Bus Conversion Magazine Bulletin Board
December 18, 2017, 10:45:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This BB is intended for the sole purpose of sharing conversion and bus related information among visitors to our web site. These rules must be followed in order for us to continue this free exchange of info. No bad mouthing of any business or individual is permitted. Absolutely no items for sale are to be posted, except in the Spare Tire board. Interested in placing a classified or web ad, please contact our advertising dept. at (657) 221-0432 or e-mail to: info@busconversions.com.

   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FORD POWERSTROKE  (Read 1229 times)
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:54:02 AM »

I know that this article is about fire apparatus. But it does show that these smaller engines are indeed capable of producing much more power then years ago. PIERCE isn't stupid and I really don't think they would offer this powertrain unless they are confident that it will be good for a pumper where higher power isn't needed.
My only question is why they just didn't use the CUMMINS ISB which is the same size and HP ratings. Oh well, I'm sure there is a spaghetti plate reason.
http://www.piercemfg.com/fordpowerstroke
Logged
brmax
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 497




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2017, 05:12:27 AM »

Most likely because its a ford chassis?. Of course we know the powerstroke is actually a renamed navistar engine and ecm. So they have ford over controling the electronics vs navistar standard electronics. Thats always been a weird issue at times.

Good day
Floyd
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 05:14:18 AM by brmax » Logged

1992 MC9
6V92
Allison
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2017, 05:34:59 AM »

That's not accurate. The 6.7L POWERSTROKE is built by FORD. They started building their own in house version a few years ago because of all of the problems with NAVISTAR's supplied engine. Many lawsuits resulted because for some reason, NAVISTAR decided that quality was no longer important. Not just that POWERSTOKE for FORD SUPERDUTY pickups but among the larger MAXFORCE engines. At one time they built great engines but those days are over.
As for PIERCE, that SABER chassis is a chassis that is built by PIERCE. That is their entry level custom chassis. A CUMMINS ISL is the standard engine in that one.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 05:46:34 AM by CrabbyMilton » Logged
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5905


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2017, 05:57:20 AM »

My understanding is that Ford just came out with a Gen II version of the 6.7 diesel that addresses most of the relatively few issues that it had, turbo, EGR, some sensors.  But it gets very good power and torque from a fairly compact package.  I find that most issues that come with modern diesel engines, including the International/Ford 6.0 (which I've owned for years), 6.4 etc, are down to over-tuning of the package that they got from International without addressing fundamental issues that come with boosting HP and torque by a third from the original design.  But I have to say I ain't buying anything that has variable vane turbo on it ever again...  Mine's on it's third.

Brian
Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18599




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2017, 06:02:01 AM »

The 6.7 Ford diesel is not a bad engine since Ford has the kinks straighten out now nice quite with plenty of power they are starting to use those in Class A motorhomes chassis replacing the V10 gas engine .
Cummins has had good run for several years in the smaller engines now they are getting more and more competitors and losing some of their market share    
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2017, 06:26:22 AM »

From what I saw, the FORD 6.8L V10 is the sole engine in their class A. People have asked why there is not POWERSTROKE offered in their class A. The answer has to do with cost and/or demand. You can get the POWERSTROKE in the SUPER DUTY but not the class A stripped.
Word had it that the old V10's days are numbered and will be replaced with a 7.0L V8 in a few years.
I never drove one but I have ridden in several shuttle vans with that V10 over the years and that is one sweet sounding smooth engine and tried and true.
Logged
lostagain
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2381


MC5C




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2017, 06:36:36 AM »

I have owned 6.0L Powersmokes since 03 when they came out. They had problems, but when set up properly and "bullet proofed", they are a great engine. (I am rebuilding one now). The new 6.7L, since 2011, is an excellent engine. Ford really has it figured out now.

JC
Logged

JC
Blackie AB
1977 MC5C, 6V92/HT740
DoubleEagle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 888





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2017, 06:38:05 AM »

I've got the IDI 7.3L in one truck, and the first generation 7.3L Powerstroke in another. They both are still doing just fine, and I have no desire to enter into the horrors of the current over-powered versions. When the 6.0L came out it was a disaster initially, until many improvements were made. The newer versions have more power (when they run correctly), and are quieter, but I like to announce my arrival when I pull in, and I like to get my money's worth for more than one decade (or two or three).  Wink
Logged

Walter
Dayton, Ohio
1975 Silvereagle Model 05, 8V71, 4 speed Spicer
1982 Eagle Model 10, 6V92, 5 speed Spicer
1984 Eagle Model 10, 6V92 w/Jacobs, Allison HT740
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8473





