agree with you about the bigger engine not having to work as hard to make muscle but the new "smaller" engines do a good job compared to the older small blocks. Hugh >I don't think with heavy loads it makes a difference. Our '03 Dodge Ram >1500 Hemi gets 9.2 mpg towing our 30' HR Alumascape trailer. I doubt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >small blocks. >Hugh Do not get me started on the Hemi farce. Dodge had likely one of the best gas tow motors ever built in the form a 8.0 V10. It was a real beast. Rather than moderizing it to be more efficent they replaced it with 5.7 that pails in comparison in usable power and torque. Maybe if Dodge had made a version of it with 6.5 to 7 liters with a lower RPM torque and power peak they could have had a serious tow motor but they stuck with high RPM paper ratings. Even Toyota had enough sense that they desigend their 5.7 to make more torque and at a more usable RPM too. It make 275 HP by 3600 RPM while the Hemi might make 230 if it is lucky. Your power peak is at such a high RPM that you would have to do 42 in first (assuming a 3.92 axle and if it is taller than that it means you have to go even faster) and 76 in second to hit it while the lowly import has to only do 37 in first and 64 in second to produce 40 more HP than Dodge does. The point of all this? it is where you make your HP RPM wise that makes it or breaks it and although a Hemi has a high paper rating, it is no 6.8, 7.4, 7.5, 8.0 or 8.1 towing and is not even in the same league as these bigger beasts. BTW, 9.2 is nothing to brag about and I'll bet you spend a lot of time downshifting on long steep hills too because of lack of serious torque that bigger motor can make. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>I don't think with heavy loads it makes a difference. Our '03 Dodge Ram >>1500 Hemi gets 9.2 mpg towing our 30' HR Alumascape trailer. I doubt [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Hate to burst your bubble guy but here's the truth. The Hemi makes over 300 lb/ft of torque from less than 1500 rpm to redline. It's over 325 lb/ft at 1500 rpm, over 350 lb/ft between 2500 and 4500 rpm where it peaks at 375 lb/ft then drops off to over 300 lb/ft at near redline. The Hemi is at 250 hp at 3600 rpm and progresses steadily to 345 hp at 5500 rpm. I'm not comparing the new big block engines, just pointing out the new small block power horses can pull hard and not even breath hard. No, I don't expect a 5.7L Hemi to pull as much as a 6.8L V10 but empty, I can get 18 mpg highway. Try that with a V10 <g>. In other words I've got the best of two worlds. A truck I can haul my 8,000 lb trailer to Florida and back and still use the same truck for economical cruising to the lake. Hugh >>I don't think with heavy loads it makes a difference. Our '03 Dodge >>Ram [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com The Hemi was a pollution machine. They had to do away with it because they couldn't get it to pass the stringent emission standards of 2006. I say good riddance. It's about time you RVers became more environmentally responsible. What you do for recreation is unacceptable. You pollute and you contribute to global warming all in the name of your fun. Well, your fun is hurting other people. It's polluting the Earth. It's clogging up the roads. My right to breath clean air takes precedence over your desire to have fun. Think about that. If for no other reason than what harm it does to your health and longevity, you should stop with the RV crap and get a constructive hobby like hiking, biking, kayaking or sailing. If it takes burning petroleum for you to have fun then you're warped and useless. Shad O'Shay 'It's about time you RVers became more environmentally responsible.' REPLY: We are ; we take a leak in the woods instead of flushing toilets after we do our business. > 9.2 is nothing to brag about Yes, it is, even if it is a <drum roll> HEMI! I get ~8.5 mpg with my Vortec 8100 (8.1L big block gasser) towing my 26-foot TT at 65 MPH. Signature:) JR 2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000 >>9.2 is nothing to brag about > > Yes, it is, even if it is a <drum roll> HEMI! > > I get ~8.5 mpg with my Vortec 8100 (8.1L big block gasser) towing my 26-foot > TT at 65 MPH. That was my point <g>. We traveled from central New York to central Florida three years in a row with this combo and got 9.2 mpg overall. We got basically the same mileage with both our '96 Sierra V6 and our '02 Sierra 4.8L V8 pulling our former 26' HR trailer. There's something to be said for the new small block engines used to haul heavier loads than past engines. There is no doubt the big block is best when towing but the plus from the small block is mileage with no load. What the snewman doesn't consider is the small block engine can turn higher rpms than the big block without doing itself harm. If I were hauling a trailer around the country on a regular basis I'd have a diesel <g>. For what we do, the Hemi works fine. The 5sp transmission is geared well for