<![CDATA[New Ford power numbers]]>The numbers for the 6.7 Powerstroke are out. 390hp@2,800RPM and 735lb-ft@1,600rpm. Not too shabby...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/18735/new-ford-power-numbersRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 02:07:30 GMTThu, 25 Feb 2010 15:47:38 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:23:02 GMT]]>

DaveH;301371 wrote:
Ford should have got a bunch of old 2JZ's from the junkyard, and replaced the spark plugs with glow plugs, and converted the fuel injection system into a diesel system.

2JZ > all

lol

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289751https://fargostreet.com/post/289751Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:23:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:18:13 GMT]]>

DaveH;301371 wrote:
Ford should have got a bunch of old 2JZ's from the junkyard, and replaced the spark plugs with glow plugs, and converted the fuel injection system into a diesel system.

2JZ > all

Hence the reason you pull your tow vehicle with your race car....wait:icon_scratch:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289750https://fargostreet.com/post/289750Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:18:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:08:46 GMT]]>Ford should have got a bunch of old 2JZ's from the junkyard, and replaced the spark plugs with glow plugs, and converted the fuel injection system into a diesel system.

2JZ > all

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289749https://fargostreet.com/post/289749Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:08:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:19:09 GMT]]>I'm curious to see how things hold up. The new motor is built in house by Ford. Couldn't be any worse then the last one 😛

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289748https://fargostreet.com/post/289748Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:19:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:29:31 GMT]]>I'm hardly that narrow minded Chris. I'm just offering up feasible reasons, apart from the obvious V8>all.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289479https://fargostreet.com/post/289479Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:29:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:13:26 GMT]]>Yes, those are obviously the reasons that Ford and GM use a V8 diesel rather than an I6. Nothing else.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289477https://fargostreet.com/post/289477Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:13:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:44:28 GMT]]>I'm sure streamlining the assembly process has a little to do with it too. The gas and diesel trucks roll of the same sarmbly line and its probably easier to bolt in a V8 diesel and gas motor on the same assembly line.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289474https://fargostreet.com/post/289474Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:44:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:13:33 GMT]]>

capitlj;301023 wrote:
The 7.3 couldn't meet emission standards and had to go. Ford as well as Chevy didn't do any "reinvention of the wheel" with the 6.0 and 6.6 respectively. Both were developed by outside suppliers, to meet the manufacturers specs. I'm sure there are proprietary patents on some key I 6 components, held by Cummins, CAT, Detroit, etc. that prohibit Ford or Chevy from manufacturing a competitive, both in price and performance, engine with international and Isuzu.

Well thats actually a pretty good point that i didn't think of. They may not be able to produce or were not able in the begining they could produce a I6.

I guess my whole point was that if the big inline diesel's work so well in the industrial trucks/equipment. Why make a v8 over a scaled down inline?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289405https://fargostreet.com/post/289405Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:13:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:14:30 GMT]]>The 7.3 couldn't meet emission standards and had to go. Ford as well as Chevy didn't do any "reinvention of the wheel" with the 6.0 and 6.6 respectively. Both were developed by outside suppliers, to meet the manufacturers specs. I'm sure there are proprietary patents on some key I 6 components, held by Cummins, CAT, Detroit, etc. that prohibit Ford or Chevy from manufacturing a competitive, both in price and performance, engine with international and Isuzu.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289401https://fargostreet.com/post/289401Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:14:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:41:08 GMT]]>

91nbtsi;301008 wrote:
Mitch, the new Dodges are pretty nice (finally). My 2007 has some items in the interior that aren't great, but overall I like it.

Impressive numbers on the new Ford powerplant, that's for sure. Time will tell if it is a good thing for Ford to have total control of the engine design. I will stick with my simple inline 6 for now:)

i drove an 09 mega cab big horn or whatever crazy name they have for it now and i didnt really like it. i am not saying it fell apart when i touched it, it just wasnt for me.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289398https://fargostreet.com/post/289398Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:41:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:09:36 GMT]]>Its OK Matt, there are a lot of things that you will never understand...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289394https://fargostreet.com/post/289394Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:09:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:44:43 GMT]]>Only think i will never understand, is why is the suramax and powerstroke so god damned complicated. A very simple inline 6 kickes there ass, yet they continue to "reinvent the wheel".

