reliable truck= low $$$
high hp truck= moderate $$$
reliable, high hp truck= serious $$$[/QUOTE]

I couldnt agree more with the equation above

I may be wrong but I believe The 7.3 was designed to go in light duty trucks and was lucky to get into school buses and such. The cummins B series was designed as a commercial engine for buses, military vehicles, commercial trucks and we were lucky to get it in a light truck application... I Like both the engines but I wouldnt take the time to make a psd f150, would you? Nice truck by the way!

 

I couldnt agree more with the equation above

I may be wrong but I believe The 7.3 was designed to go in light duty trucks and was lucky to get into school buses and such. The cummins B series was designed as a commercial engine for buses, military vehicles, commercial trucks and we were lucky to get it in a light truck application... I Like both the engines but I wouldnt take the time to make a psd f150, would you? Nice truck by the way![/QUOTE]

The 6.9/7.3 (later the T444e and 7.3 PSD) are found in numerous "medium duty" applications as well. School buses, international medium duty trucks (4700 series trucks) etc.

The 5.9 was born of a JV between Cummins and Case and originally designed to go into backhoes and other off road applications in the early 1980s. Later it found its way into Similar functions as the 7.3..buses, medium duty trucks(f650 and 750) etc. The 5.9 has more off road applications than that the 7.3.

While the B series engines have a burlier bottom end than the 7.3s. Truth be told both the 7.3 and 5.9 are light duty engines and merely introductory engines in medium duty applications....neither has cylinder liners so they aren't designed for multiple rebuilds.... some refer to them as "throw away engines." Like mentioned above the DT466 and ISC are Navistar and Cummins, respectively, true medium duty engines.

Personally, I loved my 04.5 CR...best engine I ever had. I just prefer the wrapper my PSD comes in...maybe some day I will drop a CR Cummins in my truck.....right after I win the lotto.

 

Exactly.

Thanks

I had actually considered it, the biggest thing that drove me towards a 12v was no electronics, and 2nd was performance potential. But now that the EFI live is out for the 05-06 5.9's, it really makes me want to drop a CR in there

 

Hm. I learn something new everyday. I had never considered the multiple rebuild factor. So is it true you need special antifreeze to keep the cylinder wall from deteriorating in these things? I just heard about this at work yesterday... And I surely agree Ford does a far better job on the wrapper. My next truck will be a f350 dually Fummins

 

Well Navistar owns international nowadays. But tomato..tomAto.

Yes the 6.9, 7.3 IDI and 7.3 PSD all require SCAs to keep the cylinder walls from pitting. Basically it is cause of the thinner walls associated with the block design if my understanding is correct.

2000-2003 7.3 PSDs can run coolants meeting International B-1 (or Cat EC-1 or Cummins 14603) aka "ELC's" that do not require SCAs.

 

The primary issue (cavitation) was with the older 6.9 and 7.3 IDI engines, I don't think its that big a problem with the powerstrokes.

New to me. I had never heard that cavitation was a problem with the PowerStrokes, but it seemed rampant with the IDI's.

 

Power Stroke Diesel - Power and Pride

Yep you supposed to either dump a bottle of SCAs in every 15k or test on that interval. It is not as bad as with the IDI's but still more of an issue than a 5.9/6.7 CTD. I would be willing to bet that a significant portion of 7.3 PSDs running around right now have never seen a bottle of SCAs. I test and run SCAs cause I am a little OCD.

They even changed the dye color in the MC SCAs for the gold coolant...

Diesel Cooling System Additive