Ambulance breakdowns- Ford 6.4

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And judging by how many Ford *and* Navistar Maxxforce trucks I see laying down big, oily, white smokescreens when regen kicks in, I don't think that's ever been fully sorted out with the 6.4 either. Never have seen a Scorpion, Duramax, or Cummins do that. Kinda defeats the purpose of a DPF, dunnit?


With the 6.0s and VT365s, they don't have DPFs. It's not a regen issue. The smokescreen happens when they have injector problems, especially when that's coupled with a non-working VGT setup in the turbo.

 

[edwardh1]

what were the engines they used like BEFORE they made these trouble prone engines? were they better or worse?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
what were the engines they used like BEFORE they made these trouble prone engines? were they better or worse?


The 7.3L was what came before the 6.0L and it was excellent.

 

[edwardh1]

so why did they change?
like buick with the plastic intake manifolds and dex cool in the late 90????

 

[roadrunner1]

The 7.3 was replaced with the 6.0 simply because the 7.3 couldn't easily pass the newly enacted EPA regulations (2003).

 

[AP9]

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
The 7.3 was replaced with the 6.0 simply because the 7.3 couldn't easily pass the newly enacted EPA regulations (2003).


^that. Just a guess, but it probably didn't help that the 7.3L/T444E was outputting significantly lower power than the smaller 6.0L/VT365 either.

 

[roadrunner1]

That sir is no guess, my brothers best friend works for an engineering firm who worked with Ford on getting the 7.3 compliant with the (at that time) upcoming EPA regulations.

They were able to make the 7.3 compliant at considerable expense to an existing and aging powerplant. Ford decided to go with a new and un-proven 6.0, thinking that reliability would be on par with the 7.3, partly because not only were there new in '03 EPA regs, there were upcoming stiffer proposals enacted in '07, so Ford thought it would be better to move forward with a new design.

The 6.0 gets a bad rap, not all unwarrented as there were many with multiple issues. My current '07 6.0 has been the most trouble-free truck I have ever owned, just short of 200,000 mi., I also owned an '04 6.0, also trouble-free. Neither engine ever had any issues, none, and the 6.0 drivetrain is leaps and bounds better than the 7.3(including transmission).

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
The 6.4 was just a nightmare for owners. I love it because we make a lot of money on parts. Personally I would have no problems owning a 6.0 that got the BulletProof / ARP treatment or a 6.7 if someone wanted to donate to the cause.

Now that Ford started making their own diesels the reliability has gone up a lot.


They were good until the 6.0 .


Once you work the bugs out, the 6.0 is great. You just have to do ARP studs, BulletProof EGR and oil cooler and a couple other things.


Yeah, it's a great engine...AFTER you re-engineer it. Ye gods.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: mcrn
The cummins is the only one in this class that is a true medium duty as far as i know. The others are considered light duty.


Its definitely the most rugged of the 3, but in that class its not so much of a benefit since all three outlive the chassis. The Cummins just has more left in it when the chassis is scrapped. Move up a class or two, and then the Cummins shows its mettle.

FWIW, back in the 90s Austin/Travis CO EMS had Freightliner ambulances powered by 2-valve Cummins B5.9 engines. As far as I ever heard, they ran the wheels off of those without so much as a hiccup. But they were actually smaller and lighter than what they're dragging around with the F-450 these days.

And as to the question of the 6.0: I disagree. NOTHING makes it worth owning. Yes, you can make it hang together... more or less... but any engine that requires dropping the crankshaft to slide the cam out (out the rear of the block, no less) in order to replace a single failed valve lifter is J-U-N-K. Nevermind the issue of lifting the cab off the truck to get to the engine so you can drop the crank so you can change the lifter.... :-/

And judging by how many Ford *and* Navistar Maxxforce trucks I see laying down big, oily, white smokescreens when regen kicks in, I don't think that's ever been fully sorted out with the 6.4 either. Never have seen a Scorpion, Duramax, or Cummins do that. Kinda defeats the purpose of a DPF, dunnit?


Not just the Ford/IH thing: I watched a truck at work (2010 Freightliner, Cummins 6.7) do that a couple weeks ago. The yard horse (2013 Ottawa, Cummins 6.7) has been a catastrophe, now on its third DPF (and fifth trip to Cummins for a cleanout) in a year.

We also had a tractor (2011 IH, MaxxForce 11) doing a parked-regen in the yard suddenly start shooting FLAMES from the stack.

That one left on a wrecker and hasn't come back yet.

Diesel power has jumped the shark. I fervently hope that when my current pile at work (2007 Freightliner, 7.2 Cat) gets replaced (lease is up in March), it is with an F-650 with gas power. Yes, I am willing to give up my air brakes & standard shift to get away from a post-2007 diesel disaster!

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

Diesel power has jumped the shark. I fervently hope that when my current pile at work (2007 Freightliner, 7.2 Cat) gets replaced (lease is up in March), it is with an F-650 with gas power. Yes, I am willing to give up my air brakes & standard shift to get away from a post-2007 diesel disaster!



Diesel is today where gasoline was in 1975, at least as far as emissions systems triggering complete engine failures. Remember the GM pellet-filled catcons that would turn to a wad of glass and cook the engines with excessive back pressure? Chrysler lean-burn that caused burned valves and cracked heads on engine designs that had never had those problems in the prior 20 years?

Diesel will get past it, but its going to suck for a while. Maybe we're even on the downhill side...


As for the 7.3 Powerstroke, I think it was a combination of it being at its reliable power limit AND emissions. It was an old 2-valve cylinder head, and there's only so much you could do to clean up the burn and raise BMEP without a complete redesign. Unfortunately, the 6.0 and 6.4 brought a slew of unforseen problems, not the least of which were emissions, but some were purely mechanical also. Like being so incredibly hard to service in the chassis... :-/