First of all, to the original poster, 'Freshman Ford' I think this topic would be better addressed in the 'Pre-Power Stroke Diesel (7.3L IDI & 6.9L)' Forum located here: Pre-Power Stroke Diesel (7.3L IDI & 6.9L) - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums
If you repost your question there you're likely to find more people interested in your questions as they pertain to your specific engine. It's an interesting topic that in my opinion could be revisited in that forum, although it looks like it's all been covered here (and there). Not much can be done that I know of aside from air intake and exhaust (see below) it's all in assessing the cost to benefit ratio and "is it worth it?"

I would just add: Flush the transmission and replace with synthetic fluid plus an external "MAGNEFINE" filter to preserve the transmission. If you are going to tow heavy then install a larger transmission oil cooler rated for the combined weight if the one you have is not sufficient. Synthetic engine oil and filter if you want. I just used the best Rotella 'triple something' non-synthetic but will go synthetic with a special filter next time and probably a magnetic filter set-up. DEPENDABLE is what I want. Best fluids and filters should increase longevity.

That is a reasonable perception on your part and I am not being critical of your personal assessment but technically it isn't true. Resistance to exhaust flow is there. Manufacturers designed for the optimum in cost to benefit ratio while keeping manufacturing costs down and not for maximum efficiency and performance. Resistance can be reduced and it does matter even if you can't see it, especially if/when, as TJC Transport suggested, the air flow down the intake is increased.

Otherwise, without increased air down the intake, reducing resistance in exhaust pipe and muffler is probably not going to provide a noticeable improvement but it is technically an improvement in efficiency and performance regardless of how little or how much. As I understand it, the most important restriction is in the 'Y' pipe coming from the exhaust manifolds but I am not thoroughly researched, nor an expert in the field but I understand aerodynamics.

This is proven by Gale Banks, probably the world's best known expert in getting more air into and out of internal combustion engines for vastly improved efficiency and performance, nearing the maximums obtainable with state of the art engineering, technology and fabrication.

Before the Banks Turbochargers for these engines, he created the Banks Power Pack system which consisted of 1) A larger, (taller) 'deep dish' air cleaner designed to increase volume, pressure and velocity of air into the intake manifold. That is what the deep dish is for, a Gale Banks engineering improvement of the original 'soup bowl' dish on the stock air cleaner. DO NOT REMOVE THAT 'SOUP BOWL' from inside of the top of your stock air cleaner as some people have suggested as a modification to increase air flow. It doesn't work like that! In aerodynamics things are not always as they seemingly appear. That dish serves a purpose that engineers did not just imagine, they tested and proved it and that is why it is there.

This Banks Power Pack system, or parts of it I think were also similarly produced and perhaps less engineered by ATS and/or other manufacturers. The window of availability of these Power Pack systems was very short due to the soon to be and extremely rapid success of the turbochargers for these engines.

The system consisted mainly of the larger taller air cleaner, larger diameter 'Y' pipe from the exhaust manifolds and an exhaust temperature sensor and gauge. It definitely did provide a significant increase in efficiency and performance before the Turbochargers wiped out those numbers. Additional options may have included the larger exhaust pipe and less restrictive muffler (it all matters) and possibly an improved plastic air induction - I don't know because there is very little information about this system on the Web. I wish I knew the actual test data from Banks Engineering about this Power Pack but suffice it to say, Gale Banks is a world renowned expert in design/engineering and fabrication of these systems and I just plain TRUST IT.

This is what the air cleaner looks like. It is heavy thick cast aluminum and it is a very tight fit, very tricky to get it in against an insulated firewall and under an A/C line and it holds a taller air filter. I think I used a WIX filter like a K&N. The following is not my topic thread and I have not posted in it:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...r-housing.html

My 87 6.9L XLT Lariat has this 'consisted mainly of' Banks Power Pack system which was probably ordered as an option by the original purchaser of this top of the line truck when it was new. The exhaust pipe and muffler has probably been replaced (it's in excellent condition) and the tail pipe is back to 3 inches dia. and that's the only place where I measured the exhaust pipe. The truck doesn't smoke at start-up or during reasonable driving accelerations, is obviously precision timed/tuned for California emissions and it runs great!

