I'm looking at a used E-350 with a V-10. Has 232,000 miles, mostly highway, and it's cheap. I like it, but I'm wondering what you think about this engine.
Ford V-10's good?
- Thread starter Stelth
- Start date
- Status
Our company truck has the same poorly maintained but keeps on going. It's gotta have at least 300K.
They are very thirsty powertrains.
The engine isn't bad but it almost unanimously shows up in haggard "work" vehicles bought for fleet operations where it was absolutely caned.
The practical experience I have with them is in two fleet work trucks I'd driven with them. One ran on nine cylinders, the other was perfect but apparently the engine had been governed by the previous corporate owner; it wouldn't rev at all to get anywhere.
Cost to maintain them, dunno. Probably okay because its not a terribly unique engine, but there could be here-and-there parts that are harder to find. Should be cheaper then a diesel though no matter what.
Also, not sure if it was a bad experience I had, since one was governed and the other ran on 9 cylinders, but a good diesel pulled far harder and just felt tougher then them.
Also I think 16 miles per gallon, unloaded, in perfect highway conditions, was the best I ever saw from them.
Its to say I'd prefer to pay for the diesel, myself, but if you wanted to keep costs down, the V-10 has to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. At the very least, I can say that if you treat the engine like total trash they still soldier on, even on nine cylinders.
The practical experience I have with them is in two fleet work trucks I'd driven with them. One ran on nine cylinders, the other was perfect but apparently the engine had been governed by the previous corporate owner; it wouldn't rev at all to get anywhere.
Cost to maintain them, dunno. Probably okay because its not a terribly unique engine, but there could be here-and-there parts that are harder to find. Should be cheaper then a diesel though no matter what.
Also, not sure if it was a bad experience I had, since one was governed and the other ran on 9 cylinders, but a good diesel pulled far harder and just felt tougher then them.
Also I think 16 miles per gallon, unloaded, in perfect highway conditions, was the best I ever saw from them.
Its to say I'd prefer to pay for the diesel, myself, but if you wanted to keep costs down, the V-10 has to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. At the very least, I can say that if you treat the engine like total trash they still soldier on, even on nine cylinders.
Last edited:
The v10 in my experience is a darn strong engine. A friends brother has one it will pull whatever you hook it to and its cheaper to maintain than a diesel.
they will last forever. use quite a bit of fuel though. watch for leaking intake gaskets. they will leak on the outsite of the intake and into the plug holes, causing mis-fires. i have one that had that issue. i couldnt tell until 2 cylinders started to mis-out. you can hardly tell if only one is missing, the engine is buttery smooth and powerful. i love the high rpm power, and its ability to run wide open for long periods of time under heavy load... and i do this on 5w20! great engine. I does love gas and a little oil from time to time though
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
The engine isn't bad but it almost unanimously shows up in haggard "work" vehicles bought for fleet operations where it was absolutely caned.
The practical experience I have with them is in two fleet work trucks I'd driven with them. One ran on nine cylinders, the other was perfect but apparently the engine had been governed by the previous corporate owner; it wouldn't rev at all to get anywhere.
Cost to maintain them, dunno. Probably okay because its not a terribly unique engine, but there could be here-and-there parts that are harder to find. Should be cheaper then a diesel though no matter what.
Also, not sure if it was a bad experience I had, since one was governed and the other ran on 9 cylinders, but a good diesel pulled far harder and just felt tougher then them.
Also I think 16 miles per gallon, unloaded, in perfect highway conditions, was the best I ever saw from them.
Its to say I'd prefer to pay for the diesel, myself, but if you wanted to keep costs down, the V-10 has to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. At the very least, I can say that if you treat the engine like total trash they still soldier on, even on nine cylinders.
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
The engine isn't bad but it almost unanimously shows up in haggard "work" vehicles bought for fleet operations where it was absolutely caned.
