Thinking About (ok bought) F-350 with PowerStroke 6.0L - Questions

That's great news, @Ted DuPuis. This thread has been fascinating to me. I know gas engines pretty well but haven't had a diesel since the 1980ish IZUZU P'up. I had no idea of the 1) power available or 2) hot rodding that's going on.
 
Great story to follow.
 
Glad to hear you got it sorted out. Even with the parts cost, I'm sure the truck was still a fair value for what you paid for it. You may just want to keep it around for a while now that you know the injectors/O-rings are new and some electrical gremlins are corrected.
 
That's great news, @Ted DuPuis. This thread has been fascinating to me. I know gas engines pretty well but haven't had a diesel since the 1980ish IZUZU P'up. I had no idea of the 1) power available or 2) hot rodding that's going on.

Diesels definitely changed a lot starting in the early 2000s. They're a lot of fun with how advanced the systems are. But, the problem is that as they wear, things don't work as well. So a refresh becomes in order of these systems as they age. I don't know if the Duramax or Cummins engines are less prone to this than the PowerStroke 6.0, but I doubt it. I've seen a lot of Cummins engines that seem to grenade around 200-250k due to an injector sticking open. So really, some preventative maintenance seems worthwhile.

I also expect that some of the newer direct injection gasoline engines (like @jesse 's EcoBoost) will likely have the same issues as they age, although I'm sure that Ford has improved the systems by now.
 
Diesels definitely changed a lot starting in the early 2000s.

I have to hand it to GM for doing what they could in the late 70's to sour a wide swath of the US population on small vehicle diesels for decades.
 
I have to hand it to GM for doing what they could in the late 70's to sour a wide swath of the US population on small vehicle diesels for decades.

Yeah. Their 350 ci V-8 gas to diesel conversion engine was a predictable disaster. I was a high school aged "gear head" in those days and I remember the fiasco well.
 
I have to hand it to GM for doing what they could in the late 70's to sour a wide swath of the US population on small vehicle diesels for decades.

I'mma let you finish, but... VW and Mercedes were doing that long before GM! ;)

VW did their best to continue to tick off everyone about diesels here recently, too. Which is sad, considering they had a mid sized wagon that got 40 MPG highway long before any of the hybrids or electrics got there, doing it with a heavier car that could actually carry large items and do it with much more driver and passenger comfort.
 
I have to hand it to GM for doing what they could in the late 70's to sour a wide swath of the US population on small vehicle diesels for decades.

Yeah, those 350 diesels had a lot of issues.

It really wasn't until the early 2000s when the technology and performance of the diesels in light duty trucks were such that they became more desirable. Before that it was more hard core diesel nuts who bought them in this country.

But the prices have gone up. When I bought my Dodge, the diesel was a $6,500 option. Now it's more like a $10k option. I think a lot of that cost ends up being in the emissions equipment that goes on, not to mention the fact that people will pay for it.
 
Hell, even the 6.5L was crap. Just higher-displacement crap.

I came to a similar conclusion when the #8 connecting rod made the decision to come out and say hello at 173k miles on my 6.5.

But unlike the 350 diesel which was a gas engine converted to a diesel, the 6.5 was actually designed as a diesel from the start. It just was designed poorly.
 
I came to a similar conclusion when the #8 connecting rod made the decision to come out and say hello at 173k miles on my 6.5.

But unlike the 350 diesel which was a gas engine converted to a diesel, the 6.5 was actually designed as a diesel from the start. It just was designed poorly.

Correct. I had an opportunity to pick up an early-90s Chevy 2500 4x4 truck with less than 50K on the 6.5L. Truck was in immaculate shape in and out, was owned by my wife's grandfather and rarely driven. Pulled a fifth wheel infrequently with it for a decade or so, the rest of its time was spent on snowy days or runs to the hardware store. I just couldn't bring myself to pay for a truck with that engine combo, despite it being in good condition. If it had been the same year Ford 7.3L, or Dodge Cummins, I'd have jumped on it.
 
I came to a similar conclusion when the #8 connecting rod made the decision to come out and say hello at 173k miles on my 6.5.

