Is that an agreement mad or mad at me for being mad?


If its mad at me for being mad, let me tell you that EVERY SINGLE International ive ever ridden in/driven has been a cheap piece that has no *****, overheats, has electrical problems, etc etc etc. Granted, ive only had personal experience with 4300's, but that experience alone is enough to steer me away from ever wanting anything to do with International if I have a choice.

 

What year 4300s? What power level? I think the current trucks aren't too bad. The Prostar and Lonestar are pretty nice.

Also, the current 6.4L is doing fairly well with few problems.

 

imn ot an engineer , yet, but the way i figure the "reverse" flow of exhaust/intake should make it run cooler and have less heatsink, hot air rises, and being much closer and having less in its way should help. which also helps to stop heatsink... or is it called soemthing else..

either way, i like the idea and htink it would make things simpler in many aspects.

 

You're probably looking for "heat soak".

 

Mad because by Ford is making their own engine might put me out of a job since the company you hate is the name on my paycheck (well...actually it's Navistar now)

I had a feeling you'd be leaving a reply to that

heat rises, so it's a natural progression up to the turbine and you lose the least amount of heat which is good for the turbo.

 

Not sure but if I had to guess, id say early 2000's with probably whatever the basic power level is. These are tree chip trucks for the company I work for, so I doubt they ponied up the extra cash for better engines. The power problem is rather minor in my mind however, its the electrical problems and overheating the bugs that crap out of me.

 

What do you do for them?

 

Manufacturing Engineer...don't get to design the parts, just everything that touches it along the way to being made in our plant.

 

Were the 6.0 Powerstrokes as bad as they were made out to be? Everyone seems to like the 7.3.

 

At first, yes. By end of production, they were pretty good. 6.4s seem to be doing pretty good, as well.

 

Don't you guys do the niche gasoline V8 stuff for Ford (as in the Boss blocks, ect). I swore I could have read somewhere Navistar was doing that for Ford since the Boss blocks used diesel grade material and required different equipment to machine them or perhaps your process was better suited to low volume runs???.

 

We at least cast the BOSS 302 and I believe the BOSS 351 (do that here), but I'm not sure if we machine them or not, I could ask today. I'm pretty sure we do quality checks for them after they are machined, but I'm not sure if we machine them.

 

I picked-up another 78 King Cobra last Wednesday. The second sentence from the guy's mouth at the resto shop I bought the car... "What do I have in here that I can trade you for that truck?" He had numerous unrestored boss 302s, Mach 1s, Torino CJ's, and the like. The guy loved my truck and knew exactly what it was and what it had in it.

I went to Columbia, SC to buy a skid steer loader Saturday. SAME THING with the guy I got the loader from. "Wanna sell that truck?" was about the 3rd or 4th sentence from his mouth. I pulled a 7200-lb loader on a 3100-lb pintle-hitch utility trailer, with a 7000-lb truck over 160 miles in 2.5 hours.
19.8 mpg going there empty, 15.7 mpg comiing back, running 70 mph in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

I've had 3 serious, unsolicited offers to buy my 1996 Powerstroke in the last 2 weeks. THAT should tell you something.


To answer your question - YES, the 6.0 and 6.4 are both "worse" performers than the old 7.3 Powerstroke. Many contractors and agents today are paying the $8900 for a reman 7.3 and driving their old trucks as opposed to buying newer 6.0 or 6.4 trucks (new or used). My F-I-L is a general contractor with about 6 powerstrokes in his fleet of pickups. He has 2 6.4's that he would trade for older 7.3's in an instant. Last one he bought was a low-mileage 7.3.

The 6.0 had tolerance issues with the turbos which caused turbo failures. What sucked the most about that type of failure is that operators were typically pulling heavy loads and using the turbos when the failure occurred, causing the truck to lose almost all power in the worst possible places and times. The factory turbos were replaced with Garrett units as vehicles were repaired by dealers/service techs. Some with as low as 1000 miles, some waited until 20-30k miles, but eventually they all succumed. I know 4 or 5 people personally who had this happen. Also, mileage was not as good as the 7.3 either. But outside of the turbo and wastegate issues, these were pretty decent engines (after the bugs were worked out that is).

The 6.4 also had exhaust issues and the earlier units were actually fire-breathers. They had issues with the wastegates, exhaust, and the tuning. Despite more output and the twin turbos, the fuel efficiency was still worse than the 7.3 was - these engines averaging 15-16 mpg.

I'm telling you - I LOVE my old 7.3 Powerstroke. I could go buy a new truck today and nearly pay cash for it, but I refuse to. I have 126,000 on the engine/tranny, it's been flawless, it pulls like a freight-train, I get 20mpg driving the truck alone, and never been below 15 mpg for anything with any load.

All that said, I hope this new Scorpion gets Ford back into the leadership role in the diesel truck market. I think they have lost a lot of ground to the Duramax and the Cummins both during the last few years because of the warranty issues and poor performance of the 6.0 and 6.4. These engines were really "also-rans" where the 7.3 was clearly a dominant performer that is still building it's legendary reputation even today. What is going to hurt Ford with this change is losing the name "Powerstroke". It has become synonimous with the Ford Superduty truck, with many people simply calling the whole truck a "Powerstroke" - not just refering to the engine, but the vehicle itself.

"Scorpion" needs to be strong as hell, fuel efficient, easy to maintain, and go a long way... a LONG way. It reminds me of the old 6.9 diesel that started it for FOrd back in the mid-80's. That old 6.9 was a tough bird in it's own right, but when the Navistar turbo units came along it was just so much better. One thing I do like - Ford stayed with the V8 config as opposed to the inline designs from Cummins and others. I have nothing against the I-6, it's been around a long time and they are tough, but if you ever try to pull 18,000 lbs up a 7-mile grade, you'll know what those other 2 cylinders are doing for you.

It's going to be interesting.

PS - I'd love to ride in the test mule F-150 that has a Scorpion in it. You talk about rear tire abuse...

 

The Duramax pickup engine is a 6.6L V8, the Cummins in the Dodge pickups is a 6.7L I6 (Cummins ISB), same displacement as the new Scorpion. But most of the rest of the big diesels in the heavy truck market are I6 engines. DD13, DD15 Detroit Diesel, Cummins ISB, ISC, ISL, ISX, etc., Mack MP7 (11L), MP8 (13L), MP10 (16L)...

I don't think cylinder count is really the issue.

Sweet truck, BTW.