[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Big Banger

IH

Now that's a truck

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

bigunde,

I make statements based on my experience as an engine machinst. Like I have previously stated, the Big Three plus all the engine manufacturers ALL build their share of junk. To label one worse than the others is folly.

Agree. Fords 2.9 V6 was a head cracking SOB and the 3.8 was one of the most headgasketest eating engines around.

Seems to me up until the last 15 - 20 years Mopar did not make a bad engine

Even IH made a boat anchor (DV-550)

Cummins even has one; the triple nickel

[bigunde]

Originally Posted by Big Banger

IH

No arguement there.

[JLHarper]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

x 2 "Sledgehammer engineered"
No troubles out of my Ecoboost yet; and it's averaging 23 mpg , know a couple guys with the 6.7 P-Stroke, that thing is a powerful SOB.

Thats just "amazing" MPG, considering that "on average" too.

Some of the Ford forums seem to have a growing group of owners who are "not happy" with the mileage claims and their actual results.

Many are still breaking them in and waiting for the point when they start getting better gas mileage, as told by selling dealers apparantly of this magic "break in" point. (I was told as well) and some are posting about having the "its your driving" card thrown out when back at dealers.

I havent recorded mpg numbers over 17.4 since new, including one 130 mile highway trip, not towing. Its got 14.3 on it now for back and forth to work leisurely drive 13 miles one way.

Currently 2734 miles and I dont drive it hard at all. I still love the truck, its an incredible design, comfortable and FUN to drive... but have been reading posts by a growing movement of owners posting up their mpg, and hearing their frustration.

Mfg should be paying close attention to what owners are saying.... i.e: you get owners who bought for "mileage claims" and they dont materialze, you know whats going to happen.

[66Post]

FORD, had a 90 F-150 351 Supercab long bed 2x4 for 14 years, never spent a dime on fixing any drive train related stuff. Had to switch over the AC to 134, replace a fuel pump in the foward tank, paint it, brakes etc. In 2004 I sold it and bought a new 2004 F-150 Supercab 4x4. So far the only thing I have done to it was brakes. I wouldn't buy a Ford car, but I really like the reliability of their trucks. (So does Consumer Reports) compaired to Chevy and especially Dodge.

[bigunde]

Amazing how FACTS can quiet some. LMAO

[hurryinhoosier62]

bigunde,

Saw an AMAZING thing on "American Trucker" last night. NASA owns 4 1967 model Peterbilt 351 "needlenose" tractors. Guess what engine was in them?? Not a "K" series
Cummins or the equivalent 6 cylinder Cat......12V71 Detroits!! Imagine that, a "V" type diesel engine!! Don't they KNOW big hammer wouldn't approve??

[lethal-428-lemans]

I love my 01 Cummins Ram but this is right up there too.

[yak]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Wow, that's as ignorant as your statement about all Ford engines being no good; I've seen plenty of Ford 401 cid inline diesels in Ford tractors

Put that Cummins next to a John Deere or an old International in ag use - they use something called liners for quick in frame overhauls.



You said engines. Now you're talking gravity fed fuel supply, which damn near every car used 100 + yrs ago. Guess you never heard of the Cobra Jet 429 or Boss 429, the heads your speaking of are for one ton pickups, so they're designed for low end torque. The bumps are to help with velocity. 351C did just fine; why don't you tell Bob Glidden who beat the beejesus out of everyone in the late 70s running Cleveland heads that they were wrong ?
427 Fords junk ? Yea, they ate Ferraris in Lemans and held up against Mopar Hemis in NASCAR. You have no experience with an Ecoboost, yet you're calling it junk ?

You sound more like a parts changer and certainly not capable of machining the engine and measuring for wear; your ignorance is shining well.

ford exhaust ports are built for velocity? lmao. and a ecoboost v6 is just a turbo buick with a bunch of ford engineering put on it. if it was so awesome chevy would have been using that 20 years ago

[yak]

[QUOTE=bigunde;4570267]

Originally Posted by yak

well if i ever was in the market to buy a diesel truck i'd be happy to know that since i'd probably pick up a 6.7 cummins that this same motor is powering my buddys fwa ford new holland tractor. you'll never see any dmax or ford built diesel in a ag or industrial application[/QUOTE]

