6.7 Rods
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 320
Likes: 1
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.
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,132
Likes: 665
From: NH
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.
Posting Guru
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,216
Likes: 7
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.
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.
I agree that Ford, or any other manufacturer, would not spend money if they didn't anticipate some kind of problem.
Tuned
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 391
Likes: 18
From: Calhan, CO
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.
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.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 2,060
From: Central MO
Maybe because the older part is out of production and there are fewer around?
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
maybe, but I highly doubt ford would go backwards at this point durring a "change" in production.
Tuned
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 342
Likes: 16
This would make sense since the ads at the time claimed new rods for 2017 Fords. Anyone open up a Job #1 engine yet?