It's just stupid.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289391https://fargostreet.com/post/289391Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:44:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:32:17 GMT]]>

24valvenotak;300958 wrote:
the cummins is bad ass but everything about the interior of a dodge just plain sucks

Mitch, the new Dodges are pretty nice (finally). My 2007 has some items in the interior that aren't great, but overall I like it.

Impressive numbers on the new Ford powerplant, that's for sure. Time will tell if it is a good thing for Ford to have total control of the engine design. I will stick with my simple inline 6 for now:)

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289386https://fargostreet.com/post/289386Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:32:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:45:32 GMT]]>best option is to buy a blown powerstroke and toss a DT466 in there, best pickup, and the best small diesel engine ever in one package.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289377https://fargostreet.com/post/289377Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:45:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:50:34 GMT]]>Yeah, the 7.3 was atleast ok...seem to hold their value pretty well too. I know I want an Excursion with a 7.3 in it.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289375https://fargostreet.com/post/289375Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:50:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:51:07 GMT]]>I think the old 7.3 that I have in my towing mule is a decent engine. Ford shoulda kept the old girl and just updated the injection/turbo on it instead of making the 6.0 and 6.4.

zbrown;300972 wrote:
if i could have anything it would be a 05-06ish ford 3/4ton....... but with a 12v/auto combo

Ford makes a good truck, things are just iffy in the engine department when you consider what engine you could have

lol... poor ignorant guy

doesn't matter if they do or not...

something must be "alright" about the cummins if the 5.9 is offered in the f650/f750.........strange they never offered a powerstroke

you think ford will step up and rate this motor at higher than a 150k major service interval like the past couple were?? LOL

oh.... and i don't like the idea of having to pull my cab to do ..... well anything

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289356https://fargostreet.com/post/289356Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:51:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:11:17 GMT]]>

24valvenotak;300958 wrote:
the cummins is bad ass but everything about the interior of a dodge just plain sucks

if i could have anything it would be a 05-06ish ford 3/4ton....... but with a 12v/auto combo

Ford makes a good truck, things are just iffy in the engine department when you consider what engine you could have

inspector01;300968 wrote:
I actually saw a Duramax in Wisconsin that had a "My truck was built with wrenches, not chop sticks" sticker in the back window this summer, it made me LOL.....

lol... poor ignorant guy

MisterCMK;300932 wrote:
Zac, is the 2011 Cummins gonna step up or is Dodge going to stick with the paltry 6.7 they have now?

doesn't matter if they do or not...

something must be "alright" about the cummins if the 5.9 is offered in the f650/f750.........strange they never offered a powerstroke

you think ford will step up and rate this motor at higher than a 150k major service interval like the past couple were?? LOL

oh.... and i don't like the idea of having to pull my cab to do ..... well anything

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289350https://fargostreet.com/post/289350Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:11:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:02:42 GMT]]>

zbrown;300918 wrote:
whoa.... what??

Mr anti Jap. prefers a Jap. motor?? hmmmm...

I actually saw a Duramax in Wisconsin that had a "My truck was built with wrenches, not chop sticks" sticker in the back window this summer, it made me LOL.....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289346https://fargostreet.com/post/289346Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:02:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:20:42 GMT]]>the cummins is bad ass but everything about the interior of a dodge just plain sucks

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289336https://fargostreet.com/post/289336Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:20:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:18:57 GMT]]>

zbrown;300918 wrote:
whoa.... what??

Mr anti Jap. prefers a Jap. motor?? hmmmm...

oooo snap!!!!!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289324https://fargostreet.com/post/289324Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:18:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:19:20 GMT]]>Zac, is the 2011 Cummins gonna step up or is Dodge going to stick with the paltry 6.7 they have now?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289310https://fargostreet.com/post/289310Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:19:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:08:52 GMT]]>I'd rather have the cummins sry

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289298https://fargostreet.com/post/289298Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:08:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:04:22 GMT]]>

Eurofan;300896 wrote:
Duramax FTW

Powerstroke=fail.

whoa.... what??

Mr anti Jap. prefers a Jap. motor?? hmmmm...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289296https://fargostreet.com/post/289296Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:04:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to New Ford power numbers on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:25:05 GMT]]>Duramax FTW

Powerstroke=fail.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/289274https://fargostreet.com/post/289274Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:25:05 GMT