454 vs. 460
Dave Brotherton
I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
454 might be a better way to go.
Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
two engines?
Thanks, Dave
charles copeland
In article <4vkcrg$k...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Anthony R Romao <AR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The 454 is notorious for cracked exhaust headers.
Sidney Dobson
>Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
>>me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
>> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
>>poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
>>454 might be a better way to go.
>>Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
>>two engines?
>>Thanks, Dave
AR...@worldnet.att.net (Anthony R Romao) wrote:
>The 454 is a Chevy, which is somewhat more efficent than the Ford 460.
I had a 34' 1995 Winnebago on a Chevy Chassis and drove it
about 12000 miles.
Averaged about 7.4 mpg, was sluggish pulling itself up the
on-ramp, but had a nice floaty type ride. Extra adrenaline
pumped by every passing big rig.
I traded for a 34' 1996 Itasca(Winnebago) on a Ford chassis
and I've put 3000 on it.
Averages about 6.5 mpg, is a tad less sluggish pulling
itself up the on-ramp. Ride is nice and the big rigs don't
bother it. I'd rather drive it even if it only got 5 mpg.
.Sid in Sunny Mississippi Beach..
Jean Read
Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
>me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
>poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
>454 might be a better way to go.
>Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
>two engines?
>Thanks, Dave
If you are seriously concerned about mileage you may want to rethink
the whole deal. I think you will be lucky to get 10 mpg with either.
Probably closer to 6-8. As far as one over the other decide if you
like Chevy or Ford, they are both tough workhorse engines.
JP
Anthony R Romao
Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
>me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
>poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
>454 might be a better way to go.
>Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
>two engines?
>Thanks, Dave
The 454 is a Chevy, which is somewhat more efficent than the Ford 460.
Anthony & Loretta "Don't regret getting older
Retired in Largo, Florida many are denied the privilege"
ar...@worldnet.att.net
Robert Roney
Dave,
I beg to differ with you. In the northeast and in my travels in the south, all I see
is 454 cu.i. GM's. Dealers have told me that the Ford's do not give you the fuel
economy, but do have larger GVW chassis in some instances.
regards,
Bob
Robert Roney
I purchased a used Itasca Windcruiser in May of this yeay. It's powered by a 454.
The GVW of my rig is 15,000#. It's 33' long with single dual wheel rear axle, 4:56
rear end gears with a three speed auto trans. My fuel consumption runs between 8-9
mpg. I live in the state of New Hampshire where the roads are really not flat! We
have put over 3k miles on it since we bought it. All the usage has been in the New
England area. My rig has stainless steel exhaust manifolds, factory installed. The
cast iron units are the ones that have had the problems.
We really enjoy our rig and I purposely looked for a unit with a 454 because of the
stories I have heard about the 460 Fords. i.e. Timing chains, pistons, rods, and
more.
All-in-all I think it really comes down to personal preference.
regards,
Bob
Ernest Smith
You might as well asked the question:
Which party is the best party for the country?
As far as it goes, the Chevy engine sits on a
Chevy frame the Ford is usually on a John Deer(at least
in the year range you are looking at). The John Deer/Oshkosh
chassie is usually rated 500LBS higher in GVWR than the Chevy
in that time period.
--
Ernest Smith
email er...@oregon.west.sun.com
Ray Bailey
Dave Brotherton wrote:
>
> I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
> me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
>
> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
> poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
> 454 might be a better way to go.
>
> Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
> two engines?
>
> Thanks, Dave
Dave, I notice you've had a lot of responses so far. They all seem to be honest
responses. Especially the one that notes that this subject is like talking politics.
When you note that you see mostly Ford-powered motorhomes on the road, I'm led to
believe your looking mostly at Class-C types, where Ford does seem to have the edge.
With the Class-A's there are GM 454's everywhere!
I've had 'em both (460 and 454). Like 'em both. Both seem to do their jobs well as
long as they're treated well. GM's with cast-iron exhaust manifolds will need new
manifolds from time-to-time unless you replace them with good steel headers, which is
the best thing to do anyway. My '89 came equipped with steel manifolds; I had no
trouble with them at all, although after some 20,000 miles I replaced them with
performance headers. Quiet as it's kept, Ford will break stock cast-iron exhaust
manifolds too, just not as often as GM.
