Ram Cummins vs. New Ford 7.3 gasser

[Wayne M.]

Ram v/s Ford.....pretty much anytime you see this on TDR, you will also encounter some anti-Ford sentiment. Either out loud or sneaky, it is there....

Nick, you have to admit that, since most of my work involves Ford SD/PS, I do give credit where it’s merited. The current truck is pretty dang good, and I’ve called out FCA that they’ve got to get with it. FCA really turned their interiors around recently (must be the italian influence) but they really have to get with it in regards to engineering and support.

 

[SnoKing]

Nick, you have to admit that, since most of my work involves Ford SD/PS, I do give credit where it’s merited. The current truck is pretty dang good, and I’ve called out FCA that they’ve got to get with it. FCA really turned their interiors around recently (must be the italian influence) but they really have to get with it in regards to engineering and support.

We recently bought a Ford Edge ST with the twin turbo 2.7L 335HP/380 lb ft and performance tuned suspension to replace DW's totaled 5.3L V8 Buick Rainier , and no one else has anything at this price point to compare with it. With a motor half the size and about the same weight vehicle(4500 lbs), it would run circles around the Rainier and a lot of other things on the road. Ford is onto something with the Ecoboost engine line up.

 

[crazy jerry]

look at all that crap in the engine bay.

.

ya looks like a train wreck. just like all the engine bays of every other ford in recent memory. probly cant even change spark plugs yourself on that pos

 

[dieselshadow]

That was one thing I really liked about the 6.4. It had a nice engine bay and for a modern truck. Everything was readily accessible. Maintenance was pretty easy on it.

I did do a plug change on the 5.7 Hemi, most of it wasn’t bad, some were a pain. But that’s 16 plugs. The hard ones were the driver’s side rear two cylinders due to the brake master cylinder and booster. Passenger side was easy peasy.

 

[Wayne M.]

I’m not endorsing any other Ford vehicle. I have contact with Fusion and Escape, and I really dislike both. A lot. It’s gotten to the point where the decade plus long romance with one vehicle is a thing of the past.

 

[crazy jerry]

most people likely never do any of their own maintenance so cluttered poorly designed engine bays are of no concearn. for those of us that do our own mechanical work, well thought out designs can make all the difference. you shouldnt have to remove seven things to change a waterpump.

 

[Wayne M.]

you shouldnt have to remove seven things to change a waterpump.

A 6.7 Power Stroke has two water pumps. Two whole seperate cooling systems.

 

[crazy jerry]

A 6.7 Power Stroke has two water pumps. Two whole seperate cooling systems.

sounds like the junky ford trucks from late 80s that two fuel pumps

 

[Wayne M.]

sounds like the junky ford trucks from late 80s that two fuel pumps

Only if it had 2 fuel tanks. Still applies today sometimes.

 

[sag2]

most people likely never do any of their own maintenance so cluttered poorly designed engine bays are of no concearn. for those of us that do our own mechanical work, well thought out designs can make all the difference. you shouldnt have to remove seven things to change a waterpump.

You don't want a Duramax then. Great trucks and engines, but every one we have worked on at the college were a PITA. Water pump especially, and the $300 lower radiator hose is a really nice design! Based on all the parts you have to remove to get to another part, it just seems to me they didn't put much thought into serviceability. Other than that they have proved to be pretty reliable.

 

[GrantP]

Only if it had 2 fuel tanks. Still applies today sometimes.

I liked the dual tanks and pumps in my old Fords. On long trips I'd flip the switch on the tanks to drain them somewhat evenly and not end up in a situation where one tank was full with a dead pump and the other tank empty with an operational pump. Sure enough, one of the pumps failed after 14 years and I had plenty of time to top off the functioning tank and replace the defective pump when I had time to get around to it. Sometimes redundancy is good.

 

[TFucili]

Both tanks in my 87 Fordbinder only added up to 35 gallons IIRC. At least both fillers were on the same side of the truck, unlike the 82 C30 we had at the shop.

