7Mary3 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 One of our 6.7L's blew a turbo the other day and as a result needs a new catalytic converter as well. Total cost to repair will be somewhere north of $6000, on a truck just out of warranty with less than 100,000 miles on it. Not that the 6.7L Powerstroke is any worse than competing diesels, they all tend to have these problems these days. Where is the 'durability'? In larger (class 7 and 8 trucks) we are starting to see a stark difference in cost of ownership between diesel and CNG. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSchicago Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said: One of our 6.7L's blew a turbo the other day and as a result needs a new catalytic converter as well. Total cost to repair will be somewhere north of $6000, on a truck just out of warranty with less than 100,000 miles on it. Not that the 6.7L Powerstroke is any worse than competing diesels, they all tend to have these problems these days. Where is the 'durability'? In larger (class 7 and 8 trucks) we are starting to see a stark difference in cost of ownership between diesel and CNG. Exactly the reason I left diesels forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) What makes a person think a gasser will only last 100k in commercial service? That's nonsense. Even 30-40 years ago that wasn't true. I see tons of old medium Ford with 361FT, 370 and 429 gassers with 200k+ never been rebuilt run just fine. Lots and lots of V10s running around still in active fleet service with 300k+ on them. At the same time, modern pickup truck diesels (Duramax, PSD, etc) aren't built to the same "lbs of cast iron per hp" ratio the old mechanical diesels were. They run a lot more boost and EGTs. Not to mention the extremely complicated fuel systems running at insane pressures. And the emissions systems that create a lot of extra heat. If you ask me, gas longevity has stayed the same vs 30 years ago and diesel longevity has decreased. Today there's only one reason to buy a diesel: you get the rated hp at approximately half the rpm. That makes for much more comfortable towing of big loads long distances. All that said, even 7.3 gas is barely adequate in the heavier end of class 6. And by the time you're in Class 7, something in the range of a gas 9.0L would be most welcome. Edited January 24, 2020 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 17 hours ago, 7Mary3 said: In larger (class 7 and 8 trucks) we are starting to see a stark difference in cost of ownership between diesel and CNG. I worked for one of the CNG after market vendors for a brief period. Please explain why you would be interested in CNG vs gasoline ? The conversion is expensive and CNG GGE is more expensive than gasoline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 hours ago, theoldwizard said: I worked for one of the CNG after market vendors for a brief period. Please explain why you would be interested in CNG vs gasoline ? The conversion is expensive and CNG GGE is more expensive than gasoline. Nobody makes a gasoline fueled class 8. Also our CNG Freightliners are factory-built, not conversions. Around here CNG GGE is much cheaper than gasoline too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said: Nobody makes a gasoline fueled class 8. Also our CNG Freightliners are factory-built, not conversions. Around here CNG GGE is much cheaper than gasoline too. Well said...quite factual actually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 Ford needs to get going on electric heavy truck engines. Maine is already enacting laws for mandatory electric school buses by 2040, making the Roush/Ford propane engine on the Bluebird Vision buses a non-player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Joe771476 said: Ford needs to get going on electric heavy truck engines. Maine is already enacting laws for mandatory electric school buses by 2040, making the Roush/Ford propane engine on the Bluebird Vision buses a non-player. Ford is working with Motiv as a QVM to upfit F59 to their EPIC specifications... https://www.motivps.com/motivps/portfolio-items/epic59-allelectric-typec-schoolbus/ PS: Bluebird already offers a Vision with EV power... https://www.blue-bird.com/buses/vision/vision-electric-bus Edited January 26, 2020 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 9:51 AM, Sevensecondsuv said: What makes a person think a gasser will only last 100k in commercial service? That's nonsense. Even 30-40 years ago that wasn't true. I see tons of old medium Ford with 361FT, 370 and 429 gassers with 200k+ never been rebuilt run just fine. Lots and lots of V10s running around still in active fleet service with 300k+ on them. At the same time, modern pickup truck diesels (Duramax, PSD, etc) aren't built to the same "lbs of cast iron per hp" ratio the old mechanical diesels were. They run a lot more boost and EGTs. Not to mention the extremely complicated fuel systems running at insane pressures. And the emissions systems that create a lot of extra heat. If you ask me, gas longevity has stayed the same vs 30 years ago and diesel longevity has decreased. Today there's only one reason to buy a diesel: you get the rated hp at approximately half the rpm. That makes for much more comfortable towing of big loads long distances. All that said, even 7.3 gas is barely adequate in the heavier end of class 6. And by the time you're in Class 7, something in the range of a gas 9.0L would be most welcome. 