Watch this totally awesome 7 minute video containing an interview with Gale Banks and listen very carefully to what he says, especially at the beginning about air flow! Play that back until you understand every word! The video is about the awesome "Street Legal" Banks Sidewinder Diesel Dakota setting the world land speed record for pick-up trucks at Bonneville Salt Flats, breaking his own previous world speed record with a different pick-up truck.
Banks Sidewinder on Automaniacs

This record was set in 2002 and this video was uploaded to YouTube by 'Banks Power' in 2006.
I don't know if this is still the current record.

Sorry this post is so long: Insomnia has me writing in autopilot mode again.

All that being said, for the most part, performance modifications are all about a cost to benefit ratio. Is it worth it? In my view, I would add a cost/benefit to complexity ratio. I do not want to deal with the complexities of installing a turbo and keeping it tuned, let alone the expense of the turbo which I cannot afford.

My truck is what it is and intended to be, it will serve my uses perfectly well. It is a DIESEL PICK-UP TRUCK that can haul a heavy load and pull a heavy trailer efficiently. It is not a race car or a hot-rod, nor a competition sled puller. I don't care if it slows down to 25mph pulling a 10,000 lb. trailer up and over the summit on Highway 34 in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, 12,183 ft. (3713.38 m.) elevation. How many times am I or you going to do that? Once or twice? LOL.

Reminiscing: I've been over it a few times already in different vehicles including a 1982 21 foot Toyota Dolphin mini-motorhome with a 4 cyl. 22R carburetted, 4speed and an essential electric fan (from a junk Buick) I had installed in front of the radiator controlled by toggle switch especially for climbing long grades.

Having been there before and experienced the summit I'll probably chose a different route for my F250 6.9L IDI towing a heavy trailer, keeping combined weight under the 14,000 lb.(6350 kg.) factory rating for My truck, (You can figure out your truck's weight capabilities from the tag specifications on the door frame) I'll maybe keep it around 10,000 lbs. with the trailer but I have almost no doubt that I could make the pull with 16,000 lbs. combined weight or more. Slow, uses more fuel than a turbo diesel but look at the achievement! That's performance enough for me.

 

Hmm. Look who's "calling the kettle black."

Seems you weren't keeping up with your tech reading over 30 years ago when IH began the project and announced they'd take the MV-446 7.3 gas-engine platform and transform it into a diesel?

As to the 350 Oldsmobile? Yes, a dismal failure. I was doing warranty work on them when new. Were you? I doubt it. It was kind of a small in-house project at the Oldsmobile division. They (two engineers s I've read) took the existing Olds 350 gas engine and made a diesel out it. Had a poor Stanadyne filter system that less water pass through. Had a lot of early Stanadyne pump failures and according to Stanadyne at the time - due to poor fuel and high under-hood temps. Also did not have enough head-bolts to keep head-gaskets intact. Also had a cast-iron crankshaft prone to breakage and chain-drive cam. After a class-action lawsuit - GM came up with a new replacement DX series 350 diesel that was supposed to be much better. But by that time the 350 was "old news" and Detroit Diesel was just getting done designing the new 6.2 diesel for Chevy and GMC trucks, vans, and SUVs. I still don't understand why the new, ground-up Detroit Diesel designed 6.2 came with a cast-iron crank instead of forged steel like the IH 6.9 and 7.3s have.

There were many, many, gas engine platforms converted to diesel by European and Japanese auto makers. Not many here in the USA. At least not light-duty. Farm tractors and industrial engines, yes. The big advantage to doing this is - the new diesel can be a "bolt in" replacement for the gas engines with the same trans bolt pattern and physical footprint. Also much of the original factory tooling can be used.

IH chose an already proven medium-duty gas engine with a gear-drive cam (as I recall) and forged steel crankshaft. And yes, sorry, but IH announced and described the development publicly. I can't help it if you did not read tech stuff in the early 80s.

