rv gas mileage

[ggrotz]

which motor is better on gas mileage,workhorse or triton v10?

[rgatijnet1]

The best thing to do is buy the RV and then tow a vehicle behind it. Towing a vehicle will not affect the fuel mileage that much BUT you will be getting two vehicles from point A to point B so effectively you are doubling your fuel mileage. I'm no engineer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. :B

[Mommalu]

Buying a new class A motorhome its either a v10 gas or diesel pusher. Talk to enough people who own the v10 and you find it's thirsty and noisy. A friend gets a mpg difference in his v10 pick up empty or pulling his 5th wheel horse trailer at full capacity.
Our gas motorhome is pretty much the same, with a mile per gallon difference if I stay below 65 mph or choose to flow with the traffic at 72 mph. It's a reliable, thirsty, and noisy engine, we see very little difference in mpg unless there is a stiff 20mph or greater wind, then we see 6 mpg at posted hwy speeds, otherwise its 7 to 8.5 miles per gallon. Of course running with the generator on to cool the coach as you drive puts it back into the 7 mpg range.
But again if more miles per gallon is important driving a 12' tall 8' wide bread box at posted speeds IS NOT YOUR VEHICLE!
Me, I choose to remember I'm driving a 1 bedroom apartment down the road, complete with a queen bed, 3/4 bath, kitchen, furnace, A/C and I choose where I park it for the week end.
Its all how you look at it.

[Chum_lee]

jplante4 wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
Major differnce is the Triton, being a Ford, is a HIGH REV engine, producing the best power curve at a much higher RPM than the low-rev GM Vortec.

This may affect engine life,. but not so much MPG.

Physics says this isn't so. A higher RPM should burn more fuel. 460 cu in of air/fuel mixture going through the motor for every RPM, 15:1 air to fuel mixture indicates that higher RPM engines will use more fuel.

I had to explain this to a co-worker who bought her first car with a manual transmission. Her father told her to keep the revs high as possible. I explained that a lower RPM is fine. When she took mt advise, she commented that she was using less gas.

Partially correct. If comparing engines of equal displacement generating equal power, usually running a higher RPM will require lower manifold pressure, cause more pumping loss, and more frictional loss than running a lower RPM with higher manifold pressure. This is not true if the engine running at lower RPM is at or near Wide Open Throttle due to mixture enrichment at WOT.

Running at a lower manifold pressure (higher vacuum) means that although the engine may be spinning faster, because its sucking less air per rev due to the lower inlet pressure, it mixes less fuel in with the air. It's a slippery slope. Every engine has its sweet spots. Cam/valve timing and port configuration is very complicated and plays a big role in fuel economy.

Chum lee

[janstey58]

I've had both, and both ran around 7mpg give or take. Of course wind, hills, toad, and loading all impact this.

[btilfan]

2005 V10 I get 8 to 10 at 60mph.

[ArchHoagland]

My 2004 Workhorse with the GM 8.1 engine has averaged 7.1 mpg over 80,000 miles of all terrains and temperatures pulling a 4,000lb toad.
That's hand calculated. I've recorded every gallon of gas I put in it.

I don't know what the cost is/was as I don't care. I keep an eye on mileage to tell me if I have a problem.

If you are worried about gas mileage don't get an RV. And don't buy any aftermarket items that claim to increase gas mileage. Snakeoil.

[timmac]

ggrotz wrote:
which motor is better on gas mileage,workhorse or triton v10?

Are you looking to buy ?, the reason I ask is if its newer than 2006 than go with the Ford V-10 and install the 5 Star Tuning and you will be a happy camper..

[horton333]

jplante4 wrote:
I stand by basic physics. When you increase HP you normally increase displacement. Turbo or super charging has the same effect of increasing the weight of the air part, allowing more fuel to be mixed in thereby increasing HP. Every specific fuel consumption formula I've seen has RPM as one of the variables.

But I'm no engineer....wait, I am.

