Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives 08 ford super duty

opinions good or bad

I'd wait.........

Manufacturers use the customers for R&D & the first year models have more than their share of issues. The '03 6.0l Powerstrokes are a case in point. So were the early Duramax's. Not only true for the domestic makers, the europeans car makers are known for the same thing.......

badger

Don't forget to add the '03 Cummins, the first year for Dodge to use common-rail, had lots of bugs too.

I'd definitely wait and let others work out the bugs on the Ford. However, there is a lot to like about a 6.4 liter, twin-turboed, common-rail diesel engine.

Bugs or not, I would buy an extended warranty. To work on the engine, the front clip of the truck has to be removed. Everything is quick disconnect, but it is not a job for the average Joe.

A couple of things that would give me cause for concern. One the recent software flash that powers down the truck if the regen process goes foul. The aluminum fuel pump that is located in an area below the turbos. This is a high heat area that may cause big problems. Another is the removal of the turbos. They come off in a big unit.

I like the looks of the truck, but it is a very complicated truck.

I just got one a couple weeks ago. Only 1800 or so miles, so no real opinion yet.

Initial observations are that I like it VERY much. The new diesel motor is a completely different animal than the older 7.3 that I had before. It is quieter on the highway than the 2005 Expedition I traded in.

It has tons of power, and keeps getting better the more I drive it.

Fuel mileage is sort of disappointing so far. Only about 14 or 15 on the freeway and 11.5 to 12 around town. My old 7.3 got far better than that. It may get better though.

I am pretty happy so far, and have no complaints yet. I figure that with a 100,000 mile warranty, there is little risk for me. I never keep them that long anyway.

if your getting 14-15mpg thats good buddy of mine has one he's getting 9.5

Ouch!

just talked to a buddy who has the same truck. He put some sort of aftermarket air intake on his and swears that he is getting 19 to 20 on the freeway now.

Not sure if I believe him or not, but we are going to check out a new ranch next week, i will make him drive and see if he is FOS.

Do NOT put an aftermarket intake on a turbo diesel. here is the only real objective test I know of comparing aftermarket air filters to factory paper. This test was for the DMax, but it should apply to other TDs as well:

http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

Blaine, do you think that test would be apply or give similar results for gas engines and filter use? I am curious as I just put a K&N cold air intake on my '05 Chevy 6.0L, maybe that was a bad idea?

Apparently they have to overfuel to heat the cat up when they start to get clogged- thing is, they get too hot- they started quite a few fires with them red-hot cats so far and I do mean red-hot. Not sure I would buy an '08 anything diesel right now.

A 100,000 mile warranty only means that you will get someone else to pay for all your misery while it is in the shop! My buddy has an '05 PS with the 6.0. It has over 50 days of down time in shop at the dealers [all over the state] He has replaced all of the injectors more than once. One day it runs great, the next day it smokes like a barroom ashtray.

My 2000 PS has never had a wrench turned to it under warranty and I just turned 104K on it this week. I guess I got one of the good ones! I still don't get good mileage though- about 14-15 on the highway unless I drive 55 then I get 19. I get 13 in town.

I think a turbo or supercharger makes the K&N an especially bad idea. There is a reason the big diesel rigs run paper, especially when in dusty conditions. I no longer run anything but stock paper on any of my rigs. If I ever got back to drag racing then I'd run a K&N or similar, because the only other option is to run no filter at all.

I think we are all holding on to an old idea. Many years ago when we all ran carbs, the stock paper air filter in the stock housing was restrictive when we hot rodded those engines. Performance minded hot-rodders quickly found that we needed a LOT of air filtration surface to meet the airflow demands of a high revving engine. So there is no doubt a 12" x 2.5" paper filter in a single snorkel housing is way more restrictive than a 14" x 4" K&N in an open element housing.

