Looking for feedback on Ford 7.3 diesels

[Squatch]

I've been toying with the idea of acquiring a box truck or van, and I find that a good number of them are running the Ford 7.3 diesel in them. The only diesel I've ever owned is my Cummins, which I have been 100% satisfied with, but I have zero experience with Ford's offering. Would appreciate any information anyone might have to share on these critters.
Thanks,
Squatch

 

[P man]

I have toyed with buying a diesel pickup but the 1 thing that stops me is this..if the engine shits the bed I could not afford to replace it

 

[SoCalGlide]

The older 7.3 diesel or the new 7.3 gas engine?

 

[Zorba]

I had a 6.9. The only real issue with the 6.9 and especially the 7.3 is cavitation erosion. Keep up on "Water Wetter" and you'll supposedly be OK. I also don't know how well the rotary injection pump has held up over the years - it was a BFD when the switch to low sulpher diesel happened - I ran an additive.

 

[Squatch]

The older 7.3 diesel or the new 7.3 gas engine?

I don't know enough about them to know which would be preferable. Total noob to this particular engine...

 

[Squatch]

The older 7.3 diesel or the new 7.3 gas engine?

I guess older, based on my not wanting to spend a ton of money on a newer rig. Early 2000's, perhaps...?

 

[Zorba]

I guess older, based on my not wanting to spend a ton of money on a newer rig. Early 2000's, perhaps...?

Mine was an '87. I think they went to the 7.3 (Bored out 6.9) in '88, but I may be mis-remembering. This was pre-"Power Stroke".

 

[SoCalGlide]

I guess older, based on my not wanting to spend a ton of money on a newer rig. Early 2000's, perhaps...?

Don't mess with the 7.3 IDI. The 1994.5-'2003 7.3 Powerstroke turbo diesel weren't the most powerful diesels on the block, but they weren't bad and it's hard to break one. Extremely reliable, and there's still a lot of support out there for it. The 2000-2003 had the most power and torque.

 

[Zorba]

Don't mess with the 7.3 IDI. The 1994.5-'2003 7.3 Powerstroke turbo diesel weren't the most powerful diesels on the block, but they weren't bad and it's hard to break one. Extremely reliable, and there's still a lot of support out there for it. The 2000-2003 had the most power and torque.

Nothing wrong with the IDI. Dead nuts reliable and very simple. But yes, the Power Stroke made more power, no question. Mine had a Banks Turbo on it.

 

[TWiG01]

Definitely try and get an 99 to early 2000s 7.3 for the most power/ torque. Midway for 2003 they switched to the 6.0 which is a good engine, but has its fair share of known issues to work out first. I think all 7.3 powerstrokes were made by International. Just like anything, if they were taken care of, they’ll easily serve you for 500k miles with routine maintenance. Reliability is essentially on par with Cummins’ engines from the same time frame.

 

[Squatch]

Definitely try and get an 99 to early 2000s 7.3 for the most power/ torque. Midway for 2003 they switched to the 6.0 which is a good engine, but has its fair share of known issues to work out first. I think all 7.3 powerstrokes were made by International. Just like anything, if they were taken care of, they’ll easily serve you for 500k miles with routine maintenance. Reliability is essentially on par with Cummins’ engines from the same time frame.

I've heard some negative comments through the years about the 6.0, and deserved or not, it did stick in my mind as something to shy away from. The 7.3 just seems to be everywhere, so I'm hoping that's a good sign.

 

[Squatch]

Nothing wrong with the IDI. Dead nuts reliable and very simple. But yes, the Power Stroke made more power, no question. Mine had a Banks Turbo on it.

I like simple.

 

[TWiG01]

I've heard some negative comments through the years about the 6.0, and deserved or not, it did stick in my mind as something to shy away from. The 7.3 just seems to be everywhere, so I'm hoping that's a good sign.

The 6.0 naysayers are definitely out there, but they have kind of come into their own as decent engines once you fix the known issues (oil cooler, studs, etc), but for out of the box reliability, the 7.3 is tough to beat.

