6.4L Power Stroke Engine and DrivetrainDiscussion of the 6.4L Power Stroke diesel engine and drivetrain in the 2008 Super-Duty trucks. No gas engine discussion allowed except on transmissions and drivetrain that pertain to all models. Please confine discussion of topics in this forum to those items that are specific to the 6.4L Power Stroke engine.
Why does everyone seem to think that DPF regeneration is going to exact this huge fuel mileage penalty on these engines? I get the impression that regeneration happens rarely (on the order of days or weeks) and briefly, so there really shouldn't be very much fuel involved compared to what the vehicle is burning in its normal course of running.
The 6.4L may well get worse mileage, just like the 6.0 does compared to the 7.3L (despite Ford's early promises), but it doesn't seem like DPF regeneration should be the major reason why.
Duncan
__________________
The 1997 F250HD Crewcab: Picture
The 2000 XLT Excursion <font color="red">(SOLD)</font>: Picture
The 2003 F250 Crewcab 6.0L: Web page
The 6.0L Bible: Web page
The 6.4L Bible: Web page
I am expecting slightly better than the 6.0. Regeneration looks like it will take 1 injector pulse per month or less. Sequential turbos will spool faster, taking the need to dump fuel off the line away some. Piezo injectors should be more accurate.
All things look good to me. But you gotta remember, you still are driving a heavy truck.
The weight increases will probably negate any advances in the motor. They usually do.
__________________
04 F350 CC FX4 MAC intake, Progard filter, DR levelling kit and 35 X Terrains.
89 F350 CC 4x4 Longbed Lariat. 7.3 with ATS Turbo and K&N. --SOLD--
Fuel mileage is a sore subject with me. There are 1.3Ls displacement (79.3 cubic inches) difference between the 6.0 and 7.3. It is widely known that the 6.0 gets worse mileage than the 7.3. No one can really prove why with documented evidence, but it seems that the major contributing factor is what RPMs these engines are run at. Smaller displacement with MORE power should equal better mileage, but the fact remains that it hasn't, so........I'm gonna say that if this engine is built to live in around the same RPM range the 6.0 is, then mileage is gonna be the same or worse, not due to the particulate filter, but due to the higher displacement (bigger cubes is bigger cubes) spinning at higher RPMs than the 7.3. I'm gonna go out on a ledge here and state that if the engineers can make more power than the 6.0 and keep the RPM range more inline with the range of the 7.3, mileage should improve, of course this is just MHO, so take it FWIW.
We received 30 new road tractors at the begining of 06 at my terminal[New Penn Motor Express],they get approx. 1MPG less than our 02 tractors with the same ISM M11 engines.The 06's are EGR engines with different ECM programing,the 07 ULSD engines will probably get less fuel mileage than 06's due to exhaust after treatment and different ECM programing.It's not just Ford guys and girls,everybody in the same boat,all the engine companies are having their issues.
What about the fact that they have way more control over the injectors?
Multiple pulses per stroke and therefore more efficient..
But we do have the fact of the increased hp/tq and the obvious weight.
__________________ 02' F250 SWB CC 4x4 Lariat 7.3/Auto 2-Tone Grey/Black, Stainless Nerfs, Westin Grill & Stainless Brush Guard, KC Highlighters, 285/16 BF Goodrich AT/KO's on American Racing Rims. TRI light bar on rear, Silverstars, High 5 Cab lights, InTank / PrePump Mods, Prodigy, C-bet'r mirrors & 18K REESE Signature slider.
70' Stang Fastback 351W - Auto / White deluxe interior /Fold down rear Pics 00' Chrysler Town & Country Limited AWD 03' Cougar 281 EFS with all the fixins.. 06' Kubota BX2350 FEL, 60"MMM
Take a look at your wrist, see the that's right there's a little FORD Blue blood in all of us... Even the JAP Diesel lovers....
Been a diesel mechanic/tech[everybody is a tech today]for 36 years,seen quite an evolution of the diesel engine,been working on electronic controled engines since 1990,and yes they have cleaned them up dramatically,but in the last few years fuel milage has suffered due to emissions.Ask anyone that does this for their living and they'll probably tell you the same thing.Bar stool&keyboard techs/mechanics need not apply
The regeneration cycle does not worry me nearly as much as the increased backpressure that will be the result of the DPF. The fact that they have more control over both the quality to the injection events as well as the timing should lend to improved in chamber efficiency. Whether this translates into real world MPG gains remains to be seen.
AND i thought we were supposed to take a very small hit on mileage because of ULSD - like 1% or so??? hey, it isn't the big things, it may be all the little ones adding up... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shrug.gif[/img]
__________________
Travis
'03 F350 Dually, 6.0, Supercab, longbed, 4.10 LS, sport pkg, extremely RED, STRAIGHT PIPED, SCT Xcalibrator, full guages
- Job1 programming, Harpooned, Skweeker Mod, Zoodad Mod
- Did that thing that you're not supposed to talk about
'79 Bronco, 468cid Ford 460 marine motor, C6/NP205
Previous -'99 F250, Rg Cab XLT, 7.3/6spd, 3.73
Project truck
- '96 Cummins, 215hp/5spd, Diprocol guages, Plate & AFC full fwd, hi-capacity external lubrication system
To add: 2 1/2T axles, 46" goodyears, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
Been a diesel mechanic/tech[everybody is a tech today]for 36 years,seen quite an evolution of the diesel engine,been working on electronic controled engines since 1990,and yes they have cleaned them up dramatically,but in the last few years fuel milage has suffered due to emissions.Ask anyone that does this for their living and they'll probably tell you the same thing.Bar stool&keyboard techs/mechanics need not apply
[/ QUOTE ]
They cut emmissions with all this bolt on garbage thus reducing fuel economy and you gotta burn more fuel!!! Sounds like an emmissions wash to me!
