Barring the 6.2L taking any real hits from a reliability standpoint over the next few years I can also see myself leaning that way when my rig needs to be replaced, which I hope isn't for a long time......

 

This winter, with all of my breakdowns plowing snow, I walked into the local ford dealer. They had a 2013 F250 with a 6.2l and an 8' Fisher straight blade. It was an XL model, with regular cab. After talking to the salesman, I was a pen stroke away from owning it. After all the rebates, incentives, etc, and financing from Ford, the sticker price was at $34k. I was shocked. Way more affordable than I had thought. Only reason I didn't buy was because it was spontaneous and I was stressed. I knew I'd regret extra debt the next day. But 34k for an XL (brand new) with a plow? Incredible!

 

If I had a time machine I'd take the 6.7L back have them redesign it without all the emissions junk we need now and have a super 6.7 tons of power and the fancy new transmission.

 

Rich, my vote is for the 7.3. i bought the truck in the fall of '07. didn't even have the option for the latter…. so… i've grown to love what i got. while coil springs are nice, the motor is the winning ticket for me.
7.3!

 

In 1999 Diesel fuel was around $1.43 gal.
My truck was $30,000-ish
I was earning $23.80 hr

Today diesel fuel is $3.80 (where I live)
A new diesel dually is over $60,000


My pay hasn't doubled, I fact it's gone down. I don't need a calculator to do the math here.
Time machine aside, the 7.3 has a reliability track record that I don't think any other diesel (other than the 5.9 cummins) can match.
I don't care how much hp it puts out. I didn't buy a 7500lb truck to race, I bought it to work & from a reliability & financial stand point it's done & is currently still doing a fantastic job!

Funny how the people bragging and/or arguing about hp/tq numbers haul nothing more than grocerys. Personally I don't need 800 ft lbs to make a grocery run.

 

well said Frank

 

Excellent points Frank.

Like I mentioned much earlier in this crazy thread, most people don't haul anywhere near the limits of a trucks capability. There is obviously a group who tows heavy and have successfully done so with the 7.3 and continue to have success (ie. Franko et al).

Personally.....I tow 6000-8000lbs.....a stock rig can handle that very well....to me it is all about reliability and cost to run.

 

This thread has bends and curves, I'll give you that. Touching on a few things I have read here:

I have trepidations about bringing it up in the 6.7L forum, because of the potential for it going sideways. If you just spent $35K on a truck, and are making payments on a $30K loan to finish paying it off... it's not a reach of the imagination that this conversation (to date) can stir up a defensive emotion. Conversations get weird when emotion enters into it.

I'm glad we got back to the new vs. new conversation... I almost forgot that part myself, because of distractions. The HP and suspension are "gimmes" to the 6.7L, but the reliability, return on investment, "universal" fuel (timmyboy76 and the others couldn't run bio on a 6.7L), and just avoiding the DPF/DEF hassle are gimmes to the 7.3L. It then becomes a question of what are you willing to pay $60K for a new PSD SD today - 6.7L or 7.3L?

Other very interesting alternatives have been introduced, but I didn't ask "If you were about to spend $60K on a Ford Superduty, what powerplant would be ideal?" This is in no way a criticism for bringing up alternatives... I like the way we touched on them and got back to the original question. As weird as the premise may be, I see it sparked a lot of great thought and civil debate - kudos to everybody who joined in. Great input!

I also see plenty of paragraphs, not just one-line blurts - you guys have made the effort to present your thoughts. Kudos again! I feel if somebody were to ask about trading up from a 7.3L to a 6.7L (or even the previous gen, next gen PSD, or big gasser), this would be a worthy read - to take everything you have shared into consideration (I feel your input should be linked to). Nobody has bashed any engine - they have pragmatically presented perks and problems with each powerplant.

 

Dang! This is going to come across as begging, but here goes anyway...

Tugly: I don't have your credibility or goodwill or I would post the question myself, but not only do I think you should post your "6.7L new vs 7.3L new" question in the 6.7 forum but I think you should post it on the Cummins forum as well.

Here's the deal, these guys on FTE which includes those who have spent $$$$ for a 6.7 are for the most part real guys. They post here on FTE because they want to convey knowledge, not just to show off their bling or learn how to "roll coal," or to spout off their hp yahoos! There are other forums for that. So, IMHO the 6.7 guys will likely give you an honest evaluation of the 6.7 vs 7.3. And we would all benefit from you posting your question there. No doubt some of the 6.7 guys are already familiar with your posts and would want you to join them, so you your thread would likely be well received and would be just as interesting to them over there as it has been to us over here.

