First Look: Ford's All-New 6.7-Liter V-8 Power Stroke Diesel Engine
Posted by Mike Levine | August 30, 2009

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/fir...ngine.html

Quote:ord is rewriting the rules of the company and industry with the introduction of its all-new advanced 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel engine for the 2011 F-Series Super Duty pickups.

“The 6.7-liter diesel puts the motor back in Ford Motor Company,” said Adam Gryglak, the engine’s lead engineer. “This is the most advanced Power Stroke yet with the cleanest emissions,” lower noise, vibration and harshness “and substantially improved power and fuel economy.”

Codenamed “Scorpion,” the 6.7-liter PSD is Ford’s first-ever designed-in-house pickup truck diesel engine since the first oil burner (International’s 6.9-liter V-8) was offered under the hood of a Ford pickup in 1982.

“This was a global effort within Ford to create this engine,” Gryglak said. “We applied many of the lessons learned from Ford’s European operations.”

Ford’s road to the Scorpion has been long and winding. The 6.7-liter PSD is the third all-new heavy duty diesel engine in 7 years and the fourth since production of the 7.3-liter Power Stroke ended in 2002.

Its creation can be traced back to the 6.0-liter Power Stroke that Ford introduced for its 2003 Super Duty pickups. Ford and Navistar (International’s parent company) went to battle in court over warranty problems and cost issues related to that engine, which ultimately led to both companies ending their 30-year diesel manufacturing relationship in January. Ford kept the rights to the well-known Power Stroke name that has been associated with Ford diesels since 1994.

Read on here.

   
   
   
   
   

---

Any opinions on this new motor yet?

(10-18-2009 08:33 AM)DeliveryValve Wrote:  Any opinions on this new motor yet?

As is usual for Ford, I like the theory but not the execution.

"Hey, since we totally screwed over our relationship with International and no longer have a Diesel engine supply, lets steal GM's 'exhaust in the valley' engine idea and get it into market before them!"

That turbo is little more than a tiny turbine with a huge compressor wheel. Even with VNT, the turbine is so tiny they need a wastegate. I can see the aftermarket targeting that as one of the first things to change on this engine, along with much better flowing exhaust manifolds. They should have stuck with the 6.4's excellent compound system.

(10-18-2009 02:40 PM)ForcedInduction Wrote:  "Hey, since we totally screwed over our relationship with International and no longer have a Diesel engine supply, lets steal GM's 'exhaust in the valley' engine idea and get it into market before them!"

Depending on how you interpret that statement - it might not be technically true. The GM/Isuzu 6.6L Duramax has outboard exhaust manifolds - just like nearly any other V-configuration engine ever made. In fact, I can't think of any other V-configuration engine that doesn't have outboard exhaust manifolds.

This new Fjord engine has inboard exhaust manifolds in the valley (where the intake manifold would normally be) - unlike anything else I've ever seen...and honestly - the way to do things the RIGHT way if you need to put your turbo in the valley for packaging reasons.

Even as a die hard Cummins fan, I wish them luck...(as well as any other new diesel engine - can't have too many!!) no doubt it will have its share of calibration and emissions issues. We all know the 6.4L sure did - shooting flames out the tailpipe, etc. The Cummins 6.7L and newest versions of the GM/Isuzu 6.6L Duramax are also not free from calibration/emissions issues...but they're built on solid platforms that haven't changed much at all over the years.

Fjord really burned the bridges between them and ITEC. I'm not convinced that was a bad thing.

6.9L IDI = boat anchor
7.3L IDI = boat anchor
7.3L Power Stroke - all but one vintage = boat anchor
6.0L Power Stroke = not even worthy of boat anchor usage
6.4L Power Stroke = worst of the bunch...they're eating injectors and wiring harnesses (like the 7.3L PSD...) like candy

I'd take any Cummins B-series made and possibly a Duramax over anything that has ever been stuffed in a light duty Fjord pickup.

Beers,

Matt

(10-30-2009 04:39 PM)HoleshotHolset Wrote:  Depending on how you interpret that statement - it might not be technically true. The GM/Isuzu 6.6L Duramax has outboard exhaust manifolds - just like nearly any other V-configuration engine ever made. In fact, I can't think of any other V-configuration engine that doesn't have outboard exhaust manifolds.

The 4.5L Duramax is not in production (yet). It was planned for 2010 but GM shelved it.



The primary thing I strongly dislike about that engine is the exhaust manifolds being integral of the aluminum cylinder heads.

(Today 16:39)HoleshotHolset Wrote:
Depending on how you interpret that statement - it might not be technically true. The GM/Isuzu 6.6L Duramax has outboard exhaust manifolds - just like nearly any other V-configuration engine ever made. In fact, I can't think of any other V-configuration engine that doesn't have outboard exhaust manifolds.


