Ford 6.8L V10 engine opinions?

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

IGBT

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
910
Reaction score
1
I keep going back and forth between truck and van.   I want 4x4 but the only 4x4 van is the sprinter and they are not even really available for 2019 until fall.

I am now looking at 2019 Ford F-550 4x4 supercab trucks with a flatbed, on which I would put either our living pod or garage pod depending on circumstances.   It has a gas engine but I hear good things about the 3 valve 6.8L V10?

When just empty, nothing on the flatbed, what might I expect from this as a daily driver?   I likely would trade in our 2017 Ford F150 4x4 with it's 2.7L ecoboost engine which gets 22 to 24mpg but really cannot support that much weight.

I am guessing unloaded the 6.8L V10 would get about 13 to 14mpg?

fordf550.jpg
 

Attachments

  • fordf550.jpg
    fordf550.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 7
The older Ford V-10s were known for good power and reliability (almost matching diesel motors), but really bad MPG, not really sure how the new ones perform. I'm sure new technology has improved their efficiency.
 
My neighbor has a f250 with the 6.2 gas engine and pulls a horse trailer with 2 big Harleys and he says it has lots of power and told me he gets 16 on the hiway with just the truck alone.
 
MPG is around 11 on it, if it is the same basic thing as the 2015 Dually heavy 4x4 unit.

I just ran the numbers. The Ford fleet rep was in and trying to win back one of my customers who had largely dropped Ford.

Maintenance costs to run a E350 Ford in 2014-2016 were approaching double that of a GM one ton, using 250,000 miles as the recycle point.

Way back when, GM tried to make an engine that improved on what the "Small Block Chevy" did so well. They hit a home run with the "LS" and have, other than minor mods, stuck with what worked so well for many years.
Ford went in a bunch of different directions, offering varied engine configurations with overhead cams and a boatload of built-in problems.
(Information younger than 2016 not counted. Not enough 2017-2019's have reached high mileage yet to know for sure.)


If you want to believe in a company like a religious cult, buy a Ford truck.
If you go on the info of quarter million mile operating costs, go GM truck.
Preferably one without the new injection system. (Because there is no proof of it being reliable for 200,000+ miles yet. Could be great, could be terrible.)

PS Ford V10's have never been even close to "almost matching diesel motors" in reliability. This is pure baloney. They are actually known as being very troublesome.
 
ckelly78z said:
The older Ford V-10s were known for good power and reliability (almost matching diesel motors), but really bad MPG, not really sure how the new ones perform. I'm sure new technology has improved their efficiency.

I meant to put the "(almost matching diesel motors)" after the good power, not necessarily the reliabilty part of the equation. I have had the 7.3L diesel, and currently own a 6.0L diesel, and love them both with very little problems.

I do know about the earlier cam phaser issues, and the spark plug stripping problems on the Ford mod motors, so I would never say they have great reliabilty, but are still good motors.
 
"If you want to believe in a company like a religious cult, buy a Ford truck."   :D  JD, this made me laugh!  All hail the blue oval. Ohmmmmm!

I'm a dyed in the wool Chevy guy but I have a 1997 Ford 6.8l 2 valve class C.  Considering the displacement, the 6.8l engine is such total weak sauce for power.  I'm so not impressed...  It's terribly inefficient and really really sucks the fuel, 6-10 mpg depending on terrain and highway speed.  Going from 75mph to 65mph picks up 1 mpg, 65mph to 55mph another 1 mpg.  I did some modifications to the throttle body and intake that helped torque, but really didn't affect mileage.  I also have a 1999 F450 with the 7.3l diesel and a gear-vendor and can I easily knock down 16-18mpg unloaded.  It has tons of power and gets the same mpg at highway speed, likely because of the lower aero profile.  Wishing I could have that drive train under the class C.

I'm totally with JD on the LS engines being far superior for both power and mpg.  JD's got the data, and I have 100% faith in data (All hail the data!  Ohmmm!  Lol! ;) )  That said, would I be dissuaded from getting another 6.8 v10...?  Maybe - maybe not, it depends on the value of what comes with it.  When I got my used class C, I knew the trade off would be crap mpg, but the rig was a way better value than a later model Chevy (4X cost for queen bed model Chev at the time) or a diesel model at astronomical cost (essentially a unicorn since Ford Chev didn't make many diesel RV's).  Would I like to get better gas mileage...?  Sure, but for what I paid for my rig, I can suffer a huge loss of mpg, and still come out ahead money wise.  I couldn't stomach paying so much more for something that essentially sits in my driveway for 8-10 months.  As for reliable, I have a fair amount of confidence in my 6.8l.  Of course, I'm rather anal about preventive maintenance, inspections, and fluid services.  I got my rig at near 50k and so far put 23k relatively uneventful miles on it driving across the country coast to coast.  Failures on the road were a radiator fan clutch (able to limp home), cracked/leaking rubber hose on fuel filler tube that would leak only when fueling, and very recently an A/C compressor at 70k, and a heater core at 72k.
 
