[cleanspeed1]

Most of the time, when we see poor engineering, design or whatever nowadays, it usually stems from the top and accountants. An engineer can come up with a solution that far exceeds what was asked of them, but since it would make the vehicle too reliable and trouble free it would probably not see the light of day.

Here's an example, the Ford Powerstroke. The 7.3L was arguably one of the best designed engines available, and once understood could give you over a million miles of reliable service. When the competition ( in the form of the Duramax ) came out, Ford switched over to the 6.0L which was nothing but a problem child in "order to meet emissions". But with the programming that Ford supplied, and one less headbolt per cylinder, it was a high strung, head gasket popping mess that even now Ford is paying for. Ironically, the engine itself was not bad, as long as you kept the rated power down and gave it air to breathe ( like in a medium duty truck chassis ). A whole cottage industry has been created to upgrade the 6.0 so that it can be reliable, in the form of head gasket kits, studs and EGR coolers. The 6.4 was an attempt to address the 6.0 problems, but it was too little, too late.

The new 6.7 Scorpion diesel is even worse. Ever heard of an engine with 4 pushrods per cylinder? While a marvel in technology, it is way too complex.

All that had to happen was take the proven 7.3 PSD, engineer a set of 4 valve heads with matching pistons, and beat everyone with it. What might have been.