 

[tr21triton]

i owned a 99 7.3 power sucker, and 5 cummins. wont ever own another ford diesel. now i own diesel trucks really for the mileage and reliability and seldom haul extremely heavy loads, except for hauling my 34ft camper about 100 miles each way 2 times a year. i traded in a 94 5.9 cummins that got 21-22mpg on the 7.3 that got 15.5-16.5mpg had a co worker tell me he had a 7.3 that got 23+ after chipping, exhaust and a bunch of other stuff to it ( i told him sure he does and i have a 24in. long dick too ) i will say none of the cummins or the navistar motor gave me any troubles. i currently drive a 2014 ram 1500 ecodiesel and smile from ear to ear everytime i fill it up 26-28mpg and 150k miles with no troubles. but i will say now when i need to tow the camper for its 2 month outing i get my brother to pull it with his 2012 f250 7.3 (which he says will be his last) to camp, because i wouldn't be comfortable pulling 9k lbs with a 1/2 ton truck.

 

[SoCalGlide]

The 6.0 naysayers are definitely out there, but they have kind of come into their own as decent engines once you fix the known issues (oil cooler, studs, etc), but for out of the box reliability, the 7.3 is tough to beat.

Yeah, I had an '07 F350 with the 6.0. The worst problem was lifting the heads, but that was usually self inflicted by running a tuner. I did replace my oil cooler with an aftermarket piece, along with a Bulletproof EGR cooler, mostly for peace of mind at the 100K mark. I did have to replace the power board in the FICM. I pulled a 15K# 5th wheel toy hauler with it quite a bit, and I never had to stud it.

 

[SoCalGlide]

i owned a 99 7.3 power sucker, and 5 cummins. wont ever own another ford diesel. now i own diesel trucks really for the mileage and reliability and seldom haul extremely heavy loads, except for hauling my 34ft camper about 100 miles each way 2 times a year. i traded in a 94 5.9 cummins that got 21-22mpg on the 7.3 that got 15.5-16.5mpg had a co worker tell me he had a 7.3 that got 23+ after chipping, exhaust and a bunch of other stuff to it ( i told him sure he does and i have a 24in. long dick too ) i will say none of the cummins or the navistar motor gave me any troubles. i currently drive a 2014 ram 1500 ecodiesel and smile from ear to ear everytime i fill it up 26-28mpg and 150k miles with no troubles. but i will say now when i need to tow the camper for its 2 month outing i get my brother to pull it with his 2012 f250 7.3 (which he says will be his last) to camp, because i wouldn't be comfortable pulling 9k lbs with a 1/2 ton truck.

My brother's '97 Ram 2500 is still going strong with 350K miles on the clock. Gets 19mpg all day long. I never got over 14mpg with my '07 6.0.

 

[pagrey]

As far as Ford diesel, like @Zorba says avoid the 1988-1994 7.3 idi due to the cavitation issue. The 1994-2003 7.3 powerstroke is pretty good. The 1984-1987 6.9 is great and the thicker walls aren't supposed to be vulnerable to cavitation but it's low on power unless it has a banks turbo kit. Anything newer you have to be a real expert to get a reliable used motor.

 

[Squatch]

After putting 420,000 miles on my '90 Dodge with the Cummins in it, I have nothing but good things to say about that drivetrain. Back when the speed limit was 55 mph, I once got just under 23 mpg on a road trip that used damn near the full tank of fuel, and this was with a 727 TorqueFlite (so no overdrive). Best vehicle I have ever owned.

 

[R49]

7.3 is a good engine. My son has a 2002 F350. If you get it for a good price so much the better. Here in MT they’re going for over $20K.

I own a 2005 F250 with the 6.0. 165,000 mi. Still running strong but I wouldn’t recommend that engine unless you can work on it. I’ve done injectors, FICM and HPOP to mine.

 

[Squatch]

I wouldn’t recommend that engine unless you can work on it.

I'm mechanically inclined, but not inclined to be a mechanic...