Workhorse to Re-enter Class A Chassis Market

[ArchHoagland]

Welcome Back!!


Interesting news.

[-Gramps-]

willald wrote:

LVJ58 wrote:
Wonder if they'll re-introduce the UFO rear engine gas chassis?:h

Now, that would be cool! That 8.8 V8 in a pusher chassis, would give the diesel pusher manufacturers some good competition. And, like already said, competition is good for ALL of us. Somebody needs to give Ford some competition in this (gasser MH chassis) market, they've had it cornered for too long.

Still, though, I would not want to buy a MH built on this chassis, until they've had them out for a few years and got the bugs worked out. I don't like being anybody's 'guinea pig', haha. 🙂

Seems to me that every new coach that comes out every year has to have the "bugs" worked out of it.

[Gjac]

427435 wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Mark said: People forget that a V10 at 4000 rpm sounds like a V8 at 5000 rpm (25% more cylinders firing). I have seen the charts before and could never figure out why the V-10 was so much louder. But this makes a lot of sense. When I started looking at new MHs I could not believe how loud the V-10 was. I thought the transmission was slipping,I was used to my old 454 which makes max torque at 1800 rpms.

If either engine is noisy, the MH manufacturer did a poor (or no) job of insulating the dog house. I put $150 worth of sound insulation on the bottom of the dog house on mine. It is now quiet until the engine gets over 4000 rpm----------------which means it's quiet most of the time.

This is the same conclusion that I came to. I spent about $20 to add a layer of material I bought at HD(jute felt and foil one side) which made a huge difference in sound and heat reduction on my current MH.

[427435]

Gjac wrote:
Mark said: People forget that a V10 at 4000 rpm sounds like a V8 at 5000 rpm (25% more cylinders firing). I have seen the charts before and could never figure out why the V-10 was so much louder. But this makes a lot of sense. When I started looking at new MHs I could not believe how loud the V-10 was. I thought the transmission was slipping,I was used to my old 454 which makes max torque at 1800 rpms.

If either engine is noisy, the MH manufacturer did a poor (or no) job of insulating the dog house. I put $150 worth of sound insulation on the bottom of the dog house on mine. It is now quiet until the engine gets over 4000 rpm----------------which means it's quiet most of the time.

[Gjac]

Mark said: People forget that a V10 at 4000 rpm sounds like a V8 at 5000 rpm (25% more cylinders firing). I have seen the charts before and could never figure out why the V-10 was so much louder. But this makes a lot of sense. When I started looking at new MHs I could not believe how loud the V-10 was. I thought the transmission was slipping,I was used to my old 454 which makes max torque at 1800 rpms.

[timmac]

427435 wrote:

hipower wrote:
I've always favored the big block GM engines for the way they develop their power at a lower RPM than the Ford V-10. I've had several of each in motorhomes and our fleet trucks and just don't like the higher RPM in over the road uses. Might be just me, but it's my story and I'll stick with it.

As a current owner of a rear engine diesel coach I could be interested in a gas powered, rear engine coach with air ride suspension and true air brakes. Unfortunately the reality of that thinking is that the cost differential in purchase price would be relatively small since the only real difference would be the manufacturers cost for the engine all else being fairly equal.

Unfortunately, that's not really true.

6.8-liter V-10 engine is rated at 362 horsepower at 4,750 rpm and 457 foot-pounds of torque at 3,250 rpm.


8.1-liter V-8 produces 340 horsepower at 4,200 rpm and 455 foot-pounds of torque at 3,200 rpm.


At 4200 rpm, the V10 is also producing the same hp as the 8.1 (340 hp).

Page 5 of this link has a hp and torque curve of the two engines overlaid on each other (it won't let me copy/past the chart).

http://www.newyorkbussales.com/ford-engine.cfm




People forget that a V10 at 4000 rpm sounds like a V8 at 5000 rpm (25% more cylinders firing).

I agree with your post, I had a 8.1 and now a 6.8 V-10 and see very little difference in RPM in the hills and my new motorhome weights 6000 lbs more

[mike_brez]

tropical36 wrote:

mike brez wrote:

tropical36 wrote:

weathershak wrote:
Bring back the ole P32......NOT!!!!:(

I never will understand why the P32 chassis gets so much flak. There
s loads of them out there, going strong and mine with it's 23 grease fittings (maybe more) goes down the road straight and true and along with it's independent suspension, rides pretty nice for an old gas chassis. With better than 90K miles now, nothing is worn out in the suspension, but given, I did upgrade the coil springs and got rid of the air bags.

I had a P30 and would never own another. I think half the problem is the front wheels being about four feet on center.

And how did that affect it, as it doesn't ours in any way. In fact, it gives me some room for getting under the wheel well on occasion.
Besides, Workhorse widened the track within a year or two, after buying the chassis from Chevy.

It affects it to being a lousy tracking and wandering. Air bags in the coil springs...really.******bell cranks. There are thousands of posts with problems on the P chassis wander and tons of after market band aid fixes. If it was the cats meow they would not have changed it in 2000 to the Wide Track. The P chassis was never ment to be a rv chassis is was to deliver potato chips. I had one for 14 years that was mediocre at best. I have never read on this or any other forum were on the must have list was a P chassis.

[Ductape]

^ Good information, thanks for posting. I kind of like the sound of the 6.8 singing on an upgrade. But then I enjoy hearing a turbo spool up to 100k rpm too.

They all get to the top of the hill.

[427435]

hipower wrote:
I've always favored the big block GM engines for the way they develop their power at a lower RPM than the Ford V-10. I've had several of each in motorhomes and our fleet trucks and just don't like the higher RPM in over the road uses. Might be just me, but it's my story and I'll stick with it.

