Furd Owners

[amsoilman]

I'm like Gary and Harvey, and have been driving for some 60+ years. (74 years young) I have driven many vehicles powered by gasolene, as well as Diesel, from tractors to buses, and everything in between. My first car was a 1933 Plymouth with a"rumble" seat and wooden spoked wheels. My first Dodge car was a 1949, bought in 1952, and the first Dodge truck was a 1939. I've had an 85, 88, 91, 94, and my current 03 dodge trucks, the last 3 were Diesel powered.

Prior to owning a Dodge vehicle, I always leaned toward the Chevy's, but after driving my first Dodge Diesel, (1989) I just had to have one, and have never thought about the Chevy's and Fords.

I see many Ford Diesels in my business that have had many problems, and breakdowns, but then most any mechanical devise is subject to breakdown. Of course there are some breakdowns that occur due to the way it was designed. In my opinion, the Dodge with the Cummins power had less problems because of the design and engineering.

 

[Grizzly]

I agree with Wayne. Dodge trucks with a Cummins diesel seem to have fewer breakdowns than Ford and Chevy diesels. I believe that the people that have many problems with their Dodge trucks are because they were assembled in St. Louis by UAW's or they have been abused. Dodge truck made in Mexico and well care for, even though they are worked hard, have less problems.



george

 

[JUeckert]

Not to worry, they will be!

yea but what engine will they have in them? if it's a fiat, that may or may not be a good thing. seen some fiat engines in equipment that were very reliable well built engines. seen some that i wouldnt have. fwiw; as for the fords diesel, 94 was the first year they had the 7. 3 powerstroke, and early 03 the last.

 

[Grizzly]

yea but what engine will they have in them? if it's a fiat, that may or may not be a good thing. seen some fiat engines in equipment that were very reliable well built engines. seen some that i wouldnt have. fwiw; as for the fords diesel, 94 was the first year they had the 7. 3 powerstroke, and early 03 the last.

I'm not convinced Dodge will ever use a Fiat engine. Certainly not as long as they have the Cummins.

 

[JUeckert]

big industry is doing more and more to keep their money in house. if it's more profitable in the long run to use their own engine or other componet, as opposed to buying someone else's, it really just makes sense[most the time]. fiat has had a habit of replacing the engines in some of the tractors and equipment it has bought out over the years, for one reason or another. not sure what came of the 40+ million chrysler owed cummins for it's engines, but with that in mind as well as dodge diesel trucks sales way down[sales in general], who knows what will happen.

 

[Ncostello]

Uhhh... Ummmm... and the 7. 3L was installed into some early 2003 trucks until they ran out of them. If a person buys a 2003 F-SuperDuty they are usually looking at a 6. 0L engine... but not in every case.



I'm not a big IH fan nor a big 7. 3L fan. But to say the 7. 3L isn't worth squat is the typical brand loyalty, "everything else is junk except what I drive", way of looking at things. I'm not trying to convince you to get a 7. 3L engine... but trying to get you to admit it was good competetion.



They were a successful and decent engine. Thats a fact and it can't be argued. Lots of jobs were completed and money made using the 7. 3L engine. Lots of people were taken to the hospital and trailers pulled with it. And Ford sold a ton of them for International.



If Cummins didn't have good competetion from the Powerstrokes and the Duramax engines... do you think they'd have increased all the HP over the years and all the innovations to stay on top? There is no innovation without competetion.

 

[Dl5treez]

The latest 2003 model year build I've seen with a 7. 3 is a 3/03 truck. Most of the '03 model year 7. 3's were late '02 build dates.





Brand loyalty is for the birds. Buy what works and what is quality, not just because of the emblem on the grille.

 

[surfbeetle]

NCostello, well said...

I was first exposed to the Dodge Cummins in 1990. I was 18 and my father was a heavy equipment mechanic who loved the Cummins engines. He bought a 1990 D350.



The first time we towed our 24' Eliminator boat up the grapevine on I-5, we heard truckers on the CB who were amazed at how fast we were going up the 6% grade.



Five years later, I got my 95 and now in my family, we have a 90, 95, 98, 05, and 08, basically one of every flavor. The most expensive to fix was my sister's 98- VP44 went out. Other than that, they all have been great. I have owned and still currently own a Chevy, if Dodge would have made a larger SUV with a Diesel, I'd have that instead of my Suburban.

 

[Ncostello]

I could be wrong on this... but I think the E-Series cutaways still used their own special version of the 7. 3L in 2003 and didn't get the 6. 0L until 2004. At least the ambulance at Station 2 is a 2003 with the 7. 3L engine. Now... they are using the 6. 0L still in E-Series until they run out. The 6. 4L will not be used in E-Series (aka: ambulance chassis) according to Ford. So I don't know what they'll use for a Type II or III ambulance package. (GM... . Take Notice with your Duramax Vans!!!)



Of course I'd recommend the V10. But I don't even want to get into the "gas versus diesel" argument" for an ambulance. Its a worse battle than any brand loyalty discussion. All I can say is that the Ford ambulance 460 engine fires of the 80's is not a valid argument anymore in 2010.



Besides... all the Ford websites have a forum for "1999-2003 7. 3L Powerstrokes". They'd know best what to call their own forums and when the engines were used.



Its a very minor point nonetheless surrounding the 7. 3L.

 

[Ncostello]

Besides their new 6. 7L "should" take care of everything anyhow... . maybe.



The 2011 Ford Super Duty Trucks - Coming Spring 2010 | The Official Site of Ford Super Duty Trucks



Of course it uses Diesel Exhaust Fluid and has the fill port next to the diesel fuel cap. Cummins 6. 7L doesn't need DEF. Hats off to Cummins.



