New Military Vehicle To Use Power Stroke

BAE Military II
As part of the government's process of finding a new light tactical vehicle replacement for the Hummer, BAE Systems, a global company known for their advanced defense, security, and aerospace systems in the air and on land, is now showing their JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicles) to government officials. The process has several stages but will likely be the vehicle of choice for our military for many years to come.  

Glenn Lamartin, BAE Systems JLTV Capture Lead, said “Our JLTVs are protected and survivable, light enough for transport by air or sea, and agile on road and off. Most importantly, they are affordable. This is truly a vehicle that is going to meet the needs of our service men and women.”

As part of its proposal, BAE Systems also announced that Ford's 6.7L V-8 Power Stroke will power the JLTV family of vehicles. Among the most important reasons for the choice was the engine's class-leading fuel economy and the best horsepower and torque numbers. This is the same engine Ford created for the F-Series Super Dutys.

We contacted Ford shortly after the announcement and spoke with Mike Levine, Ford's lead truck spokesperson: "We’re proud of Ford’s 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel engines and their best-in-class power, durability and fuel economy. And we are proud the engines were chosen to be part of BAE's JLTV entry." When asked how much input Ford had in the project, Levine stated, "We’re not a partner in this venture." 

No doubt BAE will be able to purchase as many Power Stroke engines as they want from Ford if their project JLTV proposals, or other family vehicles, are selected. The government plans to select up to three vehicles at the end of the current Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage of the process, with winners being announced in June.

No word yet as to whether or not a pickup truck version will be made. 

Comments

That looks better than the Hummer. Appears to have lots more troop protection than the old Hum had.

While im sure the scorpion packages well, fuel economy over the Cummins is a matter of the aftertreatment, and with Cummins already being a major military supplier, it would make more sense (to me).

I doubt it will be the exact same 6.7L as we get in pickups. They'll likely use the export version, which is slightly down on power, but has no emissions equipment.

I'm sure it's as much like the consumer power strokes as Danica Patrick's Impala race car is like a real Impala.

Uh, With Ford's past diesel reputation and experience (or lack of), is the military out of their minds letting BAE use that engine to power it's new "ultra-reliable" vehicle? A Duramax or Cummins would be a far greater choice. Both the Duramax and Cummins have been around way longer and are much more reliable and efficient at putting the power down. Ford is much too new at the diesel game to make such a critical engine for the military. You can get on the diesel forums and read horror stories about that new 6.7 diesel for cryin out loud, Ford has a long way to go still to bring that motor up to par. They're working on it I'm sure, but they are certainly not there yet, not even close.

If Afghanistan War will be over next year. if US Defense Department dont have money why it is totaled $750 billions dollars to more than $ 1 trillion dollars dollars for previous budgets for Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. I think US government want the wars are done. President Obama made cuts to Defense Department's budgetary. I think important special force will better than regular soldier.

@Norcal Greg, in the past IH made the diesel engs for ford. So the problems with the 6.0, 6.4 are Navstars problem. Thats why Ford decided to build their own. Every eng will have its issues exspecially with all the emissions and sensors on them. The best eng built from Navstar is the 7.3 with no emissions on it. Too bad they cant rebuld that eng again.

You can hear horror stories about any truck engine be it cummins duramax or powerstroke. This is the FIRST diesel engine made by ford and so far it's been a success. Reliability at this point does not seem to be a problem

Beebe, Ford has plenty of experience in making diesel engines. The Duratorq range for the global market. The PSA engines: 2.7 V6, 3.0 V6, 3.6 V8, and 4.4 V8 for Land Rover and Jaguar. The 6.7 used engineers who developed some of these PSA engines.

Why would US Military use Mexican built engines? I drive hot shots and it's clear that most guys steer away from powerstrokes (new or old).

I just wonder if Arnold will buy one?

You guys forgot about CAT powerplants...

