What is the difference? 454 vs Vortec 8.1
Lee
My new motor home has a Vortec (x)? 8.1
Is there any difference in mileage or horse power?
Not a mechanic just curious what to expect!
--
Lee (in Florida)US Army Retired
Georgie Boy Cruise Master
Logitech VidCam & Skype lee.g.bray
richard
> My old motor home had a 454 Chevy engine
> My new motor home has a Vortec (x)? 8.1
>
> Is there any difference in mileage or horse power?
> Not a mechanic just curious what to expect!
K Miller
> My old motor home had a 454 Chevy engine
> My new motor home has a Vortec (x)? 8.1
>
> Is there any difference in mileage or horse power?
> Not a mechanic just curious what to expect!
Here's what Workhorse has to say about its 8.1:
Max
news:3qLSo.195$wa5...@news.usenetserver.com...
The GM 454 (7400 series) or 7.4 Liter produced 410 lb. ft of torque in it's
truck version.
The 8100 series (496 cu.in.) or 8.1 liter produces 455 (or up to 490 in some
versions) lb.ft. of torque.
The bore is the same in both engines but the stroke was increased in the 8.1
L. version.
You will have more horsepower (and more torque which is more important in a
truck) but it will cost you in mileage.
As to whether you can expect more performance a lot depends on the rear axle
ratio. Vehicles equipped with the larger engine "might" have a longer
(numerically lower) ratio.
GM has discontinued the 8.1L engine.
Max
Lone Haranguer
Hard to believe they could build a worse gas sucker than the 454. I'm hauling
more weight with my Ford V-10 and getting better mileage than I ever did with
the 454s.
LZ
Max
news:8o1mv0...@mid.individual.net...
That's probably why they discontinued the 8.1 gas hog.
Max
Ron
"Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4d1b9499$0$8221$c3e8da3$1cbc...@news.astraweb.com...
Max,
I think the 8.1L may just no longer be available in vehicles of 1 ton or
less. It was my understanding that was done to increase the average light
duty truck mileage to meet new federal requirements. I believe it is still
available in motor homes and some trucks.
Ron
Steve Barker
The piston slap issues is one reason they discontinued it. I love mine.
But it DOES sound like a diesel for a couple minutes when it's cold.
I guess people didn't like that.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
Janet Wilder
> My old motor home had a 454 Chevy engine
> My new motor home has a Vortec (x)? 8.1
>
> Is there any difference in mileage or horse power?
> Not a mechanic just curious what to expect!
>
Both of them suck a whole lot of gas.
--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Lon VanOstran
> On 12/29/2010 12:50 PM, Lee wrote:
>> My old motor home had a 454 Chevy engine
>> My new motor home has a Vortec (x)? 8.1
>>
>> Is there any difference in mileage or horse power?
>> Not a mechanic just curious what to expect!
>>
>
> Both of them suck a whole lot of gas.
>
That applies to most MHs.
Lon
Ron
"Lon VanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifgsb3$fpn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Not to diesels! ;-)
Ron
RonB
What year is it?. From personal experience with a 2002 Chevy 2500HD
8.1 it was a powerhouse and fuel consumer. I expected poor fuel
consumption. What I did not expect was high and erratic OIL
consumption. It was not just my engine and GM had lots of patches and
stories. Consumption varied from around 1500 miles per quart (pretty
good) to 200-250 miles per quart. On a trip, I couldn't stop to pee
without checking the oil. GM installed a couple of patches which
provided temporary relief, but it always settled back. Supposedly the
did some head modifications in '03 which fixed the problems. I
traded for a Duramax in '06. GM's attitude with owners was "tough,
live with it."
RonB
Lee
7 to 8 on the 454 but it was a dog on the uphill. That is
why I posted. Hopefully I will get approx the same mileage
and from what little I found via a couple of posts it should
climb a hill a little better.