There are a bunch of people who got deals on old low miles class C's because of the V10 debacle.
Do the math right and it might work out for you.
But make damned sure you have that wallet flush with cash when the known gremlins show themselves.
(Like when you fire it up and it goes *tick tick tick* LOL) ;)

I sure would never pay new money for any Ford truck right now. Under the hood, they look too much like the terrible ones that I have seen the info on...and that info is not good at all.
(Of course, I would not buy a Tundra either.)
(Or a Fiat Ducato, in any one of its fuel sipping junk, tin can Italian-break-down configurations.)
Oh, did I just get sarcastic?
Sorry about that.




The new 7.3 Ford revolutionary engine for 2020. It's all the rage.
Delivers big power and is state of the art...oh wait, no it isn't. It's an old pushrod engine, now isn't it? Well blow me down.
Hmmm, imagine that? After 20 years of force feeding the US with OHC troublesome crap, they finally may have gone back to the drawing board for something that might actually run a while without thousands in repairs??? What a concept! Bravo Ford for your better idea! Only...psst, that new special motor SURELY does look an awful lot like a *cough cough* 2002 era-GM "LS" motor, now don't it??
Damn, that sarcasm's back!  (The Ford rep didn't like it, either. I popped his bubble when I told him they finally smartened up and copied the LS engine for 2020 Fords.) DOH!
 
"The Ford rep didn't like it, either."  

Would have loved to see the look on his face right about then... :cool:   Wish I could drop an LS into my rig, but Taxifornia would never allow it. Ooh! Was that sarcasm? Must be contagious... Lol!
 
I should never post while feeling rowdy.


There are a couple of clarifications that need to be added here.
In trying to reduce post length, I left out an important little chunk of info.
It needs mentioning.
2014-2016 operating cost per mile.
Buy a new Ford gas powered truck.
Run it, right next to the GM gas powered truck.
For the first 125-150,000 miles, costs are pretty close.
Run the report on 0-250,000 and the operating cost is not double.
It's that last 100,000 where the big differences come in.
Costs are still higher on the Ford early on, but not double...till 150,000-250,000 miles. THEN it is close to double.
This is where the truck is paying you back for that brand new huge investment you made and took care of.
For a leasing company, this is the "sweet spot" where the unit is all paid for/depreciated (which I STILL do not exactly understand) but still making the business the same monthly income.




For those of you who have no clue what a OHC system looks like, have a peek at this video to understand.

Note, this is a "Coyote" from a Mustang, but the basic design of the overhead cams is the same.
Check those black plastic/fiber chain runners.
4:45 is a good point to start watching it.
Check 6:00 to watch how the tensioners hold the chains tight. See what happens when he takes it off and the oil leaks out? That's because the oil pressure used to lubricate your engine is pressing out on that device. When you shut the engine, that tensioner "holds" the pressure for the next start up.
When it fails...well, you see how far down that thing has to be pulled apart to cure the issue. Sadly, under normal use, when they fail, the engine is rarely deemed to be in good enough shape to keep using and is replaced two thirds of the time.
(My own direct data on my customers.)

OHC engines are wonderful things on a race track turning 9,000+ RPM, or a peaky high revving 4 cylinder/6 cylinder.
In a truck that uses a much lower RPM range and has very different power band needs, it has been little more than a troublesome gimmick.

You may want to view this video to understand why a pushrod engine is thought to be a much more reliable scenario for a truck.


BTW, I AM hopeful of the new engine. (Zero sarcasm)
If it does what it should, with the torque curves I saw and the torture test info/life-cycle simulations...it should be an awesome gasoline motor for a ton of RV's. (Regardless of it looking like an LS or not. That has nothing to do with how good or bad it will end up being.)

It may well become the equalizer.


I have suggested grabbing a GM truck now, to avoid the new fuel injection configuration.
Were I dead-set on a Ford, I would certainly break my normal, "wait till they all get 200K on them and then lets see which one to buy" mantra...and go for the new pushrod engine. Even if there is an Achilles heel in the new engine, it will not likely be worse than that V10. (At least from the 150,000-250,000 range.)
 
"It's that last 100,000 where the big differences come in.  Costs are still higher on the Ford early on ...till 150,000-250,000 miles. THEN it is close to double..."   "...This is where the truck is paying you back for that brand new huge investment you made....this is the "sweet spot" where the unit is all paid for/depreciated"

Good to know!  So, maybe I'm good for another 50-75k... and then flip it.
 
Doubleone said:
Good to know!  So, maybe I'm good for another 50-75k... and then flip it.