But unlike the 350 diesel which was a gas engine converted to a diesel, the 6.5 was actually designed as a diesel from the start. It just was designed poorly.

One big problem the 5.7 diesel had was that people kept putting gasoline in it.

There are still people that use and drive the 5.7 diesel today, with modifications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
One big problem the 5.7 diesel had was that people kept putting gasoline in it.

There are still people that use and drive the 5.7 diesel today, with modifications.

The other big problem with the old 5.7 is it couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag.
 
Correct. I had an opportunity to pick up an early-90s Chevy 2500 4x4 truck with less than 50K on the 6.5L. Truck was in immaculate shape in and out, was owned by my wife's grandfather and rarely driven. Pulled a fifth wheel infrequently with it for a decade or so, the rest of its time was spent on snowy days or runs to the hardware store. I just couldn't bring myself to pay for a truck with that engine combo, despite it being in good condition. If it had been the same year Ford 7.3L, or Dodge Cummins, I'd have jumped on it.

My first truck was a 6.5, bought with 142k on it. I wanted a diesel because I knew I'd be towing with it and doing a lot of highway miles. This truck was in my budget and at 142k on it was lowerish miles. I put 30k miles on it in one year before it threw a rod. When I bought it, it had one cylinder that was louder than the others. We convinced ourselves it was piston slap, but I think it was a rod knock, and that's why the truck got put up for sale. So really, pretty impressive it lasted 30k miles before throwing a rod if it really did have a rod knock that long. In those 30k miles the truck was otherwise basically MX-free other than fluid routine maintenance, a seized caliper, and the AC not working when I bought it.

One could argue I haven't learned my lesson since I went and bought an '03 PowerStroke 6.0. We'll see. For now I'm happy with it, but I was also happy with my 6.5 until it threw a rod. :)
 
The other big problem with the old 5.7 is it couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag.

Haha.... yeah, at only 120 HP and later reduced to 105 HP, they weren't known for massive acceleration...:rofl::rofl:

The biggest problem with the 5.7 diesel was head bolts. Don't believe the legend that they simply slapped new heads on the standard block. The new block was reinforced and was built of a sturdier cast-iron alloy, but blocks weren't really the problem. Most of the trouble came from the head bolts and the fuel system.

Diesel engines have more and stronger head bolts to compensate for the diesel's higher cylinder pressure. The Oldsmobile diesel maintained the same 10-bolt pattern and head bolts as gasoline engines, so that common production tooling could be used for both the gasoline and diesel engines.

The insufficient head bolts stretched or broke and led to head-gasket failures. Once the head gasket was breached, coolant leaked into the cylinders, and because clearances in a diesel engine are so tight, invariably this lead to hydrolock and severe engine damage.

One of the cost-reduction choices was to omit a water separator in the fuel system. During that time period, water-contaminated diesel was quite common, and high-quality diesel systems then and now include a water separator that, no surprise, remove water from the fuel. Diesel systems are highly susceptible to rust and any other corrosive elements. Without the water separator, corrosion was common in the Olds diesels' injection pumps, fuel lines and injectors, and that caused failed injection pumps and other maladies.

So....owners also took a page out of the gasoline engine owner's playbook and dumped anhydrous alcohol (also known as dry gas) into their fuel tanks to alleviate the water problem. Dry gas chemically bonds with water and puts it back into the gasoline solution, which allows it to pass through the engine without issue. But in the Olds diesel, the dry gas also ate the fuel pump seals and other delicate components.

There were certainly other issues with the engine.... a stretchy fuel-pump timing chain and poor dealer service training....which I went through in an 8 hour class.

The Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel was a hurry up answer to the increasingly stringent federal emissions and fuel-economy regulations that began in 1972, which diesels were exempt from at the time. Unfortunately it was just the wrong answer.

Years later we took a 5.7 Olds diesel block and modified it to work as a block for a race engine. It worked very well until the rules changed allowing us to use after market blocks.
 
Funny thing.

