True the proof is in the miles, just like some 6.0's seem flawless and some are problamatic. I honestly don't think the engineers can tell how they will do in the long run untill they start having thousands of motors out there running by all us consumer maniacs. Even 20 test engines arn't going show all the true qualitys or problems.(just guessing on how many test engines they run) They do their best and they have a lot to try and meet with EPA tier 4 emissions and still keeping hp and torque specs in decent figures than their is the mpg's and cost.. Look at the Cat engines in the semi's lots of owners and drivers hate em. Cummins, Detroit deisel, Perkins,John Deere and all the other deisel mfg's are struggling to make motors cleaner and be cost competive and keep the weight down etc.
Honestly it is a crap shoot as to how any of the brands will hold up in hrs or miles, but you can bet they will be looking seriously at this ford design. Sounds too me like some pretty inovative thinking being done here.Besides the America became what it is with risk taking innovative, screw traditional ways attitude.
For those skeptics out there you are just going to have to sit and wait until people rack up the miles on the different engines and compare..So do us optemist a favor and sit back and zip it...Just my not so humble opinion....

 

Well thought out response and reps sent. However, many many loyal Ford truck owners have been burned to the ground by the past diesel engine programs and they have a legitimate right to be skeptical. Ford should be grateful for thier continued loyalty as well as they are trying to earn back those who jumped ship. The fact that it was a Ford IH joint venture doesn't take Ford off the hook. That's probably why Ford smartened up and went at this new motor alone.

I am the enternal optimist. My glass is always half full and I believe that the new engine(s) coming out this year will be the best ever.

I think we should focus on intelligent and reseaonable questions for this gentleman and shy away from any grievances that we may have, IMHO.

Tim

 

Hi Adam, Welcome to our little site. I wasn’t a Ford person until I bought my 01 SD. I’ve purchased $250,000 in Ford products since then. 2 6.0s a F150 and a 07 GT500 to name a few. I’ve had very little trouble with any of them. My 05 6.0 has 130,000 miles on it and it’s never been back to the dealer for Power/Drive Train work same as my 01.

I would like you to tell me about the oil dip stick, is it like the 6.0s and 6.4s or is it like the 7.3s? I like to be able to tell how much oil is actually in my $15,000 engine. It will make a difference on if I will purchase one or not. Simple, bullet proof design characteristics like that is what is needed even on the most modern technology.

 

scorpv8 (nice screen name)
how long can urea sit in the tank? Will it crystalize or anything?

If it can not sit there and will need to be changed out, is there a drain plug?

one final: does urea system need flushed at certain intervals?

thanks
mike middaugh
btw, i have 2011 f350 dually on order

 

Good questions, and if I may add:

Will it freeze?

 

Adam, Thanks for taking time out of your day to help answer questions about these new trucks.

I have a few myself

1, Where will the PTO port be located on the transmission? I own a company that utilizes PTO ports to run mechanical driven water pumps (fire engines). However ever since 99 Ford has not built a truck that is capable of running an axillary drive shaft (off the PTO port) to run a pump, on a 4x4 model. The transfer case was always in the way. It always fried me/us (partners) because, until 08, the f550 and f450 were basically unrivaled, so we had no where else to go to get a truck that could run a drive-shaft. Why has Ford not addressed this issue in the past, and is it going to address this issue in the future? This issue has caused almost all wild land fire fighting engines to run axillary motors to run the pump, and we just found out how expensive this is to do. I just bought a 09 Dodge 5500 because they swore up and down we could run a PTO driven drive shaft for our pump, but we were sorely disappointed. Their PTO port is so high on the auto tranny the PTO would hit the floor board. (bought the truck for other reasons I will cover in a second). So we ended up buying a 3 cyl diesel motor to run our pump, cost us over $12k! So now our truck price went from $30k something + $12k just to hook a water pump up! That does not include the rest of the build. If the PTO port was actually usable on your truck, we could have saved ourselves thousands of dollars, and you probably could have sold another truck.

2. Why has Ford made (in the more recent past) their trucks so difficult to work on? Many companies (including ours) run their trucks for many years (mil and do all the work themselves. They have their own mechanics and service shops. Yet I know of several companies fed up with Ford and their lack of serviceability, and now are switching to a competitor. What is Ford doing to correct this? It is sad when you open the hood on a Ford and you cant even see the engine under all the "stuff" on top of the engine. I was watching an interview several years ago, have no idea where though. A person asked a Ford rep why they make their vehicles so hard to work on. The Ford rep basically just brushed him off and in a smug way said because Fords are designed not to break down. Give me a break, these trucks are built with wearable parts and eventually they WILL break down. It would be nice to have a truck that is actually built with maintenance and overhaul in mind. What ever happened to KISS (keep it simple stupid)

As I said earlier these are the 2 reasons why we went to a competitor. We/I wanted a truck we could work on, and a truck with some engineering behind a simple PTO port. These trucks are commercial trucks (talking about cab and chassi), so why not design them with useful features, longevity, and maintenance in mind. I bleed blue and would have loved to buy a Ford, but just could not because the lack of ease of maintenance and lack of engineering on some components.

