By on September 1, 2009

The long Ford-Navistar diesel engine drama has played out its final days and the replacement engine is finally officially in existence. Given the troubles—contractual and otherwise—with the outgoing Navistar-sourced engine, Ford is quite eager for everyone to know the new 6.7-liter Power Stroke engine is “Ford-engineered, Ford-tested and Ford-manufactured”. Buried amongst the PR gems in the release is this nugget: “On turbocharger service, for example, the body/cab no longer has to be removed from the frame to access the turbo.” Wow, that means you have to remove the truck body to repair the turbocharger on the current engine. Ouch.

The new Power Stroke uses a unique architecture in which the “exhaust manifolds [. . .] reside in the valley of the engine instead of outboard, while the intake is outboard of the engine. The cylinder heads are essentially flipped around in comparison with previous V-8 engine architectures.” This thing is surely going to look different under the hood. Oh, and by the way, Super Duty diesel users will also have to keep a urea tank filled up to help manage the exhaust emissions. I wonder if this means Ford dealers will soon be able to top off the urea tanks for Mercedes diesel owners, and vice-versa.
Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “Ford Completes In-House Super Duty Diesel...”


  • avatar
    Mirko Reinhardt

    I wonder if this means Ford dealers will soon be able to top off the urea tanks for Mercedes diesel owners, and visa-versa?

    Why would you have your dealer refill the urea tank? Gas stations sell it. It’s usually one shelf below the windshield washer fluid. Or do you drive to the dealer to refill windshield washer fluid as well?

  • avatar

    Mirko Reinhardt
    Why would you have your dealer refill the urea tank? Gas stations sell it. It’s usually one shelf below the windshield washer fluid.

    Not in the US. Not yet, anyway. Right now it’s one of the fluids the dealer tops off when he services your car, and as far as I know, it’s not available anywhere else.

  • avatar

    Awfully crowded inside that V. Anyone found pics of the turbo with two impellers and one compressor?

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Ford is quite adamant that everyone know that the new 6.7 liter Power Stroke is “Ford-engineered, Ford-tested and Ford-manufactured”.

    Well…that was the problem with the last one. Ford is the reason the 6.0 was such a problem.

    Navistar didn’t have near the problems with that engine in their applications.

  • avatar
    Sutures

    This thing sure is going to look different under the hood.

    Why, yes, instead of a gigantic piece of plastic under the hood stating “FORD V8″, there will now be a gigantic piece of plastic under the hood proudly stating “FORD V8 DIESEL“.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    The new Power Stroke uses a unique architectural in which the “exhaust manifolds … reside in the valley of the engine instead of outboard, while the intake is outboard of the engine. The cylinder heads are essentially flipped around in comparison with previous V-8 engine architectures.”

    Wait, what?

    I thought there were a host of heat management and other reasons why that is a bad idea.

  • avatar
    Geo. Levecque

    Its one thing to have any Diesel, it’s another trying to get independent service, otherwise one will be tied to the Dealer for life, I know in this Country (Canada) the only Diesel Techs that repair diesel engines are employed in the Farming dealer ships for Tractors!

  • avatar
    Banger

    Michael Karesh:

    “Awfully crowded inside that V.”

    Absolutely.

    As much as I consider myself a Ford man, I just cannot see the logic of a V8 diesel over an inline model a’la Dodge’s preferred Cummins. The inline layout keeps things much simpler, and depending on the packaging of the engine compartment, has the potential to make routine servicing a lot easier. Which, if I’m ever in the market for a diesel-powered commercial truck, will be an important factor in the buying decision. The last two generations of Powerstroke (Navistar) engines were far too complicated, and it was like they had been wedged into that space under the hood with a big shoehorn.

    I think if the truck engineers would offer a real-world practical inline diesel option, it could be a hit with the contractors of the world who are actually buying these trucks for work purposes– i.e. not the macho guys who just commute in one of these beasts.

    As it stands now, all of the Big 3 full-size diesel pickup engines are making as much torque as many low- and mid-range 18-wheeler engines. That’s ridiculous. The engines generate more torque and pulling power than the frames could realistically handle for any length of time, I’d say. So for those of us not needing a fashion statement/penile enhancement, offer up a straight-six mill with a more realistic 350-400 ft.-lbs of torque that is more matched to the frame’s capabilities and will return better fuel economy and easier self-maintenance.

