From what I understand they took a real world tested engine, pulling max GCVW truck and trailer, up in steep grades ect ect ect, basically working the hell out of the engine and then they tore the engine down at that point and concluded all the mechanical and all the gaskets where in good condition with no sign of failure in the near future and predicts these engines to have an an easy life with 250,000miles and expect to exceed that milage for some time.
I dont think it was a mere "K, we just rolled 250k miles and nothing happened", they tore the engine down and scrutinised it to great detail to make sure nothing was in pending failure.
I personally would like to see them pull more than what they recommenced is the max GVWR. There are many many people who pull much more than that.
It would be nice to get Ford engineers on forums like this so we can actually get some real answers. To me, I think they would learn a ton from conversing with people on sites like these.
I personally would like to see them pull more than what they recommenced is the max GVWR. There are many many people who pull much more than that.
It would be nice to get Ford engineers on forums like this so we can actually get some real answers. To me, I think they would learn a ton from conversing with people on sites like these.
I understand what you are saying but you have the "legal issues" of test muling overloaded, ford does not want to get sued like anyone else if the truck is in an accident directaly related to overloading.
__________________
1997 F250HD, 4x4, extended cab, e4od, 3.55 gears.
ENGINE:3 inch DP, kittiless with no muff, 10k mod, hpx line, 6637 filter, SD 120 IDM.
TRANS:trans cooler, temp gauge, tugger shift kit.
SUSPENSION:BDS front leveling springs, urathane spring bushings.
DIFF:Yukon power lock front diff, OEM LSD rear diff.
I will add, I think this engine will do better then we may think, will there be problems in there intro. year, you can count on it.
Will there be problems like the 6.0L in its first year, I put money down that it will be better.
Working in a shop exposed to a fleet of 2 year and newer duramax and 6.7 cummins, they themselves have had there share of issues. We have about 15 chevy C4500-C5500's that are 3 years old and we are already looking at gitting rid of them with their issues. Just last year we replaced some with GMC C6500's with CAT engines to get away from the duramax and the suspension/front end issues.
__________________
1997 F250HD, 4x4, extended cab, e4od, 3.55 gears.
ENGINE:3 inch DP, kittiless with no muff, 10k mod, hpx line, 6637 filter, SD 120 IDM.
TRANS:trans cooler, temp gauge, tugger shift kit.
SUSPENSION:BDS front leveling springs, urathane spring bushings.
DIFF:Yukon power lock front diff, OEM LSD rear diff.
well i test for a living and i have connections with lots of neat people. i had insight to the 6.7 long before anything was leaked online. i got to speak with some of the people who designed it and also those who tested it. they went well above and beyond "normal driving" they had the power turned up into the 500 hp range to see what the engine could handle, and they weighted teh truck down well beyond the rated gvw. as far as how many logged miles i couldnt tell you but i do know that the actual engine was abused heavily during testing
So I have been following the introduction of the new motor with keen interest. But I have read some things that have given me concern that Ford really doesn't know what they are up against. In one factory press release, an executive brags that the new motor has been tested for 250,000 miles.
Really?
So is Ford proud of the fact that they have tested their new motor for fewer miles than the competitions' basic overhaul interval (300,000)?
And does Ford realize that 250,000 simulated miles on a dyno are a lot different than 250,000 miles in the field, overloaded on the road, idling in winter and then run flat out for hours on end. I hear a lot of reports about these trucks being spotted "undergoing testing" - but it never sounds like the truck is under much of a test.
One press release stated that the motor had been teted "for hours on end" - really? This suggests that they think the product is a commuter vehicle and that somehow subjecting it to a full workday is a "test."
Has Ford finally built the ultimate suburban poser truck - ready for a level-kit and fake bead locks?
I know, I know, some loyalist drunk on Kool-Aid is going to chime in here and say what a great job is Ford is doing and Ford can do no wrong. But think about it.
Ford has never manufactured a heavy duty diesel motor before and if the press statements are accurate, the 6.7 has not been sufficently tested-by the company. 250,000 mies? As a test threashold? Are they kidding?