1.5 VW was created from an existing gas engine (great engines). So were the 1.8 and 2.2 Isuzu diesel engines. So were a few Datsun engines. And more, I'm sure. Not a big surprise except I guess, to people who don't follow automotive tech history.

You can throw tantrums and throw insults my way all day long, but that will not change the facts.

 

What was the best highway fuel mileage you got with your Dolphin?
I've been messing with RVs for years -still trying to come up with the best combo.

I have a 21 foot Toyota Minicruiser (pretty much like a Dolphin). 22RE engine (fuel injected 2.4) and auto trans. and 4.10 rear. 60 MPH is about top sensible speed and may hills have to be at 45 MPH. Gets an overall average of 14.2 MPG.

I also have a 1978 Toyota Chinook with pop-up roof (small RV). Has the 20R engine with carb and four speed man. trans. and 4.11 rear. Gets an average of 19-20 MPG.

My 1994 Ford F250, 7.3 turbo IDI, long box. ext. cab., 4WD, 4.10 gears and E40D trans - with a slide-on high-roof 11 foot camper gets 12 MPG. But I drive it a heck of a lot faster then my Toyotas. I get that 12 MPG and often do 65 MPH. If I did 65 MPH with my 21 foot Toyota, I'd get 10-11 MPG.

My 1992 Dodge 4WD, 5.9 Cummins, five-speed Getrag manual, 3.50 gears - with a 8 foot slide-on camper with a pop-up roof gets 17 MPG. I'm curious to take this same camper and stick it on my Ford sometime and see how it does.

Hands down, my 1994 F250 is the nicest truck I've ever owned. I also have a 1995 F150 4WD with the 300 cube six and it runs nice - but is a dog on fuel usage.

 

oooookay. I'm not reading all of your books in their entirety, but we get it, you've worked on one of the simplest injection pumps there is.


I've worked on, and modified, just about everything worth working on. youre an old timer, we get that too, with old timer facts. that's cool too, but you're the one that started the pissing contest and while it may be kept alive by others, you keep saying the same stuff over and over again. ever look into politics? the democrats need a prez candidate....


I've fixed plenty of rotary pumps, including a bunch of vp44's, and there are things that wear out and something as simple as a shim, bushing, diaphragm, or valve can prevent proper function. Also a pump that works with your tractor gearing and speed doesn't necessarily translate into working properly in a vehicle geared for highway speeds. but, enough of that...its all moot at this point. youre the 70's and 80's pump guru, no problem allowing you that title.


the original thing in question was whether exhaust is sufficient from the factory. You've obviously never built anything that's impressive, and by impressive I don't just mean buying parts from a catalog and bolting them together, and are a stubborn old man so you are adamant about your theories.


power and efficiency can be increased by exhaust and intake on any vehicle. that's why I can build a 350+whp ls1 without removing a valve cover, or 400whp with ported stock heads. thats why I can average 30 mpg with a 5000 lb landcruiser with 35" tires and a 4bt...efficient airflow.


there are examples of blunders of design inhibiting performance, and examples of differences in design enhancing performance.


specific examples of blunders would be:
-ls1 f-body crumpled y pipe for ground clearance
-exhaust manifolds on anything pre-2005...manifold design has taken a turn toward a shorty design from the factory in the last 10 years and even earlier for some. replacing any single runner manifold will yield substantial gains even when replacing with shorties.
-120cc heads of small bock fords
-5.8 intake manifold
-intake horn of common rail cummins
-down pipes of ats turbo idis (considered "factory turbos" by most)


I can go on and on and on. since you like to stick to idi's, the factory manifolds are awful with their sharp bends for fitment, particularly the drivers side. if idi performance wasn't such an oxy moron, and turbos weren't so popular, someone would make and sell long tubes that offer great gains throughout the operating range. that'd be an example of replacing a design inhibiting power production (manifolds) with a design that enhances (long tubes) performance.


bone stock ls1 gains 20+ whp with long tubes. 10whp can be gained just from replacing the stock y pipe alone....hmmmm....30 wheel hp? guess the engineers are idiots? oh right...cost and ground clearance were their priority.