The practical experience I have with them is in two fleet work trucks I'd driven with them. One ran on nine cylinders, the other was perfect but apparently the engine had been governed by the previous corporate owner; it wouldn't rev at all to get anywhere.
Cost to maintain them, dunno. Probably okay because its not a terribly unique engine, but there could be here-and-there parts that are harder to find. Should be cheaper then a diesel though no matter what.
Also, not sure if it was a bad experience I had, since one was governed and the other ran on 9 cylinders, but a good diesel pulled far harder and just felt tougher then them.
Also I think 16 miles per gallon, unloaded, in perfect highway conditions, was the best I ever saw from them.
Its to say I'd prefer to pay for the diesel, myself, but if you wanted to keep costs down, the V-10 has to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. At the very least, I can say that if you treat the engine like total trash they still soldier on, even on nine cylinders.
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
Then there's something criminally wrong with your van. Those V-10's I think 14 MPG was more typical, 16 was the "exception". Mileage drops considerably when towing. Compared to the 20 some MPG I got with a diesel though, its nothing to shake a stick at.
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
Then there's something criminally wrong with your van. Those V-10's I think 14 MPG was more typical, 16 was the "exception". Mileage drops considerably when towing. Compared to the 20 some MPG I got with a diesel though, its nothing to shake a stick at.
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Last edited:
likr the 4.6 5.4 the v10 is a strong engine that is reliable and durable
My dad's RV is powered by a Ford V10 pulling a Jeep Wrangler X behind it. (something like 3700lbs)
Gets maybe 10 mpg. Been durable though.
A Powerstroke powered RV probably would have better fuel economy. But I'm not entirely certain you would have a more reliable vehicle and not only is diesel more expensive, but the diesel powered RV was significantly more expensive to purchase.
Gets maybe 10 mpg. Been durable though.
A Powerstroke powered RV probably would have better fuel economy. But I'm not entirely certain you would have a more reliable vehicle and not only is diesel more expensive, but the diesel powered RV was significantly more expensive to purchase.
It's just another Ford Modular engine. A great commercial workhorse.
As for fuel economy, it was no worse than the engines it competed with, the 8.1L GM V8 and 8.0L Dodge V-10.
As for fuel economy, it was no worse than the engines it competed with, the 8.1L GM V8 and 8.0L Dodge V-10.
I managed a fleet of Ford 12 and 15 passenger vans. One had the V-10 and the others the V-8. None of the drivers believed me when I would tell them that this particular van had a V-10. It drove the same for them and for me too. It did come with more maintenance expense, a mileage penalty and a factory towing package.
This is a solid motor but unless you will pull the trailer the V-8 version is just fine and the smarter choice.
This is a solid motor but unless you will pull the trailer the V-8 version is just fine and the smarter choice.
They seem to run forever. It also seems like they tend to be owned by fleets who insist on treating them like red headed step children.
We see lots of them with 150-200k miles on factory spark plugs and literally the only maintenance is occasional oil changes and having to practically beg owners to change air filters that are plugged solid.
Sell a lot of PCV hoses on them.
We see lots of them with 150-200k miles on factory spark plugs and literally the only maintenance is occasional oil changes and having to practically beg owners to change air filters that are plugged solid.
Sell a lot of PCV hoses on them.
They are not bad, but the old 460 V8 was a better engine. I remember my dad purposely buying a leftover Class A Newmar motorhome with the 460 because the new models had the V10. His buddy bought a V10 and could not keep up with the old 460. My dad later added the Banks system to it and that woke it up some more.
The 460 has pleanty of power with better MPG...but by no means is it a bad choice if you go V10.
The 460 has pleanty of power with better MPG...but by no means is it a bad choice if you go V10.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
I'm looking at a used E-350 with a V-10. Has 232,000 miles, mostly highway, and it's cheap. I like it, but I'm wondering what you think about this engine.
That's a lot...you might only get another 170K out of it!