Talk about knowledge (over my head) there's a friggin' genius engineer kid who is taking apart a 2013 E350 harness and a 6.7 Cummins harness and wire by wire combining the Cummins PCM with the 2013 E350 van for his 6.7 Cummins swap. It is a great read and I am looking forward hearing how the 6.7 Cummins actually performs in an E350.*

Sportsmobileforum.com • View topic - 6.7L Cummins conversion project

Emotionally-based brand loyalty is really a thing of the past. The internet is about knowledge swap and the people who will respond to you on FTE will be doing so to increase your (and thus our) knowledge. So, I hope you will reconsider posting in the 6.7 and maybe the Cummins forum as well.**

And even if it does go "sideways" we will be o.k., its not like we will be sliding sideways into a snowbank. It's just the internet.***

*We van guys don't get the luxury to speculate about buying a new 6.7L E350, because Ford didn't put that engine in the van chassis.

**For instance, I know that I am looking forward to John2001 who just sold his 7.3 and bought a Cummins dropping by from time to time and sharing his comparisons after he gets to know his new truck.

*** There's a guy on here who has a saying in his signature that I wish I could remember but it says something like: "We are all morons on the internet anyway." That's not it, but it is brilliant and I wish I could remember it accurately.

Anyway, good thread as always. Thanks.

 

River 19 made a an interesting point about dyno tested HP numbers of the 6.7 being around 330 HP.

Note that the chassis cab version of the 6.7, even the 2015 models, are rated at 330 HP.

Also note what Scott and Alan, two Ford engineers who were part of the Team 2015 Super Duty Q&A earlier this year, said about the chassis cab engines being dyno certified:


Pickups are marketed to consumers. Chassis Cabs are marketed to businesses, commercial and public utility fleets, and government agencies.

While the plumbing is different on the two different versions of 6.7's, so is the market. I think most people would agree that reliability, not horsepower, is more important to the business, commercial, and government agency customer. And maybe some people will admit that bragging rights are more important to the consumer. Ford seems to think so.

I want reliability, not horsepower. The medium duty International 7.3L were mostly rated between 170 to 190 HP. The highest rated version was 230 HP. And those 26K to 33K GVWR (not just GCWR) trucks with big 26' box van wind sails on them hauled a LOT of groceries... to the stores, not to the home kitchens.

So what does "440 HP" really mean, in practical usage? If it means cracked exhaust valves, dropped exhaust valves, cooked and failed EGT sensors that force the truck to shutter down, and impossible fueling standards... is all that worth the bragging rights and getting to the next stop light a little quicker? Is getting to the final destination 10 minutes faster worth the 10 days downtime in the shop?

Many of the people who have had to throw money at their 7.3L, had to throw their second and third coins only after they threw that first coin, which was an aftermarket tune. There are several 7.3L's documented with over 1.2 million miles on them. Those aren't running at 440 hp.

It would be nice if the 6.7, even the 330 HP dyno-cert chassis cab 6.7, ran just as reliably when left alone as bone stock. Unfortunately, that motor isn't there yet. It might get there, but it's been five years so far, and we aren't seeing them get past 125K without major problems of one type or the other. It took about 15 or 20 years of frustration, along with major advances in solid state integrated circuit chips, to finally get gas engines both clean AND reliable AND powerful. Couldn't get all three right off the bat. It took time. And it will take time with these new diesels.

It boils down to what do you want to trust during that teething time? I'll take a 7.3. If times get tough, I'll stake out a vat of french fry oil. Try that diet on a 6.7!

 

That brings up a point with my truck. I have the capability to top 400HP, but that's not the core reason why I chose my mods. I picked the coolest-EGT sticks, modified the truck to take the power (that second and third... and tenth coin thing), and had it live-tuned to get the smoothest, coolest, and cleanest power I can get out of it. Then... it's a matter of self-control to not dial the tuner to "race" tune. My DD has spunk, a lot of it - but I keep my EGTs way down in the green, I drive in a manner that averages 17.5 MPG city/hwy, and I pass pokeys with the pedal partially pressed.

All this to say just because the engine has the capability to lathe tires, that doesn't mean I automatically lose all my dependability. Many of my woes have been self-inflicted, while I learned the truck and tried to do as much of my own work as I am capable of. I may now have my truck stabilized, but I could undo that by taking Stinky to the track. One might ask "What's the point of powering up to level of the 6.7L if it diminishes reliability?" While the 7.3L with 330 RWHP might not be as reliable as stock, who's to say the stock 330 RWHP 6.7L will ever be more reliable than the 7.3L with that power?

