For the Ford Motor Company, the WORST engine that ever happened to them was the 6.0 6 leaker diesel engine from 2003 to 2007. Imagine if the 6 leaker was as great an engine as the 7.3? Chevy and Dodge would be out of the truck business. Instead, you can buy a great looking 6 leaker for less money than a gas rig the same year. After the 100k warranty is up, you can kiss them goodby. The 6 leaker made Chevy and Dodge trucks what they are today. The only good thing to come about is the smile on the dealer mechanics face when a 6 leaker gets towed into their shop.

 

I dunno. Don't think the 6.0 PSD has much to do with the GM / Dodge success or not.... or whether they would be out of the truck business.

Ford has it's loyal customers as does Dodge and GM and both the Cummins and the Isuzu/ GM diesels are very strong diesels.

Ford also had a great alternative...a very strong gas engine...the 6.8 V10...if one of their customers wanted a HD engine to tow.....but preferred not to have the 6 liter PSD.

There are people out there that will just buy a Ford...or just a Dodge....or just a GM...or a Toyota, etc...and only those vehicles.


Nothing wrong with that. Many of us have our favorite brands. I'm a long time (45 years +) photographer and I will pretty well just buy one brand of camera...because that's what I like, that's what I want.

 

OK, so let's say you are a really big Nikon camera fan and you buy a new $6,000 Nikon. Within the first year, you take it back to the shop at least once a month and you can't use your camera a total of 12 weeks during the year since it's in the shop. The next time you decide to buy a camera, do you think you might really consider a Cannon or a Konica instead of a Nikon? You think you would even buy a Cannon based upon the poor experience and loss of use on your spendy Nikon. That's what happened to Ford with the 6.0 diesel. I'd venture to say that Ford dealers around the nation have made more money off of 6.0 diesel repairs than all of the other engines combined. I see ads in the truck magazines that for only $4,200, they can equip your 6.0 to be reliable. No thanks. My gasser V-10 will last me longer with less repairs than any 6 leaker.

Pap

 

The only thing I disagree with regarding your post, is where you state that Ford could of put Dodge and Chevy out of the truck business if the 6 liter PSD was as great as the 7.3.

I quote your statement in question:

"Imagine if the 6 leaker was as great an engine as the 7.3? Chevy and Dodge would be out of the truck business. Instead, you can buy a great looking 6 leaker for less money than a gas rig the same year. After the 100k warranty is up, you can kiss them goodby. The 6 leaker made Chevy and Dodge trucks what they are today."

This is not the case at all, IMO.

My view is that Chevy (including GMC) and Dodge have been making trucks uninterrupted since the early 1900's. GM and Dodge gas and diesel engines have a very good reputation. Their sales during the era of the 7.3 IH and their sales after the 7.3 was discontinued and the 6 liter PSD became the diesel option for Ford were good and continue to be so.



As far as Nikon....very good cameras as are Canon...Konica went out of business a number of years ago.

I use Pentax, Mamiya medium format and Leica Rangefinder camera equipment. Have for many decades. Used to earn a portion of my living with some of this camera equipment.

But having said that...I do understand your analogy and don't disagree with you on this point.

I also don't disagree with your assessment about the 6.8 V-10 as an excellent power plant. In fact some years ago my wife and I were considering getting a large RV and one of the tow vehicles of choice would of been the Econoline passenger van with the gasser 6.8 V 10...if we had made the plunge to get a large trailer.

 

I won't belabor this much more, only to say that in the early 2000's, the Chevy diesel had many injector problems and the Cummins had exhaust manifold issues, injector issues and their trannies(both auto and manual) were horrible. The Ford 6 leaker not only had major engine design problems, but until the Torqueshift tranny came along, the auto/6 leaker package was a real mess. Dead 6 leakers were everywhere. Ford owners that bought the 6 leaker after having such good luck with the 7.3, sold and traded their 6 leakers for Chevy's and Dodges at a record pace. Even with knowledge that those companies had engine issues too, but the problems with the 6 leaker out-weighed everything else. I wonder if Ford would ever let the public know how many 6 leakers they bought back as lemons and then re-sold to some fool thinking they got a really good deal on a low mileage Ford diesel. Anyway, the 6 leaker is still my pick for the worst Ford engine ever made.

 

There was never a 6.0 sold without a Torqshift.

For every 6.0L that blew up, there are probably 10 that never had a single issue. There are still people with problem-free never-been-touched '03 6.0 trucks.

 

Sorry but the first year 6 leaker 2003 and 2004 had the R4100 which was a piece of crapola even in the 7.3's, but much worse with the 6 leaker. And to be sure there are a few exceptions on a few engines that even made it past the warranty, although I wonder about that. One of the many TSB's(if you have a few hours you can look up the TSB's for the 6.0 and read them) was the low speed vane sticking on the turbo. Small problem with a major impact and removal/cleaning the turbo the only fix. It goes on and on, just read the TSB's.

 

As Lead Head said, Ford never offered a 4R100 behind the 6.0.

Here's a link to the Ford specifications:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post7932641

 

You are right the 6.0 did not begin in 2003 with the R4100, it was the 5R100 later named the Torqueshift. I stand corrected. The new tranny still didn't help the 6 leaker. I felt sorry for all those 6.0 owners getting towed and puking coolant at the top of hills, stretched head bolts, coolant in the oil, radiator malfunctions, intercooler boots, turbo, EGR, etc,etc.

 

Anyone got opinions on the 70s ford 302s?

 

low on power crap fuel mileage but more power then the 351w better on fuel then the 351w. But they run for ever.

 

My experience with a 1974 E-100 with the 302 was average, certainly not worst or best. Power good, economy bad. It was the first Duraspark electronic ignition engine. No problems with that, but with the rats nest of vacuum hoses for emissions.

 

One I used in an E 300 had timing chain go at 45,000 miles. Other than that it was fine.

 

I stumbled into this thread a little bit ago and read the first five or ten pages, which go back to 2003ish. There are more than a few posts back then wondering about the reliability of the 6 liter oil burners.

I've had four Ford pickups. A 302, a 390 and two 300s. All have been good motors, though I'm more impressed with my current 300 in carb dress than I was with the fuelie I had for a few years. It may be that the injected one was anchored to a Mazda craptastic while the carb one I've got now hooks up to a NP435, holy of hollies.

That said, if I could have any motor, I'd want a '63 Chevy Z11 427. I love the 390s, and they'll run forever, but I'd like one night with a Z11.

 

I've heard nothing but malware about the 6 liter diesel... I've got one of the last 7.3 non turbo made.. 236,000 m. on it now, and still running fine, no smoke yet. Had some injector issues, but new Delphi injectors are cheap...and work fine..

My all time favorite Ford motor is the 300 IL Six, with a carb. I have had my '67 for 44 years, and finally put a rebuilt motor in 3 years ago. Found a long block in San Diego for $750.. can't beat that for another 40 years, with any motor made. Not a racer, but Clifford Performance can fix the pony's some for a few bucks. My money is on the 300 IL for the long run. If you really want to go fast, buy an airplane..

Baja