Many moons ago, when the GM 350 diesel was in its heyday (so to speak), I was good friend of a Service Director for a Cadillac dealer, and while visiting the dealership, he showed me a huge stack of oily crates, each of which contained a recently-removed 350 diesel engine. He told me that the majority of them had failed because of lax maintenance (principally, the failure to get timely oil changes), but that the dealer's policy was that, if their customers' cars with the diesel engine failed, they were putting in a new engine, for free; at the time we spoke, General Motors had not yet confirmed whether they would pay the dealership for the engines, but the dealership's principals committed to replacing the engines regardless of whether General Motors paid or not (I think that, in the end, General Motors paid for most of them). Their policy was, "customers for life," and they had no interest in losing a customer over a substandard engine.

He also told me that, when maintained properly, the engines did not fail at such an alarming rate, but their position was that the cars were marketed as Cadillacs, purchasers had reasonably high expectations and the dealership had no interest in punishing their customers for trusting the product and the dealer selling it.

Through this policy (and the customer-centered doctrine that leads to the policy) they have retained customers very well over the years, and the same family still thrives in the auto business today.
 
I had a 6.5 Turbo Diesel and thought it was a good engine. It didn't have anywhere near the power of the Cummins or Powerstroke of the time but it was better than a small block and even the early 454 engines. My only issues were glow plugs and pump drivers. I had 250,000 miles on mine with a whole lot of modifications. I think it's biggest undoing was the fact it wasn't intercooled.

I would have to tow for a living or absolutely need the max capacity to own a modern diesel. That is the only way you can justify all the added cost and upkeep. Gas engines are so strong now and with the multi speed transmissions they can tow anything 95% of what most truck owners need.
 
Yeah, those 350 diesels had a lot of issues.

It really wasn't until the early 2000s when the technology and performance of the diesels in light duty trucks were such that they became more desirable. Before that it was more hard core diesel nuts who bought them in this country.

But the prices have gone up. When I bought my Dodge, the diesel was a $6,500 option. Now it's more like a $10k option. I think a lot of that cost ends up being in the emissions equipment that goes on, not to mention the fact that people will pay for it.

For the farm, we got one of them new 350 (5.7L) Diesel trucks to replace a rust bucket 350 cid C10. The C10 was relegated out to the fence row and the diesel truck was put into service. That thing would not pull itself let alone a hay wagon, grain wagon or a loaded stock trailer. As soon as the warranty was up we retrieved the rust bucket C10 from the fence row and swapped it's gas burner 350 engine for the diesel. The last I knew the 350 diesel was still in the bed of the rust bucket C10 out in the fence row.
 
For the farm, we got one of them new 350 (5.7L) Diesel trucks to replace a rust bucket 350 cid C10. The C10 was relegated out to the fence row and the diesel truck was put into service. That thing would not pull itself let alone a hay wagon, grain wagon or a loaded stock trailer. As soon as the warranty was up we retrieved the rust bucket C10 from the fence row and swapped it's gas burner 350 engine for the diesel. The last I knew the 350 diesel was still in the bed of the rust bucket C10 out in the fence row.
I towed a power swivel trailer (oilfield thing) once with a diesel 350. Took a long time to get going and took longer to stop.
 
I had a 6.5 Turbo Diesel and thought it was a good engine. It didn't have anywhere near the power of the Cummins or Powerstroke of the time but it was better than a small block and even the early 454 engines. My only issues were glow plugs and pump drivers. I had 250,000 miles on mine with a whole lot of modifications. I think it's biggest undoing was the fact it wasn't intercooled.

I would have to tow for a living or absolutely need the max capacity to own a modern diesel. That is the only way you can justify all the added cost and upkeep. Gas engines are so strong now and with the multi speed transmissions they can tow anything 95% of what most truck owners need.

I agree that I thought the 6.5 would've really benefitted from an intercooler. If mine hadn't blown up, that was on the short list to add. I bet it would've made a significant improvement.

When I bought my Dodge I was towing for a living. Now I don't and would be fine with a gasser, but couldn't find one and I like driving the diesel more (although my V10s never required the level of work I've had to put into the 6.0 to get it up to speed). It is funny when I pop the hood on the Excursion (with the V10) and say "Wow, this engine looks so small." Compared to the 6.0 with the turbo and all its piping, extra hoses, etc., it is.

