OK, it hasn't been a 5.9 since they started in 89 or 90 or whenever? Thanks for the clarification on the rest, I appreciate it.
However, still doesn't answer the question on the basic platform being the same while Ford has changed how many times.
And if we get technical and compare apples to apples, wouldn't it be 5 different diesels (6.9, 7.3 naturally aspirated, 7.3 turbo, 6.0, 6.4) in the same time frame while Dodge has had 2 or 3? Depending on the answer to the above. I may be wrong on that too, there may have been more changes than that in Ford's lineup.
OK, it hasn't been a 5.9 since they started in 89 or 90 or whenever? Thanks for the clarification on the rest, I appreciate it.
However, still doesn't answer the question on the basic platform being the same while Ford has changed how many times.
And if we get technical and compare apples to apples, wouldn't it be 5 different diesels (6.9, 7.3 naturally aspirated, 7.3 turbo, 6.0, 6.4) in the same time frame while Dodge has had 2 or 3? Depending on the answer to the above. I may be wrong on that too, there may have been more changes than that in Ford's lineup.
The EPA and competitive pressures have been the reason for the evolution of all Diesel engines since the 80s.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence as the Dodge/Cummins has had issues also, their most problematic years were late 90s, Fords was 2003,2004.
__________________
2004 E-450 6.0 139,000 miles
7,500 mile, 15 quart oil changes, 5W-40 Rotella.
UOAs consist of checking for metal on drain plug magnet. All stock, no mods. Dyed fuel with no additives. Never been reflashed.
Total parts replaced;
one EGR valve.
I completely understand the EPA, I also know about the dowel pins and lift pump issues. Easily fixed and I believe Dodge did not give owners the same amount of crap constantly about warranty issues. Seems to me that the fix was a one time thing and done, not multiple injectors, turbos, EGR's, etc. And yes, even some injector issues. And yes, I know, not as many Dodges on the road, blah, blah, blah.
Am I correct on the displacement of the B series? Could sware they've all been the same, but I've been wrong before. More valves after 98.5, but same engine, basically.
I completely understand the EPA, I also know about the dowel pins and lift pump issues. Easily fixed and I believe Dodge did not give owners the same amount of crap constantly about warranty issues. Seems to me that the fix was a one time thing and done, not multiple injectors, turbos, EGR's, etc. And yes, even some injector issues. And yes, I know, not as many Dodges on the road, blah, blah, blah.
As far as Dodge goes I also remember an issue with certain Cummins engine blocks............and this 71,000 mile 2004 6.0 operator hasn't been back to the dealer for any engine issues so no personnal experiance of Fords warranty handling.
Quote:
Am I correct on the displacement of the B series? Could sware they've all been the same, but I've been wrong before. More valves after 98.5, but same engine, basically.
Yes the 6 cylinder B series has had the same displacement up until the switch to the 6.7.
I would also make the point that the well respected International DT466 has a positive perception in peoples minds. Its displacement remains 466 cubic inches to this day, however it has gone through more changes since 1994 than the Ford Powerstroke, it doesn't even have the same bore and stroke it had in the early 90s. What does this have to do with anything?? Well its all about perception, if its good few care or keep track of the changes, if its bad the opposite is true.
__________________
2004 E-450 6.0 139,000 miles
7,500 mile, 15 quart oil changes, 5W-40 Rotella.
UOAs consist of checking for metal on drain plug magnet. All stock, no mods. Dyed fuel with no additives. Never been reflashed.
Total parts replaced;
one EGR valve.
