Hmmmmm, navichevy?

[Builder]

I think the basic engine design of the 6.0 was good. The original computer program had to be changed too many times. The '04 F-350 6.0 I traded in gave me good service. The people I know with 6.0's don't seem to have any major problems with them. Problems get amplified over the internet. Kinda like saying the DuraMax would be a failure because of the aluminum heads. I've never heard of a head failure on the Duramax.

My '08 F-450 6.4 so far has been an excellent engine. Time will tell but it is a world apart from the 7.3 and even the 6.0 in power and drivability. The starting is instant, power is seamless. I agree that it seems much too complicated with the twin turbos. That system is several years old now since it has been used in the 4.5 Powerstroke in the LCF trucks built for both Ford and IH. Haven't heard that it's giving any particular problems.

Let's talk in 5 years. That's when I'll be convinced the 6.4l is a reliable, practical diesel.

I just can't walk down the same road with you on the 6L. That freakin thing cost Ford more money in warranty service than anything else in Ford history.
It did have known problems. The worst was the injectors. I read it cost Ford more warranty money in one year than the 7.3L cost them over the life of the 7.3L in warranty claims.

The 6L was never even in the same class as the DMAX, and neither is the 6.4L.....yet.

One other thing I never understood about the 6.4L : When it was being introduced, there was more fanfare than any diesel I've seen in 25 years. Then when it hit the street, its' performance ratings were the same as the DMAX (except low end torque, the DMAX has more low end torque).

WHY? Why on God's green earth would Ford introduce their next diesel only to fall short of the performance of their biggest competitor's 6 year old, single turbo diesel design????

Wouldn't you want to exceed your competition rather than fall short of it? Especially with all the high tech twin turbos and newer design?

Doesn't that seem really disappointing to you?

 

[JESSE1]

I have no idea why International designed the 6.4 with twin turbos while the Duramax and Cummins seem to do well with a single. I do know the 6.4 runs very well. No major engine problems seem to be cropping up, no doubt there would be lots of shouting on the internet if there were. The twin turbos just don't seem to be an issue.

I think the 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 all should be comparable in performance. All the engines are rated at 350-365 hp and about 650#/ft torque. For long life and durability in a light duty truck I think that's the limit. Naturally, a tuner or chip can be added for more hp but that's going to stress any engine. I'm pleased with what Ford has built. If I need more horsepower I'll get a bigger truck.

My first diesel pickup was a new '82 GMC with the 6.2 diesel (130hp). After replacing 3 blown head gaskets and 1 cracked head I traded it for a new '85 Ford with the 6.9 diesel. Since then I've had Fords with the 7.3 idi, 7.3 idi turbo, 7.3 Powerstroke, 6.0 and now the 6.4. The engines have gotten more powerful but lots more complicated. Still no way would I trade my current truck with the 6.4 for any of the others.

 

[Builder]

I have no idea why International designed the 6.4 with twin turbos while the Duramax and Cummins seem to do well with a single. I do know the 6.4 runs very well. No major engine problems seem to be cropping up, no doubt there would be lots of shouting on the internet if there were. The twin turbos just don't seem to be an issue.

That's because the 6L was so problematic, that naturally the 6.4L would have to be under the microscope for any problems.

"I think the 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 all should be comparable in performance. All the engines are rated at 350-365 hp and about 650#/ft torque. For long life and durability in a light duty truck I think that's the limit. Naturally, a tuner or chip can be added for more hp but that's going to stress any engine. I'm pleased with what Ford has built. If I need more horsepower I'll get a bigger truck."

Can't totally agree with you because the 6.4L has to rev considerably higher to reach peak torque compared to the DMAx or the Cummins. The hallmark of a diesel engine is grunt low-end torque. The more and earlier it comes on, the better. That's what gets heavy loads that diesel trucks pull or carry moving. It also saves on fuel because less RPM & fuel is required to move loads. Ford is in a distant 3rd place for low-RPM torque. I also read that the 6.4L sucks down fuel worse than their competition, but I have no statistics. Lower off idle power than the DMAX or Cummins may explain the lower fuel economy.

