Fullsize V-6 Pickup Comparison

[_RaT_]

Robert, don't you have a Ford pickup? If so, you can come park in my driveway anytime. I promise there will be no laughing at you. :laughing:

Yup, me too. I absolutely laugh my rear off when self professed experts start spouting off about all the problems the 12v Cummins engines had. The advent of the internet and a few dowel pins dropping into the timing gears created a whole panic. LOL!! By the time I sold my '96 Cummins I'd added twins to it, BHAF, head studs, 435 injectors, ringed the head and was not defueling it until nearly 6000 RPM! Running the snot out of it for years that about the only issues I had was keeping a transmission behind it!

I had a couple of 7.3 PSD trucks and I am completely unimpressed with that engine. Besides always having "issues", I've never seen any group of engines that pour engine oil on the ground like they do! Since I spent a small fortune concreting my driveway, nobody I know is allowed to drive their 7.3 PSD down my driveway because of all the oil they pour out! If you want to say "what about the '6 leaker'," I'll just laugh at you. My '06 F350 runs in the low 12's in the quarter mile, pulls loads well over it's rating on a consistent basis and it's never leaked a drop on my driveway since I had some skirt gasket fixed under warranty when I bought it about 2 and a half years ago.

If they keep things up with twin turbos on the 6 bangers, most people driving diesels won't even need their diesels unless they just like the sound (and there's plenty like that). After all, the good old 12v Cummins only has 6 cylinders. Now that I think about it, my motor coach only has 6 cylinders in it's Cat C9 engine as well. I don't have any power issues with it either.

 

[RobertN]

Used to, till I got the Dodge some years back. My F250 had that same IFS sag that yours has, till I put a straight axle up front.

Robert, don't you have a Ford pickup? If so, you can come park in my driveway anytime. I promise there will be no laughing at you. :laughing:

 

[RobertN]

I do find it interesting, that in my Fire Dept, all the newer aparatus have '6's(8.9L Cummins). Our older stuff had Detroit and CAT V8's. The Cat's were all 3208, cause that engine is about all that will fit in the older Ford 7 and 8 series cabover chassis.

If they keep things up with twin turbos on the 6 bangers, most people driving diesels won't even need their diesels unless they just like the sound (and there's plenty like that). After all, the good old 12v Cummins only has 6 cylinders. Now that I think about it, my motor coach only has 6 cylinders in it's Cat C9 engine as well. I don't have any power issues with it either.

 

[RobertN]

Back to V6's...

While growing up, my Dad had a 70 CJ5 with the 225 Buick V6. Later on, I got that Jeep, and had it for a number of years.

It was only rated at about 160hp, but that V6 worked very well. My Dad and I both used it on Rubicon and other hard rock trails, in addition to tons of other of-roading. It had nice power and decent torque, for being 40 years ago. We towed utility tralier with it. Between the motor, and the heavy flywheel, it had nice torque

No reason a newer V6 could not be a nice option. For a truck though, I wonder why a turbo? A small supercharger makes more sense, because it would make more power from and idle up, as compared to a turbo.

 

[Dargo]

I do find it interesting, that in my Fire Dept, all the newer aparatus have '6's(8.9L Cummins). Our older stuff had Detroit and CAT V8's. The Cat's were all 3208, cause that engine is about all that will fit in the older Ford 7 and 8 series cabover chassis.

My coach is built on a Freightliner chassis and has the 8.8 liter Cat C9 engine in it. Apparently that chassis must also be used in some firetruck applications because there are all sorts of brackets on the frame that are marked for bolting different firetruck specific items to. It only puts out 400 hp and 1150 ft lbs or torque but it sure is physically much larger than my pickup engines. It certainly isn't going to win any fuel economy battles!

 

[Dmace]

No reason a newer V6 could not be a nice option. For a truck though, I wonder why a turbo? A small supercharger makes more sense, because it would make more power from and idle up, as compared to a turbo.

A supercharger is run off an accessory belt that's connected to your crankshaft pulley so it is directly robbing power while making it. A small supercharger will barely make more power than it's already robbing from your engine. Secondly, a supercharger's power (boost) is not as easy to control as a variable vein turbo. Thirdly, if you stay light on the gas in a turbo vehicle there is no difference in fuel mileage vs a supercharger that's always robbing fuel mileage as well as power.

