I also would like to have a Ford diesel again. I would have kept my 05 6.0L had there been any inclination by Ford and the Ford dealers in my area that they wanted me, the customer, happy with my truck. That would have been relatrively inexpensive for them to have done and I wouldn't be driving a used 06 F-150 waiting for Ford to do the right thing. All that Ford would have had to do is replace the torque to yield head bolts with head studs or regular head bolts and extend the warranty on the fuel and EGR system and reprogram my FICM to regain the fuel mileage that I lost when they reflashed my PCM while I had it in for service. In the long run, it would have been cheaper for Ford to keep their customers happy than to have many of them wait to see if the next engine is going to be any good. The approach that Ford and the rest of the auto industry has taken of putting the stockholders' interest ahead of the customer is very short-sighted and will lead to the demise of the auto industry as we knew it. Designed obsolesence only gives the public that buys your products the dirty end of the stick so that a few wealthy stockholders and executives can make a quick short term large profit. Once the public figures this out, the end will come. I think that the public is finally getting wise to how they have been getting the shaft by their politicians and big business. Henry Ford made millions of dollars keeping the customer happy first and the stockholder happy second. He didn't do it overnight, though. He failed twice before the Ford Motor Company that we know was born. But his business model works. It's just that in this day of instant gratification and self indulgence the majority of folks just won't work as hard or be as dilligent as Henry Ford and other industrialists of his time did. And maybe we ought to let the auto industry build cars without unfunded mandates from the EPA. If a company builds an inferior product, they will fail on their own. They don't need the government to help them fail.

 

10 mm head bolts? 14 mm head bolts? I don't think so.

 

Sad, but true. The 6.0L uses an M-10x1.5 thread for holding the heads in place. 10mm measures .3945" in diameter. When you subtract the clearance for the outside diameter of the threads it will measure somewhere between .380" and .389". There are ten of these that are extremely long because they also go thru the rocker boxes and rocker arms. That equates to a lot of stress on a torque to yeild thread. The 6.4L uses a M14x1.75 thread. 14mm measures .551" diameter. When you subtract .008" to .015" for clearance, the leaves the diameter at .536" to .543" which is much larger than what the 6.0L has. Even though there are still only 10 bolts per cylinder, the stress is distributed over a larger area of the threads due to the larger diameter. Also the 6.4L has some design changes with the valve train and related components that are better as well.

 

Better recheck your "facts".
The 6.0 uses 14mm head bolts.

http://www.backglass.org/duncan/ps60...l/ps60_086.jpg

 

why don't y'all just get a 99 to 03 7.3 powerstroke they are more than capable and in my opinion best powerstrokes made

 

Because those trucks are 6-11 years old now, not everybody wants an old clunker, trannies in them do not compare to what is out now and what is coming next, interiors are crap going against what is out now. No warranties left on those and for some having a warranty is the only reason they keep getting themselves new trucks.

 

If it turns 3200 It aint no I motor. They tap out sooner than that.
If it is built in Mexico I hope they put a lot of chili in it.
The hood? how about some mileage.......
The payoff- the ripoff-and the thing nobody saw.....
Why were we getting twice the MPG 15 years ago?
Fuel goes UP,mileage goes down. Were supposed to be an advancing species,not going backwards. I want an 09 F450 with a 97 Cummins on 80,s fuel that burns.
Oh well..................

 

It seems that what's happening to diesels now in reference to MPG's happened to the gassers in the 70's and early 80's. The EPA.

Tim

 

15 years ago, the EPA was a PITA for the gas crowd and wasn't as concerned about light diesels. In that 15 years, there has been a huge swing towards diesel in these trucks and where the overwhelming majority used to be sold with gas engines, they are now sold as diesels. Any engine that sells like the diesel is now, draws the attention of the whale watchers, the rain forest savers, and the EPA.

When you load up a diesel engine with all of this emissions crap, the fuel mileage drops faster than Lindsay Lohan running away from rehab. The upcoming 6.7 with Urea injection should get about 3 MPG more than the 6.4 or so they say. Only time will tell.

By the way, I love your idea for the truck you want...I'll take one too.

 

According to Ford documentation, the 6.0l uses the M14, and the 6.4l uses the M16. The "valve train design changes" I think you are referring to are the rocker pedestals being bolted down independant of the cylinder head.

http://www.backglass.org/duncan/ps64...L_overview.pdf

Pages 14 & 15. Has a picture for comparison of the 6.0l and 6.4l bolts.

 

It will be interesting to see how this new diesel engine really is. We all know how the 6.0L and the 6.4L turned out. There are a lot of 6.0's and 6.4's sitting on used car lots in my area, but try and find a 7.3L and it is like a needle in a haystack. I wish Ford all the best with their 6.7L and I will wait to see how it compares to the 7.3L. When my 2000 F-350 got totaled, I searched for that needle in the haystack and did find my 2001 F-250 but also had to act fast and be the first one with the cash as there were about a dozen other guys looking at it. 7.3L are definently highly sought after and I am sure glad I got my chance to own my second. The 7.3L is a great motor, 22 to 26 mpg, and the strongest motor I have ever experienced in a truck. It will be interesting to see where the 6.7L will rate, the bar has been set.

 

The 7.3L is definently a great engine. I got one in a 2001 F-250.

 

were gunna need cdl's before to long driving theses trucks with these enormous hp/tq numbers its got out of control and they wonder why componets keep breaking trannies are smoked so when this new engine comes out the should be no reason to by programmers or chips and if you had to work on these engine all you would need is a metric tool set need to have trucks like the good ol days heavy duty put oil in them and rutine maintenace and go and for the most part every one could work on them and not get raped from shops

 

ORIGCHARGER, I screwed up.6.0L=14 mm head bolts, 6.4L=16 mm head bolts. But I stand by my saying that a compression ignition forced induction engine with 17:1 compression should not use torque-to-yield head bolts. That's asking for trouble. I certainly hope Ford's new 6.7L engine is as durable as the old 7.3L and gets better fuel mileage than the 6.0L and 6.4L engines. The 7.3L would have been great with the 5 speed automatic. Unfortunately, the EPA has raised the bar for the shade tree mechanic. We need to learn more and invest in more equipment if we still want to do our own work.

 

I screwed up once myself
As far as the torque to yield bolts go I don't know. I do know that International spokes people say they corrected the weak points of the 6.0 when they designed the 6.4, so we might assume International felt 16mm head bolts that did not also retain valve train components were the needed change.