rv gas mileage

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

Most engines will do about the same and the weight factor usually dictates the actual mileage. Diesels do better, but usually are much heavier and the fuel costs more, so again the end result is about the same or less, compared to the average large gas coach.
As with anything, there are always bragging rights, with numbers that are all over the place, but I've found that the only true calculations are the ones done by an onboard computer over time and one that takes everything into account. It usually takes awhile before your driving habits will make a difference in the overall average, too.
We bought our present coach last year and it had a record of 6.1mpg average, overall for it's 9yr life. Since then, we've managed to raise it to 6.2.
Sure, we see 7.5 and 8.5 on the level, all the time and for hours, at times, but again, how about the hill climbing, the idling, the stop and gear shifting over a period of years?
Having said all this, fuel, costs are an insignificant part of ownership costs and if money is of any concern, then one would be much wiser in paying attention to the depreciation per mile.
We bought with 33K miles on the odometer and 9yrs old and will still take a beating over the next 10yrs, so now, just try to imagine what the monetary impact was for the original and second owners, if you can.

It's hard to get an apples to apples comparison because they don't make the workhorse anymore. Are you talking older RV's?

From everything I have read. It is a toss up.

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.

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.

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.

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.

neither

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.

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.

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.