Ford's new engine...6.7ltr

['strokeThis_'07]

Yep, I remember all the glowing reports on the new Ford 6. 0L engine in Pickup Trucks.com and how it beat both Dodge and GM to the top of the hill in their towing tests. We know how the 6. 0L eventually turned out... :-laf



Bill

I remember in 2003 before it was released, the 6. 0L was named one of the best diesel engines in the world; I believe Motor Trend bestowed the title upon it. HA!

the 6. 4L that they are STILL selling to unsuspecting customers and give them a Scorpion.

While Im in no way a Ford fan, what exactly are the issues with the 6. 4? By all reports, its been a fairly good platform. And we all know it will flat make some power... just wondering. Because I havent heard of many myself

 

[speedyjdl]

It's about time they got a HPCR. Now maybe they can keep up with Dodge and Chevy at the track and on the dyno. Reliability might be another issue though!!!

 

[Bill Stockard]

I remember in 2003 before it was released, the 6. 0L was named one of the best diesel engines in the world; I believe Motor Trend bestowed the title upon it. HA!

The title is not based on fact, but on advertising dollars in the magazine which is a common practice for glossy magazines using a re-written press release from the advertiser. Dirty little secret... some articles in the glossy magazines are reviewed and edited by the advertiser before it is allowed to be printed.



Bill

 

[RHestand]

What do you like about it?



While I applaud the placement of the exhaust valves on the inboard side in order to reduce manifold bends, I just don't like it from a maintenance perspective.



Personally, I think the only "proper" turbo arrangement for a vee engine is with each turbo fed from one bank.



I hate to be a naysayer, but that thing looks like a nightmare.



Ryan

IMO, there are several advantages to this design. A couple that come to mind:

Exhaust heat rises for a very short, direct trip up to turbo/turbos. Quick spool, very little heat loss.

Compactness/versatility. W/O the exh. manifolds/pipes on each side of the engine, it allows for a much narrower engine pkge. Very important for use in smaller trucks or cars. Especially for V-8/V-6 front wheel drive applications.

As for maintenance regarding the new turbo location? I can't see any big disadvantages, but I'd just have to wait and see on that. As for all the engine clutter, pulleys, etc? I can see the cab lifted off the frame a lot!

As a side note. IMO, turbos on ea. side of a gasoline V-8 works great, but can be very cumbersome. My thinking is, as this new design evolves, I would not be surprised to see it also tried on gasoline fueled V-8/V6 platforms also.

For diesel engines, if I'm going to have two turbos, there will be one turbo blowing into the other. Thats the big advantage for our trucks, with the in line six.

I never liked the way they plumbed the exh. pipes to the turbo, on any of the V-8 diesels. The turbos are way too far away from the heat source.

Ray

 

[Wingate]

While Im in no way a Ford fan, what exactly are the issues with the 6. 4? By all reports, its been a fairly good platform. And we all know it will flat make some power... just wondering. Because I havent heard of many myself[/QUOTE]



From what I have seen first-hand and from what i've heard from owners... It hasn't been pretty.

Most of the new 6. 4l i've seen around here are actually used every day. Being loaded to near max gvw from day one. I talked with one of my customer techs. awhile back that got a new service truck (09 F-350 6. 4l) He picked it up in the Dallas area with the service bed and crane already installed. He left Dallas headed back to East Texas and the engine threw the rods out of the oil pan about an hour later.

Another customer that had one in a service truck left it idling while he used his crane for approx. 45 minutes... . It ended up costing them a set of injectors, both turbos, and a particulate filter. All of which the dealer did NOT want to warranty due to "excessive idling!!!". . THis truck had approx. 10k miles on it, I personally think that the bickering back and forth between Ford and Navistar caused many Powerstroke owners to eat repair bills that SHOULD have been warranty by either Ford or Navistar.

Not to mention that they had to pull the cab off the truck to make the repairs!!.

The engine (6. 4l) may do just fine in an application where its not stressed routinely. The occasional golf cart trailer, or a boat may be what the 6. 4l is better suited for. But, here in Texas, most of the trucks work for a living. Its not un-common to see a 3/4 ton pulling 30K lbs. Excuses like you cant idle a diesel engine without voiding your warranty just won't fly.

 

[HBarlow]

The same was true of the sick ohh. It was a good engine if the owner drove it for basic transportation as a commuter truck. It was okay, not great. If the truck was expected to pull or haul a load in commercial service is was and is guaranteed to fail.

 

[Bill Stockard]

It's about time they got a HPCR.

IIRC, the 6. 4L is HPCR. The 7. 3 Powerstroke is common rail, just not high pressure common rail. In fact, common rail fuel systems have been in use for over 50 years by Cummins and Detroit Diesel.



Bill

 

[Bill Stockard]

While Im in no way a Ford fan, what exactly are the issues with the 6. 4? By all reports, its been a fairly good platform. And we all know it will flat make some power... just wondering. Because I havent heard of many myself

My brother has a '08 F250 with the 6. 4L and it's never been back to the shop since he bought it. He uses it as a farm truck hauling round hay bales, towing a livestock gooseneck trailer, moving large farm implements to different leased farms, and going to town for parts and supplies. He says it likes fuel much more than his old 7. 3 Powerstroke it replaced with nearly 300K miles on it.



