By on July 6, 2016

2012 Ford E-350 Van, Exterior, grille, Picture Courtesy of Alex L Dykes

It was heady days at Ford’s Windsor Engine Plant in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The facility cranked out Triton V8 engines and the mighty 6.8-liter V10 for an insatiable truck and SUV market (remember the Excursion?), but its future is now in jeopardy.

Aggressive fuel economy targets and the move towards EcoBoost power and fewer cylinders in Ford engine bays have workers and their labor leaders wondering how long they can continue building the factory’s chief powerplant — the Triton V10.

Unifor, which represents 6,400 Ford Motor Company of Canada workers, wants the automaker to invest in Windsor, but Ford doesn’t have an engine to offer, the Globe and Mail reports.

Contract negotiations between the union and Ford begin next month, and the onus is on Unifor to make further investment in the plant seem like a reasonable option for the automaker. Right now, the Triton V10 finds a home in the aging E-350 and E-450 cutaway cab and stripped chassis van variants, as well as the F-450, F-550, F-650 and F-750 medium-duty chassis cab trucks.

The 5.4-liter Triton V8, also built at the facility (but scheduled to die soon), was used solely in the E-Series, but isn’t listed in the 2017 engine lineup.

Unifor represents workers at all Detroit Three facilities north of the border, but finding new product for Ford’s Windsor engine plant — as well as GM’s endangered Oshawa assembly plant — will be a big challenge.

“Do I believe it’s going to be easy? The answer is no, but ultimately you’re dealing with a global corporation that thinks a long way ahead,” Unifor president Jerry Dias told the Globe and Mail. “So I would expect they’ve got a solution. If they don’t have one today, they’re certainly going to have one by the middle of September.”

As the Windsor engine plant languishes, Ford’s Oakville, Ontario assembly plant is thriving, thanks to a $700 million investment. The Essex Engine Plant, also in Windsor, closed in 2007, only to be reopened two years later with financial help from the federal government. That plant also produces a single engine — the 5.0-liter V8 found in the Ford Mustang and F-150.

The V10’s fate became more hazy after Ford announced it would offer the 6.2-liter V8 as an option in its E-Series starting in 2017. The 10-cylinder was dropped from lesser Super Duty trucks after 2010.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

160 Comments on “Union Boss Worried the Grim Reaper is Coming for Ford’s V10...”


  • avatar
    raph

    I wonder if the Essex plant features the niche line that does the 5.2 in the Shelby? Also really surprised the V10 is still in production since it’s based on the small bore MOD family and still uses the SOHC 3 valve head sans cam phasing.

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      That’s a great observation. I’m a big push rod fan, but I’m even more surprised Ford’s competitors still make them in 2016. The OHCs are so much competitive that the Engine Masters build competition first banned then when the won one, two, three; then only let them come back in a class by themselves.

  • avatar

    V10’s are unnecessary.

    Ford should build a Twin Turbo EGOboost V8.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      So a V8 that gets V10 fuel economy all while being far more complicated and less reliable?

    • 0 avatar
      smartascii

      As the owner of a 16-year-old Ford (now at 250k+ miles) with this engine, I can tell you why they’re necessary. It’s because they don’t ever break. Under very heavy load with incorrectly installed sparkplugs, they can occasionally blow said sparkplugs out of their sockets, but otherwise, they just run. When I bought it, I asked the Ford tech at the dealer about their reliability, and he said, “Well, I’ve never seen the inside of one of those V10s. Nothing major ever really goes wrong.” Modern diesels and twin-turbo GDI engines may be fine for the life of a particular truck if it’s used the way most individuals use it, but for actual heavy duty work, big block gas engines are better suited.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      The Ford V10 is produced to provide a gasoline alternative to a diesel engine’s towing ability and torque. And in that it succeeds wonderfully and at a lesser initial expense than the Powerstroke. Over time, fuel costs may be higher, but as always that is subject to the whims of the market.

      The Ecoboost engines are great performers, but they do not produce torque down low. The V10 does. Id love to see a modernized V10 in the F250 again. There is no better truck for towing heavy loads on gas.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        SSJeep – The EB 3.5 does produce a ton of torque down low and it does not rev higher than a V8. The EB 3.5 is more like a diesel with its torque curve. It performs better if you keep from revving it and try to pull a higher gear.
        “Old” turbo V6 engines may have been revvers but not the EB 3.5. I have not looked at a torque curve of the 2.7 EB so I can’t comment on it or the rest of the EB line.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Lou_BC
          I wonder if the US Ford people, looked at the Barra Turbo Falcon engine, as the inspiration for the Ecoboost? It’s Power and torque characteristics are very similar, it has been used in a CUV and Falcon Utes, with fuel economy, very similar again to the Ecoboost under load.
          Problem that sort of fuel economy, was not acceptable for buyers, that is why they put the 2.7 Lion engine in the Territory

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        SSJeep,
        You are quite correct. The EcoBoost engine lineup are not good with bottom end torque, especially for the type of application required to replace the Triton V10 or even a V8.

        I do read many comments regarding this myth, generally by Ford fans. The 3.5 does deliver a significant amount of torque, but this torque is very small. This is not good for any working vehicle.

        The other issue with the EcoBoost as a work engine is the amount of fuel requird to produce this torque, even at revs from 1500-2000. As with any gasoline engine to produce high levels of torque around this range requires lots of fuel in comparison to a diesel to produce similar levels of torque.

        The 3.2 Duratorque and most likely the 3 litre Lion produces more low down torque than a 3.5 EcoBoost.

        The only real alternative to a diesel for lower down torque in a commercial vehicle expected to work is a V8 of some sort at a minimum.

        I suppose this is why you don’t see massive gasoline engines in “real trucks”.

        You don’t see the 3.5 EcoBoost being used in current Ford HDs. There is a reason for this. The 3.5 EcoBoost are not the best V8 alternative due to the EcoBoost’s lust for fuel under moderate to high loads.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Big Al – have you driven an EB 3.5 powered F150 or even looked at a torque/HP graph?

          I’d say NO by reading your comments.

          It is a pervasive myth/urban legend that the EB 3.5 is a revver.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou_BC,
            Yes.

            Hence my comments on this site and the Ford site, PUTC. You know the one …… with Timmy Tundra Esterhal ;)

            One day you will realise that there are people who actually do many things. I do consider myself fortunate in this respect.

            My next vehicle will be to drive a 2016 GT Mustang and compare it against the many HSVs I’ve driven from the 308s to the 6.2s.

