Bye bye 6.7

[HBarlow]

,,,,,,,,,,

99% of 6. 7s and 6. 0 Powerstrokes are on the road with no problems. These "reputations" are mostly hot air.

... ... ... .

That statement is simply not true or accurate. You may know a few owners who drive their 6. 0 Fords as commuter cars and occasionally pull their boat or light travel trailer to the local state park and have low mileage on the odometer. A Ford 6. 0 used in commerical hauling is guaranteed to fail.

If you doubt me do a google search and read about the massive federal lawsuits filed by Ferd and Navistar against each other over the enormous warranty claims resulting from the 6. 0 engines. Why do you think it was replaced so early in it's service life?

When I was transporting RVs I talked with a couple of dozen or more who had experienced catastrophic 6. 0 engine failures, some of them had experienced multiple total engine failures. I heard of a least a few dozen more. Many RV transporters driving Ford 6. 0s went broke, lost their trucks, even filed BK, all because of the lousy 6. 0.

Putting the issue in perspective, a few early ISB6. 7 owners (MY 2007. 5) have had annoying CELs, a few turbochargers and/or DPFs replaced, and have suffered multiple dealer visits for cleaning or software upgrades. Some of the problems reported have been the result of poorly trained or lazy dealership technicians taking shortcuts or not understanding the 6. 7 engine emission controls. Has anyone heard of an actual engine failure?

 

[JUeckert]

facts are facts, and the fact is a 6. 0 is not destined to fail in commerical applications. the 6. 0 was the reason my new truck purchase in 05 was a dodge, i knew of several who had nitpicking crap issues with them[03/04 models] and i wanted no part of that. at the same time i know of even more folks who have had little or no issues , some of these are daily haulers in the construction/timber trade, with a lot of miles on the odo. their is no doubt the 6. 0 was a problemed child , and it got better with time. the same statment about 6. 7's not being understood by many techs, definitly applied to the 6. 0 when it first hit the streets. i know this cause i hauled more then a few 03 models in on a roll back wrecker. i also hauled in a few 04/05 model dodges and the techs had no idea at the time why they had dropped valve seats or scored cylinders . that statement can be said about all these new diesels. the 6. 7 is having it's issues also, anyone who dosent believe this is burying their head in the sand. the local dealer has had at least two 6. 7 replacements this year, that my niece who works there has told me about. personally i'am going to keep my money in the bank for another year and see how the issues work out.

 

[AABEN]

I have the 03 HO eng and I pull total weight is 22900+ I have not had any trouble with it!! BUT it has not had any power add to it !! I also do not get the PRO TEMP over 12500 I did give the eng more air it has had HOWE'S TREAT from day one still running it jest like it came off the lot. I have BLACKSTONE LAB Check the oil every time I change it each time they have told me I could put more miles on the oil change. It is the hot rods that give it some of the bad talk. They should had bought a tractor to play with!!!!

 

[HBarlow]

That statement is simply not true or accurate. You may know a few owners who drive their 6. 0 Fords as commuter cars and occasionally pull their boat or light travel trailer to the local state park and have low mileage on the odometer. A Ford 6. 0 used in commerical hauling is guaranteed to fail.

If you doubt me do a google search and read about the massive federal lawsuits filed by Ferd and Navistar against each other over the enormous warranty claims resulting from the 6. 0 engines. Why do you think it was replaced so early in it's service life?

When I was transporting RVs I talked with a couple of dozen or more who had experienced catastrophic 6. 0 engine failures, some of them had experienced multiple total engine failures. I heard of a least a few dozen more. Many RV transporters driving Ford 6. 0s went broke, lost their trucks, even filed BK, all because of the lousy 6. 0.

Putting the issue in perspective, a few early ISB6. 7 owners (MY 2007. 5) have had annoying CELs, a few turbochargers and/or DPFs replaced, and have suffered multiple dealer visits for cleaning or software upgrades. Some of the problems reported have been the result of poorly trained or lazy dealership technicians taking shortcuts or not understanding the 6. 7 engine emission controls. Has anyone heard of an actual engine failure?

I stand behind my earlier post. If you defend the Ford 6. 0 explain why Ford and Navistar sued each other in federal court over them and eventually ended their long business relationship.

Can you cite one TDR member who has reported an ISB6. 7 engine failure?