The factories seems to have figured out the airflow issue, especially since the mid to late 90s. The paper elements offered on the factory engines flow very well. The AC Delco paper element on my 2002 DMax measures 11.75 x 9.75 and has 2" deep pleats. If my math is right, that is 572 sq inches of filtering area. The old standard 12" x 2.5" round with 1" deep pleats has 208 sq inches of filtering area. The high performance 14 x 4" with 1" deep pleats has 308 sq in of filtering area. I am assuming there is no gap between the pleats. I am finding the area, then adding in the size of the pleats if they were unfolded. I am also assuming the pleats on the round filters are 1" deep. I don't have one on hand to measure.

When you add in that the DMax paper air filter was good for 500 RWHP, filtered better, hed three times the dirt before plugging up, and only flowed worse than K&N, AFE, etc., when they were clean, I find little advantage to an aftermarket filter.

i dont use k&n filter but the part i live in, has a huge natural gas boom and all the ford trucks are running k&n's on their turbo diesels and not having problems.

One of the diesel magazines ran a test on aftermarket air filters on a stock Dodge with a Cummins. All of the high dollar aftermarket filters dynoed within 1 hp of the stock filter. I have heard that people are getting good results with the new Amsoil drop in air filter replacements, but it is hard to beat stock paper filters.

Of course, this thread is supposed to be about the new Super Duties. I see very few on the road in Houston, and have read that the production line was shut down due to a disagreement between Ford and Navistar, but that production has recently restarted. A very nice looking but very expensive truck.

Ford has not had good luck with it's diesels over the last few years. Hopefully they've got it sorted out with the new 6.4 liter diesel but I'm not betting on it. In my opinion Ford has some quality problems right now. I'm not confident enough that they've overcome them to be their test mule on a $50K truck. Let someone else be their guinea pig.

Blaine- the 7.3 PS has inadequate airflow for any kind of mod at all. The 6.0 has a great factory filter. In fact, there have been hundreds of 7.3s that have been ruined by the original Fram replacements as they would be sucked into the intake!!! After Fram paid for a few motors, they reinforced them to withstand the airflow forces!

I run a straight cylindrical paper filter that is normally fitted on a bigger truck- It clamps directly to the 4" intake at the place where the factory airbox used to. I use a little RTV on the pipe and then clamp it in place- No place for dirt to slip through.

Ford issued a Service Bulletin on all 99-03 7.3's that you should indeed install an after market air intake kit, citing their OEM unit was horribly insufficient as engineered.

7.3 Severe Duty Air Induction System Kit:
Finally after five and a half years, Ford has released a larger air filter assembly for the 7.3 F-Series and Excursions. This replacement housing utilizes a Donaldson PowerCore air filter element similar to what is stock on the 6.0. The 7.3 AIS Severe Duty Kit is intended to provide increased filter surface area and filter change intervals when operating in high dirt/dust environments. If you have an early 99 built before 12/17/98, and still have the original air box opening into the fender, you will also need the clean air hose, P/N XC3Z-9B659-AA, that runs from the air box to the collar above the valve cover. Unfortunately, Ford is not installing these under warranty.
7.3 AIS Severe Duty Kit Brochure
Info on the PowerCore air filter can be viewed at Donaldson.com (Requires Adobe Acrobat).
May be a more desireable alternative to the previous fixes:
Revised Air Cleaner and Filter, 99-2001 F-series/Excursions built before 11-25-00:
This new air cleaner assembly is to correct lack of power concerns caused by a collapsed air filter element. The element now has a 3" pleat, and the air cleaner cover has a post to keep the element in position. May be used to replace any air cleaner from model/year 99 up to 11-25-00, at which time it became production. TSB #01-9-5, 03-21-42.
Air Cleaner Assembly: 1C3Z-9600-AA; includes element FA-1710
Trucks built prior to 12-7-98 should use the air cleaner from TSB# 99-6-4 as the above kit is not complete for those trucks. It will come with the FA1710 filter.
Supersedes: TSB# 99-6-4, Air cleaner kit: XC3Z-9K635-AA
TSB#98-16-11, Air cleaner F81Z-9600-BA

My 99 F250 7.3 has 196,000 miles and gets 21-22 mpg on the highway, 13-15 pulling my travel trailer and 17 in town. I have yet to experience any major maintenance problems. With its K&N Air Intake, 4" Banks Monster Exhaust & 51 horse Hypertech program it exceeds all of my expectations. Fortunately, mine came with no catalytic converter.