 

[GrantP]

Both tanks in my 87 Fordbinder only added up to 35 gallons IIRC. At least both fillers were on the same side of the truck, unlike the 82 C30 we had at the shop.

Yeah I think it was 34 total, 19 in the front and 15 in the rear and an underpowered V8 that barely got into double digit mileage. Despite all the bashing on this thread of new technology we've come a long way. Twice the horsepower and twice the mileage since those days.

LOL, I had forgot about the GM filler neck "feature". That was a pain if you wanted to fill both tanks.

 

[gsbrockman]

it just seems to me they didn't put much thought into serviceability.

I am quite sure GM places LOTS of thought into serviceability.......serviceability outside the skill set of most every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and thereby forcing the owners to return to the DEALERSHIP for oftentimes what should be even the simplest of repairs or maintenance.

 

[crazy jerry]

Only if it had 2 fuel tanks. Still applies today sometimes.

they must of had 3 fuel pumps then. do you remember the hydraulic slave cylinder integrated into the throw out bearing ? what a brilliant idea

 

[Wayne M.]

they must of had 3 fuel pumps then. do you remember the hydraulic slave cylinder integrated into the throw out bearing ? what a brilliant idea

No, that was before my involvement. #MoParorNoCar!

 

[JR]

Ram v/s Ford.....pretty much anytime you see this on TDR, you will also encounter some anti-Ford sentiment. Either out loud or sneaky, it is there....

I love the Ford's I currently own and miss the ones I used to. Particularly a 3/4 ton construction van with the 300 inline 6. It was a brilliant engine that I put a ton of miles on with zero problems. From my perspective it was one of the better utilitarian engines Ford built. And the 4.6 isn't far behind although it was designed more for passenger use.

I really like the fact that Ford went back to a push rod engine in the 445 motor. In terms of reliability and long term ownership it should be hands down cheaper than a complex multi overhead cam engine...

In the world of direct injection and too many turbos it's refreshing.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[crazy jerry]

No, that was before my involvement. #MoParorNoCar!

you must of been a ford employee at some point ? about the two fuel pumps. its been many years since i worked on one of them trucks but it seemed like there was a low pressure in the tank and a high pressure on the frame rail or something. the reason i remember something like that is because one of the pumps went bad and left me on the side of the road. after towing it home i replaced one of the pumps but i dont think the engine would start. it must of been shortly after that i realized there was two pumps. owning quit a few vehicles before and after that, none had that wonky high/low pump setup. i wont get started on the slave/throw out bearing they were using at the time. this type of stuff makes no difference to the vast majority of vehicle owners as they just go see a mechanic when something doesnt work right and never give a second thought to how poorly designed a vehicle can be. but when your turning your own wrenches....

 

[SnoKing]

I love the Ford's I currently own and miss the ones I used to. Particularly a 3/4 ton construction van with the 300 inline 6. It was a brilliant engine that I put a ton of miles on with zero problems. From my perspective it was one of the better utilitarian engines Ford built. And the 4.6 isn't far behind although it was designed more for passenger use.

I really like the fact that Ford went back to a push rod engine in the 445 motor. In terms of reliability and long term ownership it should be hands down cheaper than a complex multi overhead cam engine...

In the world of direct injection and too many turbos it's refreshing.

Just my opinion of course.

The I-6 300 Ford engine was a great engine. I had a 292 I-6 in 1963 Suburban with 4 speed granny gear truck transmission and it would pull a building over. Put in a nicely built 283 V8. I had to install only a different motor mount tower on the passengers side, and I was able to get the longer factory radiator shroud for a V8. I recall I put a set of headers on it and drove to the exhaust stop for mufflers and tail pipes. Looking under the hood you would have never known that it did not come with the V8. We had a family business 1/2T with the 250 I-6 and a 3/4T with a 292. Both where good trucks. The 1/2 3 speed column shifter would get stuck it two gears a lot, and you would have to open the hood and move the transmission lever by hand to release 1st gear.

 

[jgillott]

In the world of direct injection and too many turbos it's refreshing.

Just my opinion of course.

Except for when those tiny little turbos light off. That can be quite pleasing in it's own right.