Ford's new engine...6.7ltr

[Wingate]

Originally Posted by Bill Stockard

Yep

Bill

And have a pair of vise grips on the fuel rack when you mash the go button!!!.. Just in case you DIDN'T set it right!!.. I watched a 6-cylinder 2-stroke go to the moon, come back, breathe for a second, then go back to the moon before completely swarming itself... All from a tech. thinking he was too good to make a mistake.

As for the 6.0 and 6.4, just from what i've heard, it sounds alot like the LB7 Duramax stories. Either you couldn't keep in out of the shop, or it never went. It seems that there has been no rhyme or reason as to why serial # xxx-xxx1 ran great, and xxx-xxx2 was a terminal patient????
As with GM/Isuzu, I'm sure that Navistar would have gotten it figured out eventually. Its just taht the customer is the one who suffers in the mean time. Now, when the 6.4 is as close as its probably ever been, Ford is going out a whole new door. So, I suspect they have just reset the learning curve to zero and customers of the Scorpion will be the unwilling field test engines for sometime.

[rbattelle]

Originally Posted by RHestand

IMO, there are several advantages to this design. A couple that come to mind:
Exhaust heat rises for a very short, direct trip up to turbo/turbos.Quick spool, very little heat loss.
Compactness/versatility. W/O the exh. manifolds/pipes on each side of the engine, it allows for a much narrower engine pkge.

Good points. The high heat is good for the turbine, but I'm not sure about the effects of soakback with all that heat concentrated in the lifter valley. I guess it can't be too bad or they wouldn't have put it in service like this.

As for compactness, you still need a manifold on the outside of the vee. I thought those heads looked very wide with the intake manifold cast in.

Ryan

['strokeThis_'07]

I work in the oilfield, and my company uses Ford pickups nearly exclusively; theres maybe 3 Chevy Duramaxes in the fleet. There was a garage in town that lived pretty much off of us and the crap 6.0s. Since the 6.4 has come out, the number of trucks sent to that shop has dropped drastically. That shop had an entire shop, the larger one, dedicated to Halliburton pickups...

I just spent close to 1000 miles behind the wheel of an 09 450 and was honestly impressed by it. Id almost buy a 6.4 to play with. Way quieter than the 6.0, and a lot more power. Doesnt sound like its perpetually on the verge of blowing up. Although we've had a couple injection pumps go out on a few newer trucks, those are the only issues Ive heard of. One got a new pump, and maybe 30 minutes after being picked up, it ate another one.

It certainly isnt a Cummins, or a Dodge, but its a huge leap forward for Ford, atleast from the engine standpoint

[CTD12V]

I can't believe Ford is completely ditching the manual transmission. Man I hope Dodge (Fiat, whoever) doesn't get any ideas about doing that.

I wonder how many retrofit auto to manual projects there are going to be?

[J_K_auto]

anyone know about the turbo on this. I am looking for specs?

thanks

[CurtLee]

Originally Posted by CTD12V

I can't believe Ford is completely ditching the manual transmission. Man I hope Dodge (Fiat, whoever) doesn't get any ideas about doing that.

I wonder how many retrofit auto to manual projects there are going to be?

I agree. I don't know about anybody else but the manual transmission's behind the ford diesel don't seem to popular. I personally don't know a ford owner with one. So its anybody's guess as to what kind of retrofit's there will be.

[HBarlow]

I don't know about the 6.4 and certainly not about the new in-house Ferd V8 diesel but I drove a manual six speed Ferd 6.0 not long after the 6.0 engine was introduced. It was a MY 2003 in late 2002. It was a gutless wonder.

I was accustomed to letting the clutch out then throttling up on my '01 Ram six speed with 3.54 gears, unloaded or unloaded. Everytime I let the clutch out on the Ferd I stalled the engine. The 6.0 produced NO TORQUE at idle and the only way to launch it, unloaded, was to rev the engine and slip the clutch like a small block gas V8. It would have been absolutely useless with a heavy trailer behind. The worthless 6.0 couldn't be driven with a trailer behind without an automatic transmission with a loose torque convertor.

No low rpm torque is the reason manual transmissions are not offered with V8 diesel engines.

[Ross]

Harvey, this has been my exact experience with the manual fords. They are so weak in the low RPMs, word got out, and they have all but quit selling/producing them. I would not own one. Duramax manuals weren't any better. Only the Cummins has enough off-idle torque to handle the manual tranny.

[RHestand]

Originally Posted by rbattelle

Good points. The high heat is good for the turbine, but I'm not sure about the effects of soakback with all that heat concentrated in the lifter valley. I guess it can't be too bad or they wouldn't have put it in service like this.

As for compactness, you still need a manifold on the outside of the vee. I thought those heads looked very wide with the intake manifold cast in.

Ryan

The Oct. edition of Diesel Power has an artical on this new engine, including pictures at several different angles.
If you get the opportunity to check this out, there is a good shot of the full rear of the engine, showing the bulge in the heads for the cast in, intake manifolds. You can also see where the top half of the intake manifolds are integrated into the the rocker arm covers.
IMO, this configuration is quite a bit narrower than any of their previous P.S. engines with the conventional exh. manifolds/exh.pipes/to turbo platforms.
Also, you can almost see where there might be room in the valley for some air from the front to blow through, helping with the heat soakback problem.
Ray

[CTD12V]

Originally Posted by Ross

Harvey, this has been my exact experience with the manual fords. They are so weak in the low RPMs, word got out, and they have all but quit selling/producing them. I would not own one. Duramax manuals weren't any better. Only the Cummins has enough off-idle torque to handle the manual tranny.

Well, that's true. I had forgotten about that aspect. The company truck I drive for work is an F-550 7.3L with the 6-speed, but it has a 4.88 axle ratio, so that makes a big difference. I agree about the pathetic lack of low end torque with higher axle ratios. I remember when the Ford 6-speed first came out, the ranch I used to work at got one in an F-350 PSD, and the foreman was always killing it in the driveway because he was used to driving the ranch truck with the Cummins. Another rancher I talked to said his guys were always having to put them in 4-Low out in the pasture because they would stall out trying to cross ditches, etc.

[Crazy Horse]

Can we get afew more idler pulleys in there? Looks like a plumber's nightmare.

[MA2LA]

Originally Posted by Crazy Horse

Can we get afew more idler pulleys in there? Looks like a plumber's nightmare.

I hope they are making thier idler pulleys better than they used to.. I had a few leave me sitting on the side of the road in my work trucks.

[Ncostello]

I hope the cab mounts with pins and clips, and quick disconnect everything. Because the possibility of working on this in the engine bay has just been eliminated. Just like the 6.0 and 6.4 already was. What a complicated looking deal...even though it does make the power.

Why is GM and Ford so "bent" on using V8's? Is all this worth keeping the V8 power mystique? Can't they make this kind of power using a V6 or I6 design with the proper displacement and component size?

It would be interesting to see what this engine would look like and perform like without the 2010 EPA rules in place. It might actually be a good looking engine when you pop the hood. But two cooling systems? Gee whiz. And over $9000 option? The V10 Triton is probably looking pretty good to alot of people in the near future. $9000 buys a heck of a lot of gas. And spark plugs are cheap!!

[HBarlow]

I think all 2010 Ferd diesels will have a nifty gold anodized towing hook mounted on the cab roof. It will make it easier for Ferd owners to lift their cabs off for oil change service after the trucks are out of warranty . . . if any of them ever make it to 100k miles.

The owner will be able to park under his favorite tree limb in front of his mobile home and lift the cab off with a come-along or chain hoist from Harbor Freight.

[AClayton]

Now that was funny!!

Alan