CAT motors powering current militray trucks:

C-7
C-9
C-10
C-13
C-15
C-16
C-18

Any questions?

MATV is powered by CAT likewise...

Note: JLTV's are fully independent suspended, what happened to straight axles?

Ooppss forgot about C-12 powering Marine MTVR's...

@oxi

Unimog

I hope that fords new diesel dose well but it has not been around long enough at least I don't think so to put it in this hummer replacement. I would think they would go with something more proven but they did use the 6.5 diesel in the hummers and that didn't have much of a reliable rep.

Those poor soldiers. The gov't is really screwing them over with this mess. I guess they want them to get in better shape with all of the walking that they are going to have to do because of junk that won't run half of the time!!


@Norcal Greg, in the past IH made the diesel engs for ford. So the problems with the 6.0, 6.4 are Navstars problem. Thats why Ford decided to build their own. Every eng will have its issues exspecially with all the emissions and sensors on them. The best eng built from Navstar is the 7.3 with no emissions on it. Too bad they cant rebuld that eng again.


Posted by: rob | Mar 26, 2012 6:37:22 PM

Really? If it was all Navistar's problem, then why was Navistar not having any problems with the 6.0 and 6.4 in their trucks? I think it's more of a problem with Ford making mods that they have no clue about.

Putting an unproven engine in a military vehicle is not a smart decision. One year for a engine is not evidence the engine will not have issues. Just look at the 6.0 Ford sucked the public dry on. It was built by a company known for diesel engines and this new engine is the first diesel built by Ford as far as I know.

@Gary , what I cannot fathom is how BAE systems a British company gets so many US Defence contracts?
http://www.baesystems.com/our-company-rzz

http://www.baesystems.com/our-company-rzz/about-us/where-we-operate

I wouldn't call the 6.7L unproven at this point. It seems to be doing pretty good reliability wise, and is no doubt the best diesel Ford has come up with. Ironic that PSA is moving towards the GM camp, but the 6.7L design work is done anyway. I have been hearing that Ford has been very eager to sell 6.7L's to other OEM's. Rumor is that due to the economy the engine has yet to make it's projected sales targets, and despite being manufactured in Mexico the 6.7L might not be all that profitable for Ford.

@Bobby - If what you say is true, why did Ford sue Navistar?

@Alex - yopu are correct. I believe Ford has been building global spec diesels since 1999. That does not include any diesel technology or engines made by companies Ford used to own.

@Don Ragan - IED's are currently one of the most common devices used to claim the lives of soldiers. All of these JLTV's are designed to deflect the blast and minimize injury to the occupants.

@Oxi - Do you get commission for pushing the products that your employer builds?

Don't know why everyone is slagging Ford. BAE is just buying the engines.


I don't know about you all, but this pisses me off about as much as the govt. bailout of gm. We are the U.S. Of A., but yet our govt. thinks we need a british company to build our military vehicles. Does this make any sense at all? No wonder our unemployment rate sux. Obummer and his schinanigans do not put faith in Americans. Maybe he will tell them that he needs some space till after November. What a loser!!!!!!!!!

@ mr.jo
BAE employs 39200 Americans
Thats more than any other country. They employ 38400 in the UK, 5700 in Australia, 5300 in Saudi Arabia and around 100 in India.
All that matters is that the military is going to choose the better vehicle and the better vehicle is going to save our troops.

Hey Mike Levine,


"We’re proud of Ford’s 6.7-liter Power JOKE V-8 diesel engines and their best-in-class power, durability and fuel economy"

Where is the proof of the durability of this engine, its an UNPROVEN engine period!

It's sad that they go with the lowest bidder with an engine made 100% in Mexico, rather than a Duramax or Cummins which are made here in the USA.

Those poor soldiers. The gov't is really screwing them over with this mess. I guess they want them to get in better shape with all of the walking that they are going to have to do because of junk that won't run half of the time!!

