The Verdic is in, New Ford 7.3 V-8 Gas mpg not so Great

[timmac]

5.5 to 6.1 mpg while pulling a load, looks like the new 7.3 V-8 gets about the same mpg as the 6.8 V10..

Different motor same mpg, looks like the gas motorhomes are still stuck with bad mpg..


https://youtu.be/qbXFrZsiAQE

:Z

[diginomad]

Those TFL whatever guys are clowns. It is disappointing they spread so much misleading information. I'm beginning to think they are amateurs or just DGAF about anything except ad revenue (or both).

Case in point, their dyno results. Someone posted them in a different (inferior) forum comparing Godzilla to the new Diesel. Then started a discussion based on the results as fact. I didn't watch the video, not a fan.

It turns out they gamed the test. Someone observed the runs were executed in different gears. They weren't in 7th doing the dyno run which is required for a 1:1 ratio. Like one was in 3rd and the other in 6ths or some **** like that. Nonsense. I'm not giving them my click.

[jy]

Personally I,d be more concerned about the reliability of the new engine.The v-10 has proven to be pretty reliable.Lets hope the new engine proves to be as reliable.Only time will tell.

[wildmanbaker]

OK, you have a more or less, a fixed load that you want to transport a given distance in a given amount of time. You have two options, a 6.9L engine and a 7.3 L engine. Both can do the job, but you may have to work the smaller engine harder to meet the time requirements. It would stand to reason, the larger engine would require more fuel to just maintain idle due to the larger parts that are rotating. It stands to reason that the larger engine should be able to do the same amount of work without having to work as hard. So, the slightly increased fuel consumption should not be a concern, because if it is working easier, you will be more relaxed when driving. This should be the big plus of the larger engine. I believe that Rabbit Man has said it all....

[BigRabbitMan]

noteven wrote:
For the best fuel economy per ton/mile you need a high compression long stroke turbo supercharged engine that has in cylinder multi-injection of a high power density fuel... like big trucks use...

Adding more overdrive trans ratios in front of salt flats axle ratios doesn’t do much for tow performance but works great for no load driving.

My coach is about 15,000 lbs. With the original carbed 440 it got 7+- mpg. Changed the 440 to an Edelbrock Multi-point fuel injection system and mpg went up to 7.5 mpg. Those were the numbers for about 60,000 miles.

Changed my engine to one as described in the first paragraph above (a 2006 Duramax 6.6L turbo diesel) and my mileage has been a cumulative 13.4 mpg over 53,400 miles. Same coach, same weight, similar speeds, same driver. It’s the difference that comes from doing what is described above.

[noteven]

For the best fuel economy per ton/mile you need a high compression long stroke turbo supercharged engine that has in cylinder multi-injection of a high power density fuel... like big trucks use...

Adding more overdrive trans ratios in front of salt flats axle ratios doesn’t do much for tow performance but works great for no load driving.

[GDS-3950BH]

dodge guy wrote:

FloridaRosebud wrote:

GDS-3950BH wrote:
Why would anyone expect an engine, although newer, with 2 less cylinders but a larger displacement, to get noticeably better fuel efficiency? Especially so in something with the aerodynamics of a brick like a heavy motorhome. No such thing as a free lunch.

Yeah, that was kind of my thought as well. I had a chevy 454 in a 3500 Savanna Van back a few years ago, and my gas mileage never was above 10mpg. It went down to 7-8 when I was towing my 12,000 pound trailer. There is no free lunch. As someone in an earlier post said, good gas mileage and RV should never be used in the same sentence.

Al

It's called technology. Replacing a 20 year old motor with something new should get better mileage. Just like when the V-10 replaced the 460, more power and better mileage. Otherwise all it is, is a new motor with nothing to be said for it.
Hopefully we get some real world reports and not some information from a couple guys I wouldn't trust driving a pedal car.

LOL...........Whatever you say. There is one in every crowd and I'm not referring to a pedal car.

[dodge_guy]

FloridaRosebud wrote:

GDS-3950BH wrote:
Why would anyone expect an engine, although newer, with 2 less cylinders but a larger displacement, to get noticeably better fuel efficiency? Especially so in something with the aerodynamics of a brick like a heavy motorhome. No such thing as a free lunch.

Yeah, that was kind of my thought as well. I had a chevy 454 in a 3500 Savanna Van back a few years ago, and my gas mileage never was above 10mpg. It went down to 7-8 when I was towing my 12,000 pound trailer. There is no free lunch. As someone in an earlier post said, good gas mileage and RV should never be used in the same sentence.

Al

It's called technology. Replacing a 20 year old motor with something new should get better mileage. Just like when the V-10 replaced the 460, more power and better mileage. Otherwise all it is, is a new motor with nothing to be said for it.
Hopefully we get some real world reports and not some information from a couple guys I wouldn't trust driving a pedal car.

[FloridaRosebud]

GDS-3950BH wrote:
Why would anyone expect an engine, although newer, with 2 less cylinders but a larger displacement, to get noticeably better fuel efficiency? Especially so in something with the aerodynamics of a brick like a heavy motorhome. No such thing as a free lunch.

Yeah, that was kind of my thought as well. I had a chevy 454 in a 3500 Savanna Van back a few years ago, and my gas mileage never was above 10mpg. It went down to 7-8 when I was towing my 12,000 pound trailer. There is no free lunch. As someone in an earlier post said, good gas mileage and RV should never be used in the same sentence.

Al

[GDS-3950BH]

Why would anyone expect an engine, although newer, with 2 less cylinders but a larger displacement, to get noticeably better fuel efficiency? Especially so in something with the aerodynamics of a brick like a heavy motorhome. No such thing as a free lunch.

[Hedgehog]

First of all, who uses cruise control when towing a trailer and expects to get optimum fuel economy. Secondly, the truck is no where near broken in.

[Bruce_Brown]

Bionic Man wrote:
Sometimes I just shake my head on these. I know there is no perfect test, but you should at least test under the same conditions. Which they didn't. They mention a couple times on the video that they were fighting the wind when they were with trailer in the Ford.

Also, I'm not sure they are even using the same test track. The towing test are on I76 east. That non-towing trip with the Ford wasn't on that stretch of road - it is on the diagonal from Longmont to Boulder - not an interstate, there is more traffic and stop lights. Is that the same road they used for the unloaded Chevy test?

Not defending the 7.3 blindly, but we really need to get some real-world test results before anyone makes a judgment, good or bad, about the MPG of the 7.3.

Hold on now...don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. :B

[irishtom29]

That FLT guy should go back to Berwyn and reopen his Bohemian restaurant. Roast pork and dumplings, yum.

[irishtom29]

noteven wrote:
7.3 V8 gudzilla EcoBoost 600hp!!

Hell, in the Ford GT they get 640hp from the 3.5.

[lisolar]

timmac wrote:


Yes it is a fast mpg test and not a long run test but it does show that the 7.3 is still a gas hog, even if it was a better day and driving longer still appears it wont break the 7 mpg range.

I have 16-25 MPG towing my trailer. Does it means my engine more efficient? No. It means my trailer is small.

With gas engines we are talking about 0.1..5% difference in efficiency, not 20..100% difference in loads. To find which engine is better should be pure "scientific" comparison, otherwise it is wind, speed and other 10+ factors.