Arent we forgetting the luck of the draw in this discussion? Yes, International has changed the diesel it supplies to Ford several times in the last 2 decades. (and as a sidenote: you can not blame ford entirely with the problems the 6.0 had vs the VT365. it is navistar's job to supply ford with a diesel engine that ford can use to be competative in the light-duty market. navistar knew that the engine would be used in the superduty and that it would need to turn 3500 rpms and produce 300+ hp, etc. no excuses)
the reasons for this change range from the obvious to the probable (emmisions, performance, cost, etc). but face it...Dodge lucked out that the 5.9 Cummins could survive this long in the light-duty truck market. There is no possible way for engineers to know what will be required of an engine architecture 2 years from now, much less 15-20. At times the changes to the ISB were quite extraviagant (like the conversion to the ISB-E in 2003 for emmisions or even the 'new' 6.7l - which is nothing more than a bored/stroked version of the 5.9). but it is still luck.
i work in research and development and i can say with absolute certianty that Ford and Dodge would both benefit from making a diesel in-house. a company is much better off having more direct control of a product that they are responsible for.
I tried replying and saying that I lay the blame on both Ford and Navistar, but the site went down for a few minutes and I lost it.
The best part of the reply was: Yes, the grass is greener on the Dodge side of the fence right now, because the grass on the Ford side is black from the flamethrower option.
its a fact that an inline makes more torque than a V....ever look at a semi truck and see a v8? ummmm no...
ummmmmmmmmmm yes you do..the reason for an in line is is they are easier to work on in the chassis, have more main bearings, and can accommodate longer strokes for the giving space
ummmmmmmmmmm yes you do..the reason for an in line is is they are easier to work on in the chassis, have more main bearings, and can accommodate longer strokes for the giving space
I've heard the main bering debate quite a bit also.........but I believe it to be inconclusive at best.
Sure you have more mains but you're also supporting a much longer crankshaft.
I'm not 100% sure what they're called but I've been told that the Vmotors in the logging trucks.....which are 2 stroke diesels I understand.....are the most powerful motors in tractors bar none; but the economy is atrocious for cross country work.
I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think the main advantage of the V8 vs L6 configuration is that the V8 allows more cubes to fit in the space of the engine bay. Positioning the cylinders vertically raises the overall height of the engine, wheras the V configuration puts the hieght of the cylinder bank(s) on an angle that makes for a lower overall height. The cummins is a relatively small displacement engine compaired to the ford, I suspect this could be why.
I have also heard the debate of inline over V block in terms of strength as well. Simply put, an L6 has 6 pistons pushing against 7 main bearings, while the V8 has 8 pistons pushing agianst 5 main bearings. But thats all it is, a simple comparison. Either configuration has to be designed for the service it is going to face.
Personally I prefer the inline configuration, as a general (very general) rule they are a little easier to work on, even if it could mean a few lost ponies.
I think Ford did build in house diesels back in the mid 80's. But those were definately NOT superduty material.
It would be nice if ford would design and build their own diesel, but I can't help but wonder if they could actually pull it off.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel, Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Just an outsider looking in, but Ford seems to have procrastinated on the 5.4 still at 300hp ... what would have happened had Ford been building their own diesel. Would you still be driving around in 250hp and 450lbft or torque?????? Ford's engine/powertrain department needs to get on the move. What would happen if ford would go to 100k mile drive train warranty like GM is doing???? Bankrupt no?
I think the idea of an in house motor sounds good, but can they do it and be sucessfull? It is a mighty big risk compared to pulling one off the shelf so to speak and making everything go around it. Then they are fully responsible... for the good or bad. Right now ..... partial responsibility is very expensive expensive.
Did GM take the cheap way out with the Dmax..... I think so. Turned out to be a good bussiness move. Could it have been a flop? Yes! Tons of people said aluminum head on a cast block was a "no go." Why it works to this day, I have no idea.
Tons of people said aluminum head on a cast block was a "no go." Why it works to this day, I have no idea.
I was quite suprised when I found out too! But aperantly its nothing new, Isuzu has been dooing it for years. We have an older ford ranger in the family that has a mitsubish 2.3l turbo diesel, and it too has an aluminuim head (22 year old engine). Aluminium head, go figure .
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel, Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
Don't care for advertisements do ya? 
.
