Forum Discussion
Groover wrote:
Just my opinion but it seems to me that a few gas pushers were made with the primary goal being to save money and they got carried away with that idea and comprimised quality. Customers then associated gas pushers with the problems and won't buy one now. While I do like my diesel pusher I would like to know how it would perform and how much lighter it would be with a well engineered gas engine and drive train. Gas is so much cheaper now and without DEF a gas engine might actually be less expensive to feed.
I believe that either engine will perform well if properly engineered.
If you are referring to the Workhorse gas pusher chassis, I can tell you there was no compromise on quality. If you are referring to the house on top of the chassis...well, that is a much different story, Monaco was a sinking ship when I bought my coach, I just didn't know it yet...and yes they took a bunch of shortcuts building the house part of my coach, things that I spent quite a bit of time to get fixed, the chassis however, it is very good.Tvov wrote:
BennieH wrote:
"I wouldn't think that would be much of a problem. Diesel engines generally generate more heat than a gasoline engine because of the high compression."
Actually diesels run cooler in the engine compartment. That is why all ambulances are now diesel. There were a LOT of gas engine ambulances that had engine compartment fires in the late 90's and all the builders switched to diesels.
Interesting. I thought the switch was made because ambulances have become so large (F450 and F550 sometimes) and due to constant running / idling.
When we added the jaws of life unit to our rig, we had to go to a diesel because we were over weight for the gas van type vehicle.- Diesels convert about 50 percent of fuel into HP and rest into the heat.
For gasoline engine it is like 30 for HP, while almost 70 percent of fuel converts into the heat.
Small sample >>> 10 tons DP uses 6 gallons/hr, where 3 gallons/hr is converted into heat.
Same weigh gasoline engine uses 10 gallons/hr where 7 gallons is converted into heat.
Sure bigger radiator, bigger fan, bigger engine compartment can deal with it, but at what cost?
Do you want to carry 2000lb of radiators? - Just my opinion but it seems to me that a few gas pushers were made with the primary goal being to save money and they got carried away with that idea and comprimised quality. Customers then associated gas pushers with the problems and won't buy one now. While I do like my diesel pusher I would like to know how it would perform and how much lighter it would be with a well engineered gas engine and drive train. Gas is so much cheaper now and without DEF a gas engine might actually be less expensive to feed.
I believe that either engine will perform well if properly engineered. - It would not be that hard for the current Workhorse company to re-introduce a gas pusher chassis. They could use the PSI 8.8 liter gas engine, the same one that Spartan was going to use for their Extol front gas chassis, that never really hit the market. The problem is that Motorhome manufacturers don't want to cut into their own DP sales, and they figure who cares about a Gas Pusher, and its advantages, when fuel for a DP is so low in cost now. I think they have it wrong again, a gas pusher will cut into the sales of a Front Gasser, which it should, if positioned correctly. Why should we not have a choice, not the way that Workhorse originally envisioned it...same coach in either gas or diesel, no I am saying that the current new A class gassers could be redesigned to be pushers instead of front engines just like the Vacationer started out as a front gas coach, went to gas and diesel pusher, now its back to being a front gasser again!, something that I doubt I would ever own, having driven a gas pusher for the last eight years.
Ozlander wrote:
Tvov wrote:
BennieH wrote:
"I wouldn't think that would be much of a problem. Diesel engines generally generate more heat than a gasoline engine because of the high compression."
Actually diesels run cooler in the engine compartment. That is why all ambulances are now diesel. There were a LOT of gas engine ambulances that had engine compartment fires in the late 90's and all the builders switched to diesels.
Interesting. I thought the switch was made because ambulances have become so large (F450 and F550 sometimes) and due to constant running / idling.
Constant idling is not good on a diesel.
That is why a lot (if not most) emergency vehicles with diesel engines have a manual and/or automatic throttle control to boost rpms during extended idling. Emergency vehicles usually have so many electronic items using power that shutting down the engine for even a short time can kill the batteries. You many notice at firehouses and ambulance buildings vehicles parked will be plugged into shore power.
Police cars are similar, except they many times are not shut down at all ... the engine may routinely run 24 hours a day. Keep that in mind if you are tempted to buy a used police car - miles may seem okay to you, but the "engine hours" can be huge!
A lot of emergency vehicles have jumper plugs hanging out of the front grill, both leading in and out of the engine compartment, so the vehicles can jump each other as needed. These look similar to engine block heater plugs. Ambulances in my town have 3 plugs hanging out the front grill (or just inside it) - engine block heater plug, plug to jump another vehicle, and a receiver plug to get a jump start.
Fire engines usually have a "master switche" that will disconnect the batteries if the engine is shut down. Even so, most departments do not shut down a fire engine when out of the firehouse. To many things can go wrong if the engine won't restart.
Different departments have different procedures, these are what I know of them.
Sorry! Didn't mean to veer off topic too much. Need to get back to my coffee.J-Rooster wrote:
bullydogs1 wrote:
X-2, I'm one of those stuck with one of those obsolete GM, 8.1, 496 C.I. engines. The EPA knows how to screw up a good working engine! I often wondered if the guy that made that decision owned Ford Stocks?
That cooling issue with the UFO chassis was corrected by a bulletin/recall of it so that's a non issue. There was a cost issue as well, but the 2009 implosion ended the UFO's existence. It actually was a good setup and those that got one you never heard a bad word.
Actually the Government itself owned the 8.1 when it was killed off, just another victim of Obama Motors. Could the 8.1 been made to pass emissions? I'm thinking it could have been - Ford reworked the V10 to pass.
If I'm not mistaken, the death of the 8.1 was effectively the end of the Workhorse RV chassis too.
Their diesel chassis never took off, and with no good gas engine option available there really wasn't anything in the RV world left for them to build.bullydogs1 wrote:
X-2, I'm one of those stuck with one of those obsolete GM, 8.1, 496 C.I. engines. The EPA knows how to screw up a good working engine! I often wondered if the guy that made that decision owned Ford Stocks?
That cooling issue with the UFO chassis was corrected by a bulletin/recall of it so that's a non issue. There was a cost issue as well, but the 2009 implosion ended the UFO's existence. It actually was a good setup and those that got one you never heard a bad word.- Not currently. Not likely again, because progressive increases scheduled for CAFE and minimum MPG performance standards are making large gas engines disappear and all types of vehicles get smaller. Even small engines are getting smaller, 1.3 L replacing 2.0 in compacts, 1.0 replacing 1.5-1.6 in superminis and subcompacts. The gas engines equivalent in output to the smallest turbo diesel engines used in pushers today are already gone from mass production.
- That cooling issue with the UFO chassis was corrected by a bulletin/recall of it so that's a non issue. There was a cost issue as well, but the 2009 implosion ended the UFO's existence. It actually was a good setup and those that got one you never heard a bad word.