120cc sbf heads are optimal, when 165 would make 30 more hp and increase fuel efficiency? ohhh right, emissions restraints and cost drove that blunder.


you obviously don't have a single clue about inertia, velocity, pulse, or scavenging if you think exhaust is optimal off the assembly line. the single greatest gain of any bolt on of any NA engine is long tube headers, on anything, period.

I average 19-20 driving my cummins with 400 more whp and a truck that weighs 1500+ lbs more than yours. guess maybe I should be an engineer.


there ya go, now quit trashin threads with your books.

 

that doesn't make any sense at all.why would i care weather or not you work on your own ip? go right ahead.that doesn't make me upset at all.

none taken my friend.im sorry you misunderstand me.
you don't want to have a discussion,you simply want to argue.i haven't the strength for that.i have an old man i have to constantly deal with just like that already.good luck to ya with your truck,ip remans and calling her an ih.may it all bring you joy.-seriously.please don't read that as condescending.i truly mean it.

 

OK, I give up. Make you feel better? I never said anything about the Stanadyne pump being "simple." Easy to verify - just re-read. No guessing as what has been "said" since it all here in writing. I wrote that it can be serviced without a lot of special tools. The Bosch you mention was built wrote under license by Stanadyne, by the way. What I'd call a "simple" pump would be something like the combo injector and pump on a Detroit Diesel 2-stroke, or on a Yanmar engine with one plunger pump per cylinder.

I also said that I know of no Ford IDI diesels that left the factory with overly restrictive exhausts and asked posters to list a few with specs. Never got a single specific answer. We weren't discussing building an engine for more power. That's a whole different story. Probably the most restrictive Ford built when it came to the 6.9 and 7.3s was the IDI turbo version that has a 2 1/4 outlet on the turbo. Still makes it's rated power though. Now if you turn the boost up an also crank up the fuel delivery - then yeah - more flow would be a big asset. NOT what we were talking about.

"Old people" facts? Yeah, correct ones. Tell me what has changed in your world when it comes to these sort of facts.

 

So again, please tell me how the IH gas engine is the same as a 6.9/7.3?

 

You are like a little kid not getting his way. I NEVER, EVER said anything here remotely close to the 6.9 and/or 7.3 being the "same" as a gas engine - did I?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem are just can't find anything wrong with what I really wrote - and subsequently need to make things up?

I didn't come here looking for a fight or dispute either. I made a few statements that if done in front of people with more knowledge on the subject -would of been benign with no controversy. For some reason that I'm not quite sure of - you cannot stand to hear someone speak about something that you know little about. When that happens to me - it does not bother me at all. That is how I learn new things.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You may not have said "they're the same" but what point were you trying to make by citing the gas engines that would indicate anything but a very strong comparison?

So what exactly were you trying to say? Dunno what point you were trying to make honestly.

Better yet, let it die. If you want me to pick apart your posts I will, but i sure as hell have better things to do and sure as hell you'll hate it worse than I will.

make a point and let it be. Your "factory exhaust is not restrictive" theory is not your next move, I already blew that out of the water. If it wasn't a restriction, in one form or another, there would be no efficiency to unlock by changing it to another setup.

 

If you really feel you somehow "blew" something out of the water - hey - good for you. I certainly do not agree. seems you are more easily satisfied (with your own rhetoric).

Turning up boost pressure and turning up fuel delivery and then opening up the exhaust is what I consider "performance modification." Not "unleashing" some potential that was held back by some evil Ford engineer in a stock vehicle.

Dream away and think whatever you like. Let me do the same and we'll get along fine. Just don't make any claims about things I said - that in reality - I did not.

 

the 6.9 and 7.3 diesels never evolved from an international gas engine. they were designed as a diesel engine from the very beginning

just because an engine shares some size comparisons does not make it the same engine.
this would be the same as saying the 7.3 IDI and thr 7.3 powerstroke are the same engines and parts will interchange.
the only thing they have in common are the 7.3 liter engine size, and the only thing thew will work off a powerstroke on an IDI is the oil filter.