Doesn't / didn't Cummins make a large V-12 that had inboard exhaust driving 4 turbos?? I think it was used for to power generators and/or pumps

ForcedInduction Wrote:The 4.5L Duramax is not in production (yet). It was planned for 2010 but GM shelved it.

The primary thing I strongly dislike about that engine is the exhaust manifolds being integral of the aluminum cylinder heads.

"A" for effort, GM/Isuzu...wow - that's daring. More power to them if they can make it work - but I agree with you.

Lapoint Wrote:Doesn't / didn't Cummins make a large V-12 that had inboard exhaust driving 4 turbos?? I think it was used for to power generators and/or pumps

Maybe...it's entirely possible. My primary expertise with Cummins lies with messing around with the various engines in the B series lineup.

Beers,

Matt

It passed right out of my memory until now, Cummins has been doing "exhaust in the valley" for years in their QSK series.


   

I like that QSK 78 would make a sweet rat rod BUS with that!!!

"6.9L IDI = boat anchor
7.3L IDI = boat anchor
7.3L Power Stroke - all but one vintage = boat anchor
6.0L Power Stroke = not even worthy of boat anchor usage
6.4L Power Stroke = worst of the bunch...they're eating injectors and wiring harnesses (like the 7.3L PSD...) like candy

I'd take any Cummins B-series made and possibly a Duramax over anything that has ever been stuffed in a light duty Fjord pickup."
quote: HoleShotHolset


I gotta disagree with some of this. I love Cummins too, but in my experience the 6.9 IDI, 7.3 IDI and 7.3 powerstroke were solid, dependable motors. Say what you will about the 6.0 and the 6.4, I totally agree, but the earlier ones were decent power, easy to maintain, cheap on parts, and very reliable.

Cummins is in a totally different class certainly and is and was at the top, but lets not overlook the 1998.5 to 2002 24 valve addled engine computer problems that can be so annoying.

And as far as Duramax is concerned, thats an awesome motor, but also one with a long history of finicky issues during its development. Lets not forget the "return line dump fuel into crankcase" issue. Plus, as soon as they worked all the little bugs out of it, they add a new emissions system that has check engine lights coming on in 5000 miles.

Taken on the whole, before the introduction of the 'straight from hell' 6.0, Ford was making a very decent, useful engine for a good price that worked well for a lot of years; I gotta give them credit for that.

(11-10-2009 09:50 PM)dropnosky Wrote:  Say what you will about the 6.0 and the 6.4, I totally agree, but the earlier ones were decent power, easy to maintain, cheap on parts, and very reliable.

Cummins is in a totally different class certainly and is and was at the top, but lets not overlook the 1998.5 to 2002 24 valve addled engine computer problems that can be so annoying.

Taken on the whole, before the introduction of the 'straight from hell' 6.0, Ford was making a very decent, useful engine for a good price that worked well for a lot of years; I gotta give them credit for that.

I see your point(s). I turned wrenches at an ambulance shop for ~5 years on 7.3 IDIs all the way through the last generation 7.3L Power Stroke...so my opinion of them isn't helped by the fact that I always saw them on their worst days. We did put a LOT of hard miles at full GVW on them too...which doesn't help.

I had enough high pressure oil system, injector driver module and injector harness failures on Power Strokes to last me a lifetime. Whoever dreamed up that high pressure oil fired injector idea should be barred from ever doing engine design work ever again.

The IDI engines (in their day) didn't have anything decent to compare to...except the GM 6.2/6.5 (which I had mostly good personal experiences with) - all offerings back then were very warm blooded, gutless wonders - but that's all we had at the time. More than once, I was dispatched out in the field with a can of ether to start a 7.3L IDI that the crews couldn't get going for various reasons.

The '98.5-'02 Cummins ISB's failures could almost be traced entirely to the horrible lift pump design. Sure, the early ISB's also had issues with the VP44 injection pump...but when your lift pump is weak, you're not going to get a whole lot of cool fuel to help that IP last long.

Cheers,

Matt

I just have a sweet spot for the powerstroke after I pulled a couple lifting rods out of one that were bent almost completely in half and were rattling around inside the engine.

The truck ran horribly beforehand as you can imagine with a gasping wheesing clanging noise.
It was an on the cheap repair and after taking a peek down the holes with a flashlight and waving a magnet, we threw two new rods in there. We started it, and it ran perfect! No other issues for as long as I heard. It was like 6 bucks in parts, and I could not believe all this broken metal did not damage something else.

On the flip side, because of a 8th inch long piece of aluminum, I have had to remove the head from a 1.9 TDI, with all the PITA involved in that.

… will it be a Power Joke? Well, those connecting rods look awfully spindly to me. Also, it looks scarily complex to me..... more stuff to go wrong.

