Been seeing some 7.3s with newer style bodies
#1
Been seeing some 7.3s with newer style bodies
I keep seeing, I think on Craigslists, some SDs with the 7.3 with what looks like a 2015 model body. I saw one with just the newer style bed with the rounded dually hips, then I saw one or two with the newer style cab. It might have been just the hood, grille, doors, and fender, or a whole cab, Im not sure.
Anyone else been seeing these? https://houston.craigslist.org/cto/d/have-1999-f350-super-duty/6755599072.html
This one doesnt seem to have the newer bed. Im Guessing there's body damage or some other issue to warrant the swap
SchaefferUSMC
Anyone else been seeing these? https://houston.craigslist.org/cto/d/have-1999-f350-super-duty/6755599072.html
This one doesnt seem to have the newer bed. Im Guessing there's body damage or some other issue to warrant the swap
SchaefferUSMC
#2
#4
There are several long running threads on FTE that detail, week by week, bit by bit, blow by blow, various members "conversions" from the 99-03 style to the 11-16 style. These threads I believe are upstairs, in the 1999-2016 Super Duty forum (non diesel specific).
Personally, I think it is like trying to put a 1958 Bel Air front grille, bumper, fenders, hood, and headlights... onto a 1957 Bel Air. Sure, the quad beam '58 headlights may look fancier than the '57 single beam per side, but you just don't cobble a 58 front end onto a 57 body. That's sacrilegious in the realm of automotive art, and offers no real utility, since single beams can still have dual filaments and throw just as much useful light. Why ruin the original design language that defines the vintage?
The 11-16 front clip will forever be associated with cracked radiators, contaminated C4 pumps taking out the entire injection system to the tune of 5 figures, reduced power and forced to the side of the road regens, dropped exhaust valves, electrical gremlins that would keep NASA engineers up at night trying to solve, funky Ford Sync systems, warranty denials due to water in the fuel... the same fuel, from the same stations, that fed 2 million 7.3L engines for the last 25 years with nary a drop of water causing 4 or 5 figure expenses. Why would anyone want that signature look retrofitted to a truck that didn't come factory fitted with those problems?
Besides, that front end looks cobbled onto the rest of the body, even for the 11-16's where it was original equipment. Something about the body break seam angle suddenly turning into a hood lift line doesn't quite work for me. The erasure of the original cohesive design language is evident in the substitution. At least with the evolution of the '73-79 front clips, each successive iteration actually worked, as did the '80 through '97 evolutions. Not so much with the 99-16 evolvements, imho.
Personally, I think it is like trying to put a 1958 Bel Air front grille, bumper, fenders, hood, and headlights... onto a 1957 Bel Air. Sure, the quad beam '58 headlights may look fancier than the '57 single beam per side, but you just don't cobble a 58 front end onto a 57 body. That's sacrilegious in the realm of automotive art, and offers no real utility, since single beams can still have dual filaments and throw just as much useful light. Why ruin the original design language that defines the vintage?
The 11-16 front clip will forever be associated with cracked radiators, contaminated C4 pumps taking out the entire injection system to the tune of 5 figures, reduced power and forced to the side of the road regens, dropped exhaust valves, electrical gremlins that would keep NASA engineers up at night trying to solve, funky Ford Sync systems, warranty denials due to water in the fuel... the same fuel, from the same stations, that fed 2 million 7.3L engines for the last 25 years with nary a drop of water causing 4 or 5 figure expenses. Why would anyone want that signature look retrofitted to a truck that didn't come factory fitted with those problems?
Besides, that front end looks cobbled onto the rest of the body, even for the 11-16's where it was original equipment. Something about the body break seam angle suddenly turning into a hood lift line doesn't quite work for me. The erasure of the original cohesive design language is evident in the substitution. At least with the evolution of the '73-79 front clips, each successive iteration actually worked, as did the '80 through '97 evolutions. Not so much with the 99-16 evolvements, imho.