All I do is change its oil regular & put diesel in it & drive it.

I call it The Magic Carpet.

They aren't really telling owners to use an aftermarket system. The TSB is telling 7.3 owners who drive in dusty conditions to use an intake similar to the 6.0 PSD. That is not remotely similar to telling guys to get a K&N or Amsoil or AFE or Uni.

I don't know how well the stock paper 6.0 PSD air filter works, but my money says it filters a lot better than the K&N.

I am hearing they are working on returning to the 7.3 in 09 or 10, I had a 6.0 for 6 months and dumped it, test drove the 08 ford, and figured the ford truck was nicer, but I decided the motor was more important and went back to the cummins better motor and much better on fuel mileage

BMD thats what i did as well!

i dont see why ford would bring out a new motor and then replace it a year later with another new one. Maybe another 7.3 in a few years.

I am glad i made that decision.

The motor does not appear to be what it was cracked up to be it wont be around but a year or two is what I am betting

My wife is on the phone now with a friend who just bought an '08 PS. He just pulled a small trailer from Phoenix to Wyoming and got only 8 mpg! Needless to say, he is not thrilled with what he got for his $50K.

I won't buy another diesel V8.

A 7.3 with common rail would have been an awesome rig in 2002 or 2003. However, with all the emissions crap they are putting on the diesels, I'm not sure that 2008 or '09 7.3 wouldn't be just another "small block 400".................

Ford is going to have to do something better or when dodge eventually figures a way to put a long bed on the mega cab truck they are going to have a tough time competing with their unstable motors and poor fuel mileage

or when dodge figures out a way to put a good frontend on their trucks.

I havent had any trouble with mine so far i have had 2 03's and now have 2 06's but I can promise nothing dodge can do wrong can make up for the mistakes ford has made with their diesel my 99 ford was a great ride, but since 03 it has been an up hill struggle and i was a ford fan before.

Has the 6.7 Cummins shown itself to get good gas mileage? The 5.9 is legendary for reliability and efficiency, but the only reason they added .8 liters to it was to counter the power-robbing emissions equipment they had to add. That doesn't inspire confidence.........

Dont know anyone with the 6.7 cummins yet. Everyone is still buying th 07 models with the 5.9, but that is correct with the new motor it may not be as reliable as the 5.9 I am sure there will be bugs, but you can bet it wont have the problems you can expect with the 6.4 ford

So far it looks like the mileage for the new Cummins 6.7 will be about the same as the 5.9, at least with the automatics. It appears that the 6.7 burns more fuel, but the overdrive ratio of the new six speed automatic offsets it.

I was under the impression (told by some people who "know") that the 5.9 CTD had so much power it had to be tuned down to put it in the truck. Is this not true? Are new engines just a marketing ploy?

Both the 5.9 Cummins and the 6.6 Dmax are easily capable of a very streetable and durable 500 RWHP, which is around 560 HP off the engine. When the Cummins first came out in a Dodge it was around 200 HP off the engine. The first generation Dmax was 300 HP off the engine. The manufacturers now have both engines up to around 360 HP off the engine in factory form, which is still 200 HP less than what I have in my truck and what Badger has in his Cummins.

Actually the Cummins as packaged in the Dodge pickups has a higher horsepower rating than it does in most commercial applications. You can check out Ford's commercial truck website for examples. They list the Cummins as an option on the F650 up, offering engines rated from 200 hp and 520 ft/lbs of torque to 325 hp and 750 ft/lbs of torque. The Cummins "B" motors as used in most heavy equipment are usually set up for around 200 hp.

