I'm just wondering if anyone here knows whether or not Ford has done any work or has explored the possibility of incorporating cylinder deactivation into the V-10.

By the way, I fully agree that anyone who drives a vehicle with a large engine - either gas or diesel - and doesn't expect to get less than stellar mileage is being unreasonable. However, I also don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to/trying to increase a vehicle's mileage if there so exists a way.

 

Haven't heard anything from Ford on that angle but there have been a few people here (like yourself) bring up the idea.

Personally, the technology isn't as great as some would have you believe. Our GM has it and it's in V4 mode so little that it can't possibly provide more than 1MPG- and I really doubt it's that much. Given the cost of the technology to implement deactivation, it just doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

I had the glorious opportunity to be a GM tech when the Cadillac V8-6-4 engines were starting to show their age.
Needless to say I am forever biased against cylinder deactivation.
That and 4 cyl Fiero's....

 

Interesting...please expand a little bit on what you saw

 

In my opinion:

because the V8 and the V10 get almost the same mileage, cylinder deactivation on the V10 will be a waste.

If 8 cylinders doesn't get better mileage, why would 5 cylinders firing and 5 cylinder dragging get any better?

The benefits are probably SO small as not to notice.

 

Where do I begin.
ECU failures.
Solenoid failures ( A pair of these above each cylinder and they live inside the valve covers).
Exteme wear in deactivated cylinders (due to the always malfunctioning TB injection pooling fuel at the closed intake valve of a deactivated cylinder).
We used to convert these cars to run without the deactivation as the solenoids would sometimes stick halfway open and closed in cold weather.
Now I am sure that modern technology has taken care of all these problems but for the 1 or 2 years they made this motor I am sure the failure rate of these early examples was at least 90% where I worked.
I would like to see a nice running example again though!

 

I had a Cad Seville once - 8-6-4 cylinder FUBAR. Weak as a kitten. Before I talked the wife into selling it, I had deactivated the deactivation.

 

hehehehe FUBAR

 

I Have Often Thought About Trying To Build One Of Those Motors With The Right Type Of Deactivation That Is Actually Required But I Am Not A Smart Enough Man To Do So. What I Beilive Needs To Happen Is Have A Motor In A Configuartion That As Power Is Deemed Required By Symtrifical Force Then Each Cylinder Responds, Hench In Idle Mode You Would Be Running On Only 1 Cylinder And As You Stepped On The Pedal More Would Go. I Would Think That Might Make More Sense As Like Krewat Said All You Are Doing Is Dragging The Other Dead Still Creating Friction Cylinders Along For The Ride When The Shut Down.

 

The cad system was done by Eaton, and rejected by Ford. Cad picked it up and it was a toad.

The new stuff is all electronic. I drove a couple of Honda's with it the other day...you can't tell when it's on 3 vs. 6. Except on one model, a light came on to tell you.

As for a diff in mileage, not sure what the claim is, but it has to vary widely depending on how and where you are driving. I think you could keep it from activating at all with a heavy foot. (except on coast)

Like most of the other stuff, this will get cheaper as time goes by, and I see gas is over $3 again for the good stuff, so look for more mileage gimmicks, good and bad, to come.

 

I think on the 16 cyl. locomotive engines (newer, but not new, electronically controlled models) the engine idles on less than a full complement of cylinders. It may be done for environmental reasons, fuel economy reasons, or harmonic vibration reasons. The newest have automatic engine start and stop functions, but the ones before that might idle for hours on end. I'm not sure how they accomplish it, just know the engine changes its sound and vibration pattern on some sort of patterned rhythm.


Once the hardware and electronics are perfected for "camshaft-less" engines, seems an engine could be programmed to run on any number of cylinders at any time for any duration with minimal "dead cylinder" drag. The reliability should be right up there with EFI systems as the same type computers and programs would be used.

I do recall read about a Volvo "big-truck" engine having been developed to run cam-less about 8 years ago, haven't heard much since. Think of the power savings, not having to turn all that valve train hardware.

 

Cylinder deactivation will never work with a manual valve train. The pumping losses will negate any gains from not firing a cylinder. An engine with solenoid actuated valves my get some benefit. Then the dead cylinder could open the exhaust valve on the compression stroke.

 

We already have "camshaft-less engines".......2 strokes!

 

We already have "camshaft-less engines".......2 strokes!

LOL! Someone sould make a v10 2stroke. It would sound like a amplified swarm of bees. However, i read int he manual that if the engine senses a overheating condition, that it will deactivate every other cylinder and open the valves so that they become like mini air coolers for the engine.

 

Our V10's deativate something but its not the valves.
No solenoids to keep valves open here.
However I do like the idea of a V10 2 stroker!