Ford's new engine...6.7ltr

[JUeckert]

Well, that's true. I had forgotten about that aspect. The company truck I drive for work is an F-550 7. 3L with the 6-speed, but it has a 4. 88 axle ratio, so that makes a big difference. I agree about the pathetic lack of low end torque with higher axle ratios. I remember when the Ford 6-speed first came out, the ranch I used to work at got one in an F-350 PSD, and the foreman was always killing it in the driveway because he was used to driving the ranch truck with the Cummins. Another rancher I talked to said his guys were always having to put them in 4-Low out in the pasture because they would stall out trying to cross ditches, etc.

with the 4. 88 gears and the tall 19. 5 rubber the trucks running[likely], you are loosing some of the 4. 88 ratio. the biggest issue i have seen with folks driveing the 6spd equipped fords, was the gear they chose to take off in. most take off in the gear marked as second[ 2] , this is actually 3rd gear. this is generally ok to do, unless the truck is trailering, or just plain heavy. i launch very heavy trailers on a weekly basis useing first [ marked as low] and second [marked as 1] , with zero issues. early powerstrokes and other ford diesels with 5spd's[ pre 96] had crappy manuals , which did not have low granny type gears, gm and dodge manuals did. i hear talk about no low end trq on the v8 diesel's, this is hog wash! if the low end trq is so much better on the dodge, then why do i [ and many others] have/had so many issues backing heavy trailers with them. i have had little or no issues with the manual equipped fords/gm's. it's not the engine folks, it the transmission's gear ratio's... ... .

 

[HBarlow]

Speaking of Hogwash, let's analyze the statements made in the post above.

The actual diameter of a 19. 5" tire is only a fraction of an inch taller than a standard LT235/85 R16. The tires are essentially identical in gearing effect.

All the Furd manual transmissions I remember seeing have been marked on the shift knob as "Low", "2", "3", "4", "5", and"OD. "

The Dodge manual transmissions I have seen, driven, owned, or heard of do not have so-called granny or ultra low first gears.

V8 diesels, in fact V8 gas burner engines also, do not produce any torque until they ae revved above 2000 rpm, above 2500 rpm in the case of the Sick. Ohh Furd/Navistar engine. It is a result of the fundamental design. Anyone who has driven one like the posters in this thread have recognized the fundamental difference between the Cummins engine and the Furd V8 diesels. There seems to be only one Furd guy who doesn't recognize this.

I wonder why all modern large displacement diesel engines used to power OTR tractors are in-line six cylinder designs, not V8 or other V configuration?

There is no V8 diesel manufactured by any manufacturer with any name installed in any truck that can be launched in first gear with a manual transmission simply by releasing the clutch at idle rpm as is done with all inline six cylinder engines like our little Cummins B motor.

Cummins publishes the "clutch release torque" figures for the ISB engine in their website. When I owned an '01/HO 6 spd I think the Cummins site said the engine produced more than 350 ft. lbs. of torque at clutch release rpm. I think I read the new ISB6. 7 produces 375 ft. lbs. or perhaps 400 ft. lbs. How much does a Furd Sick. Ohh produce?

I wonder why Furd and GM don't offer their V8 diesel engine with manual transmissions since early in the Furd/Navistar and GM/Isuzu experience or even produce off idle torque figures.

 

[JUeckert]

Speaking of Hogwash, let's analyze the statements made in the post above.



The actual diameter of a 19. 5" tire is only a fraction of an inch taller than a standard LT235/85 R16. The tires are essentially identical in gearing effect.



All the Furd manual transmissions I remember seeing have been marked on the shift knob as "Low", "2", "3", "4", "5", and"OD. "



The Dodge manual transmissions I have seen, driven, owned, or heard of do not have so-called granny or ultra low first gears.



V8 diesels, in fact V8 gas burner engines also, do not produce any torque until they ae revved above 2000 rpm, above 2500 rpm in the case of the Sick. Ohh Furd/Navistar engine. It is a result of the fundamental design. Anyone who has driven one like the posters in this thread have recognized the fundamental difference between the Cummins engine and the Furd V8 diesels. There seems to be only one Furd guy who doesn't recognize this.



I wonder why all modern large displacement diesel engines used to power OTR tractors are in-line six cylinder designs, not V8 or other V configuration?



There is no V8 diesel manufactured by any manufacturer with any name installed in any truck that can be launched in first gear with a manual transmission simply by releasing the clutch at idle rpm as is done with all inline six cylinder engines like our little Cummins B motor.