__________________
05 Expedition 5.4 3 valve. (It does better in the mileage catagory on the interstate than my 6.0 EVER did!!!!)
GONE!!!!!!2003 F250 CC 4x4 <font color="red"> 6.0 PSD</font> 6 Speed, 3.73 XLT Dark Shadow Gray ,Moonroof, Camper Package, Skid plates ect. (Gutless PIG from idle to 1800) May 12th 03 build week. 122,000 miles as of 01/01/07......... 4" exhaust and AFE intake b&w turnover ball.
Flashed 6 times, EGR cooler replaced, VVRT solenoid replaced, Turbo Ped Replaced, EGR valve replaced 2X NO LEAKS!!! 8 new injectors, new fuel pump, new FICM, new ball joints, Exaust manifold gaskets, both front wheel bearing assy's, The list goes on and on!!!
Former trucks:
89 F250 2wd 7.3 5spd with 256K when sold
94 F250 4X4 IDI Turbo 7.3 5 spd 160K when sold
95 F250 S/C 4x4 PSD 5 spd with 146K when sold
00 F250 C/C 4X4 PSD 6 Spd with 126K when sold (160K now)
None of these trucks EVER spent a day in the shop!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
They cut emmissions with all this bolt on garbage thus reducing fuel economy and you gotta burn more fuel!!! Sounds like an emmissions wash to me!
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the emissions are measured in a net-actual fashion, so they are in fact reduced even with the increased fuel usage. HOWEVER, it is a good point that reducing emissions increases our dependency on foreign oil, and nobody is looking at that big picture.
Though it's interesting to note that a lot of the improvements in engine management, some of which (unlike the 6.0L...) actually did improve fuel economy overall, had their genesis in the need to control emissions. So I wonder, if we hadn't been chasing lower emissions, if we'd have the efficient cars we have today with only fuel prices as an incentive for the manufacturers to change?
Duncan
__________________
The 1997 F250HD Crewcab: Picture
The 2000 XLT Excursion <font color="red">(SOLD)</font>: Picture
The 2003 F250 Crewcab 6.0L: Web page
The 6.0L Bible: Web page
The 6.4L Bible: Web page
[ QUOTE ]
Fuel mileage is a sore subject with me. There are 1.3Ls displacement (79.3 cubic inches) difference between the 6.0 and 7.3. It is widely known that the 6.0 gets worse mileage than the 7.3. No one can really prove why with documented evidence, but it seems that the major contributing factor is what RPMs these engines are run at. Smaller displacement with MORE power should equal better mileage, but the fact remains that it hasn't, so........I'm gonna say that if this engine is built to live in around the same RPM range the 6.0 is, then mileage is gonna be the same or worse, not due to the particulate filter, but due to the higher displacement (bigger cubes is bigger cubes) spinning at higher RPMs than the 7.3. I'm gonna go out on a ledge here and state that if the engineers can make more power than the 6.0 and keep the RPM range more inline with the range of the 7.3, mileage should improve, of course this is just MHO, so take it FWIW.
Later,
[/ QUOTE ]
hey, not tryin to start arguements or anything...but since when does the 6L get worse mileage than a 7.3? i was getting 18-19 mpg highway with my 6.0 stock and my dad has a 7.3 and his will get 18 chipped. After i tuned, put exhaust and intake on mine, im getting 21 farily easy.
__________________
2003 cent. black lariat F250. crew cab, short box, 4X4. SCT, air raid cold air intake, zoodad, straight through exhaust, powershot 2000 propane kit, intake elbows.com elbow, fuel regulator shimmy mod, quad commander for gauges...tinted windows, gunmetal tails, clear recon mirror lights, fire & ice lightbar, billet grill, clear lamps, level kit, spray in bedliner...6cd in dash changer, sirius sat. radio, 2 - 10s in custom ported box
future plans: ccv mod, new clutch pack
dyno #s coming soon!
[ QUOTE ]
So I wonder, if we hadn't been chasing lower emissions, if we'd have the efficient cars we have today with only fuel prices as an incentive for the manufacturers to change?
Duncan
[/ QUOTE ]
What if the EPA had legislated fuel economy above all else? Where would we be now?
Diesels have dropped around 20-30% fuel efficiency since the mid 90s. What if it had went the other way?
__________________
I see stupid people. They're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know that they're stupid. AND THEY POST ON THIS SITE!
Early '99 7.3 Superduty. Built 3-98
Chassis: Supercab SB, Lifted w/ 20's.
Tranny: Suncoast parts built by the local guy.
Engine mods: Diesel Innovations all the way (tuning, injectors, & turbo), Homemade "Big Oil", GT42R Big frame turbo. Rods and junk to keep it all together.
You can search a history on my posts about fuel mileage, but I'll sum it up for you. My truck brand new would get around 15.5-16.5 MPG on an average day, i.e. mostly less than 2K RPMs, with the occaisional >2K bursts. And yes, I do drive in the city, but to make a long trip on the highway doesn't change the mileage drastically (maybe 1 MPG, if I'm lucky). Now I'm making 13-14 MPG doing the same drive with the same driving habits. And this is with 60,000+ on the odo. I for one have never seen the mileage of the 7.3L guys, and there are others...just search this forum. Some guys have claimed 25+ (I call bluff), but most say that they are in the 16-19 range. I haven't been documenting all of this, but if you'd care to trade trucks, that would be better than posting numbers, as you'd see for yourself. I hesitated from buying a 7.3 b/c Ford's advertisement said that the 6.0 was to have more power, get better mileage, and run quieter. I love my 6.0, but sometimes I wish that I had got the 7.3, as it has proven itself in my book.
Linear Mode
