I'm starting to look for a truck. I'm trying to make up my mind between a Ford V10 and a Dodge V10. Anybody have any info on the Dodge? I'd like to fine where to compare the two. I'm leaning toward the Ford.

Thanks for any help!

 

Edmunds (www.edmunds.com) is pretty good for comparing vehicles.

 

Obviously the Ford you are looking at is either a 3/4 ton or a 1 ton. Same with the Dodge if you are looking at V-10's. The 2003 Dodge trucks look almost exactly like the 2002 1/2 ton so you can at least visualize what they'll look like when they hit the dealers showrooms. The Dodge V-10 has been around awhile, and has been pretty well sorted out. It's older style technology with it's overhead valve, iron block, iron head design, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it, it's a decent design. I just prefer modern technology I guess. I like the 'small block' Ford V-10. I like it's mileage, it's power band (which is very wide and goes on and on) and I love the sound. It's quite different than the Dodge even though they both have 10 pistons. The Ford engine has to weigh less and is quite a bit more compact while making more horsepower. At 488 cubic inches that Dodge V-10 has the potential for HUGE horsepower, but doesn't for some reason. I am an RV'er, and rarely see pull rigs with the Dodge V-10. I see mostly the Cummins diesels in Dodge pick-ups. Most class C motorhomes nowadays have the 6.8 liter Ford V-10 in them. And finally, in closing, I am a HUGE Ford fan, always have been, always will be. So I would never consider anything but the Ford.

 

It's my understanding that the Dodge uses a fair amount of more gasoline.

 

The signature of a guy that posts on the RV.NET site:

"The only trouble with my Cummins is that it comes in a Dodge" or such.

I am also a former Dodge owner. w

 

The ONLY better thing about Dodge's V10 is it has more torque, 15 lb-ft more to be exact. But if you compare Dodge's V10, Ford's V10, and I'll throw in Chevy's 8.1L V8, the Ford is the highest performance motor. I say this because the Ford has the highest torque and horsepower per liter.

Chevy 8.1: 340 HP, 455 lb-ft
Ford 6.8: 310 HP, 425 lb-ft
Dodge 8.0: 305 HP, 440 lb-ft

Chevy: 41.9 Hp/Liter, 56.2 lb-ft/Liter
Dodge: 38.1 Hp/Liter, 55.0 lb-ft/Liter
FORD : 45.6 HP/LITER, 62.5 LB-FT/LITER

So the Ford is only 15 lb-ft behind the Dodge, and if you really care about making up that small difference, all you need is a K&N FIPK and a Flowmaster exhaust, and that would MORE than make up the differnce. But personally, I don't care, its still a lot of power! And ofcourse, the Ford gets better gas mileage- 9.7 mpg compared to Dodge's 9.1 I've taken all of these comparison figures from the September/October 2001 edition of Truck Trend, where they compared Ford, Chevy, and Dodge 1 ton duallies.

 

The V10 comes in the Ford, and the Ford class C chassis is rated something like 1800 lbs more and max or 2 feet longer than the Chevy, so there are a lot more Fords sold. Dodge does not make a suitable Class C chassis currently.

I'd consider the Ford 6.8l V-10, the Dodge V-10 and the GM 8.1l V8. I think the 8 is actually the most fuel efficient, even though it is also the largest displacement (502 CI or somesuch). But the 8.1 is the merging of 5 big blocks into a single new engine, and may end up having the cam sensor problems the late model 454s had. No word this has happened but too early to tell, maybe.

The Ford is probably the highest tech of the bunch, with things like coil on plug ignition. It's funny - in the motor home world the Ford is renown for the worst gas mileage. In the PU truck market it seems to be the best. May be those 4.60 gears we get - not exactly mileage makers there, but nice to get you moving from a stand still.

Do not know much about the Dodge, other than they are bringing the tuned up version from the Viper back into one of their trucks, which should give it bragging rights as having the most HP by a good margin. It is the oldest design of the 3, but also possibly more debugged. I kind of dislike the sound of the Dodge engines, but to me only a V-8 makes real "engine" noises - I am old school on the sound of an engine.

-Jim
2001 E-450 Class C cutaway

 

I have owned both. I had a '95 Dodge Ram 2500HD V10/5sp regular cab long bed that I ordered new from the factory. I recently traded it in for my new '02 F250 Crewcab shortbed, V10/6sp which I also ordered new from the factory. This is about as close to apples to apples as you can get. Verdict? The Dodge V10 was decidedly more powerful than the Ford V10. Sorry if you didn't want to hear that. The Dodge had 3.73's and the Ford has 4.30's, and even still, the Dodge would out pull the Ford and day, any place. from a stop or high speed passing. Nothing would pass the Dodge going up the highest passes we have here in Colorado, Ford trucks (and most sportscars!) included. I've been getting 14.5-15.0 mpg in the Ford, which is 1-2 mpg better than the Dodge. Someone else quoted some peak numbers, but it is the 'area under the curve', not the peak number that makes a difference. The Dodge V10's power band was simply broader and deeper and it pulled much stronger and revved much more easily than the Ford V10. Others may be able to offer opinions based on what others say, but I have owned and driven both. The Ford V10 is a wonderful engine, but the Dodge V10 is simply a stronger engine. Overall, I do like my Ford better than the Dodge, but I would rather have those 8.0 liters than the 6.8 liters as far as just the engine goes.

 

>And of course, the Ford gets
>better gas mileage- 9.7 mpg compared to Dodge's 9.1 I've
>taken all of these comparison figures from the
>September/October 2001 edition of Truck Trend, where they
>compared Ford, Chevy, and Dodge 1 ton duallies.

