Community Forums

IMPULSE DRIVEN · 09-02-2013, 06:05 PM

I have heard there are certain years of the Ford V10 that I should avoid, what years are bad?

jamesrxx951 · 09-02-2013, 06:10 PM

The only real issues with early V10's were the exhaust manifold studs breaking off. Other than that, no issues at all. The 3V V10s do not seem to have that issue at all.

bronk · 09-02-2013, 06:20 PM

There were some years (early to mid-90's, I believe, where the spark plugs would get "blown out" due to inadequate thread depth. I am sure someone will chime in with the correct years where this was problematic with the V-10. Our 2011 has been flawless (knock on wood)!!

Bronk

clyon51 · 09-02-2013, 06:28 PM

The first V10 was 1999. It was that year and a year or two after that had the spark plug issue. My '99 has about 55k now and never had a problem with it.

Luv2go · 09-02-2013, 06:33 PM

2008 3V here, no issues at all.

jamesrxx951 · 09-02-2013, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronk

There were some years (early to mid-90's, I believe, where the spark plugs would get "blown out" due to inadequate thread depth. I am sure someone will chime in with the correct years where this was problematic with the V-10. Our 2011 has been flawless (knock on wood)!!

Bronk

The first year for the F53 V10 was 1999. There were some cases of blown spark plugs however im not sure if it is on the 99 with the non PI (power improved) heads or 2000-04. Maybe not specific to a year. However the issues seems to be very limited. New spark plugs with the longer threads and properly torqued will likely lead to having no issues.

crabtrees1 · 09-03-2013, 04:38 PM

I had a 99 F53 with a V10 and no problem at all it only had 275 hp but no problems at all for 35,000 miles that. However the Ford transmission that is another story that went out at 20,000 miles running transynd fluid. of course no warrenty help from Ford, It was past the three years.

clyon51 · 09-03-2013, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crabtrees1

I had a 99 F53 with a V10 and no problem at all it only had 275 hp but no problems at all for 35,000 miles that. However the Ford transmission that is another story that went out at 20,000 miles running transynd fluid. of course no warrenty help from Ford, It was past the three years.

Are you saying you switched to synthetic, then the trans went? My '99 with original fluid is doing fine @ 54k, but was thinking about a fluid change.

baraff · 09-03-2013, 05:17 PM

I have a 2005 (04 chassis) V10, 69,000 miles, so quiet you don't even know it's running. It has been absolutely trouble-free since we bought it at 50,000 miles. In fact it's the only part of the motorhome that I don't worry about!
I fully expect this engine to last 200+ miles with proper maintenance.

crabtrees1 · 09-04-2013, 08:22 AM

I am saying I switched to Transynd fluid when my Motorhome had less than a 1000 miles on it after being told it will extend the life of the transmission with much cooler temperature on the transmission. Keep in mind we did not use the motorhome more than 5,000 miles a year and it is better to use synthetic fluids if yoiur sitting that much. Admittedly I ran loaded with a Honda CR-V in tow but always within GCWR. I had a glove box full of weight tickets to prove it. I'm not saying I think the Transynd was in any way at fault. In fact the temps were lower after changing to the Transynd acording to my ford gauge and never once showed it was HOT. What I am saying I do feel the transmission could not with stand the normal ware and tear of use. I called Ford on the side of the road when I received an error code and there comment was you must be pulling a hill? I explained I had last night but that all day it was flat as a pancake. That I was just out side Portland Oregon. so they told me to turn the key off and on again and cleared the code, only to make it about forty miles before calling the tow truck and putting a new transmission in.
The Transmission company said they could replace it for $2100.00 with a transmission just like it had or they could shift Kit it an make it bullet proof for $5,000.00 since then I have talked to others that have had the same problems. I feel the transmission was under engineered for the F53 after seeing how the fluid was just plain burned. The F53 chassis needed to have air bags, Davis true track bar, with bilstien shocks and a rear stablelizer bar installed to keep a 35' foot motor home from being blown off the road the road and in my lane. The frame twists and the springs sag making it difficult to stop and to keep from rolling over. I loved the V-10 thought for a gas engine it did an amazing job keeping up RPM's while getting 7 to 11 MPG But I can say any thing good about the F53 and the transmission. I went to FMCA seminars and talked to Ford about my experience and got all the PR answers. Maybe if I had of not used the motorhome to it's gross weight capabilities and not live in the rocky mountain area I would have had a very different experience. This is my story and I'm sticking to it. Hope this information help someone and I'm glad for those who have had a more positive experience than I did. I will say all of the after market add on's made the motorhome unbelievable stable, even in the wind. It's a crime though that you have to spend two or three thousand to do what Ford should be doing at the factory. Shame on Ford!!!!

