6.2 V8 vs. 6.8 V10 vs. ??? (gas engines) thread
#76
#77
Super08, that is great to know, both with the 4x4 height and the heavy suspension package height, and you're coming in under 84 inches. Do you by chance have clearance lights as well? I think they take up an inch of height. Can you tell me a bit about the heavy suspension package? Do you feel your truck is a bit higher and do you find the ride extremely rough? As mentioned, I love my current truck and don't want to feel that I'm giving anything up, other than the V10 Why did you get the heavy suspension package and why the 4.30 gearing v.s. the 3.73?
#78
I have the camper pkg which gives me heavier springs front and rear. It rides fine. I got both the heavy suspension and 4.30 gears because of the size of our trailer. It gets much better mileage than my 05 V10 got by far. Does not have the low end torque the V10 had but still pulls like a mule. The torque curve is just a bit higher in the rpm band. I don't have the cab lights but I would still get it in OK if I did. They don't really add much as they are on the forward curve of the roof line.
#80
#81
#82
First post here, and I realize this thread is old, but I'd like to point out, even after all this time, currently the Triton V10 is STILL offered in brand new Fleetwood Class A and C gas motorhomes.
Recently purchased a 99' 29' on a E350 SD chassis. It has the 2 valve V10 which IMO may be the superior engine, in some ways. Yes, the 3 valve seems to make a tad more power, but it needs to rev quite a bit higher to use it. From what I can tell the current Fleetwood line has similar output specs to the 2 valve V10 305HP, 420ft/lbs. The difference seems to be the 2 Valve has peak torque at ~2850RPM while the 3 valve makes it at 3250. I think I'd rather be turning less revs to make similar power, less frequent firing of the cylinders means, in theory, less gas being used. The 2 valve is like a tractor motor, if I'm light on the gas it says in the higher gears and turns really low revs without much struggle (mine has a diesel 4 speed auto, and seems to make the engine rev closer to that of a diesel, which works well with the 2 valve's power band, IMO)
I've been contemplating an ECU tune to get a little more juice out of it, but right now, I'm more concerned with squeezing some more MPG's out of it. I'm probably averaging roughly 10mpg, but I try to keep it under 60MPH because the vehicle is less aerodynamic than a similarly sized brick.
Recently purchased a 99' 29' on a E350 SD chassis. It has the 2 valve V10 which IMO may be the superior engine, in some ways. Yes, the 3 valve seems to make a tad more power, but it needs to rev quite a bit higher to use it. From what I can tell the current Fleetwood line has similar output specs to the 2 valve V10 305HP, 420ft/lbs. The difference seems to be the 2 Valve has peak torque at ~2850RPM while the 3 valve makes it at 3250. I think I'd rather be turning less revs to make similar power, less frequent firing of the cylinders means, in theory, less gas being used. The 2 valve is like a tractor motor, if I'm light on the gas it says in the higher gears and turns really low revs without much struggle (mine has a diesel 4 speed auto, and seems to make the engine rev closer to that of a diesel, which works well with the 2 valve's power band, IMO)
I've been contemplating an ECU tune to get a little more juice out of it, but right now, I'm more concerned with squeezing some more MPG's out of it. I'm probably averaging roughly 10mpg, but I try to keep it under 60MPH because the vehicle is less aerodynamic than a similarly sized brick.
#83
First post here, and I realize this thread is old, but I'd like to point out, even after all this time, currently the Triton V10 is STILL offered in brand new Fleetwood Class A and C gas motorhomes.