            As a matter of fact I took my friends HSV for a drive last night. I was only an R8 though.

            One friend of mine at work owns a 3500 Silverado, 2014. Nice to drive, but I prefer the PowerStroke SuperDuty I drove overall.

            Hey, I even driven a Ford Falcon inline turbo six!

            So, if you have any more questions or want to learn about pickups please don’t hesitate to ask.

            It appears, I might be “living” in the US next year. The vehicles I want to hire/rent will include a 2.7 EcoBoost!

            I’ll give you a long term view on it from an actual work perspective.

            So far when we work around the world and in particular the US your pickups are very nice indeed, but a massive overkill.

            So, when you are just sitting at home on the computer spewing your Wikipedia type knowledge remember, again, there a people like us who actually are having fun.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            BigAl – “but this torque is very small.”

            citations required.

            The EB 3.5 has a superior torque curve (read broader) than that of the Ecodiesel.

            “So far when we work around the world and in particular the US your pickups are very nice indeed, but a massive overkill.”

            Odd.

            You have mentioned many times the payload superiority of many global pickups.

            You are inconsistent.

            But hey, Jack Baruth did say, “Bored millennial troll creation” in relation to your posts.

            For an alleged engineer there is a paucity of evidence in your replies.

            On one hand a paucity of corroborating data but a plethora of condescension and ad hominem attacks.

            As they say, ““If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with masculine bovine excreta.”

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou_BC,
            How is the width of a torque band related to our discussion?

            A broader torque band only illustrates greater flexibility in an engine. This is ideally suited to light vehicles with fewer gears.

            Actually the broader the torque band the less the engine is favoured for work. This is due to efficiency gained by narrowing the band.

            This day and age with multi cams, electronic controls, etc you can have engines like the EcoBoost with a relatively decent amount of torque starting at 1500 to 1600 rpms. This is how and why they can deliver better FE when used with a light throttle position at highway speeds.

            But, whether a gasoline engine is NA or supercharged to increase torque at these rpms requires a significant amount more fuel. This is where diesel reigns. Not only does diesel have superior BTUs, diesel fuels flame front (combustion rate) is slower than gasoline’s explosive charge. This allows for effort to be applied for a greater length of time on the power stroke, using less fuel.

            This slower rate of burn on the power stroke also allows for the engine to run a lower rpms delivering torque compared to a gasoline engine.

            The downside to a diesel engine due to the length of time it takes to combust fuel is a lower revving engine delivering superior torque. This is why a gasoline engine has a broader power band. Power bands are also affected by the ratio of bore and stroke, with valve timing.

            A diesel’s torque band as in my Duratorq is narrow. This makes it an ideal work engine. The torque band in a working diesel tends to start a much lower rpms than a gasoline engine.

            Remember we are not talking torque bands, but when and how much torque is delivered at certain rpms.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “@Big Al – have you driven an EB 3.5 powered F150 or even looked at a torque/HP graph?

            I’d say NO by reading your comments.

            It is a pervasive myth/urban legend that the EB 3.5 is a revved.”
            ———————————————————————
            Lou your doing a hell of a job trying to educate but you know the old saying about leading a horse to water!…..LOL

            Give me a GMC with an ecoboost V6 under the hood, the new 10 speed tranny, an aluminum body, and I’d have the perfect (for me anyways) 1/2 ton truck.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          OK, let 30 seconds of Google-Fu help you out here:

          Ford 6.8 V10
          HP 362@ 4750 RPM
          Torque 457 lb-ft @ 3250 RPM

          Ford 3.5 EB
          HP 365@ 5000 RPM
          Torque 420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM

          And the lowly 2.7 EB
          HP 325@2750 RPM
          Torque 275 lb-ft @ 3000 RPM

          Now I cant post the curves here, but the 3.5 and the V10 are as similar as the specs suggest. Peak it is down 37 lb-ft to the triton BUT the peak is 750 RPM lower. Anyway, if I am pulling all of the time I’d probably go V10 since laden the fuel economy is going to be pretty close between them, but if you ever drive them without a bunch of weight behind them then the 3.5 could offer significant savings at the pump since one can coax decent mileage out of the ecoboost motors. I threw the 2.7 in for craps and giggles but clearly if you are doing V10 type work this motor wont be on your list.

          Anyway, your claim that the ecoboosts make torque down low is rubbish…the peak is LOWER than the V10 for crying out loud and both have a torque curve flatter than Kate Moss.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            make NO torque down low…Typo.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Big Al from ‘Murica,
            The Triton will have superior torque from off idle.

            The EcoBoost with it’s turbo will not have enough boost down low to produce a much usable torque a the Triton, or for that matter a Coyote.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Check out the torque curves…youd be surprised. The turbos are small and spool very quickly. Yes, like I said if I was working all the time id go with the V10 but you insinuated the ecoboosts were dogs down low and that is simply not true. They are not superior to the V10, but they arent uncompetetive either and actually tuning it for heavy duty applications versus the half ton and car work most do now would likely make an already small gap smaller.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BAFO – I’m referring to the torque curve. The EB 3.5 has a sharp rise in torque very early in the rpm band and has a very flat torque spread over a long i.e. wide part of the rpm range. That is what I’m referring to. In some respects it reminds me of the 5.4 but with way more torque.
            http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=255292
            https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f150forum.com%2Fattachments%2Ff118%2F351066d1415471180-2015-vs-2014-dyno-charts-14-f150-dyno.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f150forum.com%2Ff118%2F2015-vs-2014-dyno-charts-278557%2F&docid=oT9x5rEA_KycdM&tbnid=ZGQMBxmRlpDmYM%3A&w=640&h=446&bih=614&biw=1360&ved=0ahUKEwiowZ7prODNAhVX3WMKHXoHBIIQMwgjKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=446&imgdii=ZGQMBxmRlpDmYM%3A%3BZGQMBxmRlpDmYM%3A%3BAd8ylGg4M29pHM%3A&w=640
            “The EcoBoost with it’s turbo will not have enough boost down low to produce a much usable torque a the Triton, or for that matter a Coyote.”
            Ha ha ha ha ha,

            The EB 3.5 KILLS the 5.0 everywhere except for a tiny tiny part of the rpm band right off of idle.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            So the 3.5L GTDI V6 can burn fuel at similar rates to the V10, but with less reliability and higher cost. Where is the gain to fleet operators?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The same gains where less reliable turbo I4s burn the same or greater amount of fuel than an N/A V6; so none.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Carlson Fan – you can lead a horse to water…….
            that is multiplied by 1,000 with a jackazz.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            “So the 3.5L GTDI V6 can burn fuel at similar rates to the V10, but with less reliability and higher cost. Where is the gain to fleet operators?”

