6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi

[nikerret]

I simply am not a fan of Ford's modular motors although the 6.2 is one of the better from the Ford terd modular family but it is still far from stellar.

The Ford 6.2L isn’t a modular engine, it’s nearly completely different than the Tritons. I addressed this, in an earlier post. What makes the 6.2L far from stellar?

Less impressed with GM's new 6.6 gasser but time will tell the tale, and so far none of the others yet match the GM 6.0 legacy of reliability.

What are you not impressed with, from the GM 6.6L gas?

No engine will have better legacy of reliability, than the old GM 6.0L. Some may get as good as, but I seriously doubt anyone makes as many engines, in as many trucks, with as few issues.

Gas mileage on any of them is not going to be good. Fuelly website pretty much shows the ole 6.0 is no worse than motors decades newer than it. Now some people seem to feel better if their lie o meter in the dash spits out a number 2 or 3 mpg higher than they are actually getting but fuelly website usually proves they are not really getting that lie o meter number they think they are getting either.

My fuel computer is often right on. I hand calculate every tank and keep records in an Excel spreadsheet, for both of my vehicles. Sometimes it is a few off. My fuel “lie-o-meter” only gives to tenths. While I calculate to hundredths. It’s within a rounding error nine times out of ten. When it is off, it’s off by 2-4 MPG. Much better than my Silverado. It was correct, sometimes, but was usually off at least 2-3 MPG.


You are correct in that fuel mileage will not be very high, with any of the big gas engines. High single digits to mid-low double digits, depending on application.

 

[nikerret]

My biggest gripe, about these threads, is people making statements without any explanation. X sucks, y is best…..Okay. Why does X suck? What is so great about Y?

 

[coobie]

That is just it the venerable GM 6.0 has been around since 1999 or 2000 where the Ford 6.2 would be the next oldest introduced in 2011, the Ram 6.4 introduced in 2014, and the GM 6.6 gasser or ford 7.3 gasser are all introduced 2020 or newer so in theory the price points each could potentially be purchased at should be huge.

The 6.0 was the best base engine ever put in 3/4 ton truck. I like the Ram 6.4 but there was an upcharge for it until recently as the Hemi 5.7 remained the base engine in their 2500 for many years and so far neither of these have the long term reliability of the GM 6.0. I simply am not a fan of Ford's modular motors although the 6.2 is one of the better from the Ford terd modular family but it is still far from stellar. I am truly impressed with Ford's new 7.3 gasser as it is made how I like a motor and I think it could prove to be a long term winner just as the GM 6.0 has been. Less impressed with GM's new 6.6 gasser but time will tell the tale, and so far none of the others yet match the GM 6.0 legacy of reliability.

Gas mileage on any of them is not going to be good. Fuelly website pretty much shows the ole 6.0 is no worse than motors decades newer than it. Now some people seem to feel better if their lie o meter in the dash spits out a number 2 or 3 mpg higher than they are actually getting but fuelly website usually proves they are not really getting that lie o meter number they think they are getting either.

I disagree how about the old GM 350 and 454 engines that were pretty much bullet proof.

 

[spitter]

The ford v10 is knowned for getting 4 -5 hundred thousand miles on them . My son drives my old one to work daily . 435,000 and climbing. Still people say modular engines stink.

 

[Lineman North Florida]

The ford v10 is knowned for getting 4 -5 hundred thousand miles on them . My son drives my old one to work daily . 435,000 and climbing. Still people say modular engines stink.

That is impressive for a gas engine , you are probably a stickler for oil changes, maintenance, etc.

 

[Lineman North Florida]

I disagree how about the old GM 350 and 454 engines that were pretty much bullet proof.

About the worse thing that was going to happen to a 350 was you could count on the rear main seal leaking , but I have logged many a mile in trucks powered by a 350, I still have my dads 1997 GMC 1/2 ton short bed 4x4 with a 350 with low mileage, just rolled over 100k a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Hay Dude]

My biggest gripe, about these threads, is people making statements without any explanation. X sucks, y is best…..Okay. Why does X suck? What is so great about Y?

Yep, it’s called brand bashing and it’s against the rules.

 

[Egon]

Seem to recall a lot of 350’s had cam problems.

 

[John0829]

The early 70's model 350's had soft cams but after they got that sorted out there they have proven to be very reliable. Never got put less than 200k to 300k on any 350 or 454 engine before I sold the vehicle. Best I ever had was on a 292, 6 cylinder that had over 500k when sold and I would have started out for ANYWHERE in it without a bit of concern or worry.

 

[rankrank1]

The Ford 6.2L isn’t a modular engine, it’s nearly completely different than the Tritons. I addressed this, in an earlier post. What makes the 6.2L far from stellar?



What are you not impressed with, from the GM 6.6L gas?

The Ford 6.2 is a modular based engine with slightly bigger spacing between bore centers. Google anything you desire from Wikepedia to various press releases from various sources and they all pretty much state the 6.2 is a modular based design. I will say it is likely the best of Ford's modular family IMOP but that was a low bar of achievement in some cases. I personally do not like the country mile of cam chains, chain guides, phasers, etc. Very expensive to fix when it goes bad. Also do not like the huge physical size of the engine of the modular family even when the displacement itself is small. For example Ford's new 7.3 gasser which is a borderline big block is physically smaller in physical size than even the 5.0 Coyote engine.

As for the 6.6 GM gasser: Time may prove it to be a great engine simply do not know yet. I personally do not like siamese bores myself. I am old enough to remember how that failed back in the 70's when GM utilized Siamese bores to punch out the otherwise outstanding 350 small block to attain a 400 small block from the factory. The 400 was pretty much an utter failure. I do realize Cummins uses Siamese bores on the 6.7 so it can be done successfully but I still do not like it. Additionally I like Direct Fuel injection on an economy throw away cheap car but it is not my first pick for a heavy duty gasser truck. May prove out fine though as GM seems to have less issues with valves coking from direct injection systems as compared to some other manufacturers.