Cummins publishes the "clutch release torque" figures for the ISB engine in their website. When I owned an '01/HO 6 spd I think the Cummins site said the engine produced more than 350 ft. lbs. of torque at clutch release rpm. I think I read the new ISB6. 7 produces 375 ft. lbs. or perhaps 400 ft. lbs. How much does a Furd Sick. Ohh produce?



I wonder why Furd and GM don't offer their V8 diesel engine with manual transmissions since early in the Furd/Navistar and GM/Isuzu experience or even produce off idle torque figures.

you are mistaken on the tire's mr barlow. the run of the mill tire on a 450/550 ford or similar gm, is a 225-70-19. 5. depending on manufacture, and sometimes tread pattern, they measure around 32''. the average 16'' you mention averages around 31''. i cant speak off hand on trq figures of the 6. 0, but i do know the 7. 3 could closely match the 12/24v cummins in low end trq. if you want clutch release trq figures on the international engine's, the local ih dealer has brochures with such info. the brochure i have on hand for the 6. 4 claims 350ftlbs at 800 rpm, this is with the engine programmed at the 230hp setting. as for the no v8 can launch off line at idle in first , you really ought to retract that statement. i can produce several that can, empty or loaded. from a 3/4 ton chevy, to a class 8 mack. as for gear ratio's of transmissions, all hd 5 spd transmissions that both dodge and gm used had lower first gear ratio's then any of the ford 5spd trannys, [pre 1996 diesel models]. the older 4spd used in the 6. 9 fords had this same issue also. gear vendor at one time had a list of these transmission's and their ratio's, chk it out and you will see the difference. on edit , fwiw i found a brochure for the 6. 0. the 6. 0 in a 230hp setting show's to have 340ftlbs at clutch engagement. also the shift knob on fords 6spd i have owned/own or driven were numbered as low,1st,2nd,3rd,4th,and od. no fifth. .

 

[Austin Diesel]

Wow, that's some tuneup! I used to think the Furd 5. 4 gas motor was a good choice in an F-150 because it had a somewhat long stroke with good lower rpm torque for a small gasser V8 and had three valve heads for rpm capability as well. I reversed that opinion when I learned about the spark plugs being stuck in the heads.



No Furds in my future, gas or diesel!

Spark plugs should have been pulled at 60,000 and checked and use a powered wire brush to buff threads and a little anti sieze woked great.



just rebuilt a Ford romeo motor 4. 2 just a fancy 302 with alum heads, worked like a champ



tires ? trans? thought the subject was the 6. 7 scorpian motor?



but i like the cummins for being more simple



Austin Diesel

 

[HBarlow]

JUeckert:

I'm not sure if you simply make up the facts you need to back up an argument or, are simply misinformed.

I went to the Tire Rack Tire Rack - Your performance experts for tires and wheels website and looked up tire size LT225/70 R19. 5 and found that the overall diameter is 32". Then I keyed in LT235/85 R16 and found the overall diameter of that tire is 31. 7". As I wrote in an earlier post above, the difference in size between these two common tires is 0. 3" or 3/10". As I wrote, the difference is a fraction of an inch. That tiny fraction of an inch would not be noticeable for load starting ability and would make a difference of perhaps 30 rpm at highway cruise speed in top gear.

I will not bother to go do all the research to disprove everything you wrote, but I am confident that I could if I was willing to go to the trouble. I will just simply say I believe everything you wrote is wrong, incorrect, and I disagree with you.

This is a Dodge-Cummins website. You will have a very difficult time convincing TDR members of the merit of Furd diesels or trucks. Perhaps you are on the wrong website.

 

[Austin Diesel]

i hope the 6. 7 is a winner for ford, but with aluminum heads and urea injection, i have to wonder. not happy to see the manual option be dropped, but after chevy did it, i figured the rest would follow. it's been rare to find a manual transmission in any brand for several years now. auto makers have less profit margin in a manual equipped truck also. as for international having a inline 6 that would work in fords, it wont. to long,tall and heavy. .

Just need a CGI block or a Beefy Alum block thats sleeved I-4 or V-4 or 5 cyl. with a paxton supercharger and a turbo, hydro electro trans, hydraulic fan,drives and accessorys 8 speed auto and a 2 speed rear end with alum components



ready to pull anything if not just make so you bump up the pressure to increase torgue curves by under driving the compressor pulleysand reprogram the ECM modules.

 

[Ncostello]

You will have a very difficult time convincing TDR members of the merit of Furd diesels or trucks. Perhaps you are on the wrong website

There are alot of members. Not all, or even a vast majority, surely believe that Ford trucks are complete and total trash in every aspect. I've seen alot of posts of people here wishing they had the SuperDuty body-frame with the 5. 9L Cummins. Each brand is respectful in their own way.



