Only thing to watch is spares if/when you break it.

They ALL have to come from States. Cheap enuff
but big waiting time through shipping. customs etc.

I have coupla mates with Chevvy's, that's what they say.
Next time round they'll be buying Isuzu. Iveco etc.
Parts off local shelf and Cummins parts.
basically. Any truck shop,

Why the 450. Same donk as 350
Carl has a Chevvy 350 twin rears
Tows a 41ft semi. 5th wheeler over there. Cruises it nicely.
no need for any bigger.
450/4500 are TRUCKS not utes. HUGE in size.
Australian towns would love them.
I'd compare physical sizes first. You'll also probably need a truck licence.
Over 4.5ton...

My mate has an F350 it has the 7.3 Cummins and he pulls a 36' Fifth Wheeler and over the Nullarbor he reckoned it did nearly 40MPG. Mainly because it revs so low at 110 KPH. He has no problem getting spares because that motor is fitted to so many vehicles here in OZ. He did want to put the bigger 10.1 litre Cummins in which was actually more economical. Ministry of Finance said NO!!!!!!!

 

Has anyone looked at where the original poster is from? Dont think he will be worried about RHD conversions, or getting spares shipped to Australia. LOL

Slight exaggeration on fuel economy I would say .. . I must say with wind behind our motorhome in WA it seemed we didn't use any fuel .. Can't say the same heading east from Monkey Myer tho .. The Ford chassis, platform is mainly used in US . Esp with petrol engines ..

Jaahn wrote:

---

Yuglamron wrote:

---

My mate has an F350 it has the 7.3 Cummins and he pulls a 36' Fifth Wheeler and over the Nullarbor he reckoned it did nearly 40MPG. Mainly because it revs so low at 110 KPH. He has no problem getting spares because that motor is fitted to so many vehicles here in OZ. He did want to put the bigger 10.1 litre Cummins in which was actually more economical. Ministry of Finance said NO!!!!!!!

---

 Hi

he reckoned it did nearly 40MPG
I would like to see that verified 

Jaahn

---

 

I would also like this fuel consumption verified

The best fuel consumption I ever got out of any vehicle I had owned, was approximately 60 MPG (5 litres per 100 Ks or 20 Ks per litre)

The vehicle was a 1995 Daihatsu Mira, with a fuel injected, 660 cc 3 cylinder petrol engine, with a curb weight of just over 600 kilograms.

In theory, it was so powerful that it would have been able to pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Back in the real world, I do have my doubts if it would have been able to tow anything heavier than an empty wheelbarrow

As a side note
Perhaps the original poster does not realise that he is on an Australian forum, instead of an American one

kezngaz, is technically correct heading from Monkey Mia back to Denholm is more south west as Monkey Mia is on the eastern side of a peninsular. That's getting a little bit nit picking though as the Aus-Kiwi was only making a statement about his general direction of travel.

-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Thursday 27th of October 2016 09:50:23 PM

Fuel economy can only go so far. in any system.
Then volumetric capacity comes in.
Certain sized cubic holes. NEED certain volumes of mixture to fill
and a certain vol of combustible content to go bang..

Too lean. no bang.
You have to have a combustible blend to go off.
too lean just doesn't do it.

Try the last Fiat 15 cyl ships donk I/we changed a couple pots out on.
She ran at 4+ ton per 24 hr cycle.

Break that down to ltrs per km hey.
and they ran the fuel through graded macerators first to get the lumps out.
Can only lean them down so much for compression ign.

Actually I did not consider second hand rvs to be worth buying; the point is to build everything from scratch and I do agree with the opinion that 450 is much powerful compared to 350 model