7 ET, IMO your first paragraph says it all. I know I'm a broken record on this subject but those 429's you referred to, 25 years ago in an F-700 could be built with a 37,600 lb GVW rating and a 60,000lb GCW rating. The 7.3 far exceeds the HP/torque figures for the old Super Duty 477 and I think come close to beating the 534, never mind the 429. One big difference is the old SD's had low end torque-like 2000 RPM. And when the SD's came out in 1958, they would go up against a 220 Cummins or a turboed Mack at 225 and hold their own. I think everyone today is conditioned to ridiculous HP and Torque numbers in 3/4 ton pick ups! Does the SAE have a different rating system than it did 25 years ago? Time will tell but when we see the 7.3 show up in 650/750 my bet is it will be adequate for most users-in particular when their wallets are fatter by 8 or 10 grand? And trust me, I understand if a guy runs max weights and does 30,000 miles a year the 7.3 will not be the engine for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 On 1/24/2020 at 4:22 PM, 7Mary3 said: Around here CNG GGE is much cheaper than gasoline too. The only place I have seen that is in the TX panhandle/OK ! It actually sells for a premium here in SE MI ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 $2.91/GGE today. 87 unleaded sells for around $3.65/gal.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 On 1/26/2020 at 9:44 AM, Bob Rosadini said: 7 ET, IMO your first paragraph says it all. I know I'm a broken record on this subject but those 429's you referred to, 25 years ago in an F-700 could be built with a 37,600 lb GVW rating and a 60,000lb GCW rating. The 7.3 far exceeds the HP/torque figures for the old Super Duty 477 and I think come close to beating the 534, never mind the 429. One big difference is the old SD's had low end torque-like 2000 RPM. And when the SD's came out in 1958, they would go up against a 220 Cummins or a turboed Mack at 225 and hold their own. I think everyone today is conditioned to ridiculous HP and Torque numbers in 3/4 ton pick ups! Does the SAE have a different rating system than it did 25 years ago? Time will tell but when we see the 7.3 show up in 650/750 my bet is it will be adequate for most users-in particular when their wallets are fatter by 8 or 10 grand? And trust me, I understand if a guy runs max weights and does 30,000 miles a year the 7.3 will not be the engine for him. What I want to know is why the mediums got the 429 and not the 460. They're literally the same engine aside from the rotating assembly. Seems like the 460 delivering the same powerband at a lower RPM would have been more ideal for the big trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) The 6.2 has a very linear hp curve so it will be smooth as does the 7.3l....the 6.2l has around 350ish ft-lbs of torque down low (at 1600ishrpm's) where it is needed while the 7.3l on fords graph puts it around 400ish ft-lbs at 1600ishrpm....so i guess for 1700clams you get about a 13% increase in torque down where you need...well its bigger engine so numbers will be higher......not exactly steller increase....in trucks that pull hp numbers are useless...torque is king until 5252rpm threshhold where hp overtakes torque...so bob you are right about stupid marketing games Edited January 28, 2020 by snooter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 On 1/26/2020 at 7:15 AM, twintornados said: Ford is working with Motiv as a QVM to upfit F59 to their EPIC specifications... https://www.motivps.com/motivps/portfolio-items/epic59-allelectric-typec-schoolbus/ PS: Bluebird already offers a Vision with EV power... https://www.blue-bird.com/buses/vision/vision-electric-bus Reminds me of Porky Pig... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, 7Mary3 said: $2.91/GGE today. 