FordExcursions.com Forums
Bill Priestley
 |
|
• Philadelphia, PA, USA |
|
• Registered on 5/8/2003 |
|
• 1 post |
|
|
|
 Posted:5/8/2003 04:15 |
|
|
I'm looking at buying a 6.0 PSD but a dealer I contacted said to shy away from it as there is "problems with the new engine" including getting parts. He does not have exactly what I'm looking for so maybe it's a ploy. Have you heard anything bad about the 6.0 PSD?
thanks
Bill |
|
RS-TX
 |
|
• Little River, TX, USA |
|
• Registered on 11/22/2002 |
|
• 298 posts |
|
|
|
|
Posted:5/8/2003 15:29 |
|
|
Well, it depends on who you talk to. I've heard of several guys who are cussing their 6.0 PSDs due to problems, but these are probably the small minority. From what I've read, there are always some "growing pains" with any new product and the first year is not the best time to buy a new anything.
Still, if I had the money and my dealer had just what I wanted, I'd be on it like stink on a monkey! That 6.0 sounds like it is going to be a heck of an engine, especially in the X.
Rick
2004 VW Jetta TDI |
|
Michael Rhude
 |
|
• Middlebury, IN, USA |
|
• Registered on 6/2/2003 |
|
• 3 posts |
|
|
|
 Posted:6/4/2003 15:19 |
|
|
|
I've got a 1999 F-350 crew cab 7.3 Diesel Pick-up with 120K miles and a new 2003 Ford Excursion with the 6.0 diesel and 9.5K miles. The F-350 is box stock and had total maintenance costs of $ 2,400.00 over four years. It performs very well and averaged 16 mpg. It is very noisy and significantly slower on acceleration. The 6.0 diesel is night and day better in terms of accelertion, lower noise levels, and improved fuel mileage. I have been towing a 28'-0" enclosed car trailer and I have been averaging approx. 18 mpg. Around town the mileage is roughly the same, however, when we went on an extended trip without the trailer we averaged 25.8 mpg. I have pictures to prove it!! I sent them to a tree-hugger website!! I have had zero problems with the excursion and nothing but praise for the fitment and quality. I would strongly suggest the 6.0 diesel based on my experience. |
|
Charles Radloff
 |
|
• Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
• Registered on 1/25/2003 |
|
• 87 posts |
• 1
|
|
|
Posted:6/4/2003 17:38 |
|
|
|
Have a friend that was told the same thing with many many returns on the 6.0 so he ordered a new one with the 7.3 in it... |
|
E. Long
 |
• Subscriber since 1/1/2001 |
|
• Atlanta, GA, USA |
|
• Registered on 1/23/2001 |
|
• 2,229 posts |
• 1
|
|
|
Posted:6/5/2003 08:05 |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've got a 1999 F-350 crew cab 7.3 Diesel Pick-up with 120K miles and a new 2003 Ford Excursion with the 6.0 diesel and 9.5K miles. The F-350 is box stock and had total maintenance costs of $ 2,400.00 over four years. It performs very well and averaged 16 mpg. It is very noisy and significantly slower on acceleration. The 6.0 diesel is night and day better in terms of accelertion, lower noise levels, and improved fuel mileage. I have been towing a 28'-0" enclosed car trailer and I have been averaging approx. 18 mpg. Around town the mileage is roughly the same, however, when we went on an extended trip without the trailer we averaged 25.8 mpg. I have pictures to prove it!! I sent them to a tree-hugger website!! I have had zero problems with the excursion and nothing but praise for the fitment and quality. I would strongly suggest the 6.0 diesel based on my experience. |
Damn you!  This makes me want the 6.0L!!! Someday... 
-Eric
'67 Galaxie 500 - 390 FE, .030" over, FE to AOD adapter, disc brake conversion. The Daily Driver.
'00 Excursion - 7.3L PSD, LANDYOT Gen-II Radius Rods, Factory Tech Valve Body, 200K+ miles and going |
|
|
|