Hank
> The Vortec(x) is a 2004 and the 454 was a 98. I got about
> 7 to 8 on the 454 but it was a dog on the uphill. That is
> why I posted. Hopefully I will get approx the same mileage
> and from what little I found via a couple of posts it should
> climb a hill a little better.
>
Assuming you have the same tranny, rear end, and pulling the same
weight, I doubt you'll see much if any difference in power or milage.
The engines aren't much different.
Hank
Lone Haranguer
> The Vortec(x) is a 2004 and the 454 was a 98. I got about
> 7 to 8 on the 454 but it was a dog on the uphill. That is
> why I posted. Hopefully I will get approx the same mileage
> and from what little I found via a couple of posts it should
> climb a hill a little better.
>
My 454s used to ping on that stuff unless I adjusted the timing and I found
going to 93 octane really helped with mountain climbing. My travel log showed
that on our '93 trip to WA-OR-CA I was buying mostly 93 octane after reaching
the mountain states. 20 cents more per gallon.....but worth it.
LZ
Janet Wilder
Yes, it does. <g>
Want to know why gas prices just jumped? It's called "Wilder's Law" We
just bought a motorhome.
Janet Wilder
No. They suck a whole lot of Diesel fuel
JerryD(upstateNY)
going to 93 octane really helped with mountain climbing. <<<<<<<<<<<<
I am pretty sure the newer 454's had a knock sensor in the water jacket and
if it detected the engine was knocking, it would automatically retard the
spark.
Using 93 octane would keep the timing advanced and really help keep the
horsepower up.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
RonB
> On 12/30/2010 6:12 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> No. They suck a whole lot of Diesel fuel
>
> --
Cannot speak to motor home diesels, but my 2500HD Duramax uses a LOT
less fuel than the old 8.1. The 8.1 got about 12-13 mpg in town or
on the highway; and 7 mpg pulling our 30' 5th wheel. No fiddling with
driving technique would change that.
The Duramax gets 15-16 in town, up to 22 on the highway and 10.5-12
mpg pulling the same trailer. It is very sensitive to speed when
cruising, without trailer, on the highway.
RonB
Ron
"RonB" <rnrb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fffc28a2-9695-4ce6...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
My mileage isn't as good as yours, but my '06 Duramax is a 3500 Crew Cab 4x4
dually. Last summer driving solo in MT I did get over 20 mpg a few times
and averaged 18.65 mpg. I seem to get better solo mileage up there than I
do at home in central OK or during the winter in far south TX. In total my
Duramax has averaged 17.11 mpg for 87,500+ miles of solo driving and 8.86
mpg for 27,100+ miles of towing our 5th wheel which measures 39' in length.
I seem to do most towing under a rule which requires 15-30 mph head winds!
;-)
Ron
JerryD(upstateNY)
;-)<<<<<<<<<<
hehehehehe
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Ron
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@somewhere.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ifkqb2$fk1$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...
Apparently the 15-30 mph head wind rule get you too!!!!! ;-)
Ron
Lone Haranguer
I watch the wind forecasts, leave early and park early. If they are too
unfavorable, I'll lay over.
Strong winds on the side of a 37'8" billboard take the fun out of traveling.
I'm not on a trucker's schedule.
LZ
RonB
> "RonB" <rnrbro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> My mileage isn't as good as yours, but my '06 Duramax is a 3500 Crew Cab 4x4
> dually. Last summer driving solo in MT I did get over 20 mpg a few times
> and averaged 18.65 mpg. I seem to get better solo mileage up there than I
> do at home in central OK or during the winter in far south TX. In total my
> Duramax has averaged 17.11 mpg for 87,500+ miles of solo driving and 8.86
> mpg for 27,100+ miles of towing our 5th wheel which measures 39' in length.
> I seem to do most towing under a rule which requires 15-30 mph head winds!
