What the He**, v-10 and economy doesn't equate, that is like saying I pay cheap taxes, or loving your EX, Does this mean that if the opposite of pro is con, that the opposite of progress is congress. Like if you have to ask, you can't afford it. Like if you can't run with the Big Dogs, stay on the porch.
The V-10 was designed to do a job, the job requires a certain amount of fuel and air to complete the job. Bottm line, pay for the fuel, and enjoy the fact that no one has figured out a way to charge you for the air or how to place a tax upon it.
If in fact there is a way to convert to a cylinder cut out, don't forget to weigh the cost to do so against the cost of current operation......where is the break even point?
If you need a bright side to look at............well at least you don't own a new 6.4 Powerstroke diesel. The V-10 is pretty much a bullet proof, hard working OEM set-up that will deliver the goods if it is maintained in a resonable manner. It asks for nothing more than a few oil changes, a clean air filter once in a while and a little more gas than a 4.6 or 5.4 V-8.
__________________
2006 F-250 Reg Cab XL V-10 6-Speed Gas Beast
2003 F-450 Crew Cab 4x4 Lariat 6.0 Diesel auto
2005 F-450 Jayco Class C 31' V-10 Motorhome
2003 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauier 4x4 5.4 V-8
2006 Ford F-150 Crew Cab XLT 4.6 V-8
1977 F-600 Cab-Chassis V-8 4-speed 2-speed rear end
2006 Lincoln LS V-8
What the He**, v-10 and economy doesn't equate, that is like saying I pay cheap taxes, or loving your EX, Does this mean that if the opposite of pro is con, that the opposite of progress is congress. Like if you have to ask, you can't afford it. Like if you can't run with the Big Dogs, stay on the porch.
The V-10 was designed to do a job, the job requires a certain amount of fuel and air to complete the job. Bottm line, pay for the fuel, and enjoy the fact that no one has figured out a way to charge you for the air or how to place a tax upon it.
If in fact there is a way to convert to a cylinder cut out, don't forget to weigh the cost to do so against the cost of current operation......where is the break even point?
If you need a bright side to look at............well at least you don't own a new 6.4 Powerstroke diesel. The V-10 is pretty much a bullet proof, hard working OEM set-up that will deliver the goods if it is maintained in a resonable manner. It asks for nothing more than a few oil changes, a clean air filter once in a while and a little more gas than a 4.6 or 5.4 V-8.
Well said
__________________
99 F-250 Lariat V10
***Looking for a black grill 05-07 some nicks and scratchs exceptable***
05 upper bumper valence
Tow mirrors
05 Head lights
Ebay Headers
SCT LiveWire from 5 star tunning
Dual 16" coolling fans
Top end rebuild
ARP head studs
Enough of this crap. You just can't get very good mileage with a 7500 lb truck and the 6.8 liter engine it takes to get the job done. It can't be done with today's technology.
If that changes, I will be the first in line. But I am not going to bitch about the best powertrain on the planet that I have right now. And I don't even tow that much.
If gas is an issue, sell the truck and get something else.
__________________
2007 F250 CC 4wd v10 4:30 5 sp auto with moonroof
2002 Mountaineer 4.0 5 sp auto
1996 Explorer Sport 4wd 4.0 auto
1999 Ranger 3.0 2wd 4 sp auto (wrecked)
1993 Mustang 5.0 supercharged (sold)
1999 F250 V10 Superduty (sold)
We've had this discussion before, and it "can't be done" for several reasons. Note that the 5.4 Triton has solenoid activated valves, but the 6.8 doesn't. I.e., you can turn off the fuel to the cylinder and not give it spark, but you can't keep it from expending work to compress the air in the unused cylinders. Now in the 5.4 you could open the valves electrically to prevent compression from occuring, but not in the V10.
Additionally, quite a few months ago there was an article which was an interview with some Ford VP of development or whatever, and he was going to implement variable valves in the V10, and predicted only about a 10% improvement to the mileage. Then it all just sort of died, presumably because 10% just isn't worth the effort.
Third (and you'd have to search for this) a fellow posted both before and after, that he actually altered his V10 to operate in "limp home" mode as a trial, and he reported back the expected results, that his mpg deteriorated.
Now if anyone has a different idea, by all means let us know, but to date the best concept is the eggshell concept....
__________________
2005 F350 V10 6spd dually, 15K receiver. No 4WD, no LS, no A/C, no special cab - just a lean mean towing machine!
blk94f150, do you even own a V10. Put a V10 in a mustang and you'll have your 16city 20highway.
Nope, but that doesn't mean I haven't driven any. I also don't own anything diesel powered, but have probably driven more than most.
In any case, I just threw out some numbers. The point I'm getting at, is if there is any way to get more fuel economy, then why not. I'm not satisfied with just saying oh well, that's just what it gets.
Fuel economy can be improved, but not with conventional methods.
We've had this discussion before, and it "can't be done" for several reasons. Note that the 5.4 Triton has solenoid activated valves, but the 6.8 doesn't. I.e., you can turn off the fuel to the cylinder and not give it spark, but you can't keep it from expending work to compress the air in the unused cylinders. Now in the 5.4 you could open the valves electrically to prevent compression from occuring, but not in the V10.