    The over-capable, over-complicated engines in these trucks today seem like a good excuse to sneak in planned obsolescence in the form of prohibitively high repair bills when, say, a turbo needs to be replaced and it costs more than the truck is worth after just a few years of useful work life.

  • avatar
    jschaef481

    Lost in all of these comments is that much of this technology and re-engineering is required to meet 2010 EPA standards reducing NOx. The good news is that fuel economy increases due to reduced heat management issues. EGR cooling needs are reduced. More heat allows for more complete cumbustion, generating more power and better fuel economy. But the bad news is that all of this comes at a ridiculous premium for the engine at purchase. The 6.4L Powerstroke is a $7800MSRP/$6500invoice option. Pricing is not announced on the 6.7L, but we have been told to expect another $2000 to $3000.

  • avatar
    jschaef481

    BTW, the torque rating on the existing 6.4L is 600 lb.-ft. The torque rating on even small class 8 trucks is 800 lb.-ft., or more. Ford uses this engine in its F550, rated 19500# GVWR with a GCWR of 33000#. The frame will take its torque load and the truck will need it if used to its capacity in hilly terrain.

  • avatar
    kericf

    They would have been a lot better off had they just started over with a Cummins engine after Dodge had to cut their exclusive contract.

    And YES, with the Navistar you had to pull the cab off to service the turbo, and a lot of other things on the engine. It was every dealer’s wet dream because it meant a minimum of 8 to 12 hours of labor for even simple repairs and the reputation has started to hurt sales of commercial trucks that used the setup. Father-in-law works on diesel trucks for a power company and told them he was quitting if they bought any more of them.

  • avatar
    jschaef481

    Contrary to popular opinion, it is not every dealer’s wet dream to hand customers a big bill for minor repairs. To kericf’s point, such circumstances create customer ill-will and harm long-term repeat business.

  • avatar
    Banger

    jschaef481:

    “BTW, the torque rating on the existing 6.4L is 600 lb.-ft. The torque rating on even small class 8 trucks is 800 lb.-ft., or more.”

    Right you are. I was thinking horsepower. I’m a doofus.

    There are several medium-duty trucks with this kind of torque rating, however. Freightliner and Sterling (Ford’s old commercial trucks, basically) have made wide use of the Mercedes MBE900 mill that has horsepower/torque specs ranging from 190HP/520lbft to 350HP/860lbft. These trucks are rated for GVWR of anywhere between 18,000 and 64,000 lbs, as evidenced by the Sterling Acterra.

    The point still stands that a V8 layout unnecessarily complicates the design and preventive maintenance of what is supposed to be a hard-working, minimal-problems powertrain. And you’re spot-on about the dealers– I can’t imagine it’s good for business when a routine part failure such as a turbo requires all those labor hours on your customers’ bills.

  • avatar
    ComfortablyNumb

    P71_CrownVic:
    “Navistar didn’t have near the problems with that engine in their applications.”

    What other applications?

  • avatar
    seabrjim

    Reminds me of a certain car which had to have its engine hoisted a few inches for spark plug changes. Who was the engineer who proposed unbolting engine mounts for a $400 dollar tune up?

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    ComfortablyNumb:
    What other applications?

    Well, Navistar school buses, the International XT pickup, the International Durastar line, the MXT Military vehicle, and the International 4200.

    The engine was known as VT365 when Navistar used it. The engine was programmed differently (per Ford) in the Ford applications. It put out substantially more power and resulted in broken engines.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I can’t think of a great reason to go V8 vs I6 but perhaps someone with more experience in engine architecture can chime in on that.

    With regard to the layout though it makes perfect sense to design a diesel to be most efficient for the turbos, as there is no reason not to turbocharge a diesel. GM was using the same layout for their light duty pickup diesel before they killed it.

    The old 7.3 liter ford diesels were bulletproof, so there is no reason to think ford can’t design a great diesel engine. Whether the problems with the navistat engines were due to a flaw in navistar’s design or a flaw in their implementation in pickup trucks is anyone’s guess.

  • avatar
    Banger

    NulloModo:

    “The old 7.3 liter ford diesels were bulletproof, so there is no reason to think ford can’t design a great diesel engine. “

    The old 7.3-liter engines were International (Navistar) engines, as well. There was a previous generation before 1994 models that wasn’t referred to as “PowerStroke,” but I’m unsure whether International Truck was involved in that one.