87 unleaded sells for around $3.65/gal.. WOW ! Where are you at ?? CNG GGE is in the same range here, but 87 unleaded in under $2.50/gal. There are several states where CNG is less than $2.00/GGE (DE $1.49, OK $1.54, AR $1.59) A few years back, I worked for one of the big CNG conversion companies. As 87 octane approached $4/gal there was a lot more interest in CMG for light duty vehicles. Edited January 28, 2020 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 hours ago, theoldwizard said: WOW ! Where are you at ?? CNG GGE is in the same range here, but 87 unleaded in under $2.50/gal. There are several states where CNG is less than $2.00/GGE (DE $1.49, OK $1.54, AR $1.59) A few years back, I worked for one of the big CNG conversion companies. As 87 octane approached $4/gal there was a lot more interest in CMG for light duty vehicles. Southern California. The price difference is due to the high taxes and oxygenation additives in the gasoline here. Of course CNG has no additives (except for oderent) and the tax for road use is much less (CNG vehicles pay a flat fee yearly). Right now, there is a tremendous glut of natural gas, I wouldn't be surprised to see the price fall. Also, the next round of new diesel emissions standards will likely make diesels less efficient and even more unreliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, snooter said: The 6.2 has a very linear hp curve so it will be smooth as does the 7.3l....the 6.2l has around 350ish ft-lbs of torque down low (at 1600ishrpm's) where it is needed while the 7.3l on fords graph puts it around 400ish ft-lbs at 1600ishrpm....so i guess for 1700clams you get about a 13% increase in torque down where you need...well its bigger engine so numbers will be higher......not exactly steller increase....in trucks that pull hp numbers are useless...torque is king until 5252rpm threshhold where hp overtakes torque...so bob you are right about stupid marketing games What the 7.3 does give buyers is roughly another 4,000 lb of towing capacity and to some work trucks, that will be an advantage where they would have needed a more expensive diesel. I suspect that there’s a bit of trickery going here and as Bob mentioned earlier, the old 429s in F700 had a much higher GCW. Maybe modem customers expect their fully loaded trucks to fly over Ike Gauntlet at 60 mph with max GCW. Maybe it’s simple than that with Ford steering those customers to the more fuel efficient diesels....maybe I’m wrong but perhaps a little more GCW for the 7.3 to get it into the 25k-27k GCW may have netted Ford a lot more buyers.. deja vu? I think we’ve had this conversation.... Edited January 28, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 hours ago, jpd80 said: What the 7.3 does give buyers is roughly another 4,000 lb of towing capacity and to some work trucks, that will be an advantage where they would have needed a more expensive diesel. I suspect that there’s a bit of trickery going here and as Bob mentioned earlier, the old 429s in F700 had a much higher GCW. Maybe modem customers expect their fully loaded trucks to fly over Ike Gauntlet at 60 mph with max GCW. Maybe it’s simple than that with Ford steering those customers to the more fuel efficient diesels....maybe I’m wrong but perhaps a little more GCW for the 7.3 to get it into the 25k-27k GCW may have netted Ford a lot more buyers.. deja vu? I think we’ve had this conversation.... Yes but even with 7.3l you still end up with 3:73 gears depending on many factors in f350...the 7.3l was for f250 and 3.55 rear gears for highway mpg and buyer does not need to pony up the extra cash for diesel.....gcwr is combined..it does not mean you can increase weight of trailer unless conditions are met (conventional, 5'ver, goose)...many factors but your stated 4000 gcwr increase is on f350 and not f250...for 3/4t truck buyers the ability to tow more and haul more with 3:55 rear gearing is huge while eeking out better mileage.....the 7.3l is already in the 25k to 27k gcwr weight rating put it requires 4:30 gears as it cant move that load with 3:73 let alone 3:55...it does not develope enuff torque low down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 18 hours ago, 7Mary3 said: Southern California. The price difference is due to the high taxes and oxygenation additives in the gasoline here. Of course CNG has no additives (except for oderent) and the tax for road use is much less (CNG vehicles pay a flat fee yearly). Right now, there is a tremendous glut of natural gas, I wouldn't be surprised to see the price fall. Also, the next round of new diesel emissions standards will likely make diesels less efficient and even more unreliable. I know of the "glut", but don't except that to last forever ! CNG requires lots of cubic inches to make power. Even the 7.3L would likely be marginal for MD applications. I don't recall what the "motor octane" is, so I don't know if turbos would work well. The interesting footnote is other than a couple of extra sensors/actuators on pressure regulator, the stock PCM will do the job ! Ford would be smart if they released drawings on the 7.3L intake so that someone could make a CNG version with mounting bosses for the those injectors. Duel fuel !