            The benefit would be the times when those trucks aren’t loaded to the hilt. The 3.5 CAN get mileage similar to the 6.8. when operated under similar loads. The 6.8 CANNOT get mileage similar to the 3.5 when both are operated not loaded down. There are circumstances where a case can be made for either motor. And I am not aware of significant reliability issues with either motor. Yes, there are anecdotal reports but if we are going there I can recall at least 2 V10 Excursions back in the day with very low mileage receiving new motors due to broken crankshafts…a procedure which I believe involved separating the body and the frame in order to get the thing out. The 6.8 is solid nowadays, but it isn’t indestructible on the level of a 300 straight 6 for example.

            It is a moot point anyway though. Should the 3.5 find its way into the sorts of vehicles the 6.8 currently resides in it is likely it will be a drastically different tune than the current versions due to the different requirements perhaps even with a different turbo set up.

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        If the v10 was that successful at being comparable to a diesel not only would it still be around but it would be flourishing with the current gas prices.

        It had decent power and horrible fuel mileage. If it could have done one or the other well it would be a survivor in the pick up segment. But being mediocre in power and literally sucking in the fuel mileage dept compared to diesel made it a no brainier for the masses.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          mason,
          FE targets for vehicle over 8 500lbs is changing.

          The V10 Triton just doesn’t cut the mustard.

          From the EPA site;

          “The Heavy-Duty National Program will reduce fuel use and GHG emissions from
          medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, from semi trucks to the largest pickup trucks and
          vans, as well as all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between.”

          https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf

          Have a read.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The masses think gas engines can’t tow worth a darn and I was one of them, only having diesels from day one. The only reason I bought the 4 year old V10 F-250 was they were giving it away with a blown trans, plus beat to hell, base XL.

          I was shocked it could really tow, but its thirst for gas took some getting used to. Not a problem though, it was a great engine with brutal power from a dig, loaded down.

          I’d still have it but I needed a 1 ton, pronto. So yeah I bought a new Power Stroke and it’s been a great engine too, over all, but I never considered the overall added costs, vs just lots and lots of gasoline.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          FE targets don’t have to change for the V10 to fail. When an engine obtains single digit mileage day in and day out it will fail all on its own.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            mason, I disagree. People who buy a V10 don’t care about FE.

            I owned a 1999 F250 V10 and it was a great truck. You could put it on cruise control and it would never downshift going uphill. Power up the ying-yang.

            The problems with the V10 that I owned were those experienced by many other Fords of that era.

            I sold it to a guy who had an indy auto repair shop, and he still drives it to this day.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            That’s a bit of a broad brush there. In general, yes, once you get above about 5 liters in displacement, you have to put MPG concerns on the back burner, but if you give anyone the chance to improve their MPG while maintaining power, they’re not gonna pass that chance up. So to say they all “don’t care” is a little disingenuous.

            You’re absolutely correct about the not-having-to-downshift. It was pleasantly surprising the first time it occurred.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Fuel savings don’t erase all the added costs of diesels. Forget the initial cost of the diesel “upgrade” that will take many years for *fuel saving* to give it back. But no one stops to add up all the not so little things that compile. Twice the batteries, twice the oil, twice the filters, twice the front tires, twice the etc, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – ROI is dependant upon application. There are cases where a diesel powered truck is superior and cases where a gasser is better.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “But no one stops to add up all the not so little things that compile. Twice the batteries, twice the oil, twice the filters, twice the front tires, twice the etc, etc.”

            I own two diesel trucks, a 98 and a 13. Oil gets changed in both @ 15k mile intervals. That is at a minimum double the interval of most gas engines which makes the cost of buying more oil a wash. The fuel filters on my 98 are changed based on restriction which average out at about 30k miles and costs me $35. I don’t have a fp gauge on the 13 so both filters get changed at the recommended interval of 30k miles. Those filters cost right around $40 give or take a few dollars. Batteries are expensive but I bought a set of Dekas from the local Cat dealership for my 98. They are approaching 10 years old and are showing no signs of wear.

            As for “twice the front tires” I’m a little confused by that statement. My trucks are SRW 3500 so tires can all be rotated. Even if your talking dually it’s irrelevant to diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Diesels are several hundred lbs heavier. Tires are just some of the things most owners fail to put into the equation. Along with reduced payload, towing, productivity. Gas engines can go 15K miles easily, between simple oil changes. 6 quarts. And no constant fuel additives. All that crap adds up.

            I get it. You made a decision and you don’t want to hear there was better one. It’s far cheaper, at this point to keep what you own. I’d definitely hold on to the ’98, but the ’13? It’s like owning a BMW long term.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Which gas engines in HD pickups go 15k mile intervals?
            The 6.4 Hemi is rated for 8k miles. 7.5 quarts of 0w40 comes out to roughly $55 give or take a few dollars. I can buy 3 gallons of 15w40 for less than $45.
            So $45 on 15k miles vs $110 in the Hemi to go the same distance. Hmmm, I could buy all my fuel filters and still come out ahead. Additives are completely unnecessary except the occasion where the temps drop down well below average.

            An extra 200-300 lbs per tire isn’t going to wear anything appreciably unless your front end is whacked or your running improper pressures. I know people with HD gassers and they don’t get any more mileage out of their tires than I do.

            I’m not really sure you get anything at all, other than it sounds like you have been burned by the Powerstrokes you’ve owned and somehow think that is relevant to every other diesel on the road.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Speaking from experience, the 6.8 is a superior puller than the 6.2, but the 6.2 is a much better engine for everyday use. I’m surprised Ford hasn’t considered twin-turboing the 5.0 for Super Duty use. Or maybe they have considered it and it actually doesn’t work.

    EDIT: Wow, BTSR and I agree!

    • 0 avatar
      AlfaRomasochist

      The Coyote (5.0) is a very wide engine and would never fit in the E-series van chassis. And that’s before you add the twin turbos.

      In fact, even though Ford changed the V10 from 2V to 3V heads in the F-series back in 2005-ish the E-series chassis still uses the 2V heads because the 3V engine is physically bigger and won’t fit.