    And I’m not advocating for non-turbo diesel. Although it would make great sense to my “simplicity at all costs” mindset, it wouldn’t make good sense for power and usability’s sake.

    And seabrjim: I think you’re thinking of many of the GM 3800 V6 engines. My mother-in-law’s Buick LeSabre can’t undergo a spark plug change without unbolting the rear engine mounts and letting it “hang” a little lower. Pretty complicated if you try to do it at home– which is probably just what GM intended. All the better to get you to their “Certified GM Service” garage and pay four times more for the parts, not to mention the ridiculous labor.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    “Reminds me of a certain car which had to have its engine hoisted a few inches for spark plug changes. Who was the engineer who proposed unbolting engine mounts for a $400 dollar tune up?”

    Again with this…On my 75 Chevrolet Monza V8, one mount had to be loosened and the engine jacked up a couple of inches to get the end spark plug on one side. Five plug changes in 150,000 miles…maybe the total cost of all of them exceeded $400.

    I don’t understand why this keeps coming up over and over again. Other little things like having to remove the instrument panel to replace the heater core on some mid-80′s Fords come to mind, and we don’t hear the bitching about that.

  • avatar

    Banger is right in that you really do not “need” eight cylinders in a compression ignition engine to get the power required for the task at hand. An inline six, or hell, even a large-displacement four cylinder would be better than trying to make a V-8 Diesel pickup truck. This V-8 is literally marketing trumping engineering as in the American mindset “V-8 equals power”. It might work with gasoline, but just makes for a goofy, unworkable, unreliable nightmare in Diesel applications.

    Diesel’s beauty is simplicity, reliability and torque at low RPMs. Their weaknesses are vibration, horsepower:weight issues and emissions. You eliminate vibration with a well-balanced inline six cylinder engine, which is the smoothest configuration you can find in a simple layout. HP can be boosted with a turbocharger. Emissions with urea.

    Keep It Simple, Stupid (Ford).

    –chuck

  • avatar

    I don’t understand why this keeps coming up over and over again. Other little things like having to remove the instrument panel to replace the heater core on some mid-80’s Fords come to mind, and we don’t hear the bitching about that.

    Agreed. There are lots of offenders here. My ’94 Grand Cherokee (V8) required amazing contortions to change the distributor cap and rotor, which was 1 inch away from the rear hood lip. My ’98 Saab 900 has convinced me that whatever they’re smoking in Sweden is absolutely fantastic.

    These decisions aren’t made with maintenance in mind. It’s all about how easy it is to assemble the whole thing in the plant. They put the engine parts on, then stuff the engine into the car. Fixing them is not a high priority.

  • avatar
    kobo1d

    You have to understand how much the old 6.0 Powerstroke cost Ford. My parents own one and Ford has paid for at least $10000 for in-warranty repair. I think they should have Lemon Law’d it after the 4th Turbo…

    Not to mention that it begins to run terribly sometimes for a proscribed random amount of time, but the behavior is inconsistent so that when taken to the dealer it can’t be replicated..

  • avatar
    blowfish

    I hear these newer trucks’ reliability was not it used to be.
    I have a 6.9 & 7.3 Ford. I was told these injection pump usually last 100,000 miles. Is kind of not a long life.

    Last time a Tow truck driver told me that these 6 litre & GM’s were all that reliable.

    Dodge make them, but didnt make any 450 or 550 chassis, so not heavy enuf for towing.

  • avatar
    jschaef481

    Banger: Trust me, you don’t want a 190hp/520 lb.-ft. engine in a medium duty truck in anything you want to get out of its own way. Point taken on the hp argument, though. They do up-rate the engine for marketing purposes only…the old 6.0L in the current E-Series is rated only to 235/440.

  • avatar
    Banger

    jschaef481:

    “They do up-rate the engine for marketing purposes only…the old 6.0L in the current E-Series is rated only to 235/440.”

    Exactly, and it’s killing them on the reliability front. As P71 noted, the Navistar/International version of this engine (VT365) was dead reliable in countless FedEx trucks, school buses, tow rigs, etc primarily because it wasn’t artificially “boosted” with more aggressive engine mapping for the sake of a higher HP number.

    International was wise that their customers wanted durability and real-world usable power, not some unrealistically high horsepower figure to brag about. Ford would be well served to take that lesson and run with it. I’m a marketer, so I’m somewhat sympathetic to Ford’s desire to have horsepower bragging rights. But you can easily make a unique and awesome marketing case on the reliability factor, as well. In fact, it would be a refreshingly different approach to selling these trucks in this day and age of ever-higher horsepower and torque ratings (and ever-higher repairs and cost-to-operate.)

