Is there a 7.3 vs V10 Direct Comparison
Thread Starter
|
Tuned
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 323
Likes: 32
Is there a 7.3 vs V10 Direct Comparison
Has anyone seen a head to head comparison yet? I'd love to see if spending the money on a truck with the new motor is worth it. I loved my old V10 and still look for a similar truck with one, just wondering how they real world compare with power and mileage.
Obviously lots of differences in a 2010 and a 2020 but would still be interesting.
Obviously lots of differences in a 2010 and a 2020 but would still be interesting.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 942
Likes: 149
I've owned 2 V-10 CCSB one was 2wd and 4wd, both had 4.30 gears and 4100R 4 speed. Both trucks towed well can't say anything bad except the 4wd was lifted and had bigger tires so it drank fuel.
My 2020 7.3 CCSB, 4.30 and 35" tires tows more weight better than either of my V10s. Mileage is better towing my weight.
If your towed load is less than10k the V10s do a great job and might save you thousands.
My 2020 7.3 CCSB, 4.30 and 35" tires tows more weight better than either of my V10s. Mileage is better towing my weight.
If your towed load is less than10k the V10s do a great job and might save you thousands.
Thread Starter
|
Tuned
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 323
Likes: 32
I've owned 2 V-10 CCSB one was 2wd and 4wd, both had 4.30 gears and 4100R 4 speed. Both trucks towed well can't say anything bad except the 4wd was lifted and had bigger tires so it drank fuel.
My 2020 7.3 CCSB, 4.30 and 35" tires tows more weight better than either of my V10s. Mileage is better towing my weight.
If your towed load is less than10k the V10s do a great job and might save you thousands.
My 2020 7.3 CCSB, 4.30 and 35" tires tows more weight better than either of my V10s. Mileage is better towing my weight.
If your towed load is less than10k the V10s do a great job and might save you thousands.
I may pose this question to the TFL guys for a video idea.
Fleet Owner
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 26,007
Likes: 575
From: Brentwood,CA
Well having driven them both long term the 7.3 can flat out own the v10. There is very little comparison, plus your not stuck in such a old truck. Still have a 2010 3v v10 4.30 with a 100k and its regulated to farm duty it is no comparison for the 7.3 that replaced it.
Thread Starter
|
Tuned
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 323
Likes: 32
Well having driven them both long term the 7.3 can flat out own the v10. There is very little comparison, plus your not stuck in such a old truck. Still have a 2010 3v v10 4.30 with a 100k and its regulated to farm duty it is no comparison for the 7.3 that replaced it.
Tuned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 280
Likes: 15
From: Vancouver, Wa USA
Well having driven them both long term the 7.3 can flat out own the v10. There is very little comparison, plus your not stuck in such a old truck. Still have a 2010 3v v10 4.30 with a 100k and its regulated to farm duty it is no comparison for the 7.3 that replaced it.
320hp/430lb ft of torque VS. 430HP and 475lb ft of torque. NO comparison. On paper or the real world seat of your pants.
PLUS, that new 10 speed is light years ahead of the old 4R100. The new tranny is a game changer and is why my new 7.3 gets better mileage than my v 10 did.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
I look back at the V10 and think that if it wasn't so constrained by the "modular" thing, it could have been a lot different. 10 cylinders will always get you better torque than 8. Or 6. Or 4. 12 is even better 
- and I mean that in terms of usable torque. Each piston firing is a pulse of torque. The more pulses per revolution, the better. Oh, wait, a family member has a V16 Cadillac engine in his garage...
A different stroke vs bore, may have made a big difference.
The idea of a V10 is not a bad thing... imagine a 7.3 with an extra pair :-inoocent
But I bet without all the rotating and inertial weight of two cams,various timing components, a balancing shaft, a longer and necessarily heavier crankshaft, the 7.3 would outshine it. We have yet to see longevity reports ...
But I already did a "build and price" and found ones around me. Too bad I'm only 1.5 years into a 3 year lease on my Taurus
- and I mean that in terms of usable torque. Each piston firing is a pulse of torque. The more pulses per revolution, the better. Oh, wait, a family member has a V16 Cadillac engine in his garage...A different stroke vs bore, may have made a big difference.
The idea of a V10 is not a bad thing... imagine a 7.3 with an extra pair :-inoocent
But I bet without all the rotating and inertial weight of two cams,various timing components, a balancing shaft, a longer and necessarily heavier crankshaft, the 7.3 would outshine it. We have yet to see longevity reports ...