Like I've said, we'll see long term whether I regret the decision or not.
 
Ended up putting some money into "nice to have" upgrades for the truck. Got a leather wrapped steering wheel (old plastic one was pretty shot) and got the interior out of a 2009 King Ranch cheap - front and rear seats, front center console, and door panels.

Now I have to find the wiring diagrams for the seats and the door panels for the items that won't just bolt up. This driver's seat is heated and the seats being removed from the truck are not, so that will add some complexity to the wiring, especially with the switch being on the driver's door panel rather than the seat itself.
 
Now that OSH is over, and to keep the truck talk going...

I found this entertaining.

 
Ended up putting some money into "nice to have" upgrades for the truck. Got a leather wrapped steering wheel (old plastic one was pretty shot) and got the interior out of a 2009 King Ranch cheap - front and rear seats, front center console, and door panels.

Now I have to find the wiring diagrams for the seats and the door panels for the items that won't just bolt up. This driver's seat is heated and the seats being removed from the truck are not, so that will add some complexity to the wiring, especially with the switch being on the driver's door panel rather than the seat itself.


You'll have to let me know how the 09 stuff bolts up. My 325k mile interior has seen better days (I'm not the cleanest/neatest person) and wrecked trucks pop up from time to time with decent interiors, but I've always limited myself to looking at 07 and older...

Ryan
 
You'll have to let me know how the 09 stuff bolts up. My 325k mile interior has seen better days (I'm not the cleanest/neatest person) and wrecked trucks pop up from time to time with decent interiors, but I've always limited myself to looking at 07 and older...

Ryan, the seats look to be easy. Because the driver's seat was a memory seat, I had to do some rewiring to eliminate the module. Some people on the forums say that it's a real pain to do, but really it's not bad. Took me about 15 minutes with a multimeter to figure out which wires were which, and then it all went together just fine. The bolt pattern is the same. I got the King Ranch saddle soap coming today to clean them up, but I think that part will be easy and worthwhile. I'm going to run a single power wire to both seats and the center console (for the cigarette lighter power) with a 30A fuse and then just use any convenient ground and that will take care of the power. If I wanted the seat belt chime to work properly then I could mess around some more with that wiring, but if you leave it unplugged on my '03 it just deactivates it. That's fine by me as I always put my seatbelt on and don't need a reminder.

The door panels look like they may be a bit more challenging electrically. It seems the window switches use the same connector, but the door lock and mirror switches do not. I'm going to have to investigate options here a bit more. I fully intend to get the door panels swapped on as my old ones are pretty beat up, but it may be a bit higher effort. We'll see.
 
Now that OSH is over, and to keep the truck talk going...

I found this entertaining.

It certainly was interesting. It makes me question if the service techs they interviewed had actually driven an F-150 with the 3.5L EB engine and the 5.0L, to even compare them. Obviously Ford has had some carbon build-up issues with the EB V6 because of how they did the direct injection/turbo setup, but I think most of them said "5.0 V8" simply because they like the idea of a V8 and the exhaust sound. One of the techs even talked about having more towing capacity with the 5.0L, which isn't true. The EB engine is rated over 800-1,000lbs more than the 5.0L (even though I wouldn't be towing 10K+ lbs with any engine in an F-150). I also kind of chuckled at the techs talking about the 5.0L having so much more power . . . it has 10more HP over the 3.5L EB, but the EB has 83ft-lbs more torque (which hits at 2,500rpm instead of the V8's 3,850rpm). Long story short, the video just makes it apparent that the service techs aren't that knowledgeable about any of it, other than perhaps seeing more 3.5L EB's in for maintenance/repairs. If you want the V8 "sound" or the simplicity of an NA V8, by all means buy the 5.0L, it's a great engine. However, if you really want the fastest acceleration, slightly better fuel economy, and maximum towing . . . the EB V6 is the clear winner. I love the sound of an American V8, I've got a Roush exhaust on my 5.4L, but I'm not about to knock the Twin-Turbo V6 because of the sound! Our 300ZX TT was more than enough proof to me that the turbo'd V6 can wipe the floor with the American LT1 V8.
 