The 460 is usually a bit stronger than the 454, and the 454 frequently is a bit more
fuel-efficient (and a mile or two more per gal does add up after while).
There are distinct differences in the respective chassis', but both do the job well and
both readily accept improvements once the owner learns that the darn thing doesn't have
to be shoved around by passing semi's.
I'm very happy with my current GM. But, if I were shopping for a replacement, price
rather than Corporation would be my guide.
Good luck.
Ray Bailey
r...@mlode.com
Mark Tetrault
Robert Roney <roney_b> wrote:
>I purchased a used Itasca Windcruiser in May of this yeay. It's powered by a 454.
>The GVW of my rig is 15,000#. It's 33' long with single dual wheel rear axle, 4:56
>rear end gears with a three speed auto trans. My fuel consumption runs between 8-9
> mpg. I live in the state of New Hampshire where the roads are really not flat! We
>have put over 3k miles on it since we bought it. All the usage has been in the New
>England area. My rig has stainless steel exhaust manifolds, factory installed. The
>cast iron units are the ones that have had the problems.
I am awestruck by your fuel economy with 4.56 rear gear. You must have
an egg under the throttle to get such good results.
>
>We really enjoy our rig and I purposely looked for a unit with a 454 because of the
>stories I have heard about the 460 Fords. i.e. Timing chains, pistons, rods, and
>more.
Unfounded. In head to head comparisons that I have done over a three
year period between GM and Ford, whenever I got a call about a GM
breakdown, I sent a wrecker (engine). When it was a Ford, it was
usually a $5 sensor or the cat convertor. In three years of my keeping
records on a fleet of GMs and Fords, I replaced *1* Ford block, and 62
GMs. This spanned the years 1989-1993, but I have kept track through
my successors and they paint pretty much the same picture.
>All-in-all I think it really comes down to personal preference.
AGREED!
BTW, whereareyoufrominNH?
-----------------------------------------------------
| Mark D. Tetrault | tetr...@mv.mv.com |
| 6 Colonial Drive | 1:132/1...@fidonet.org |
| Pembroke, NH 03275 | aa1ov.ampr.org_44.52.7.8 |
| 603-485-5852 | www.mv.com/users/tetrault |
-----------------------------------------------------
Roger Deal
AR...@worldnet.att.net (Anthony R Romao) wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
>>two engines?
>
>
And more fuel to the fire.
We have a Ford 460, 94 model, 60,000 miles so far and no problems yet.
Doesn't burn oil and runs fine.
Roger Deal
Marvin Kemel
Dave Brotherton wrote:
>
>Dave: Both of these are big blocks and thus will be gas guzzlers. But if you are worried about gas mileage a Motorhome would not be a wise
purchase. INMHO the chev 454 is far better than the Ford- more power,
longer engine life, more popular. I also think the chev chassis, both
clkass A and C are superior. But both of these engines have had some
problems. The Ford is famous for bad timing chains. Sometimes when the
chain jumps a tooth major engine damage can result. The Ford is also a
dog when it comes to power. Both the Ford and Chev have had exhaust
manifold problems. My understanding is the Chev is easier to cure. Try
and get a Later model chev with throttle body injection. This motor has
better exhaust manifolds,improved engine sealing,better breathing. I am
sure some one will reply with stoties about some of the other Chev woes:
Torque convertor/rear seal,valve guide seals, etc. Good Luck
Al Black
Dave Brotherton wrote:
>
> I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
> me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
>
> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
> poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
> 454 might be a better way to go.
>
> two engines?
>
Dave:
My wife's sister rents rv's in the mid-west. They become high mileage units after a
few seasons on the road -- traveling often to Yellowstone or Florida from Minnesota.
Her experiences with both engines/transmissions is that after numerous Chev
failures, her fleet is now exclusively Ford. Note, tho, some Chev failures were
caused by the rv manufacturer who allowed insufficient room for the engine to
breathe.
