Hoe eg. noun; Farm/garden implement used to losen dirt to make pulling of weeds easier.

Long eg. adjective; seemingly never ending, or a general term used to measure distance.

Row eg. noun; Assembly of thinigs in a straight line.

Guess you never heard that expression used before. Basicly when it comes to diesel development for the year 2010, ford would have had to start 2 years ago. Kinda a similar situation you would find yourself in if you were looking at a row of corn 80 acres long, with nothing to weed it with a 5 gallon bucket and a hoe.

 

As someone who once sat in the former seat... I can pretty well categorically say that ain't the case.

I have seen many a post blaming Ford's injection, fueling and calibration system on the issues with the 6.0l.
Not to say that Ford wasn't a part of the engines bad reputation - but thier issues were based much on the lack of training to technicians, and poor customer service (that you mentioned) than it was due to thier design.


Ford has not, does not, and will not ever sign an agreement with a supplier where by the supplier does not provide full warranty reimbursement on any issues caused by that suppliers part. This includes things like recalls.
Remember the infamous Firestone debacle, with de-laminating tires?
The issue became much bigger, because of the expense to recall all the vehicles ($2bn) - and Ford was blaming Firestone over the tires, and Firestone was blaming Ford, because the result (due to suspension design) was a roll-over.
In between all the in-fighting, people were dieing... and little progress was being made, besides destroying a 100ish year partnership (Henry Ford's wife came from the Firestone family...)
In the end Ford ended up biting the bullet (which they admittedly should have done in the first place) and paying for it, only to try and seek financial remuneration later.

In this case, International hold responsibility for the product they provided to Ford, irrespective of Ford's power requirements.
It would be like me asking you to make and sell me a new 1000hp Escort with a 3 year 36k mile warranty.
Yeah, it is an outlandish requirement, and its going to blow its guts in 500 miles...
But it was your choice to build it, sell it to me, and make a dollar of it, and just simply by doing that, you have to stand by your product.
You could have just said no.

 

Fred, I agree, but Ford does have to hold some accountability in the new "60's HP race". Ford loyalists wanted another 7.3, they didn't get that. However, seeing that all the manufacturers are having issues with 2 partner teams, GM/Izuzu, Dodge/Cummins, and Ford/IH, will Ford designing and building their own diesel in house be that much better that whats already offered? Highley doubtful. Due to a large part of what you just posted. See post 14.

 

I will judge the Ford "in-house" diesel a couple of years after its release, but needless to say, that they have been making diesels for at least 50years... (probably about as long as International) and some of them were pretty dang good.


Oh, and with regards to thier increase in capacity - thats purely for emissions. NoX is the killer in a diesel's emissions, and with thier really high compression ratio gradually getting dropped... power needs to come from somewhere.
More boost, and cubic inchs are the order for the day then.

(and the reduction in cubic inchs from the 7.3l to the 6.0l had nothing to do with emissions... a lot more to do with fuel economy - which unfortunately in the real world wasn't seen to a great extent)

 

Does it not though become a more complex matter when Ford contracts with an outside source for a part and labels it as a Ford part or component? Ford never attempts to slap their names on tires and clearly states in the manual that any issues with the tires are between the tire manufacturer and the customer.
Also understandable that International would need to pony up for a defective engine or component but what about the labor charges for removing and replacing the cab to get to the component for example? I would assume that portion of the claim would be Fords problem.

 

Even if it is "labeled" as a Ford part - but made elsewhere, they have a contractual obligation to reimburse Ford for warranty costs.
And it includes everything, parts, labour (even if it means a lifted cab etc.).
Having said that - all these things are factored into the price Ford pays for a part.

For example, a good friend of mine owns the foundry that supplies Ford with the intake manifolds for its 5.4l V8's they assemble here.
Each one is crack tested, and X-rayed, and there is quiet a stringent quality process involved for what is a relatively small manufacturing line.
The whole policy is to encourage better quality at the suppliers - because if they don't, one decent sized recall, and they are going under.
They know it too...

 

So do you guys think fords motor for 2010, which I heard will probly be a 6.7, have another compound turbo setup? Are the compound turbos on the 6.4 actually performing that well??