-- I'm a troll? With words like that? Sure Sierra-Bob. I will actually agree with the premasis that this engine, if going into our military vehicles should probably have a few more years in the field first.

BAE is British and the brits have had a long time relationship with Ford.

I too doubt much significance will come of this. We're in a period again when US military spending needs to unwind for a period.

@bobby, half the trucks that our down in our shop at one time are typicaly 6.0l navstar engines the worse ones in terms of reliablity are in the international trucks the fords are in the shop longer because its harder to to take the engine apart in the smaller engine bay. We have yet to have problems with the 6.4l fords or the 6.7 . also we just had a new 12l cat sieze up. SO it realy just depends on alot of factors and who the operators are. And if you think that a company is giong to risk a huge defence contract on an "unreliable" motor you are mistaken they want to please their investors by getting the contract. So they are going to balnce cost reliabilty and features to best meet the governments goal. it doesnt matter what they put in the ^&*% think as long as it get troops safley from point a to point b. Also I have not seen a cumins that was post 2004 in the military inventory, i see duramax occasionaly but there are lots of power strokes unfortunatly mostly 6.0 motors. and most of the new pickup are ordered as gas so lots of 6.2l trucks running around.

I think this is excellent news. Mightcould set ford up to be an industrial diesel engine producer.

lucky for the army they have tow truck ...lol

I would bet that this all boils down to the (lowest bidder), that is the only way our Government ever buy's anything! every thing goes out to bid, and the lower the bid the better? what ever happened to (you only get what you pay for)? huh? and I would no dought that Ford is willing to make little to nothing to unload there new engines, proven or not, maybee even at a loss, and then put them in the field, as a test in an of itself, (our poor service members are ginny pigs again)? or to put it more mildly (test subjects)! You know that after GM getting our $$$, you would think that they would be more willing to sell the Dura-Max at or near a loss for the good of our troups, or maybe even Cummins doing the same. Just for the fact of getting the more proven engine out there in the field-war zone, maybee even out of the goodness of the hearts-patriotism? Lets hope an Pray that there is never a life lost because of some mechanical problem, due to the fact that our government incists on paying as little as poss. and save a few $$$ in the process. All to save a few $$$....

"Most importantly, they are affordable".

I bet the boots on the ground differ with his opinion of what is most important about these vehicles.

Lou,
The 7.3 , 6.0 and 6.4L are different in Powerstroke form. International had the T444E, VT365, and MAXXForce 7. They had different computers, and turbos, VGT's vs ford running a straight vane turbo. If you look at Internationals specs they are rated considerably lower than Ford, but also do have a greater reliability record vs Ford. The 6.0's problem was it was fine in stock Navistar form, then Ford decided that Super duty customers wanted more power so they ordered them with the different turbo and computer. The 6.4's are a similar story, in Maxxforce 7 trim, they only have one turbo vs Powerstrokes dual setup. Internally they are the same, but there are differences like Bobby said. My source for this information is my Father who is an ASE certified diesel mechanic who was been working strictly on Navistar diesel products since 1995. The lawsuit comes from Navistar not honoring warranty claims against the engines when they were in Powerstroke, not Navistar trim.

They TROLLING, they hating and it's always GREG and BOB trolling.

Sad that the Duramax was not chosen, gee I wonder why!!!!

@JJS Jerseys - thanks for the information.
If you look at any pickup diesel versus the same commercial diesel engine - they all have lower power ratings in the commercial units. Reliability and longevity take priority over HP. Pickup owners don't subject their trucks to the same torture. All of the manufactures boost the power to play the "mine is bigger than yours" game. The 6.0 has been a nightmare for Ford.

@ oxi
As a truck driver who's company purchased Internationals with the C-13 Cat motors I can share with you our experience with them....J U N K !!!!
We haven't had one of them go over 150,000 miles on them with out major repairs, in fact one of them had to be completely replaced at 320,000 miles. Sad, very sad motors. No wonder Cat no longer makes engines for the trucking industry anymore!
We're already (after two years) getting rid of them in favor of Freightliners with Detroit diesels.