 

[Bird]

A salesman at my local Ford dealer recently told me they expect to get the F150s with the Ecoboost in March. And today I got an e-mail from them saying they will have one available for test drives from noon to 4 p.m. on December 9; to call if I wanted to schedule a test drive.

 

[Diamondpilot]

A salesman at my local Ford dealer recently told me they expect to get the F150s with the Ecoboost in March. And today I got an e-mail from them saying they will have one available for test drives from noon to 4 p.m. on December 9; to call if I wanted to schedule a test drive.

I would be first in line.

Chris

 

[Bird]

I would be first in line.

Chris

I would, too . . . if I thought I could afford to buy one if I liked it, but since I can't, I'll wait until later, much later probably.:laughing:

 

[_RaT_]

Same boat here. Even if I could afford to buy one new I doubt I would.

I would, too . . . if I thought I could afford to buy one if I liked it, but since I can't, I'll wait until later, much later probably.:laughing:

 

[gilbertmsg]

I had a 74 Olds Starfire with a 231 V6 (carburated). It was my first car, had great power, probably got 20+ miles per gallon on a 3,000 lb vehicle. Don't understand why the improvements haven't come faster as with everything else in this throw away era. With proper gearing it would have been a great puller. We still have a long way to go.

Eddie

 

[Dargo]

A salesman at my local Ford dealer recently told me they expect to get the F150s with the Ecoboost in March. And today I got an e-mail from them saying they will have one available for test drives from noon to 4 p.m. on December 9; to call if I wanted to schedule a test drive.

I know it's the wrong company, but because of the small size and great torque band, I thought that engine would be awesome in the new Jeep Wranglers and such. I had a Jeep Rubicon once and wish I wouldn't have sold it. This ecoboost engine seems like it would be a great fit for that Jeep. With bigger tires etc., the 4.0 I6 sort of runs a bit low on power. I have one in an old Jeep Cherokee Sport (not Grand Cherokee, but the older style) and love that old thing.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I would, too . . . if I thought I could afford to buy one if I liked it, but since I can't, I'll wait until later, much later probably.:laughing:

I would just want to drive it.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

GM has a nice V6 that's all cast iron, durable and also used in the industrial and marine world. But most people don't want it because the hp is lower than the V8s of today. In fairness, most of today's engines are rather gutless at low end with the computers and lean mixtures, but we have to live with it.

Which motor is that, the 4.3L? I will not sell a boat with that motor. It gives us nothing but issues. I have owned 2 and my uncle had twins in his 2002 Sea Ray 280 and both had issues. One was replaced at 40 hours and the other at 225 hours with a long block.

The 4.3L only makes between 190 HP and 225 HP while the 5.0L V8 makes between 260 HP and 270 HP and tons more torque while only weighing 18 pounds more. We always upgrade them to the 5.0 just because you gain so much for such a little weight penalty. 18# is nothing.

We also stopped using Mercruiser. They were just plain junk anymore. Not like the good old days when I stared boating in the 80's and owned nothing but until 96 with virtually no troubles. Now only Volvo's for us since the mid 2000's. They had just cheapened them up to a point where we were seeing common failures across the line. Sometimes multiple times on the same engine. I blame the union at Mercruiser. They have tried to get rid of the union and have threaten to move the operations out of Minnesota to get away from them.

Same is true with the Mercury Outboards. I do not deal in them but the folks that do now hate them. The two big marinas at the lake I go to dropped them and now sell Honda's and Suzuki's. If I were buying a Suzuki would be my first choice.

I have one boat left with a Mercruiser 5.7L 350 Mag Bravo III that I bought new in 2005 but was a 04 left over. This boat has been in the shop numerous times for water pumps, idle air controllers, alternator wiring, fuel pump, fuel pump relay, water pressure sensor, cracked water manifolds, drive corrosion, and the list goes on. This is all with 170 hours. My 2 Volvo engines are 2004 models and have not been in the shop a single time.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

I know it's the wrong company, but because of the small size and great torque band, I thought that engine would be awesome in the new Jeep Wranglers and such. I had a Jeep Rubicon once and wish I wouldn't have sold it. This ecoboost engine seems like it would be a great fit for that Jeep. With bigger tires etc., the 4.0 I6 sort of runs a bit low on power. I have one in an old Jeep Cherokee Sport (not Grand Cherokee, but the older style) and love that old thing.

Yep, them old Cherokees were good trucks. I always wanted on in the early 90's with a strait 6 but they just would not tow the loads I had.


Chris