 

Yes - I'm glad you resolved that issue with NO facts or evidence. Seems IH must of been telling stories when they announced the project of using the MV gas engine platform to make the new V8 diesel.

 

It used to be very common for big engine makers to develop them strong enough so they could be produced in gas or diesel versions. Hercules did it, so did Continental, John Deere, International Harvester, Case, Ford, Waukesha,etc. No big news to someone who has been around for awhile and kept up with engine development.

According to IH - the MV446 was designed with the possibility of diesel in mind when it was first produced as a medium duty gas engine - mostly used in school buses. After that? One book , using IH source-citations - states it was a deal with Ford that led to IH making a diesel version of the 446 gas engine. That is - make some changes and produce it as the 6.9 diesel. Now . . was I there at the decision-making table at IH and heard all this first-hand? Nope. Neither were you, I suspect. One good book that discusses the demise of IH and the development of the 6.9 diesel is "Corporate Tragedy" by Barbara Marsh. Have you read it? Better put, what exact sources are you using that indicates the 6.9 was a totally ground-up project not based on an existing engine platform. Now that IS true for the GM 6.2 diesel that Detroit Diesel did the fresh design for. Not near as rugged an engine as the 6.9 IH but . . it was not meant to be. It was at first, designed to be a direct bolt-in replacement for the GM 305 gas engine with the same power and better fuel mileage in light vehicles. Ford wanted a heavier truck use only. Thus no F150s or Broncos with 6.9 diesels.

 

I would still like to see just ONE part interchange between the 446 and the 6.9/7.3 since they have so much in common

 

I see you are still either citing words I never used, or citing phrases I never used. I assume because you cannot disprove anything I have actually said.

Look, if engine history does not interest you - that's fine. Much of that sort of reading is boring to me, certainly. I've done most of my reading when injured and laid up. When on my two feet I read very little - except maybe some of these forum posts. Once upon a time -forums were great places to share info and pick up ideas. Not so much anymore.

I never - ever - said parts from a IH MV446 AKA 7.3 gasser interchange with a Ford-IH 446 AKA 7.3 diesel. I said the 6.9 and 7.3 diesels were made by modifiying the 446 gas engine that came first. Same basic block weight and foot print and much of the big tooling in the IH factory was able to be used with some mods for the changeover. Funny - I don't see anyone asking about how many parts from a 350 c.i. Oldsmobile gas engine interchange with a 350 Olds, Chevy, or GMC diesel engine. So back to the MV-446 versus the IH-Ford 446 diesel -I have no idea if any parts interchange and can't say I really care. Fact still remains the 6.9 and 7.3 evolved from the 7.3 gasser.

In 99% of the cases - a gas engine has more horsepower and torque then a diesel -IF the bore and stroke are the same, and aspiration is equal. The 6.9 diesel was even smaller then the 7.3 gas engine and had a lot less horsepower and torque. So making the diesel probably was not a big risk. The 6.6 liter IH gas engine makes more power and torque then the 7.3 liter diesel. I have no idea if turbo boost was in mind at the beginning when Ford gave IH its input. There were a lot of turbos stuck on 6.9 diesel shortly after it came out - so I assume Ford noticed. BAE turbos were all over the place (I had a BAE turbo 6.9 in 1984). Also Gale Banks, A.T.S. and probably a few more I've forgotten.

Ford 6.9 diesel (first year) – 161 HP @ 3300 RPM, 307 lb. ft. torque @ 1800 RPM

Ford 7.3 diesel -185 HP @ 3000 RPM, 338 lb.ft. torque @ 1800 RPM

IH 6.6 liter gasser -MV-404 with 4 barrel carb: 210 hp @ 3600 rpm; 336 lb. ft. @ 2800 rpm

IH 7.3 liter gasser - MV-446 with 4 barrel carb: 235 hp @ 3600 rpm; 385 lb. ft. @ 2600 rpm (made 1979-1981)