It is a sad day when we start to correlate "extremely high-mileage" and "300K miles" for trucks that are going to cost $50,000 or more. Extremely high miles in my book starts at 500,000 and goes up to a comfortable value at 750,000.

This is a problem with modern day vehicles, they are being built to last 100,000 - 200,000 miles before the owner should be looking for a trade in.

We can do better than that...

 

I think it's the exact opposite, but nostalgia always wants us to selectively member the past the best way possible. @tseekins had a good example with his 1988 4.9l I6 that failed before 100,000 miles. It's quite rare to hear of a modern engine getting worn out before the rest of the chassis when properly maintained, and that wasn't always the case. Times have changed, and even the modular V8 s that were in production since 1990 are known for rarely failing without permission in extremely high-mile applications.

Domestic automakers don't seem to do as well the as imported brands, but they've come a long way. This article from 2012 explains the same, and data consistently shows that people are keeping modern vehicles longer than they ever have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/a...agewanted=all&

 

Yeah but how many of those Ecoboost end up in fleets? Very few I bet. They are not offered in HD applications for a reason, they have the power to be in a 250-650 truck but how long will it last behind a 10k+ truck? Fuel dilution would be the big problem, why? Idle time plus heavy load all day, city driving, and taking into consideration wreckless drivers doing WOT from stop light to stop light, that's alot of fuel being thrown into the cylinder, its not the same from when they design the ecoboost and doing the Baja 1000, WOT in a what 2-4klbs truck is not the same as real world testing in a heavy as truck pulling or hauling some ridiculous weight. And from my personal experience with DI engines they arr not all that cracked up to be, tjose engines run freaking hot.

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but on gas motors I still remember when you were lucky to get 100,000 miles with out lifting the heads as well as having to rebuild the tranny. Gas motors are regularly going 300,000 miles plus today something that would have been unheard of thirty or forty years ago. On most modern vehicles you can go 100,000 miles without doing much of anything outside of oil changes, batteries and tires.

 

@leadmic My age is irrelevant, but since you asked I am almost 44.

I have owned many vehicles in my time and currently own 4. The highest mileage is a 2002 Mercury Sable with 256,000 miles. The second is a 2000 7.3L F250 with 255,000 miles. Third is a 2003 VW Beetle with 135,000 miles. The last is a 2008 Subaru Tribeca with 118,000 miles. I have owned countless vehicles before these in my current inventory. For the record, at one time I owned a 1992 I6 F150 with near 300,000 miles on it when I sold it.

I have been to just about every continent and driven vehicles ranging from a 25K fork lift on a flight line in to a HMMWV across the Iraq desert. Does any of that make my statement wrong or right, nope. It is merely my opinion...

My statement still stands and in my opinion extremely high mileage should be well beyond what is considered normal in modern times.

 

Agree that current generation vehicles are more reliable than ANY previous generations of vehicles. 100,000 miles used to be an accomplishment, now it's routine even on cheaper models.

 

I agree with you fellas, to a point. 100,000 miles used to be an accomplishment, but as technology advances and mechanical advancements become more available to the public, the standard should be adjusted as well.

Look at the HD trucks from the big three that are coming out today and are quickly approaching $100,000. Should we not expect these trucks to last longer than the period they would have lasted several years ago at a fraction of the cost? Even with inflation and higher valuation being factored in.

Trucks today are built with a lot more finicky parts and a lot more plastic and electrical components than ever before and it seems that these throw away or replace only parts are becoming linchpins in the general use of the truck.

I don't want to pick on the 6.7 because I believe post 2014 the engine is a solid design. Although, the parts bolted on and around it can be a pain in the *** and will cripple the truck. Parts like the HPFP, plastic radiator, ceramic bearing turbo, air in fuel system, etc.

I might just be grumpy and have a uncommon opinion/viewpoint on what we as consumers of such expensive vehicles should provide us and for how long. We are all welcome to form our own opinions based on our own experiences and my opinion is that an extremely high mileage vehicle is 500,000 or more.

I truly hope the 7.3L gasoline is a fantastic and groundbreaking design in terms of reliability and longevity because one day, my 7.3L PSD that I use to tow heavy cross country will need to be replaced. I would love replace my 7.3L with another 7.3L, when the time was right. Although, I will hold onto my strong running and ancient 255,000 mile 7.3L PSD with a death grip.

