7.3 IDI vs Powerstroke in a van ? - Diesel Forum

christi · 11-27-2002, 11:44 AM

So if one looks at a 93, 94, 95 diesel van one gets the choice of IDI or Powerstroke.

A 7.3 IDI looks considerably cheaper, but what difference does it make?

Would a 93 / 94 7.3 be turbo charged as standard ?

What is the fuel economy like of an IDI vs a Powerstroke ? In my case I would be talking about a non-extended 12 seat passenger van running mostly unloaded.

Do either get cruise control ?

Is the IDI more reliable by virtue of less complexity ?

Basically either van is going to be considerably more powerful than any 4 banger diesel van that I could buy here in Europe, so the temptation is to look for a cheap 93 or 94 IDI passanger van.

The fuel consumption is a major issue though at nearly $5 per gallon for diesel here.

PowerChoker · 11-27-2002, 01:07 PM

Hello Christi, I am surprised to see Someone from the UK on here. To answer your questions, The 93 strictly an IDI motor but in 94 the Stroke was also avaliable. the 95 was strictly a stroke.Any one of those vans could have cruise control based on the trim package.(XL,XLT). Both motors are strong are know for high mileage durability.
My personal preference is the Powerstroke due to high power and good fuel mileage.Both engines will consume considerably more fuel than the common 4 cyl. vans. But you will be able to run away from them.
hope this helps!!

Mark Kovalsky · 11-27-2002, 01:15 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
So if one looks at a 93, 94, 95 diesel van one gets the choice of IDI or Powerstroke.

[/ QUOTE ] '93 and '94 are IDI. '95 is Powerstroke. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Would a 93 / 94 7.3 be turbo charged as standard ?

[/ QUOTE ] There were no factory turbos before the '95 Powerstroke on vans. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
What is the fuel economy like of an IDI vs a Powerstroke ?

[/ QUOTE ] The Powerstroke is A LITTLE better on fuel. Not a lot, but at $5 per gallon it might make a big difference to you. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Do either get cruise control ?

[/ QUOTE ] All were available with factory cruise. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Is the IDI more reliable by virtue of less complexity ?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, if you do an engineering reliability study I think the IDI would be a little more reliable. In practice I don't think there is a huge difference.

Mark Kovalsky · 11-27-2002, 01:16 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The 93 strictly an IDI motor but in 94 the Stroke was also avaliable. the 95 was strictly a stroke

[/ QUOTE ] The vans had a different availability than the F series. There was no Powerstroke in the vans until the '95 model year.

Johnny96 · 11-27-2002, 07:10 PM

Also, the IDI is quieter--impoortant, since you're sitting almost on top of the engine.

A NA 7.3 motivates my friend's shuttle bus (cutaway E-350, DRW, Thor body, C6, 3.55 gears) easily--though acceleration full-loaded is best called "deliberate". He gets ~15-16MPG empty, 12-13 loaded. The engine has ~240,000 miles & ~22,900 hours on it.

Caveat: I THINK all IDI's had the 3-speed C6 trans, while PSD's had the E4OD (good or bad, depending how you look at it).

trucktech · 11-27-2002, 09:57 PM

89 was the break year for the C6, that year you could get either the C6 or e40d. Most after that (unless specially ordered) had the e40d.

Mark Kovalsky · 11-27-2002, 10:16 PM

The C6 was available until the end of the 1996 model year. THe E4OD was available starting in the 1989 model year. From 1989 to 1996 you could order either transmission.

The E4OD gets MUCH better fuel economy since it has overdrive and a lockup torque converter.

christi · 11-28-2002, 11:46 AM

Thanks for all the replies.

Basically I am thinking of importing a 12 seat E-350 diesel over to the UK.

It is quite common to import American vehicles here, and no problem. All that they need to make them legal is a rear fog light and amber turn signals, and then re-register them.

An IDI van is much cheaper than anything equivalent here in Europe, and much faster too, plus you get that V8 sound, and auto trans (useful in London), and something different to everyone else.

The only other possibility is a 5 cyl TDI Volkswagen Caravelle (Eurovan in the US). These can be fitted with Audi injectors, an intercooler and a chip and I guess would be good for around 170bhp, and they are a fair bit lighter and smaller.

A Caravelle is very expensive here though.

Downsides to the E-350 I guess are going to be problems with multi-story carparks and fuel consumption...

CompuDoc · 11-28-2002, 09:32 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
It is quite common to import American vehicles here, and no problem. All that they need to make them legal is a rear fog light and amber turn signals, and then re-register them.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the purpose of a rear fog light?. Is it for collision avoidance?. I do not think I would want to drive in the fog in London. First of all I'd be having to drive on the oppisite side of the road and second I would think that a vehicle with rear fog lights was coming at me looking like a head on collision. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

christi · 11-29-2002, 05:13 AM

The rear fog light is red lamp with a 21 watt bulb. It is used only when visibility is very bad. The point is that a normal 5 watt tail lamp doesn't show up too well in thick fog.

Driving on the "wrong" side of the road isn't an issue for me [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

In fact left hand dive vehicles are quite useful as I can pull up to the kerb and get straight out of the vehicle onto the sidewalk without having to step into busy London traffic.

If I am loading children into it I'll have to pull up on the wrong side of the road though, otherwise the side door will be in the middle of the road.

86turbodsl · 11-29-2002, 10:36 PM

Driving on the left side of the road is no problem. You get used to it very quickly. I went to London for a week on business a couple years ago and had a blast driving around in a stick shift Mondeo. Tried to get a diesel but they were out of them. They were surprised when an American asked for a stick shift and a diesel.

Super_Dave · 11-30-2002, 08:59 AM

A friend of mine had a 1991 shuttle bus that I thought about buying from him. It had the E4od trans. Drove it around and got about 15MPG. Then pulled my big enclosed trailer. Got about 11MPG.

Ended up buying a 1996 with the Power Stroke. Gets about 14 unloaded, and I can to 12 to 13 loaded.

The major difference was that the interior and looks of the new body style made it a bit more modern feeling and it was quieter.

But the power of the Power Stroke...

No comparison. I can get to places quicker with the Power Stroke. The IDI just felt like my 351W with a different noise and better mileage.

christi · 12-16-2002, 09:40 AM

Would an IDI be less likely to chew its transmission ? Or are they reliable enough in either application ?

trucktech · 12-16-2002, 09:53 AM

The newer the truck the better the trans. Ford has been updating the E40D since its conseption and improving it step by step. My last van a 89 tossed the trans at under 100,KM. My 96 tossed the converter at 120,KM and tossed the tranny at 170,KM. Course I haul a lot of weight in mine and drive it like I stole it. Either IDI or PSD are good trucks.