RV News RVBusiness 2021 Top 10 RVs of the Year, plus 56 additional debuts and must-see units → ×


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2019, 08:00 AM   #21
Usually Confused Member
 
emm-dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,627
Wanna check those numbers? 14000 pound MH / 2800 = 5. *35 = 175 mpg. ?????
__________________
2018 Forester 3051S (aka Clyde)
2015 Wrangler Toad (aka Bonnie)

At some point during every day you suddenly realize nothing else productive is going to happen the rest of that day. For me, it usually occurs around 9 am.
emm-dee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 08:55 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270S View Post
I have a 2017 that has the V10. With the $500 5Star ODBC upgrade, there is NOTHING wrong with the Engine or Transmission at all.


Better mileage would be nice, but that is just physics and software can not help that. MPG = (weight / 2800) * 35. It is that simple! Use any of your gas vehicles, put in its weight and the result will be extremely close from my real world tests. I always heard different vehicles, designs, manufacturers, Ö are different, but reality is that for every gallon of fuel (regardless of type), it yields XX quantity of energy. The higher the mass, the more energy (fuel consumption) it takes to move it. Assuming gearing (Tx) is correct, a smaller engine at higher RPMs will consume the exact same amount of fuel as a larger one at lower RPMs - just physics.


Unless there is a breakthrough in designs (something like Fuel Injection was), all current engines are fairly equal in efficiency regardless of manufacturer. They all use the same design technology in hardware and software and most vehicles shapes are based on some form of wind tunnel input.

I'm not sure I agree completely with that. I think you've attempted to seriously oversimplify. For example, an F150 with the 6.2 V8 tends to get maybe 17-18 MPG hwy. You take the same truck with the 2.7L Ecoboost and it'll get 25ish MPG hwy. Something as simple as changing the tires to a more aggressive tread has in my experience had as much as a 10% effect on mileage (no size or LR change- just tread). I regularly see sports cars in Motor Trend that are light and extremely aerodynamic that get less than 20mpg. They'll have 700+HP under the hood, but they'd blow your formula up completely.
dustman_stx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 11:34 AM   #23
Broken Toe
 
Cowracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Imperial (St. Louis) MO
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie1138 View Post
I do know that Ford is about to release a 7.3 gas engine
(oh the sacrilege!....LOL)

Interesting to see how that works out. Too bad they don’t re-release the 7.3 diesel!

After driving an Ecoboost 3.5L v6, I have held the firm opinion that if ford made a v-8 motor with all the ecoboost technology in the 5.5 to 6 liter range, they would probably never sell another diesel.

Shame they are going with the old low-speed, big cube, pushrod 2 valve engine for the new 7.3. Seems like a step backwards.

Tim
__________________
FROG Member MO-0008-571 Since 20124444444444My Project Blog: https://cowracer.blogspot.com/

"Camper" 2016
Rockwood Signature Ultralite 8329ss
"Casper" 2017 Ram 2500 Laramie Diesel
..ProPride 3P Hitch - "Yeah. It's worth it."
Cowracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 11:36 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowracer View Post
After driving an Ecoboost 3.5L v6, I have held the firm opinion that if ford made a v-8 motor with all the ecoboost technology in the 5.5 to 6 liter range, they would probably never sell another diesel.

Could it be we are looking at a 7.3 Ecoboost gasser? That would be a MONSTER rv engine.

Tim

The 7.3L is not forced induction, hence no "boost".
dustman_stx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 01:59 PM   #25
Broken Toe
 
Cowracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Imperial (St. Louis) MO
Posts: 3,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustman_stx View Post
The 7.3L is not forced induction, hence no "boost".

Yeah. I read up on it and edited my post.

Tim
__________________
FROG Member MO-0008-571 Since 20124444444444My Project Blog: https://cowracer.blogspot.com/

"Camper" 2016
Rockwood Signature Ultralite 8329ss
"Casper" 2017 Ram 2500 Laramie Diesel
..ProPride 3P Hitch - "Yeah. It's worth it."
Cowracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 02:19 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowracer View Post
Yeah. I read up on it and edited my post.

Tim

I was hoping for a smaller boosted V8 for the unloaded economy and low end torque, but the 7.3L does sound promising.
dustman_stx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 03:00 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm-dee View Post
Wanna check those numbers? 14000 pound MH / 2800 = 5. *35 = 175 mpg. ?????
Thanks - Typo, meant to type (2800 / Weight) *35
2800/14000 = .2 * 35 = 7mpg which is fairly typical for comparable Highway speeds. If going slower (55 group), the numbers will be apx 20-30% higher in both vehicles.

Again for those that always try to look for an argument ===> This was not presented as an absolute rule. It is a close approximation for NORMAL VEHICLES. If you have a blown dragster, this isn't applicable for extremes, too many other factors then enter the equation, which doesn't actually change the physics. F = M * A, unless you want to argue with Newton, Einstein, …. Without getting too technical, the A (acceleration) ends up translating into a constant value (Velocity) so the Force required is directly proportional to the mass. The force required is generated by the combustion of Fuel. So again, unless we are dealing with extremes that need additional equation variables to be entered, the MPG is closely directly proportional to weight (mass) alone.
270S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 03:05 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270S View Post
Thanks - Typo, meant to type (2800 / Weight) *35
2800/14000 = .2 * 35 = 7mpg which is fairly typical for comparable Highway speeds. If going slower (55 group), the numbers will be apx 20-30% higher in both vehicles.

Again for those that always try to look for an argument ===> This was not presented as an absolute rule. It is a close approximation for NORMAL VEHICLES. If you have a blown dragster, this isn't applicable for extremes, too many other factors then enter the equation, which doesn't actually change the physics.

I would say it probably works out pretty well for naturally aspirated pickups being driven reasonably. But, since it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure our you're referring to my post- the example I gave of the same truck having a 6.2V8 versus a 2.7L boosted V6 is light years from being a blown dragster. Yet their MPG numbers are quite different in reality whereas your formula would show them being almost identical.
dustman_stx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Forest River, Inc. or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.