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 14 hours ago, jpd80 said: What the 7.3 does give buyers is roughly another 4,000 lb of towing capacity and to some work trucks, that will be an advantage where they would have needed a more expensive diesel. I suspect that there’s a bit of trickery going here and as Bob mentioned earlier, the old 429s in F700 had a much higher GCW. Maybe modem customers expect their fully loaded trucks to fly over Ike Gauntlet at 60 mph with max GCW. Maybe it’s simple than that with Ford steering those customers to the more fuel efficient diesels....maybe I’m wrong but perhaps a little more GCW for the 7.3 to get it into the 25k-27k GCW may have netted Ford a lot more buyers.. deja vu? I think we’ve had this conversation.... I think you nailed that! Not only more more fuel efficient (if your annual miles pay that out), but as we know, at Ford ATP is a figure they love to publish for the benefit of the industry "analysts". Maybe GM -or International for sure- when they finally come out with their gas V-8 for the JV class 4,5,6's will have higher GCW ratings. Watch Ford move then to rerate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, theoldwizard said: I don't recall what the "motor octane" is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 hours ago, theoldwizard said: I know of the "glut", but don't except that to last forever ! CNG requires lots of cubic inches to make power. Even the 7.3L would likely be marginal for MD applications. I don't recall what the "motor octane" is, so I don't know if turbos would work well. The interesting footnote is other than a couple of extra sensors/actuators on pressure regulator, the stock PCM will do the job ! Ford would be smart if they released drawings on the 7.3L intake so that someone could make a CNG version with mounting bosses for the those injectors. Duel fuel !! True, the CNG engine we use in our Freightliners is the 9L Cummins/Westport ISL-G. I think the 7.3L will make a fine CNG engine for trucks up to 20,000 lbs. GVW or so, but you are right, it's a bit too small for larger medium duty applications. I don't think you can get any meaningful displacement increases out of it, bore spacing is too tight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, snooter said: Yes but even with 7.3l you still end up with 3:73 gears depending on many factors in f350...the 7.3l was for f250 and 3.55 rear gears for highway mpg and buyer does not need to pony up the extra cash for diesel.....gcwr is combined..it does not mean you can increase weight of trailer unless conditions are met (conventional, 5'ver, goose)...many factors but your stated 4000 gcwr increase is on f350 and not f250...for 3/4t truck buyers the ability to tow more and haul more with 3:55 rear gearing is huge while eeking out better mileage.....the 7.3l is already in the 25k to 27k gcwr weight rating put it requires 4:30 gears as it cant move that load with 3:73 let alone 3:55...it does not develope enuff torque low down Years ago a 429 powered F700 with 217 hp and 365 lb ft was rated at way more GVW and GCW, it had les low end torque and gearing than the current 7.3 and 10- speed automatic. Everything needs to be considered in context and it’s my opinion that Ford draws the line on towing capacity in SDs to clearly differentiate between gas buyers and diesel buyers. While I agree with you that the 7.3 in F250 is aimed at more relaxed towing with taller gearing and better economy, it is the F350 where the disparity really shows up. Ford is quite happy to limit max towing to 20,000 lbs with the 7.3 and 4.3 rear axle..... Sure the 6.7 PS has a lot more torque to tow up to 35,000 lbs but the fact remains that gas engines use extra gearing and greater horsepower to get towing loads started. i think Ford’s biggest concern with offering a 25,000 lb GCWR would be hurting diesel sales in the null area just above current gasoline limits. To get 4,000 lbs extre GCWR over the 6.2, the 7.3 has a mere 40 lbs more torque which makes me think that it’s a soft upper limit that can be lifted over the life of the product, Ford is doing just enough to stay in front of GM’s 6.6 gas engine. Call me cynical but I bet there’s provisions for future improvements to the 7.3 that allows it to stay on top. Edited January 29, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 18 hours ago, 7Mary3 said: True, the CNG engine we use in our Freightliners is the 9L Cummins/Westport ISL-G. I think the 7.3L will make a fine CNG engine for trucks up to 20,000 lbs. GVW or so, but you are right, it's a bit too small for larger medium duty applications. I don't think you can get any meaningful displacement increases out of it, bore spacing is too tight! True, but with such a robust bottom end, how hard would it be to raise the deck height and add stroke ? It will never come close to 9L, but 8+L would be great for medium duty gassers. If the glut of natural gas continues for awhile, the talk of CNG in Class 3 - Class 5 and light duty vehicles is going to come to the forefront AGAIN ! The biggest thing holding CNG back is the cost of the tank. Someone did introduce a carbon fiber tank, but until demand (i.e. volume) increases the prices will remain too high for most applications (chicken and egg syndrome). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 7.3L with a "hotter" tune for CNG to increase torque will work just fine in medium duty. The issue is the cost of the prep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.