Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BrianBM

Powerstroke 6.7 diesel

22 posts in this topic

The engine has been around long enough for some of us to know it. How well do we like it?

 

I ask for a reason far removed from the beach. There is a competition in hand for a military HUMM-V replacement, the "Joint Light Tactical Vehicle." There are a couple of teams looking to build it. What's germane is that one team, headed by BAE, has selected the Ford 6.7 after Navistar - a participant - bolted and announced it'd make an offering of its' own, no partners needed.

 

I'm not sure which Navistar engine is to be offered. Lockheed Martin has a team in which Cummins is a participant, so I know where they're getting their diesel.

 

Anyway, how do we like the PS 6.7L?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these military vehicles have to meet current emissions standards ? Personally I think all these new diesels are too complicated and fuel quality sensitive to be a dependable rugged military vehicle. . Go check the price for a set of injectors for the 6.7 :(

 

The early 90s12 valve Cummins would be a great choice. The kind of motor that will run and run well on poor quality fuel and getting big power from them is very easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Caterpillar currently a player in medium and large trucks that are on road 90% of the time and offroad a vital 10%? The JLTV is sized for four, plus a gunner. We're not talking a vehicle on the size of an earthmover here.

 

The Army just awarded, or is about to award, a few 33-month contracts for the development and testing of prototype vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I BELIEVE that Cat is totally out of the on-road engine business.

 

You are correct. Cat still makes engines for marine use, earthmovers and generators.

 

I believe the US military is stuck with Cummins, Navistar and Ford (all domestically produced).

 

I've heard good things about the Ford 6.7. The contractors that I know who purchased them say it has performed well with no engine problems. One guys complained about the Urea - said it's just one more thing to worry about (I kinda agree).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The urea is just part of the junk science that is costing our country billions of wasted dollars. The next level of compliance will drive the already riduculous fuel prices through the roof.

 

The best thing for our environment would be to get rid of the eco-nazis. As for engines in light vehicles, up to class 5, the price of diesel, the unrealistic eco requirements and the satisfactory performance of current gas engines are actually driving gas engine sales well beyond diesel in my market (mostly municipal equipment). Used to be a time you would make up the 5-6 K premium in diesel cost over time in fuel savings and performance. That cost-effectiveness is very doubtful today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Most contractors I talk to will buy a diesel only if they need the 3/4 or 1-ton hauling capacity for materials or towing. Most of the supervisors/foremen drive 1/2-ton gassers (or cars/SUVs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wellllllllllll, if I were in the military procurement business I'd prefer an engine that's been deployed in numbers in the civilian sector for some time. If the 6.7 is adequately debugged by now, that's fine. As far as the urea addition, how much of a problem is that really going to be? If the civilian infrastructure that distributes it is in place, then it's just another fluid.

 

I've never been able to figure out how it is that diesel came to be pricier than gasoline, after generations of being the cheaper fuel.

 

As far as diesel vs. gas, it's a safe assumption that ANY military vehicle is going to be bought with an eye to towing and to big increases in weight over the vehicle's life if sent to a combat zone. "Up-armoring" is no longer something improvised at the divisional motor pool, all new vehicles are being designed with armor add-ons in theater in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the petro industry will tell you tha the low sulfur requirements + additives has driven the price of diesel to where we are now. I personally can't be convinced that the less refined oil can actually cost more than gasoline to refine. The irony is that prior to the BS enviro requirements for diesel engines they burned much less fuel and at lower emission temps.

 

The enviro-nazis are KILLING this country!! Any bets that the urea producers have powerful political connections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wellllllllllll, if I were in the military procurement business I'd prefer an engine that's been deployed in numbers in the civilian sector for some time. If the 6.7 is adequately debugged by now, that's fine. As far as the urea addition, how much of a problem is that really going to be? If the civilian infrastructure that distributes it is in place, then it's just another fluid

 

We are talking about a military application here, having to supply urea may be a real pain in the butt in the middle of some God forsaken third world country.

 

I'm still wondering if the military has to comply with current emission standards ? If not the early 90's Cummins 5.9 is as durable and reliable as they come. You can even burn your waste oil mixed in with the diesel. Cant do that with the new ones.

 

The current diesels all have high dollar injectors fuel pressure over 20,000 psi and require fuel filtered down to 10 Microns or less.

 

The early 90's 5.9 p-pump Cummins will run all day on crummy fuel filtered at 30 microns and its reliable as a brick.

 

The current diesels all have a HUGE particulate filters in the exhaust and they tend to plug up pretty fast with extensive idling. I would think Military vehicles spend an excessive amount of time at idle and driving at low speeds. These new diesels seem to be a bad choice for a rugged dependable engine in a military application. They need REAL clean fuel and that may be an issue during wartime overseas.

 

 

Look under the hoods of a 93 Cummins dodge and a 2012.....................that's all you need to decide if these new ones are too complicated :)

 

The Navistar/International 7.3 from 96-2002 is also a decent choice but still more complex than a Cummins 5.9

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reagards to the urea thing --- I attended a training on the first series of a major manufacturers diesel with the ures system. The agency that was being trained by this factory tech had a number of folks who were concerned about what happens if you run out of urea. The factory guy said --- just use water --- the engine will not know the difference. When I cornered him afterwards and questioned him further on that issue he told me that they use urea to be sensitive to possible freezing in areas where temperatures drop below 32 degrees --- and otherwise water will serve teh purpose.

 

I ahve not had a chance to ask my southern buddies about what they are doing ---- but I assure you that if he was telling us the straight skinny damned few folks down south will be using urea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.