New Ram 3500

[flybouy]

Thirsty? When I was a youngin I had a jet drive boat, Olds 455, twin 27 gal "saddle tanks" that when moving along at 70+ m.p.h. would last me about 30 min. Gup! Gulp!

[Snoking]

Originally Posted by flybouy

Thirsty? When I was a youngin I had a jet drive boat, Olds 455, twin 27 gal "saddle tanks" that when moving along at 70+ m.p.h. would last me about 30 min. Gup! Gulp!

Water jets are not noted to be the most economical methoid to move a boat.

[wiredgeorge]

Hate to ask an RV related question and get off topic hehehe Went to an RV show two weekends ago. Saw that many of the gas Class B & C were still using the Ford V10 gas swiller. Guess Ford is still making that engine for the RV sector where it seems to have dropped it a couple years ago when bringing on the 6.2 V8. Not sure why they couldn't use the new 7.3 gasser when it gets fully online.

The small Class B Winnebagos were using a 3.6L V6 Ram engine. Bet that is fun in the mountains. The larger Class C gas units use the Ford V10. After looking at the engines in both, not sure how anyone would work on one except to pull the chassis.

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by Snoking

Water jets are not noted to be the most economical methoid to move a boat.

Back in the early 70's they were the favorites as the I/O 's couldn't handle the torque or hp like they do now. My Sleekcraft Executive 23 had the Jacuzzi drive instead of the Berkeley pump that was the more popular at the time (read big rooster tail).

It was fun until I docked at one of the few Sunoco pumps on the water that had the "Sunoco 260" fuel.

[JRTJH]

George,

My guess is that Ford is still "packing the V-10 into motorhomes" because that chassis is "exempt from fleet fuel requirements"... In other words, it doesn't cost Ford anything to put them in heavy vehicles. It does, however, cost the buying public.... It's probably a matter of quantity as well. 10,000 motorhome chassis vs 500,000 F-series LD/HD trucks annually. Sort of: Use the old stuff where it doesn't matter to the larger population.

Some of the literature I've seen (online) suggests that when current stocks of V-10 engines is depleted, Ford does plan to start using the 7.3L in their RV chassis lines (class A and C) as well as the F650/750 HD truck line.

Ironically, the design of the 7.3L engine makes it significantly smaller (more compact) than the V-10. There's some suggestion that a "highly modified" version may even find its way into a special edition of the Mustang.... Of course that's been said about an EcoBoost 5.0L as well....

Seems almost comical to me that the Class C chassis is a "cutaway van" but the "passenger van" (same chassis) doesn't have the V-10 availability. It can only be ordered with a NA 3.5L V-6 or the 3.5L EcoBoost.

[wiredgeorge]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

George,

My guess is that Ford is still "packing the V-10 into motorhomes" because that chassis is "exempt from fleet fuel requirements"... In other words, it doesn't cost Ford anything to put them in heavy vehicles. It does, however, cost the buying public.... It's probably a matter of quantity as well. 10,000 motorhome chassis vs 500,000 F-series LD/HD trucks annually. Sort of: Use the old stuff where it doesn't matter to the larger population.

Some of the literature I've seen (online) suggests that when current stocks of V-10 engines is depleted, Ford does plan to start using the 7.3L in their RV chassis lines (class A and C) as well as the F650/750 HD truck line.

Ironically, the design of the 7.3L engine makes it significantly smaller (more compact) than the V-10. There's some suggestion that a "highly modified" version may even find its way into a special edition of the Mustang.... Of course that's been said about an EcoBoost 5.0L as well....

I haunt powerstroke.org and ford-trucks.org now and again and heard some noise about the 7.3 in a Mustang. Most stuff coming off these forums is just hot air; Ford execs are the only ones who have a clue and I am sure these corporate secrets are dollar driven and closely held.

[flybouy]

Can't imagine why they would put a heavy V10 in a Mustang when the lighter, more powerful V8 Coyote is available. I think Ford was floating that rumor back when the Chrysler/Daimler was selling their V10 in the Viper.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by flybouy

Can't imagine why they would put a heavy V10 in a Mustang when the lighter, more powerful V8 Coyote is available. I think Ford was floating that rumor back when the Chrysler/Daimler was selling their V10 in the Viper.

Marshall,

The 7.3L is a V-8. If I remember what I read, it's not much heavier than the current 5.0L Coyote engine. Something to do with the "compactness and weight reduction" of pushrod vs OHC engine design....