If a person chose a Ford Triton engine, and removed the plugs soon thereafter, lightly coated the plug threads with never-seize, and retorqued them to 13ft-lbs... you'd never have a problem. When people leave them in the engine for 100K and never touch them... its no suprise they are seized. Just as with ANY aluminum head with spark plugs, foreign or domestic, car or truck. Ford should add an antiseize step upon assembly. I did on my fire departments V10 F550 utility truck when it had 8 miles on it. Took 30 minutes, no special tools.



And further... the position of the plugs in the head, being down in a hole and all, is NOT an issue. They are easy to access from the top of the engine without anything more than a socket extension. Dodge 4. 7L Magnum has the same plug position. The Hemi is similiar except for specific position of the plug, and you have double the chances of a stuck plug (16 plugs).



To further throw gas on the fire, the 6. 0L Powerstroke is not a horrible engine. Its actually a decent engine if you remove the EGR setup and let it breathe, and a couple of things like that. Its not my first choice... but if I had one, I feel it could be made to work well. Many do. (flame suit on)

 

[mwilson]

NCostello, you are a brave soul... ... .....

I agree with you as far as a Cummins Powered Super Duty goes. I would be in line to buy one for sure. It is a superior cab and chassis in my opinion. As a matter of fact I looked and tried out several King Ranch Super Dutys before buying my 06. The Ford was far more comfortable, not to mention the pre-wired aux switches and the integrated trailer brake control (which is now available on Dodge). Upon opening the hood and see the mess of crap on the 6. 0 though, I decided to come to my senses and buy the Cummins engine which I love dearly and put up with the rest of it.

 

[JUeckert]

JUeckert:



I'm not sure if you simply make up the facts you need to back up an argument or, are simply misinformed.



I went to the Tire Rack Tire Rack - Your performance experts for tires and wheels website and looked up tire size LT225/70 R19. 5 and found that the overall diameter is 32". Then I keyed in LT235/85 R16 and found the overall diameter of that tire is 31. 7". As I wrote in an earlier post above, the difference in size between these two common tires is 0. 3" or 3/10". As I wrote, the difference is a fraction of an inch. That tiny fraction of an inch would not be noticeable for load starting ability and would make a difference of perhaps 30 rpm at highway cruise speed in top gear.



I will not bother to go do all the research to disprove everything you wrote, but I am confident that I could if I was willing to go to the trouble. I will just simply say I believe everything you wrote is wrong, incorrect, and I disagree with you.



This is a Dodge-Cummins website. You will have a very difficult time convincing TDR members of the merit of Furd diesels or trucks. Perhaps you are on the wrong website.

no mr barlow i'am not misinformed, not on the wrong site, and i'am not trying to convince anyone on the merits of ford or gm trucks for that matter. what i'am doing is provideing the facts. to a degree you are correct about the tires yourself. however my information is correct also, but perhaps should be clarrified. on average the 2 formentioned tires are very close as you say. there are however differences in the sizes of certain brands of tire and tread patterns, like i said earlier. example; the 235-85-16 bf goodrich tires on my ford dually are nearly 1" in shorter then the tires on my gmc 3500hd, which are 225-70-19. 5 wanili's. this is even more common on big truck tires. as you say, is it enough to effect overall vehicle performance, likely not. as for other info, the proofs out there, look it up. i think you just dont want to know the truth, but then thats your buisness. however when you start preaching , how about preaching facts and quit trying to mislead people. point of fact, your comments about v8 diesel's with manual trannys cant even apply to many gasser trucks, regardless of brand. how many v8 diesel powered light ,medium and heavy duty trucks have you owned? auto or manual transmission equipped.

 

[JUeckert]

Spark plugs should have been pulled at 60,000 and checked and use a powered wire brush to buff threads and a little anti sieze woked great.



just rebuilt a Ford romeo motor 4. 2 just a fancy 302 with alum heads, worked like a champ



tires ? trans? thought the subject was the 6. 7 scorpian motor?



but i like the cummins for being more simple



Austin Diesel

austin, apparently you havent figured it out yet. [not to be rude] original subject's can rarely stay that way when it comes to other brands. especially when some posters gets envolved. when it strays off due to rubbish comments, i simply try to add the facts, and clarify.

 

[Grizzly]

There are alot of members. Not all, or even a vast majority, surely believe that Ford trucks are complete and total trash in every aspect. I've seen alot of posts of people here wishing they had the SuperDuty body-frame with the 5. 9L Cummins. Each brand is respectful in their own way.







