2012 Ford F-650 V-10 Is Ready to Haul

Ford F-650 Photos by Wes Allison

Ever wonder what it's like to drive a medium-duty dump truck from Los Angeles to Las Vegas? That's what our friends at Truck Trend Magazine used to think about until they got the chance to live out their fantasy with Ford's new F-650 6.8-liter V-10 dumper. 

This is probably the slowest and heaviest pickup that Truck Trend has ever tested. It goes from zero to 60 mph in 17.6 seconds, and its 60-to-zero braking distance is 160 feet. And with an average fuel economy of 5.7 mpg, you can bet it costs a good amount of cash to fill the tank.

There is not a lot of insight as to how this dump truck performs in relation to other vehicles in its category, but Truck Trend did get to play with it in the dirt all day.

The F-650 will be available at a lower price now that the base engine is a three-valve V-10 making 362 horsepower and 457 pounds-feet of torque. Base price for the F-650 V-10 chassis cab is $61,000, but you can expect that number to jump quickly with available options. Check out the Truck Trend story by clicking here.

Ford F-650


LOL! I bet when obama gets wind of this 5.7mpg he will have a heart attack. And thats the avg. U can bet the oil companies are smiling ear to ear on this.

Funny how it really wasn't that long ago that high torque gassers ruled this segment. With a CNG setup, this would be cheap to run, too.

Wouldnt it be cool if Ram offered a Ram 6500/7500 Heavy duty. Offer the 6.7L Cummins turbo with allison or the 8.3L Cummins Turbo Diesel with 1,000+torque with allison trany that would be the pulling king truck then. would be cool to see. and yes people the 8.3 does offer more than 1,000 torque.

Remember now, the only reason this is even offered with a gas engine is because a diesel engine would cost probably $10k more. It's just a lower cost option.

You can find a lot of pictures of these on the web where people have put a pickup truck bed on the back and turned it in to a very big, very expensive pickup.

man! they should just drop the EGoboost in this thing i bet it would get 20/25 LOL

is this the same ol motor? or has it been refreshed or what?

More proof Ford has something for everyone. GM on the other hand you FAIL again. Bring back the 4500 already GM!

Truck trend has obviously never tested class 6-8 trucks before. If they had they would realize that the 0-60mph and mpg are not bad at all.

More proof Ford has something for everyone. GM on the other hand you FAIL again. Bring back the 4500 already GM!

Posted by: mike | Mar 19, 2012 8:49:29 PM
ford don't have a midsize/compact truck ford fails again!

@ johnny doe, that means GM really fails because they have way less trucks & truck options than Ford.
Sorry GM FAILS again just deal with it

This is actually the direct replacement for the Ford Ranger in the US!

Really, this isnt a bad idea for small cities or fleets that need a truck heavier than a pickup, but not a full fledged heavy duty dump truck. What do city trucks do? They drive a bit and then idle, something that isnt good for diesels to do for long periods of time. This also lets cities buy cheaper fuel and spend less on maintenance for a comparable truck.

Heck yeah 5.7 MPG is decent for that rig. How much more were they expecting from a diesel? Sure diesels make more torque but they also run about $10,000.

But then today's diesels run under extreme pressure & heat and fuel economy & reliability go to shiite because of it.

Bought my last diesel in '06 and never again. Then they changed the fuel formula it was designed to run on and eventually my '06 will be banned from California altogether as its "50 states" emissions don't meet 2010 and newer "emissions standards"... Are they done changing the rules yet??? Either way I'm done with diesels.

For class 7 & 8, you have no alternative, but for class 6 and under, hell no!

This truck will find a market. It will no doubt be the lowest priced medium duty available. The fuel economy and performance are in the ballpark.

Dumb test. That is what happens when you send car guys to do a man's job ;)
When looking at the pics, I wondered, was Trump a co-sponsor? Caterpillar too? They got free room and board for plugging a few hotels?

I'd have to argue the point they made "
It's the only facility in America where anyone can learn to drive excavators and bulldozers".
I find that hard to believe.

How about important information like what is that huge box behind the cab? What was it like with a full crew of men on board? How hard was it on fuel loaded? or idling a lot? How many yards of aggregate can it carry? Who makes the dump box? and cost? What about operating costs? Repair and replacement of high wear parts like the floor of dump box, and end gate. What about ease of maintenance?

I thought the same thing, it is a PR type story that does not really tell anything. How does it compare to a similar diesel doing the same job?