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2017, 07:36:52 AM »

Cummins 6.7 (and 5.9) are one of those well designed small engines that can take it-much like the Chev 350. Cummins marine has a 6.7 power rating of 550hp from the factory. I normally don't like Cummins, but both the ISB 6.7 and ISL 8.9 are well designed engines. All cast iron-compared to most that have gone to aluminum heads (including Ford's 6.7).
Even though Ford doesn't install the V-10 in pickups anymore, they are still making a boat load of the engines for class C Econoline front motorhomes and any gasoline powered class A since Ford is the only chassis manufacturer for gasoline powered motorhomes. And Ford also makes the V-10 for standby gasoline, natural gas, and propane generators.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18599




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2017, 08:10:53 AM »

Case was the designer of the 5.9 I saw the first ones being cast at the Case Foundry in Pryor Ok to replace their old 400 cubic engine they used with the balance shafts, they had another 4 banger to replace the old out dated 188 and 208 that had been around for 50 years so don't give Cummins all the credit Tenneco spent millions on development with Cummins back in the late 70's     
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2017, 09:27:45 AM »

Well I'm sure CASE didn't go away empty handed in that deal. $$$$
But that was circa 40 years ago and it has the CUMMINS name on it forever now but I guess sometimes names tend to stick.
Some still refer to DETROIT DIESEL as GM even though GM has had no affiliation with them for over 30 years.
Tom is right about that FORD V10 and I'll also add that BLUEBIRD offers that engine in their VISION in gasoline, CNG and propane as an alternative to the CUMMINS ISB and now that new ISV5.0 V8.
Logged
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18599




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2017, 10:18:31 AM »

Workhorse is the only competition Ford has in the RV chassis lot of people prefer the 8.1 GM engine over the V10, same hp with 2 less cylinders plus you can get it in pusher type.Only thing I never liked about the V10 Ford they eat exhaust manifolds @ over 400 bucks ea from Ford they did upgrade the studs to S/S studs to stop the stud problem
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 10:22:23 AM by luvrbus » Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2017, 10:41:14 AM »

That's interesting and I didn't know that WORKHORSE was getting back into the RV chassis business again. But nothing on their website yet but perhaps they're working on it.
The early FORD V10's had problems but most of those have long been corrected.
I also read that when WORKHORSE gets rolling again, they'll supposedly have a PSI 8.8L V8 gasoline engine.
Logged
DoubleEagle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 888





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2017, 07:13:25 PM »

Speaking of unknown credits, the Series 60 is based on a John Deere block, if I recall correctly, and Penske developed the heads.
Logged

Walter
Dayton, Ohio
1975 Silvereagle Model 05, 8V71, 4 speed Spicer
1982 Eagle Model 10, 6V92, 5 speed Spicer
1984 Eagle Model 10, 6V92 w/Jacobs, Allison HT740
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8473





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2017, 07:29:24 AM »

John Deere worked with Detroit to develope the Series 60. If you look at John Deere's 12 liter engine, it looks very much like a Series 60, but with a conventional Bosch type fuel injection pump.
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18599




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2017, 07:44:21 AM »

John Deere did the casting on the old 8v71 engines ,the series 50 uses the John Deere balancing setup,Deere and Detroit was close for years till M/B came into the picture
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
HB of CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2017, 09:29:59 AM »

Not enough power or durability?  The specs look very weak for a fire apparatus.  My old fire department recently took delivery of a Pierce but it had a 500 hp DD15 with some sort of 6 speed auto?  One hundred miles per hour with 6th gear flat wide open.

330 hp and weak torque inside a 42,000 pound Engine is not enough.

They also spend much money on pre lubers and various pre heaters for oil, coolant, what not.  The Type 1 Engine was going to a Company responding close to 5000 times yearly.  Buying low ball sometimes is not the cheapest or best way to go. 

Awhile back they let me drive a fairly new "Triple", (known today as a type 1 engine) and I was amazed at the power.  Much faster than our old American LaFrance engines used back in about 1975.  Also A/C, P/S, A/T, air seats, air bags, etc.  Wow!  Smiley
Logged
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2017, 01:05:48 PM »

I know. When I first saw the article, I wondered why they just didn't take the easy route and just offer a 300-350HP version of the CUMMINS ISL. That way they would have had the same engine in place that is much easier from an engineering standpoint and the ISL is capable of higher torque anyway which is better for pumping and the ALLISON is long proven for pumper applications. Not saying the FORD tranny is bad but there could be much fingernail biting for awhile
Not every dept. needs 400-600HP but here are a couple theories of mine why they may have done this.

