Ford Power Stroke Nation banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

what is the difference between the 2011 and 2012 turbo

15K views 41 replies 20 participants last post by  Tom S 
#1 ·
getting mine replaced. I had the turbo surge at 1100 rpms. The tech submitted the complaint and it came back with a tsb stating to replace the turbo. Turbo was ordered witht eh number FMC sent and tech started replacing it today. He said that he can't visually tell a difference by looking at it and inside it. So I am hoping I got the newer turbo and would like to know the difference
 
#4 ·
I am sure there are going to be a lot of "quiet" changes to the 6.7L lined up, starting yesterday...
Turbo, fuel system capabilities, and most importantly, a change to the paper rods and tin foil wrist pins the 11' and 12' guys are hopelessly stuck with.
The engine should be classified as the biggest Pile O' $hit ever installed in a diesel pick up truck since the GM 6.5L, but to make this engine solid again will be very easy for Ford to do.
I expect big improvements in the next couple of years..
 
#7 ·
Damn George, you never stop being a **** do you? Glad you hate the 11s, I LOVE mine, 40k trouble free miles so far, and look forward to another 400k trouble free miles in the future,,,
 
#8 ·
And I did NOT call you a name, just left it for others to "Fill in the blank",,, LOL
 
#9 ·
This thread's going to get interesting....I'm going to kick back and watch.

 
#10 ·
I thought this site was getting a little slow and boring, and i haven't had any insults thrown my way for pointing out the truth in quite a while now.
I thought I could count on my thin skinned and rightfully frightened friends to help wake things up a little..

I'm not pessimistic, I still own a 6.4L that makes an easy 1,200 lbs of torque without folding in the rods, and I am very confident that the 14' will be a much improved engine without having to deal with the current issues you guys are sattled with..
 
#11 ·
I hope you are right. I'd still own a 6.7, since I don't really mod my vehicles though.

Hopefully the 'changes' don't include weaker rods like it did for the 7.3 back in 2001. But that may have been a decision on Navistar's part, not Ford's.
 
#12 ·
lol at the 6.4 guys that are still making payments on yesterdays news and are bitter about it. I don't give two ####s whats under your hood, looks old, is old. When the next gen superduty comes out, I'll do what they call a trade in. No one is stuck with anything.
 
#13 ·
Personally, I write checks for the vehicles I buy, and I along with 99.99999% of truck buyers care very much what's under the hood.. I do have trouble though buying an inferior product to it's predecessor, especially when it folds like a paper plate when properly outfitted...
Nobody is cheering more than me in hopes that Ford fixes this crappy engine because I would love a new truck..
 
#17 ·
Personally, I write checks for the vehicles I buy, and I along with 99.99999% of truck buyers care very much what's under the hood.. I do have trouble though buying an inferior product to it's predecessor, especially when it folds like a paper plate when properly outfitted...
Nobody is cheering more than me in hopes that Ford fixes this crappy engine because I would love a new truck..

:whs:
 
#14 ·
George.... Thanks again for another useless Thread jack. Please go purchase a Cheby or Dodge and go bash their products on those forums.
 
#15 ·
Thread jacking?
You confuse bashing with acknowledging.
I hope all of you guys get your trucks fixed properly, and I'm rooting for you..

Doesn't that bad turbo crap piss you off, especially since everybody has known about it for almost two years?
Now I wouldn't be surprised to see the new turbo decrease boost to protect the block from the rods since we all know about that one too..
Now you have the weak rods and wrist pins looming right over your head, and you know Ford will never acknowledge that one, and you will be left holding the bag..
Watch the part numbers and trade as soon as they change my friend.
 
#16 ·
I think ford built a very solid engine stock for stock a 6.7 would burn up a 6.4. Ford didn't build this engine to go over 500 hp. Why should they when the 6.7 already has 400 hp and 800 ft lbs of torque. Don't get me wrong I love my 6.4. But u get to give ford some credit here. For their first engine they did a h&&& of a job. Aftermarket wise yea 6.4 all day but ford didn't make this engine for aftermarket. Yea it's going to have a few bugs but that's y there's a warranty. So stop bashing the 6.7 George C ur so raciest against the 6.7.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app
 
#22 ·
Well that there settles it folks. A group of people on an internet forum had their engines blow up. All 100,000+ engines out there must be bad then.
 