 

[JUeckert]

there is no doubt the 6. 0 was a problematic engine. but to make the statement it would defintly fail in a work application [comerical] is simply not true. 03 and 04 was the most problematic years. the engine itself was very solid, with it's only weakness being the head gasket. starting in 06, maybe 05, factory engines recieved upgrades to both the gaskets and head bolts. albeit, no modern factory engine should be experiencing failures to either of those componets under normal or intended uses. the lions share of issues with the 6. 0 were egr related, which if not caught soon on, could lead to the gasket failures. programmers also lead to many of the 6. 0 failures. these engines dont have valve dropping, rods shooting out the block, or cranks snapping into. the crap they are saddled with, is the leading cause of the issues, or lead up to things worse. when the katrina, and rita storms hit, i had a construction project working along side hwy 59. 59 was a extremly well used travel route for the rv haulers[evacuees also] takeing the trailers to the relief sites on the coast. the most common truck i witnessed on this route by a overwhelming margin, was the 6. 0 ford. based on the stuff i had been seeing and reading about, i couldnt believe the number of trucks ford had on the road. i talked with a great deal of these people at fuel stops and resturants, most were happy with there trucks. again, there is no doubt the 6. 0 has had a lot of issues, and i have no doubt i made the better decision chooseing a cummins back in 05. but with the numbers of issues i have seen with all three brands, i think i will count my blessings and cross my fingers that i dont become one of those folks on side of the road, or leaving a stop light with blue smoke rolling out the tail pipe like i have seen so many duramaxs and even some dodges do.

 

[AClayton]

I am not a 6. 0 fan by no means... . But,as JUeckert pointed out,the 6. 0 has issues that can be upgraded to withstand the rigors of towing and hauling. I have many friends with the 6. 0 that have had the egr's upgraded and have no issues anymore. I think a blanket statement to say the 6. 0 is a problematic engine is indeed true... . IMO. But,when you consider all of the timing boxes and aftermarket programmers that promise big and easy hp figures just by plugging in... . well it is easy to get bitten by the bug and go out and pay $500 and install it yourself... ... just as promised by all Diesel specific publications and Speed Channel!!The old 7. 3L was at 70% of its power potential and the 6. 0 is at 90% right from the factory. You add more fuel and heat the easy way and BAM! ..... owners start having problems. The Cummins is a commercial engine and can substantially handle much more abuse than any V-8 diesel.



That is not say that I have not had my fair share of fun on the Interstates watching drivers of any Powerstroke model,scramble for the right gear to go up grades only to have them get passed by me..... effortlessly cruising along in OD with power to spare and hauling more weight. The 6. 0 and Dura-max are perfect for what todays truck buyers are looking for..... fast acceleration acccomplished by quick-spooling turbos and multi-spd trannies. The true,educated truck drivers know that torque from an inline six is what gets loads up grades and sips fuel more efficiently doing so.



A close friend pulls a 40ft 5th wheel with his 6. 0 and usually avg. about 6. 5mpg. I get 8 with my MH at 26K GCW with the 8. 1L gas engine following right behind going to Florida. In the mountains we average closer to the same mpg because mine downshifts often to keep up with him. He has had egr upgrades and head-gasket upgrades with studs... 1-time initial cost of $6500. Other than that,no problems at all.



Alan

 

[BDW]

I have nearly 40K on mine now and has been nearly trouble free. One CEL and the keyless module went out. I average between 15 and 17 mpg combined driving and wouldnt trade for anything. I have hauled as much as 30K lbs but mainly use mine as a daily driver. Best wishes to all who have given up and moved on. I think I stick around and pull stuff !!!!!!!!!

 

[jimnance]

I have a trucking company. California is working hard to run us out of the state. At the ports all trucks must be '07. 5 model or later with few exceptions by the end of this year. It seems the greenies can't breath and we need to lay out 110K each for new trucks to make them happy. Two years later and the CARB plans to ban most older trucks without a DPF.



From the owners perspective, the pre-'07. 5 trucks are more reliable and better fuel economy.



All I can say is we have to pass these costs along. Someone pays.....

 

[RVTRKN]

I have a trucking company. California is working hard to run us out of the state. At the ports all trucks must be '07. 5 model or later with few exceptions by the end of this year. It seems the greenies can't breath and we need to lay out 110K each for new trucks to make them happy. Two years later and the CARB plans to ban most older trucks without a DPF.



From the owners perspective, the pre-'07. 5 trucks are more reliable and better fuel economy.



All I can say is we have to pass these costs along. Someone pays.....

What about your registration costs, I just paid the registration on my 3500 with 26K weight tag and chocked when I saw the amount and thought it was the new taxes that have been levied on us here in California, and found out that won't take effect for another couple of weeks. When I can can afford to move, it will be out of this over taxed, communist dominated State, and yes, they are communists. The sad part is, I'm a third generation Californian and I can honestly say I'm embarrassed as to what has happened here because we only have ourselves to blame.



