I'll take a 6.0 psd with the 5speed Torque Shift tranny over a 7.3 psd any day. Not saying the 7.3 is bad but the 6.0 power and 5speed tranny makes for a better overall driving experience.
I agree the 6.0 with 5spd auto is far better for power and economy than than the 7.3 with 4spd auto. I bet they're both a lot closer if comparing manual transmissions, 5spd ZF 7.3 to 6spd ZF 6.0.
SoCalDesertRider wrote: I agree the 6.0 with 5spd auto is far better for power and economy than than the 7.3 with 4spd auto. I bet they're both a lot closer if comparing manual transmissions, 5spd ZF 7.3 to 6spd ZF 6.0.
Smaller displacement, better fuel economy.
Less friction, heat loss, etc.
If you want a EPA 2004 truck, the 7.3 is just not certifiable including for a retrofit.
SoCalDesertRider wrote: I fully agree about leaving the 6.0 at stock output, no tuning. I'm sure tuners are responsible for at least some of the failures.
Logic would dictate the same percentage of users tuned their trucks in the other two camps - so I don't see that theory holding water as an explanation for the inordinate number of issues.
2010 Cougar 322QBS 5er
2007 Dodge 3500 SRW Megacab, 4x4, 5.9L Cummins, 3.73, 48RE auto HYPERTECH MAX ENERGY or DIABLO PREDATOR tuning MBRP 4" Turbo back Scangauge2 for Boost, Coolant temp, Rail press & Trans Temp
Torklift Stable Loads
Quote: Ford didn't have a dyno durring development that could handle the 6.0 output
OMG that explains it.
Good post Donkey
So a multi-billion dollar corporation didn't spend a few thousand to get a proper dyno to test their diesel engine before releasing it? That's the explanation for the poor reliability of the 6.0L PSD?
Quote: Ford didn't have a dyno durring development that could handle the 6.0 output
OMG that explains it.
Good post Donkey
So a multi-billion dollar corporation didn't spend a few thousand to get a proper dyno to test their diesel engine before releasing it? That's the explanation for the poor reliability of the 6.0L PSD?
That's it!!! Ford did not have a dyno so they guessed on how much power the 6.0 put out. Some put out 235 and some put out 500 HP. The ones that put out 235 lasted and the ones that put out 500 didn't.
Quote: Ford didn't have a dyno durring development that could handle the 6.0 output
I will say it again. LOL, where do people come up with this stuff? His next post needs to start with "once apon a time." LMAO
Why thank you very much Shrek!
~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~
"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"
SoCalDesertRider wrote: I fully agree about leaving the 6.0 at stock output, no tuning. I'm sure tuners are responsible for at least some of the failures.
Logic would dictate the same percentage of users tuned their trucks in the other two camps - so I don't see that theory holding water as an explanation for the inordinate number of issues.
Actually, logic wouldn't dictate what you're alluding to. Logic would dictate more tuners with failures than without. I don't know how it truly sussed out in real life though, could be equal, or not. I don't think anybody truly has any real numbers to back up either train of thought, just a bunch of guessing really.
Wow, reading this thread is like the stories of several different blind men describing an elephant by touch, where each man only had access to one body part. Naturally, the tail, ear, leg, and belly all feel, and are thus described, very differently. And to top it off, much of what is opined here seems to be conjecture. Kind of inspires me to add some of my own hogwash to the slop:
I was hanging around inside of the International Truck and Engine plant in Indianapolis one fine summer day back in 2001, observing the installation of some fancy state of the art automated machining equipment destined to produce parts for the 6.0L motor more than two (2) years PRIOR to it's ill fated introduced to the Ford Superduty. I was hanging out with a trusted 3 decade veteran with the company who was about to retire at that time. He revealed to me that they were having trouble with the EGR in testing the Ford versions of the VT-365 prototypes they were test muling at the time. In 2001.
Navistar was having other issues as well. In fact, the 4.5L baby powerstroke was supposed to be introduced prior to the 6.0L, as early as 2002, coming out of the Huntsville Alabama plant. That didn't happen. The 6.0L was delayed because there were issues that were not getting resolved. Lots of programming issues too, with the Sturman technology (later licensed to Siemens) in the injectors.
That's why the 7.3L got extended deeper into 2003. This wasn't the original plan though. Ford did not say, oh, the EPA will let us sell 7.3's until such and such a date, so let's plan to do that. Instead, Ford wanted to be early and proactive in beating any and every EPA mandate, and use their proactiveness as a feel good marketing feather in the cap. That wasn't to be.
The Huntsville plant later got shifted to produce 6.0s whereas it was originally going to produce 4.5s. The Eddie Sturman digital technology that originally enabled not just split shots, but up to 17 shots of fuel per power stroke... and that was promised to later produce camless digital valves... eventually got scrapped. All kinds of things were going on here.
As for computers... Ford put their own computer in the 7.3L also. The T444e uses entirely different programming and protocols. Heck, even the pcm box chips, board, and location are entirely different. Again, from this particular blind mans view while walking through the hallways and down the production lines of the US plant that designed and produced 7.3L at that time, there were some folks at IH that did not like the hoops and parameters that Ford, then their largest customer, imposed.
It was kind of surreal to witness, even if just for a day or two... because this was a time period when the externally perceived relationship between Ford and IH was at it's strongest and most mutually profitable. And yet it was during that peak time that unseen seeds of discord and disagreement were being sown that ultimately led to the dissolution of this relationship entirely.
There was a lot of faith put into some fancy, fantasy technology that didn't pan out. Particularly with the injection contol system. And the EGR implementation issues surfaced early, and never went away. It's really a sad story, because had it all worked out, it would have been an awesome implementation of American ingenuity, from the Apollo space program to the heartland.
Anyway, between those two engines, for longevity, reliability, lower maintenance costs, and resale value, I'd go with the 7.3L.
Offline
