I agree no need to go there in this thread

 

I tend to agree.
People who buy a big block chevy, buy it because they want a big block chevy...
A supercharged 6.0l would (in theory) be far superior in towing, fuel consumption and pretty much everything over the 8.1, however try telling the customers that.

If they did go to the supercharged 6.0l option, I would be very interested in seeing the marketing campaign accompanying it.

 

The 5.4 was designed as a modular engine so it could be built as a V6, V8, V10, etc. and the 6.0 was not. I doubt much development will be spent on large displacement gasoline engines and development money will instead be diverted to cleaner and more efficient diesel technology.

 

I know gas mileage takes a big hit because of emissions, but I still can't see how mileage in these new trucks can be so low. I drive a 79 f150 with a 4" lift and 33" tires and a stock 360 out of a 69 f100. It has an old 4 speed with 3.50 gears. I've never worried about mileage but last winter I took a sled trip to northern minnesota. 70% of the trip was freeway running 70mph, the was real hilly. Now, pulling a sled trailer with 2 snowmobiles, we figured I averaged 13 to 14 mpg.I know the truck only weighs only 5700lbs, but I still think they can do better with mileage and keep the same power. Just my 2 cents.

 

Ahh but the v-10 has way more power then your 360 by a long shot an with two more cyliders an like you said a much heavier truck. More power,weight means more gas consumption. Diesel is the way to go for mileage. I see your from St.Cloud,MN. I believe thats where the oldest Ford dealership is. I talked to a guy from that town once. How nice.

 

It's unlikely that GM will introduce a V10 variant to their HD lineup. Most people buy diesels today for the advantages that *they* offer for a real HD needer. The rest will buy a 6L simply because it's "enough". I haven't had any chance behind the wheel of a new 3V 5.4L, much less the V-10 version of it in a Superduty, but I have had plenty behind the 8100 and 6L versions. The Ford V10, I believe is a good choice for a gasser in a HD truck.

My problem is that the percentage of gasser HD owners is declining, and I would speculate that GM sees that as well, and why go to the trouble of introducing a new gas engine to a dying market? The 8100 is a essentially a updated/newer version of the old 454. GM just did what they needed to make it competitive and pass emissions restrictions. Why not? When's the last time you saw one at a dealer?

 

"Modular" is a loose term at best concerning Ford..........I'll get in to it if you want. That being said, the 4.8/5.3/5.7/6.0 from GM are as much "Modular" in their interchangeability (if not more)as the current Ford engines.


A 7.5L V10 from GM using two more cylinders added to the 6.0 might be a heck of a motor considering what a breathed on 6.0 from an Escalade or Chevy SSR is capable of already.

 

You're probably right. GM has always seemed to do the modular thing in reverse. I seemed to always get their better ideas in company cars. I remember when I got a 200 cubic inch V6 Mailibu in 1978 that would hardly pull itself (the first downsized "midsize") that was a 267 Chevy engine with 2 cylinders removed. That was replaced with a 229 cubic inch Pontiac Lemans that was simply a 305 with 2 cylinders lopped off and then we got the 4.3 for Impalas and trucks that was a 350 with 2 cylinders lopped off. I can understand why the 6 cylinders would have less power but I never did figure out why they all seemed to use more gas than the V8s they were derived from.

 

1993F150302My problem is that the percentage of gasser HD owners is declining, and I would speculate that GM sees that as well, and why go to the trouble of introducing a new gas engine to a dying market? The 8100 is a essentially a updated/newer version of the old 454. GM just did what they needed to make it competitive and pass emissions restrictions. Why not? When's the last time you saw one at a dealer?

Very astute post- that's exactly what's being debated right now.

osbornk I seemed to always get their better ideas in company cars. I remember when I got a 200 cubic inch V6 Mailibu in 1978 that would hardly pull itself (the first downsized "midsize") that was a 267 Chevy engine with 2 cylinders removed. That was replaced with a 229 cubic inch Pontiac Lemans that was simply a 305 with 2 cylinders lopped off and then we got the 4.3 for Impalas and trucks that was a 350 with 2 cylinders lopped off.

Aw man- you (or they) were on a roll there- geez! GM required that all initial Malibu demo's back in '78 have that 200 motor in them. At least yours ran- a lot of ours didn't, at least for more than a week at a time. The 267 it was derived from wasn't exactly a smoking wonder either. We knew we were in trouble after the first '78 Malibus and Montes hit the lot, and we had a large carryover inventory of the old '77's. The 77's went screaming off of the lot, the '78's sat, and even the salespeople bought Novas, Caprices, and trucks (or a Cutlass Supreme, in my case). By 1980 they had either killed off or ruined the rest of the product line.

 

I agree the 267 was a pig but it was a bigger pig. I ordered the Malibu long before they came out and I didn't know what I was going to get but I figured (and was wrong) it was better than the 6 cylinder Granada or the 4 cylinder K Car choices I had. We had to keep them for 40,000 miles at that time and I got the miles in 9 months and got rid of that pig and they gave me a 301 V8 Lemans that was a great performing car.

 

My stepson owns a GM 2500 HD 8.1. It sounds like a diesel when it is first cranked up. He is happy when he sees 10mpg. It is not impressive in the pulling department either. Oh he is the second owner of this truck. I was the first. I only kept it 3 months. He loved the truck. He is young and the 4x4 and big block was more than he could resist. After having the truck for about 3 months he said it started using about a quart of oil every 800 miles or so. Now I will admit he drives like a bat out of hell. Chevrolet did an oil log on the truck and dickered him around till it got out of warranty. They then told him that big block Chevys just use oil and that it was normal. After he purchased the Chevy from me I got a Dodge Cummmins. We both were pulling about the same weight every day to our construction job. I would pass him like he was standing still empty or full. I sold out my part of the business and purchased a 2000 F150 5.4 (my wife hated the diesel and I didnt need to pull much but a boat anymore. About a week ago I pulled up behind my stepson at a stopsign (we live in the country) and I could tell he wanted to race. He rolled across the road and stomped it. We ran about a 1/4 mile and I was to close to his bumper to be safe. The road was crooked or I could have passed that big ole mean big block with ease. He must of got a lemon?

 

Last I heard the G.M. V-10 has been cancelled (again). It was to have been a basically a 6.0L LS-1 with 2 more cylinders. There was to have been an all aluminum version for the SUV's, and a cast iron version for HD pickups and medium duty trucks. Rumor has it the project was cancelled due to vibration problems, crankshaft durability issues, and posible 'bad press' over introducing another fuel-inefficient SUV. The engine was supposed to be 7.5L. The 8.1L was also deemed to be a better engine for medium duty commercial trucks (G.M. still offers the 8.1L in all trucks up to the C-7500, notice that Ford doesn't offer their V-10 in anything bigger than an F-550). Also, the 8.1L would have most likely remained in production even if the V-10 was introduced for marine and industrial applications.

 

I think one thing the new Fords and Dodges are really lacking is the Allison tranny option. The company I work for has a fleet of trucks, all 3 brands, and the Allison really shines behind the 8.1.

 

The torqueshift is the trnsmission that is better then the allison. IMO

 

Oh, man, I can testify to that. The 4.3 before Vortec engines was a doooog... and it got horrible gas mileage.

I was always curious why I was only getting around 11 mpg in a little 1500 W/T...

Ryan