6.7L 103K! Cracked Valves and out of Warranty! What's Ford Gonna Do??
#61
12-17-2011, 01:21 PM
No doomsday here, it's not worth worrying about. Yes I would complain about a valve failing at 153,00, it should not happen. I agree that stuff happens and don't believe that this is an issue with the fords. Does anybody agree with me that we shouldn't have to cough up 13 grand for a part that should last well beyond a couple of hundred thousand miles? I know Ford did the right thing this time but that my not always be the case.
#62
12-17-2011, 02:46 PM
No doomsday here, it's not worth worrying about. Yes I would complain about a valve failing at 153,00, it should not happen. I agree that stuff happens and don't believe that this is an issue with the fords. Does anybody agree with me that we shouldn't have to cough up 13 grand for a part that should last well beyond a couple of hundred thousand miles? I know Ford did the right thing this time but that my not always be the case.
There were many valve seats that dropped out destroying the 5.9 Cummins, and it didn't take 100,000 miles to happen.
#63
12-17-2011, 02:52 PM
Well if was not a defect then we can plan that our trucks will only last 103K under severe conditions? I don't know about you Crazy but for the money these things cost i would like to see a little longer service life. I have been thinking about the longevity of diesel trucks lately. Here is my situation, I bought this truck to make money and I put about 3-4 thousand miles a month on it. What can I expect to get out of the HPFP or the valves. If one of these goes south it's 10grand+ to fix. Now if a person puts 50K on a year for miles they can plan on sticking another 10 grand in the truck after only two years of ownership? That does not sound like a good deal to me and not what I thought I was getting for the $59,000 that I paid the truck. I would expect from Ford or any other manufacture that I could put 3-4 hundred thousand on this truck and then maybe change the HPFP for an insurance policy. As far as valves, We should not have to ever worry about those. So, was it a defective valve? I hope so and think Ford did the right thing this time. How about the next time, will Ford step up to the plate? If not, then there will be a person that has to stick $13K in his one or two year old truck and there will be people on here saying "By what you just said you would consider any repair out of warranty to be a warranty problem". Come on man!! There should be a common sense clause in these warranty's. Like at 150k an exhaust broke and took out your motor,that should be covered under warranty in my opinion. Maybe not a full replacement but something prorated .
My point is that with every manufactured product made today without an unconditional lifetime warranty there is a point where the manufacturer is no longer responsible for the failure of the product. In this case it happens to be 100,000 miles. They aren't responsible for a dime of it, but they covered it under "goodwill".
Please find me a vehicle currently sold with a lifetime powertrain warranty. Seems like this would be the only way you would be satisfied with a company's duration of responsibility for your truck. Unfortunately no such vehicle is made to my knowledge.
#64
12-17-2011, 03:24 PM
Lead Driver
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 6,125
Received 1,446 Likes
on
892 Posts
It was the first generation Duramax "LB7" used in the model years 2001 thru 2004.5 trucks. If memory serves, GM extended the warranty to 200K on them around 2005 when high mileage trucks were beginning to see failures. The problem was that the injectors would leak and would dilute the engine oil, eventually leading to an engine failure if not detected in time. GM replaced engines where that occurred under the 200K warranty program also.
The injectors on those LB7 engines were located under the valve covers (I believe they are on the 6.7 Ford motor too) which made it easy for a leaking injector to fill the crankcase with diesel. GM moved the injectors back outside with the second gen Duramax "LLY" in 2004.5.
The injectors on those LB7 engines were located under the valve covers (I believe they are on the 6.7 Ford motor too) which made it easy for a leaking injector to fill the crankcase with diesel. GM moved the injectors back outside with the second gen Duramax "LLY" in 2004.5.
I have to say Chevrolet really stepped up to cover this issue. They had to because the Duramax was a critical product for them, just as the new Ford designed and built Powerstroke.
