info on 05 V10

[dannan_w]

any of you fellow techs (or anyone) know of a common problem? getting ready to buy one.

[shawns 64 F100]

not up to date on the later V10, the earlier ones had a piston slap problem, Ford took care of them all. Best upgrade is a s-charger to make it as efficient as ever

[250stroker]

If it's a 3 valve then the cam phasers seem to get noisy on some of them. If it's a 2 valve, nothing bad to say at all.

[dannan_w]

i dont know if it is a 2 or 3 valve, and it is 19,500 and has 4k miles. prob going on monday to get it.

[Digger]

not up to date on the later V10, the earlier ones had a piston slap problem, Ford took care of them all. Best upgrade is a s-charger to make it as efficient as ever

Super-chargers increase power but decrease efficiency due to frictional losses.

[shawns 64 F100]

I disagree, but what do I know :dontknow:

[ford_munky_man]

Super-chargers increase power but decrease efficiency due to frictional losses.

Here is my :twocents:. Any force inducted engines (i.e. turbo/supercharger) are more efficient than a NA engine. Reason is that it increases the fuel/air atomazation (sp?) is more efficient and it lets it all burn better. Either way of forced induction has some efficiency loss at the beginning. Turbos have to make a little back pressure to start the turbines and superchargers have to use actual crank power. Once they get passed a certain point of restriction (backpressure, frictional loss) they become effecient.

[250stroker]

Here is my :twocents:. Any force inducted engines (i.e. turbo/supercharger) are more efficient than a NA engine. Reason is that it increases the fuel/air atomazation (sp?) is more efficient and it lets it all burn better. Either way of forced induction has some efficiency loss at the beginning. Turbos have to make a little back pressure to start the turbines and superchargers have to use actual crank power. Once they get passed a certain point of restriction (backpressure, frictional loss) they become effecient.

You are right and wrong.
Any forced induction engine is more efficient than an N/A engine because it has more air and at a higher pressure to burn the fuel more efficiently.
It does nothing for fuel atomization. Fuel atomization occurs where the fuel is actually introduced into the intake air stream. The finer the spray, the better the atomization.
All a supercharger or turbo does is force more air into the intake system. More air and you can put in more fuel creating a larger explosion.
A turbo will always make more power at a given boost level than a supercharger because the supercharger uses mechanical power to make power. It will never pass a point of "restriction" or parassitic drag. It will always require power to turn it. You will always use more power to turn a supercharger than to turn a turbo at the same boost.
A turbo uses spent exaust gases to make power. The increase in backpressure just moves the power band to a lower RPM, but the turbos these days are super efficient in converting exhaust energy and not making high backpressures. If I was to build another Forced Induction hot rod, I would definately go twin turbos:thumbsup:
Ooops, just a little off topic:D

[ford_munky_man]

You are right and wrong.
Any forced induction engine is more efficient than an N/A engine because it has more air and at a higher pressure to burn the fuel more efficiently.
It does nothing for fuel atomization. Fuel atomization occurs where the fuel is actually introduced into the intake air stream. The finer the spray, the better the atomization.
All a supercharger or turbo does is force more air into the intake system. More air and you can put in more fuel creating a larger explosion.
A turbo will always make more power at a given boost level than a supercharger because the supercharger uses mechanical power to make power. It will never pass a point of "restriction" or parassitic drag. It will always require power to turn it. You will always use more power to turn a supercharger than to turn a turbo at the same boost.
A turbo uses spent exaust gases to make power. The increase in backpressure just moves the power band to a lower RPM, but the turbos these days are super efficient in converting exhaust energy and not making high backpressures. If I was to build another Forced Induction hot rod, I would definately go twin turbos:thumbsup:
Ooops, just a little off topic:D

Ok your right with the atomization. That is my bad. Maybe on carbed supercharged engines though because fuel is introduced before the air. What I am trying to say about the supercharger is that yes it is always using power to turn but once it is spinning fast enough it makes up for the lost power by increasing the power you have? Does that sound right? Or no?

[Hefty]

The Supercharger alone still costs over 5k before install. You gotta give me a hell of a lot more efficiency before it will pay that back. I love my 04 V10. I haven't had any problems at all. I have to run Mid Grade for the best mileage but thats not a big deal. I will never go back to a diesel after owning this truck. Torque Curve is different but not bad unless your pulling a ton of weight up hill. I have heard that the earlier ones had a tendency to blow the Sparkplugs like the 5.4's but havent had that problem at all with mine. They are cheaper to work on than the diesels and they are quiet too. My opinion is BUY IT!

