V-10 Powered 650/750

[7Mary3]

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32925

 

Must say, I was a bit surprised by this. A big rental fleet wanted Ford to build this truck a few years ago, but Ford refused. Also, I thought the V-10 was scheduled to be phased completely out of production over the next few years. In any event, the V-10 will probably work well with the new transmission. The question is will this truck find a market? GM wasn't doing too well with the 8.1L Topkick and Kodiak 6500/7500 the last few years it was offered, even with the dramatic increase in diesel engine costs and maintenance headaches. The truck did find favor with some municipalities, however.

[RichardJensen]

Of course, the 8.1L is a dog compared to the 6.8.

[ausrutherford]

The 6.8 is now CNG capable, thats why they did it.

[7Mary3]

Of course, the 8.1L is a dog compared to the 6.8.

 

Have to disagree with that one. Th 8.1L was comparable to the 6.8L 3 valve in commercial applications in my experience, but it is not an even comparison as Ford never offered the 6.8L in the 650 or 750 in the past. I have no idea how a 6.8L 3 valve would do in something with a 30k GVW.. The 8.1L was noticeably more powerful than the 2 valve 6.8L, and more durable as well in class 3-5 trucks.

[7Mary3]

The 6.8 is now CNG capable, thats why they did it.

 

Could very well be one of the reasons. I heard a large fleet twisted Ford's arm a bit too.

[lfeg]

This does not surprise me. Ford already has this drivetrain set up and emissions certifoed for the 450/550, so the big cost is the emissions and noise certification in the 650/750. And there are uses for heavy mediums where gas, and particularly CNG and LPG can be an advantage. One example is that around here back when the 370 and 429 were available in the heavy mediums most LPG delivery tankers were LPG powered. Cannot do that with a diesel engine.

[NLPRacing]

It should do just fine, the 2V 6.8L V10 does good in my motorhome. Somethimes I get as much as 7 mpg.

[J-150]

It should do just fine, the 2V 6.8L V10 does good in my motorhome. Somethimes I get as much as 7 mpg.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is a gas pig, however, the 7.3, 6.0 and 6.4 Powerstrokes were not all that much better in real world applications.

 

 

 

I was told by a paramedic friend that the city of Toronto changed over their ambulance fleet to 8.1s after finding in tests that they were cheaper long term. Lower purchase price. Fuel cost at parity. Lower maintenance costs. The trucks were already running secondary generators to power the back.

 

Now this is what I was told. No direct research to prove or disprove was I was told.

[7Mary3]

In any event, it is good news that there will be a 2012 F-650. Last summer the rumor was the 650's and 750's would be dropped. Now, if only Ford would do a F-850 tandem axle with an 8.3L Cummins......

[lfeg]

In any event, it is good news that there will be a 2012 F-650. Last summer the rumor was the 650's and 750's would be dropped. Now, if only Ford would do a F-850 tandem axle with an 8.3L Cummins......

 

That is a vehicle that municipal and county fleets would like to see. Especially in the areas with significant snowfall. Most of them like to have one make for their medium/heavy medium spreaders/plows, and many have some tandems (with increasing use of liquid deicers and comnination spreader/liquid distributor spreaders). It is all about simplifying things and lowering costs in the service garage. That would put Ford back in that game. Also put the 8.3 in the F750 with the higher grosses and a heavy spec rear axle.

 

Service garage supers like to have one cab style and one engine/transmission combo on their larger trucks. Makes life easier than having a mixed fleet.

[atvman]

The 6.8L V10 is about as good as gasoline truck engines get. It has a near diesel like torque curve and a great reliability record. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the MUCH lower purchase price and maintenance costs make up for additional fuel costs. There are a lot of applications in which a big gas engine make sense, which is why Ford is doing this.

[silvrsvt]

The 6.8L V10 is about as good as gasoline truck engines get. It has a near diesel like torque curve and a great reliability record. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the MUCH lower purchase price and maintenance costs make up for additional fuel costs. There are a lot of applications in which a big gas engine make sense, which is why Ford is doing this.

 

Back about 3 years ago a company I worked for rented a UHaul Ford Truck with a V10 in it. I had to drive it from NJ to NC down I95 ...and the guy who had it said it would never make it...it ran like a champ and my coworkers where making fun of me driving it since I was driving it like my Mustang. I think I got about 8-10 MPG with it too

[7Mary3]

That is a vehicle that municipal and county fleets would like to see. Especially in the areas with significant snowfall. Most of them like to have one make for their medium/heavy medium spreaders/plows, and many have some tandems (with increasing use of liquid deicers and comnination spreader/liquid distributor spreaders). It is all about simplifying things and lowering costs in the service garage. That would put Ford back in that game. Also put the 8.3 in the F750 with the higher grosses and a heavy spec rear axle.