The Cummins 5.9 is capable of lots more power & torque, its available in marine applications up to 500 hp & 850lb/ft (I think those figures are accurate) from Cummins. Marine engines are often run at full load for extended periods of time, they work harder than the average automotive engine does. Modified Cummins engines have reached the 1200 hp & 2000 lb/ft mark so they are certainly very strongly constructed. Emissions is what is driving the increased displacement. You can make lots of power with most of the current offerings, but you can't stay emissions legal while doing so. We are seeing in diesels what we saw in the 80's with gas engines. Power-robbing emission controls. I think in a few years we will see diesels making more & more power again within the new emissions regs.

badger

I'd hold off on the 08. Go to the diesel stop and read what's happening under load. Seems a good many people are experiencing a significant power loss during the regen while towing. I read one poster's thread saying he'd go from 65 to 45 and not a mph higher until the regen was over. He also said the regen was happening quite frequently.

I had an 03 that ran like a raped ape. It was a strong rig so I traded it. Go figure. My 06 had the turbo replaced but otherwise has performed flawless. I put a lot of tow miles hauling my 36' fiver and both trucks handled like they were intended.

My 06 pulled fine but the fuel milage was cut to around 8 mpg with even a light load, My cummins is still around 14 and you can add the chip to a cummins without worrying about the head gasket

A friend who is a diesel wrench for Empire said that they see a lot of 5.9s with the block cracked in half between the 3 and 4 cylinder. The 6.7 has been out 2 years in commercial applications and is a better block. Don't know if it will have all the other good features of the 5.9.

Those trucks with high HP rates can't run too long without tearing stuff up. If it weren't so, big rigs would be running more than 400-500 HP!

It will probably take me 15-20 years to get 250,000 miles on my Dmax. 250K is not unreasonable for a 500 RWHP engine. A big rig would likely get 250,000 miles in what, 3 years? The big rig companies cannot afford to change engines every 3 years, but i can certainky afford a new engine in 15 years.

I read a lot of these diesel threads with interest. During the summer our horse trailer is latched onto the truck more than it's not. It's a '93 non-turbo 7.3 F250 with 180K miles. I recently had to put some money into it - inj pump, injectors, muffler, starter motor. Still need to replace rear springs (broken leaf) and shocks all around. After this much money, I want to drive my own money, but wonder if I should sell while it's salable or drive it until it dies. Then I read about the problems with newer rigs and think I've only put a few "payments" into it, it's still mine, and as good as anything newer (albeit a tad more sluggish) Then again, it's 14 years old.
Decisions...

I'm still driving my 93 NA IDI too. Just had to put $500 into the suspension. Needs IP, injectors and probably a new tranny this year. But it still works and gets the same milage as the new ones, but with only 185 hp. 2nd gear up the pass towing @45 mph, but dollars/mile its a bargain. I can deal with it for the $$$ for now.....

Everyone I know that has had a 7.3 has liked them. There seems to be a developing interest in components for upgrading the 7.3s as well. Definitely one of the best looking trucks Ford has made.

Only have owned one diesel truck and that was a 93 gmc sierra with the 6.5 turbo diesel. 19mpg on the highway and lots of power.Hauled over 6000lbs of hay with no problems and pulled strong. It was just a PITA trying to start the thing in winter or cold weather. Even when it was plugged in.

Maybe POS walmart batteries?

A 6.5 turbo...Blech!!

Big rigs can see 250k miles in 2 years. They very do often run over 500 hp but the difference is 1850 ft lbs of torque.


Now days a 475 hp big rig is considered small-ish horsepower with the 550 CAT and 565 Cummins being very popular with O/O.

Right now for the amount of pulling I do, my gas 6.0L 2500HD will do fine. All I pull right now is a 27' bumper hitch holiday trailer, but someday I will need to buy another horse trailer when I find the cash for a second horse and third horse

One thing the big rigs are teaching me, though, that you can dial up the horsepower, but there is a wear penalty. I just bought a used tractor with a Detroit 30 series at, IIRC, 370 horses. Those engines are running a million miles without any major issues on a regular basis. The same motor dialed up to 450 or so tends to be brought in for overhaul between 700 and 800 thousand. FWIW, Dutch.

detroits are nice. Very cheap to fix. Atleast the older ones were

CAT is the best nuff said!

to bad there isnt one in a pick up

if they would id be all over it!

I might even buy two

I seriously doubt your friend has seen "alot" of 5.9s with a cracked block. There was an issue with the Cummins blocks for the model years '98-'01. They are commonly called a "53" block as thats the number stamped on the block. They had thinner water jackets and SOMETIMES developed leaks.

