Workhorse Commercial Gasoline Engine for 2010

[vacation on wheels]

I wonder if the new 6.0L does come supercharged, will have to be on the lookout for UPS trucks doing burnouts?

[DriVer]

Originally Posted by vacation on wheels

What does our 8.1L put out? 340 horses and 375 torque??? High quality blocks and internal components are used and you'll get lots of trouble-free miles. And no more "piston slap" issues using higher quality parts with tight tolerances. The future looks bright you guys!

I expect that you are correct about the technology benefits however just so that we can keep the numbers on track, the 8.1L has 445 lbs/ft of torque. It also has a monster stroke (4.37") which short of cubic inches is not going to easy to duplicate.

[RocketDork]

Ahh, but superchargers are artificial displacement. Theoretically, a 350 with 14.7PSI boost will behave as 700 cu. in. Of course, theory and practice often differ.

Of course, one big benefit is that it won't lose power at altitude.

[vacation on wheels]

Wow, 445 is a lot more than I remembered, but it makes sense that that big beast of an engine would have that much torque. I'm not suggesting using the 3.6VVT motor in a W22, W24 or UFO, just making a point that technology will get us where we need to go while sipping a little less fuel. It's too bad that no chassis manufacturer hasn't tried an electric motor. I'm sure the R&D would be prohibitive at this point, but an all electric motorhome sure seems like the way to go, since the biggest problem to overcome is the weight of the batteries and motorhomes can be designed to carry that weight pretty easily. I can see the future now, our roof becomes a one piece solar panel to help keep our batteries topped off. I have a neighbor who built his own all electric 1971 VW beetle, it is totally cool!!

[vacation on wheels]

Hey RocketDork, 14.7psi? That is a lot of pressure on an engine! I think most practical applications would leave pressure at 8 or below. Then again, Chevy's 2.0L turbo motor has 260hp which is achievable because of the internals of the motor.

[DriVer]

Originally Posted by vacation on wheels

It's too bad that no chassis manufacturer hasn't tried an electric motor. I'm sure the R&D would be prohibitive at this point, but an all electric motorhome sure seems like the way to go, since the biggest problem to overcome is the weight of the batteries and motorhomes can be designed to carry that weight pretty easily. I can see the future now, our roof becomes a one piece solar panel to help keep our batteries topped off. I have a neighbor who built his own all electric 1971 VW beetle, it is totally cool!!

Welll .... How about this .... Eco FRED

I think it's still going to run a bit more money than most folks want to spend and there is a significant increase in the weight of the vehicle itself I expect reducing the usable CCC.

[vacation on wheels]

EcoFred is a start in the right direction!

[DAN L]

Originally Posted by DriVer

I expect that you are correct about the technology benefits however just so that we can keep the numbers on track, the 8.1L has 445 lbs/ft of torque. It also has a monster stroke (4.37") which short of cubic inches is not going to easy to duplicate.

my 8.1 has 455 '# of torque at 3200 rpm, 340 hp at 4200 rpm stock, i suppose at the flywheel.

[DriVer]

Originally Posted by DAN L

my 8.1 has 455 '# of torque at 3200 rpm, 340 hp at 4200 rpm stock, i suppose at the flywheel.

DAN L, Me too!

[RustyJC]

Originally Posted by RocketDork

Ahh, but superchargers are artificial displacement.

Yeah, the old hot rodder's axiom, "There's no replacement for displacement" probably should be rephrased "There's no replacement for displacement - except boost (more correctly, mass airflow)". My little 5.9L Cummins makes around 400/900 at the flywheel (347/762 dynoed at the rear wheels) thanks to 34 PSIG boost which allows the use of bigger injectors to take advantage of the increased mass airflow.

Rusty

[RocketDork]

Originally Posted by vacation on wheels

Hey RocketDork, 14.7psi? That is a lot of pressure on an engine! I think most practical applications would leave pressure at 8 or below.

It sure sounds like it, doesn't it? The 5.9 Cummins in my friends coach regularly hits 23PSI. If the engine is built properly, 15PSI is easy, but you're right, 8PSI is much more likely. Assuming ideal conditions this would make that 6.0L behave like a 9.27L engine...

There are all kinds of reasons that it wouldn't actually achieve the power and torque of a 9.3L engine, but is it reasonable to expect the same performance as an 8.1L, I'm thinking, YES.

[DriVer]

In the early Press Releases about the Workhorse UFO it was expected that the 5.9L Cummins would have been an option for that platform however the requirement to use that engine never manifested.

The possibility that a Navistar MaxxForce7 engine might be used in the UFO still exists however there's nothing on the radar screen that would suggest that it is going to happen.

The new generation MF7 will be used in the front engine Workhorse diesel rigs that I wrote about in My Blog.

I think that if I were getting a new rig soon and absent the choice of an 8.1L Vortec, I believe that a 660 lb/ft V8 TD would probably be a good choice.

I do think that a smaller box with a 6.0L V8 gas motor would be a viable option for a lot of folks.

[RocketDork]

Well, they haven't limited the box size on the 8.1l...with a blower or a turbo, on the 6.0l they can get the same performance. I don't see any reason to limit the box size.

[DriVer]

Originally Posted by RocketDork

Well, they haven't limited the box size on the 8.1l...with a blower or a turbo, on the 6.0l they can get the same performance. I don't see any reason to limit the box size.

If that were the case ..... make mine a 45 foot twin screw!