      That’s why the modular V10 is a big deal in the fleet market. Ford wants to milk the E-series chassis for all it’s worth, and the only other engine that will fit is the underpowered 5.4. Fleet buyers hate changing something that works so they’ll keep buying the E-series as long as Ford keeps making it.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        it’s also why E-series didn’t have a diesel option after the 6.0 Powerstroke went away. and with its “hot vee” design, the 6.7 Powerstroke is an *enormous* engine. And that’s even before you pile all of the emissions junk on top of it.

    • 0 avatar
      mason

      I read where a twin turbo 5.0 will be an option in the Raptor in 2017 or 18 and depending on how that goes, I could see it possibly making its way into the F150.

      I really don’t see a small displacement twin turbo v8 making its way into a Superduty though. A larger displacement engine with a single turbo would be a better candidate and less likely to grenade under constant duty cycles. The other barrier is price. If the upsell to a diesel is only $3-4k vs the $7-8k it currently is, most will choose the diesel option anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “I read where a twin turbo 5.0 will be an option in the Raptor in 2017 or 18 ”

        I recommend not reading those sources anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        I have seen Triton Engines in some imported US Motorhomes, and locally modified versions. They switch to LPG to make the engines thirst more bearable.
        Also one in a F250, same LPG conversions

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Ford offers a gaseous fuel prep package for many of their gas engines and there are Ford authorized aftermarket pre-packaged kits for most applications. You may loose 20% of your mpg but with fuel that can cost half as much you still have a significant savings.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Drzhivago138 – the Ford 6.2 in many respects is more of a typical “sports” V8 where you need RPM to get work done. The only complaint I have ever heard about the 6.8 V10 is fuel consumption.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    semi-related: first job I had out of college, one of the consultants there bought a 4X4 Ford F250 with the V10 motor.

    So he could haul a 12′ fishing boat.

    It was his daily driver too. I never quite understood the reasoning behind that decision.

    My only experience with the Ford V10 is when I rented a Uhaul to do a move. Even with the large truck base, you could really feel the beastly torque of that engine.

    • 0 avatar
      427Cobra

      …doesn’t have to be reasonable. I have a 3.5 mile commute. I drive a 2000 Super Duty V10 4×4 Supercab. Why? Because I like driving a big truck… and my drive is short enough that I can drive anything I want, since fuel mileage isn’t a major concern.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      My experience with the V10 is also all in shuttle buses and cube trucks. I don’t think I’ve ever driven one in a standard van or pickup body.

      It’s torquey, doesn’t break, sounds like an old UPS truck, and gets about 5 mpg in those applications whether loaded or empty.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    The E-series is currently limited to E450+ heavy-duty chassis-cabs.

    As heavy-duty models are less affected by emissions and fuel economy requirements, I’m not sure how those factors would contribute to the engine’s demise.

    I do recall reading that U-Haul’s desire for not-a-diesel engines was a major factor in the continuation of both the V10 and the E450/550 cab-and-chassis.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      U-Haul probably has a ton invested in upfitter bodies (cargo boxes) for the E-Series, so it’ll take time for them to transition over to Transit chassis-cabs.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        All of the new U-Haul box trucks in my area seem to be based on the Express. The vans are a mix of the Express and the Transit. Got an Express on both of my last two rentals, much to my disappointment; I haven’t driven a current-generation Transit yet.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        I’ve never seen U-haul remove their box before surplussing them.

        Patient care boxes are the most common remounts. Their new cost usually far exceeds the price of the chassis.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Eggsalad . Wonder why the E450 is less affected by emissions and fuel economy legislation? Does that apply to HD Diesels in the US?
      Fuel Economy or the price of the fuel would make these engines prohibitive here, if using Petrol. LPG conversion yes

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The E-450 is a Class 4 truck, GVWR of 16000 lbs. (similar to the EU Class C1). Essentially an F-450 with a shorter hood. There used to also be an E-550, but nobody wanted it.

        Class 2b and 3 trucks (E/F-250 and E/F-350s), be they gas or diesel, have looser regs than Class 1 or 2a trucks, and Class 4/5 have looser regs yet, since they’re the smallest medium-duty trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          And over 8500 GVW means that they are CAFE exempt so the E-series fuel economy doesn’t matter to Ford. Actually Ford hasn’t worried about the E-series MPG since 2007 when they started sticking E150 badges on what had been the E250 with a minimum GVW of 8520 up from the 2006 E150’s 6700-7000 GVW.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @DrZhivago,
          ” Looser Regs” is a US thing. Pretty well standardised across the board here. They do not have less compliance on some on road vehicles.
          That is why I was puzzled, by the ” looser regs” term.
          Or as @Scoutdude put it.
          “And over 8500 GVW means that they are CAFE exempt so the E-series fuel economy “

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      No for 2017 the have an E350 DRW Cutaway in addition to the E450. So all they dropped from 2016 is the SRW Cutaway. They still offer the E350 DRW and E450 stripped chassis in addition to the F53 motorhome stripped chassis and F59 Walk-in truck stripped chassis.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    two problems with this whole thing:

    1) What does fuel economy targets have to do with this? the V-10 is only used in medium-duty (8600 lb GVWR and higher) trucks, which are exempt from fuel economy labeling.

    2) the V10 is apparently returning to the Super Duty in 2017: http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/2017/?fmccmp=lp-future-top-hp-2017-super-duty

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      I would expect that a lot of these vehicles are sold to buyers (businesses especially) that spreadsheet out total costs of ownership (TCO) over the expected ownership period. Fuel is a major expense.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Is there an LPG version of the 6.2? I know from anecdotal evidence that the LPG V10 is popular for airport shuttles.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          Utility companies tend to use them too; Consumers Energy (Michigan) uses the 6.8 CNG even in their F-750s. which is obvious for a natural gas utility to use. I’ve been driving alongside a few of those trucks and man, the gearing in them has the engines *screaming.*

          and yes, as far as I know the 6.2 also has CNG and propane prep options.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “I’ve been driving alongside a few of those trucks and man, the gearing in them has the engines *screaming.*”

            Hmmm, I suppose that says alot about your power comparison of CNG to diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            the fact that you even said that is evidence you haven’t the faintest clue.

            we’re talking about a NORMALLY ASPIRATED LIGHT DUTY spark ignition engine.

            go back to those comments I made and read them more carefully this time.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @mason: Also consider the rear end ratio. Our F-350 with the 6.8 gas isn’t really meant to go at interstate speeds with a 4.30 rear end. It’s most comfortable at 65.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Jimz, yes I missed your reference to the 6.8 above. My bad.

