Yep the hemi is now a 6.4 I think it was a couple years ago they made the jump from the 5.7. I don't know for sure though

 

I think about getting the new 6.7L from time to time. It would be nice to have the quieter motor and the cleaner exhaust. I actually LIKE the emissions equipment... or at least I like the end goal and results of the emissions equipment. No one likes the hassles of it, myself included.

But what very quickly cures me of wanting the 6.7L is a 10 minute read of any 6.7L owner's forum... dropped valves, bent cranks, blown out injectors, destroyed heads, fried turbos, failed fuel systems that cost $16,000 to repair, no warranty.... nevermind the peripheral parts like cracked radiators, limp home regens every 500 miles, repeated failures of an exhaust sensor and dpf heater... the list goes on and on.

What is sobering is when the most stalwart forum defendants of this wonderfully quiet and amazingly powerful diesel powerplant... eventually turn against it. When they first dropped the coin, they become believers. Then, a few too many weeks in the service bay later, they become bitter. It's like watching a relationship go from courtship to commitment to marriage to honeymoon to honey who? to fractiousness to fights to divorce... and then on to a RAM Cummins to supposedly live happily ever after. (I don't read about these owner's relationships with their Cummins, because I don't follow those forums).

While the 6.7L appears to be less trouble prone than the 6.0 and 6.4 that preceded it, the jury is still in deliberation on it's long term reliability. Over the last four years, a critical mass of very expensive to fix issues have manifested themselves... enough to keep me from wanting to upgrade anytime soon.

 

And though you like the emissions equipment never meant for a diesel engine, it is the main culprit of the said problems and constant VERY expensive issues.

We all drank the kool-aid at one time or another, but that's an entirely different thread. I like my '97 just the way it is,open exhaust and all!

 

I respectfully disagree... not with the reliability of your 97... but with the suggestion that the emissions equipment on the 6.7 was "never meant for a diesel engine."

On this point, the history of facts clearly and convincingly confirm that the main components of emissions equipment, the DPF (diesel particulate filter), the SCR (selective catalytic reduction), the DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) and the DOC (diesel oxidation catalyst) were all designed expressly for diesel engines.

As you well know, the 6.7L Powerstroke, and for that matter the Duramax and the 6.7L Cummins, are not the only diesel engines with this complicated constellation of diesel exhaust aftertreatment equipment. ALL of the big medium duty and class 8 Semi tractor engines manufactured for the last 5 years have this equipment as well... and the evolvement of these solutions took place over a 20 year period preceding. It was in the development of these systems 20 years ago that led to the determination that the fuel supply needed to be altered to make the systems work, and that alteration took time to introduce legislatively and implement practically, and yet that was all said and done 10 years ago.

There is no doubt that the emission systems were designed for diesels.

The doubt remains in the reliability of Ford's balance between production costs and final product. It seems like a very tough balance to achieve, because if the engines are made too expensively, then that would limit the market of customers who could afford to buy them, which would reduce return on investment and further raise the cost per unit.

On the other hand, a rash of failures in service increases the cost of ownership for the customer, and that keeps customers (like me) from buying, which also reduces revenue. So I think the balance needs to be shifted slightly more towards reliable engineering, materials, and build quality... not more horsepower or torque. In other diesel engines, emissions equipment has worked for the last 5 years delivering goods in over the road semi's and people in busses in countries all over the world.

 

The 5.7L is still the Hemi in the 1500 and the base for the 2500 they added the larger 6.4L in 2014 with 410hp 429ft/lbs as an optional engine for the 2500......and that is what I have. Tows great and is quiet as heck and a nice torque curve for towing.

Getting used to the gasser towing took a few hills but I like it now......needs some revs but has plenty of ***** especially without major altitude (ie. nothing over 5,000 etc.).

The 5.7L's curve is slightly different.

 

I did not say the emissions equipment was never meant for a diesel. I know the emissions was designed for the new diesels. What I said was diesel engines were never meant for emissions. They have had to be entirely redesigned from the reliable power plants that they used to be to the crap that we see now all because of bogus emissions requirements. That's what I was saying, but you're right, we will never agree on this issue.

 

I'm with you Byron, I'm gonna drive my 2001 7.3L till the wheels fall off.. With all the emissions crap on the new trucks i would hate to see the repair cost once that warranty runs out!!

 

I recently returned from another continent where automotive diesels are not as regulated as they are in the US. Man oh man, what a difference in the air we breath. The throat and eyes would sting just walking down the street in traffic by comparison.

I think those of us in the US and Europe are lucky that we are being forced to wise up. Emissions controls make a huge difference in our quality of life, and I don't think we fully appreciate it... myself included. It sometimes takes actually going to a place where there are little to no regulations to see the reality of where we were headed if left unchecked.

One of the advantages that the 7.3L HEUI had back when it was new was that of all the diesel engines offered in light and medium duty trucks back at the time, it was the cleanest. By FAR in some cases. In pick up trucks of that era, the GM 6.2L and the Dodge 5.9L both polluted more per brake horsepower.

Another advantage of emissions requirements is forced innovation. Take the injector. HEUI injection enabled fueling and defueling independent from engine rpm and p pump speed. Split shots became the pre cursor to rate shaping the injection. While Navistars big bet on the Eddie Sturman digital valve technology borrowed from the Apollo space program didn't work out as well as planned, regulations for less emissions motivated the implementation of common rail, which shapes the rate of injection far better than any P Pump or HEUI system could dream of.

To be able to not only squirt fuel into the cylinder up to 10 times per power stroke... by stacking hundreds of little piezo discs together and amplifying their instantaneous expansion with an applied current to not only control the number of injection events, but to control the excursion of the injector... all of that emissions motivated innovation has led to a power density benefit. As a result of this ability to shape the rate of fuel dynamically in real time throughout each power stroke, smaller displacement diesel engines are now far more power dense.

The chase for fewer emissions led to this corollary benefit.

 

You lost me at the word "forced". Good for you if you think it's better… Not me. End of story.

 

I believe what he is getting at is because of the emissions there are some benefits if you make all the emissions fall off. Like ditching the dpf and egr etc etc and use the underline things that companies are forced to put onto the truck to make it efficient enough to drive on the road.

For instance my 6.7 in my signature is capable of 2 gallons per mile or twenty two mpg. Of course there's no emissions junk on it either.

Yes that right a 7500 pound truck on 35" tires gets 22 mpg on the highway driving like I'm in no rush. It also has the potential for 2 GALLONS per mile if I want to drive like an idiot