Bill

 

[mwilson]

Right on, Bill. Most people don't realize that fact about Detroit and Cummins. Detroit Diesel had an almost bullet-proof fuel delivery system in the 2-strokes and carried a lot of the design over into the 50 and 60 series. Low cost rocker arm activated injectors, fuel delivery and return rails built into the head and a $50. 00 gear pump for pressure. All you had to do was set the rack correctly the FIRST TIME. :-laf

 

[Bill Stockard]

All you had to do was set the rack correctly the FIRST TIME. :-laf

Yep :-laf:-laf:-laf



Bill

 

[Wingate]

Yep :-laf:-laf:-laf



Bill

And have a pair of vise grips on the fuel rack when you mash the go button!!!. . Just in case you DIDN'T set it right!!. . I watched a 6-cylinder 2-stroke go to the moon, come back, breathe for a second, then go back to the moon before completely swarming itself... All from a tech. thinking he was too good to make a mistake.



As for the 6. 0 and 6. 4, just from what i've heard, it sounds alot like the LB7 Duramax stories. Either you couldn't keep in out of the shop, or it never went. It seems that there has been no rhyme or reason as to why serial # xxx-xxx1 ran great, and xxx-xxx2 was a terminal patient????

As with GM/Isuzu, I'm sure that Navistar would have gotten it figured out eventually. Its just taht the customer is the one who suffers in the mean time. Now, when the 6. 4 is as close as its probably ever been, Ford is going out a whole new door. So, I suspect they have just reset the learning curve to zero and customers of the Scorpion will be the unwilling field test engines for sometime.

 

[rbattelle]

IMO, there are several advantages to this design. A couple that come to mind:

Exhaust heat rises for a very short, direct trip up to turbo/turbos. Quick spool, very little heat loss.

Compactness/versatility. W/O the exh. manifolds/pipes on each side of the engine, it allows for a much narrower engine pkge.

Good points. The high heat is good for the turbine, but I'm not sure about the effects of soakback with all that heat concentrated in the lifter valley. I guess it can't be too bad or they wouldn't have put it in service like this.



As for compactness, you still need a manifold on the outside of the vee. I thought those heads looked very wide with the intake manifold cast in.



Ryan

 

['strokeThis_'07]

I work in the oilfield, and my company uses Ford pickups nearly exclusively; theres maybe 3 Chevy Duramaxes in the fleet. There was a garage in town that lived pretty much off of us and the crap 6. 0s. Since the 6. 4 has come out, the number of trucks sent to that shop has dropped drastically. That shop had an entire shop, the larger one, dedicated to Halliburton pickups...



I just spent close to 1000 miles behind the wheel of an 09 450 and was honestly impressed by it. Id almost buy a 6. 4 to play with. Way quieter than the 6. 0, and a lot more power. Doesnt sound like its perpetually on the verge of blowing up. Although we've had a couple injection pumps go out on a few newer trucks, those are the only issues Ive heard of. One got a new pump, and maybe 30 minutes after being picked up, it ate another one.



It certainly isnt a Cummins, or a Dodge, but its a huge leap forward for Ford, atleast from the engine standpoint

 

[CTD12V]

I can't believe Ford is completely ditching the manual transmission. Man I hope Dodge (Fiat, whoever) doesn't get any ideas about doing that.



I wonder how many retrofit auto to manual projects there are going to be?

 

[hereismylife]

anyone know about the turbo on this. I am looking for specs?



thanks

 

[CurtLee]

I can't believe Ford is completely ditching the manual transmission. Man I hope Dodge (Fiat, whoever) doesn't get any ideas about doing that.



I wonder how many retrofit auto to manual projects there are going to be?

I agree. I don't know about anybody else but the manual transmission's behind the ford diesel don't seem to popular. I personally don't know a ford owner with one. So its anybody's guess as to what kind of retrofit's there will be.

 

[HBarlow]

I don't know about the 6. 4 and certainly not about the new in-house Ferd V8 diesel but I drove a manual six speed Ferd 6. 0 not long after the 6. 0 engine was introduced. It was a MY 2003 in late 2002. It was a gutless wonder.

I was accustomed to letting the clutch out then throttling up on my '01 Ram six speed with 3. 54 gears, unloaded or unloaded. Everytime I let the clutch out on the Ferd I stalled the engine. The 6. 0 produced NO TORQUE at idle and the only way to launch it, unloaded, was to rev the engine and slip the clutch like a small block gas V8. It would have been absolutely useless with a heavy trailer behind. The worthless 6. 0 couldn't be driven with a trailer behind without an automatic transmission with a loose torque convertor.

No low rpm torque is the reason manual transmissions are not offered with V8 diesel engines.

 

[Ross]

Harvey, this has been my exact experience with the manual fords. They are so weak in the low RPMs, word got out, and they have all but quit selling/producing them. I would not own one. Duramax manuals weren't any better. Only the Cummins has enough off-idle torque to handle the manual transmission.

 

[RHestand]

Good points. The high heat is good for the turbine, but I'm not sure about the effects of soakback with all that heat concentrated in the lifter valley. I guess it can't be too bad or they wouldn't have put it in service like this.



As for compactness, you still need a manifold on the outside of the vee. I thought those heads looked very wide with the intake manifold cast in.



Ryan

The Oct. edition of Diesel Power has an artical on this new engine, including pictures at several different angles.

If you get the opportunity to check this out, there is a good shot of the full rear of the engine, showing the bulge in the heads for the cast in, intake manifolds. You can also see where the top half of the intake manifolds are integrated into the the rocker arm covers.

IMO, this configuration is quite a bit narrower than any of their previous P. S. engines with the conventional exh. manifolds/exh. pipes/to turbo platforms.

Also, you can almost see where there might be room in the valley for some air from the front to blow through, helping with the heat soakback problem.

Ray

 

[CTD12V]

Harvey, this has been my exact experience with the manual fords. They are so weak in the low RPMs, word got out, and they have all but quit selling/producing them. I would not own one. Duramax manuals weren't any better. Only the Cummins has enough off-idle torque to handle the manual transmission.

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.