Perhaps a POWERSTROKE 6.7 in the SABER would be aimed at an application such as a rescue or command post where higher torque and power won't be needed since it won't be pumping.

Perhaps since many departments already have the POWERSTROKE 6.7 in their ambulances so there could be a good argument for standardization providing the pumper only needs a 1000-1250gpm pump.
Logged
HB of CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2017, 01:28:04 PM »

Ambulances or smaller more agile Type 3 light engines MIGHT get away with the POWERSTROKE  IF the application deemed so. 

Pumping does not require that much HP or Torque.  It is getting the apparatus down the road to the fire that requires the heavy horse power.

Long ago, far away.  Of course this was before the dawn of time or about 1972 when I started my fire career.  Everything today is different.

Sad  Sad  I can't go back again.  Oh well!  Sad  Sad
Logged
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2017, 03:41:34 AM »

Like I said, engine technology has really come a long way in the last 40 years. I remember some of the apparatus around here that had huge WAUKESHA gasoline engines and they often topped out in the 200-250hp range so 300hp was considered a lot of power back then.
That POWERSTROKE could be a good donor for something like a FLXIBLE CLIPPER.
Logged
Dreadnought
"HMS Dreadnought"- 1964 MCI MC5
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


Live Fast, Live Well, Live Free!


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2017, 06:23:39 AM »

I have owned 6.0L Powersmokes since 03 when they came out. They had problems, but when set up properly and "bullet proofed", they are a great engine. (I am rebuilding one now). The new 6.7L, since 2011, is an excellent engine. Ford really has it figured out now.

JC

Well said!

Folks in the US panic and spread false info from this. The 6.0 litre was badly executed and I blame Navistar for that. Big lazy bureaucratic company more into empire building than engineering properly. However the 6 litre installed in the class 5 durastar application was dependable.

The issues of this and the later 6.4 aren't insurmountable. Mainly EGR and head gasket issues in the Ford truck application. And yet folks over state this on and on and on. If I owned a good one that I fixed up- what would be worse would be listening to folks all warning me about the issues.
These issues can be resolved- it's just whether the initial second hand purchase price is low enough to warrant spending that much money resolving the issues permanently and/or whether I love the vehicle enough.

The same US panic exists about Jaguar engines etc

There are other engines- like GM- that can never do any wrong. My Escalade with its L92 version of the LS motor has been one of the worst engines and cars I've ever owned and I've owned some terrible motors, including Alfa Romeos and Fiats. Rear main seal leaks, piston slap, clattery, rough idle. My Jaguar supercharged V8 by comparison has been a paragon of refinement and dependability and torque.
Logged

Live Fast, Live Well, Live Free

1964 MCI MC5 8v71
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2017, 07:02:09 AM »

It's all about a combination of personal experience and perception.
That does surprise me about your ESCALADE. That engine has been around forever in some form but I guess whenever revisions are made, someone must have goofed up something in the process.
Logged
Dreadnought
"HMS Dreadnought"- 1964 MCI MC5
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


Live Fast, Live Well, Live Free!


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2017, 08:33:36 AM »

It's all about a combination of personal experience and perception.
That does surprise me about your ESCALADE. That engine has been around forever in some form but I guess whenever revisions are made, someone must have goofed up something in the process.

Knowing GM very well and having friends there, they probably had a perfectly good engine and then decided to "VA/VE" the F*** out of it with sourced parts from China and the far east till it was rubbish.

Big companys have the potential to make outstanding quality but they also have a lot of greed and can squeeze everything out. Normally the market would take care of this- but in this case blinded fan boys seem to worship GM and distort stuff
Logged

Live Fast, Live Well, Live Free

1964 MCI MC5 8v71
CrabbyMilton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 941




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2017, 09:31:53 AM »

I guess you have to conclude that in many ways, GM is just responding to market demand. While you may appreciate heritage and quality as do I and fellow "build it here" people, a great number of the masses don't care where it comes from so long as they get their stuff. If it breaks because of lousy quality or lack of maintenance, no problem they'll just go and buy another one.
Perhaps it's good that GM got out of the bus building business decades ago since who knows how good or bad they would be now.
I'm not sure about the greed end of it since if it was true greed, you would want to build it and stand behind it instead of building sub standard crap and creating many PO'd customers. Can't make much money if the factories close and can't sell cars and trucks that way. Granted, years ago GM only had competition from FORD and CHRYSLER and a handful of others but now there are many more builders but GM still has that old mentality.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 12:56:07 PM by CrabbyMilton » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!