What was the driving course they used to get those mileage numbers from? City? Highway? Empty trucks?

 

>but I would rather have those 8.0 liters than the 6.8 liters as far as just the engine goes.


Once again, there is NO replacement for displacment!!

 

>I say this because the Ford has the highest torque and horsepower per liter.


Does that really drive an arguement? I have in my garage a '98 Kawasaki ZX-7R. Certainly not cutting edge but it's 749cc engine will generate 120 (modified) HP.

That is 160HP!! per Liter.

I still don't want one in my truck.

____________

I know...I know... this "arguement" doesn't count. I just thought I'd throw it out.

 

>I have owned both. I had a '95 Dodge Ram 2500HD V10/5sp
>regular cab long bed that I ordered new from the factory. I
>recently traded it in for my new '02 F250 Crewcab shortbed,
>V10/6sp which I also ordered new from the factory. This is
>about as close to apples to apples as you can get. Verdict?
> The Dodge V10 was decidedly more powerful than the Ford
>V10. Sorry if you didn't want to hear that. The Dodge had
>3.73's and the Ford has 4.30's, and even still, the Dodge
>would out pull the Ford and day, any place. from a stop or
>high speed passing. Nothing would pass the Dodge going up
>the highest passes we have here in Colorado, Ford trucks
>(and most sportscars!) included. I've been getting
>14.5-15.0 mpg in the Ford, which is 1-2 mpg better than the
>Dodge. Someone else quoted some peak numbers, but it is the
>'area under the curve', not the peak number that makes a
>difference. The Dodge V10's power band was simply broader
>and deeper and it pulled much stronger and revved much more
>easily than the Ford V10. Others may be able to offer
>opinions based on what others say, but I have owned and
>driven both. The Ford V10 is a wonderful engine, but the
>Dodge V10 is simply a stronger engine. Overall, I do like
>my Ford better than the Dodge, but I would rather have those
>8.0 liters than the 6.8 liters as far as just the engine
>goes.


While your personal experience is more real world than a magazine article, a lot of what you say is exactly what some of the mags say BUT with the Ford having the better powerband and the torque curve better matched to the trans.


In the last test by TRUCK TRENDS the Ford beats the Dodge in most all performance tests and EVEN WHEN TOWING!!! They claim the dodge just flat runs outta breath.

The only guess I can make(especially with your excellent MPG) is you're short shifting the Ford. My auto V10 tachs to 5K before shifting when I'm on it.

 

>>I say this because the Ford has the highest torque and horsepower per liter.
>
>
>Does that really drive an arguement? I have in my garage a
>'98 Kawasaki ZX-7R. Certainly not cutting edge but it's
>749cc engine will generate 120 (modified) HP.
>
>That is 160HP!! per Liter.
>
>I still don't want one in my truck.
>
>____________
>
>I know...I know... this "arguement" doesn't count. I just
>thought I'd throw it out.



LMAO!!!!


I almost thought I was on one of the "furrin" car boards when I heard the old HP per liter argument!!!


Quote from wwwhonduhsrule.dumass.com:

I know that there camaro/stang kicked my civic's ****........but I gots more HP per liter than that murican crap. Just wait till i get my NAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWSSSSSSSSS, 2 bottles, the big ones!!!

 

Ivstang:
>
>While your personal experience is more real world than a
>magazine article, a lot of what you say is exactly what some
>of the mags say BUT with the Ford having the better
>powerband and the torque curve better matched to the trans.
>

I think that one of the more reliable aspects of my comparison between the Dodge and Ford V10's is that I had a manual transmission in each. The Dodge had a NV4500 5sp and the Ford a ZF 6sp. There are a *lot* more variables with modern automagic transmissions that you simply do not have with real transmissions. I was more closely comparing the two engines, not the engine/auto transmission combinations which would be affected by different torque converters, electronics, interactive engine/transmission controls, etc.

>
>In the last test by TRUCK TRENDS the Ford beats the Dodge in
>most all performance tests and EVEN WHEN TOWING!!! They
>claim the dodge just flat runs outta breath.

Not my experience with manual transmissions. And being in control of the transmission of engine power to the rear end without being over-ridden by the auto transmission controls is just one of the reasons why I prefer manuals.

>
>The only guess I can make(especially with your excellent
>MPG) is you're short shifting the Ford. My auto V10 tachs to
>5K before shifting when I'm on it.

No short shifting once past the proper engine breakin period. I drove both exactly the same and I had control over when they shift. Besides, we are talking about available maximum power, not everyday driving. When passing a car at 11,000' feet on a Colorado pass, I would be in the upper reaches of the powerband and have I bounced off the rev limiter on more than one occasion. Again, I would suspect a transmission related reason for what they observed. I suppose one other *possible* issue is that I had a '95 Dodge to compare with a '02 Ford and maybe the newer Dodge engine has lost some of its previous glory. A look at the total 'area' under the hp and torque curves usually explains the real story of an engine's capability.

 

>LMAO!!!!
>I almost thought I was on one of the "furrin" car boards
>when I heard the old HP per liter argument!!!
>Quote from wwwhonduhsrule.dumass.com:
>
>I know that there camaro/stang kicked my civic's
>****........but I gots more HP per liter than that murican
>crap. Just wait till i get my NAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWSSSSSSSSS,
>2 bottles, the big ones!!!


Now it me who is LMAO!!!

HP per liter...I've used the term before. It doesn't hold a whole lot of water but I understand the thinking behind it.

It still reminds me of the "Size doesn't matter" arguement. The only folks who use that arguement are the ones that weren't "well-equipped from the factory".