One things for sure... Ford had better darned well be 200% certain the engine will do what they say. Or they've definately put themselves outta the diesel truck business with the stroke of a pen... and nobody to blame it on but themselves.



(personally I think they should have paid Caterpillar any amount necessary to develop and build an I-6 diesel, even begged, pleaded with them) I've always said a SuperDuty with a Cat would walk away with the market.



It sure is getting interesting in diesel pickup land... isn't it?

 

[Ncostello]

Looks like I spoke too soon. I predicted this in 2004. I got into arguments with many over diesel versus gas in Ford ambulances... especially on FIRE-EMS type websites. But in 2010 Ford is offering a V10 6. 8L Ambulance Prep Package... as they WILL run out of 6. 0L Powerstrokes eventually and the 6. 7L isn't in service yet for E-Series.



Direct from Ford Fleet:



https://www.fleet. ford.com/truckbbas/non-html/Q-179.pdf

 

[Grizzly]

Besides their new 6. 7L "should" take care of everything anyhow... . maybe.



The 2011 Ford Super Duty Trucks - Coming Spring 2010 | The Official Site of Ford Super Duty Trucks



Of course it uses Diesel Exhaust Fluid and has the fill port next to the diesel fuel cap. Cummins 6. 7L doesn't need DEF. Hats off to Cummins.



One things for sure... Ford had better darned well be 200% certain the engine will do what they say. Or they've definately put themselves outta the diesel truck business with the stroke of a pen... and nobody to blame it on but themselves.



(personally I think they should have paid Caterpillar any amount necessary to develop and build an I-6 diesel, even begged, pleaded with them) I've always said a SuperDuty with a Cat would walk away with the market.

It sure is getting interesting in diesel pickup land... isn't it?

It's my understanding that Caterpillar's not interested in making a light duty diesel engine for Furd nor anyone else.

 

[HBarlow]

Caterpillar announced their corporate decision to build no more on-road engines over than a year ago. I guess they couldn't meet 2010 emissions specs. They quit building highway engines of any size IIRC.

 

[Bill Stockard]

Caterpillar announced their corporate decision to build no more on-road engines over than a year ago. I guess they couldn't meet 2010 emissions specs. They quit building highway engines of any size IIRC.

The decision was based on the cost of engineering and testing on highway engines required to meet the 2010 regulations for a low volume/low return on investment segment of their business.



Bill

 

[Ncostello]

I knew Cat wasn't interested and quit on-road altogether to boot. I was just throwing that out there.

 

[CBlack]

So, a buddy of mine has a Furd 7. 3 and has had serious oil leak and can't figure it out (he has a fuel leak now as well).



I figured I'd sign-up on the Furd forum and ask around to help him out. I got curious and started reading through some of the forums and...



Those guys have Cummins envy out the wazoo from what I saw. Of course they all will say in the next breath that their Furds have much more capacity than a "damn Dodge. "



Some were hoping that Chrysler/Dodge would fold so that Ford would sign-up with Cummins.



Just thought I'd share.

 

[JUeckert]

Besides their new 6. 7L "should" take care of everything anyhow... . maybe.



The 2011 Ford Super Duty Trucks - Coming Spring 2010 | The Official Site of Ford Super Duty Trucks



Of course it uses Diesel Exhaust Fluid and has the fill port next to the diesel fuel cap. Cummins 6. 7L doesn't need DEF. Hats off to Cummins.



One things for sure... Ford had better darned well be 200% certain the engine will do what they say. Or they've definately put themselves outta the diesel truck business with the stroke of a pen... and nobody to blame it on but themselves.



(personally I think they should have paid Caterpillar any amount necessary to develop and build an I-6 diesel, even begged, pleaded with them) I've always said a SuperDuty with a Cat would walk away with the market.



It sure is getting interesting in diesel pickup land... isn't it?

well, cat had an engine that would work, size weight and dimensions, the 3116[6. 6] would have worked. problem was, it wasnt that great an engine. the replacment for it was the 3126, a bit better, but not exactly a prize winner! this being said, it would have filled the gap that the 6. 0 had to fill, when the 7. 3 was phased out for emission's. likely would have been better then a 6. 0 too. problem here is being bound to contracts with navistar, and having to take supply of the 6. 0 engine. been me, i would have come up with a scheme like the bigger 650/750 trucks. the 6. 0/5. 9 engines were a baseline offering depending on years , but the 3126 an option. seems that might have worked in the 250/550 class, and still keep them leagal on a contract basis with navistar... ??. my feelings, the 7. 3 should have been altered to meet emission's, and leave well enough alone. as for cat, from what i understand they will enter a joint venture with navistar on some of their engine's, and also they will regroup and bring back their on road engines down the line[couple years]. just what i heard, dont know it to be fact. .

 

[Shelby Griggs]

Cat has a C6. 6 inline 6 cylinder that seems like it might be about the right size for a pickup, of course it isn't high revving OR super high HP, 225 HP but has a lot of TQ at 727 pounds and the weight might be an issue at 1600 pounds. It would seem to me this engine would be an ideal platform for competing with the Cummins ISB if it could be made emission complaint and you could shoehorn it into a pickup chassis. It seems like Ford's dollar could of been better spent in working toward that end rather than creating a new from the ground up platform???



SHG

 

[HEMI®Dart]

Is this an accurate statement?

The only thing that runs good on a ford is the drivers mouth.

 

[HBarlow]

The only thing that runs good on a ford is the drivers mouth.

Yep, that would be my opinion!