            As for your previous comments, all it will take for you to change your tune is to drive one.

            Assuming you’ve ever driven a large displacement diesel, which reading your comments I doubt you have.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            To get any ability to move forward, need to be geared down and the petrol engines would be close to grenading

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @heavy handle,
          As I posted ! the only way it would work here, is to go too LPG

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            That’s what the local UPS fleet is doing with their step vans, judging by the “clean propane” stickers. I don’t know what power trains they use under their custom bodies.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Fuel is not a major expense, when weighed against a $10,000 savings upfront. There’s diesel downtime, and once the warranty is up, you’ve got to ditch it like it’s a BMW.

        Diesels are getting to be delicate instruments, which is OK sometimes for the owner/operator that’ll apply diligent care. Salaried drivers will drive ’til it dies, flatfoot, wide open from every stop. Some don’t know any better, most don’t care.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ll just point out that over 200K miles, the difference between 12 MPG and 15 MPG is $8,300 with fuel at $2.50/gallon. That sounds like a number that would get a fleet owner’s attention.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            but if you put CNG into the equation, that’s a different story.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Fleet owner pour over *all* the expenses, so that ruins it for diesels. And that’s if there’s no unscheduled repairs. Just the “minor” repairs can be $2,000+.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Seems to be. US problem…”

            That’s exactly what VW said.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @VoGo – valid point and one reason indirectly why some fleets do not buy diesel pickups. I have not purchased a diesel pickup because of ROI. In 1990 I purchased an F250 with 5.0. At that time I calculated ROI to be around 225,000 km (140K miles). After 15 years I had hit 225,000 km.

            My brother goes through a HD pickup every 2-3 years. Mileage varies from 120,000 km to 240,000 km. Due to extreme use his company views residual value at zero. They never buy HD diesel pickups.

            A fleet running high miles over an easier duty cycle i.e. paved highways with a load would do better with a diesel.

            The University of Michigan did a study for Bosch and diesels did tend to have a better overall ROI.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Down time is the major expense in fleet operation. Gas engines beat modern diesels all day every day, 365/year with this.

            There are many Cummins Western Canada HD Ram trucks running around with 6.4L Hemi engines for this reason.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Fuel is just one of the expenses and a modern diesel eats heavily into those full savings. Plus in recent history average diesel price is higher than gas. In my area it has traditionally been 15%. So if that holds true over the long run then the difference between a 12 mpg gas and a 15 mpg diesel is reduced to $3333. Now that diesel will need DEF which can run around $1000 over those 200k miles. So now your savings is down to $2333. Both vehicles will need 20 oil changes over that time and that diesel can run you an extra $40 or more due to the higher volume and the more expensive filter. So no we are down to $1533. Other filters are more expensive and need to be changed more frequently. 30k is about the least frequent interval and $200 is the bottom end while that gasser needs a $100 on the high end every 100K. So now those savings are down to $533. But what about the air filter. The gasser may be $30 every 30k while that diesel needs a $100 filter every 15K. Now you are $567 in the hole to save that $3333 and that is before any repairs which on modern diesels can come more frequently and at a much higher cost than on a gasser.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          “Diesels are getting to be delicate instruments”

          I suppose much of this mentality is expected on a site that covers passenger diesel so much.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yeah diesels are high maintenance primadonnas. I’ve had every generation of light duty diesels since the early ’80s. The old stuff you could beat on, never maintain them, and they wouldn’t break, or not run, they didn’t know how to. I’d change the fuel filters when once they refused to accelerate. All the incentives/advantages to have diesels are gone now.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Sounds like the opinion of nearly every Powerstroke owner I’ve ever talked to.

            There were some tough years in the transition but virtually every manufacturer that has switched over to SCR has retained much if not all of the reliability back. The next generation Cummins will not even have EGR, which is quite impressive if you are familiar with the workings of diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Remember also that early pickup diesels were naturally aspirated and made somewhere around 150 HP with a top speed of 65, and one-ton trucks then had a GVWR around 10,000 lbs. Even the first Cummins-equipped Ram had 160 HP (albeit with 400 lb.-ft of torque).

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            All diesels are in a transitional stage to some degree. I’ll wait on the sidelines and see what develops down the road. I want to like diesels, but the gas alternatives are much better for now, especially on the over all *value* side of the equation.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Seems to be. US problem, not really relevant at all outside the US

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “All diesels are in a transitional stage to some degree. I’ll wait on the sidelines and see what develops down the road”

            Either you’ve been out of the loop too long, or a Powerstroke owner too long, or a combination of both. The transition has come and gone. Diesels are the best they have been in 10+ years. You talk like its 2007.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            DenverMike aka, SUN DIAL!
            I have coined a new term because of you. You must be joking with some of your comments, or are you seriously trolling?

            Well, you leave me in a position where you will be known as Sun Dial!

            You have the computing power and are as predictable as a sun dial.

            I’ll have to use this name at work for some of my guys. Thanks!

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            How do you mean that diesels are “transitioning”? Like Bruce Jenner?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Actually 2007 was a very good year for diesels. The Power Stoke and others were pre emission, except for an EGR and soot trap. ’05 to ’07, Power Strokes had most of their ’03 and ’04 big issues sorted out.

            My ’06 has been great. Maybe I’m lucky, but I treat it like the delicate instrument it is. I’m simply not trying to be the 1st knucklehead to the top of the grade. It likes 2,250 RPM so I keep there.

            I warm it up before I head out and let it cool down idle, following a long/hard pull. Along with religious/expensive service, OEM filters only, and always keeping an eye on the EGTs, they’re not the rock simple, unkillable diesels from yesteryear, back when it was truly worth it. Now it’s not.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “There were some tough years in the transition but virtually every manufacturer that has switched over to SCR has retained much if not all of the reliability back.”

            This comment demonstrates that you have little to no knowledge of modern fleet operation or OEM warranty information and that you should probably stop commenting on this.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “This comment demonstrates that you have little to no knowledge of modern fleet operation or OEM warranty information and that you should probably stop commenting on this.”

            It’s called real world experience. Sorry if that offends you.