Don't get me wrong- I wanted an excuse to stay loyal to Ford. But if you combine "ugly" with "untested" what do you get?
Personally, If I needed a new truck in the next model year, I get a huge incentive to migrate to the Cummins powertrain... Why take the risk? And while I really like my 2007 F350, it is not like the build quality is much to write home about... The truck has excellent load carrying capacity and it runs away with 25,000 gross. But... Next truck, do I want to do Ford's product testing for them?
The factory gooseneck hitch is a pretty sweet addition.
Personally, If I needed a new truck in the next model year, I get a huge incentive to migrate to the Cummins powertrain...
No disrespect intended. I was simply going off what you said above. In most of your initial post, you were critical of everything but the factory gooseneck hitch and made the above statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHbase
Respectfully, I don't think being critical means that you need to buy something else.
__________________ John
2005 F-250 SD Lariat CC 4x4 6.0 TS Auto.
2007 GMC Yukon Denali
I think You might be confusing a chassis Dyno, and a engine Dyno?
You can truly abuse an engine on a competent engine dyno. You can effectively push it a LOT further than the engine will EVER see installed in a chassis.
Ford has been building hundreds of thousands of diesel engines for the European market for decades.
Ford knows that They took one heck of a hit with their tampering with Navistar's EPA compliant engines. They KNOW They lost the confidence of long time Customers. They have dedicated Their resources to get Those Customers back. If You ask Me, Ford will NOT stand for a failure. I don't think They can afford it.
It seems that You do not trust Ford engineers to build a competent engine?
Well Ford seems to think that Their Army of HIGHLY paid engineers Can build one.
Who do I trust?? Some Guy typing on an Internet Forum, or Ford's Army of Engineers?
Personally, I think the 6.7 is going to be an amazing engine. They have looked at some of the properties of turbo diesels and thought them out with new, innovative thinking. The reverse flow heads are a simple, but amazingly effective way of dealing with efficient flow to the turbo. Why didn't anyone think of that before?
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
Personally, If I needed a new truck in the next model year, I get a huge incentive to migrate to the Cummins powertrain... Why take the risk? And while I really like my 2007 F350, it is not like the build quality is much to write home about... The truck has excellent load carrying capacity and it runs away with 25,000 gross. But... Next truck, do I want to do Ford's product testing for them?
-mike
Dude, You should go look at a few Dodge/Cummins message boards. "Why take the risk" You ask. Heck, the Cummins is a bigger risk than You think.
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
From the information I have, the 250,000 miles was a minimum of miles under extreme conditions at all times. Not that the engine was only capable of that amount of miles.
As said before, many of the tests done are under high load, high power, constant full throttle and boost for days at a time.
Ford has been in this game for a long time. I'm sure Ford knows that the 6.7 just may be the nail in the coffin for the diesel line if it doesn't make a good showing. Ford builds diesels in other parts of the world, they pulled in engineer's where and when needed.
Seems to me like Ford has done it's home work on the 6.7. Testing has been aggressive, modified, tested again. The refinements done to this diesel are forward thinking. Personally I believe that most problems with this new engine are going to be electronic/computer related, not mechanical.
I have driven, been around and worked on diesels for well over 30 years and though most of the time has been in the trucking industry, that technology goes back and forth in the industry. It looks to me like Ford is getting it right on the 6.7.
If companies didn't have to meet ridiculous epa mandates, they wouldn't have had near the problems they have had over the past 8 years. Attempting to keep the public happy, get a product line out the door and meet epa guidelines in the short amount of time they have had, has made the last few rounds of engines a big joke. Take the epa out of the picture and it would be much better. That my opinion and I'll stand by it. I'm not saying I'm not for cleaner running engines, just that the epa is more about justifying their jobs than making a real difference.
