Chieftain V10 HP

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
JD Sharp

JD Sharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Posts
247
Location
Ferndale, WA
We are looking at a 2000 Chieftain 34Y in great shape and low miles (18000). But are not sure of V10 HP, dealership says 310. I looked at Winnebago Brochure for 2000 and it list 275hp and three speed trans. 2001 lists v10 at 310 and in 2002 they went to 8.1 Vortex engine. I test drove and it does down shift on moderate hill at 50MPH. We don't want to regret  under power for this size MH, should I look for a 2001 or 2002 with Workhorse instead?
 
Try to find out the torque rating for the two engines - I would be more interested in an engine with more torque instead of more HP for a motorhome application.  Maybe you'll get some Winnie owners chiming in with their experiences - stand by.
 
I drove  V-10 with a 5 speed for 3 years (36' MH). While is performed ok, once I drove the Workhorse with a 6 speed I found a substantial difference. I would like very much to try a V-10 with a 6 speed but I don't know if they exist yet . There are other differences such as the Workhorse is on a heavier chassis and the wheels are 22.5 vs 19.5.  I think the transmission makes the biggest part of the difference.
 
The 2001-2002 Workhorse 8.1L has a five speed Allison tranny. The 6 speed came out later, around 2005 I think.

As for the V10 engine model, you should be able to figure that out from the VIN. However, the smallest V10 for 2000 is 305 hp, not 275. The same engine a year later was rated 310 hp. Starting in 2005, the 3-valve V10 was available and it produces 362 hp.
 
JSplaine,
I ordered a 1999 Chieftain 34Y with the V10 from the Winnie factory and took delivery in May 99.  I owned it for almost 5 yrs.  It was 275 hp. 

In May 2000, my brother took delivery of a National Sea Breeze with V10 and it was 310 hp.  Yours is going to be in the transistion time and could be either one.  If you give someone at Ford Service your vin # they will be able to tell what you have.

After about 9 months I added the Banks header/exhaust and was very happy with the increased hp.  Also the engine ran so much cooler that the engine fan would only kick in on the really long hills.  Most of the time I was pulling a 4500 lb enclosed trailer or my 3400 lb Suzuki Grand Vitara.  After Banks I could out pull my brothers 310 hp motorhome.

The tranny is 3 speed with overdrive (4th).

I think you'll really like the 34Y layout.  I sold mine to my nephew so we see it at the campouts all the time.  That engine is still truckin' after 11 yrs now and 100K+ miles.

Good luck,
Bill
 
We are on our 3rd MH with a V10.  The 04 and 06 both had/have full Banks added what a difference it makes.  Would highly recommend it.  It did not do as much hp boost in the 06 but it pulls the load much better.  We pull an enclosed trailer using a Trailer Toad and the combined weight of both is 9300#s.  I run about 60 mph and it will down shift but not near as often.
 
JSplaine said:
We are looking at a 2000 Chieftain 34Y in great shape and low miles (18000). But are not sure of V10 HP, dealership says 310. I looked at Winnebago Brochure for 2000 and it list 275hp and three speed trans. 2001 lists v10 at 310 and in 2002 they went to 8.1 Vortex engine. I test drove and it does down shift on moderate hill at 50MPH. We don't want to regret  under power for this size MH, should I look for a 2001 or 2002 with Workhorse instead?
Click to expand...

I've seen stock 8cylinder truck engines with more power, why would the use a V10 to make 30.3hp per cylinder when they have v8's making closer to 50hp per cylinder?
Sorry I know this is SLIGHTLY off topic but I'm curious.
 
The V10 came about with Ford's modular engine concept. They have a family of engine designs which share many parts and production tooling. The V10 is basically the 5.4L V8 with two more cylinders added. The V10 bore & stroke are the same as the V8. Think of it as a stretched V8.  ;) The plant tooling is the significant reason behind modular engines - Ford claims they can change their engine factories from one engine to another in a matter of hours. If you are in the engine business, that is a big deal.

I'm not going into engine design theory or try to convince anybody that more smaller cylinders is better (or worse) than larger but fewer cylinders. You can read all you want about the pros and cons elsewhere on the web.
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
The V10 came about with Ford's modular engine concept. They have a family of engine designs which share many parts and production tooling.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting, Gary.

On a slight tangent:

The ideal engine design for producing torque (desirable for a motorhome or tow vehicle) is with the cylinders in-line and with a long stroke, just like our Cummins ISL  :D
 
It could be either 275 or 310. If the chassis is a 1999 it's 275 and if it's a 2000 it's 310. Look at the 10th digit of the chassis vin 9=1999 and Y=2000. I had a 2000 Hurricane on a 1999 f53 chassis. I had a Jeep Liberty as a toad and it did ok but I was not in the mountains much.
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
The V10 came about with Ford's modular engine concept. They have a family of engine designs which share many parts and production tooling. The V10 is basically the 5.4L V8 with two more cylinders added. The V10 bore & stroke are the same as the V8. Think of it as a stretched V8.  ;) The plant tooling is the significant reason behind modular engines - Ford claims they can change their engine factories from one engine to another in a matter of hours. If you are in the engine business, that is a big deal.

I'm not going into engine design theory or try to convince anybody that more smaller cylinders is better (or worse) than larger but fewer cylinders. You can read all you want about the pros and cons elsewhere on the web.
Click to expand...

So the idea is kind of what Kawasaki used when they remade the ninja 250? small stroke, wider bore for higher RPM's and more power?
I guess some things elude me  :)
 
I think the shorter the stroke, the faster the engine winds up - a highly desirable situation for a 20-something year-old indestructible kid on a fast bike  ;) .
 
John Canfield said:
I think the shorter the stroke, the faster the engine winds up - a highly desirable situation for a 20-something year-old indestructible kid on a fast bike  ;) .
Click to expand...

HAH I got you. So the shorter stroke for the larger engine is to help with turn over speed?
 
I have a 1999 f-53 under a 35 adventurer and it is stock. I pull a 4400 lb jeep wrangler and it does fine. I can hold 75 if I wanted to. It is no rocket inb the mountains and works hard when climbing but it will be fine for most, I believe you will be ok even with the 275 hp version. As far as the hp per cylinder I can only say that that does not make much diffrence on a motor home. It is far more important to have tq in a motorhome. If you look into it the reason they were 275 hp is because they are in a rv, they have a diffrent cam than a pick up and it is set up more for doing work than going fast. The whole bigger bore/ longer stroke does affect the nature of a motor but to take a gas motor and give it a huge stroke and turn it up past 5000 rpm the piston speed would cause alot of wear and hurt the life of the motor.
 
This might be a different way to compare it. My 05' Excursion has 310hp and 425ftlbs torque with 3.73 gears and 35" tires and towing my trailer I'm rolling 19,200 lbs and I love the V10. Yeah I may get passed by Powerstrokes/Cummins/Duramax up the hills but I can maintain 65-70mph on the flats. (Faster if I can keep the swaying under control) Also my dad has a 2001 Jayco Class C 27ft that he pulls an 18ft enclosed trailer for toys and he's rolling about 16,000#'s now he's got 30" tall tires and 4.56 gears and he wouldn't trade that V10 for anything. 
 

Attachments

  • Rig.jpg
    Rig.jpg
    36.8 KB · Views: 10
Had a 2000 Coachman 32' on a 1999 F53 chassis.  It was rated 275hp, which was sufficient power to pass anything except a gas pump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,119 (members: 41, guests: 1,078)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,983
Posts
1,388,614
Members
137,731
Latest member
Monjoe99
Back
Top Bottom