I can agree with that statement 100%. As far as a Cummins on a Super duty, forget it. I love my Dodge with a Cummins just the way it is. Besides, Furds are ugly.

 

[Austin Diesel]

I realize the contents of the discussions can be a little off base ,I just put the ford engine pics up to review, my 08 6. 7 truck is doing all that is asked of it. Tows everything , AS flash and all is well for the moment. once its paid for it will be even better.



Engine compartment complexity is just a little apprehensive ,the new trucks are bad enough but to make them more complex might be a determining factor in costing repairs and longevity.

like i said a few heavy offroad endurance races maybe Baha 1000, Dakar rally, lemans in a severe duty multi mile racing environment would be a great proving ground.



I remember my first quad cam 300ZX timing belt job what a task. Technology must march on.



Austin Diesel

 

[Ncostello]

Mostly on Powerstrokes and Duramax engines... opening the hood shows a complex maze of wires and piping which basically hides the engine... or what we expect to see. But in reality... a couple of hours and you can remove all that clutter out of the way without much fuss at all. Just time. Once your down to the valve covers its all the same.



I'd hardly call opening the hood of an 08 Ram 6. 7L Cummins the same as opening the hood of a 93 W250 6BT. The newer Cummins engines have become nearly as complex... but understandably less cluttered because of # of cylinders and inline configuration.



I'm not advocating a Cummins in a Ford. I've seen plenty of them. I don't own a Ford. This is my opinion and how it should always be: Dodge/Cummins, Ford/IH, GM/Duramax.



As far as looks, I really like the new Dodge HD body. I hate the look of the new Chevy HD. But absolutely love the looks of the new GMC HD grille and (small) headlamps. I also think the 05-07 Superduty front ends are great, but dislike the new "headlight under" look of the new ones. I DISLIKE monster gigantic headlamp assemblies. Liked 03-05 Ram fronts. Dislike the 06-09 fronts. Just a preference. Its all good.



By the same token... every single time I look at my 91. 5 D250 grille... I do a double take and say "thats a darn good lookin truck". Ram 1st gens are obviously the best looking truck ever created!!!

 

[Grizzly]

Mostly on Powerstrokes and Duramax engines... opening the hood shows a complex maze of wires and piping which basically hides the engine... or what we expect to see. But in reality... a couple of hours and you can remove all that clutter out of the way without much fuss at all. Just time. Once your down to the valve covers its all the same.



I'd hardly call opening the hood of an 08 Ram 6. 7L Cummins the same as opening the hood of a 93 W250 6BT. The newer Cummins engines have become nearly as complex... but understandably less cluttered because of # of cylinders and inline configuration.



I'm not advocating a Cummins in a Ford. I've seen plenty of them. I don't own a Ford. This is my opinion and how it should always be: Dodge/Cummins, Ford/IH, GM/Duramax.



As far as looks, I really like the new Dodge HD body. I hate the look of the new Chevy HD. But absolutely love the looks of the new GMC HD grille and (small) headlamps. I also think the 05-07 Superduty front ends are great, but dislike the new "headlight under" look of the new ones. I DISLIKE monster gigantic headlamp assemblies. Liked 03-05 Ram fronts. Dislike the 06-09 fronts. Just a preference. Its all good.



By the same token... every single time I look at my 91. 5 D250 grille... I do a double take and say "thats a darn good lookin truck". Ram 1st gens are obviously the best looking truck ever created!!!

We disagree on that also. Furd's are just butt ugly from the grille to the dash. Why does the grille have to say S U P E R D U T Y in big bold letters? Why did Furd have to copy Dodge by lowering the front fenders? What's with that hideous dash arrangement?



GM is a bit better, especially now that they got rid of the slant headlights.



IMO the 3rd gen Dodge is hands down the better looking truck. The 1st gen Dodge looks like a shoe box.

 

[rbattelle]

Why does the grille have to say S U P E R D U T Y in big bold letters?

I think a better question is, why did Ford have to write "Super Duty" all over the stinkin' truck?! Grille, windshield, passenger compartment, both sides, and the tailgate.



Fer cryin' out loud, we get it already!