Really???

http://www.exergyengineering.com/doc...x_brochure.pdf

let me clarify- duramax or that new ford diesel ( i'm talking commercially available in the c/k or f series ) will ever be put in logging equipment, scrapers or anything like that. maybe they'll be in boats or something i dunno... i know dam well that tons of cummins and cats and hyundai diesels power real off road equipment ...if ford had something special they wouldn't have needed to built umpteen different styles of engines like the 427 and 428 and 429 andthen the 460 and 3 different 351s and the y block motors. just a godd damm joke

[yak]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

Well,

I guess that rules out the Ford 6.6, 6.6 phase II,7.8 and the 200 found in MOST Ford and New Holland tractors and backhoes built in the 60's,70's and 80's. All of these are DDEs(Damn Durable Engines)!! As a matter of fact, the 6.6/7.8 family of engines were ag engines adapted for truck use. The 200s were always ag engines. I know one thing for sure: you can't bore a 4B/4BT/6B/6BT Cummins .180 over to install sleeves when the cylinder bores are worn out
because the engine is on its 4th OVERHAUL.

60's 70's 80's? are any of these motors your talking about produced right now by the big 3? thats what this whole post is about

[yak]

and for the people who say ford didn't get bailed out type - who bailed out ford -into google.

[Sidponcho]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

Thats just "amazing" MPG, considering that "on average" too.

Some of the Ford forums seem to have a growing group of owners who are "not happy" with the mileage claims and their actual results.

Many are still breaking them in and waiting for the point when they start getting better gas mileage, as told by selling dealers apparantly of this magic "break in" point. (I was told as well) and some are posting about having the "its your driving" card thrown out when back at dealers.

I havent recorded mpg numbers over 17.4 since new, including one 130 mile highway trip, not towing. Its got 14.3 on it now for back and forth to work leisurely drive 13 miles one way.

Currently 2734 miles and I dont drive it hard at all. I still love the truck, its an incredible design, comfortable and FUN to drive... but have been reading posts by a growing movement of owners posting up their mpg, and hearing their frustration.

Mfg should be paying close attention to what owners are saying.... i.e: you get owners who bought for "mileage claims" and they dont materialze, you know whats going to happen.

Very interesting post. Thanks for provding your real-life experience. Is there a particlar F150 forum that you are referring to? I'd like to do some reading

[JLHarper]

Originally Posted by Sidponcho

Very interesting post. Thanks for provding your real-life experience. Is there a particlar F150 forum that you are referring to? I'd like to do some reading

Sid, there are a probably a dozen or so online forums that have members/owners talking about their real world results...some are:
ford150.net, fordecoboostownersforums.com, ecoboostownersforums.com,fordecoboost.com,pickuptr ucks.net and youtube showing results.

google: eccoboost mpg problems or ecoboost mileage claims, or any variation.

One neat site: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2011

currently has 85 members showing "their" real world mpg with graphs.

One guy posted this on TacomaWorld site, not sure if true but interesting if it is. I am going to find out:

I read an article that the epa mileages are obtained with the best combo of axle ratio to engine and the ecoboost was done with 3.15 axle.

[bigunde]

[QUOTE=yak;4574915]

Originally Posted by bigunde

let me clarify- duramax or that new ford diesel ( i'm talking commercially available in the c/k or f series ) will ever be put in logging equipment, scrapers or anything like that. maybe they'll be in boats or something i dunno... i know dam well that tons of cummins and cats and hyundai diesels power real off road equipment ...if ford had something special they wouldn't have needed to built umpteen different styles of engines like the 427 and 428 and 429 andthen the 460 and 3 different 351s and the y block motors. just a godd damm joke

LOL , you are a trip. What about that Dodge diesel. Oh wait, they didnt make one did they. LOL

Wow you need help with that anger. Why did Dodge stop the 225/318/360??? LOL

[yak]

[QUOTE=bigunde;4575567]

Originally Posted by yak

LOL , you are a trip. What about that Dodge diesel. Oh wait, they didnt make one did they. LOL

Wow you need help with that anger. Why did Dodge stop the 225/318/360??? LOL

dodge hasn't had to produce their own diesel because the one that is supplied to them is a really good engine. why mess with a good thing? definately can't say the same about ford since they got rid of the mechanical pump 7.3

225/318/360? they quite building them for the same reason ford quit the 300/302/351 and gm quit the 4.3/5.0/5.7.