It certainly was interesting. It makes me question if the service techs they interviewed had actually driven an F-150 with the 3.5L EB engine and the 5.0L, to even compare them.
I watched this before I bought it and concluded that none of the "techs" they were talking to had any idea what the hell they were talking about.

Obviously Ford has had some carbon build-up issues with the EB V6 because of how they did the direct injection/turbo setup
This is one of the reasons I bought a '17. The '17 has the Gen2 3.5 Ecoboost which includes port injection in addition to the direct injection to "fix" the carbon issue. Time will tell...
Long story short, the video just makes it apparent that the service techs aren't that knowledgeable about any of it, other than perhaps seeing more 3.5L EB's in for maintenance/repairs.
Last number I saw was that more than 60% of the new F150 sales were Ecoboost. I suspect it's a fair bit higher now. It's pretty much all they sell at the dealer I bought from.

I love the 3.5 ecoboost. You can be cruising along barely above idle RPM pulling a load at 80 MPH. Step into the gas and it's amazing how damn hard it will pull and accelerate from that speed. I have no double it would blow away my V8 Crown Vic in acceleration from 80 MPH and it'd do it while pulling.
 
I watched this before I bought it and concluded that none of the "techs" they were talking to had any idea what the hell they were talking about.


This is one of the reasons I bought a '17. The '17 has the Gen2 3.5 Ecoboost which includes port injection in addition to the direct injection to "fix" the carbon issue. Time will tell...

Last number I saw was that more than 60% of the new F150 sales were Ecoboost. I suspect it's a fair bit higher now. It's pretty much all they sell at the dealer I bought from.

I love the 3.5 ecoboost. You can be cruising along barely above idle RPM pulling a load at 80 MPH. Step into the gas and it's amazing how damn hard it will pull and accelerate from that speed. I have no double it would blow away my V8 Crown Vic in acceleration from 80 MPH and it'd do it while pulling.

No doubt. It's hard to break the mindset that the "biggest engine" isn't necessarily the best option. However, if Ford ever made an EB 5.0L, good lord you'd have everyone jumping on that one. It would kind of be laughable to be associated with "Eco", but boy it'd be a screamer.
 
No doubt. It's hard to break the mindset that the "biggest engine" isn't necessarily the best option. However, if Ford ever made an EB 5.0L, good lord you'd have everyone jumping on that one. It would kind of be laughable to be associated with "Eco", but boy it'd be a screamer.
I'd buy it. Fuel flow would be awful...

It was pretty amazing that I was able to go non-stop from Oshkosh Wisconsin to Lincoln Nebraska in it yesterday with about 30 miles of range remaining. This was while towing 2,000 lbs worth of pop up camper with a dirtbike in the box. Without towing - an easy 800 miles worth of range at 70 mph.
 
It certainly was interesting. It makes me question if the service techs they interviewed had actually driven an F-150 with the 3.5L EB engine and the 5.0L, to even compare them. Obviously Ford has had some carbon build-up issues with the EB V6 because of how they did the direct injection/turbo setup, but I think most of them said "5.0 V8" simply because they like the idea of a V8 and the exhaust sound. One of the techs even talked about having more towing capacity with the 5.0L, which isn't true. The EB engine is rated over 800-1,000lbs more than the 5.0L (even though I wouldn't be towing 10K+ lbs with any engine in an F-150). I also kind of chuckled at the techs talking about the 5.0L having so much more power . . . it has 10more HP over the 3.5L EB, but the EB has 83ft-lbs more torque (which hits at 2,500rpm instead of the V8's 3,850rpm). Long story short, the video just makes it apparent that the service techs aren't that knowledgeable about any of it, other than perhaps seeing more 3.5L EB's in for maintenance/repairs. If you want the V8 "sound" or the simplicity of an NA V8, by all means buy the 5.0L, it's a great engine. However, if you really want the fastest acceleration, slightly better fuel economy, and maximum towing . . . the EB V6 is the clear winner. I love the sound of an American V8, I've got a Roush exhaust on my 5.4L, but I'm not about to knock the Twin-Turbo V6 because of the sound! Our 300ZX TT was more than enough proof to me that the turbo'd V6 can wipe the floor with the American LT1 V8.