 

Personally, I think the 300K examples we’ve seen here are proof that if you run these motors like Ford did in its extreme commercials with Mike Rowe narrating, they can go a long time. But an 8 year old truck with 300k miles isn’t idling on an average day, its running on the highway. Idling a motor is a completely different animal. OEMs are not going to dual injection for the fun of it and I’m convinced it helps offset some of the trade-offs these motors see when doing lots of city driving.

As for failures, a good friend of mine is a deputy with the local sheriff department. They are getting rid of all their new Ford Explorer Interceptors with the EB because of engines failures attributed to extended idling. The engines were failing within the first year of use. They’re swapping them our for the N/A engine that’s available. I don’t trust the random EB haters here on the forum because you never really know what they did to their motor. But I do think my buddy’s example is very telling.

All the data Ford has on DI motors and they still chose to go with PI for this new platform. If it was better to have DI or dual injection, Ford would have done it IMO.

 

As a counterpoint, what if those "replace-only" parts are the reason modern vehicles are more reliable and last longer? It's a pain for teh shade-tree mechanic, but then again, we need fewer of those people these days too.

In terms of expected longevity: Maybe I'm a cynic, but I usually compare my hopes to what's currently available in the market and I think a "big" improvement is 10-15% over current offerings. We all have different opinions on how long the current generation of engines and trucks will last in our expected usage. So, I'll say you take whatever number you have in your head for your current truck, and then you'll get my high-end guess for the next generation.

 

dnewton3: Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I always enjoy reading your posts as you often have an unique way of looking at things. I do want to help clear up something that IMO is misleading in your recent posts about torque and horsepower.

You are dismissive of horsepower and say that torque is everything. I would argue that horsepower is the ultimate measure of how hard a truck pulls a load. Torque at the crank is only one part of the equation. The rpm at which torque is produced is just as important as the amount of torque that it produces because all vehicles have a transmission that multiplies torque. Horsepower helps us quantify not only engine’s torque but the total torque that can be delivered to the wheels via gear reduction.

Assuming theoretical same horsepower gas vs diesel engines, where the gas engine makes half the torque but at twice the rpm: the gas engine could put down the same torque at the rear wheels by taking advantage of the higher rpm and downshifting. In this case the gas engine is putting down the same wheel torque but at twice the engine RPM. This is why gas engines need to operate at a much higher rpm to do the same work as a diesel.

When you consider the effects of a transmission, trucks pull the hardest (most torque delivered to the rear wheels) at peak horsepower, not at peak torque (unless you are in first gear because you cant downshift any further.) Lets take the 6.7 PSD as an example. Assumptions: 450hp at 2800rpm, 935lb-ft at 1800rpm, no torque management, 844 lb-ft at max horsepower from T=(450X5252)/2800

Torque at the rear wheels at max engine torque = 935lb-ft x 1.516(3rd gear) x 3.55 = 5032 lb-ft @34 MPH
Torque at the rear wheels at max engine horsepower = 844lb-ft x 2.318 (2nd gear) x 3.55 = 6945 lb-ft @34 MPH

I just so happens that 2 and 3 gear of the 6r140 perfectly compensate for the difference in rpm between max torque and max horsepower and allow you to achieve the same speed at those peaks. A better way to model this would be to assume a perfect continuously variable transmission (CVT) that would allow the engine to be held at peak horsepower. Ford's new 10 speed should help get closer to this.

 

Ummmm, can you repeat the part, about the things? LOL. But I do agree.

 

They would be foolish not to. In probably just a year or twos time GM will update the 6.6L gas to match or better what the 7.3L is currently rated at. We all know that trucks are grossly overpowered these days, but numbers are good for advertisement and I'm betting Ford want's to stay on top with the 7.3L.

 

Virtually everything has room for upgrades.

As time goes on technology improves, controls get better, and engineers find more ways to make power out of a base design. It's been happening since the advent of internal combustion engines, and this would be no different.

 

this thing will prolly be around for the next 20 years

 

Its built like a brick **** house. I would be willing to bet Ford ups the HP/Torque every year with only having to change programming.