When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
If they had left emissions the same as it was for the 7.3L, none of this would be happening.
Stewart
I dunno, Stewart. So much is blamed on emissions, but virtually all the high-dollar repairs you hear about are fuel system or internal engine. One bad tank of fuel will kill the HPFP, which is a $10K+ affair that warranty won't help you with.
The real question is if the industry would have moved past HEUI injectors if it weren't for the EPA. My guess is they would because of the horsepower wars that have been raging for the last fifteen years.
It's very possible to NEED a truck, and not want a diesel.
Of course it is. But I'm talking about people like Chuck and those in a similar position where they pull a travel trailer once ever couple months to couple of years and get more anxious than Woody Allen. Save a ton of money and do the smart thing and buy the most reliable and reasonably priced commuter car and hire someone to pull your trailer for you.
If you're a fleet manager, you're not reading these posts anyway and worrying about it.
Gas works for some. But as a personal vehicle if the reason you go gas is because you're wringing your hands about diesel repairs, you're in the wrong headspace.
EPA, I went thru that stuff in the 1970's reliability never went down in Gas engines..
YES .. a major loss of horsepower.. but they lived fine.
retied auto mechanic.
I pull 2,000 miles twice a year. plus some short trips.. 300 or less Towing.
I do not need diesel. but so many say towing HEAVY needs a diesel..
and wife is looking at a 5th wheel at 13,000 pounds. and I must have my motorcycle with me. so a possible TOY HAULER.
as for the comment of children.. NEVER had any.. and never will.
and YES, I have a wife .. for 43 years.
I need to look at Fords data sheets on the Dually GAS..
to many NEW Rules to learn.. and old habits for Break..
.
.
no replies needed... carry on with attacks of Gas and Diesel.
.
.
THE BIG ONE. DEF in diesel fuel.. Gas in diesel... 14,000 in repairs.
Green handle goes in the big hole. Been doing that for almost 10 years without a problem. Granted it's easier since there's only one hole for filling but not every truck has the DEF filler next to the fuel tank filler and there's no accounting for operator on either side of the preference for spark plugs (or not).
300K plus miles and it's started every time and made it home every time.
I dunno, Stewart. So much is blamed on emissions, but virtually all the high-dollar repairs you hear about are fuel system or internal engine. One bad tank of fuel will kill the HPFP, which is a $10K+ affair that warranty won't help you with.
Yet we never hear of this kind of problem on the 7.3's. You can have such a wide variety of crap in the fuel, and the 7.3 just keeps plugging along with no EGR or DPF.
The only emissions move I can think of that affected the 7.3's is when the mandated ULSD replaced the Low Sulfur Diesel, which seemed to cause a slew of O-ring failures on the fuel bowl release valve.
The real question is if the industry would have moved past HEUI injectors if it weren't for the EPA. My guess is they would because of the horsepower wars that have been raging for the last fifteen years.
Yes, I agree.
Originally Posted by Chuck's First Ford
EPA, I went thru that stuff in the 1970's reliability never went down in Gas engines..
Two different monsters.
It's just my opinion, but the diesel engine has been more reliable than gas engines (not just in vehicles, overall, I mean), based on past history. So when the government mandates change after change, and the engines and peripherals become less reliable, and we can't "go back to what works" because of emissions, then yeah, I blame emissions!
Tom, honest question: Don't you think the 6.7 beast would be better without the emissions crap?
I know of a well respected individual in the diesel industry and he's bypassed all the government emissions crap on his truck. He's not only getting better mileage, but he doesn't have to worry about regen and all that crap.
Yet we never hear of this kind of problem on the 7.3's. You can have such a wide variety of crap in the fuel, and the 7.3 just keeps plugging along with no EGR or DPF.
The only emissions move I can think of that affected the 7.3's is when the mandated ULSD replaced the Low Sulfur Diesel, which seemed to cause a slew of O-ring failures on the fuel bowl release valve.
Competition had already outclassed the 7.3L before the end of its lifecycle. Just spent the last 10 minutes searching for a Motor Trend(I think?) comparison of the '02 Duramax vs. the 7.3L Powerstroke. It wasn't even close, the new Duramax engine handily outclassed the 7.3L in every measurable way. I'm sure that video is around somewhere, but I can't find it. The 7.3L was an obsolete design come 2003, and emissions were only a small part of its obsolescence.