The only comment I heard from the techs that I thought was reasonable was that the 5.0 would be simpler to work on. I've never worked on either, but I know that the mod engines I've owned (4.6 V8s and 6.8 V10s) have been ridiculously easy to work on. Lots of room, easy to get at everything. While the PowerStroke 6.0 has been easier to work on than I thought it would be, it still is harder to work on than the modular engines, and I'm guessing that the 3.5 EB would be similar.

Of course, Jesse needs to bring his F-150 down and we'll do a comparison between it and the F-150.
 
The only comment I heard from the techs that I thought was reasonable was that the 5.0 would be simpler to work on. I've never worked on either, but I know that the mod engines I've owned (4.6 V8s and 6.8 V10s) have been ridiculously easy to work on. Lots of room, easy to get at everything. While the PowerStroke 6.0 has been easier to work on than I thought it would be, it still is harder to work on than the modular engines, and I'm guessing that the 3.5 EB would be similar.

Of course, Jesse needs to bring his F-150 down and we'll do a comparison between it and the F-150.
Yeah, but anything NA is likely to be easier to work on than a twin turbo'd unit. Lots of extra piping for intercoolers, oil lines, coolant lines, etc. that take up valuable room in the engine bay. It makes doing simple maintenance items much more challenging when you can't fit a hand beside the engine, or have to remove the intake piping just to get at a headlight bulb, lol.
 
Yeah, but anything NA is likely to be easier to work on than a twin turbo'd unit. Lots of extra piping for intercoolers, oil lines, coolant lines, etc. that take up valuable room in the engine bay. It makes doing simple maintenance items much more challenging when you can't fit a hand beside the engine, or have to remove the intake piping just to get at a headlight bulb, lol.

That was my point and I think the point the mechanic was making. If he's going to buy one that he's going to have to work on, he wants it to be easier to work on. My bet is the 5.0 has major advantages there.

All that said, I like the way the PowerStroke drives overall better than the V10. You definitely notice the extra torque when accelerating on the highway.
 
Heheh see I knew we could get "truck talk" started up again! ;)

By the way, the oil pressure gauge on the Yukon went back to behaving normally.

Which is also "entertaining".
 
I watched this before I bought it and concluded that none of the "techs" they were talking to had any idea what the hell they were talking about.


This is one of the reasons I bought a '17. The '17 has the Gen2 3.5 Ecoboost which includes port injection in addition to the direct injection to "fix" the carbon issue. Time will tell...

Last number I saw was that more than 60% of the new F150 sales were Ecoboost. I suspect it's a fair bit higher now. It's pretty much all they sell at the dealer I bought from.

I love the 3.5 ecoboost. You can be cruising along barely above idle RPM pulling a load at 80 MPH. Step into the gas and it's amazing how damn hard it will pull and accelerate from that speed. I have no double it would blow away my V8 Crown Vic in acceleration from 80 MPH and it'd do it while pulling.

Yea I love my F-150 EcoBoost...wouldn't go back to the V8.
 
Swapped out the XLT front seats and center console for King Ranch:

20476358_832761981443_2905714854043375954_n.jpg

Really happy with how it looks and feels. The new seats are out of a 2009 and bolt right in. I still have to wire up the power and do the door panels and the rear seat. However the rear seat is really heavy and so that'll be a 2-person job.
 
Very nice, looks excellent. I've had my backseat in and out numerous times and it's not just a two person job, it's a back straining awkward two person job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Very nice, looks excellent. I've had my backseat in and out numerous times and it's not just a two person job, it's a back straining awkward two person job.

Yeah, it amazes me how heavy that rear seat is. I probably should change it out before I do the door panels, though...
 
One thing Ford has always done right is comfortable seats. Several of my Chevys have had Ford seats.
 
Back
Top