Al
Al Thompson
Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
>me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
> A friend of mine had a 460 in a 3/4T 4x4 and was not to happy with the
>poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
>454 might be a better way to go.
>Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
>two engines?
>Thanks, Dave
Our 26 footer has an '82 Ford 460 in it... runs great, gets about 7-8
mpg, used 1/2 quart of oil on our last 6000 mile trip out west. The
biggest problem we have had is vapor lock and very poor performance
above about 3000' if it's at all warm outside (80 deg or so). The
fuel line runs up over the alternator and loops over into the carb and
apparently this is a well noted problem on the 460's. If you are
driving out west (Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada) I would not recommend the
older 460's.
Al Thompson "The ranger isn't gonna like this, Yogi!"
Midwest Electric Supply Co.
Owensboro, KY 42303
Dennis R. Zamzow
A very good question. I went through this same dilema about 1 year ago.Believe it or not
the answer came down to just about 2 items. I had been looking for a 1991 Pace Arrow
33L for some time. Couldn't decide on Chev or Ford. The one thing I didn't like about the
Ford was that the steering wheel blocked the dash gauges. The clincher though was from
my brother who is a Snap-On tool dealer. He recommended the Chev as does most of his
customers for parts are readily available and Chev dealers are a LOT more prevalent that
Ford when it comes time to find a truck dealer. I've found this to be very true even in the
San Jose, CA area where both dealers are everywhere but finding one who handles the
truck chassis and then finding a knowledgable and competent mech is another problem.
Fortunately after much driving, asking, interviewing and having some work done I found
a place I feel comfortable with.
So, even though I drive a Town Car and tow a 280ZX I'm not at all disappointed I got the
Chevy. Even though you can occasionally have problems with the front spring air bags the
ride is much less harsh than with the front leaf springs on the Ford.
Hopefully you'll hear from someone who is just as happy with their Ford so you can
continue to wonder which one is best. I'd recommend driving them both and let your gut
tell you.
Dennis
ANDREW STEJSKAL
I am a service manager at Hood RV in Decatur Al. We sell many types
of motor homes. The best engine would be the 460 ford, ford has
put more resorces in the motor home industry than GM, ford has a
stronger frame, power train is better geared than GM, my experience
with cust, and myself is that a ford, the way the drive train is
geared can out do a 454 when it comes to power and pulling a tow
vehical.
ANDREW STEJSKAL
Dale Peterson
Sidney Dobson <sid3...@sunherald.infi.net> wrote in article
<4vkqm2$h...@nw101.infi.net>...
>
> >Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >>I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
> >>me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
>
Sydney & Dave,
I have had extensive experience with both the 454 & 460 engines, I had them
in motor homes, Pick ups pulling trailers, and pick up hauling things like
hay. Under stress both of these engines suffer the same problems, cracked
manifolds, poor fuel consumption, overheating if the cooling system is
marginal.. They are both excellent engines that constantly being over
stressed in applications beyond what they were engineered for.
Currently I have a 7.3 Turbo Diesel Ford pulling a 29' alpenlite 5th wheel,
its a good engine also and also on the border of being stressed.
good luck
Dale Peterson
Randy Langston
I had a 1987 Jayco Class C Motorhome with the 460 engine. I was very
impressed with its ability to handle 10,000 to 12,000 pounds. At times
I would pull a small motorcycle trailer with no problems. There was
never any over heating problems even though I frequently traveled in
mountains up to about 6500 feet. Althought the rear end ratio was 4:10
traveling at 65 or 70 MPH was no problem . Frequently I would see
others with the same rig travel at 75 or 80 MPH towing heavier
trailers.
Good Luck,
Randy Langston
Scott
Jean Read wrote:
>
> Dave Brotherton <bro...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm in the market for a late 80's to early 90's motor home. It seems to
> >me that the majority of the gas rigs are equipped with the Ford 460.
>
> >poor gas milage and poor performance. As a result I'm thinking that the
> >454 might be a better way to go.
>
> >Does anyone have any experience that would enable them to compare the
> >two engines?