  • avatar
    jaybread

    A few data points:

    The current Ford 6.4 is rated at 650 lb/ft in the F250 and F350, 600 lb/ft in F450. The F450 is rated up to 24.5K towing, and engine is down rated slightly to reduce tranny heat load at max towing.

    On a positive note, the body on the Ford 6.4 (2008-2010) is designed with quick disconnects and can be be lifted quickly. Does not take 4- 8 hours. This is not ideal, but when the body is up, engine service is a breeze.

    The GM Duramax is an Isuzu V8 (660 lb/ft) and is considered an excellent engine. Cummins and Caterpillar both make many V8 diesels used in other industrial applications that work very well.

    Ford did not manage the introduction of the 6.0 well in 2003, but to their credit, have recovered with the current 6.4.

  • avatar
    ComfortablyNumb

    P71_CrownVic:
    “Navistar school buses, the International XT pickup, the International Durastar line, the MXT Military vehicle, and the International 4200.”

    Now compare the volume of those vehicles vs. the volume of the Ford Super Duty. Something like 2 orders of magnitude. Yes, the 6.0L was crap, but it was equally crappy for everybody that used it. You just didn’t hear about it because military, commercial and municipal applications aren’t under public scrutiny the way a consumer application is.

    I don’t doubt Ford screwed things up on the 6.0L, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of doing it right.

  • avatar
    cRacK hEaD aLLeY

    Wife has a white F350 HD ’06 Power Stoke thing in our driveway to pull a 5 horse trailer with living quarters.

    I like taking it to Safeway to buy low fat cottage cheese and honey.

    Unlocking, lowering the gate and putting the ONE plastic bag with 400 grams of grocery there, hanging from the left hook, helps me heal from the low-fat cottage cheese and honey thing.
    Then I lock the gate.

    I do manage do keep a straight face trough this, and I did get a priceless look from a couple driving a convertible Saab once.

    That truck is, though, the most miserable piece of loud engine and wind noise ever made. It deserves a comet hitting it in my driveway.

    I’ll stick to my 330Ci.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    Low horsepower, high torque is overemphasized because torque is (usually) a bigger number than horsepower. Horsepower is a measure of energy transfer and torque is a component of the horsepower equation. However, it is horsepower (energy) which determines how much of a load can be carried and at what speed. “Low end torque” isn’t as important as “low end horsepower”. An engine that makes a lot of power at lower speeds will last longer, but let’s be precise here, it’s power and not torque that we’re looking for.

  • avatar
    seabrjim

    Heater cores are not a regularly scheduled maintenance item. At least not in my book. I never had the dealer say ” since were changing the oil, plugs and air filter might as well change the heater core too”.

  • avatar
    jaybread

    Low horsepower, high torque is overemphasized because torque is (usually) a bigger number than horsepower. Horsepower is a measure of energy transfer and torque is a component of the horsepower equation. However, it is horsepower (energy) which determines how much of a load can be carried and at what speed. “Low end torque” isn’t as important as “low end horsepower”. An engine that makes a lot of power at lower speeds will last longer, but let’s be precise here, it’s power and not torque that we’re looking for.

    Not so fast–I think you might want to re-visit definition of what torque is, and isn’t.

    Maybe trucks would be better off with F1 motors?
    Maybe not?

    Start here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

  • avatar
    colin42

    Cummins and Caterpillar both make many V8 diesels used in other industrial applications that work very well.

    Cummins don’t make any V8 engine – there is a v8 for light duty in development but the rest are either, I4, I6, V12, V16, or V18

    Edit – there is 1 Cummins V8 in production- the V903 but this is used for military applications only

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    That truck is, though, the most miserable piece of loud engine and wind noise ever made. It deserves a comet hitting it in my driveway.

    Should have bought a Duramax. MUCH, MUCH quiter and a much more reliable engine. Couple that with the Allison transmission and you have an unbeatable package.

  • avatar
    Campisi

    The new Power Stroke uses a unique architectural in which the “exhaust manifolds … reside in the valley of the engine instead of outboard, while the intake is outboard of the engine. The cylinder heads are essentially flipped around in comparison with previous V-8 engine architectures.” This thing sure is going to look different under the hood.