OH WAIT! lets look in the mopar performance catalog. their still building big blocks yet, let alone small blocks.

http://www.mopar.com/performance/catalog/

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by yak

ford exhaust ports are built for velocity? lmao. and a ecoboost v6 is just a turbo buick with a bunch of ford engineering put on it. if it was so awesome chevy would have been using that 20 years ago

Your lack of knowledge is showing again: yes, low speed power (velocity). In plain English : low end torque. A one ton truck kinda needs that when being used like a one ton truck. Big ports would kill the low end.

The Ford "FE" 330-361-391 uses much smaller ports on their medium duty truck engines over the passenger car 390s for the same reason.

So what if they use many different V8s ? I guess that's a problem for simple people who can't remember too many things huh ?

Yes, you're right yak: Ford just took a 231 bent Buford, stuck on a few different things, put their name on the valvecover and presto : The Ecoboost !

Originally Posted by Sidponcho

Very interesting post. Thanks for provding your real-life experience. Is there a particlar F150 forum that you are referring to? I'd like to do some reading

You'd need a breakdown of how & where the people are driving to get the fuel economy they are claiming. Ive dipped down to 14 with a leadfoot and driving around St Louis in lots of stop & go traffic. Who's to say the ones dooing poorly is not linked to their driving habits ? It's tempting to wind those turbos up.
I live in a very hilly area with bluffs; any vehicle with these grades will drop their fuel numbers regardless of who built it.

[bigunde]

[QUOTE=yak;4575741]

Originally Posted by bigunde

dodge hasn't had to produce their own diesel because the one that is supplied to them is a really good engine. why mess with a good thing? definately can't say the same about ford since they got rid of the mechanical pump 7.3

225/318/360? they quite building them for the same reason ford quit the 300/302/351 and gm quit the 4.3/5.0/5.7.

OH WAIT! lets look in the mopar performance catalog. their still building big blocks yet, let alone small blocks.

http://www.mopar.com/performance/catalog/

Really??? Same reason?? and that is?

[JLHarper]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Your lack of knowledge is showing again: yes, low speed power (velocity). In plain English : low end torque. A one ton truck kinda needs that when being used like a one ton truck. Big ports would kill the low end.

The Ford "FE" 330-361-391 uses much smaller ports on their medium duty truck engines over the passenger car 390s for the same reason.

So what if they use many different V8s ? I guess that's a problem for simple people who can't remember too many things huh ?

Yes, you're right yak: Ford just took a 231 bent Buford, stuck on a few different things, put their name on the valvecover and presto : The Ecoboost !



You'd need a breakdown of how & where the people are driving to get the fuel economy they are claiming. Ive dipped down to 14 with a leadfoot and driving around St Louis in lots of stop & go traffic. Who's to say the ones dooing poorly is not linked to their driving habits ? It's tempting to wind those turbos up.
I live in a very hilly area with bluffs; any vehicle with these grades will drop their fuel numbers regardless of who built it.

You also posted somewhere on PY, you got 23 mpg "on average" which puts you in the "only person in the US to get that mileage" catagory.....

I also qucikly established you didint read any of the many posts online about this issue. If so, you would know this (driving habits) has been covered by some, if not many on the sites ...fuley site is one........some very carefully like video, specs, and details about computer resets.

If they did in fact use a 3:12 rear for the mpg test, as I posted above stated by another member I read.... well... thats going to be interesting to see how that washes out. I dont know if thats true or not... working on it later.

Jeff

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

You also posted somewhere on PY, you got 23 mpg "on average" which puts you in the "only person in the US to get that mileage" catagory.....

I also qucikly established you didint read any of the many posts online about this issue. If so, you would know this (driving habits) has been covered by some, if not many on the sites ...fuley site is one........some very carefully like video, specs, and details about computer resets.

If they did in fact use a 3:12 rear for the mpg test, as I posted above stated by another member I read.... well... thats going to be interesting to see how that washes out. I dont know if thats true or not... working on it later.

Jeff

No, you're upset and draging more of your dramaqueen feelings out of the CH.

I'm not going to play your little game, take it back to the CH