Look at the 6.0L engine and all that goes wrong with it. Turbos, head bolts, oil coolers, rocker arms, head gaskets, lifters. What the heck does any of that have to do with emissions?
Look at the 6.4L...what's costing owners large dollars there? Turbos, rocker arms, lifters, HPFPs, injectors.
The 6.7L? HPFPs, exhaust valves(loosely related to emissions?), and bearing failures.
What the heck do all of this have to do with emissions? Emissions components are the easy scapegoat, but very rarely are to blame when we see a $15,000 tale of woe in the late-model diesel forums. It's almost always fuel, turbo, or internal engine, and they are all hugely expensive. Strip out emissions from the game...what would be different?
Tom, honest question: Don't you think the 6.7 beast would be better without the emissions crap?
Sure, I suppose. Lower purchase price due to less equipment, and less to go wrong. Emissions failures on the 6.7L engine aren't very expensive though...absolutely nothing like any of the above failures. Some attribute the engine-destroying exhaust valve problem of the '11-12 trucks to the regen cycle, but that's the only impact I can think of.
Competition had already outclassed the 7.3L before the end of its lifecycle. Just spent the last 10 minutes searching for a Motor Trend(I think?) comparison of the '02 Duramax vs. the 7.3L Powerstroke. It wasn't even close, the new Duramax engine handily outclassed the 7.3L in every measurable way. I'm sure that video is around somewhere, but I can't find it. The 7.3L was an obsolete design come 2003, and emissions were only a small part of its obsolescence.
Other than putting pressure on Ford to put a more powerful engine in their F-Series trucks, I'm not sure I get your point?
Who cares about the competition. That doesn't have anything to do with the reputation of reliability the 7.3L has.
Look at the 6.0L engine and all that goes wrong with it. Turbos, head bolts, oil coolers, rocker arms, head gaskets, lifters. What the heck does any of that have to do with emissions?
Well, it's been suggested for many, many, many years now that the 6.0 was rushed into production (due to impending emissions) and a lot of those things might have been caught and re-engineered before hitting the road, if not for the push because of emissions (opinion).
What the heck do all of this have to do with emissions?
I'm not educated enough on the subject, nor "in the know" about it to base anything on any facts or empirical data, that's why I qualified my statement in a later post with, "in my opinion."
Emissions components are the easy scapegoat, but very rarely are to blame when we see a $15,000 tale of woe in the late-model diesel forums. It's almost always fuel, turbo, or internal engine, and they are all hugely expensive. Strip out emissions from the game...what would be different?
I think of it from a different aspect. I think how much better the progression of the diesel engines in the Ford trucks would be, and more reliable they would be (opinion), had the engineering intent been to create a more powerful engine, with better MPG's, without any concern for emissions.
Green handle goes in the big hole. Been doing that for almost 10 years without a problem. Granted it's easier since there's only one hole for filling but not every truck has the DEF filler next to the fuel tank filler and there's no accounting for operator on either side of the preference for spark plugs (or not).
300K plus miles and it's started every time and made it home every time.
Be careful, there,Cactus!!!! A lot of the "unleaded in my diesel" that I have read stem from places that the unleaded handle is green!!!! If the handle ain't slimy, regardless of color, ya better double check!!!
I always laugh a little when I hear someone talking about how legendary the 7.3 powerstroke was. Don't think they were without their faults. I would consider them a good motor, but they inherited their reputation from a motor that had nothing in common with each other except the fuel they burned(well, kinda) and their displacement, the 6.9/7.3 idi. The idi was farm tractor stupid simple and would run off anything short of water. The 93.5/94 turbo version was choked down as to not out do the incoming 94.5 powerstroke. Put an aftermarket low boost turbo system on the N/A version a they made very good power for their day.
I always laugh a little when I hear someone talking about how legendary the 7.3 powerstroke was. Don't think they were without their faults. I would consider them a good motor, but they inherited their reputation from a motor that had nothing in common with each other except the fuel they burned(well, kinda) and their displacement, the 6.9/7.3 idi. The idi was farm tractor stupid simple and would run off anything short of water. The 93.5/94 turbo version was choked down as to not out do the incoming 94.5 powerstroke. Put an aftermarket low boost turbo system on the N/A version a they made very good power for their day.
And they were all spanked by teh CUMMINGZZZZ!!!!!!