            The company that delivers and maintains our cranes have a fleet of over 60 tractors in their division alone. (400+ tractors company wide). Every single tractor is SCR equipped and are high mileage rigs. Some upwards of half a million miles. They show up to the job site as scheduled, day in and day out. No drama, no break downs, no doom and gloom like everybody here insists on posting. In the last 5 years I can’t think of one single job that was delayed due to an emissions related issue.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Fleets don’t have a choice in the big rig class. You bite the bullet. Drivers don’t want rebuilt, older trucks anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            “Fleets don’t have a choice in the big rig class. You bite the bullet. Drivers don’t want rebuilt, older trucks anyway.”

            They don’t have a choice because there is no better option for the money. And your right, drivers/owners don’t want old trucks anymore. Not when the new rigs are making better power and returning 1.5+ mpg better to boot.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            There’s no better choice, but that’s big rigs. For Class 7 trucks and below, thankfully there’s great gas engine choices.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          DenverMike,
          Um ………………… why is it then tractors, heavy equipment and even military prefer diesels?

          Because they are delicate and unreliable??

          Wow! Logic or what, you never cease to amaze with your fantastic illogic!

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Wasn’t it just yesterday, BAFO, that you were saying how much you try to be objective and reasonable, not insulting?

            And then we have gems like this: “So, when you are just sitting at home on the computer spewing your Wikipedia type knowledge [sic] remember, again…”

            Aren’t Wikipedia and other encyclopedic sites the very definition of objective data?

            If you want people to stop “trolling” you, just be nice every once in a while (that means no backhanded insults, either). It costs nothing, and would make people take you a lot more seriously.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Drzhivago138,
            Lets’ be realistic here, come on!

            Have a read of this guys logic in forming how the world is.

            What is the intent of his comments. Is he for real or is he trolling, using a passive aggressive technique?

            Judging by the quality or his writing skills I’d suspect the guy is trolling. How else can you explain such bazaar comments?

            If he can form the comments he does, then he is does have the ability to realise what powers most equipment used in the World’s most hostile environments.

            That is what I’m targeting.

            I do realise TTAC has moderators, but if a guy produces comments as DenverMike has done, what else can you expect.

            As I stated Drzhivago138, be realistic. If you don’t like my comments then ask DenverMike to expand. Trust me on this you don’t want to do this, you will soon realise the amount of sh!t this guy can produce.

            It’s trolling technique he uses.

            So, I just submit a short and sweet comment directed at him.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BAFO – Drzhivago138 is a stand up guy. If he is calling you out then you should pay heed.

            ” you will soon realise the amount of sh!t this guy can produce.”

            Any mirrors in your castle?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yeah, what choices are there for heavy machinery/equipment? Silly question, even for you.

            They require explosive power, for not a lot of liters. Much of military and off highway diesels are pre emissions anyway.

            It does come down to *emissions* ruining it for diesel fanboys like me. In OZ, you’re barely *up to* Euro 5 diesel emissions in your pickups. That’s what we call “pre emissions”. Enjoy them while you can.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Drzhivago138,
            I really don’t care about your biased view on my commentary.

            It’s quite simple read back through the thread and you will see why I responded as I had.

            This isn’t rocket science. So whilst you call me BAFO, etc. I will match you in tone and manners, like I do to the others.

            Not hard is it?

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            You say you don’t care, but you’ve written two replies to my single comment, some 13.5 hours apart. Yes, I’m biased; everyone’s biased. That doesn’t automatically invalidate anything.

            I’ll just say this: If you fight fire with fire, you’ll just burn your house down. Yes, you’re free to be insulting to those who insult you, but it won’t change the popular opinion of you here. Ignore trolling and insults and call no attention to them.

            Most people call you “BAFO” not as an insult, but just to save time typing. Why is that so bad? People call me DrZ (yourself included) and I don’t really have a problem with that.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            “Um ………………… why is it then tractors, heavy equipment and even military prefer diesels?”

            With respect to the military it is simple logistics. Tanks, Helicopters, and pretty much anything that flies or floats all run on JP8. In war you have to move that fuel. If you have multiple fuels you have to move both of them. Our route clearance stuff ran on DF-2 which was just civillian diesel and it was a pain sometimes to get it fueled. MoGas was unobtainum at many FOBs.

            Survivability is also a factor. I had an EFP go through my DF-2 filled fuel tank on a Husky. It didn’t catch fire. Had that been Gas then I’d be dealing with a VA burn unit if I was lucky.

    • 0 avatar
      427Cobra

      AFAIK… the V10 will only be available in chassis cab configurations, therefore not an available option on the regular “bedded” trucks.

  • avatar
    NoID

    I didn’t even know they still made that dinosaur…

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I don’t think the Triton V10 is necessary, the Triton doesn’t have a future in this world. The HDs have the PowerStrokes which are far superior engines for work and more economical to run.

    The 3.5 EcoBoost was supposed to be a competitive engine against the 6 litre V8s. The reality is the SuperDuty’s could not use them as the FE was atrocious compared to the 6.2s.

    A twin turbo 5 litre Coyote would even be worse for FE. If anything why doesn’t Ford get the 3.2 Duratorq and add another cylinder to make an inline 6 as a cheaper entry diesel? This could be a diesel engine around the 4 litre mark. Using current Duratorq power figures the engine would be around 190kw-220kw (250-290hp) and 600Nm-650Nm (440ftlb-480ftlb) of torque. Good for most any truck. Even though this power is similar to the 3 litre Lion V6 diesel the Duratorq is very much a truck engine tune, not a high revving V6 car diesel.

    It is sad to see the jobs going, but I’d bet the workers at the plant would of known for a decade that big engines are on the way out. I wonder how many of the workers went out and did some additional schooling and learn new skills off their own backs?

    If the plant does close Ford should offer assistance for additional training and schooling.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “The 3.5 EcoBoost was supposed to be a competitive engine against the 6 litre V8s”

      Source? If anything, the 3.5 EB is a replacement for the 5.4 Triton, not the 6.8.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        he’s more or less right. the 4.6 V8 was replaced by the 3.7 V6, the 5.0 bumped the 5.4 off, and the 3.5 EB takes the place of the 6.2 as the F-150’s top engine. IMO the only reason the 2.7 EB hasn’t pushed the 5.0 out of the lineup is there are still a significant number of buyers who want a V8.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The 3.5 EB seems more like a counterpart to the 5.0 than a higher level engine, and the 2.7 EB a replacement for the 4.6 (with the 3.7 and 3.5 NA being replacements for the 4.2 Essex). But that’s just how I see it.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “I don’t think the Triton V10 is necessary, the Triton doesn’t have a future in this world. The HDs have the PowerStrokes which are far superior engines for work and more economical to run.”