towing, 1st gear is 3:1, 2nd (on the upshift) is 1.63:1, 2nd (on downshift) is 1.5:1. Downshifting on hills gives me a comfortable engine rpm. I can set the cruise on 60 and travel I-81 through Pa and never get stressed from engine noise. We can even hold a normal conversation without raising our voices <g>. Dodge has the Hemi, Ford has the 5.4L and GM has the 5.3L. All three are strong performers when towing. GM doesn't use the 5.3L in the 2500 series but the 6.0L engine is an even stronger power plant. What the snewman won't acknowledge is the new small blocks can do more than the older midsize engines could. The Hemi buries the old 5.9, the GM 5.3L is as strong or stronger than the old 5.7L and the Ford 5.4L is much stronger than the old 5.8L. He's stuck in the past <lol>. Hugh He's (snoman) stuck in the past <lol>. Now there is the understatement of the year. SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) >What the snewman doesn't consider is the small block engine can >turn higher rpms than the big block without doing itself harm. Always a child. Sure a small block can turn some RPM's but the PROBLEM is that a 3.54, 3.73 or 3.91 axle ratio with 32 inch tires does not let you use you 4200 RPM torque peak unless you down shift a lot. I would not own a tow vehcile that requires constant down shifting. I have been towing for over 30 years and trailers up to 23K before ther was diesels in P/U and I did okay with big blocks with 4.10 or small blocks with 4.56's and both engine with torque peaks at 3000 RPM or less WHERE YOU CAN USE IT towing. THat was also before we even had overdrive. If doge would maybe put a 4.56 or 4.8 with those 32 inch tires and OD it would do a lot better towing and it would do better still if they would give up a few paper HP at 5000 plus RPM on the Hemi and move torwue peak down 1000 RPM because nobay (except a idot maybe) tows at 4000 to 5000 RPM all the time on hills and hard pulls. TO me a properly match tow vehicle (one that has the correct axle ratio for its load and engine size) will not require a downshift below drive on intersate grade except on VERY rare occasions (steep climbs at high altitude) If you vehcile does not pass this then you need a lighter trailer, a big engine or a deeper axle ratio. In all farness Dodge is not completley alone here because ford greatly over rates the towing abilty of its 5.4 and GM does with its 5.3 and 6.0. There was a time when P/U came with 4.10 and 4.56 gear standard and no OD and they could pull realy well when they had to but then Detroit started to gear them taller and ad OD and cripple them. Sad part is that they could have put 4.56 in some of them and still cruised nicely in OD with great pulling power in drive when needed. GM has screwed the pooh again with it new HD 07 trucks. They canned the 8.1 in HD puckups and replace it with a 6.0 with a 6L80E 6 speed tranny. It may look good on paper but with now a lower 3.73 axle the only ratio availble, the .85 5th and especaily the .67 6th is going to be worthless towing anf likey worthless when no towing too unless you have very flat ground and no head wind. THis new combo just gives it more gears to hunt through. The 06 8.1 could be had with a 4.10 axle ratio and it was a very serious tow machine and the 8.1 with a 4.10 and a .61 6th gear pulled it well (I have driven several) with the engine high low RPM torque it could handle a 1800 RPM at 65 with authority. the new 6.0 6 speed does not have the torque to deal with same 1800 RPM cruise effectively.. GM, also to save cost did away with main shaft pass through and there is no drive in the 6L80. It is either a underdrive or over drive tranny (the Allison has a drive as does Toyotas new 6 speed) SOme people such as yourself look at the paper rating and does not look at the physics involved. I beleive that Detriot does this on purpose because if they did properly gear some of these small blocked trucks to begin with, it would crimp the sales of the high dollar and profit oil burner options so they "cripple" them. Below is the "math" behnd some of Dodges tow ratings. (if you look around you will find them for Ford and GM too) http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=44 ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>What the snewman doesn't consider is the small block engine can >>turn higher rpms than the big block without doing itself harm. > > Always a child. Sure a small block can turn some RPM's but the PROBLEM > is that a 3.54, 3.73 or 3.91 axle ratio with 32 inch tires does not > let you use you 4200 RPM torque peak unless you down shift a lot. I snipped > TheSnoMan.com You're either the dumbest posthole on the block or so obtuse facts don't penetrate your skull. What I posted... "Hate to burst your bubble guy but here's the truth. The Hemi makes over 300 lb/ft of torque from less than 1500 rpm to redline. It's over 325 lb/ft at 1500 rpm, over 350 lb/ft between 2500 and 4500 rpm where it peaks at 375 lb/ft then drops off to over 300 lb/ft at near redline. The Hemi is at 