F350 V 10

ultrarunner · Dec 5, 2007

Anyone got a F350 v10 Van?

I've got a Pick-up for towing and a Van for Work... maybe a V10 Van could do double duty for me.

Chevy Truck 350 v8 FI... empty 17 mpg highway with cruise at 68 mph

Chevy Van 305 v8 Carbureted... always loaded 10.4 mpg per tank.

chh · Dec 5, 2007

Interesting thread. Was basically talked out of buying a '05 F350 with a V-10 last year by a salesman. Was trying to push me off onto a new powerstroke. His claim was that it wouldn't get over 10 mpg. Anyway he talked himself out of a sale and I'm still in my Dodge 2500. Decided I needed a new tractor more than a new truck, so I'm happy anyway. Next time I truck shop the V10 will get a hard look.

Kahuna · Dec 5, 2007

I bought a 2004 F250 a year ago with the 5.4 gas. I had the same engine in an E150 conversion van and it runs great, snappy, and lots of power getting about 16 mpg. That was the van, the F250 is an absolute dog barely pulling its own weight and getting about 10-12 mpg.

I might have been happier with the diesel or the V10 but the 5.4 did not work out. I took off a day to go truck shopping for a late model F250 diesel and ended up buying a new 2007 Toyota Tundra. It was not planned that way but I happened to drive by a Toyota dealer when I was test driving a Ford.

One test drive of the new Tundra sold me. I don't do a lot of of towing so I could get by with a little lighter truck. The Tundra has 381 hp, 401 foot pounds, and a 6 speed automatic, it seems like twice the truck as F250. If the F250 had any engine but the 5.4 I would probably be still driving it because I would have had no reason to go looking. Happy with my purchase and I am now getting a consistent 16 mpg with loads more power and performance. This is a 4x4, the 2 wheel drive should get 2 mpg more.

I am not knocking the F250, I have driven Fords for nearly 40 years. My argument is to not go with the 5.4 in a large truck. Go with the V10 or diesel if you stick with the F250 of F350.

unreconstructed · Dec 5, 2007

Kahuna,

Interesting comment on the 5.4. I had a 2003 F250 with 5.4 but had the 6 speed manual with 3.73 rear. The 5.4 certainly does not perform like the V10 I just bought, but I would not classify my 250 as a dog, or at least a bad dog. It pulled my trailer with JD5203 & FEL well enough--certainly nothing spectacular. Had to pull it in 5th at 3000rpm to make 70, but it did that. Of course, in West Texas had no hills to deal with either. Anyhow, I did in fact buy the V10 to improve performance over the 5.4 and the decision seems to be sound. The difference is night and day. The 5.4 had plenty of power with just a load in the box.

patrick_g · Dec 5, 2007

I have no clue what others get for mileage with a truck like mine but I have got as much as 16.1 average for most of a tank and as low as 11.3 either driving fast or hauling a heavy trailer.

I am driving a 2008 F-250 SD with PowerJoke diesel. It is 4x4 automatic, crew cab short bed. As far as acceleration is concerned it will easily outperform my Dodge/Cummins that has been mildly improved in HP and torque above stock. The Ford is dead stock. I have about 2000 miles on it and expect mileage to improve a little after it is more thoroughly broken in.

I have heard few complaints from V-10 owners.

Pat

mjncad · Dec 6, 2007

There is no replacement for displacement...especially at Colorado's altitude, which is why I ordered the V10 over the V8 gasser.

With the amount of engine set back under the hood of my Super Duty; does anyone know if Ford considered a V12 Triton engine? There's room for an extra couple of cylinders, though I'd hate to see what the mileage might have been like on a V12.

Also I'm sure the extra engine set back helps improve handling.

radman1 · Dec 6, 2007

Runner said:
-Mine puts out a puff of white smoke about every third or fourth start. From what I read on the Ford truck web sites, this is not unusual for the V10 and does not indicate a problem, but it still looks strange coming from a new vehicle. I haven't heard a defininite explanation for this issue yet.

Runner

I will second the occassional puff of whitish smoke when starting. Not all the time. Mine doesn't use any oil. Does not indicate a problem.

MikePA · Dec 9, 2007

mjncad said:
That's what happens when accountants dictate decisions best left to engineers and designers.

While accountants might have been involved, I'd bet the reason they use the spring type is speed of installation on the assembly line.

KICK · Dec 9, 2007

Runner said:
Mine is a 2004.

Quite ironic to have my new Built Ford Tough Super Duty spewing coolant because Ford tried to save 3 cents on hose clamps....

Ford saved more than 3 cents on those hose clamps.

multiply the price difference time the amount of hose clamps by the amount of trucks and cars

then factor in the labor savings not having to turn a screw and the insurance savings on workers comp claims because someone got metakarpal tunnel sysndrome from turning a screwdriver all day.

patrick_g · Dec 9, 2007

MikePA said:
While accountants might have been involved, I'd bet the reason they use the spring type is speed of installation on the assembly line.

It is the accountants who are concerned with speed of assy on the line as well as carpal tunnel claims and every other possible money leak that can be reduced including the bucks they save on cheaper clamps.

Auto manufacturers exist for one and only one reason!!

That reason is to make $ for the corporate officers and other stock holders. A N Y other activity is subservient to the prime directive, P R O F I T. Product is just a means of getting the public to fork over lots of cash.

Different companies have different niches and different philosophies but they all exist for the same reason. Some are more farsighted than others and may be trying to maximize profit over a longer term but maximum profit over the term of interest is THE GOAL. All other activities, however diverse and potentially humanitarian are subservient to that one goal.

Better crash tests and so forth have good PR and influence sales in a way that boosts profits. If a company believed killing people with an inferior design would boost long term profit they would do it (have done it if you consider GMC/Chevy pickup gas tanks on the outside of the frame rails.) An informed and demanding public have shown some manufacturers that their profit in their niche is increased by catering to somewhat safety minded segments of the public or at least seeming to some of the time.

Bean counters trump EVERY OTHER input into an auto manufacturer's management process. How can the board of directors stay in power if at a shareholder's meeting it is shown that more profit could have been made if the bean counter's input was weighted higher? Of course the answer is, they can't, and they know that so they bow to profit no matter what else may motivate them, if anything, ever.

Pat

MikePA · Dec 9, 2007

patrick_g said:
Bean counters trump EVERY OTHER input into an auto manufacturer's management process.

Wow, your knowledge of the number one priority of auto manufacturers is remarkable. Imagine that, a business that wants to make a profit. Who'd a thunk it.

patrick_g · Dec 9, 2007

MikePA said:
Wow, your knowledge of the number one priority of auto manufacturers is remarkable. Imagine that, a business that wants to make a profit. Who'd a thunk it.

Mike, You'd a thunk most everyone would have it in mind but you notice that this supposedly "obvious even to the most casual observer" FACT is often lost sight of as evidenced by posts upstream just a little ways from here.

Pat

mjncad · Dec 10, 2007

patrick_g said:
If a company believed killing people with an inferior design would boost long term profit they would do it (have done it if you consider GMC/Chevy pickup gas tanks on the outside of the frame rails.)

Don't forget the Ford Firebomb...err...Pinto. As I recall, Ford's bean counters nixed a $5 (materials & labor) per car plastic shield to protect the gas tank from puncture in rear end collisions. I'll bet the money saved by the bean counters was trivial compared to the cost of recalls, lawsuits by the families of the injured and killed, bad publicity and so on.

TheDingy · Dec 10, 2007

JESSE1 said:
If you're getting that kind of mileage then you've got a sick truck. The emissions equipment has definately hurt mileage but not that bad. My '08 F-450 has only 1600 miles but so far it's gotten a high of 15 highway and 12 city driving. That's with a 4.30 axle ratio and a 8900# truck. You do have to keep your speed down, these trucks are as aerodynamic as a brick. The mileage on all the new diesels have been hurt by the emission equipment.

The V-10 is supposed to be a bulletproof engine. I've never heard of anyone having a major problem with one. They make a lot of sense in an F-250/350 SRW pickup.

The truck isn't sick, we have seen more than one way under 10mpg, this truck was the record though. I have heard that the problem has to deal with the reheat cycles in traffic. We are in Houston and it will kill the fuel mileage in traffic that is bumper to bumper and slow sometimes.

I have driven the new 08 Duramax's for a few miles, they will 30,000lbs to 99mph

while running away from everything else. I was a cummins person all the way in the trucks, but the new engine/tranny is great. My other half is in the car busniess and Chevrolet is the only thing I can drive I would still say they aren't as good as the Cummins, but now it is another story. In my heart though I am still a Cat guy, I have more than one 2,000+hp diesel that I am responsiable for, and if we have the choice it is Cat only! I wish that Cat would put a truck deal together for the 1 ton market, as they are great engines!

unreconstructed · Dec 10, 2007

Back to the V-10 mileage question. Got 14.1 highway unloaded going out to the farm this weekend--140 mile round trip. Can see where 15 might be in the future going down the road--maybe the K&N will help. Dealer told me not to put one on until the warranty runs out but will probably do it anyway.

JESSE1 · Dec 10, 2007

If you use the K&N make sure you don't over oil it. The oil will coat the Mass Airflow sensor in the intake and kill it. I think the V10 is a good choice for a SRW short bed pickup. For heavy hauling, go diesel. I stayed with a diesel because any time I haul my tractor I will be grossing at least 26,000#'s.

patrick_g · Dec 10, 2007

mjncad said:
Don't forget the Ford Firebomb...err...Pinto. As I recall, Ford's bean counters nixed a $5 (materials & labor) per car plastic shield to protect the gas tank from puncture in rear end collisions. I'll bet the money saved by the bean counters was trivial compared to the cost of recalls, lawsuits by the families of the injured and killed, bad publicity and so on.

I don't know about the bottom line with the Pinto but GMC/Chevy found it to their advantage to stone wall legal attacks and pay off when they had to do so and make more profit than changing the design prematurely. They put profit ahead of people as most big companies do.

Pat

Pat

Z-Michigan · Dec 10, 2007

JESSE1 said:
If you use the K&N make sure you don't over oil it. The oil will coat the Mass Airflow sensor in the intake and kill it.

Have read and heard this a lot, but have yet to hear of anyone actually suffering this problem. I think you would have to over-oil it by several times to have a problem. BTW K&N's come oiled from the factory and shouldn't need cleaning and re-oiling for around 25k miles depending on your driving conditions.

Having said all that, you might think I am a fan of K&N - nope! I had one in an Accord I used to own and it didn't cause any problems, but the only performance gain was in my mind. Mileage was unchanged, and for that car I had carefully tracked every single gas tank from day 1 to trade-in. Air filter tests on BITOG suggest that K&N doesn't filter as well as paper, although the difference may be relatively small.

I can't find a reason to use anything but a high quality paper filter. If I ever change my mind I will be using an Amsoil Ea filter, more for potentially better filtration than for any unlikely performance gain. The cotton gauze filters (K&N and clones) aren't that bad, but for a lot more $$$ you get worse filtration and no meaningful (if in fact any) difference in engine performance. The reality is that inexpensive paper filters from most manufacturers do a very good job for a very modest cost.

JESSE1 · Dec 10, 2007

I know about it first-hand. I put a new K&N in a new '01 Expedition. Engine started hesitating and generally running rough. Dealership found the Mass airflow sensor was bad. They said it was because of the K&N but they still replaced the sensor under warranty. Whether it was the K&N I don't know but I replaced it with the factory paper element and never had any more problems. Really never noticed a difference in performance between the two filters.