Hey kw....

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 11, 2007 | 03:54 PM

#31

superhooperduty

Senior User

Joined: Dec 2002

Posts: 385

Likes: 0

From: airdrie canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by vloney

huntercgr---ever since the 6.0 was introduced, it has been a monster to repair. To start with, the training was less than adequate. Not trying to put the instructors down, they do a tremendous job. The 6.0 is by far the most complicated, and technically is a migraine waiting to happen. Ford took the initiative to release an engine such as this, for that I applaud them. Gm and Chrysler has plans to follow these footsteps. Everyone should remember who was first, there can be only one. All vehicles eventually are going to go down this road. That is the only way to make the adjustments on the fly that are necessary for optimal performance. The world of the mechanic is over, we are now called technicians. It wont be long before we show up wearing white lab coats. When I started, there was the old grizzled veterans that gave you hell when something went wrong, I wanted to be like them. Now that I'm here, I rough up the kids---then give them all the help I can. I have lasted long enough to have my son in the bay next to me(cant tell you how cool that is). I can only hope my fingers keep bending the same way, and my eyes are still able to find the "red wire with pink tracer" long enough to have my grandsons on the other side of us.

so whats so wonderful about this engine, that ford should be applauded? from what i've heard this has been a very problematic engine thats why they're getting rid of it. and yes i own a 6.0 2005 sdd super cab 4x4. and i really like it. i've got a notice here that maybe one of you can help me with. FSA # 05B32 and FSA# 05B35, what do they do? thanks.

Feb 11, 2007 | 04:23 PM

#32

npccpartsman

Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003

Posts: 15,369

Likes: 121

From: Stuttgart, Ar

They're not getting rid of it because of problems, it's because of EPA requirements in the USA. The new 6.4 is very similar in design to the 6.0. I'm sure one of our techs will chime in shortly or you can check in the Tech folder at the start of this forum for the information.

Feb 11, 2007 | 06:21 PM

#33

BowTieHatr

Postmaster

Joined: Sep 2005

Posts: 2,725

Likes: 3

From: Florence,SC

the 6.4 is a 6.0 with basically a bigger bore, and alot more technology than most diesels out there.

Feb 11, 2007 | 07:43 PM

#34

vloney

Postmaster

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 3,201

Likes: 4

From: waynesville, mo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superhooperduty

05b32 is the decal on the degas bottle and 05b35 is a cold weather reflash. As far as the question of applauding ford for the introduction of the 6.0 and its operating system, anyone that will take that first step into unknown territory, whether it was the right step or not, needs to be applauded. The wright brothers made several mistakes on their route, were they wrong?

Feb 12, 2007 | 08:25 PM

#35

superhooperduty

Senior User

Joined: Dec 2002

Posts: 385

Likes: 0

From: airdrie canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by vloney

easy now fellers, i never said they were wrong, i'm ford blue all the way, just wondered why the applaud message. but don't the older diesels get better mileage? i just wish ford would get their behinds in gear on the car side. oh and i don't think i want ford touching my truck for the cold weather reflash, my truck runs just fine. thanks

Feb 12, 2007 | 08:41 PM

#36

mrxlh

Postmaster

Joined: Apr 2004

Posts: 2,654

Likes: 0

From: Bossier City, LA

Quote:

Originally Posted by superhooperduty

so whats so wonderful about this engine, that ford should be applauded? from what i've heard this has been a very problematic engine thats why they're getting rid of it.

Well lets see.........
1. Much better numbers from a smaller displacement (there goes the old addage no replacement for displacement)
2. Meeting Epa emission standards for the mid term.
3. Tune on the fly ability (flashes)
4. Proving the ability to increase hp and torque, the ability to meet stricker emissions with a smaller displacement. Mileage not withstanding, as anything with lower emissions either loses performance, or efficiency, however Ford did a very good job of juggling the 2. Remember, the 6.0 doesn't get that bad of fuel mileage in compairson to a 7.3.

Feb 12, 2007 | 11:40 PM

#37

SpartanDieselTech

Former Vendor

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 4,362

Likes: 3

From: Hendersonville, NC

Quote:

Originally Posted by vloney

As far as the question of applauding ford for the introduction of the 6.0 and its operating system, anyone that will take that first step into unknown territory, whether it was the right step or not, needs to be applauded.

My friend, you have my absolute utmost respect for making this statement...

It's pretty disheartening to see the constant blame and misinterpretation of this powerplant; but totally refreshing to see that at least a few people have a true appreciation for what Ford really accomplished with the 6.0

Last edited by PSD 60L Fx4; Feb 12, 2007 at 11:43 PM.

Feb 13, 2007 | 12:59 AM

#38

chili7

Senior User

Joined: Jul 2006

Posts: 344

Likes: 0

From: Colorado Springs, CO

I agree completely, but perception is reality in a buyers mind. I just hope and pray that FMC doesn't pay the ultimate price for being first. When the engine is right, it's really right, but when it's not, well... Kinda like the girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead if you can remember that one. I love mine, but it seems that the initial problems are in the public record now. Why else are they in the financial trouble they're in?

I guess cars don't matter because they brought back the Taurus? Someone needs to get a clue over there.