Navistar's new engine?

[VestaDave]

Originally Posted by RustyJC

The coal industry and operators of coal-fired power plants might see things a bit differently. As did the oil and gas companies in Texas when EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz voiced his intent to crucify them.

Rusty

I'll stand by my statement. The EPA is not in the business of putting business out of business, their business is to insure your air is safe to breathe, your water is safe too drink etc. Business has no right to poison our air or water; so any business has to make a choice about compliance with regulations that protect all of us if what they are doing is harming our environment. Yes, some companies have changed course and quit some aspects of their operations.
Isn't Caterpillar still in business? What about clean coal? Honda, Yamaha? Aren't they in business too?
Look, what I'm saying is that in regards to Navistar there is no reason to expect that they are going to go out of business because of the EPA. Navistar is on record, stating that they and the EPA are fully engaged and that they expect to make 2017 standards early. There was no hint of sour grapes, just an expression of determination to meet the standards. I for one applaud that.
By the way, there are chrome shops operating in California!

[RustyJC]

Originally Posted by VestaDave

I'll stand by my statement.

As do I. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Rusty

[ricere]

[QUOTE=VestaDave;1238984]I'll stand by my statement. The EPA is not in the business of putting business out of business,

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

It's not a business, but tell that to the city of Tuscon, Arizona. How about the people who lost their land due to it being deemed "wetland"? How about the farmers in California that cannot get water for their crops?

The EPA has gone tyrannical, pure and simple. In their eyes, you are guilty before any investigations are done and they change the rules without any notification or hearings.

[Eric Sukkel]

Just purchased a 40 foot, 2012 Ambassador, and I only have about 1500 Miles on the Maxforce10 engine, and according to the diagnostics on the dash it averages about 6.6MPG. I am not impressed so far with the MPG, hoping when the engine breaks in, mileage will improve somewhat?
Eric S.

[VestaDave]

Don't trust the dash computer. Check MPG the old fashion way, calculate gallons used by miles driven at fill up. The bad news is that your mileage could be actually worse but I doubt it. I think you should be doing a little better. And over time will improve some.

[DriVer]

Originally Posted by Eric Sukkel

I am not impressed so far with the MPG, hoping when the engine breaks in, mileage will improve somewhat?

Eric, I was seeing over 7.7 on a short run. I believe that you might have to give it a bit more time.

Congratulations on the purchase of your new motorhome.

[Traps90]

That seems awful low, the 2012 Diplomat 43DFT that I test drove with just over 1600 miles on it was showing 7.9 and I'm sure that would include a lot of idling and short test drives, as well as the trip up to Alberta from Oregon.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by VestaDave

Don't trust the dash computer. Check MPG the old fashion way, calculate gallons used by miles driven at fill up. The bad news is that your mileage could be actually worse but I doubt it. I think you should be doing a little better. And over time will improve some.

Well this is a first, I agree with Dave.

[VestaDave]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Well this is a first, I agree with Dave.

Hey Drifter, life is always full of surprises!

[vito.a]

Originally Posted by Eric Sukkel

Just purchased a 40 foot, 2012 Ambassador, and I only have about 1500 Miles on the Maxforce10 engine, and according to the diagnostics on the dash it averages about 6.6MPG. I am not impressed so far with the MPG, hoping when the engine breaks in, mileage will improve somewhat?
Eric S.

Eric, is that towing?
If so, it's probably pretty close. The MaxForce 10 is a closer comparison to the 11L Cummins ISM, not the 8.9L ISL.

[nodine]

Originally Posted by vito.a

Eric, is that towing?
If so, it's probably pretty close. The MaxForce 10 is a closer comparison to the 11L Cummins ISM, not the 8.9L ISL.

The MaxForce 10 is 9.3 liters so I would think it closer to 8.9 than 11.

Bob

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by Eric Sukkel

Just purchased a 40 foot, 2012 Ambassador, and I only have about 1500 Miles on the Maxforce10 engine, and according to the diagnostics on the dash it averages about 6.6MPG. I am not impressed so far with the MPG, hoping when the engine breaks in, mileage will improve somewhat?
Eric S.

Hey Eric S,

I wouldn't worry until you have over 10k on the coach and even then it should continue to improve. That being said, 6.6 is very low for a coach of that weight & engine displacement. The numbers I have heard indicate to me that the MF10 is capable of over 8 if driven conservatively. You engine is almost 1/2 liter larger than the Cummins ISL and 1.5 liters smaller than the Cummins ISM. Both of those engines are capable of over 8 mpg. Check your mpg manually for a while to check the accuracy of the electronic monitor. If a parameter is wrong such as tire revolutions per mile the display will be incorrect.
My wife and I walked through an Ambassador several months ago and it appears to be a well thought out and engineered coach. Congratulations on your new ride.

[vito.a]

Originally Posted by nodine

The MaxForce 10 is 9.3 liters so I would think it closer to 8.9 than 11.

Bob

Bob, you're right. The MaxForce 10 is closer to the ISL and the 11 would be close to the ISM.