#23 ·
I usually don't feed the troll, but here it goes. George, you are in the 6.7 technical info section. This isn't the aftermarket section. This section is for people who run there trucks stock. These motors, STOCK, have been extremely successful so far. In fact, they make mine and your "beloved" 6.4L look pitiful when it comes to reliability. You and I are what's called the 1%er's. Ford doesn't cater to our wants and demands. They cater to the 99% of the public who works these trucks, not hot rods them. Give it a break. There is no need to cater to the 1%er's and redesign the fuel system because it wont support 550rwhp. Ford doesn't care. While I wish they would strengthen the bottom end, they aren't going to based solely on the fact that guys are trying to turn them up past there intended design limits. The turbo is a weak link stock and hopefully it will be addressed. Give it a rest. Ford isn't jacking anyone. The motor does what Ford intended for it to do. Not what you expect from it. It runs down the road cranking out a respectable 400hp and 800ft/lbs with a factory warranty and reliably. You are jacking this website up by taking up bandwidth by beating this tiresome dead horse. On a sidenote, the Duramax will chunk a rod out of the side of the block at not much more power, yet they are easily taking the aftermarket competition "crown" from the Cummins guys. My point? Tear a check out of that "hyped" up bank account and make the 6.7 compete and quit whining about what they cant do! Or go buy something else.
 
#24 ·
I usually don't feed the troll, but here it goes. George, you are in the 6.7 technical info section. This isn't the aftermarket section. This section is for people who run there trucks stock. These motors, STOCK, have been extremely successful so far. In fact, they make mine and your "beloved" 6.4L look pitiful when it comes to reliability.
Extremely reliable and successful?
Really?
You say that with a straight face?

Maybe yours has been a problem, but definitely not the rest of us "99%ers"...Unless you have had your head buried in the sand, this thread is about the stock turbo that has been failing for almost two years my friend... We'll forget about the rest of the problems like altitude fuel starvation or the weak foundation on this extremely successful engine.

Since you are feeding the "troll", compete with what?
What I already have?
Right.... Makes perfect pretzel logic.
 
#25 ·
I don't care what you have I just want one that is reliable. I had a 6.7 turbo crap out at 5k or so. I want one like my 7.3 that even with 200k on it you are not afraid to buy it. The 6.7 I think will be great in a few years, the 6.4 was only out for 3 years for a reason, I hope the 6.7 ends up with a longer track record.
 
#28 ·
Ma man,
George C does not approve any engine rod swap that takes another $10,000.00 in parts and labor to bring it back up to expected standards of any previous Powerstroke. An extra 10K to fix the 6.7L's weaknesses, and no power yet?

Remember, that used to come from the factory for free...:(


 
#29 ·
As stated stock vs stock a 6.7 destroys a 6.4 in performance and reliability.

If you have not seen 6.4 with rods in the pan, bent rods, pin to rod wear, front cover cavitation, lifter failure then youve been stuck in an ivory tower.

If you think some guy with a laptop selling chips can tune aswell as ford your sadly mistaken. Lightnings were the same way, a canned predator had a known reputation for chucking rods. Yet once the tuners learning curve improved guys were running 11 s on stock rods, yet previously were chucking them running 13s.

Perhaps once the tuners figure out spining the #### out of the turbo is not making power the turbos won't be failing and bending shafts.

Don't even bother comparing modded vs modded as money and knowledge wins. And so far the knowledge on 6.7 modding is piss poor
 
#31 ·
Pure..




Tuning?

Really?
Seriously?
Tuning?
Really?

