Best for longevity/durability?

[SoCal66]

Perhaps a stupid 2 part question but maybe not and it should be entertaining.

Part I.
If you wanted the best of durability and longevity out of your 2011 would you:

1. Leave it stock forever
2. Only perform basic mods: (ie. Air intake, DPF back exhaust, synthetic oils, etc.)
3. Perform all deletes and install programmers immediately and never look back (except for warranty and smog work).
4. Other method?

Part II
Would your answers remain the same irregardless of the manufacturer of the truck (say chevy, dodge)

Thanks, I look forward to these answers and their respective justifications.

[mor4wd]

Part I
I'd say number 1. Ford designed and tested this thing extensively so I don't really see anybody else coming up with something better, and by better I mean in terms of durability and longevity. Most mods are designed to give better performance, not make the truck last longer.

Part II
If I bought a brand new Dodge or Chevy (not that I would) I would probably leave it stock. There's a lot of guys that start modding it before it's off the lot it seems. I don't really get this.

[SixStringMadness]

This is a tough question. Especially with so little details known about the 6.7 life at this point. Everybody does extensive R&D, but to assume it's supreme to all else is somewhat gullible in my opinion. Yes, extensive R&D goes into the development, but there is a ceiling of cost that must be met. Even for a $70,000 truck I suppose.

For longevity purposes, IMHO, I would delete everything generating those high EGT's. Be it through programming, or physical deletion, I would get rid of it. Heat is the enemy to all engines, and those type of temps cannot possibly allow a modern diesel engine to last as long as say a 7.3L, which I have regularly seen with 800k miles on the ticker.

As far as performance tuning, I could live with or without it. And yes, my answer would be the same for a Chevy. I wouldn't buy a Dodge. (I don't think they're junk, I just feel like the Duramax and the Powerstroke are better products.) FWIW, I think it's just ignorant to validate the quality of your favorite product, by saying the competing product is garbage. Because then, how good is your product, if it's better, just because the other is a pile of rolling garbage.....??? So I would have to say yes, my answer would be the same for any of the three diesel huffing powerhouses. I mean seriously, 20,000 lbs of towing capacity? That's a lot truck.

[mor4wd]

Originally Posted by SixStringMadness

This is a tough question. Especially with so little details known about the 6.7 life at this point. Everybody does extensive R&D, but to assume it's supreme to all else is somewhat gullible in my opinion. Yes, extensive R&D goes into the development, but there is a ceiling of cost that must be met. Even for a $70,000 truck I suppose.

For longevity purposes, IMHO, I would delete everything generating those high EGT's. Be it through programming, or physical deletion, I would get rid of it. Heat is the enemy to all engines, and those type of temps cannot possibly allow a modern diesel engine to last as long as say a 7.3L, which I have regularly seen with 800k miles on the ticker.

As far as performance tuning, I could live with or without it. And yes, my answer would be the same for a Chevy. I wouldn't buy a Dodge. (I don't think they're junk, I just feel like the Duramax and the Powerstroke are better products.) FWIW, I think it's just ignorant to validate the quality of your favorite product, by saying the competing product is garbage. Because then, how good is your product, if it's better, just because the other is a pile of rolling garbage.....??? So I would have to say yes, my answer would be the same for any of the three diesel huffing powerhouses. I mean seriously, 20,000 lbs of towing capacity? That's a lot truck.

I am by no means saying that my product of preference is superior to others just by pure ignorance. Ford needed to come out of the rut they were in from the 6.0 and the 6.4. They tested the new truck much more extensively than the competition does, otherwise GM and Dodge would be bragging about their R&D.

I did not say that Dodge or GM is "garbage" I would own a Dodge before I owned a Chevrolet, and you would own a Chevrolet before you owned a Dodge. I don't like GM and will not support them because of two reasons; their stupid IFS, and their misuse of government funds. I believe in buying a product that you believe in and are willing to stand behind, I couldn't do that with GM.

As far as high EGTs go. They designed the components to be ok with the heat. I've never seen anything over 1000* on my 08. Don't know about the new one.

[SixStringMadness]

Originally Posted by mor4wd

I am by no means saying that my product of preference is superior to others just by pure ignorance. Ford needed to come out of the rut they were in from the 6.0 and the 6.4. They tested the new truck much more extensively than the competition does, otherwise GM and Dodge would be bragging about their R&D.

I did not say that Dodge or GM is "garbage" I would own a Dodge before I owned a Chevrolet, and you would own a Chevrolet before you owned a Dodge. I don't like GM and will not support them because of two reasons; their stupid IFS, and their misuse of government funds. I believe in buying a product that you believe in and are willing to stand behind, I couldn't do that with GM.

As far as high EGTs go. They designed the components to be ok with the heat. I've never seen anything over 1000* on my 08. Don't know about the new one.

Um...., my post was not meant to be critical of yours, light'n up a bit, don't take my post personal, you weren't even quoted in my post.

I was giving my opinion in addition to your opinion, in response to the OP. I never accused you of ignorance or slamming a product.

However, a non tuned 6.4 does have some serious EGT's during regen. They push the limit of any motor. Even my buddies full on, 100%, race engine, has a limit, and OEM stock modern diesels all push that limit. Take apart the turbo of a 6.4 at 50k and you'll see the effects of that heat. It's undeniable, and unavoidable if left stock.

[SoCal66]

This is going to be a complicated one. I can see both sides of the fence with the manufacturer. Of course they want to have the biggest HP/Tq figures but the good ol government agencies ties their hands with forcing it to be ridiculously clean at the expense of perhaps durability, dependability, longevity and of course simplicity. This goes hand in hand with why these trucks are getting so dang pricey.

The sad part is, I don't believe ANY auto manufacturer will be able to truly understand the flaws and capabilities of their diesel engines by the time the next set of requirements rolls out forcing them to make another costly drastic "reinvention" of their engines. Speculatively, engines from here on out (and in recent past for that matter) will probably only be around 4 years or so before something has to be truly reworked...right when real solid learning is taking place on the soon to be extinct platforms. Of course this learning can be applied to the next rendition of it's engine. I'm sure all of this compliance regulation surely limits how much these companies want to invest into R&D into a specific platform, knowing that the Feds may change their minds and force a new standard down their throats.

It kind of begs the question if these trucks are first built to comply and then see how long they will last.

That being said, I do think it's absolutely amazing how far they have come and what the current pickup trucks are capable of.

I personally feel that the 'smog' components strictly are there for compliance and do not ADD any value to the life of the trucks and are more detrimental from a durability and longevity point of view exclusively. So from that angle I think the best longevity solution is removal but not to crank the programmers (obviously a significant source of added stress). Not that I wouldn't use a programmer but do so knowing the trade-offs.



(Sorry I'm a rather large contractor, 40 diesels or so, in Kalifornia and it's a reality here that this technology is very expensive and these regulations have to be met so frequently with our equipment that it's going to be a constant game of 'buy the new model'.)