Or wait till it pops and dig deep for a wrecked Cummins/Allison and be done with it. :) :) :)

Your era chassis rides pretty damned nice.
Brakes aren't bad, smoooth and pretty plush.
That would make a sweet setup with a B series in it.
(Requires a slight doghouse extension.)
 
I believe the F550s came with 5.13 axle gearing, which is good for pulling heavy loads but not so good for fuel mileage. I have an 04 4x4, manual trans, 6.8l v10 with 4.30 gears and get 12 mpg unloaded. Bill C
 
I have a 1998 E350 with over 230k miles.  Must have got one of the good V-10's . Has never left me anywhere and only repairs have been  1 coil .  I wont part with it.   Power seems fine to me. Pulls whatever is behind it. Gas mileage is not the best but for what it does I love it.
 
I never understood the need to add 2 more cylinders to a V-8. is it better? if it is why stop there what about a V-12 or 14........

if you ask me your just adding more parts to fail.

highdesertranger
 
IGBT said:
But then why anything over a V6?

Good question.


If you have ever put your hand on a running Cummins 4B, it might make the point better than anything.
At idle, you can actually feel the BANG BANG BANG of each piston.
You ever ride a Harley then an inline 4 cylinder metric bike?
On a Harley, if you pay close attention, you realize those pop pop pop pop's are each a piston firing.
Roll throttle on up a hill at very low RPM and you can actually feel it bang-bang-banging you up the hill.
Spread those same pulses out over 4 instead of 2 and the engine becomes "smoother."
(As in, you would NEVER feel each piston firing in a 4 cylinder metric bike...let alone a flat 6 in a Goldwing.)
Also, the more you increase the HP each piston is making, the more force a crank has to deal with. (To a point.)
In low RPM truck stuff, you make the crank rhino-strong and let it eat.
In days of old, huge stationary and boat engines were often two or three cylinder giants, weighing in at incredible tonnage.
Like this one:

The engine in the video makes very low power for the weight and size. Long long life, but heavy/big engine.
"Cuff cuff cuff" from the pipe...each one represents huge charges of air/fuel mixture being ignited.
In a truck this would not work. The crank and mains would have to weigh more than is possible.
GM used to have huge V6 engines in mid sized trucks. They even had a "twin six" with two of them in a row. They found larger inline 6's to workout better. In the US, inline 6's run nearly all the OTR tractor trailers you see on the road.
Europe and Aussies use a lot more V8 stuff in those same classes of truck.

There are trade offs and lots of other variables involved, (how the engine dumps heat is a big one) but in the power range needed for a one ton truck or smaller, to retain car-like driving characteristics...the V8 is a good compromise.
(But if we had been so inclined and made room lengthwise, a straight 8 might be our standard instead of the V8.)
Australia gets HUGE power from the "Barra" engine, which is a damned well made Ford inline six.
(As in, pretty much as good for them as the LS GM is for us in the USA.)

Need more power/higher revs and trying to keep the motor lightweight and smooth?
More pistons, in most cases, will do it better if you require a broad power curve and a huge RPM range...sort of.

It gets WAY deep and would require a TON more time to fully go into all the parameters involved. Tried to provide some examples people could identify with and understand.

PS, how many of you reading this do not know what "V8, V6, straight6 or inline6" really means??

^^^^This will explain it...with one small thing to mention; the "block flex" the video author mentions is at EXTREME power levels. As in, a stock factory built engine does not have this issue. Bolt 28PSI of force feed (as in a turbo or blower) and it can eat itself quicker than a V engine.

FWD and lighter lighter lighter is the current mantra in the auto world. Shorter motors. Less metal in each one, too.
Few inline 6's will be seen as time goes on :(
 
"But then why buy anything over a V6?"
"Or wait till it pops and dig deep for a wrecked Cummins/Allison and be done with it. Smile Smile Smile"

I have a V6 in a 2008 Toyota 4Runner that pulls harder than most V8's.  I'd put that in my 14,500# class C any day.

Only wish I could put a Cummins/Allison in my rig, but Taxifornia would have kittens!  That would be the bomb diggity...  Maybe with out of state registration...??   Whooops!  There's that sarcasm coming out again...     :shy:
 
Doubleone said:
Only wish I could put a Cummins/Allison in my rig, but Taxifornia would have kittens!  That would be the bomb diggity...  Maybe with out of state registration...??   Whooops!  There's that sarcasm coming out again...     :shy:

I thought Cummins went through all that and actually got them to allow it.
(The premise was, the worn gas engine polluted more on average than the replacement diesel. It took a long time.)

Aren't 97 and older diesel units under a different situation than the rest in California?
I would check on this for sure if you haven't in the last five years or so.

On the taxifornia...what about "Regifornia?"
What they get for a plate, especially a commercial plate, is INSANE. SMH
 
I've had a bunch of different Ford engines and have the V10 now.    It's a beast.
 
Top