If companies didn't have to meet ridiculous epa mandates, they wouldn't have had near the problems they have had over the past 8 years. Attempting to keep the public happy, get a product line out the door and meet epa guidelines in the short amount of time they have had, has made the last few rounds of engines a big joke. Take the epa out of the picture and it would be much better. That my opinion and I'll stand by it. I'm not saying I'm not for cleaner running engines, just that the epa is more about justifying their jobs than making a real difference.
Truer words have not been... umm.... typed
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
There is a v12 Cat at work that is used as a fire water pump that has the same intake exhaust orientation. I think ford has really done thier homework on this engine, and did plenty of testing to avoid problems and hedaches that the prvious engines had. I only wonder if an engine dyno can simulate the extreme heat that the electrical components are exposed to in an enclosed engine compartment. Not only does the engine need to perform reliably but so does the engine controls, which in my opinion would be a bigger reliability risk than the drivetrain. As far as ratings are concerned most manufacturers rate there products knowing they will be overloaded and account for it by rating them at a percentage alot lower than the point of acctual failure. One thing often taken for granted is the brakes. Even though the truck itself can easily carry and haul much more than it is rated for the brakes are the weak link in the chain.
EPA. That's the real thing here. Diesel engines have been mandated to reduce their emissions by something like 80% in the span of what, 3 years? Driving a diesel, and that's medium duty, not heavy duty, is going to be hard for the next 10 years. Then it should settle down.
The wrong argument is being made in the OP's post. None of these engines are being engineered for longevity. It's just emissions.
__________________
'08 F-250 4X4 CC 6.4
RideRite Airbags in Rear w/onboard compressor
Bilstein Shocks, Dual Air Horns (under hood)
Edge Insight Gauge Cluster
4-Way "wig wag" strobe lights
Polk speakers, Kicker 10" sub, 600w amp
The new emissions regs for 2010 mean every single diesel manufacturer is up against the wall --- radically new engines that are a sharp departure from the past.
The larger displacement is needed for EGR to lower combustion temperature.
No one can really say how this large amount of EGR gases will affect component life. Clearly that exhaust gas is likely to contain abrasives (carbon particles, sulfur compounds which is like sand even with ULSD at 15ppm, and even metal particles).
Furthermore, many of the components, like EGR coolers, valves, etc. is going to have an unknown effect on durability.
Often, it is not the big things (valves, rings, etc.) that break, but all the little things (EGR valve, actuators, sensors, DPF components), etc. that break.
There is no way to really know what is going to happen with durability until after it shows up on the road and large numbers of units start to pile up real mileage in real conditions to say, 500,000 miles per vehicle.
That is going to take at least 2 years --- and then, we will know enough to say this is what the 2 year old technology worked.
Realistically, it takes 4 or more years for the fixes to be incorporated into a new generation of engines.
So that means not 2011, but 2015 before the 6.7 and its cousins from other makers are "mature".
Many buyers who did not want to chance it when the last time regs changed big (2007) rushed out and bought the old standard.
The short development cycle does give limited time for testing. I feel the industry as a whole tends to do too little testing in the interest of cost savings and speed to market. That said, Ford has done lots of testing, just maybe not as much due to the short development cycle. Rest assured, there are lots of fast feedback vehicles on the road right now. There are probably some working up in Canada in extreme cold and idling for hours, and probably some in the southwest or Mexico in the heat. Many of them will be 6.7 engines stuck in a current truck. Preproduction driveline parts are often tested in a current platform (ever hear of the C5 Cormaro?) There is one vehicle (2011 mule) at my employer in New York State right now driving around for validation testing. I want to drive that 6.7 truck while we have it, just haven't got an excuse yet. I did get to start it so I can at least say that it is quite quiet, too quiet if you ask me. I can also say that the exhaust system is obscenely large. Around ten inches in diameter and five feet long for the catalyst/SCR/DPF arrangement.
I generally shy away from first year vehicles. Generally or 2nd or 3rd year is good. The first year has launch problems and the last few years tend to have more cost reductions. I'd wait until at least Dec 2010 to avoid a job 1 truck. Let the people who buy them be guinea pigs.
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. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
.
not Volvo trucks).
