Ford owns up to 6-oh-no mistake
They say 4 million miles total for hundreds of vehicles.
So lets go the lowest possible number. (Hundreds with an "S" would mean a very minimum of 200, right?) So we start with 200 trucks multiplied by 20,000 miles each equals 4 million miles. That is not a very good test in my book. How can you get a real good look at dependibility with an average of just 20,000 miles? And this was suposedly done over a 3+ year period. (That's less the 7,000 miles per year. Grandma drives more then that, and she's been dead for 20+ years.)
And even at just 6,500-7,000 miles per year they are having issues, but they claim they are getting them down to where they want it.
So lets go the lowest possible number. (Hundreds with an "S" would mean a very minimum of 200, right?) So we start with 200 trucks multiplied by 20,000 miles each equals 4 million miles. That is not a very good test in my book. How can you get a real good look at dependibility with an average of just 20,000 miles? And this was suposedly done over a 3+ year period. (That's less the 7,000 miles per year. Grandma drives more then that, and she's been dead for 20+ years.)
And even at just 6,500-7,000 miles per year they are having issues, but they claim they are getting them down to where they want it.
DTR's 'Wrench thrower...' And he aims for the gusto...
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 3
From: Smith Valley, NV (sometimes Redwood City, CA)
but they claim they are getting them down to where they want it.
[/QUOTE]
That's it exactly. Just low enough. That's been Fords philosophy for a long time. Don't fix it, just get it to last long enough that they don't have to take responsibility for it. In fact keep making it cheaper until it reaches that point.
Wetspirit
[/QUOTE]That's it exactly. Just low enough. That's been Fords philosophy for a long time. Don't fix it, just get it to last long enough that they don't have to take responsibility for it. In fact keep making it cheaper until it reaches that point.
Wetspirit
Cummins has had several years to get ready for this. They have all the technology learned from the gasers. Like the gasers, they need more displacement to get more power. Chevy had the 327, now a 350.
The new motors may be better in some respects. (not sure, just off hand)
Like the gasers, they incresed power over time with the same displacement to where todays gasers, like the Chevy 350, are putting out 400hp. Who would have guessed that in 1980 when they were weezing out 225, or something like that?
All said, I like my old 5.9. It will be cheaper to keep.
The new motors may be better in some respects. (not sure, just off hand)
Like the gasers, they incresed power over time with the same displacement to where todays gasers, like the Chevy 350, are putting out 400hp. Who would have guessed that in 1980 when they were weezing out 225, or something like that?
All said, I like my old 5.9. It will be cheaper to keep.
I have been a tried and true Chevy guy since I was a kid. I have had several Camaros, Chevelles, a Monte Carlo, an S-10 Blazer, and a Suburban. I love my Dodge Cummins but there is not much else I would own from Daimler Chrysler. Ford has been my arch enemy for years, what was a better rivalry than Mustang/Camaro?
who says theyknew they were 6.4l ?
ford may have left some badging off to hide the fact
That will probably take it's toll on the domestic 'BIG-3' just as the switch to smaller, fuel-efficient cars, starting in the early '70s, did. It remains to be seen if GM, Ford and Dodge can learn from that and, additionally, really DO anything about it. The writing is on the wall but will they pay heed?
Holy misleading thread title batman! Ford didn't own up to anything. Automakers do not own up to making mistakes.
There is nothing of any merit in that article. I'm sure the 6.4 will end up being a good engine, it has to be if Ford ever wants to sell another Super Duty again. I am not one to tempt fate.
I don't like the way Pete Reyes was smiling at me from my latest Truck Trend issue.
There is nothing of any merit in that article. I'm sure the 6.4 will end up being a good engine, it has to be if Ford ever wants to sell another Super Duty again. I am not one to tempt fate.
I don't like the way Pete Reyes was smiling at me from my latest Truck Trend issue.
unfortunetly my will be here the end of march. Not my choice by the way, it's a work truck.
[QUOTE] Have you guys looked under the hood of a new Dodge with a 6.7L? Its not so simple looking anymore. Also no one seems to question Dodge increasing displacement by almost a liter but power did not go up at all. Why do you think that is? New emissions requirements has seriously hurt power output. I believe they had to increase displacement to keep thier power output competitive. [UNQUOTE]
Well said, but I thought the 6.7l ctd was going to have 25 extra hp and 50ft/lbs more than our 5.9l?
[QUOTE] Have you guys looked under the hood of a new Dodge with a 6.7L? Its not so simple looking anymore. Also no one seems to question Dodge increasing displacement by almost a liter but power did not go up at all. Why do you think that is? New emissions requirements has seriously hurt power output. I believe they had to increase displacement to keep thier power output competitive. [UNQUOTE]
Well said, but I thought the 6.7l ctd was going to have 25 extra hp and 50ft/lbs more than our 5.9l?
Have you guys looked under the hood of a new Dodge with a 6.7L? Its not so simple looking anymore. Also no one seems to question Dodge increasing displacement by almost a liter but power did not go up at all. Why do you think that is? New emissions requirements has seriously hurt power output. I believe they had to increase displacement to keep thier power output competitive.
The best way to reduce NOx is to reduce cumbustion temps. So you are right to an extent, in that cooler intake air will help but less fuel per cc of displacement is the biggest help. Although the way to do that is by egr flow. EGR for those who may be confused or heard the garbage most uninformed people use to explain it is not reburning exhaust. Exhaust will not reignite in a healthy running engine. It uses exhaust flow to basically take up room in the combustion chamber to decrease the available combustion area for new unburned air/fuel. Thus decreasing cumbustion temps. The cylinder will fill itself everytime the piston goes down and then back up on the intake cycle. So you allow exhaust fumes to partially fill the cumbustion chamber and that makes for less room to intake fresh unburned air/fuel. One result of less fresh air/fuel mixture is less power though. Not an issue on your typical gas engine, as it is only designed to flow egr under low power demand situations. Like cruise or light throttle. This is not a big deal under those conditions because the power required to maintain speed is alot less than the power required to acheive that speed. This is the reason why some new gas engines can use cylinder deactivation at cruise to help with economy( that does not to help with emmissions though).
The differance with Diesels is that to comply with the new regulations they are required to flow egr all the time, including idle and full throttle. So the power is decreased all accross the board. To keep up Cummins increased displacement.
The differance with Diesels is that to comply with the new regulations they are required to flow egr all the time, including idle and full throttle. So the power is decreased all accross the board. To keep up Cummins increased displacement.
You Chevy & Ford guys need to grow up. Both have had some great products. Both have laid some serious bombs.
Intelligent folks figure who has the best product & votes with his dollars. Thats why we are on this site dicussing DC CTD, right?
Oh, by the way, are these tires too big?
It is often said we don't grow up, we just get bigger.
Intelligent folks figure who has the best product & votes with his dollars. Thats why we are on this site dicussing DC CTD, right?
Oh, by the way, are these tires too big?
It is often said we don't grow up, we just get bigger.