Recently purchased a 99' 29' on a E350 SD chassis. It has the 2 valve V10 which IMO may be the superior engine, in some ways. Yes, the 3 valve seems to make a tad more power, but it needs to rev quite a bit higher to use it. From what I can tell the current Fleetwood line has similar output specs to the 2 valve V10 305HP, 420ft/lbs. The difference seems to be the 2 Valve has peak torque at ~2850RPM while the 3 valve makes it at 3250. I think I'd rather be turning less revs to make similar power, less frequent firing of the cylinders means, in theory, less gas being used. The 2 valve is like a tractor motor, if I'm light on the gas it says in the higher gears and turns really low revs without much struggle (mine has a diesel 4 speed auto, and seems to make the engine rev closer to that of a diesel, which works well with the 2 valve's power band, IMO)
I've been contemplating an ECU tune to get a little more juice out of it, but right now, I'm more concerned with squeezing some more MPG's out of it. I'm probably averaging roughly 10mpg, but I try to keep it under 60MPH because the vehicle is less aerodynamic than a similarly sized brick.
Recently purchased a 99' 29' on a E350 SD chassis. It has the 2 valve V10 which IMO may be the superior engine, in some ways. Yes, the 3 valve seems to make a tad more power, but it needs to rev quite a bit higher to use it. From what I can tell the current Fleetwood line has similar output specs to the 2 valve V10 305HP, 420ft/lbs. The difference seems to be the 2 Valve has peak torque at ~2850RPM while the 3 valve makes it at 3250. I think I'd rather be turning less revs to make similar power, less frequent firing of the cylinders means, in theory, less gas being used. The 2 valve is like a tractor motor, if I'm light on the gas it says in the higher gears and turns really low revs without much struggle (mine has a diesel 4 speed auto, and seems to make the engine rev closer to that of a diesel, which works well with the 2 valve's power band, IMO)
I've been contemplating an ECU tune to get a little more juice out of it, but right now, I'm more concerned with squeezing some more MPG's out of it. I'm probably averaging roughly 10mpg, but I try to keep it under 60MPH because the vehicle is less aerodynamic than a similarly sized brick.
#84
6.8 replacement???
Hi ev'ry body, just found this place while I was cruising for some info on my "X'Treme" plaything. Poked around a bit and it looks like I've found the answers and then some. I'm an "old" Ford guy from way back, couple of trucks, two old Harleys and a few Mustangs including an 03 SVT Cobra convertible... More later.
#85
The 6.2L Boss is at the same point in it's development cycle that the V10 Triton was in the late 90's/early 2000's. We still have some time yet before we see what it is truly capable of.
I have no doubt we'll see some form of Boss architecture replacing the Triton V10 in the F450/F550/F650/F53/F59/etc. More than likely, I'd expect something in the 6.6L-7.0L range (which the Boss is easily capable of by design).
The other thing they might do is an Ecoboost version of the 6.2L for those heavier class applications. However, I really doubt it. It would cost them a lot in development for relatively few vehicles sold and subsequently would do little to help their CAFE rating (unlike the Ecoboost in the F150, which sells in huge numbers). With that in mind, I would really be shocked if they went for it, versus just going with an increase in displacement and some other tweaks.
I have no doubt we'll see some form of Boss architecture replacing the Triton V10 in the F450/F550/F650/F53/F59/etc. More than likely, I'd expect something in the 6.6L-7.0L range (which the Boss is easily capable of by design).
The other thing they might do is an Ecoboost version of the 6.2L for those heavier class applications. However, I really doubt it. It would cost them a lot in development for relatively few vehicles sold and subsequently would do little to help their CAFE rating (unlike the Ecoboost in the F150, which sells in huge numbers). With that in mind, I would really be shocked if they went for it, versus just going with an increase in displacement and some other tweaks.
#86
#88
Having seat time in both I just feel the 6.8l is a better truck engine that the 6.2l. I don't care about the cylinder count just the power band. If Ford would up the displacement of the 6.2l to around 7.0l I think they could probably do better to increase the torque output down lower in the rpm range. I will say though the stock tuning on the 6.2l trucks is really bad.
#90
Did you come from a 2 valve or 3 valve V10?
I feel like my dually V10 (3V) is a rocket when unloaded and the pedal smashed. But I have not driven a 6.2 so not much I can offer in comparison.
I do like the exhaust note of the 6.2. Much more "grumbly".