F350 V 10

MikePA · Dec 9, 2007

patrick_g said:
Bean counters trump EVERY OTHER input into an auto manufacturer's management process.

Wow, your knowledge of the number one priority of auto manufacturers is remarkable. Imagine that, a business that wants to make a profit. Who'd a thunk it.

patrick_g · Dec 9, 2007

MikePA said:
Wow, your knowledge of the number one priority of auto manufacturers is remarkable. Imagine that, a business that wants to make a profit. Who'd a thunk it.

Mike, You'd a thunk most everyone would have it in mind but you notice that this supposedly "obvious even to the most casual observer" FACT is often lost sight of as evidenced by posts upstream just a little ways from here.

Pat

mjncad · Dec 10, 2007

patrick_g said:
If a company believed killing people with an inferior design would boost long term profit they would do it (have done it if you consider GMC/Chevy pickup gas tanks on the outside of the frame rails.)

Don't forget the Ford Firebomb...err...Pinto. As I recall, Ford's bean counters nixed a $5 (materials & labor) per car plastic shield to protect the gas tank from puncture in rear end collisions. I'll bet the money saved by the bean counters was trivial compared to the cost of recalls, lawsuits by the families of the injured and killed, bad publicity and so on.

TheDingy · Dec 10, 2007

JESSE1 said:
If you're getting that kind of mileage then you've got a sick truck. The emissions equipment has definately hurt mileage but not that bad. My '08 F-450 has only 1600 miles but so far it's gotten a high of 15 highway and 12 city driving. That's with a 4.30 axle ratio and a 8900# truck. You do have to keep your speed down, these trucks are as aerodynamic as a brick. The mileage on all the new diesels have been hurt by the emission equipment.

The V-10 is supposed to be a bulletproof engine. I've never heard of anyone having a major problem with one. They make a lot of sense in an F-250/350 SRW pickup.

The truck isn't sick, we have seen more than one way under 10mpg, this truck was the record though. I have heard that the problem has to deal with the reheat cycles in traffic. We are in Houston and it will kill the fuel mileage in traffic that is bumper to bumper and slow sometimes.

I have driven the new 08 Duramax's for a few miles, they will 30,000lbs to 99mph

while running away from everything else. I was a cummins person all the way in the trucks, but the new engine/tranny is great. My other half is in the car busniess and Chevrolet is the only thing I can drive I would still say they aren't as good as the Cummins, but now it is another story. In my heart though I am still a Cat guy, I have more than one 2,000+hp diesel that I am responsiable for, and if we have the choice it is Cat only! I wish that Cat would put a truck deal together for the 1 ton market, as they are great engines!

unreconstructed · Dec 10, 2007

Back to the V-10 mileage question. Got 14.1 highway unloaded going out to the farm this weekend--140 mile round trip. Can see where 15 might be in the future going down the road--maybe the K&N will help. Dealer told me not to put one on until the warranty runs out but will probably do it anyway.

JESSE1 · Dec 10, 2007

If you use the K&N make sure you don't over oil it. The oil will coat the Mass Airflow sensor in the intake and kill it. I think the V10 is a good choice for a SRW short bed pickup. For heavy hauling, go diesel. I stayed with a diesel because any time I haul my tractor I will be grossing at least 26,000#'s.

patrick_g · Dec 10, 2007

mjncad said:
Don't forget the Ford Firebomb...err...Pinto. As I recall, Ford's bean counters nixed a $5 (materials & labor) per car plastic shield to protect the gas tank from puncture in rear end collisions. I'll bet the money saved by the bean counters was trivial compared to the cost of recalls, lawsuits by the families of the injured and killed, bad publicity and so on.

I don't know about the bottom line with the Pinto but GMC/Chevy found it to their advantage to stone wall legal attacks and pay off when they had to do so and make more profit than changing the design prematurely. They put profit ahead of people as most big companies do.

Pat

Pat

Z-Michigan · Dec 10, 2007

JESSE1 said:
If you use the K&N make sure you don't over oil it. The oil will coat the Mass Airflow sensor in the intake and kill it.

Have read and heard this a lot, but have yet to hear of anyone actually suffering this problem. I think you would have to over-oil it by several times to have a problem. BTW K&N's come oiled from the factory and shouldn't need cleaning and re-oiling for around 25k miles depending on your driving conditions.

Having said all that, you might think I am a fan of K&N - nope! I had one in an Accord I used to own and it didn't cause any problems, but the only performance gain was in my mind. Mileage was unchanged, and for that car I had carefully tracked every single gas tank from day 1 to trade-in. Air filter tests on BITOG suggest that K&N doesn't filter as well as paper, although the difference may be relatively small.

I can't find a reason to use anything but a high quality paper filter. If I ever change my mind I will be using an Amsoil Ea filter, more for potentially better filtration than for any unlikely performance gain. The cotton gauze filters (K&N and clones) aren't that bad, but for a lot more $$$ you get worse filtration and no meaningful (if in fact any) difference in engine performance. The reality is that inexpensive paper filters from most manufacturers do a very good job for a very modest cost.

JESSE1 · Dec 10, 2007

I know about it first-hand. I put a new K&N in a new '01 Expedition. Engine started hesitating and generally running rough. Dealership found the Mass airflow sensor was bad. They said it was because of the K&N but they still replaced the sensor under warranty. Whether it was the K&N I don't know but I replaced it with the factory paper element and never had any more problems. Really never noticed a difference in performance between the two filters.