    It will probably look like a modernised version of the old 401 Nailhead.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    Not so fast–I think you might want to re-visit definition of what torque is, and isn’t.

    Maybe trucks would be better off with F1 motors?
    Maybe not?

    Jay,

    I’m correct. Horsepower is a measure of energy transfer. Power = work/time. You didn’t read my post. An F1 motor could be geared to pull more than any consumer diesel truck but it would be doing work near 20,000 rpm and not last long. A high horsepower diesel engine making it’s power at lower rpms will both last longer and pull more of a load faster. Guys who don’t understand basic physics just look at “low end torque” because it’s easier to understand. The situation is more complex than looking at torque alone.

  • avatar

    It’s possible that a reverse airflow V8 is a more compact engine. Fuel injection rails take up less space than exhaust manifolds. Also, with the turbo closer to the head, there’s less turbo lag.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Torque is force. Horsepower is a function of torque and RPM. Torque is actually doing the work, horsepower is a measure of how much work that torque can do based on how many RPMs it can handle. For an truck that will be doing a lot of heavy towing the most important job is going to be moving a heavy load from rest, thus a large amount of torque, preferably at a low RPM, is needed. However, the vehicle also needs to be able to accelerate from speed, and tackle hills, etc, thus a certain modicum of horsepower, that is ability to spread that torque over more RPMs, is needed as well.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    Torque is force.

    This is correct and what do we know about force? It can be multiplied! How do we multiply force in an automobile? Gearing! A higher horsepower engine, within a reasonable RPM will outpull a similar truck with much lower horsepower and it will pull the load faster.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    How do we multiply force in an automobile? Gearing!

    True, but issues with general driveability, complexity, fuel economy, and top speed all put practical limits on how you can set your drive ratios. A diesel with 650 lbs/ft at 1500 rpm using 4.20:1 gears is a preferable solution to a gas engine with 300 lbs/ft at 4500 rpm using 8.50:1 gears.

  • avatar
    gimmeamanual

    FWIW, a lot of the design/development was done by AVL. Ford simply did not have the in-house expertise to do this on their own.

  • avatar
    ComfortablyNumb

    gimmeamanual
    FWIW, a lot of the design/development was done by AVL. Ford simply did not have the in-house expertise to do this on their own.

    Not true. AVL did exactly zero development, calibration, or testing. They may have been consulted during the development process on certain engine subsystems, but I assure you Ford can and did develop this engine themselves.

    Maxb49
    “Guys who don’t understand basic physics just look at “low end torque” because it’s easier to understand.”

    Might want to get the physics book back out. HP is a function of the torque an engine develops. Torque tells you how much force can be applied to a load. HP doesn’t tell you anything directly.

  • avatar
    gimmeamanual

    ^Sorry, but not true, since I was personally involved with AVL on development projects, as well as going with them to do post-test engine teardowns. I never said Ford didn’t do development work, just that it wasn’t all them independently.

  • avatar
    Scott.A

    This comment thread is humorous because I actually work for Navistar and know a bit of the inside information concerning the last Powerstroke. Unfortunately, I can’t enlighten people with anything too work related. Not sure where my confidentiality starts and ends and not exactly looking to get fired. Plus, anyone with half a brain could figure out who I am from my username.

  • avatar
    TR4

    NulloModo :
    September 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    True, but issues with general driveability, complexity, fuel economy, and top speed all put practical limits on how you can set your drive ratios. A diesel with 650 lbs/ft at 1500 rpm using 4.20:1 gears is a preferable solution to a gas engine with 300 lbs/ft at 4500 rpm using 8.50:1 gears.

    Preferable for what? Going slower? Using your numbers, the diesel is generating 186 hp while the gas is making 257 hp. At the drive wheels the diesel has a little more torque (2,730 vs. 2,550 ft-lbs) but considerably less speed (357 vs. 529 rpm). For a better comparison let’s give the gas engine a 9.1 gear instead of your 8.5. Now the gas engine produces the same wheel torque (2,730 ft-lbs) but still more speed (495 rpm). So the gas engine will pull the same load up the same hill but 38% faster. Which (not by coincidence) is how much extra hp the gas engine has.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    TR4, you make a good point that I forgot to mention. Only torque at the wheels matters in the “pulling force” on a load. Engine torque is a factor of horsepower.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    This comment thread is humorous because I actually work for Navistar and know a bit of the inside information concerning the last Powerstroke. Unfortunately, I can’t enlighten people with anything too work related. Not sure where my confidentiality starts and ends and not exactly looking to get fired. Plus, anyone with half a brain could figure out who I am from my username.

