They did cut the output, I have no idea why some folks think it is just being rated at a different RPM. If the engine really did still produce higher torque and horsepower a little higher in the RPM scale, wouldn't you advertise that?

 

The 6.2L was rated lower in cab/chassis applications due to this very concept early on. I remember discussing this with chief engineer Mike Harrison in the Q&A thread in 2010...

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...ml#post8815728

 

So are you agreeing that the "new" V10 actually makes less power or that it still makes exactly the same power as before, but the advertised rating is lower for some reason?

It's not unusual for commercial versions of an engine to physically make less power, e.g. the 6.7L C/C version, the 6.2L Super Duty engine vs Raptor / F-150 engine, etc.

I would be quite surprised if the latest V10 made exactly the same output as before, but Ford chose to advertise a lower-than-maximum number. Why would you? Max numbers sell.

 

No, I think the power numbers are lower. Just like David pointed out, the math doesn't add up. But I can understand why people think otherwise, as shown in the link I posted Ford has advertised less than peak numbers before.

 

Gotcha, thanks.

 

Low oil pressure is reportedly very much due to two bit filters .... as a rebuilder of v10 engine there are a few weak design spots that are critical to oil pressure... the filter, the tensioner gaskets, and the cooler... mine blew at 192000 and final damage was loss of lubrication to the valve on the passenger side head ... which cause a dismantling of parts and head and cylinder wall damage ... during rebuild I noticed the filter was some cheap white box filter and I believe the previous driver was lacking in general maintenance skills... I bored my engine to .030 over and ceramic and lubricants coated all obvious friction points and high heat generated areas.. if your using a good machine shop I highly recommend the new coatings for all high wear areas in the engine ... the extra cost was only $300 extra... I also recommend only using motorcraft filters as this is a reported and known problem with the V10... the tensioner gasket are kind of a no brains option ... if you have it apart anyway your foolish to use the old tensioners and completely replace them !!!! And of course replace the oil pump !!!! Proper tension to the timing chain will also insure quick oil delivery, therefore you don't want slow or sludgy chain tension... all in all 2006 v10 was not a highly difficult engine to rebuild although is extremely heavy and bulky so a heavy duty engine stand is highly recommend...

I don't claim to be an expert but have had much automotive training.. and engine rebuilding experience.. so all comments to this reply from those of you who believe your the automotive god are wasting your time and the post was only written to possibly help someone who is not of the group of idiots on this site that think they are here to impress me...

 

Before someone else calls you on this, explain how timing chains have anything to do with oil supply.

Comments like this are uncalled for.

 

Apparently you're not aware that the timing chain tensioner it requires proper oil pressure to maintain tension to the timing chain therefore if you neglect the timing chain system tensioners you will not get proper oil circulation and comments that I make are highly typical of of the people I have encountered on this site but instead of trying to understand the comments or repair their vehicle are more interested in proving somebody wrong I suggest you go read the Ford shop manual on reassembly of the V 10 engine and the timing chain system

 

I am well aware of how timing chain tensioners work, having worked with them back in the 80's on OHC engines.

Your statement of keeping the chains tight to aid in oil supply is misleading.

 

Ford recently downgraded the allowable frontal area of some of the E-Series cutaways also. This is from memory, and I do not recall if the downgrade applies to both E-350 and E-450, or just E-350, or even if a distinction was made. However, it is interesting all the same, because now that the E-450 with the V10 is fitted with the 6R140 transmission instead of the former 5R110 transmission, one would think that the newer, higher input torque rated tranny with an extra gear would allow for an INCREASE in allowable frontal area, rather than a decrease. The total number of V10s produced also must be allocated to the E-Series cutaways in addition to the F650/750 and F450/550. Those really interested in sleuthing the V10 HP ratings might also be interested in comparing the E-Series cutaway specs for any ratings changes.


I'm more interested in hearing back from the OP, to learn if he received some help or guidance from Ford.


Last week I attended a CARB conference and sat with the fleet manager of a well known west coast utility responsible for purchasing and maintaining 10,000 vehicles, many of which are V10 bucket trucks, like the OP reported having. I asked him if he had similar issues. He didn't recall any, and he is a Ford fleet, through and through. He actually said that. This utility company supplies natural gas, in addition to electricity, so I asked him about his acquisition rate of the CNG versions of the V10 in class 4 and 5 vehicles. He revealed that even though his company can pump it's own fuel (CNG), he more often than not goes with diesel. Not because diesel has any intrinsic performance advantage... but because his fleet is also an emergency fleet for other utilities throughout the US. He must be able to airlift any number of vehicles to remote areas to restore power in emergencies, and has to have those vehicles be able to be refueled anywhere.

It is safer to refuel firefighting brush trucks with diesel than gasoline, so I brought this point up in our conversation, since 4x4 bucket trucks are often reaching high tension wires off road. However, that type of refueling didn't factor that highly in his decisions, because generally speaking the trucks are filled up on road before venturing off road.

The most critical change in his operations, in terms of bucket trucks, was the addition of electric operated battery powered bucket lifts. These units drastically cut down idle time operation of the PTO. He said it was a big investment, but the payoff has been huge, and he has the numbers to prove it. The batteries get recharged as the truck travels from site to site, and if the bucket has to operate longer than the batteries can support, then the motive engine can then turned on and idled up to complete the job. Some battery operated booms have a separate engine for battery charging.

I thought the OP might be interested in hearing some of this banter, as it concerns his failure rate of V10s which idle a lot.

 

In the 1980's ?????? My point has been made need I say more?????

 

Nice attitude.

 

Same principal, actually. Almost the exact same tensioner in use on the engines I worked on.

 

Thread cleaned up. Name calling and insults will not be tolerated.

Please keep it to a friendly discussion.

 

What does when you have or what you have done in the 1980's have any thing to do with the subject of this post ???? Again why do you people always try and prove your competence??? The tensioner has a seal and passage for oil pressure and is known to fail !!! Whether you seen one in the 1980's, 1920's or whenever is irrelevant nor answered anyone's question!!!