Another ford laughing stock, and one they include in their monthly sales as a pick up. GM has this segment locked up. People want reliable vehicles and ford doesn't have them. Ford can't count on uneducated inbred hillbillies to buy this type of truck, cities and towns buy these truck for everything from road work to firefighting. As a retired firefighter the worst rigs we ever had where fords, broke down constantly. Just about all fire depts in the US use Cummins, GM designed Detroit Diesels with GM designed Allison automatics and stay away from ford garbage. Once again ford fails while GM sails with sales!



Commercial trucks and down-time don't mix. DuraMax and Allison weren't the problem, GM medium duties went extinct for their crappy build and electronic gremlins. Your anecdotal evidence is just that. Chevy and GMC couldn't give them away and they sat on lots years after they went out of production. F-650s aren't counted in pickup sales but F-450s and F-550s are (about 5%), same as RAM 4500s and 5500s.

This truck may not suit everyone's needs but I believe that there is a place for it. While its performance and fuel economy are not great it does better than my friends 1976 C60 that he bought from the county a few years ago. That truck only gets about 4 mpg and won't even go 50mph with its small block V8. However, it worked well for years fixing potholes and doing other odd jobs around town. I have found it to be very useful around my farm and borrow it regularly. As a taxpayer I would be glad to see the local governments getting a truck that fits their needs for $10,000 less than anything else out there.

I'd like to get one of these to commute back and forth to work with.

The Ford trucks story they did not want us to know about ?

Guys, stop complaining or they will pull this article of the website just like they did with the last one about Fords trucks.

You're supposed to like everything, don't you know that! ;)

@ Mark Williams, what happened there? Who's call was it?

This will find it's way to an UHaul lot near you soon.
I haven't seen a diesel Uhaul truck in a while. With the GM truck gone, they'll be buying these now.

Dear uneducated GM inbred hillbillies (this means you TJ), please review year to date truck sales and tell me who sells the most trucks. Since you can't read the answer is FORD. And please do some research first, F650 & F750 are not included in these sales numbers.
Ford and Ram offer trucks from F150(1500) through F550(5500), GM does not because they fail and cannot make a descent truck. This is fact why else did they stop making their 4500 and up trucks.
Deal with the facts, GM stands for garbage Mobile.

@ johnny doe, that means GM really fails because they have way less trucks & truck options than Ford.
Sorry GM FAILS again just deal with it

Posted by: mike | Mar 19, 2012 9:15:13 PM

And Ford still doesn't have a proven diesel powerplant under the hood of their HD trucks....Ford fails AGAIN. I would take the boat anchor 6.2/6.5 diesel over those POS 6.0/6.4 diesels any day....

This is a good deal for Ford, as not all class 5-7 vocational trucks really need diesel power where it costs around a $13,000+ premium to take a diesel. The intent with these large gassers isn’t so much to be used to drive coast to coast in a dump truck but more of a large truck that is used in a confined area that never really hits the road. Think of a truck used around a State Fair Grounds, Collage Campus, Prison campus, Airports, etc where a truck doesn’t see much mileage although there will be many used on-road running alternative fuels. GM had great sales success with their 8.1L medium duty truck and you can rest assure they will be back with one in a couple years. International, Freightliner and Ram also have gassers up their sleeves for this segment. Diesel emissions have done a fine job of ruining sales of large trucks for certain vocations. These gassers will help get those sales back.

Now here are some badass F-650's! I wonder how much it cost to build these?


You don't need a diesel with these. They do the same work and are within 10% the fuel economy of the diesel and for $8k less.

If you are already spending +60k on this rig, whats another 8k for the diesel. In the long run the gas version isn't saving any money. Burns more fuel, and will not last as long as a diesel. I don't understand fords logic here. Actually, I have never understood fords logic. Oh ya, thats because fordsucks!

^^^ What's another $8k? Obviously, you don't run a business.

Let's take this dump truck that is up for auction as an example.


It's a 1999...with 41k miles on it.

That's a little over 3,000 miles a year.

National average cost:
diesel $4.14 per gallon
gas $3.81 per gallon

average fuel econ:
gas 5.7 mpg (per article)
diesel 6.27 mpg (10% better per Ford)

Now do the math.......
3000 miles / 5.7mpg = 526 gallons x $3.81 = $2004. for gas per year

3000 miles / 6.27 mpg = 478 gallons x $4.14 = $1,978. for diesel per year.

diesel saves you less than $100 a year in fuel costs.

You aint goign to save anything on fuel. In a diesel it would take 80 years to make up that $8000 you would have saved by going with gas.

These vehicles don't get driven enough that mileage or "last as long" is an issue. All of these trucks up for government auction have less than 5k miles a year.

