Hello,

I'm wondering, does anyone know why Ford does not make the Triton V10 flex fuel compatible?

Also, does anyone know if there is an aftermarket flex fuel conversion kit available anywhere for the V10 engine?

Regards,
Nelson_2011

 

They most likely did not want to put in the R&D and add the extra parts costs for an engine that had the smallest amount of sales in trucks. The flex fuel engines have quite a few sensors though out the vehicle and the appropriate tuning to adapt to the changes in ethanol content.

You could most likely just get a custom tune to run E85 in your V10, however there are variations in E85 which can throw a wrench into things. THe tune would have to be changed when switching to or from E85 and E10. Then there is the increased degradation of parts due to the higher ethanol content. The V10 has always been more suited to run LPG or CNG as there are plenty of those conversions on the road, in gensets and etc.

 

I'm considering buying a class C RV (and I would like to have the ability to burn E85) and the Ford E-450 chassis with V10 engine seems to be the most popular combination found in these motorhomes.

It seems odd to me that the 5.4L V8 - which is actually the standard engine for both the E-350 and E-450 chassis - is flex fuel capable, but the optional V10 engine isn't.

Moreover, I can't even find anyone selling an aftermarket conversion kit for the V10 engine.

I suppose I have to just forget about it or get something built on a Chevy 4500 chassis.

 

Why would you even want to screw with E85? Costs more, less energy per tankful, more fillups, shorter range, etc...

 

It's not that I actually want to burn it, but I want the option to be able to burn it...say in an emergency. For example, if our Masters were to start WW3, and the price of gasoline goes through the roof, and/or it becomes scarce, a flex fuel vehicle could at least burn E85, or in a real bind, maybe denatured ethanol from the hardware store, or even from a homemade still or whatever.

I would rather have the option and never need it than to be totally dependent on only one fuel - gasoline - for which there essentially is no substitute.

 

The 5.4l was put into a LOT more vehicles than the 6.8l. The competition for Flex Fuel was primarily in the 1/2 ton pickup, suv (1/2 ton) market and lighter vehicles. All vehicles which the 6.8l was not an option in but the 5.4l was an option in several. E series is going bye bye so you better make up your mind.

There is usually sufficient frame rail length on an RV that you can get a good sized CNG or LPG tank mounted. Both better options than E85 IMO. E85 does poorly in a vehicle that is stored/not used for fairly long periods of time. Like what an RV would often see during the off season. It is hard on the engine, fuel system and etc. The only positive to E85 that I see is the octane rating. One station within 40 miles of me sells E85 and it is only about $.14 gal cheaper than E10.

 

I really don't understand Ford's "reasoning". Is it really such a big deal (for Ford or any other manufacturer for that matter) to make any particular engine flex fuel capable? Especially in this case since most of the work is already done; IOW they'd just be migrating an already proven design from one engine to another (having only to deal with two more cylinders).

That may be true, but the question is (in my mind) why not have all options available? As I understand it, the 5.4L V8 can run straight gasoline, or E85, or it can be converted to run on CNG or LPG. So why not also with the V10?

I may be wrong, but as I understand it, E85 storage isn't any more problematic than straight gasoline storage - as long as it's not stored in such a way that it would be continually exposed to moisture in the atmosphere.

 

Lol

On a more serious note: I know that alcohol in fuels make a big difference regarding how the fuel system is built: o rings, gaskets, fuel pressure regulator diaphragm, and probably the entire EVAP system.

With that said: it seems easy enough for Ford to adapt it to the 6.8 when they already commonly use it for the 5.4...

Also I'm pretty sure the other folks are correct about ethanol fuel's "shelf life."

 

Not to go off topic, and I almost hate to say it, but it really looks to me like "Obama" and his handlers are trying to start a war with Russia. There's just no other reasonable way to interpret what I'm seeing.

Yes, but those modifications would apparently already be done in most (if not all) cases; especially in a vehicle where the flex fuel V8 is standard and the V10 is an option.

This is the essence of my question. With most preparations already done, why not go all the way? What am I missing here that makes Ford's position seem so illogical?

I have to disagree here. As far as I'm able to find out, if stored in a proper "container" (i.e., not in contact with chemically incompatible materials and not open to moisture in the atmosphere), E85 may actually have a longer "shelf life" than straight gasoline.

 

It isn't compatible and never will be since the V10 has been discontinued on all but the larger commercial trucks.

The horse is dead, quit beating on it.

 

I knew that. What I was trying to find out is: Why not?

It can be if someone makes an aftermarket conversion kit. And that was my second question.

I'm not beating on anything. I'm just asking what I thought was a reasonable question and participating in a subsequent discussion, that's all.

 

It still costs money for the R&D. The OEMs have a lot of hoops to jump through with emissions and other standards. You don't just throw something together and call it good. Then there is parts costs and etc. Plus the V10 already sucks gas and going to E85 will reduce the range per tank considerably. Then there is the fact that the E85 infrastructure and customers whom use it just are not there.

I don't think the Super Duty ever saw a Flex Fuel 5.4l. Again the system costs money. The CNG and LPG conversions are aftermarket, not factory. The 6.2l does offer a CNG compatible option but it does not consist of much.

It goes bad faster, eats parts faster, (can actually corrode/pit aluminum, degrade seals and etc) plus will hold considerable amounts of moisture. E10 is bad enough in those regards, E85 is even worse. You used to be able to store gasoline a lot longer years ago than you can now with E10.

I always looked at the whole ethanol deal as a farce. Using food to make an inferior subsidized fuel. Well actually something just right for the US government to get behind.

 

simple fact if you were able to run e85 in a v10 instead of 9-10 mpg's you would get 6-8 mpgs and less power, get a 5 star tuner and find some non ethanol fuel, I set my tuner to 91 performance and filled up with some real gas with no ethanol and power was killer and mileage overall was better than I ever got 14.7 mpgs on my usual trip I get 12 mpgs on. With ethanol fuel I get 12-13 at best on that tune.

 

I think you're drastically overstating it. Flex fuel technology is mature. You basically adjust the air/fuel ratio and the timing. And they've already got it implemented on the very similar 5.4L V8. What makes you think it would take substantial R&D basically to accommodate two more cylinders?

The flex-fuel-compatible fuel system components and materials are already there. The flex-fuel sensor would presumably already be there too, since the flex-fuel V8 is the standard engine in the E-350 and E-450 chassis. What else do you expect to need (other than software changes) that you would incur a significant increase in parts costs?

It would be the proportionally the same as for any other flex fuel engine, no?

There are supposedly only 7 gas stations in PA selling E85. Yet when I walk around various car dealerships in my area (and none of these stations are in this immediate area) I see lots of new flex fuel vehicles for sale. How come?

The CNG and LPG conversions are aftermarket, yes, but the engines require a factory "prep package" that supposedly includes special valves and valve seats (and maybe some other things) because of the higher temperature and lower lubricity of gaseous fuels (according to Ford). And that prep would be expected to cost some extra money, no?

To the extent that there are such documented problems in flex-fuel-capable designated vehicles, they would be expected to be similar regardless of the particular engine involved, so it's a moot point. At issue is: Why make the V8s flex fuel compatible but not the V10?

You're arguing against E85 in general. And I'm asking the same thing as before: Why E85 for the V8 but not the V10?

 

If you're getting less horsepower running E85 (than you would with straight gasoline), then something is wrong with the tuning.