6.4 PSD-Fuel rail UNDER the valve cover

[NPloysa]

As if you can even find the valve cover in that mess of steel they call an engine bay. More here:



http://forums.thedieselstop.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3047676&an=0&page=0#Post3047676



Nick

 

[AMink]

Quote of the day from the same thread...

Is there some friggin reason Ford can't put a neat I6 in their trucks ?

They should be able to do that, after all doesn't Ford own Cummings? :-laf

 

[rubberneck]

I like the last post where the guy tells them not to worry, because if there are any probelems with it, ford will change it in 2009. The poor ford guys have been waiting long enough for a good motor. I feel sorry for them. Well, maybe not :-laf

 

[MFalkinham]

While I don't care for the cosmetics of the new SD, Ford has raised the bar on all of the mechanical systems. Except for that ENGINE; there Ford didn't learn from their mistakes. The 6. 0L was way more complicated than it needed to be, and now they've made things even worse by adding a 2nd turbo on the 6. 4L. It's going to be interesting to see how it holds up in the real world.

 

[Signal73]

wheres a pic of the engine compartment of this beast?

 

[JUeckert]

whats so wrong with the fuel rail being under the cover?lots of the bigger class 8 engines have been that way for a while. .

 

[FDavid]

wheres a pic of the engine compartment of this beast?

#ad

 

[FordCummins]

That looks REAL fun to work on

 

[rbattelle]

whats so wrong with the fuel rail being under the cover?lots of the bigger class 8 engines have been that way for a while. .

That's interesting, I didn't know that. At least a Class 8 tractor is a heck of a lot easier to work on than that Ford. It looks like someone dismantled 200 sewing machines and tossed all the parts in the engine compartment.



I bet the official procedure for any engine work will be to remove the body. I think that's the way a lot of techs ended up doing it on 6. 0 trucks.



Note the position of the batteries. They're pushed so far out into the corners as to be almost not under the hood anymore. If it were me, the first thing I'd probably do with a new 6. 4 is relocate both batteries elsewhere.



Anyone know what these two things are that I've pointed to in the picture? The one on the right looks almost like a catalyst, but it can't be. It's got what looks like a temp sensor connected to it... could it be the EGR? Whatever it is, it looks like a hot part.



Ryan

 

[Cummins360]

WTF!!!! I wouldn't even know where to start if I had to replace an injector or something. I mean you cant even see the valve covers under all of that, I dont understand why they cant just go to an inline-6???? Is there something so wrong with such a good design that chevy and ford dont use it?? They would wrather use an over complicated V-8??? I just dont understand it. And fords HEUI injection system?!? Whats wrong with common rail that they have to use engine oil to further complicate the system??

 

[Jong]

Yeah, a friend of mine who is a ford diesel tech said that the standard operating procedure to remove one of the turbos is to jack the cab off the frame... . FUN!!! And I thought it was a pain in the butt to do a turbo or exhaust on the old 7. 3!!!

 

[DavidC]

If you think Ford would be tough look at a Duramax. I guess their is an engine under the Duramaxes hood as the cockpit has a fuel gauge, although all I saw was wires and hoses.



Dave

 

[rbattelle]

There is another way to look at this. Ford has achieved a nearly 100% space useage rate. There's virtually no empty space remaining under the hood. I have to admit, in terms of packaging it's an engineering marvel that they managed to squeeze it all in there.



Think I got a chance at a marketing job with Ford?



Ryan

 

[Cummins360]

LMAO I think you got a good shot at it... . Just remember Ford owns Cummings!!!! :-laf :-laf

 

[rbattelle]

I think we're going to be seeing more and more of this Powerstroke / DMax packaging in the future. Here are 2 possible reasons:



1. The competition between minimizing drag for fuel economy and the ever-increasing part count required for emissions regulations.