There were only about 100K of the "53" blocks made and they weren't all found in Dodge trucks.

So how exactly do you figure the 6.7 block (which hasn't been out for 2 years) is better than the 5.9? The 5.9 has been virtually unchanged for something like 40 years. Lets talk again in about 40 years and see how the 6.7 compares.

The infamous "53" block which was cast in Brazil was in production for a couple of years in the late 90's & had issues with cracking at the back of the block. This has not been a problem for many years. Haven't seen or heard of any cracks between #3 & #4 cylinders. My understanding was it was confined to the water jacket behind #6 cylinder & occurred mostly in trucks that pulled heavy........

BTW: 105k on my 500HP '03 & I just performed the first engine related repair today. Replaced the waterpump

My understanding was that the 6.7 Cummins is a bored and stroked 5.9 block , at any rate I have alot of faith in Cummins to produce a good engine.

There are lots of the 5.9 s in Case-IH and other farm tractors and it is real common to see examples with over 10000 hours on them with the engines still humming along like a sewing machine....and those are much more stressful hours than running a pickup truck down the highway .

I noticed a 96 Dodge dually on a used lot the other day.......it had 550000 miles on the clock and didn't look bad at all......started right up and sounded good , no smoke and ran smooth . The dealer that had it said he was using it to haul cars back and forth to the auctions.

There are shiploads of big trucks on the road these days with well over 500 horse , if any thing they tend to outlast the smaller motors and get better milege

The big cat engines do last as long as anything else. My point was that if you take a smaller motor like the Detroit 30 series, and "dial up" the HP, there is a life penalty. FWIW, Dutch.

Dutch; I think you're right, and I think you also suffer lower mpg as you increase power. If I recall correctly, the Dodge/Cummins in '91 with a 5 speed had around 160hp and they got around 24mpg on the highway and lasted forever. A '97 with a 5speed had (I think) 225 hp, and got around 20mpg on the highway. For '06 or '07 that same block is up to 360hp and the mileage is worse. Is this a trend that happens just because most of us want more power?
I'd rather buy one with less hp and get better mpg myself, and I'm running up to 16k-17k pounds sometimes...but most of the time I'm empty. FWIW, at those weights I'm getting 11mpg on the highway in my '06 Ford diesel
My Ford is only good for 14-16 on the highway empty, and I think that stinks. It's got the 5 speed auto w/3.73's, so when I hear about guys getting over 20mpg with one, I have to wonder if they check mileage the same way I do...

I run a 5.9 Cummins in the 06 Dodge, and if I "play nice", I can get 19, sometimes 20 mpg. If I stay under 70 mph (with the towing gears, too). Last week, I ran a delivery (sans trailer), up into the high country. Even with 400 gallons in the back and some gravel roads, she came in at 18.5 for the trip (291 miles). I'll take that.....!

My standard hauling rig is 1,000 gallons of water on the trailer, and 400 gallons in the back of the truck -- should be about 20K CGVW, and the extra horses are nice. Loaded like that, I run about 12 mpg, and can keep up with traffic under nearly all circumstances.

Anyway, the abilities of these modern diesels are just amazing, though 14 mpg empty would torque my shorts..... FWIW, Dutch.

An engine with more power capability doesn't necessarily always mean it gets worse mileage. but you can certainly drive it that way.

My truck's mileage did not change when I went from a 330 RWHP chip setting to a 500 RWHP tuning program--unless I constantly keep my foot in it.

What took down the mileage in my truck was the 5" lift and 35" tires. That cost me a couple mpg, but I expected that.

Don't misunderstand my post---I wasn't refering to Dodge or Chevy diesels, as I've had a '97 Dodge and an '03 Silverado, and they both got better mpg than this Ford. It's got just under 19k miles on it and the best (empty, highway) mileage I've gotten is 16 mpg. That's level freeway at 70 using the cruise control. I think that sucks.
I'm thinking the difference is in the engines, as the only other difference I can think of is the Ford weighs a few hundred pounds more.