Back to the thread, Beware, owners that deleted the DPF's will be looking at severe penalties and even Jail time in California if caught. CARB has no one to over see them and now that Obama is president, he will actually add federal penalties on top of that. They are going to tar and feather you and trash your family and anybody that has ever done business you. Just look at the bankers that they have already done that to. The C&C 6. 7 has been very successfull compared to the reg truck, but the MPG will never be improved with a potato in your exhaust.

 

[HBarlow]

... ..... 99% of 6. 7s and 6. 0 Powerstrokes are on the road with no problems. These "reputations" are mostly hot air... . /quote]

I have another 6. 0 Ferd story to add to my collection. About a year ago I got into a discussion of junk Ferd 6. 0 engines over on the NuWa (HitchHiker) website. A large number of HH owners who frequent that site are blindly loyal Ferd owners so my comments, similar to those I've made on TDR, created an angry and defensive response. One in particular has owned one tow vehicle, a 2005 Ferd 6. 0, and he fancies himself very knowledgeable. The outrage at my criticism of 6. 0 engines was so heated that I left the website before I got kicked off.

A year or so has passed and what did I see a week ago on the Escapees forum? A post from my "friend' the HH/Ferd 6. 0 owner inquiring about purchasing an MDT. In his own words he stated that he had had nothing but trouble with his Ferd. He admitted he is now eating crow.

Browsing on the HH website I learned that he and his wife were on the way to the HH factory in Chanute, KS a couple weeks ago when his Ferd 6. 0 w/103k miles cratered and stranded him in the small town of Talequah, OK. A fellow HH owner towed his HH to Chanute and he has been stranded there for two weeks while the Ferd dealer in OK has replaced a cylinder head, repaired or rebuilt injectors, replaced a turbo, and, in the process has reported his engine would be repaired by ________ or is repaired only to have to take it back in numerous times. It has been my experience from talking to former fellow RV transporters that when a 6. 0 engine reaches that stage the only satisfactory "repair" available is to put that one in the scrap pile and install a complete new long block and accessories... ... which cost $16k two years or so ago.

99% of Ferd 6. 0s may still be on the road IF, and that's a certain IF, their engines have been replaced.

 

[JMetzger]

To continue story. I real loved this one. Fri I had my car in at Carson Dodge & this Dodge Ram came in & the guy got out of the truck & had a Capitol Ford work uniform on. He got his paper work done & came into the waiting room & I asked him if that was his truck or just brought it in from Capitol Ford to have some work done. He said it was his, Now this is the remark that he said that I loved. "If you buy a pick up truck you don't buy a Ford". Just as he said that a courtesy car from Capitol Ford picked him up & took him to work. I really loved it as there were two other people in there with me.

 

[domehead]

That statement is simply not true or accurate. You may know a few owners who drive their 6. 0 Fords as commuter cars and occasionally pull their boat or light travel trailer to the local state park and have low mileage on the odometer. A Ford 6. 0 used in commerical hauling is guaranteed to fail.



If you doubt me do a google search and read about the massive federal lawsuits filed by Ferd and Navistar against each other over the enormous warranty claims resulting from the 6. 0 engines. Why do you think it was replaced so early in it's service life?



When I was transporting RVs I talked with a couple of dozen or more who had experienced catastrophic 6. 0 engine failures, some of them had experienced multiple total engine failures. I heard of a least a few dozen more. Many RV transporters driving Ford 6. 0s went broke, lost their trucks, even filed BK, all because of the lousy 6. 0.



Putting the issue in perspective, a few early ISB6. 7 owners (MY 2007. 5) have had annoying CELs, a few turbochargers and/or DPFs replaced, and have suffered multiple dealer visits for cleaning or software upgrades. Some of the problems reported have been the result of poorly trained or lazy dealership technicians taking shortcuts or not understanding the 6. 7 engine emission controls. Has anyone heard of an actual engine failure?

I have a 2005 6. 0 in a X and I have towed heavy since day one and it has 110K on it. Yes the 6. 0 has had it problems but at the same time so has all the other engines out there. Most likely the 6. 0 did not casue the company you work for to go under it's called management.



I am on my third dodge and the first two had issues also but in time those problmes went away.

 

[AHarris]

I have a 2005 6. 0 in a X and I have towed heavy since day one and it has 110K on it. Yes the 6. 0 has had it problems but at the same time so has all the other engines out there. Most likely the 6. 0 did not casue the company you work for to go under it's called management.