First of all, this is BAE's entry into the JLTV competition. There are other companies competing for the JLTV contract. And yes, one of them is using a Cummins diesel.

I know some of you cut yourselves shaving just to see the bowties run out... but honestly the GM motors in the HMMWV's have been dogs from the beginning. The transmission was no better. The drivetrain was always the weak link in an otherwise world-class tactical vehicle, and the uparmor FRAG kits just exhaust the potential for any future.

The BT-6 aint what it used to be, so it could just be that the Ford 6.7 is the tool for the job. We'll see- But there just arent any laurels for GM to rest on when it comes to tactical performance.


They TROLLING, they hating and it's always GREG and BOB trolling.

Sad that the Duramax was not chosen, gee I wonder why!!!!


Posted by: Frank | Mar 27, 2012 11:14:01 AM

I takes a TROLL to know a TROLL....Troll Boy!!!!!!!!!

6.7 had been out for what a good year and a half now? The jury is still out on longevity but so far it has been a home run for FORD. Very few problems floating around online about it compared to the 6.4 and the 6.0 and to be honest I think both of those motors are not as bad as most let on about. The problems with the 6.0 are well documented and almost 90% all come back to the cooling system. Should have been addressed by both Ford and International but for whatever reason it didn't. Plenty of 200, 300, 400 thousand mile 6.0 running around, most still with the stock set ups, some with ARP headstuds and EGR deletes. It was never a bad motor, its just most that came over from the 7.3 thought they could abuse this motor like the 7.3 and get by on 10k mile oil changes on dyno oil and not change filters and it backfired big time. These newer diesels you got to stay on top of the maintenance. You do that and they will last a long time.

Ford Europe has been building diesels for years with no reliability issues. Ford US had their diesels built for them from international and navistar. The new 6.7 scorpion was designed by Ford with a majority of the design input coming from Ford Europe's engineers. It doesn't surprise me that the 6.7 is more reliable than the past two Ford entrys.

I seem to recall that the bigest inovation with the Scopion 6.7 is the way the intake an exhaust are, just like the stillborn GM 4.5 Duramax.

Ford invented cummins and sold it to Dodge therefore making the powerstrokes and cummins the most reliable, Duramax is the worst of all the engines. Fords 6.7L V-8 will do an excellent job. Simply nothing can touch Ford engines right now and the government is realizing that.

there's a better vehicle, more mobile and well armored. And you can actually see out of it and transport many with excellent mileage..
It's the Rat Terrier by two guys up north in Michigan...
Roger and Andy.. they designed it and it can work
rmervau@yahoo.com ; give them a call.. great concept design engineering team (231) 360-9375

Ford has been making diesels for years. In the heavy truck market..

(my comment based on this comment)

Uh, With Ford's past diesel reputation and experience (or lack of), is the military out of their minds letting BAE use that engine to power it's new "ultra-reliable" vehicle? A Duramax or Cummins would be a far greater choice. Both the Duramax and Cummins have been around way longer and are much more reliable and efficient at putting the power down. Ford is much too new at the diesel game to make such a critical engine for the military. You can get on the diesel forums and read horror stories about that new 6.7 diesel for cryin out loud, Ford has a long way to go still to bring that motor up to par. They're working on it I'm sure, but they are certainly not there yet, not even close.

Look good and fuel range saver productive for combat needs to be a good size and lighter its good a go

@Tucker

Cummins is made by Cummins, not Ford. Cummins is a diesel engine maker. Cummins is used in commercial trucks and pickups. I've been following Cummins for a long time.
The Duramax is actually one of the best diesel engines ever made. Duramax's are made by Isuzu (a Japanese Diesel truck/engine maker). Japanese diesels are really the best.
The Ford 7.3 Powerstroke is actually the best in class.



The comments to this entry are closed.