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

Marshall,

The 7.3L is a V-8. If I remember what I read, it's not much heavier than the current 5.0L Coyote engine. Something to do with the "compactness and weight reduction" of pushrod vs OHC engine design....

My bad The Triton was a 6.8 and replaced the V10, but still doesn't make sense to me. From what I've read the 7.3 has diesel like performance and durability but I think the Coyote 5 L has many aftermarket performance upgrades available.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by flybouy

My bad The Triton was a 6.8 and replaced the V10, but still doesn't make sense to me. From what I've read the 7.3 has diesel like performance and durability but I think the Coyote 5 L has many aftermarket performance upgrades available.

I think the "illogical logic" (yeah I know) at work is this:

Bigger is better
Better is badder
Bigger, better and badder sells image. Ford has an "image to maintain" LOL

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

I think the "illogical logic" (yeah I know) at work is this:

Bigger is better
Better is badder
Bigger, better and badder sells image. Ford has an "image to maintain" LOL

Don't they have a name for that? Never mind, let's not go there!

[wiredgeorge]

I think any of the OEM engine builders would do well to have a large and powerful gas engine capable of pulling decent loads. The 5.4 ain't it. I don't think the 7.3 will be anywhere near 6.7 performance but will certainly pull mid-weight 5vers just fine. It is supposed to have 475 ft/lb torque. Compare that to my old 6.0L powerstroke with 570 ft/lbs. Ain't that bad. The 6.2L gasser is supposed to have 430 ft/lb torque so not sure how much of an upgrade the 7.3L or how much more it will cost you to find out. The 7.3L should work better in Class B/C applications as it is OHV and more compact.

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by flybouy

Don't they have a name for that? Never mind, let's not go there!

Yup, the name for it (IMHO) in the RV world is translated as "Half Ton Towable"

[Snoking]

Originally Posted by flybouy

Back in the early 70's they were the favorites as the I/O 's couldn't handle the torque or hp like they do now. My Sleekcraft Executive 23 had the Jacuzzi drive instead of the Berkeley pump that was the more popular at the time (read big rooster tail).

It was fun until I docked at one of the few Sunoco pumps on the water that had the "Sunoco 260" fuel.

I had a buddy/roommate that had a E Racing runabout flat bottom race boat(330 CU In and under class). V-drive small block Chevy. Race one weekend, water ski the next.

It was fun to water ski behind. You stood on the dock with the single ski on one foot and when the rope came tight you yelled "Hit it" and stepped into the air, you were off skiing or on your face in the water.

At 80 MPH you wanted to be outside the wake in case the boat coughed/ stopped, as you would hit it or pass it! Note: An old O'Brien water ski went flat on the water about 50 MPH. Deep water starts were quick or the rope pulled out of your hands.

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by Snoking

I had a buddy/roommate that had a E Racing runabout flat bottom race boat(330 CU In and under class). V-drive small block Chevy. Race one weekend, water ski the next.

It was fun to water ski behind. You stood on the dock with the single ski on one foot and when the rope came tight you yelled "Hit it" and stepped into the air, you were off skiing or on your face in the water.

At 80 MPH you wanted to be outside the wake in case the boat coughed/ stopped, as you would hit it or pass it! Note: An old O'Brien water ski went flat on the water about 50 MPH. Deep water starts were quick or the rope pulled out of your hands.

Bringing back memories! Had 3 people attempt to ski behind my boat. I thought they all would end up without arms before it was over. That 455 had 2 speeds... stop and go fast.

The bottom was pretty much flat for the back 1/3 of the hull so it would slap and kill your back in any chop. When it was up on plane the draft was less than a foot so it was exhilarating running at speed over sand bars, close to shore, and in near swamp flats.

I don't miss the ride and can't imagine ever doing it now (not after the 7 cervical spine surgeries) but man I do miss the sound that big block made!

[Snoking]

flybouy, Oh to be young again. We chased points all over the NW race circuit. National high point several years running. I was the tow truck for the boat, with a 63 Carryall. The OEM 292 I6 would pull a house over, however the 283 V8 conversion ran down the freeway much better.

[flybouy]

Originally Posted by Snoking

flybouy, Oh to be young again. We chased points all over the NW race circuit. National high point several years running. I was the tow truck for the boat, with a 63 Carryall. The OEM 292 I6 would pull a house over, however the 283 V8 conversion ran down the freeway much better.

The predecessor of the Suburban. That little carb on top of that six was something to behold but that long stroke six and the low gearing did have some "grunt".