(10-30-2009 04:39 PM)HoleshotHolset Wrote:  Depending on how you interpret that statement - it might not be technically true. The GM/Isuzu 6.6L Duramax has outboard exhaust manifolds - just like nearly any other V-configuration engine ever made. In fact, I can't think of any other V-configuration engine that doesn't have outboard exhaust manifolds.

This new Fjord engine has inboard exhaust manifolds in the valley (where the intake manifold would normally be) - unlike anything else I've ever seen...and honestly - the way to do things the RIGHT way if you need to put your turbo in the valley for packaging reasons.

On my Granddad's ranch were two Cadillacs, a '38 and a '39 with flathead V-8s that had BOTH the intake and exhaust manifolds in the inboard "valley" location. In fact, most flathead "V" engines did it that way because it made more sense than running the hot exhaust gases all the way through the engine to the outboard side. Look at a flathead with the head off and you will see what I mean. Ironically, it was Ford that bucked that wise practice with their flathead V-8s and V-12s, and they were hot running engines as a result. Maybe Ford is now trying to make up for that.
Regards, Eric

(01-06-2010 01:07 AM)400Eric Wrote:  Ironically, it was Ford that bucked that wise practice with their flathead V-8s and V-12s, and they were hot running engines as a result. Maybe Ford is now trying to make up for that.

OK - so we have industrial/mining/freight train engines and old flat heads with this layout - anything else other than the new 6.7L?

Isn't that enough?
Don't forget the new, almost in production GM 4.5 Duramax.
Regards, Eric

Any updates on how the 6.7L PSD is holding up?

I haven't heard of any first hand issues so far. My neighbor has one and he still loves it - much more than the old 6.4L he had.

Beers,

Matt

I've got 11,000 miles on mine. Not to many issues on them. I had a turbo because the dealer screwed it up.

(05-11-2011 04:13 PM)dieselboy Wrote:  I've got 11,000 miles on mine. Not to many issues on them. I had a turbo because the dealer screwed it up.

What in the world did the dealer do to cause a turbo failure?

I think when they checked the air filter it broke the tab on the air box and it got sucked into the turbo. It was either that or it was caused by a odd surging I had when it was new and the computer was still learning.

Ouch.

Personally I am a Cummins Guy but I love the heat the PowerJoke has always gotten, but on that note I was personally impressed with the physical design of the motor but like all the diesels Ford has put in their trucks I was skeptical. I only know 3 people with the new PowerJoke…one traded it in before he had it a year(11Months), one still has it but does nothing but commute in Sol Cal traffic ( the bed and hitch have no scratches in them), the other is Jesse here on STD. The guy that traded it in had it at the dealer more than he got to use it and he was not going to deal with that any more. So in my book it’s a typical PowerJoke 1 in 3 runs right but you have to be gentle or reap the consequences.

Sorry Ford Lovers its the truth!

Lol mine is gone to someone else. The cab and chassis trucks need more time.

I now have a 2010 fuso.

(08-24-2011 12:32 AM)dieselboy Wrote:  I now have a 2010 fuso.

is that a cab-over?

Rusted out beat down 300d turbo 82' -- RIP
Nice body, tons of ridiculous mechanical issues - 300d turbo 82' /motor 85'

(08-24-2011 05:52 AM)larsalan Wrote:  

(08-24-2011 12:32 AM)dieselboy Wrote:  I now have a 2010 fuso.

is that a cab-over?

Yeah im the first one to the accident now. It actually has more room in the cab. Better visibility and the turning radius is insane. Plus it has a newer box with a crane.

I have wanted one of those tiny little cab over trucks. About between the size of a ford ranger and a golf cart. But they are very few and high price too

Rusted out beat down 300d turbo 82' -- RIP
Nice body, tons of ridiculous mechanical issues - 300d turbo 82' /motor 85'

Sorry Powerjoke!

You know after all the test's writeups etc ive seen on them most of the time they actually say that they preferred the feel of the ford. They may have the numbers as close as they are but until chevy gets rid of that nasty ifs they still suck in my eyes. I actually as of recently dislike all emissions diesels. They (all of them) are just being choked and the reliability has gone to shit.

I have to agree the IFS is a fail if you want to lift it or anything. Works good for a stock truck that is kept that way though.

(09-07-2011 01:38 AM)dieselboy Wrote:  I actually as of recently dislike all emissions diesels. They (all of them) are just being choked and the reliability has gone to shit.

I have been of the same thought process for around a year now. My 335d got me into that thought process. Just the overly complex systems for emissions and dealing with when something goes wrong in them. I'd imagine though for things like Ford or Chevy diesel trucks that people will or have ways to just bypass those systems entirely.