2. Many modern engineers (graduating college since, say, 1992) have little or no experience or interest in practical applications of machinery. That means little or no concern or awareness for the difference between what works great on paper (that stuff we used before CAD) and what's actually serviceable in the field. Not many colleges require a basic machinists course for engineers, as far as I know. Most design courses focus on exactly that - design, not manufacturing and serviceability.



Ryan

 

[JFaulkner]

I think we're going to be seeing more and more of this Powerstroke / DMax packaging in the future. Here are 2 possible reasons:



1. The competition between minimizing drag for fuel economy and the ever-increasing part count required for emissions regulations.



2. Many modern engineers (graduating college since, say, 1992) have little or no experience or interest in practical applications of machinery. That means little or no concern or awareness for the difference between what works great on paper (that stuff we used before CAD) and what's actually serviceable in the field. Not many colleges require a basic machinists course for engineers, as far as I know. Most design courses focus on exactly that - design, not manufacturing and serviceability.



Ryan

I think #2 is a very true statement. I think that the engineering room at IH and Ford needs some better ventilation. There is NO WAY the engineers looked at that disaster(even on a computer screen) and thought it would be a good cost effective idea to produce on a mass scale. I would like to see the shop time allowed to change an injector, turbo, or lower sensor for that matter. Ford mechanics must work cheap. This ignorance doesn't stop at the engine department at International. Just raise the hood of any of the new IH trucks, from the 4100 to the 8600. I know it's a 6cly diesel but when you can only see the first 2 cyl. it's a little ridiculous. Just what I want a greasy mechanic sitting in the cab of my truck adjusting valves or swapping injectors. (no offense to greasy mechanics )

 

[abrankod]

Hey, I resemble the greasy mechanic comment... No offense taken, since at our shop we try to return the customer's vehicle cleaner than it came in.



On to the topic though... Our shop sees everything from ford van shuttle buses to class8 trucks and full size coaches... and there is a definite trend in non-serviceability.



As mentioned before, the new International trucks are awful to work on... Used to be that to do an in-chassis rebuild, you just removed the doghouse in the cab to ease access to the head bolts and such, but now they've encased the doghouse in a full dash that must be completely removed along with 20-30 harness connectors and switch connectors which makes quick service very difficult. Adds at least 5 hours of work just to disassemble the entire dash and reassemble it.



As for the 6. 4l engines...

We'll start seeing the 6. 4's in the vans next year i'm sure, and I'm terrified. As it is, we're seeing 6. 0s for what should be warranty service that customers simply cannot wait to have done at the dealerships which have waiting lists months long. Seeing the 6. 4 in a F series is one thing, but now, consider an E-series van with even LESS engine bay area... I cannot even imagine what turbo changes and injector replacements will be like. Let alone all the aftermarket crap that bodybuilders will add to the cutaway chassis.



I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm glad that the Dodge trucks are relatively simple and straightforward to work on. It was the primary reason I just bought a ram 3500. As a mechanic myself, I didnt want to deal with the insanity of either the DMAX or the Pstroke's cramped engine bays, badly thought out service layouts etc.



-Daniel

 

[JOdell]

I like the statement about engineers. Where I work we are always running into design problems because the engineers thought it looked good on paper but couldn't be built to save its life. And I build light fixtures not automobiles. -Jason

 

[JRMora]

#ad

I haven't owned a Ford in a while (2001 F350 SD), but it looks like Ford finally got it right with the grill attached to the hood and not the body (the way Dodge has been doing it since '94)



I hated putting grill covers on my Ford (when I lived in Colorado) because you couldn't get behind the grille.



Juan

 

[nickleinonen]

whats so wrong with the fuel rail being under the cover?lots of the bigger class 8 engines have been that way for a while. .

yeah, but not at 30k pressures... many larger diesels have the fuel rails built into the head, sealed by the o-rings on the injector body, but at lower pressures [the pt or tp fuel systems was the highest at ~350psi]



if the system never leaks, your ok. if it does leak, you won't see the leak, other than higher oil level and fuel in an oil sample. . external rails you will see fuel leaks outside the engine. .