I am on my third dodge and the first two had issues also but in time those problmes went away.

I think most of the 6. 0 problems were with the early models. Ford should have stuck with the 7. 3 because that was a better motor IMO. The people I know who have them are happy with the trucks, although there have been a few problems. I also know a few people with Duramaxes and both 5. 9 and 6. 7 Dodges. The other guy I know with the 6. 7 has had numerous CELs and a DPF problem and another one with the 5. 9 has been trouble free like mine. Both guys I know with the Dmax have had zero problems and one of them tows a 15K# 5ver quite frequently. None of the people I know with these trucks use them as commuter cars or grocery getters. Based on that and what I've read, I kind of prefer the Cummins which is part of the reason why I drive one (not to mention the fact that my 3500 came in at $12K less than the F250 XLT, and $14K less than the Silverado HD I was also considering). As my research showed, most of the bugs were worked out of the 6. 0 by late 2007 when I was in the market for a new truck, and I would have felt comfortable driving one. Had I gotten a similar deal on the F250 or a Chevy 2500HD crew cab, I would have taken one of them because the cabs and back seat room are a hell of a lot better in the Ford/Chev for a family with soon-to-be teenagers (unless you go with the mega cab which makes the truck look out of proportion to my eye--just don't like the way it looks but that's just me). I've had trucks from Dodge, Chevy, GMC, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Ford in the 26 years I've been driving. I've taken care of all of them and have had no major problems with any of them. Used and maintained properly, they are all good with a few exceptions (like the early 6. 0s). I'm not a big brand loyalty person--more of a business decision to me where I buy what gives me the best return on my dollar while meeting my needs. That said, I am very happy with my truck and plan on keeping it a long time... and I also stand behind my original post.

I agree--companies go under because of bad management, not because of the brand of truck engine used in their pickup trucks.

 

[HBarlow]

You apparently believe the only difference in a GM w/ an Isuzu engine, a Ferd w/ a Navistar, and a Dodge w/Cummins is a simple matter of interior features or price.

You have a lot to learn.

 

[AHarris]

You apparently believe the only difference in a GM w/ an Isuzu engine, a Ferd w/ a Navistar, and a Dodge w/Cummins is a simple matter of interior features or price.

You have a lot to learn.

Yes the interior is important. That's where I am when I drive or ride in the truck.

I believe you can do well with any of the Big 3's heavy duty trucks. I like the Dodge but I am not "brand loyal" to them. The Cummins is IMO a better engine than the DMax or the PS because of it's inline 6 cylinder design, better torque curve, durability, fuel economy, and the Cummins reputation. But the other engines have their merits too. Hundreds of thousands of people with DMax and PS engines are satisfied with their trucks and swear by them. Regarding the rest of the truck, I really don't see where the Dodge coachwork, suspension, chassis, seats, etc are really any better than the Ford or Chevy counterparts. In fact, Chrysler coachwork generally trails the competition. The coachwork is actually a bit better on the Fords... better panel alignment, interior materials, seats, back seat room without the ugly mega cab, mirrors, cloths, etc. Maybe that's not important to you, but it is to other people. I know people who are very happy with their DMax and PS trucks and have many hard miles on them with few or no problems.

The ideal truck for me would be a F250 Super Crew with a 5. 9L Cummins and a G56 6-speed. Someday I might build one when I get the time or money. Until then, I am pleased as punch with the truck that's currently sitting in my driveway.

I have a lot to learn? Guilty as charged... that's one reason I'm on this site.

 

[RVTRKN]

The ideal truck for me would be a F250 Super Crew with a 5. 9L Cummins and a G56 6-speed. Someday I might build one when I get the time or money. Until then, I am pleased as punch with the truck that's currently sitting in my driveway.

Well you will not have too if Chrysler fails, Ford's been chomping at the bit for a long time to get a cummins in there 250/350 trucks. That will be the first thing Ford will do, is to put a bid on those contracts. Its a shame, because unlike your opinion, Ford quality is poor. They have proved it over the years with every Ford I've ever purchased. The last being a 1990 Ford Mustang for my daughter with 60K miles in 1998. It cost me many hours of repairs, headaches and regret that I bought another Ford. After the last overheating issue she had on that POS, I marched her down to Toyota and she bought a new one and has never bought anything else since. Needless to say my life as far as my daughter is concerned is quiet, well at least it seemed that way until she bought her house.