    Hey Scott!

    My grandfather worked for Navistar…well…International Harvester many years ago. In fact, he was the Chief Engineer of the 466 when it was being developed.

  • avatar
    jaybread

    Cummins don’t make any V8 engine – there is a v8 for light duty in development but the rest are either, I4, I6, V12, V16, or V18

    Edit – there is 1 Cummins V8 in production- the V903 but this is used for military applications only

    ?? We have 3 Cummins diesel V8′s at our location that run emergency back up systems. Wouldn’t the V16 count as 2 V8′s?

  • avatar
    TR4

    ComfortablyNumb :
    September 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Might want to get the physics book back out. HP is a function of the torque an engine develops. Torque tells you how much force can be applied to a load. HP doesn’t tell you anything directly.

    Nonsense! HP (or actually power in any unit) can be defined as “the rate at which work is done”. It is a function of torque AND speed as expressed by the formula Power = (Torque X RPM)/5252.

    Torque by itself is relatively meaningless. If a 200 lb man stands on a 10 ft long wrench he will generate 2000 lb-ft of torque. Does that mean he can move a load up a hill faster than Cummins’ or Ford’s finest? I don’t think so!

  • avatar

    jaybread :
    ?? We have 3 Cummins diesel V8’s at our location that run emergency back up systems. Wouldn’t the V16 count as 2 V8’s?

    Um, NO. We have a Cummins V-16 supplying 1.25mW of backup power to our facility and it is NOT 2 V-8s. The thing is immense and even half of it would weigh 10,000lbs.Not practical for moving anything with wheels. A rudder maybe, but not wheels.

    –chuck

  • avatar
    Eric Bryant

    jschaef481 :

    Lost in all of these comments is that much of this technology and re-engineering is required to meet 2010 EPA standards reducing NOx. The good news is that fuel economy increases due to reduced heat management issues. EGR cooling needs are reduced. More heat allows for more complete cumbustion, generating more power and better fuel economy.

    Well, the problem with so-called “in-cylinder” (as opposed to “exhaust after-treatment”) is that NOx reduction is accomplished by lowering the in-cylinder temperatures and peak pressures (high temps and pressures being what stimulates the formation of NOx in the presence of nitrogen and excess oxygen). There is more heat, yes; that’s largely because of heat rejection to the EGR system due to the need for high flow rates and low charge air temperatures. Oh, and as an added bonus, the lower temperatures increase the likelihood of smoke/soot formation.

    Adding to the problem is the friction and pumping losses created by the aforementioned EGR flow rates; pumping all that exhaust back into the intake reduces the effective volumetric efficiency of the engine and thus drives additional displacement and all the disadvantages that come with it.

    Due to the horrific cost of current exhaust after-treatment technology (described by various individuals as “bolting a chemistry lab onto the exhaust manifold”), nearly all 2007 and 2010 diesel engines use various amounts of in-cylinder emissions reduction with the corresponding decrease in fuel economy.

    I suspect that the use of direct-injected (and perhaps stratified-charge) forced-induction gasoline engines would be far wiser for most truck consumers (that group consisting of the folks who are driving heavy-duty light trucks that are unladen 99% of the time), but those have a major disadvantage – they don’t make cool rattling noises at idle and acceleration, and they don’t spew black soot that pisses off the liberals and hippies. Oh well; the automotive market would be no fun if customers were rational ;)

  • avatar
    cdotson

    Adding somewhat to what Scott.A alludes to:

    A few years ago I worked with an engineer who was a heavy truck engineer with International in Texas during early development of the PowerStroke 6.0L. He had chance to wander by labs doing load testing on numerous engines simultaneously. He got just enough of the dirt on the 6.0L to spread the word around before Ford launched the engine into production that nobody should buy one. Sure enough, quality problems and rumors of quality problems ensued. I wish I could recall some more of the details that he had actually heard but it was too inconsequential at the time (only recently would I even consider Ford anything anyway).

    What I do recall was problems with the fuel system and injector style. Problems that Int’l knew about and tried to address were stifled by Ford who would not allow fundamental approach changes to the type or control of injectors nor would they concede on cost-sensitive aspects of the problem parts. Kinda like Ford said “we know there are problems, now fix them without changing anything.”


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India