> ;-)
>
> Ron
I mentioned it being speed sensitive and it is. If I am not in a
hurry, or in traffic, I often run in the 58-60 mph range on the
highway. Depending on terrain I can usually get the 20-22 mpg on a
long stretch. I have a couple of "favorite" routes to our son's home
in SW Missouri where I have ginger-footed the trip computer up to
25-26 mpg, and the computer seems halfway accurate. But, of course
you cannot sustain it - just playing.
However, with normal travel, the difference between 58 and 65 is the
difference between 20-22 vs 18-19 mpg. Still pretty good for a real
powerhouse engine.
RonB
Lon VanOstran
With our 05 Duramax, we could get 26 or 27 mpg at 55 mph, 22 or 23 mpg
at 62 mph, 19 mpg at 70 mph, or 17 mpg at 78 mph.
Towing a 14,000# trailer, it was as much as 14 mpg at 55, or about 10.3
at 62. We never towed faster than 62, and usually stayed at 55, with or
without the trailer. That truck did every bit as good in all around
driving as our new Malibu does, but the Malibu really shines at 70 mph
on the hwy, at 32 mpg.
I miss my truck, but love the Born Free MH.
Ron
Yep, 58 or so is a sweet spot where mpg is concerned. That is the range
where I have had the highest mpg. Summers in MT we are generally going 18
miles to town or 35 miles to Yellowstone NP. Driving 58 or so doesn't make
much difference time wise, but it makes a lot of difference on fuel
consumption.
Ron
will sill
"RonB" <rnrb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
====================
I mentioned it being speed sensitive and it is. If I am not in a
hurry, or in traffic, I often run in the 58-60 mph range on the
highway. Depending on terrain I can usually get the 20-22 mpg on a
long stretch. I have a couple of "favorite" routes to our son's home
in SW Missouri where I have ginger-footed the trip computer up to
25-26 mpg, and the computer seems halfway accurate. But, of course
you cannot sustain it - just playing.
However, with normal travel, the difference between 58 and 65 is the
difference between 20-22 vs 18-19 mpg. Still pretty good for a real
powerhouse engine.
=====================
It's a pleasure to read realistic reports, rather than the once-familiar
claims about 15% mileage improvement from fuel magents, air filters, or
tailgates. Anyone interested in reasonable mileage improvement needs to
slow down.It pays, even though a Maytag won't keep you bulgemobile rolling
very far.
will
bill horne
Slow down? SLOW DOWN!? No thank you very much. Slowing down is too
high a price to pay. I don't need no steenkin' creepin'. Besides, I
tend to doze off below 8 over.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
will sill
>> It's a pleasure to read realistic reports, rather than the once-familiar
>> claims about 15% mileage improvement from fuel magents, air filters, or
>> tailgates. Anyone interested in reasonable mileage improvement needs to
>> slow down.
bh:
> Slow down? SLOW DOWN!? No thank you very much. Slowing down is too high a
> price to pay. I don't need no steenkin' creepin'. Besides, I tend to doze
> off below 8 over.
Sorry, I forgot that a few RORT'ers have no interest in mileage improvement.
Izzit true you use brake fluid as a lube for reloading brass?
Will
bill horne
> "bill horne"<red...@rye.net> took exception to me remark that:
>
>>> It's a pleasure to read realistic reports, rather than the once-familiar
>>> claims about 15% mileage improvement from fuel magents, air filters, or
>>> tailgates. Anyone interested in reasonable mileage improvement needs to
>>> slow down.
>
> bh:
>> Slow down? SLOW DOWN!? No thank you very much. Slowing down is too high a
>> price to pay. I don't need no steenkin' creepin'. Besides, I tend to doze
>> off below 8 over.
>
> Sorry, I forgot that a few RORT'ers have no interest in mileage improvement.
Of course I have an interest in mileage improvement - more miles in
less time.
> Izzit true you use brake fluid as a lube for reloading brass?
It is most certainly not. That's a malicious rumor started by someone
who thinks I'm a nut.