Ok guys, heres the deal:

While on another post, I referenced that "there is no replacement for displacement", comparing the 6.0 to 7.3. So someone posts back, "yes there is, its called boost"

No flame wars please , But as we all know , the 7.3 is 444 cubic inches and the 6.0 is 365 cubic inches. Now, with that being said, simply put, the 7.3 has more room to work sort of speak and the 6.0 doesnt, thefore causing the 6.0 to have a higher tendency to fail. Almost light putting your size 12 foot into a size 10 shoe.

anyways, thats my understanding, but i have been wrong before...
soooo..........can someone else chime in on this one please

 

yes, there is no replacement for displancement.

a 444 cubic inch engine can get more air into its cylinders at 25 psi, than a 365 Cubic inch engine can. so therefore, the 6.0 needs to have upgraded fuel settings and consistently run higher boost levels and that is what causing most of the problems with turo failure and head gaskets, coolant puking, etc.

 

Then explain why a 6.0 at 25 pounds of boost makes more power than a 7.3 at 25 pounds of boost, at an equal stoichometric ratio (and yes, it does, there are countless dyno charts to prove it).

Looks like I'm gonna have to look up some previous posts on an explanation of volumetric efficiency.

Obviously, common sense won't solve this battle so I suppose we will have to resort to thermodynamics.

The hardware failures are due to Ford's (International, actually) "under-build" of certain hardware components of the engine, i.e. cylinder head anchoring, ect.- Just like the lack of saftey margin on the late model 7.3 liter connecting rods which have an annoying tendency to shatter It has relatively nothing to do cylinder pressure/volume relationship, and everything to do with mechanical design. To say an engine is inherently weaker and less durable in design by having a naturally higher volumetric efficiency, is by definition, ignorance.

 

Somebody needs something to do, a hobby perhaps

 

Why was it again they are cutting the 6.0.......ooops i did it again..we all know why

 

Did you guys know that the first 6.0 diesel was in Fred Sanfords red truck, you know, the truck off of Sanford and Son. Remember how unreliable it was then, well nothings changed!

Sorry guys, i couldnt help it,

 

You asked for an explanation. Don't chastise me when the results don't turn out the way you wish for them to.

FYI- things of the sort just happen to be one of my many hobbies

 

Whoever you got that explanation from, told you wrong. furthermore, The rods that are in the late 7.3's are the same rods that are in the 6.0's and thats a fact! I personally saw them this year at the powerfest rally in Indy. They do not have a tendency to shatter(who told you that), if so why hasnt the 6.0 rods been shattering left and right, its cylinders produce more pressure.

You said, "To say an engine is inherently weaker and less durable in design by having a naturally higher volumetric efficiency, is by definition, ignorance".....Sorry your wrong again 365 cubic inches and a thinner casting, same rods in a smaller block. The 6.0 on its best day will never ever be as durable as the 7.3

 

he does have a hobby , building very high performance 6.0 diesel motors. as far as the displacement arugument goes, it holds true for "like" motors. the head design alone on the 6.0 would make up for any difference in cubes

oh yes they do! put more than 400- 450RWHP to a 7.3 with PM rods and see what happens.......KABOM

 

I regret to inform you that the 6.0 and 7.3 DO NOT SHARE equal rod geometry, nor the same metallurgial process in forming the powdered metal.

Yes, a thinner casting will create a weaker overall engine. The only problem with that is #1- it has NOTHING to do with volumetric efficiency (once again a hardware issue), and #2- Please show me written figures from FMC where the cylinder wall thickness is less on the 6.0 than on the 7.3

Concerning those connecting rods, consult with your friends in the 7.3 Forum. I'm sure they have more knowledge of it than myself.

 

Here's some rod geometry for you, pulled straight out of the general engine specifications section of the Ford workshop manual.

6.0 Liter Connecting rod
Connecting rod length (center-to-center) 176 mm (6.929 in)
Connecting rod journal diameter Standard size 68.99 to 69.01 mm (2.716 to 2.717 in)

7.3 Connecting rod
Rod length center-to-center 181.10 mm
(7.130 in)

Connecting rod journal diameter 63.513-
63.564 mm
(2.5005-
2.5025 in)

Still want to pass it off as the same rods?
If you would like more proof, feel free do drop me an email and I'll provide you with the .pdf files from the manual.

A helpful link for Budkole

 

Maybe i should have spell it out for you..... Stock.
anybody putting that much hp in the thing needs a muscle car, not a tow vehicle!

Nether was designed to run with that much hp

ps, about the hobby thing, dont be so sensitive about petty stuff like that, besides he and i have been jawjacking at each other pretty much all evening(on other posts too) and neither one of us is getting sensitive about anything, were are just have typical , my truck is better than yours, friendly disagreements.

 

budkole, i think you need to tone down some. even though im on your side about this, i think you are putting in more than two cents, this guy knows his "stuff" and arguing with him only will make you look bad(der)

 

Thanks for the info on the rods


btw,That was a good one from amazon, now your gonna make me get crafty

 

Realisitically, neither one have severe hardware problems in stock form. If we are talking "stock", this entire argument is totally moot. The 6.0 has physically stronger crankshaft, bedplate, connecting rods, and pistons than a 7.3 thanks to the fact that they are physically larger (YES, the mains, journals, rod thickness, and bearing surfaces are all LARGER than the 7.3- I have the figures if you would like) and have metallurgy that is 5-6 years newer. The 6.0 bottom end WILL stand more physical pressure and force than a 7.3 bottom end before coming apart. The head seals on either one are limited to about 38 lbs of boost, at which the 6.0 will be producing MORE cylinder pressured due to the higher VE- so by that token, the heads on the 6.0 are physically stronger too. Don't bother with the "high rpm wear" story, because the crankshaft, bearings, piston rings and cylinder bores have a higher rockwell hardness rating on the 6.0 than 7.3- and as for geometric tolerancing, we wont even go there...because it will get ugly.

You might be able to sell the reliability issue as far as sensors and actuators are concerned, simply due to a numbers game- with the 6.0 having far more sensors to fail, along with an EGR system that the 7.3 does NOT have. But even that one fails when we throw in the camshaft position sensor and exhaust backpressure valve with the 7.3