But I already did a "build and price" and found ones around me. Too bad I'm only 1.5 years into a 3 year lease on my Taurus
Trending Topics
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
I look back at the V10 and think that if it wasn't so constrained by the "modular" thing, it could have been a lot different. 10 cylinders will always get you better torque than 8. Or 6. Or 4. 12 is even better - and I mean that in terms of usable torque. Each piston firing is a pulse of torque. The more pulses per revolution, the better. Oh, wait, a family member has a V16 Cadillac engine in his garage...
A different stroke vs bore, may have made a big difference.
The idea of a V10 is not a bad thing... imagine a 7.3 with an extra pair :-inoocent
But I bet without all the rotating and inertial weight of two cams,various timing components, a balancing shaft, a longer and necessarily heavier crankshaft, the 7.3 would outshine it. We have yet to see longevity reports ...
But I already did a "build and price" and found ones around me. Too bad I'm only 1.5 years into a 3 year lease on my Taurus
- and I mean that in terms of usable torque. Each piston firing is a pulse of torque. The more pulses per revolution, the better. Oh, wait, a family member has a V16 Cadillac engine in his garage...A different stroke vs bore, may have made a big difference.
The idea of a V10 is not a bad thing... imagine a 7.3 with an extra pair :-inoocent
But I bet without all the rotating and inertial weight of two cams,various timing components, a balancing shaft, a longer and necessarily heavier crankshaft, the 7.3 would outshine it. We have yet to see longevity reports ...
But I already did a "build and price" and found ones around me. Too bad I'm only 1.5 years into a 3 year lease on my Taurus
I just don't see it, Art.
Torque seems to be much more closely related to displacement than it does cylinder count. Comparing completely different different engines, the 3.4 L V8 used in the Taurus SHO made 230 ft.-lb. of torque. The 3.2 L Pentastar V-6 in the grand Cherokee makes 239 ft.-lb. Otherwise the engines are spec'd similarly, four valves per cylinder with multiport injection. Likewise the little 2.5 L Duratec V6 used in the old Ford Contour SVT had nearly identical torque to the relatively Stone-Age 2.4 L 4-cylinder in the same vintage Stratus. None of these are trucks, but offer good examples of differing cylinder counts with similar displacements.
A more subjective thing affected by cylinder count is sound… I still miss that guttural snarl from the V-10 in my old Excursion.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
On edit: you got me thinking about the only other V10 offered in recent history. The Dodge 8.0 L V10 made 450 lb-ft of torque. The GM 8.1 L V8 made 455 lb-ft. That extra pair of cylinders didn’t help much back then, either.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
The Dodge V10 was an odd-fire engine, as in it was a 90 degree block, without a split-pin crank like the Ford.
Again, even comparing the Dodge V10 to the GM V8 is apples and oranges
I will admit this however. I went and looked at the specs for the 5.4L 2-valve, and the V10 2-valve, and the peak torque is slightly LESS than 1.25X. However, my opinion still holds. More pulses per crank revolution equals more torque.
Again, even comparing the Dodge V10 to the GM V8 is apples and oranges
I will admit this however. I went and looked at the specs for the 5.4L 2-valve, and the V10 2-valve, and the peak torque is slightly LESS than 1.25X. However, my opinion still holds. More pulses per crank revolution equals more torque.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Threads like this suck. I miss my V-10.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
I really should let this lie, but I was thinking about the other V-8/V-10 example using the same architecture. The 8.0 L V-10 used in the Ram heavy duty trucks from the early to thousands was nearly identical to the 5.9 L V-8, but with two more cylinders. Just like the 6.8 L V-10 we are discussing. Go to the end
So…
335÷5.9 = 56.78
450÷8.0 = 56.25
Just like the Ford example, the Dodge V-10 makes virtually identical peak torque per unit of displacement. I've always understood the advantage of higher cylinder count to be lighter rotating components which enables a higher redline. Similar torque at higher rpm means more horsepower. That doesn't apply to either low-revving truck engine, so I think both V-10s exist because they are an inexpensive way to add displacement without designing a brand-new engine.
So…
335÷5.9 = 56.78
450÷8.0 = 56.25
Just like the Ford example, the Dodge V-10 makes virtually identical peak torque per unit of displacement. I've always understood the advantage of higher cylinder count to be lighter rotating components which enables a higher redline. Similar torque at higher rpm means more horsepower. That doesn't apply to either low-revving truck engine, so I think both V-10s exist because they are an inexpensive way to add displacement without designing a brand-new engine.