The V10 is incredibly tough...with even spotty maintenance, it's a 300,000+ miler. I saw one wind up 553K in an F-550 that saw the brutal life of a repo truck.
I'm looking at a used E-350 with a V-10. Has 232,000 miles, mostly highway, and it's cheap. I like it, but I'm wondering what you think about this engine.
That's a lot...you might only get another 170K out of it!
The V10 is incredibly tough...with even spotty maintenance, it's a 300,000+ miler. I saw one wind up 553K in an F-550 that saw the brutal life of a repo truck.
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
Then there's something criminally wrong with your van. Those V-10's I think 14 MPG was more typical, 16 was the "exception". Mileage drops considerably when towing. Compared to the 20 some MPG I got with a diesel though, its nothing to shake a stick at.
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Ford stuck their 4.2 Essex V6 in 1/2 and 3/4 ton vans too ...
I'd be concerned about a Ford transmission at those miles. I've heard of the V10s heaving head gasket problems if they sit for a while but not if they're used hard every day.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Well, that's better mileage than I get in my.Savana 1500 with the 4.3 V-6.
Then there's something criminally wrong with your van. Those V-10's I think 14 MPG was more typical, 16 was the "exception". Mileage drops considerably when towing. Compared to the 20 some MPG I got with a diesel though, its nothing to shake a stick at.
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Ford stuck their 4.2 Essex V6 in 1/2 and 3/4 ton vans too ...
I'd be concerned about a Ford transmission at those miles. I've heard of the V10s heaving head gasket problems if they sit for a while but not if they're used hard every day.
My brother has a V-10 Ford pickup that uses to haul cattle around with by pulling a livestock trailer. I can't tell you the exact year, but I'm guessing somewhere around a 2005-2007. He's always been a Chevy man, but this pickup has changed his attitude about Ford. He has had no problems with it.
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Simple. Work an engine hard and you will get poor fuel economy. My first car was a 1986 Mustang LX with the 2.3 4cyl. Blistering 88hp and a little over 100lb-ft of torque. It had 2 throttle settings - Idle and WOT. It had a 4 speed stick so hills were - bury your foot and if it lugged, downshift and keep your foot planted. Not sure what the MPG was but it consistently got 300 miles per tank.
When I got out of college, I found a sweet deal on a leftover Mustang Cobra. Guess what? Still got 300 miles to the tank from the 4.6L V8. I figure it was because I was constantly flogging that 4 cyl that it got such poor fuel economy.
Edit: Wow, nevermind, I looked up a 1500 Savana. How the [censored] did Chevy put such a small engine into something and get such brutal fuel economy? I guess unlike the V-10 though, you won't get 5 MPG while towing. With a V6 you just...probably won't be doing much towing; lol.
Simple. Work an engine hard and you will get poor fuel economy. My first car was a 1986 Mustang LX with the 2.3 4cyl. Blistering 88hp and a little over 100lb-ft of torque. It had 2 throttle settings - Idle and WOT. It had a 4 speed stick so hills were - bury your foot and if it lugged, downshift and keep your foot planted. Not sure what the MPG was but it consistently got 300 miles per tank.
When I got out of college, I found a sweet deal on a leftover Mustang Cobra. Guess what? Still got 300 miles to the tank from the 4.6L V8. I figure it was because I was constantly flogging that 4 cyl that it got such poor fuel economy.
^^^Exactly. And you wear out the small engine by having to whip it so hard to get going. I'll bet that Cobra motor would run twice as far without rebuild in the same duty cycle!
And no offense, but we own a bunch of Savanas. But ours are all 3500 chassis, and definitely do not suffer from a lack of torque. But they can deliver surprisingly good mileage for a 4.5-5 ton vehicle!
And no offense, but we own a bunch of Savanas. But ours are all 3500 chassis, and definitely do not suffer from a lack of torque. But they can deliver surprisingly good mileage for a 4.5-5 ton vehicle!
- Status
Similar threads