1999 Mack RD-690P single axle dump trucks w/ aluminum bed
50k miles

1990 GMC TopKick

@Dave -
Just wait til next year when GM offers their new medium duty trucks again. It's not a fair fight when you are just competing against yourself! GM is reentering the segment.


Hardly Ford's fault that GM isn't competing.

@ Dave. Nice but you don’t have the high cost of maintenance of the diesel figured in nor the fact most of the gas units will be converted to CNG or propane where the end users will receive tax credits. There are also containment cities pushing to disallow new diesels vehicles from entering their market that we will be hearing about more and more in the next few years. You think the manufacturers that build trucks are offering gas engines just for the fun of it? Believe me, they have plenty of nerdy business analysts watching trends, regulations, and crunching numbers all day long and gasoline engines make sense to offer an option for certain vocations.

GM built a better medium duty than Ford did, even after Ford turned their medium duty production over to International. We will see how good the Ford mediums are in 2014 when Ford starts building them themselves again. As for GM, wait and see...........

And yes, Freightliner and International will have gas jobs soon. Some say they might use versions of the old GM 8.1L..

Typical GM fans when ford has something they don't it sucks. When GM has it it's gods gift. Remember GM used to make Gas powered trucks like this. What will the GM fans excuses be when GM comes out with another 4500 series truck and they are still number 2 in sales


Don't waste your time on them trolls. I don't.

Show me an expensive diesel engine with complicated and costly emissions systems and I show'll you a market where a V10 gas burner makes sense.


Mike Levine discusses the merits of the gas medium duty...


Being a journalist is tough solely because they have to deal with inept readers. See how Mike get's bomb in the comment section, then again, it's you tube. So, who cares!

For the record, Dodge outsells Ford in class 3-7, even though Dodge only sells class 3-5 commercial trucks. Source: Ward's Auto News.

Ford sells very few class 6 and 7 trucks, less than 10,000 a year.

@TJ - I agree with Denver Mike's comment. You were a firefighter? I worked 23 years as a paramedic. In the field, GM products are as rare as honesty in politics. Maybe your area was different, but all I see are Ford E350 paramedic units, the odd Chevy, never seen a Dodge (lately). I started out in Dodge Tradesman conversions. Police are still mostly Crown Vics, I've seen the odd Impala, and even a Nissan. SUV's have been mostly Suburban and Tahoe. Most of the rural pickups are Ford crewcabs. Most of the fire halls I see don't run units small enough to fall into the product range that Ford can cover. Most of the rural rescue units I see are Ford F450 size.

The V10 is the most gutless engine around. I have driven many motorhomes with this engine and it has a problem gettting out of it's own way. Drop this motor Ford! It is a real JOKE!

I believe that you are going to see a lot more gas burners on the road. I recently noticed that the UPS truck that comes to my house is gas powered. I am sure that UPS did not make that decision lightly and when I asked the drivers they tell me that the new trucks are a huge improvement. Also, the local garbage trucks are that are privately owned and operated are gas powered. I asked the owner why he chose gas and he told me that he simply cannot affor a diesel and does not need the power. His trucks are on the road all day every day and most are over 10 years old so durability of the gas burners does not seem to be hurting him at all. His business would be a great candidate for CNG or propane.

@Greg - Most motorhomes are built on the E series chassis, and if you read the full article from Truck Trend, you would see that it is not the same motor as the F series. The F series run the 3 valve heads, the E series the 2 valve. Also, the motorhomes aren't running 7.17:1 rear ends, and most haven't gone to six speed autos yet unless they are only a couple of years old.
I bet the fuel economy figure on this is actually a little low as they were driving it at 70 mph from LA to LV. Think about the aerodynamics of that truck and a 7.17:1 rear end at 70. My only beef with a truck like this is its limited payload - only 10k. My '69 F600 had over 12k legal, and often saw 15k while staying below 26k. But it didn't have an auto, V10 (5x2, 300/6!) or crew cab (or shocks), so it weighed 2.5 tons less.

The V10 is far from gutless TROLL!

The V10 is far from gutless TROLL!

Posted by: Frank | Mar 21, 2012 11:18:17 AM

Ford V10 engine are gutless just like their owners.

Ford is just trying to get rid of all the left over v10 gutless engines. Just another marketing scam by ford. Only idiots buy into it.

That truck will get better than 5.7 miles per gallon..I have two 95 f 700 Fords with automatics GAS engines,,twenty five foot box bed with liftgages and they get over 6.5...'

If this truck has fuel computer you can dismiss that,,,I had a International DT 466 Diesel that didnt get over 7.mpg...

The comments to this entry are closed.