I sure hope these issues are resolved in three years when I will be looking for yet another truck platform.

Thank you for your time, and please do not take my points personal. I am just trying to find out why there are such oversights as this.

Nic

 

I don't really have a question for Adam but a comment on what the GM suit said about hooking up their HD to the new Ford SD. What is that going to prove? Just one slip and loss of traction and you are done. So what.

Someone asked Adam if he was going to be a part of that and I would hope not. Preferably, hook up equal loads. Compare performance in starting and stopping...pulling up hills. Bed payload...etc.

Funny how GM would be the one to say "Hook up bumpers and see what happens!"

Some time ago the guy for "Dirty Jobs" did a stint where he took a 1/2ton from Ford, Dodge, GM and Toyota and tested them out on a test track. Something like that would be nice to see where they stand against each other.

Subscribing to this thread....I like the info so far.

 

I would definitely say that's NOT the case, having owned a few VERY-abused (by me) truck FE's in stock form. From what I remember, it was always the other way around. The FE's did, however, have a tendency to flood the heads with oil because of the rocker shaft setup, which many people THOUGHT meant it needed valve guides and seals, when in reality all it needed was either a restrictor in the oil feed to the shaft, or a new set of rockers and shafts.

If the FE did need a valve job, as in seat and valve regrind, and possibly guides, it was mostly due to the fact that there were, first, one HECK of a lot of them on the roads compared to GM/Dodge, meaning you'd see more of them in a machine shop compared to their GM/Dodge counterparts. And second, that the FEs were used to all heck, pulling loads at full throttle for long periods of time. But even then, it was mostly the FT's, and then, mostly the 330, not the FE's, that needed upper-end work done periodically, but that's the nature of the beast. Overworked truck engines.

Back to the topic at hand, though

 

you dont think somone at the top is going wow we can really make some monie off of the parts we can sell im overall pretty happy but when somthing goes wrong and after 600 worth of diag they say to me your going to need injectors but nooooo not inject its the fcim or whatever the injec mod is but nooooooo its the glow and then this than that i call ford and they say its not there prob i call that a flaw and i for one am tired of being fords test bunny let them test an engine for a 150.000 miles and then fix the bad

sounds like a rant but just trying to be straitforward

 

Periods and commas please, gets the point across much better

 

I am not Adam, but I did work for Ford as an engineer (initially in Service Engineer, dealing with issues like yours, then in Product Development).
I can tell you that they don't intentionally make issues occur with vehicles to drive part sales (quite the opposite - product development engineers are attempting to make all service intervals longer, everything from oil changes, through to other maintenance items to lower the cost of operation)
A lot of the issues stem from the fact that a vehicle is the most sophisticated, complex and technical advanced consumer product out there, particularly when you include the complexity of a diesel 4x4 truck that has to meet very stringent emission laws, and have very demanding engine characteristics to meet customer demands (power for one), not to mention, there are few other vehicles in the world that have to meed such a variety of environmental and usage demands.
Things do break - on all marques. Not to excuse any failures that you, or others on here have had - but I think it is fair to say that it at least appears that Ford are at least picking themselves up by their bootstraps and making big improvements on their product per customer demands.
The fact that one of their chief power-train engineers is willing to join up on here to answer some questions directly is merely indicative of that (I haven't seen another manufacturer be willing to stand behind their product in such a manner).

Happy motoring,
Adrian

 

Welcome to FTE Adam

 

i appreciate adams remarks and i agree with them to a certain point nobody likes spending monie on these engines and they knew about these problems back in 03 04 and did very little for us yes i understand about inter and ford but i didnt buy a inter i bought a ford when that person from another land told me it was not there problem that is when i decided to go to the compet why shouldnt i adam if you heard that what would you or anyone think .and blue66tang95f150 i know i know,,,,....?!lo

 

Adam, thanks for taking your time to offer your insight into the new truck. From other web based video and articles I can tell you are very passionate about the new engine.

I am one of those that has 'normal' 2.5% fuel dilution in my 6.4's oil. WHY no 9th. injector post turbo as GM is going to do?

Since the DPF needs the heat generated from the DOC by injecting diesel fuel during the exhaust stroke it would be much better to do same in the exhaust pipe vs. the exhaust stroke of the engine. I could live with that; frankly if the Scorpion had the 9th injector I would be ready to order.....

It is good to hear in your previous post about the cleaner burn design that leads to fewer regenerations of the DPF.

1. Was a 9th injector considered for the Scorpion?


Thanks,

Bob

 

Thanks for taking time to answer all our questions! I know that my dad a master certified Ford diesel tech. is looking forward to your answers!