The 5.4 has variable valve timing, not solenoid actuated valves. If it did have electrically actuated valves like that, you can bet ford would make it have a multi displacement system, and it would be putting out more then 300HP.
Also, you would want the valves to stay closed while in 4 cylinder mode, leaving the valves open would introduce pumping losses, and let exhaust grasses travel through the manifold, into the cylinder and into the intake and vice versa.
The dodge hemi uses special valve lifters on 4 of the cylinders that are essentially "latched" together. A valve open and causes excess oil pressure to flow to the lifters, cause them to un latch. The bottom part still rides up and down on the cam, but the upper part stays still. Chrysler programmed the computer to time the closing of the valves in a such a way that when the piston is in the middle of the cylinder, the pressure is 0, when the piston is at top dead center, there is compression pushing the piston back down, and when the cylinder is at the bottom, there is vacuum, trying to pull the piston back up. That was done to minimize parasitic loss.
I'd imagine GM's system uses a similar approach.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
Thanks for the correction regarding the 5.4 valves. I had always assumed the variable timing was achieved electrically. Bottom line though it doesn't look like there's any easy variable displacement solution for existing V10's?
__________________
2005 F350 V10 6spd dually, 15K receiver. No 4WD, no LS, no A/C, no special cab - just a lean mean towing machine!
Thanks for the correction regarding the 5.4 valves. I had always assumed the variable timing was achieved electrically. Bottom line though it doesn't look like there's any easy variable displacement solution for existing V10's?
Nope, not until ford puts in some kind of system that allows the valves to stay closed.
Variable valve timing usually works on an electric actuator. The cam drive is a special system, which the cam shaft is not actually part of the gear. My best guess is that there is some kind of coupling between the gear and the camshaft, the the actuator resides in there. It simple moves the cam back and forth to adjust timing
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
Many folks often say that V10 and fuel milleage shouldnt be in the same sentance. I am not really debating that. But you guys do realize that little V6 rangers are getting like 14mpg right? Is that really that far off from the v10, I mean you do see the occasional SD getting that much... So just how much more truck are you getting for a little less milleage? Heck thats not a bad deal especially with $5000+ rebates lol!
Many folks often say that V10 and fuel milleage shouldnt be in the same sentance. I am not really debating that. But you guys do realize that little V6 rangers are getting like 14mpg right? Is that really that far off from the v10, I mean you do see the occasional SD getting that much... So just how much more truck are you getting for a little less milleage? Heck thats not a bad deal especially with $5000+ rebates lol!
My dads little V6 ranger got about 16-17 city, and close/slightly over 20 highway.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
I've had a number of Rangers, automatic, manuals, 4 cly, both 6 cyl and the only time I saw 16 MPG was with the 4 cyl manual back in the early 1990s. Give the room of my superduty and the abilities the V-10 offer, I happily give up the few MPG the ranger offered over my current V-10 F-250.
__________________
2006 F-250 Reg Cab XL V-10 6-Speed Gas Beast
2003 F-450 Crew Cab 4x4 Lariat 6.0 Diesel auto
2005 F-450 Jayco Class C 31' V-10 Motorhome
2003 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauier 4x4 5.4 V-8
2006 Ford F-150 Crew Cab XLT 4.6 V-8
1977 F-600 Cab-Chassis V-8 4-speed 2-speed rear end
2006 Lincoln LS V-8
On fueleconomy.gov the '08 ranger 4x4 4.0L auto is rated 14/17 (5spd is 15/19). A 150 4x4 5.4L auto is 13/17 (4.6L is same). Wish they had the SD ratings there but they dont.
I've been doing a lot of reading and researching since my '99 150 is getting some miles to her name, wanting to get either a new 150 or 250. I dont really need the SD, but just like the larger cab especially with all the guys during hunting season(Scab). The SD is also the only way I can get all the options I want, 6 speed manual, manual lock outs, solid axles, its worth it just for those options alone, I hate all the auto crap wich I would be forced to get with a newer 150. I think it would also be a better candidate for the drive till it dies, like 20 years, rather than a 150. Will be moving into a new house next month, and just under a 40 mile trip (one way) to work, pretty much all highway, so I am considering mpg, and right even considering a chevy because of it.
So now is the question, how worse is the SD really on highway milleage? Many have said on the highway not hauling anything and taking it easy it can get over 15-17 (well at least with a 5.4L). So probably 1-2 less than a 150. or are the folks that claim 15 or more on the highway unloaded just full of crap? IDK, still undecided and I think I'll miss out on ordering a new 08 since I'm buying a house. Just bothers me when folks always say dont worry about mpg, is a Super Duty after all. But unless your actually just using it for work/hauling, its really not that much different than a 150 it seems, heck in the winter my lil 4.2L gets down in the 12's. Its not like it gets less than half the milleage or something crazy. A 2mpg difference is about $10 a week for me, but if thats the difference between getting what a I want, and something that might be more reliable over the long run and give me more years or service, then its worth it to me.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