      I’d be careful, here in the land of cheap fuel the economics don’t always work out in diesel’s favor, especially when the diesel adds over $8,000 to the price of the truck. And for businesses like gas utilities, the economics of a CNG spark ignition engine (on-site fueling, no mark-up) like the 6.8 can put diesel to shame.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        JimZ,
        One thing you are forgetting. It is the way in which there are different takes on how to manage emissions and FE, both are closely connected.

        FE is CO2 emissions.

        There are changes coming for FE goals on vehicles over 8 500lbs in the US. People are correct that CAFE is different for the lighter vehicles under 8 500lbs.

        The US regulators are adopting a more EU style of FE standards for vehicles over 8 500lbs. I suppose this is more efficient and better than the CAFE model. CAFE is a nightmare. Why not just be able to produce any vehicle with any engine you want. Then use fuel tax to manage the FE side of the equation. So, if it is profitable sell supercharged 6.2 V8 Silverados. If you can’t afford to kept the vehicle fueled, then buy something you can.

        The V10 Triton doesn’t fit into the picture due to it’s lust for CO2 emissions.

        I’m wondering how well the PowerStrokes, Cummins and Duramax will fare overall. This may be the reason for Nissans smaller ISV Cummins. Nissan might be looking a little down the track.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “One thing you are forgetting.”

          I’m not forgetting anything, you pompous a**.

          ” Why not just be able to produce any vehicle with any engine you want. Then use fuel tax to manage the FE side of the equation. ”

          Because over here “tax” is a dirty word. You’d realize that if you stopped for a second to understand the rest of the world is not Australia.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Sorry BAFO, there’s definite demand for a diesel alternative in HDs, no matter if it’s a Cummins. The uptake of 6.4 HEMIs in Ram 4500/5500 cab/chassis’ is increasing as backlash against diesels is gaining momentum. U-Haul isn’t the only one rejecting diesels.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        You buy a diesel for the pulling power, not to save money. If I had to pull my 25′ SeaRay boat out of Denver on I70 every weekend over Vail pass no way I would have bought it with a gas engine. But I don’t. No diesel would have covered the same 180K miles over 12 years as cheaply as my 6.0/11MPG gasser. Not even close!

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Carlson Fan Pretty well why diesels are bought here. Fuel Economy is an added benefit

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “You buy a diesel for the pulling power, not to save money.”

          nonsense. GTDI engines have just as much “pulling power” (assuming you mean torque) and way more actual power than diesels.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “nonsense. GTDI engines have just as much “pulling power” (assuming you mean torque) and way more actual power than diesels.”

            Give me an example of a HD truck with a GTDI engine. Like I said , you buy a diesel for the pulling power. Period!

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            here you go.

            http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2015/12/04/fca-invests-40-million-convert-truck-fleet-cng/76773604/

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            What angry birds fails to concede is the sole reason for switching to CNG. I’ll give you a clue, it’s not because of the inferior fuel range, power, or reliability that CNG has compared to diesel. CNG has been around for decades, the only reason it’s become popular is due to the abundance of fuel and subsequently lower prices.

            When, not if the prices align with diesel CNG won’t be nearly as popular.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Ford already have a 3.0L V6 turbodiesel (the same one JLR uses, I believe it’s a “Lion” engine). Why would they bother engineering an inline 6?

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @derekson,
        It is the PSA designed Ford developed and built Lion V6. It has been built for Ford and PSA use,

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        derekson,
        You are correct the Lion V6 already exists. There is also a V8 Lion diesel of 4.4 litres. The PowerStrokes in the HDs actually used the Lion architecture and enlarged it more or less for their development.

        The inline six diesel engine basically exists already in the 3.2 Duratorq.

        Also an inline is better for a truck than a Vee. This is why you don’t see any large trucks with Vee configured engines. Even the largest of prime movers, contruction equipment, farm equipment, etc all have in line sixes.

        An in line six is better at delivering torque and are a smoother engine.

        I do believe my in line five is smoother than the Lion V6. It is noisy due to it’s high pressure direct injection.

        But for an engine for work, I would have my Duratorq any day over a Lion.

        Mercedes Benz has a V6 diesel used for working vehicles. To make the engines reliable and deliver torque when and where needed the engines have been down rated from around 180kw to 140kw. Which is slightly less than my 147kw and 470Nm torque I’m getting from my 3.2.

        Diesels are similar to gasoline engines, they are tuned for work or for play.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Also an inline is better for a truck than a Vee. This is why you don’t see any large trucks with Vee configured engines. ”

          bulls**t. There have been plenty of vee engines in heavy trucks. The Caterpillar 3208, 3408, 3412. The Mack E9. The Detroit Diesel 6V53, 8V53, 6V71, 8V71, 12V71, 6V92, 8V92, and (rarely) the 12V92. The Cummins 903. Inlines took over because they’re powerful enough and are easier to do an in-frame overhaul.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        derekson – Ford has different diesels globally. They already have an I-4, I-5 and V6.

  • avatar
    yamahog

    GOOD RIDDENCE

    FORD was STUPID to make this flaccid, half mast engine. Too bad they didn’t go full hog and make a V12. same fuel consumption but it’d be way smoother.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    *Riddance, and what, in your opinion, made it worse than Dodge’s 8.0 Magnum V10 or GM’s Vortec 8100?

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      That old Dodge V10 sure is kinda unimpressive.

      8 liters and 300 hp? GM got 290 out of a (slightly) smaller engine with two less cylinders.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The 454 didn’t have 290 HP until 1996. On its debut (1994), the 8.0 Magnum V10 was the most powerful engine in any full-size pickup with 300 hp and 450 lb-ft. torque (compare the Ford 460 with 245/395 or the GM 454 with 230/385).

        But it was definitely overshadowed by the Cummins. I’ve seen maybe a dozen V10 Ram 2500/3500s. Apparently they made a few 2003 Ram V10s; I’ve never seen one.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          I bet even back in the day people knew you could mess with the fuel pump on the old 12-valve Cummins and get stupid amounts of power, that and the cachet of the Cummins name probably ensured only spendthrifts bought the V10.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            A very strange type of spendthrift, too, considering the single-digit MPG of the V10, as well as the fact that the base engine on 2500 and 3500 trucks was the 5.9 Magnum, which was actually usable for HD pickup applications (this was when Ford still offered the indestructible-but-gutless 300 Six as the base engine in F-250s and 350s).