If this was true motor designers have been violating physics regularly as horsepower has consistently been increased for a given displacement since the beginning of motor design .....
Fact is you have ignored much of the physics.

[jplante4]

I stand by basic physics. When you increase HP you normally increase displacement. Turbo or super charging has the same effect of increasing the weight of the air part, allowing more fuel to be mixed in thereby increasing HP. Every specific fuel consumption formula I've seen has RPM as one of the variables.

But I'm no engineer....wait, I am.

[donkeydew]

if you have to worry about gas mileage you probably need a different hobby.
neither one will win a economy race. it is more about how the driver uses the pedal and wind/terrain. at the end of a trip will $10.or $20. really make a difference? get the one you like and enjoy it.

[horton333]

jplante4 wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
Major differnce is the Triton, being a Ford, is a HIGH REV engine, producing the best power curve at a much higher RPM than the low-rev GM Vortec.

This may affect engine life,. but not so much MPG.

Physics says this isn't so. A higher RPM should burn more fuel. 460 cu in of air/fuel mixture going through the motor for every RPM, 15:1 air to fuel mixture indicates that higher RPM engines will use more fuel.

I had to explain this to a co-worker who bought her first car with a manual transmission. Her father told her to keep the revs high as possible. I explained that a lower RPM is fine. When she took mt advise, she commented that she was using less gas.

It's only going to burn more fuel at the higher rpm *when it needs the extra power*. What about the rest of the time.... You also ignore the displacement of the Ford being a fair bit less and I believe it has a higher volumetric efficiency. These are complex calculations, there would be more to consider but the poster who said "neither" is close to the real world answer as they both have to do 5he same amount of work and it's enough that both use a lot of gas.

[mccsix]

neither

[DrewE]

jplante4 wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
Major differnce is the Triton, being a Ford, is a HIGH REV engine, producing the best power curve at a much higher RPM than the low-rev GM Vortec.

This may affect engine life,. but not so much MPG.

Physics says this isn't so. A higher RPM should burn more fuel. 460 cu in of air/fuel mixture going through the motor for every RPM, 15:1 air to fuel mixture indicates that higher RPM engines will use more fuel.

I had to explain this to a co-worker who bought her first car with a manual transmission. Her father told her to keep the revs high as possible. I explained that a lower RPM is fine. When she took mt advise, she commented that she was using less gas.

That's an oversimplified analysis. You're assuming that the same amount of air/fuel mixture gets into the cylinder each revolution, which is not true--the throttle valve alters the size of the charge. (Incidentally, the displacement of a 6.8 L engine is not 460 cu in, but rather 415 cu in.)

In practice, for any given engine and a constant power output, the efficiency should be better at lower RPMs and coincident higher throttle settings, at least in general terms. This is because the total internal friction of the engine is lower at lower RPMs and the pumping losses are less at higher throttle settings, both of which mean the engine is more efficient at converting the chemical energy of the fuel into useful mechanical output.

However, particularly at greater than marginal power outputs, the fuel usage more closely follows power output than engine RPM as the changes in engine efficiency tend to be comparatively small.

[jplante4]

wa8yxm wrote:
Major differnce is the Triton, being a Ford, is a HIGH REV engine, producing the best power curve at a much higher RPM than the low-rev GM Vortec.

This may affect engine life,. but not so much MPG.

Physics says this isn't so. A higher RPM should burn more fuel. 460 cu in of air/fuel mixture going through the motor for every RPM, 15:1 air to fuel mixture indicates that higher RPM engines will use more fuel.

I had to explain this to a co-worker who bought her first car with a manual transmission. Her father told her to keep the revs high as possible. I explained that a lower RPM is fine. When she took mt advise, she commented that she was using less gas.

[10forty2]

Just get the coach you want and don't concern yourself with the mpgs. They are all going to get anywhere from 4-8mpg. If you can average 6mpg, you'll be doing very well, IMHO! But honestly, if fuel mileage is going to worry you, a Class A Motorhome is probably not for you.