250 hp at 3600 rpm and progresses steadily to 345 hp at 5500 rpm." ...clearly shows you don't know what your spouting about. What part of "over 300 lb/ft of torque at 'LESS' than 1500 rpm don't you get? I DRIVE an '03 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab with a Hemi and the rear end ratio is 3.55. I TOW an 8,000 lb 30' trailer from central New York to central Florida. I TRAVEL I-81 through Pennsy and the hills don't phase the Hemi. I GET an AVERAGE 9.2 mpg ROUND TRIP. On the flat ground I tow in overdrive, at 60 that's about 1500 rpm. On the rolling countryside I lock out overdrive, at 60 that's about 2300 rpm or so. When it shifts down to downshift 2nd, 60 is about 3,500 rpm (a QUIET 3,500 rpm). These numbers may not be dead on but they are close enough to prove my point. Now tell me again how I need to run at 4 to 5 thousand rpm and how do you explain MY EXPERIENCE? It's time for you to back off the bullcrap. You are mixing truth with fiction and giving bad advice in the process. Hugh - who knows some sh*t I can see this is starting to get heated ; one thing you both agree on is that the Ford V10 is a good engine. Am i correct on this ? Thanks. On Jun 8, 5:16 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote: > I can see this is starting to get heated ; one thing you both agree on > is that the Ford V10 is a good engine. Am i correct on this ? Thanks. So why not get it really HOT and start preaching your god crap like you do EVERYWHERE ELSE, ya bible thumping halfwit? Ken, You have issues and should take a break from internet and seek help. >So why not get it really HOT and start preaching your god crap like >you do EVERYWHERE ELSE, ya bible thumping halfwit? >You're either the dumbest posthole on the block or so obtuse facts don't >penetrate your skull. What I posted... Dodge has you sold I see. You can write all you want but the Hemi is a joke as a serious tow motor unless you have 4.56 or 4.88 gears because you do not tow at 4000 or 5000 RPM on long highway climbs unless you are brain dead and like towing with overloaded and under geared tow vehciles. Sure Dodge claims it has 90% but they also claim good MPG for Hemi too. The said part is they took a name that was attached to a realy motor in the 60's and early 70's that was something and they tried to relive that engines reputation with this poor modern imitation in a SUV. It is a low tech engine by todays standards and the 32 overhead came Toyota of same size easily out classes it in amount of max torque, usable lower RPM HP and torque and peak power. This is possible because the 32 valve head Toyota uses allows a shorter duration of cam profiles with more breathing which results in more torque and at a lower RPM too while still retaining top end power as well. Dodge cluster farts the Hemi with a lower duration cam with a bit of varible timing and intake tuning to try to broaded torque curve but it reality this is limited at lower RPM's You know GM made a 302 for Z28 in late 60 that was "rated" at 290 HP for insurance reason but dynoed closer to 400 HP with a single 4bbl carb and a 8000 RPM redline. In a sports car today it would clean your modern Hemi's clock big time. What is the point of this? you can get a lot of HP out of a engine if you design it to wind real tight but you loose low end power and responce and efficency too. Again if Dodge had bother to make one a bit bigger with a 1000 RPM lower torque peak they might of had a good tow motor but dodge seem to think otherwise and I guess that is why they are on the rocks now too and may not even be around in a few years. Daimler "lost" 500 million on this sale after the funds where distributed to obigations to Chysler after sale and you for you to want to take a 500 million hosing on a sale it is because you see even more red ink in future. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com nothing of importance > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Bye, have fun in that bubble of past glory days <g>. Hugh On Jun 5, 10:21 am, DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote: > Thanks for the responses. I didnt know the Ford V10 has been out for > quite awhile; thought it was relatively new. It just seems like a whole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > its dependability -- ive never owned a Ford vehicle of any kind so have > no experience whatsoever with them. Thanks again. There is a difference in the Triton 3 valve from the 2 valve - and it is reflected in BHP, Torque and mpg. "Anyways, id rather trade some mpg in order to have a very reliable engine ." 'Doing your bit for the environment that you believe your god created again then Dimwit? I have a 23 foot with it and get roughly 10 mpg. > How much worse gas mileage can one expect on the Ford V-10 vs. the Chevy > 6.0 Workhorse engine ? What is the reliability factor on both ? Thanks, 'I have a 23 foot with it and get roughly 10 mpg.' REPLY: Well, i guess thats about all one can expect. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.