#7
There are several long running threads on FTE that detail, week by week, bit by bit, blow by blow, various members "conversions" from the 99-03 style to the 11-16 style. These threads I believe are upstairs, in the 1999-2016 Super Duty forum (non diesel specific).
Personally, I think it is like trying to put a 1958 Bel Air front grille, bumper, fenders, hood, and headlights... onto a 1957 Bel Air. Sure, the quad beam '58 headlights may look fancier than the '57 single beam per side, but you just don't cobble a 58 front end onto a 57 body. That's sacrilegious in the realm of automotive art, and offers no real utility, since single beams can still have dual filaments and throw just as much useful light. Why ruin the original design language that defines the vintage?
The 11-16 front clip will forever be associated with cracked radiators, contaminated C4 pumps taking out the entire injection system to the tune of 5 figures, reduced power and forced to the side of the road regens, dropped exhaust valves, electrical gremlins that would keep NASA engineers up at night trying to solve, funky Ford Sync systems, warranty denials due to water in the fuel... the same fuel, from the same stations, that fed 2 million 7.3L engines for the last 25 years with nary a drop of water causing 4 or 5 figure expenses. Why would anyone want that signature look retrofitted to a truck that didn't come factory fitted with those problems?
Besides, that front end looks cobbled onto the rest of the body, even for the 11-16's where it was original equipment. Something about the body break seam angle suddenly turning into a hood lift line doesn't quite work for me. The erasure of the original cohesive design language is evident in the substitution. At least with the evolution of the '73-79 front clips, each successive iteration actually worked, as did the '80 through '97 evolutions. Not so much with the 99-16 evolvements, imho.
Personally, I think it is like trying to put a 1958 Bel Air front grille, bumper, fenders, hood, and headlights... onto a 1957 Bel Air. Sure, the quad beam '58 headlights may look fancier than the '57 single beam per side, but you just don't cobble a 58 front end onto a 57 body. That's sacrilegious in the realm of automotive art, and offers no real utility, since single beams can still have dual filaments and throw just as much useful light. Why ruin the original design language that defines the vintage?
The 11-16 front clip will forever be associated with cracked radiators, contaminated C4 pumps taking out the entire injection system to the tune of 5 figures, reduced power and forced to the side of the road regens, dropped exhaust valves, electrical gremlins that would keep NASA engineers up at night trying to solve, funky Ford Sync systems, warranty denials due to water in the fuel... the same fuel, from the same stations, that fed 2 million 7.3L engines for the last 25 years with nary a drop of water causing 4 or 5 figure expenses. Why would anyone want that signature look retrofitted to a truck that didn't come factory fitted with those problems?
Besides, that front end looks cobbled onto the rest of the body, even for the 11-16's where it was original equipment. Something about the body break seam angle suddenly turning into a hood lift line doesn't quite work for me. The erasure of the original cohesive design language is evident in the substitution. At least with the evolution of the '73-79 front clips, each successive iteration actually worked, as did the '80 through '97 evolutions. Not so much with the 99-16 evolvements, imho.
I purchased my 2002 with a 2014 bed on it and I never liked how the fender body lines didn't completely match. Even though the front end was never swapped to an 11-16 front end, I just was never fond on how the bed looked on this truck.
Trending Topics
#11
I'm in the camp of leaving my 99 mostly 99. I do have a stout front bumper an 04 head light housings, but both of these I consider safety improvements. It's like lipstick on a pig. I just happen to like my pig even if the lefties cut their eyes at me when it's loudly idling and stinking up the street.
#13
I'm in the camp of leaving my 99 mostly 99. I do have a stout front bumper an 04 head light housings, but both of these I consider safety improvements. It's like lipstick on a pig. I just happen to like my pig even if the lefties cut their eyes at me when it's loudly idling and stinking up the street.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
blucollar4xford
1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
8
08-18-2006 12:21 AM
equium
Pre-Power Stroke Diesel (7.3L IDI & 6.9L)
4
04-14-2004 06:44 PM