You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Thread starter Matthew L
- Start date
Same basic engine as the 7.3 that followed it and was sold until early 1994. That said, the 6.9 was less prone to cylinder-wall cavitation then the 7.3. It is a much more HD engine that what GM had at the time (the 6.2). I had three and I'd say fuel mileage was poor with all of them. Great engines though. My last 6.9 was in a 1985 F250 with 4WD, extended cab, C6 trans and 4.10 axles. It got 10-12 MPG no matter how I drove, including empty on the highway. I still drive a 1994 F250 with a 7.3 turbo, extended cab, 4WD, 4.10 axles and trans with OD and lock-up converter. It gets around 16 MPG on empty highway runs @ 65 MPH.
A bit of trivia you can believe or not believe. When Mopar stopped making the 440 engine that was very popular in motorhomes - International Harvester started selling their "high torque 7.3" gas engine to take its place. Model MV-446 school bus engine. Same block config, bore and stroke as the 7.3 diesel (and 6.9) that followed. It looks like the school bus gas engine was the beginning of the 6.9 and 7.3 diesel project.
A bit of trivia you can believe or not believe. When Mopar stopped making the 440 engine that was very popular in motorhomes - International Harvester started selling their "high torque 7.3" gas engine to take its place. Model MV-446 school bus engine. Same block config, bore and stroke as the 7.3 diesel (and 6.9) that followed. It looks like the school bus gas engine was the beginning of the 6.9 and 7.3 diesel project.
Fritz Maurer
Well-known Member
I had the same truck with 3.55s and a 4-speed. Slightly better mileage, around 14 or so. I wish I had that truck back, even with the crummy Dana 44 front end. Didn't they have a catchy name for that jointed axle housing arrangement? I brutalized that engine. Never let me down. Rear step bumper almost fell off when truck was 1 week old from the hammering of loaded gravity boxes. I'd run straight 10W in the winter, and it would start unassisted at -5deg.F It's no 290 Cummins, (or even a 160) but solid as an anvil. You're right about the 446; it never occurred to me before, but the 6.9 and 446 both take the same water pump.
Fritz, you mean the TTB (twin traction beam) front axle? Mine in my 96 250 has the Dana 50 which is supposed to better than the 44, but it didn't have any traction let alone "twin traction" last fall when I was trying to pull a loaded wagon out of the field when it broke the axle shaft and U joint. It's getting a Dana 60 now lol.
Matt we had 1 in a 3/4 ton f250 truck that we used for on the farm tire service, put 2 motors in that darn thing, several transmissions and several torque converters. Rebuilt the rear end once. This was in the first 100000 miles. Other guys that had them replaced cracked heads, etc, etc. Totally gutless. That is why ford went to the 7.3. Most that had them couldn't wait to get rid of them.
In some ways the 7.3 was less durable then the 6.9. I suspect Ford went to the 7.3 because they had to follow IH's lead. The IH 7.3 was just a minor change with increased piston-bore, just as GM did when the 6.2 went to a 6.5. For its time the 6.9 was one heck of an engine and built near as rugged as a Cummins. Can't say that for the GM engines that were built much lighter. As far as "gutless goes - what diesel lacking a turbo is NOT gutless?
Back when I hated Ford trucks - I used to make fun of them. It seemed near every one I saw had cockeyed front wheels with that independent front end. That said, my 1994 diesel F250 has over 300K miles, rides like new, and the front wheels are still straight. Even the automatic locking hubs in front still work. Made a Ford lover out of me. That said, I also have a 1995 F150 4WD with the 300 cube straight six and 48K original miles. When I put a snow-plow on it in the winter - it is kind of scary to see how crooked those front wheels get.
john in la
Well-known Member
I can not speak intelligently about the motor because I never owned one.
But I do know a local Ford truck dealer had a mechanic that worked full time on nothing but 6.9's replacing head gaskets under warranty.
This was in the mid 80's when they first came out.
I assume they got the problem fixed.
But I do know a local Ford truck dealer had a mechanic that worked full time on nothing but 6.9's replacing head gaskets under warranty.
This was in the mid 80's when they first came out.
I assume they got the problem fixed.
chevytaHOE5674
Well-known Member
I had an 87 F250 with the 6.9 IDI and a ZF 5 speed manual. Was a good reliable truck that would go anywhere anytime, just not in a hurry. The truck had thicker head gaskets (to reduce compression), ARP head studs, worked over injection pump, big turbo, and an intercooler, which made it way better than stock and honestly felt pretty powerful. Until I bought myself a newer superduty with the 7.3L and did some work to it then the old 6.9L quickly found a new home as it wasn't cutting the mustard anymore.
BACK WHEN THE 6.9 came out.....
it pretty much out torqued everything available at that time. But short lived. That was the days a f250 was a only a 3/4 ton truck and a 350 was only a one ton truck and just barely... boy have times changed. My '86 6.9 out pulled everything around... Still have a ranch truck with 90k on it... Today I try to pull and its horrible weak compared to anything on the market. My 2013 6.7 regular pulls 30k and scares the crap out of me, where the 6.9 puffs and chokes at 10k, while leaving a fog cloud behind it.. So comparing a old 6.9 to today, is not too relevant.. To pop a head gasket almost was result of over revving the engine on a down shift or hill decent while engine braking.. Otherwise pretty indestructible engines to about 300k
I owned an 84 F350. 6.9 4speed. I am a huge Ford fan but have nothing good to say about the one I owned. After it nearly bankrupt ME: I went back to big block gas until I decided to try a 7.3 PSD. May be ok for light duty mine.would not stay together working it. (3 sets of glow plugs, 3 injection pumps,fuel pump, water pump, head gaskets, set of lifters, 2 transmission input shafts and rear end spider gears. In about two years) .
I still have mine,bought it in 84 new,4 speed,4.10 gears.it has close to 400,000 miles on it.ive never had a problem withb mine,not 1.been starting it on ether for id say 300,000 miles.it is getting nearly 17-19 miles per gallon yet,it is slow,max speed is 74 mph.power wise its nowhere near my 06 cummins,but I use it daily ,ive never had a load it wouldn't pull either,just takes a few more min to get there
Brian Jasper co. Ia
Well-known Member
Weight ratings have changed a lot since the 80s. My 2004 F250 6.0 weighed 7100 empty a while back at the dump.
Fritz Maurer
Well-known Member
That's it!!!! Twin Traction!!
Pair-a-dice farm
Well-known Member
(quoted from post at 07:39:38 04/29/17) Hey everyone,
I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on Ford 6.9L diesels. Also does anybody know what kind of fuel mileage you get? Matthew L
I've still got an '85 F250 4x4 with a 4 speed but I haven't driven it in years. Mine has 4.10 gears and as long as I stayed at the speed limit, at that time, of 55 mph I got 17-18 mpg. It is the only diesel I've ever owned so I can't compare it to any other diesel. Mine has been a work horse with only a couple of starters in over 300K miles.
There was never a time in my lifetime when 1/2 ton" had to mean a truck could only carry 1/2 ton. My 1949 F1 Ford came from the factory with a 1639 lb. payload capacity. That is more then half a ton. Compare that to a 2015 F150 that could have as low as a 1568 lb. payload capacity. I don't see much difference over the years except a lot of changes in option packages.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 724
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy