Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT how bad/good are Ford's V10 motors?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT how bad/good are Ford's V10 motors?

    Possible shop truck. Short money Super duty F-450 11 foot tool box lift gate and crane 2WD. Hi milage motor one owner vehicle with all fleet maintenance records.
    Anyone have experience with these motors? Run walk buy ?

    No need to get into brand wars or warn me about its fuel appetite

    Thanks ,OBR.
    Bricolage anyone?....one of lifes fun games.

  • #2
    I always thought they were a good motor but I know someone that bought a really nice 2010 1 ton lariat with the V10 and 20k, it didn't even make it thru the summer camping season towing a 30' travel trailer. threw a rod
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/csprecision

    Comment


    • #3
      Can't testify about the V-10 but my 2004 E-350 van has it's baby brother the 5.4 V-8. It only has 962,000 + miles on it and the engine has over 20,000 hrs. Put a water pump on it around 450,000 miles just for safety sake. Transmission still has the original fluid in it. Replaced front ball joints and tie rod ends and drag link along with axle bushings and radius arm bushings around 850,000. Replaced rear springs a few months later. People still say it looks new.

      Comment


      • #4
        Probably start a war....but here goes.

        Ford "modular" engines were designed to provide the least amount of material to produce the most power they could. Unfortunately, in their quest to save weight, Ford engineers (if you want to call them that) thinned the cylinder walls, lightened up the pistons, shrunk the width of the main bearing webs and even went so far as to shrink the casting bosses for the oil galleries. Down-sizing the castings meant the block is not torsionally stable, and of course, re-boring a block is out of the question. The block deck is extremely critical on surface smoothness, and the cylinder heads are very thoroughly lightened, which led to numerous spark plug blow-outs on earlier engines (I'm not sure if they ever addressed this problem on the V-10, but the V-8's were notorious for spitting out plugs..) The extreme weight loss has also given them an engine with almost microscopic oil passages, requiring very low viscosity oils. When the engine is heavily loaded, regardless of the cooling system, the coolant can't remove heat as fast as it is being generated, light oil, even high quality synthetic, is coked or breached in a very short time usually causing bearing or timing chain failures. Running heavier grades of oil will almost guarantee an engine failure since the tiny oil passages don't allow enough heavier oil to get where it's needed. If you still have doubts, talk with a mechanic at your local Ford dealer or take a look at the warranty engine scrap pile around back. More likely than not, there will be at least one Ford truck or motorhome in the shop with a scattered V-10...and two more sitting on the warranty dock waiting to be returned to Ford.

        Not to get into a "Brand War". When I worked as a fleet mechanic, we had GM cars for police cruisers for five years. During that time, I replaced one failed engine. When GM stopped making their big sedan, we switched over to Fords. Crown Victoria models, with 4.6L "Modular" V-8 engines. From then on, we were taking one or two of them to the dealer for replacement engines every month. When the warranties expired, I replaced two to three engines a month in them. Isolated incident? I doubt it. Everybody I speak with on the web has had the same experience...even the snarling, rabid, Ford fanatics. Dodges aren't much better. The only "hemi" pickup we had was almost impossible to drive, and you literally had to have a back brace and a kidney belt to drive it all day long. The "legendary" "Hemi" V-8 burned a quart of oil for every tank of gas, even though we had it at the dealer, and they stated "there was nothing wrong with it." As far as I know, it's still drinking oil. And we won't even go into the "death shake" the Dodge had at 50mph....Even though the dealer pronounced it to be in perfect condition and aligned correctly.

        If I were looking for something in an F-450 category, I'd "bite the bullet" and look for one of Ford and International's bastard children the "Powersmoke" diesel. It has a bad reputation, but is considerably more durable than the Ford V-10....and it uses quite a bit less fuel.
        Yeah, we had E-350 vans for jail transport. They had V-10's in them, and had to stop for gas before they returned from a 200 mile transport....The 40 gallon gas tank would be almost dry.
        No good deed goes unpunished.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ford 4.6 V-8's have a great reputation in fleet service, most Police cars and Taxi's run them , 600,000 km. is not unusual in local Taxi's.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dieseldoctor
            Can't testify about the V-10 but my 2004 E-350 van has it's baby brother the 5.4 V-8. It only has 962,000 + miles on it and the engine has over 20,000 hrs. Put a water pump on it around 450,000 miles just for safety sake. Transmission still has the original fluid in it. Replaced front ball joints and tie rod ends and drag link along with axle bushings and radius arm bushings around 850,000. Replaced rear springs a few months later. People still say it looks new.


            Is that the Shovel from the Big Muskie?
            I just need one more tool,just one!

            Comment


            • #7
              I am a regular on a ford site and guys with V10s hardly ever report any problems. Just not so good gas mileage. They are great motors they just like gas.
              Andy

              Comment


              • #8
                F-350 Crew Can

                My year 2000 with the v-10 gets about 13 mpg and 1 quart of oil per 600 miles. It's done this ever since 20000 miles. I only have 65000 on it and when we bought for hauling the horses it was to be a 20 year purchase. Never had a problem with it other than mileage and oil consumption.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 914Wilhelm
                  My year 2000 with the v-10 gets about 13 mpg and 1 quart of oil per 600 miles. It's done this ever since 20000 miles. I only have 65000 on it and when we bought for hauling the horses it was to be a 20 year purchase. Never had a problem with it other than mileage and oil consumption.
                  My boss had similar on his Dodge,turned out to be the PCV valve.Changed it and the oil consumption went away.Too much CC pressure interferes with the job the oil control rings are supposed to be doing.Oil gets past ,gets burn and goes out the exhaust,or in his case the Cat converter which also had to be changed.
                  I just need one more tool,just one!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wierdscience
                    Is that the Shovel from the Big Muskie?

                    That's not a shovel, it's a dragline bucket. Looks to be maybe a Marion of about 40 to 50 cubic yards?

                    That thing is tiny compared to the Big Muskie which had a 220 yard bucket on it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wierdscience
                      My boss had similar on his Dodge,turned out to be the PCV valve.Changed it and the oil consumption went away.Too much CC pressure interferes with the job the oil control rings are supposed to be doing.Oil gets past ,gets burn and goes out the exhaust,or in his case the Cat converter which also had to be changed.

                      Thanks, I'll give that a try.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Another expensive and nagging problem with the V10 and other modular Ford engines is that junky ignition system! Those things (the individual coil packs) are notoriously unreliable, expensive to replace and for some reason will often check to be good when they in fact are failing. I kept a new coil pack and boot on hand for the couple of years I worked on those things and when one showed up with that common mysterious miss-fire that would not set any codes I would simply change the coil packs/boots one at a time until I found the culprit, trust me this problem is VERY common with these things as any auto parts person can tell you from the number of them they sell.

                        Also another problem that has been encountered on engines with a lot of miles them is cylinder and piston damage from improper spark plug replacement. The coil packs and boots are supposed to keep debris out of the spark plug well in the cylinder head but blowing compressed air into the plug well after removing the coil packs will almost always result in a torrent of debris being blown out, failing to do this before removing the plugs lets a lot of this debris fall into the cylinder causing wall scratching and other damage. That kind of damage should not happen but it does all too often and with a used vehicle there is no way of knowing what kind of care it has had in the past.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by radkins
                          That's not a shovel, it's a dragline bucket. Looks to be maybe a Marion of about 40 to 50 cubic yards?

                          That thing is tiny compared to the Big Muskie which had a 220 yard bucket on it!
                          Brain fart,I meant bucket,but typed shovel.

                          Are you sure that ain't the Big Muskie bucket,looks a whole lot like it.

                          http://vectorart-free.blogspot.com/2...r-to-walk.html
                          I just need one more tool,just one!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The location sure looks to be the same but darned if that looks like a 220 yard bucket! Could be the camera angle and the location of the van giving the illusion of the bucket being a lot smaller than it actually is however because the dump rope sheaves look like the ones on the Muskie bucket, actually looks a lot different than on a Marion bucket like I first thought.


                            My first thought was "no way, that thing is way too small" but after looking at that photo again I suppose it may be but that photo sure makes it look a LOT smaller than it actually is!
                            Last edited by radkins; 12-09-2011, 09:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I saw the bucket before the Muskie met it's end.It's sad in a way that such a unique and impressive piece of equipment should meet such a dismal end
                              I just need one more tool,just one!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X