[Digger]

You are right and wrong.
Any forced induction engine is more efficient than an N/A engine because it has more air and at a higher pressure to burn the fuel more efficiently.


That would only apply in the case of a diesel engine under heavier loads and higher RPM because pumping lossing would not allow enough air for complete combustion and therefor would result in lower thermal efficiency / fuel economy.

With computer controlled gasoline engines, boost has nothing to do with how throughly the fuel is combusted, it only dictates how much fuel can be burned. Combustion chamber design, compression ratio and mapping of the computer are some of the major factors that influence thermal efficiency. In fact any sort of forced induction on a gas engine will result in lower efficiency because the supercharger/turbocharger itself has an efficiency that is less than 100%. Energy from your fuel is lost in the compressor in the form of heat, directly from compression of the air and its migration to the surroundings and indirectly from mechanical friction. Generally speaking, the higher the boost, the lower the efficiency. Turbochargers are generally the most efficient form of forced induction and if you read Maximum Boost by Corky Bell, he states in the first chapter that a turbo charger "is not an economizer and cannot be constructed as such."

[250stroker]

In fact any sort of forced induction on a gas engine will result in lower efficiency because the supercharger/turbocharger itself has an efficiency that is less than 100%.
Are you saying that a forced induction engine is LESS efficient than a N/A engine?? I think you need to research that a little more.

Energy from your fuel is lost in the compressor in the form of heat, directly from compression of the air and its migration to the surroundings and indirectly from mechanical friction. Generally speaking, the higher the boost, the lower the efficiency.

This would be sort of true. It becomes less efficient at higher boost levels if you are not cooling the air charge, but that's why we use intercoolers or aftercoolers. This cools the air charge so you can run higher boost pressures.

[Digger]

Are you saying that a forced induction engine is LESS efficient than a N/A engine??

Yes for a computer controlled gasoline fueled engine, because that is the only one that can give a fair, apples-to-apples comparison of F/I to N/A. Like I said before, this doesn't apply to diesels in all situations (high load/rpm) because the complexities of pumping loss does not produce a fair comparison of F/I to N/A. In a diesel, the more air in the cylinder, the better. Losses from the turbo are negated by the fact that the extra air in the cylinder burns fuel and makes power that would otherwise exit the engine as unburnt fuel/black smoke.(Lower thermal efficiency) In a computer-controlled gas engine, the computer will meter the fuel in proportion to the amount of air entering the engine regardless of how much air enters the engine. This is why most diesels have a turbo and most gas engines do not.


This would be sort of true. It becomes less efficient at higher boost levels if you are not cooling the air charge, but that's why we use intercoolers or aftercoolers. This cools the air charge so you can run higher boost pressures.

Intercoolers can increase efficiency that is lost by compressing the incoming air, but you have to take it on a case-by-case basis because intercoolers have their own inefficiencies, but that can be offset by decreasing the air temp and increasing the theoretical thermal efficiency of the whole engine. Wikipedia offers a good explaination of this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
look under Carnot efficiency.


Don't get me wrong, I love turbos, especially my Powerstroke!

[250stroker]

I think I just figured out why I thought you were looney :nuts: :D about a N/A engine being more efficient than a F/I engine. You are talking about THERMAL efficiency. I am talking about VOLUMETRIC efficiency. :thumbsup::D

http://wikicars.org/en/Supercharged_Engine

[Digger]

I think I just figured out why I thought you were looney :nuts: :D about a N/A engine being more efficient than a F/I engine. You are talking about THERMAL efficiency. I am talking about VOLUMETRIC efficiency. :thumbsup::D

http://wikicars.org/en/Supercharged_Engine

Absolutely, F/I engines have better volumetric efficiency.

[shawns 64 F100]

who wants to put a bet on my mileage improvements after my pro charger is installed?

[dannan_w]

wow so anyhow i have to agree with above and eff. but in the end i found a one ton cab chassis, with a 7.3 so i can pull anything i want

[shawns 64 F100]

that is awesome! what year? my favorites were the 97 and 98 1 ton crew cab long bed single rear

[Mind_Boggler]

Forced indection WILL make the fuel economy worse if it makes you want to drive it like a bat outta hell al the time