Looking at the people who top 1 million miles on the 7.3L - what's the likelihood they pushed those engines to the stock limit on a regular basis? Even if they have, they managed to service the vehicle to reach six zeros on the odo.

This brings up one last point I don't recall being mentioned yet - serviceability: I don't have the means to lift a body to get at the 6.7L engine. Screw everything else - this is my show-stopper.

 

I like this thread, Rich, but I have one major problem with it.
The reason the 6.7 has pitfalls against the 7.3, is the emissions stuff.
If you took a 7.3, and added common rail, EGR, DPF, all that stuff, I
think you'd end up with the same truck, same issues, and less power.
What I'm saying, is that this is all a massive pile of moot points.

Also, I might have a diesel now, but next time, a gasser might be on the
menu. It's just getting to the point that fuel costs are not working in favor
of diesel at all.

 

Amen my brother!

 

Count the 6.4L out then as well.....lol....

 

I not only hope to be able to disagree... but I hope to be able to provide solid proof one day. Unlike many diesel owners looking to delete emissions stuff, I'm looking to ADD diesel exhaust treatment system to my truck. (Called "retrofitting" in heavy truck industry, mandated in some states).

Fortunately, my truck falls under a category that is not compelled by law to retrofit or retire. However, the fact that I don't HAVE to... makes me want to do it all the more, probably because of not being bogged down by the resentment that automatically comes from state control. I'd be doing it for me, because I want to breath a little more freely around my truck, when I have to use it.

The retrofit technology exists. It has been applied to many T444e school busses that ferry the young and growing lungs of the world's future. The only impediment for me is cost... right now, the systems available that will not reduce horsepower are in still in the $20,000 range. When and if this cost comes down to under $5,000, I'm gonna finally lite the fuse to my buckszooka, and y'all will definitely hear the blast.

But even with retrofitting the 7.3L, I still will not have "the same issues." The end result may or may not be as clean as the 6.7, I'm not sure. There are several levels of retrofits from Donaldson. But a few problems the 6.7 has that a retrofitted 7.3L WON'T have are

- No cracked exhaust valves
- No dropped exhaust valves
- No problems with the HPFP
- No issues with common rail injection
- No EGR issues
- No EGR Cooler issues
- No pulling over to the side of the road due to lack of regens
- No headaches dealing with who pays for what on $18,000 engine repairs

The advantage of retrofit after treatment systems is that I can be in complete control of the regen cycles. The advantage of not having a state mandate to install such a system is that I can select a system that doesn't remove or block autonomous control by the operator. There are some systems that include a media "cleaner" that is off board of the vehicle. The exhaust filter media is removed and cleaned without forcing the truck to operate a certain number of miles at an elevated load.

And, as the federal and state mandates grow to encompass more off road and stationary (generator) diesel emissions, the demand for more technologies and techniques to clean up diesel emissions has never been greater. This demand will fuel more innovation. Having an "old" 7.3L enables me to add this innovation at will, when the evolvement of economics and competition drive down the costs.

But getting back to the post quoted above, I not only will not have the same issues, I also will not have "the same truck." Specifically, I will not have

- A better turning radius with almost 30 more degrees of wheel cut
- Side curtain air bags along the roof rail between the A, B, & C pillars
- A fully sleeved frame option for my wheel base and cab axle distance
- A factory fitted dual fuel tank option
- A front axle rated at 1,000 more GAWR than my current front axle
- A plasma TV built into the center console

However, I also will not have

- Death wobble from coil sprung front suspension
- A complex network of computers that REQUIRES dealership visits
- An inability to burn alternative fuels, such as WVO, WMO, etc
- A lack of room to have am alternative fuel tank under the chassis
- The distraction of having a plasma TV in my center console

There are always trade offs. The trucks will not be the same, even with a cleaner tail pipe on the 7.3L. One advantage that the 7.3L has today is that it is entirely fixable independent of any Ford dealer. There is 20 years of experience with over 2 million copies of that motor having been built. Not one problem with that motor or truck that cannot be fixed with the help of a scan tool, a workshop manual, and an internet connection when personal experience is lacking. It will take many more years for that to happen with a 6.7L, and by then, I'll be too old to worry about fixing things.