My first diesel pickup was a new '82 GMC with the 6.2 diesel (130hp). After replacing 3 blown head gaskets and 1 cracked head I traded it for a new '85 Ford with the 6.9 diesel. Since then I've had Fords with the 7.3 idi, 7.3 idi turbo, 7.3 Powerstroke, 6.0 and now the 6.4. The engines have gotten more powerful but lots more complicated. Still no way would I trade my current truck with the 6.4 for any of the others.

I hear ya. I was on my 14th Ford diesel truck. All set to buy my 15th back in March. I just couldn't bring myself to buy the 6.4L because of the added complexity and lower torque ratings at off idle RPM than the DMAX. There were other reasons (transmission & rear differential are superior in GM), but i don't want to go into that. It's too off topic.

 

[JESSE1]

Low end torque is more an issue with manual transmissions. My '85 F-350 had a 4 sp manual but for some reason they didn't put the granny low first on the manuals with the diesel. With a load it was hard to get started without slipping the clutch. I've never had a problem starting with any load when I had an auto. That even applies to the 6.2 diesel I had. That truck had a TH400 with a 4.10 axle. Trying to keep up with traffic was a different story.

As far as revving higher, I don't think most people care. You're really not talking that many more rpm's. They still rev considerably slower than a gasser.

 

[Builder]

Low end torque is more an issue with manual transmissions. My '85 F-350 had a 4 sp manual but for some reason they didn't put the granny low first on the manuals with the diesel. With a load it was hard to get started without slipping the clutch. I've never had a problem starting with any load when I had an auto. That even applies to the 6.2 diesel I had. That truck had a TH400 with a 4.10 axle. Trying to keep up with traffic was a different story.

As far as revving higher, I don't think most people care. You're really not talking that many more rpm's. They still rev considerably slower than a gasser.

I enjoyed our chat, but I would respectably disagree.
With weights being similar and given the same 1st gear gear ratio, the diesel that develops the most low end torue will launch better and use less fuel over the life of the truck. I like to buy reliable diesels that develop the most low end torque for that reason. I think many other experienced diesel owners think the same way.

Enjoy your truck. Merry Christmas.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Well I am a 6L fan. I have 2, a 2004 F-250 4x4 and a 2006 F-350 SRW 4x4 alog with a 1999 7.3L F-350 SRW 4x4. They are all great and never had a wrench or computer on them. I have chips on all three trucks along with exhaust and intake upgrades. I tow up to 25,000# with the 06 F-350 and it will walk away from the Dura Max I had, a 2005 piece of junk. They get great millage, 17 city, 24 highway and I have seen as good as 17 towing a 15,600# boat to Tenn in August. I towed a 7,000# camper with my 3500 Dmax and saw 9.75 mpg, I got 8.5 mpg with the same trailer behind a F-150 gasser. The Fords are also built heavier. I have taken every truck I have owned across the scales with just me in them and 3/4 tank of fuel and the Gm product is much lighter, 700# on similar trucks.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Diamondpilot.... I think that in different threads you have called both GM and Dodge diesels junk (correct me if I'm wrong on the Dodge - obviously one of your GM comments is right above this). Now you report towing 25,000 lbs with a F350 - and a single rear wheel model at that! - which is at least 7000lbs over its max tow rating. Wonder if you towed that much over the rating on the GM and Dodge products and that's why you had problems with them. I'm not saying Ford makes a bad truck, just saying that judging from extreme abuse (misuse) is not a good basis for commenting on the quality or durability when used as intended. I'm not a professional trucker but I think it's nuts to tow 25k with a 8k truck rated to tow maybe 18k tops.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Diamondpilot.... I think that in different threads you have called both GM and Dodge diesels junk (correct me if I'm wrong on the Dodge - obviously one of your GM comments is right above this). Now you report towing 25,000 lbs with a F350 - and a single rear wheel model at that! - which is at least 7000lbs over its max tow rating. Wonder if you towed that much over the rating on the GM and Dodge products and that's why you had problems with them. I'm not saying Ford makes a bad truck, just saying that judging from extreme abuse (misuse) is not a good basis for commenting on the quality or durability when used as intended. I'm not a professional trucker but I think it's nuts to tow 25k with a 8k truck rated to tow maybe 18k tops.