I don't ever remember a Navistar Powerstroke ever having a turbo chuck it's guts out over a mild 30 lbs of boost, and if you haven't seen the thread title yet, I would suggest accepting the problem as something Ford has under engineered because there is a new replacement available..
Hopefully soon, you might accept that the entire engine is engineered wrong when it comes to strength, and stop blaming it on "tuning".
Nothing was more primitive than some of the old Superchips 7.3L tunes where the waste gate was adjusted with a "boost tube", remember?. Yeah, a archaic aluminum tube with a random hole in it, inserted in the vacuum line leading directly to the waste gate to produce a vacuum leak so the wastegate wouldn't ever work, and I don't seem to recall a problem with tuning chucking rods out of the side of the block then. I do remember high boost codes, EGT temps that would melt the pistons and tons of ugly unburned fuel coming out of the tail pipe, an even the turbo fan blades melting down, but I don't seem to recall a window in my block, or anyone elses for that matter.

Next excuse for laying down and accepting this paper weight from FMC?
And no Uga, I don't want to rebuild one...

Also, you are trying to sell gasoline tuning as some barometer for high compression, tight tolerance, high fuel volume and expanded injection timed diesel tuning? I'm out of laughs for that one because to compare the two rules out any more time reading your posts..
Dude, the 6.7L rods fold like jello at the same or less boost pressures than what the mildest tuned 6.4L lives at every day. Even the 6.0L didn't fold up like this. At least the 6.0L was strong enough in the crank case to blow the heads off before ever folding the rods..
Does reality hurt that much to admit that the 6.7L fails when pushed?
And if the next excuse is "don't push it", then I will have seen and heard it all.

In three or four years, you'll be looking back and saying what a jack job the early 6.7L engines were.
I guarantee it...
 
#35 ·
You can go on and on about how the 6.7L was engineered to do exactly what it does.
We agree.. We totally agree.

At the end of the day, the facts about the strength of the engine still remain.
It's a pile of intentionally under engineered junk to any diesel enthusiast who wants performance potential. It is the camel which is can not take another straw because it will break..
If you accept this huge step down as the future of Ford diesel, I understand your position.

But don't, don't ever compare this boat anchor to the Navistar 6.4L in any fashion what so ever. Please don't ever use the stock to stock example because you know better. Compare them with the same emission technology, and don't bother comparing them as a whole....
That's when the entire diesel performance enthusiast community will know that you are talking crap.
 
#36 ·
If you don't have any info on what the difference is on the 2011 and 2012 turbo george why don't you stop posting on the 6.7 section and go back to the 6.4 and tell all those guys how wonderful your truck is. I come on this forum to try and learn something not read how you hate this motor which you don't own nor ever will unless changes are made. We get that so please stop stirring the pot. Some people buy these truck never intending on tuning them but with just the intent on driving them. I've tuned mine and I am happy with it, great mpg's no problems so far. If Ford made the changes that you are stating it would just make a great truck and motor even better.
 
#39 ·
Anth,
Just because you elected to buy your truck (when others decide to pass) doesn't give you some sort of exclusive membership card to this forum. I personally couldn't care less who posts what-where because we all have opinions and we are looking into the future for our next purchases.
If you don't want to discuss this engines shortcomings openly, then don't click reply and live with them. And please don't try to cover your ears and hide under the sheets here...
If you "learn" anything here, it'll be from changes that need to be exposed and then re-engineered by Ford to fix them.
Thank VRSC for the thread, and keep the pressure of forum exposure high..
Expect many positive changes which only come from exposure. Instead of cursing, you can thank those responsible for exposing them later.

Now for some reality..
Since you have tuned, you are running an extremely high risk of internal parts breakage like turbo failure, and possible rod failure, along with the stark reality of being completely on your own because your engine and transmission warranty are now totally void my friend.
With this engine's fast developing track record, how secure does that feel?
I would pay very, VERY close attention before you get a 20K bill from Ford to fix what shouldn't break..
Then, we'll see if your "tune" changes...
 
#37 ·
Ahem. The 6.7 (Ford) is not a boat anchor. The GM manufactured version of the 6.5L turbo diesel was a true boat anchor. That was a POS. Multiple block failures (over 30% in one particular application) under NORMAL use, an engine you couldn't really tune (won't take much more than 15 psi of boost), and just, sluggish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top