 

Service garage supers like to have one cab style and one engine/transmission combo on their larger trucks. Makes life easier than having a mixed fleet.

 

Fleets spec'ing one make to streamline fleet operations was a common practice, but not so much anymore. When I first got into the fleet buisness, the organization I worked for was almost all Dodge, passenger cars up to heavy trucks (yes, Dodge built heavies back in the day- good truck too). Nowadays it's all about the deal. And in addition, many fleets buy medium and heavy trucks 'turn key' from the upfitter, and let the upfitter choose and spec. the chassis. There are some advantages to that. Hino incidentally realizes this, and is making a sales push to upfitters rather than end users.

[lfeg]

True, but in municipal and county fleets around here, they like to keep things as simple as possible. They have really been going for common engine/transmission combinations wherever possible. the Cummins 5.9/Allison automatic is very common, with the Cummins 8.3/Allison automatic a close second. Not a Cat to be seen, and a few DT466 Internationals are in use. Really, the availibility of a Cummins/Allison is almost a requirement to bid , because a parts and spares package is required for just about anything else. A common cab and electrical is the bext down on the list. Bodies are pretty commonized also. One city has been using the same body and plow equipment for ages, no matter what chassis they get. Makes it easier on hte mechcanics at the service garage, and as these things really get beat up every winter, it is quite handy to have an out of service unit sitting out back until the spring auction comes to pull parts off of at 3:00 AM during a storm.

[BAM]

FWIW Navistar will be using the small block GM V8 gas for the TerraStar..

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I never did understand why Ford never added the VCT feature from the 3V 5.4L to the 3V V-10. The extra 5% boost in hp and an even flatter torque curve would seem to be attractive for that engine. If Ford decided to keep that engine going, and went for GDI and VCT, the engine could potentially be a 400HP/500Tq monster. Those numbers were strictly diesel as few as 6 years ago in trucks. Coupled to that new 6 speed torqueshift, just, wow. Given the expense of diesel emissions qualification and equipment, having that kind of power available in a gas engine would definitely be attractive to many buyers.

[7Mary3]

I never did understand why Ford never added the VCT feature from the 3V 5.4L to the 3V V-10........

 

Can't be done! The Ford V-10's have a balance shaft driven off the right camshaft in the right head. If VCT was used, it would cause the balance shaft to go out of phase every time the cams advanced.

[Bob Rosadini]

This is good news-I think the CNG/LPG issue is a key factor. Also I think the 650 with this engine/trans combo will be a good alternative for the emergency responders. As many have pointed out, GM seems to have made good inroads with their 4500-that chassis just looks a lot beefier than a 450/550- I know what the GVW numbers are but just look at the two side by side.

 

Note they are smart enough to cap the GVW at 30,000. As for municipals, that keeps them out of the heavy highway plow but at least around here (central Mass) more and more DPW's are opting for smaller dump chassis to supplement the big trucks. Given the choice, I think I would take a properly speced 650 over a 4 x 4 450 or 550. Put a 4-6 yard body, a spreader and a set of chains and I think the 650 would do just as well operationally, first cost would be very close, and I would beat maintenance costs would be less long haul.

 

Next question is, when will they put the new P-stroke in the 650?

[Stray Kat]

This is good news-I think the CNG/LPG issue is a key factor. Also I think the 650 with this engine/trans combo will be a good alternative for the emergency responders. As many have pointed out, GM seems to have made good inroads with their 4500-that chassis just looks a lot beefier than a 450/550- I know what the GVW numbers are but just look at the two side by side.

 

Note they are smart enough to cap the GVW at 30,000. As for municipals, that keeps them out of the heavy highway plow but at least around here (central Mass) more and more DPW's are opting for smaller dump chassis to supplement the big trucks. Given the choice, I think I would take a properly speced 650 over a 4 x 4 450 or 550. Put a 4-6 yard body, a spreader and a set of chains and I think the 650 would do just as well operationally, first cost would be very close, and I would beat maintenance costs would be less long haul.

 

Next question is, when will they put the new P-stroke in the 650?

 

 

That SAE bellhousing flange on the new Powerstroke makes it an easy swap into the bigger trucks I would think.

[Bob Rosadini]

That SAE bellhousing flange on the new Powerstroke makes it an easy swap into the bigger trucks I would think.

10-4-I would bet the only reason they don't is one of engine plant capacity. remember the old Powerstroke (6.4??) wqs offered at one time in the 650.

[7Mary3]

10-4-I would bet the only reason they don't is one of engine plant capacity. remember the old Powerstroke (6.4??) wqs offered at one time in the 650.

 

In anything, Ford may have too much plant capacity for the 6.7L Powerstroke. I think the 6.7L will find it's way into the 650.