Even if this is the case, as Builder pointed out in other threads a truck should be over built. So if his Ford can handle the heavier weight and his GM didn't in his mind the Ford is built better and from his experience it would be true.

I really don't care who's truck is better or who's motor is better. These trucks are all very similar and all of them will do what they are designed to do. Builder has fell in love with the Duramax and he is passoniate about that motor as well as the GM medium duty trucks. I will never own one, not because they are not decent trucks but because I have no use for one and if I did it would most likely be a flat bed like my friends use at their machine shop. The Powerstroke has never failed me yet and I don't see it being an issue. Why does it have to be around 5 years before anyone will buy it? If that was the case with any motor no one would be buying vehicles. If anything I would be more comfortable with the 6.4l since Ford did have problems with the early 6.0's and they were on a short leash and needed to put out a good motor so I am sure they did their homework and had their parents check it also in regards to the 6.4.

But what does this have to do with the topic? It seems like another peeing contest about who's motor is better. When this deal is all said and done who is to say International doesn't put the crappy 6.4l in these great GM medium duty trucks

Have fun guys. There is 35 minutes left in Christmas for this year and I am going to enjoy it.

 

[Builder]

Even if this is the case, as Builder pointed out in other threads a truck should be over built. So if his Ford can handle the heavier weight and his GM didn't in his mind the Ford is built better and from his experience it would be true.

I really don't care who's truck is better or who's motor is better. These trucks are all very similar and all of them will do what they are designed to do. Builder has fell in love with the Duramax and he is passoniate about that motor as well as the GM medium duty trucks. I will never own one, not because they are not decent trucks but because I have no use for one and if I did it would most likely be a flat bed like my friends use at their machine shop. The Powerstroke has never failed me yet and I don't see it being an issue. Why does it have to be around 5 years before anyone will buy it?

Because the 6L was so troublesome, that I would want the 6.4L to be proven over quite some time before I trusted it. I would have no doubts about buying a 6.7L Cummins based on the success of the 5.9L Cummins. I would have no hesitation buying the next generation of DMAX based on the track record of the 6.6L DMAX.

" If that was the case with any motor no one would be buying vehicles. If anything I would be more comfortable with the 6.4l since Ford did have problems with the early 6.0's and they were on a short leash and needed to put out a good motor so I am sure they did their homework and had their parents check it also in regards to the 6.4.

But what does this have to do with the topic? It seems like another peeing contest about who's motor is better. When this deal is all said and done who is to say International doesn't put the crappy 6.4l in these great GM medium duty trucks

Have fun guys. There is 35 minutes left in Christmas for this year and I am going to enjoy it.

Because the IH 6.4L version doesn't have twin turbos and is much more conservatively rated in HP and TQ. It's not being pushed to the limit of its' power and will live longer for that reason.

BTW: I'm not in love with GM medium duty trucks. I think what you're referring to is the comparison between the 450/550 and the GM 4500/5500. In that case, I like the GM product better for many reasons. I actually like IH medium trucks the best based on ownership experience and what some other guys I know operate.

 

[wushaw]

Well I am a 6L fan. I have 2, a 2004 F-250 4x4 and a 2006 F-350 SRW 4x4 alog with a 1999 7.3L F-350 SRW 4x4. They are all great and never had a wrench or computer on them. I have chips on all three trucks along with exhaust and intake upgrades. I tow up to 25,000# with the 06 F-350 and it will walk away from the Dura Max I had, a 2005 piece of junk. They get great millage, 17 city, 24 highway and I have seen as good as 17 towing a 15,600# boat to Tenn in August. I towed a 7,000# camper with my 3500 Dmax and saw 9.75 mpg, I got 8.5 mpg with the same trailer behind a F-150 gasser. The Fords are also built heavier. I have taken every truck I have owned across the scales with just me in them and 3/4 tank of fuel and the Gm product is much lighter, 700# on similar trucks.

25k in the flat land yea I can see that, a little rough and a pretty good pucker factor. Try it in the mountains and none of them (class 3 trucks) are safe.