#65
12-17-2011, 03:24 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: herriman utah
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still scratch my head and wonder if there isn't a cheaper way to putting all that mileage on so quickly than on a brand new 50k truck. if you really need a truck to haul heavy loads for that many miles a used medium duty truck like a freightliner FL 70 or business class freightliner might be a better choice and will not be essentially junk after 2-300k miles and will be worth more at resale. while not costing anymore new and substantially less if one goes used. if a truck isn't needed for all those miles, I would get a little tacoma with a manual trans and just drive it into the ground.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
#66
12-17-2011, 03:59 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Trenton, MI
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still scratch my head and wonder if there isn't a cheaper way to putting all that mileage on so quickly than on a brand new 50k truck. if you really need a truck to haul heavy loads for that many miles a used medium duty truck like a freightliner FL 70 or business class freightliner might be a better choice and will not be essentially junk after 2-300k miles and will be worth more at resale. while not costing anymore new and substantially less if one goes used. if a truck isn't needed for all those miles, I would get a little tacoma with a manual trans and just drive it into the ground.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
#67
12-17-2011, 05:33 PM
#68
12-19-2011, 12:22 AM
I still scratch my head and wonder if there isn't a cheaper way to putting all that mileage on so quickly than on a brand new 50k truck. if you really need a truck to haul heavy loads for that many miles a used medium duty truck like a freightliner FL 70 or business class freightliner might be a better choice and will not be essentially junk after 2-300k miles and will be worth more at resale. while not costing anymore new and substantially less if one goes used. if a truck isn't needed for all those miles, I would get a little tacoma with a manual trans and just drive it into the ground.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
heck I put about 20k a year on truck I am still thinking of a tacoma for when I don't need to haul something. if you look at cost per mile for a 2011+ diesel truck, factor in depreciation, tires and all that. They aren't exactly cheap to drive around.
#69
12-19-2011, 01:20 AM
I never attempted to state that these engines or trucks should have a lifecycle of 103,000 miles.
My point is that with every manufactured product made today without an unconditional lifetime warranty there is a point where the manufacturer is no longer responsible for the failure of the product. In this case it happens to be 100,000 miles. They aren't responsible for a dime of it, but they covered it under "goodwill".
Please find me a vehicle currently sold with a lifetime powertrain warranty. Seems like this would be the only way you would be satisfied with a company's duration of responsibility for your truck. Unfortunately no such vehicle is made to my knowledge.
My point is that with every manufactured product made today without an unconditional lifetime warranty there is a point where the manufacturer is no longer responsible for the failure of the product. In this case it happens to be 100,000 miles. They aren't responsible for a dime of it, but they covered it under "goodwill".
Please find me a vehicle currently sold with a lifetime powertrain warranty. Seems like this would be the only way you would be satisfied with a company's duration of responsibility for your truck. Unfortunately no such vehicle is made to my knowledge.
Ford's marketing quote on their website is "250,000-Mile Diesel Test Interval Tested to run 250,000 miles. Willing to do many more." I am assuming they are trying to set the customers expectation of the engine. So who's responsible for the fact that my Diesel is "Not Willing" to do much more than the 100K in less than one year. ME? They offered 6k day one right out of the gate. Luck? No! Admission of failure beyond reason? Maybe! Want to call it good will? Ok, if it makes you feel better. But, "They aren't responsible for a dime" on a truck less than a year old? Completly disagree!
#70
12-19-2011, 11:09 AM
Logistics Pro
I sure think my F350 Lariat is more comfortable to drive than a frieghtliner
At least my ears do after 8 hours in the cab.
#71
12-19-2011, 12:20 PM
I looked at running a freight liner sport chassis. They are fine rides, just as comfy as an SD. When you factor fuel, running commercial and paying fuel taxes, insurance, and the idea that 9 jobs out of 10 I don't need all that capability, it makes no sense for me. Lots of other folks could do well with it though, they can be registered private and are a seriously nice vehicle.
But, I will continue to put 55K miles/year or more on the SD's. You only live once and getting a new truck every 5 years or so is fun and that's worth something in the grand scheme of things.
But, I will continue to put 55K miles/year or more on the SD's. You only live once and getting a new truck every 5 years or so is fun and that's worth something in the grand scheme of things.
#72
12-22-2011, 08:32 PM
#73
12-22-2011, 09:50 PM
Replacing the engine doesn't help with the replacement/flush, etc. of the rest of the fuel system.
#74
11-05-2013, 01:03 AM
Same
Same thing happened to me. Ford new this was an issue and they tried to cover it up. If it was a first production run of 2011 whoever made the valves did not harden them. I had the same issue with my 2011 6.7 L Cab Chassis. Number 6 cyclinder dropped a valve. Had to put a long block in it. the issue was fixed by 2011 gen 3. You should really go back to Ford and call them out on this. They knew the valves were bad in all 1st-2nd productions of 2011. This is bull ****!
#75
11-05-2013, 09:41 PM
Lead Driver
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 6,125
Received 1,446 Likes
on
892 Posts
Same thing happened to me. Ford new this was an issue and they tried to cover it up. If it was a first production run of 2011 whoever made the valves did not harden them. I had the same issue with my 2011 6.7 L Cab Chassis. Number 6 cyclinder dropped a valve. Had to put a long block in it. the issue was fixed by 2011 gen 3. You should really go back to Ford and call them out on this. They knew the valves were bad in all 1st-2nd productions of 2011. This is bull ****!
