Ford 7.3 gas burner mpg hauling TC

jimh425 wrote:

There are still signs to turn off AC on Vantage hill in WA last time I was there, so maybe CA found a way to change the slope of their hills. Or maybe, they just took down a sign or two. ;)

I would consider WSDOT's lack of road maint, repair and improvements to be more the reason for the signs on Vantage.
I'm just waiting for the deck rehab project to come out on the river bridge there. Maybe leave the signs up as there will be a few more boiling radiators from having to start that pull at 20mph after creeping across the bridge!

BTW, you WA TCers have me to thank for the impeccable ride over the Yakima River bridges in Ellensburg and Cle Elum now. No more items flying out of the cupboards over those bridges.
(Actually my crews deserve the kudos. They cranked out some very good concrete work despite the bridges being in far worse condition than originally depicted)

jimh425 wrote:

Kayteg1 wrote:
Ford starting with 2017 SD made trucks 500 lb lighter than previous years.

No matter how many times you post it ... it’s still not true. ;) You only have to look up the specs for equivalent 2016 and 2017 models.

What really happened is they took most of the weight savings from going to aluminum body and increased the steel in the frame which resulted in almost no weight savings.

There are still signs to turn off AC on Vantage hill in WA last time I was there, so maybe CA found a way to change the slope of their hills. Or maybe, they just took down a sign or two. ;)

Jim, you would have better luck basking your head repeatedly into the nearest tree than convincing otherwise! At one point I recall a post from our resident comrade that the beds were 700lbs lighter!

joeshmoe wrote:

deltabravo wrote:


If it does hurt that much (to a persons pocket book) they probably shouldn't be RVing in the first place.

This is the attitude of a someone who clearly lives where fuel is somewhat affordable or is in an income bracket far above us plebes. Either way, it comes off as bit snotty and stuck up.

Come to CA. I guarantee your tune will change. Fuel is a big part of the expense, if not the biggest for me.

And anyone who's buying a brand new Superduty should be int he aforementioned income bracket or their financial "irresponsibility" with respect to fuel mileage is the least of their issues.

Deltabravo's response, IMO is more directed at the ad-nausem questions like this one and similar, where people are attempting to dissect things at a minute level, when the reality is, there are plethora of conditions that will affect the outcome far more than if one truck is some small percentage more efficient than another.

Similar to the responses about someone's 25 year old truck and what mileage they get as being even remotely comparable.
Or to their point, maybe more comparable than not, as there is so much more to it than what's under the camper.

The old wisdom says that you will not get rich from burning the money.

deltabravo wrote:


If it does hurt that much (to a persons pocket book) they probably shouldn't be RVing in the first place.

This is the attitude of a someone who clearly lives where fuel is somewhat affordable or is in an income bracket far above us plebes. Either way, it comes off as bit snotty and stuck up.

Come to CA. I guarantee your tune will change. Fuel is a big part of the expense, if not the biggest for me.

I ran a 97 F350 with 7.3 hauling a Lance 1121 for 12 years before hurricane Michael tore it up. Running 67-68 mph, I consistently recorded 9.5 to 10 mpg.

I now have a 04 Ram 3500 with Cummins and hauling a Lance 1181. At the same speed, I get 11.2 mpg.

Dale

No point to prove,Jim..Just saying buying a new production engine has its risk..I'm more of a buy an already proven engine guy...My son has A Chevy 6.0 which is a great engine in my opinion,more than enough power for a TC...The Ford 6.2 is another good one also with plenty of power for truck campers..

Remember the older motorhome were run by 460 and 454 motors and these new 6 litter engines have more HP and TQ than either of the big bores did..The 460 was burden with lousy gas mileage and they started lowering the HP for better mileage..I believe the original 460 came out with something like 385 HP stock...The 460 could have easily met the new 7.3 numbers IMHO...It's been pumped to 1500 hp for drag racing.:B

Thank heaven they don't make any of those any more. :)

jaycocreek wrote:
Ford has had a whole series of engine problems: The spark plug issues on the early 5.4s and the V10. The 6.0 liter and 6.4 liter diesels.

As noted, you are talking engines that went out of production over a decade ago. Even still, Ford didn’t design the 6.0 and 6.4 which were Navistars.

I’m sure you probably left them out on purpose, but they’ve built a lot of engines since those were produced. They’ve even produced a few diesels. Talk about the issues with those engines built in the last decade that have been in production in the past 10 years if you want to prove a point.

noteven wrote:
Would a 460 Ford engine be better than my 2012 6.2?

The 6.2 (378 cu in) pulls pretty good for a small engine. 15mpUSg empty 7 to 10 mpUSg with a camper on and 20ft enclosed trailer depending on The Wind.

The 6.2 is a good engine and has know issues that I know of..Good HP and Tq numbers also...This about sums up my opinion on the new 7.3..


Ford has had a whole series of engine problems: The spark plug issues on the early 5.4s and the V10. The 6.0 liter and 6.4 liter diesels. It’s enough to make you think that Dilbert’s pointy haired boss is now supervising the Ford engineers.

I would be very leery of buying a brand new design from them. I mean, why pay them for the privilege of being one of their beta-testers?

The 6.2 has been around for years and has no known issues