John H... · 09-05-2013, 01:35 PM

I've had 3 motor homes, all with the V-10. The oldest being a 2004 and have had zero problems with any of them. I love the engine and just ordered a new MH with the V-10.

HeapBigEngin · 09-05-2013, 06:59 PM

"This is my story and I'm sticking to it. Hope this information help someone and I'm glad for those who have had a more positive experience than I did. I will say all of the after market add on's made the motorhome unbelievable stable, even in the wind. It's a crime though that you have to spend two or three thousand to do what Ford should be doing at the factory. Shame on Ford!!!!"

Sounds like you've had your issues.....but shame on Ford? Ford was the OEM manufacturer of the chassis. The chassis is designed to carry, move and stop a certain amount of weight under certain conditions and within certain engineering specifications AND limits. The chassis is then sold to the coach manufacturers who modify them (some VERY signficantly) and add their bodies/components.

I know that you know all of this. However, I can't help but notice some of the incredible overhangs behind the rear wheels of some of the longer coach bodies. I also notice the amazing amount of "stuff" some folks also hang back there in addition to the things jammed into the various closets and storage compartments. All of this will result in high load conditions and sway, to name just a couple of results. Now combine this with high elevations and mountain ascents/descents.....and one should see that a vehicle's GCWR and driveline components can be adversely impacted. Not saying you did this at all. Just saying that the OEM's only have so much control over what the coach builders and the owners eventually do with the finished product. Their are just a lot of unknowables that can be outside of the design specs of the original chassis. To "shame" Ford, or any other OEM, carte blanche for all issues does not seem to be a fair assessment in all cases. Just MO FWIW....

crabtrees1 · 09-06-2013, 10:18 AM

HeapBigEngin
You seem to take exception, to some of my points of view. Especially when it comes to calling Ford out! I take exception to think I have to replace a transmission engineered and used in F53 that is only good for 20,000 miles. What a joke and was my main point. You will have to take my word for it as to the fact I keep within the weight limitations and did the proper service at the proper intervals. I know I did and I'm very anal about this after driving millions of miles with large trucks that carry in excess of 80,000 lbs. The rest of your point is well taken regarding what the converter responsabilities with regard to the chassis. In my case it is fair to say "Shame On Holiday Rambler" and the list could go on. These are serious safety conserns, On our fisrt trip I remember we had to put on a front stablerizer bar to get home after a close call in a 35 mile hour curve where we almost met our maker. One can only wonder how many acidents can be contributed to this problem. I see where Jayco class C offer JRide option in attempt to get the chassis to stay safely on the road for there customer with the Ford F450

Regards

HeapBigEngin · 09-06-2013, 01:06 PM

crabtrees1....

Based upon your response, I think we agree on most issues here. And not knowing anymore than what you have posted, I do not know what really caused your trans problem. I do know that, in the past, most OEM's - including Ford - stated in their trailer towing/mh chassis info that GCWR should be reduced between 1% - 2% for every thousand feet of elevation above 1000 ft. Thus, at 11,000 ft., GCWR would call for a downward adjustment of at least 10%....or more. With today's excellent fuel injection and computer controlled systems, I admit to not being sure this is still the case. Of course, braking still remains an issue. And today's chassis and powertrains are light years ahead of where they were just a few years ago....lucky for all of us, right?

Not trying to start any kind of sideways discussion at all. Just trying to make the point that, based upon my personal experience like yours, I see way too many coaches grossly overloaded, moving way too much total weight and having weight very poorly distributed....all of which causes serious handling AND safety issues. Truth be told, many folks load their coaches close to or at max GVWR/GCWR ratings....and then head for the mountains with all the challenges not seen on level ground. You've seen it....and so have I since I live adjacent to serious mountains and "run" them on a regular basis. And too often, these are the folks climbing these mountains on the shoulder....and coming down with white knuckles trying to control their swaying, overloaded vehicle. Is that the result of the chassis manufacturer's product or that of coach builder/owner-operator "modifications"? That is the only point I was really trying to make....

Good conversation, however. Thanks. Take care....