Notices
2017+ Super Duty The 2017+ Ford F250, F350, F450 and F550 Super Duty Pickup and Chassis Cab
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

6.7 Rods

 
  #31  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:18 PM
Pwrgeek
Pwrgeek is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 320
Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.
Not sure what the hubbub is about. The current rod design has given good service since 2011. Plenty of those trucks are running well above stock power levels on stock pistons and rods. This looks like getting tooled up for a power increase to me but unnecessary at the current power levels.
 
  #32  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:27 PM
Fr8dog69
Fr8dog69 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW Utah
Posts: 243
Fr8dog69 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Perhaps the second design rod has a different part number and or rev. number in contrast to the 2011-2016 one?
 
  #33  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:32 PM
Pwrgeek
Pwrgeek is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 320
Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.Pwrgeek has a very good reputation on FTE.
I am going to laugh if this turns out like the 7.3 rods where the older ones are actually better.
 
  #34  
Old 08-31-2017, 06:25 AM
troverman's Avatar
troverman
troverman is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NH
Posts: 9,453
troverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud of
Originally Posted by Karl4Cat View Post
As speculated, this isn't an issue with the current 6.7's that aren't tuned. It's just a preparatory move to get ready for the 2019 power bump.
That makes no sense to me. That new connecting rod is presumably more expensive to make. Ford would have no reason to start spending more on engines making the same output as Job 1 trucks...unless they are seeing a problem. I can't think of any time in the past Ford has installed heavy-duty engine components "in preparation" for some future engine output. I'm extremely doubtful Ford will do a reflash of current engines for more power...there's no need at all. To beat RAM by 5 lb-ft? Ridiculous.

My theory is that perhaps a few 2017 engines have failed with rod issues; Ford studied it and saw a problem that could become widespread over time. Thus, a stronger part starting with Job 2 to stem the potential number of affected trucks.

They may figure most Job 1 trucks will likely make it past the 100k warranty, and some may make it a lot further than that. Replacing rods is very expensive.

But that's just my theory and could be completely wrong.
 
  #35  
Old 08-31-2017, 08:12 AM
Ricohman's Avatar
Ricohman
Ricohman is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,176
Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by troverman View Post
That makes no sense to me. That new connecting rod is presumably more expensive to make. Ford would have no reason to start spending more on engines making the same output as Job 1 trucks...unless they are seeing a problem. I can't think of any time in the past Ford has installed heavy-duty engine components "in preparation" for some future engine output. I'm extremely doubtful Ford will do a reflash of current engines for more power...there's no need at all. To beat RAM by 5 lb-ft? Ridiculous.

My theory is that perhaps a few 2017 engines have failed with rod issues; Ford studied it and saw a problem that could become widespread over time. Thus, a stronger part starting with Job 2 to stem the potential number of affected trucks.

They may figure most Job 1 trucks will likely make it past the 100k warranty, and some may make it a lot further than that. Replacing rods is very expensive.

But that's just my theory and could be completely wrong.
There have been a few rod and crank failures in the 6.7. However it has not been widespread or endemic to the 6.7.
I agree that Ford, or any other manufacturer, would not spend money if they didn't anticipate some kind of problem.
 
  #36  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:30 AM
HouseMouse's Avatar
HouseMouse
HouseMouse is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Witness Protection Progam
Posts: 610
HouseMouse is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.HouseMouse is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Wondering if the CJ-4 VS the CK-4 oil is involved somehow.
 
  #37  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:33 AM
Ricohman's Avatar
Ricohman
Ricohman is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,176
Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.Ricohman has a good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by HouseMouse View Post
Wondering if the CJ-4 VS the CK-4 oil is involved somehow.
I doubt it.
But perhaps that is why they changed bearing material somewhat.
 
  #38  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:53 AM
RedRage
RedRage is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Omaha
Posts: 250
RedRage is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Part #

Found this from my Ford parts friend.

Part # for con rod prior to Jan 2016 is BC3Z-6200-A
Part # after Jan 1st 2016 is HC3Z-6200-A

So there is a difference!
Unfortunately, no pictures.
 
  #39  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:05 PM
A&Pmech
A&Pmech is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 382
A&Pmech is starting off with a positive reputation.
I wonder why the new one is so cheap. If cost is any sign of quality it looks like this may be a downgrade.
 
  #40  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:08 PM
fordmantpw's Avatar
fordmantpw
fordmantpw is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Central MO
Posts: 2,220
fordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to beholdfordmantpw is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by RedRage View Post
Found this from my Ford parts friend.

Part # for con rod prior to Jan 2016 is BC3Z-6200-A
Part # after Jan 1st 2016 is HC3Z-6200-A

So there is a difference!
Unfortunately, no pictures.
Check the date...that wouldn't make a difference to the 2017 Job #1/#2 trucks as some speculated.

Originally Posted by A&Pmech View Post
I wonder why the new one is so cheap. If cost is any sign of quality it looks like this may be a downgrade.
Maybe because the older part is out of production and there are fewer around?
 
  #41  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:40 PM
TexasPowerStroke
TexasPowerStroke is offline
Freshman User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 43
TexasPowerStroke is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by A&Pmech View Post
I wonder why the new one is so cheap. If cost is any sign of quality it looks like this may be a downgrade.
maybe, but I highly doubt ford would go backwards at this point durring a "change" in production.
 
  #42  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:40 PM
troverman's Avatar
troverman
troverman is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NH
Posts: 9,453
troverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud of
Price and dates aside, the real question is...why? Clearly, from the pics, there is a difference.
 
  #43  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:54 PM
RedRage
RedRage is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Omaha
Posts: 250
RedRage is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
picture

The beam looks wider in one direction but thinner in the other.
I would not be surprised if the weight is the same between
the two like Ford just moved material around.
 
  #44  
Old 08-31-2017, 01:02 PM
ruphianh
ruphianh is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 272
ruphianh is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by RedRage View Post
Found this from my Ford parts friend.

Part # for con rod prior to Jan 2016 is BC3Z-6200-A
Part # after Jan 1st 2016 is HC3Z-6200-A

So there is a difference!
Unfortunately, no pictures.
So does this mean both #1/#2 Jobs use the same rod? I'm now confused?

This would make sense since the ads at the time claimed new rods for 2017 Fords. Anyone open up a Job #1 engine yet?
 
  #45  
Old 08-31-2017, 01:15 PM
troverman's Avatar
troverman
troverman is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NH
Posts: 9,453
troverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud oftroverman has much to be proud of
Originally Posted by RedRage View Post
I would not be surprised if the weight is the same between the two like Ford just moved material around.
Again, for what reason?
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 6.7 Rods


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.