GM has a good truck except for that Izusu/Allison diesel. They have been constantly changing the design of that engine because of the initial poor performance of the quality in it. I had to drive a 05 D/A 3500 and it ran hot, the Alison with its "torque management system" made passing a nightmare. The oddest thing was the steering wheel sitting off of center to the driver seat. We will miss the simple truck design of our Dodges. I want a truck not a cadilac.

 

[HBarlow]

AHarris,

You may assume that I am a Chrysler/Dodge loyalist but that isn't the case. The first MOPAR product I ever owned was the '01 Dodge-Cummins I bought not long after the HO/6 spd was introduced.

I don't care much about the larger interior of the Ferd and really haven't paid much attention to fit and finish so don't really have an opinion.

What matters to me and it puts the Dodge lightyears ahead of the competition is the engine. Also, the two previous Rams I owned, the '01 w/325k miles and an '06 w/230k miles of service proved to be very reliable, durable trucks.

My opinions on the engine choices were greatly influenced and are now set in concrete by my three year experience on the road as an RV transporter. When the three diesel-powered light truck offerings are put into commercial service there is no comparison between the Cummins/Isuzu/Navistar engine or the Dodge/GM/Ford platform although I will say that the Ford platform holds up better than the GM under high mileage heavy work service. I knew and talked to dozens of fellow transporters, heard comments made by those I knew about other transporters, and observed the highway breakdowns, the trucks who caused their owners to miss loads, etc.

Yes, I'm sure that many TDR owners have buddys that they go boating or rving or hunting/fishing with who drive Ferds or GMs. In personal use they appear to be similar. I can promise you, they are not. The Cummins is the ONLY commercial duty medium duty TRUCK engine available in light trucks.

 

[AHarris]

HB, point well taken. By reading your posts, it's obvious to me that you know your stuff and I appreciate the helpful info I get from you and other TDR contributors to help me better understand my truck. The more I drive my Cummins, the more I like it. When I open the hood, I am impressed by the hardware. When I hook up my camper, I'm even more impressed.

I forgot to mention one HUGE advantage of the 6. 7 and the Cummins: the integrated exhaust brake. I'd be surprised if I don't get 100K out of the original brake pads!

 

[AHarris]

Well you will not have too if Chrysler fails, Ford's been chomping at the bit for a long time to get a cummins in there 250/350 trucks. That will be the first thing Ford will do, is to put a bid on those contracts. Its a shame, because unlike your opinion, Ford quality is poor. They have proved it over the years with every Ford I've ever purchased. The last being a 1990 Ford Mustang for my daughter with 60K miles in 1998. It cost me many hours of repairs, headaches and regret that I bought another Ford. After the last overheating issue she had on that POS, I marched her down to Toyota and she bought a new one and has never bought anything else since. Needless to say my life as far as my daughter is concerned is quiet, well at least it seemed that way until she bought her house.



GM has a good truck except for that Izusu/Allison diesel. They have been constantly changing the design of that engine because of the initial poor performance of the quality in it. I had to drive a 05 D/A 3500 and it ran hot, the Alison with its "torque management system" made passing a nightmare. The oddest thing was the steering wheel sitting off of center to the driver seat. We will miss the simple truck design of our Dodges. I want a truck not a cadilac.

Although Chrysler as we know it could cease to exist, I think the Dodge truck platform is too good to go extinct. I think it will survive, probably as part of Fiat.



I agree w/you on the 90s Ford cars. They were junk. I don't know much about the cars personally other than my dad had a Ford Crown Vic from that time and it was a POS with 2 transmissions, body falling apart, and it handled like an ocean liner. I've had 2 Ford trucks (1985 F150 and a 1990 Ranger and both were trouble free). My brother swears by his F150s/F250s... he's been driving them for 20 years. He is a project superintendent for a major construction company as well as a Florida licensed general contractor. His trucks get used HARD.



I've had 3 Dodge trucks and have been happy with all 3, especially the one I've got now. To each his own I guess.

 

[MMeilicke]

Ya know, I read these postings about how dissastified some folks are with the 6. 7 for what ever reasons. And I find it time for me to speak up. For me the 6. 7 truck is amazing. I am full timer pulling a 13,500 pound 5th wheel. And in comparing this truck engine and 6 speed auto with my 97, 01, and 04. 5, I find the engineering of the engine and transmission to be an a perfect match and much superior to the previous trucks. And after 9,000 miles, I can not tell how happy I am with the overall performance. Yes, would I like better gas mileage, you bet. But I find not getting a one to two miles per gallon a small price to pay for enjoying the overall excellence of this vehicle. So buck up folks. Appreciate what you got.