>
> >Thanks, Dave
Chev preference that should decide. But I think that the deciding factor
should be the transmissions that go with these engines. My personal exp.
has been that the Ford with the automatic overdrive is nothing but
expensive trouble (I have a $3500 repair bill to prove this). My '95
GMC with its overdrive has been problem free at 125K miles and the
trans shop says it has never had to rebuild one of these units.
Scott McGregor
Alan Sanderson 408 447-3859
My parents have a GM 454, and the transmission shop did not have to
rebuild their tranny after it blew, either. They had a GM factory
rebuilt shipped in on the recommendation of the transmission shop.
That might explain why the shop has never had to rebuild one.
Willis
My mechanic tells me to change the transmission fluid every 30,000 miles
to prevent damage and big repair bills on my F-350 with the E4OD on my
crewcab.
--
_________W_I_L_L_I_S_._._.__________________________________
Pat Curry
Willis -
I've been towing with the E4OD for several years; I change the fluid and
filter every spring regardless of mileage, and have never had a problem.
BTW, I also tow in 3rd (vs OD) in mountains and under tough conditions to
keep the transmission cooler; mileage is awful, but its cheaper than a
new or rebuilt transmission.
Pat
Shirley Hornbeck
5 to 6 mpg either one.... no difference... lousy gas mileage in all motorhomes.
Bob Roney
Dave,
I have a 1988 Itasca Windcruiser, 33' P30 chassis, 454 powered, 4.56 rear
gears, three speed auto trans, 15,000# GVWR. I live in New England, New
Hampshire to be exact. My mileage runs between 7-9 depending on terrain.
I have a carbed engine. From 1991 and on I believe that the 454's have
EFI and a different auto trans which, from what I hear even give you
better mileage. The 460 Fords in later years also have EFI.
Regards,
Bob
wi...@peach.epix.net
One person wrote:
> 5 to 6 mpg either one.... no difference... lousy gas mileage in all
> motorhomes.
Sure, it is generally "lousy" compared to your Ford Fiesta, but only the
biggest gas hogs give 5 - 6 mpg. While a great deal depends on the
size/weight of the coach, how and where you drive, and the power train
you're using, MANY motorhomes run at 8-10 mpg. Our little Class C (much
smaller than most and geared correctly) gets 12 mpg, and a few do even
better.
Though I am personally partial to the GM engines, I think you'd have a
hard time proving an important difference in economy if all other factors
are equal.
wi...@epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA
Jay S. Farnham
My "NEW" '91 Coachmen Catalina, 31', class "A", on the first trip from
Detroit (Allen Park) to Mackinac I got 9.6 MPG.
326 Miles. All Highway @ 60 MPH.
Jay
Jay Farnham ( Fr...@Webbernet.net )
dl...@inreach.com
On 10/16/96 4:33PM, in message <543ghn$7...@nxgen.webbernet.net>, Jay S. Farnham
<fr...@webbernet.net> wrote:
Was it a Ford or Chevrolet? Did it have an overdrive transmission?
--
Don, retired in Tracy, Calif.
amat...@tir.com
I have a Chevy 454 in a class A 27' Pace Arrow 1983 vintage. Using the
rocommended 89 octane fuel, I got 9.68 mpg this summer up and down I-75
in Michigan. Just recently on another trip I ended up with about 9.5
mpg. This is a 12,000 pound vehicle.
I have no info on Fords except that my Thunderbird with overdrive will
get over 29 mpg on the same route, but doesn't offer quite the same
accomdations or sleeping space.
Al
Gregory James
Jay S. Farnham wrote in a message to All:
> My "NEW" '91 Coachmen Catalina, 31', class "A", on the first trip
> from Detroit (Allen Park) to Mackinac I got 9.6 MPG.
> 326 Miles. All Highway @ 60 MPH.
Jay, I am jealous. I have the same Motorhome as you and on my first trip of
348 miles I only managed 6.97 mpg. My mileage was more stop and go and not so
much highway. Did you use the cruise control? The only other difference I see
is maybe I was running closer to 65 mph for about half my total mileage the
rest was variable stop and go and slow county road travel. My coach had 12,000
miles when I purchased it this summer.
Greg James