Ryan

 

[HBarlow]

no mr barlow i'am not misinformed, not on the wrong site, and i'am not trying to convince anyone on the merits of ford or gm trucks for that matter. what i'am doing is provideing the facts. to a degree you are correct about the tires yourself. however my information is correct also, but perhaps should be clarrified. on average the 2 formentioned tires are very close as you say. there are however differences in the sizes of certain brands of tire and tread patterns, like i said earlier. example; the 235-85-16 bf goodrich tires on my ford dually are nearly 1" in shorter then the tires on my gmc 3500hd, which are 225-70-19. 5 wanili's. this is even more common on big truck tires. as you say, is it enough to effect overall vehicle performance, likely not. as for other info, the proofs out there, look it up. i think you just dont want to know the truth, but then thats your buisness. however when you start preaching , how about preaching facts and quit trying to mislead people. point of fact, your comments about v8 diesel's with manual trannys cant even apply to many gasser trucks, regardless of brand. how many v8 diesel powered light ,medium and heavy duty trucks have you owned? auto or manual transmission equipped.

Well, JEeckert, you proved with the above post what I suspected. You really do create your own set of "facts" to support your wild claims. I provided a link to a tire website which clearly provides actual tire diameters as well as the actual dimensions and you reply with your own set of magic flexible sized tires that you claim have entirely different actual measurements.

Perhaps you are unaware that the numbers representing the size of a tire actually have meaning, actually describe the tire size in millimeters. The first number "225" or "235" is the tire tread width and the next number, "70" or "85" is the aspect ratio. Likewise, the last number, "19. 5" or "16" is the rim diameter. It is certainly possible that there are minor differences between manufacturers but tires of the same size simply do not vary from the sizes listed on the tire website like your mystery tires do.

For the rest of your magical claims about your beloved Furds, I find it interesting that you still only offer only your own statements, no links or quotes from a verifiable reference.

I will participate in no further discussions with you. It is not possible to conduct a discussion with someone who has his own facts.

 

[JUeckert]

the problem you have harvey, your full of yourself. you actually insist on takeing a simple post, and try to bend it to suit your train of thought. you have a tendecy to dance around questions too, kind of like many of the politicians we have. as i said earlier , you dont want to know the truth, if the truth dosent fit what you believe. the beauty of all this, any good commercial tire man can back my claims on the tires, and the rest of the info can be found on the computer with a bit of research. btw, i've spent many an hr in a tire shop in my earlier day, i allways wondered what those numbers on the tire's sidewall meant. thankyou for telling me!

 

[Wingate]

From what Ive seen of the new 2010 Dodge, the front end looks ALOT like the new Ford front end... And I personally like both of them... I would love to see the Cummins option in BOTH the Ford and Dodge... then we would REALLY get a good truck!. Although I DO agree with what somebody else said about marker lights over the headlights..... That just ain't right!!!!...



I agree with Harvey on the inline vs. v config. issue. When comparing similar displacement engines in modern applications, the inline engine is going to create peak torque at a lower RPM than a typical v configuration. More specifically, in the case of our Cummins I-6 engines, its a true industrial bottom end that was being used in genset applications many years before in got stuffed in a Dodge, it has a heritage. When I get my 94 model disassembled, I will do some measuring to be sure, but I'm almost positive that this little engine will have a very decent rod ratio, which FUTHER helps the engine create peak torque at low rpm. I suspect the 6. 0 and 6. 4... and 6. 6 d-max does not.

I DO drive a 6. 6 d-maxwith 19. 5 Michelins and 4:88 gearset. After years of testing, I feel FULLY qualified to comment on this, The engine makes ABSOLUTELY NO bottom end torque!... When i make it to about 2400rpm, the engine finally shows a sign of life then has to upshift at 3100rpm. I have driven an almost identical truck with a manual trans. and OMG!, I thought the automatic was bad..... you have to slip the clutch so much to get the truck going, that I got passed by a SMELL driving into a head-wind!.

I will say, that although not a "speed engine", the old 6. 9, 7. 3, and 7. 3 Powerstroke were very durable and dependable engines. Too bad they don't build them anymore...

 

['strokeThis_'07]

From what Ive seen of the new 2010 Dodge, the front end looks ALOT like the new Ford front end.

Yep. Damn near twins

Come on man...

#ad


#ad


... you gotta be kidding me

 

[RHestand]

As I've prev. posted, several times, I owned and drove (50K mi. ) an 03, 6. 0 ferd.

It was by far, the worst eng. I,ve ever owned. Unreliable is an understatement!

Then after purchasing my 06, Dodge-Cummins, I had one more really big problem: Trying to sell it, without lying about it. In hindsight, I should have traded it in, but that's another story.

Eventually, I ended up selling it to a Ford diesel mechanic, at a huge loss.

He said he "New how to deal with the 6. 0 problems".

To be honest, I loved everything about the truck, except the engine.