As a current owner of a rear engine diesel coach I could be interested in a gas powered, rear engine coach with air ride suspension and true air brakes. Unfortunately the reality of that thinking is that the cost differential in purchase price would be relatively small since the only real difference would be the manufacturers cost for the engine all else being fairly equal.

Unfortunately, that's not really true.

6.8-liter V-10 engine is rated at 362 horsepower at 4,750 rpm and 457 foot-pounds of torque at 3,250 rpm.


8.1-liter V-8 produces 340 horsepower at 4,200 rpm and 455 foot-pounds of torque at 3,200 rpm.


At 4200 rpm, the V10 is also producing the same hp as the 8.1 (340 hp).

Page 5 of this link has a hp and torque curve of the two engines overlaid on each other (it won't let me copy/past the chart).

http://www.newyorkbussales.com/ford-engine.cfm




People forget that a V10 at 4000 rpm sounds like a V8 at 5000 rpm (25% more cylinders firing).

[tropical36]

hipower wrote:
I've always favored the big block GM engines for the way they develop their power at a lower RPM than the Ford V-10. I've had several of each in motorhomes and our fleet trucks and just don't like the higher RPM in over the road uses. Might be just me, but it's my story and I'll stick with it.

As a current owner of a rear engine diesel coach I could be interested in a gas powered, rear engine coach with air ride suspension and true air brakes. Unfortunately the reality of that thinking is that the cost differential in purchase price would be relatively small since the only real difference would be the manufacturers cost for the engine all else being fairly equal.

As long as they would limit it to hyd. brakes and a spring suspension and much like the old UFO, it should be cost effective and sell well.
As for rpm, that's were the big blocks come in and earn their keep with that low end torque and after all the Ford 6.8 liter V10 is a relatively small engine by comparison to either the Chevy 8.1 or the PS 8.8. Many Ford owners claim to lack in power, because they won't let it wind up to peak power and thinking that it's going to come apart, but not so and what it was designed for. Again, if it's way in the back and acting as a pusher, who much cares, as the sound should be minimal anyway.

[hipower]

I've always favored the big block GM engines for the way they develop their power at a lower RPM than the Ford V-10. I've had several of each in motorhomes and our fleet trucks and just don't like the higher RPM in over the road uses. Might be just me, but it's my story and I'll stick with it.

As a current owner of a rear engine diesel coach I could be interested in a gas powered, rear engine coach with air ride suspension and true air brakes. Unfortunately the reality of that thinking is that the cost differential in purchase price would be relatively small since the only real difference would be the manufacturers cost for the engine all else being fairly equal.

[Gjac]

timmac wrote:

Cloud Dancer wrote:

timmac wrote:

427435 wrote:
The video confirms it is based on the BB Chevy motor. They must have bought the tooling or worked out a deal with GM.

The 270 hp rating is for class 7 trucks (GVWR of 33,000 lbs) that are expected to see a pretty heavy duty cycle. I suspect they can easily raise that hp rating for MH usage.

But still for such a heavy motor will the higher cost be worth it, they have only been making the 8.8 since 2011 and that's still rather new on the market, Ford needs to offer a turbo on the V-10 and that will wake it right up..

I'll take the one that delivers the most torque,....and located in the rear.

Not everyone wants a diesel, gas can be cheaper by far if you add up the cost to maintain and the cost to buy a diesel motorhome..

I don't want a 40 ft DP for the type of camping that I do(NP,NFS,SP CG's)they are just too big to maneuver on tight roads with small sites. A 32ft MH with a 8.8 eng as Mark stated above with 270 to 400 hp with the larger 6 speed Allison transmission would be ideal for what I wanted to do.

[tropical36]

mike brez wrote:

tropical36 wrote:

weathershak wrote:
Bring back the ole P32......NOT!!!!:(

I never will understand why the P32 chassis gets so much flak. There
s loads of them out there, going strong and mine with it's 23 grease fittings (maybe more) goes down the road straight and true and along with it's independent suspension, rides pretty nice for an old gas chassis. With better than 90K miles now, nothing is worn out in the suspension, but given, I did upgrade the coil springs and got rid of the air bags.

I had a P30 and would never own another. I think half the problem is the front wheels being about four feet on center.

And how did that affect it, as it doesn't ours in any way. In fact, it gives me some room for getting under the wheel well on occasion.
Besides, Workhorse widened the track within a year or two, after buying the chassis from Chevy.

[Cloud_Dancer]

"worry about price" is a figure of speech. Most people don't mean that you really worry about price, IMO. I know that I've never been able to buy the best, but I didn't really "worry" about it.
What I do is what most people do, and it's that if I can't afford what I really want, I have to buy the best that I can afford. In the case of motorhomes, I bought well-used front-engine gasoline motorhomes (5 of them) for many years, until I finally saved enough money to buy what I LEARNED was the best configuration of motorhome, which is one with a high-torque engine located in the rear. But, I still had to settle for one that I could afford. I've had this one since 2003, and I want a better one, but I can't afford it.

[mike_brez]

mike brez wrote:

tropical36 wrote:

weathershak wrote:
Bring back the ole P32......NOT!!!!:(

I never will understand why the P32 chassis gets so much flak. There
s loads of them out there, going strong and mine with it's 23 grease fittings (maybe more) goes down the road straight and true and along with it's independent suspension, rides pretty nice for an old gas chassis. With better than 90K miles now, nothing is worn out in the suspension, but given, I did upgrade the coil springs and got rid of the air bags.

I had a P30/32 and would never own another. I think half the problem is the front wheels being about four feet on center.