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            I’ve only ever seen the Dodge V10 in duallies and chassis cab stuff when perusing classifieds, which I find unusual. I’ve found fair amounts of SRW trucks with 460s and 454s but very very few with the Dodge V10.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Every mention of the 300 brings back memories from high school. My high school had a 300-powered, three-speed E-350 Super Wagon for its outdoor programs. We loaded it up regularly with 14 kids and a teacher inside and 14 loaded frame packs in the full-length roof basket. Then we’d head over one of the passes to Eastern Washington. These are not hugely steep passes; your typical loaded semi can maintain 35 mph. That was more than this poor 300 van could do. It would be screaming up the hill in first gear for miles. But, of course, never a hiccup, because it was a 300.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        For 1994 it was pretty damn good. Consider that the Viper V10 of the same displacement only had 400 horsepower at the time.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      The entire Mod family were half-assed kludges as truck motors from day one and the V10 was the least elegant kludge of them all.

      Ford had planned that motor to fit in the Lincoln badged Taurus, which meant transverse, which meant very tight bore spacing. The production Mods had 90mm bores. Even sleeved in the crate motors there’s only room for about 93mm. For reference, the GM small blocks are bored anywhere from 96 to 103mm depending on variant. The 5.7 Hemi is 99.5mm. Ford’s own 6.2 Boss, which is what the Mod would have been in the first place if they’d been told it was going to go in trucks, is 102mm.

      Anyhow, with a Lincoln budget to pay for four cams and 32 valves, and a Lincoln car to put it in that was comfortably overpowered even at 4.6L and certainly wasn’t going to tow anything, that was no handicap at all. But decontented to go in cheap Fords was another story. Two valves can’t breathe worth a chit unless you’re oversquare, which even the car sized 4.6 wasn’t, and stroking it another 15mm to get to a reasonable displacement for the half tons only made it worse.

      Grafting another row on the back to make a HD motor out of it was elegance in engineering right out of There, I Fixed It.

  • avatar
    brettc

    So where is the 3.0L diesel rumoured for the F-150 built? Seems like that could be an option for Windsor if that engine is currently sourced outside North America.

  • avatar
    Blackcloud_9

    Interesting, my wife and I are just starting to look at the possibility of purchasing a Motor-home and everything we looked at (Type C and smaller Type A’s) that wasn’t a diesel had the Triton V-10 as its powerplant. I think there is still a use for this engine just in a smaller role.

  • avatar
    86er

    Quick, somebody start a hashtag.

  • avatar
    mikeg216

    Considering that
    These engines haven’t been sold retail in 6 years I wouldn’t worry. Between u haul fleet and municipal sales and motor homes they sell hundreds of thousands every year.. It’s the best engine that ford has.. If it can survive 500k in a fleet it can survive anything

  • avatar
    TR4

    So why’d they make the V10 in the first place? It needs a balance shaft and with two more cylinders must be more expensive than a V-8. Plenty of past V-8s larger than 6.8 liters. Marketing/bragging rights I suppose.

  • avatar
    buffaloboxster

    These engines are near-ubiquitous in E350/E450 based RVs.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    What about the Worker!

    If the plant closes what alternatives can the plant be used for?

    The writing has been on the wall with the V10 Triton’s demise for a long while. It has been known for years the changes that are occurring with emissions and FE standards.

    So, were the workers proactive in developing additional skill sets to make themselves more attractive to new employers?

    Is Ford going to offer additional training? Will a redundancy package be offered? If a redundancy is offered what would be deemed to large?

    I don’t believe the Ontario Provincial Government or Ottawa should give any money to keep the plant alive. This would be good money chasing bad. Let Ford be proactive and run a business that is successful without handouts.

    Maybe people will need to migrate to areas where there is employment.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “Maybe people will need to migrate to areas where there is employment.”

      Where might that be oh wise and benevolent ruler of Oz?

      Yeah, I’m sure Fort Mac will need a bunch of unemployed engine assembly workers.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    I doubt the v10 is leaving us. It is a great engine that certainly has a place in the market. I don’t foresee 3.5 Ecoboost going into an F550 with a 10 Foot Mason dump. That is a lot of low end torque needed to move that rig empty, let alone full.

    From personal experience, my little brother owns a tree removal company back east. He uses all Fords at this point, and has transitioned away as fast as possible from Diesel in his trucks. The Ford Diesels have been a nightmare for him to keep on the road as well as GM Duramax rigs. Too many repairs that cost entirely too much money. He has found that with all of the emissions devices attached to the big diesel, the real world, loaded with chips or logs towing a chipper or stup grinder FE is not that different between the v10 and the diesel. It sucks, literally. The major difference is the cost of ownership is way less with the gas.

    So, for those that say good riddance, stupid engine, blah blah blah never actually **Worked** with their truck day in and day out, and without it, they were not working. For my brother, if his crane, chip truck, or log truck is out of service, so is he. The crane is the only diesel he has left and that I believe runs a Cummins.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      This, down time consideration is a huge factor for commercial users. How much money does a business lose if that truck can’t work for a day? How much if it drags on for a week? How about the employee, is the business on the hook to pay the employee even though he isn’t generating revenue? Are you going to lose a good customer because you can’t deliver as promised? Many business in the building and service trades can’t just rent a vehicle their vehicle is stocked with parts and tools that you can’t just transfer in a few minutes and that rental vehicle may be lacking some important upfitting.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    As long as the demand is there, they’ll keep building them. It’s the go-to motorhome and box truck engine. The body builders and operators of those vehicles don’t have much interestin switching to something new, and fuel economy standards don’t matter to those vehicles. Ford’s other gas engine options won’t net much better economy in those applications anyway, and would do it less reliably…which does matter to operators.

    Ford may be interested in in reducing their powertrain variety to save cost, but the V10 tooling is long paid for and it’s low cost to produce.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    I remember similar wailing and gnashing of teeth when Ford pulled the plug on the 460.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • stuki: As long as the Fed keeps printing money, CA can print theirs as well. They’ll just continue to call them...
  • stuki: And then there are people who believe in Santa Claus. And, perhaps more relevantly, science fiction.
  • SunnyvaleCA: >>> I presume you’re in a red state; you will miss the world’s sixth largest economy, which...
  • maui_zaui: The more I look at the G70’s front end, the more I see a gussied up Elantra Sport. I know it’s...
  • RHD: More than two years later, and they still haven’t fixed it…

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States