2004 diesels, Powerstroke or Duramax?
Ken Aman
had to choose the new Powerstroke or the Duamax which way would you go?
I've never owned a diesel, nor do I have any friends with one so I haven't
heard many opinions. This truck would be a daily driver (50 commuting miles
each day), as well as being used to pull a 8000# travel trailer. I've
always been a chevy guy, but I'm not closeminded. Thanks for any and all
advice/opinions.
Myriadimage
cars and trucks the last 36 years and so far it is great truck. I might have
purchased a Duramax Suburban if they were available but I wanted a 4x4 vehicle
with seating for eight and a long range so the Excursion's 44 gallon tank and
diesel engine gives it the longest range of any full size pickup or SUV. I
don't use it every day since I also have an Astro van but it can be a daily
driver and it tows my 41 ft TT with no problems.
http://photos.thedieselstop.com/showphoto.php?photo=12087&size=big&papass=
&sort=1&thecat=
milesh
solid engine. Any reason why you didn't list the Cummins as one of your
choices?
D.J. Osborn
The six-liter Powerstroke looks as if it's going to be a good engine.
However, a search at http://www.google.com/advanced_search will show that it
is suffering some "growing pains." If you are purchasing now, then my
recommendation at this point would be to buy a GM product with the Duramax
engine. It's been in production long enough that I don't believe you could
go wrong with it.
--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
davidjosborn at sbcglobal dot net
Buzz Chandler
"milesh" <mil...@interfaceforce.com> wrote in message
news:3EF372A5...@interfaceforce.com...
> Can't help you with Ford or Chevy but I tend to think the Dodge Cummins is
one
> solid engine. Any reason why you didn't list the Cummins as one of your
> choices?
>
Dodge.
Miles
Buzz Chandler wrote:
> Cummins is a *GREAT* engine...it's too bad it's surrounded by a shoddy
> Dodge.
Why do you say that? I have owned several dodge trucks. All great
trucks. I've also owned many GM products and had lots of trouble with
them. Most notably a Suburban and Firebird. Every make of auto has
its share of problems. I don't think any is all that better than
another. But I do think the Cummins engine is far superior to the
powerstroke or duramax.
Mike Simmons
Cummins engine. Drive 'em all and talk to the owners and I think you will
find that the Dodge will come out on top!
Mike
"Ken Aman" <ka...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QGDIa.82282$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
HLBRSMA
>had to choose the new Powerstroke or the Duamax which way would you go?
I really feel qualified to speak on this subject having been a truck/busdriver
for 40+ years I yearned for a reliable diesel diesel tower. The Dodge was about
the most reliable with the Cummins and all. Then the powersrtoke Ford wiped
them out with better horsepower and all of them were very noisy and my wife
would not go for that so my diesel fantasies went to the back burner until GM
came out with the Duramax/Allison. Here we had quiet a world renown
transmission and a world renown diesel manufacturerer(Isuzu) all wrapped up in
one package. After lurking on www.thedieselpage.com/forum for about a year and
finding these were very good trucks I bought one one and I have been estactic.
I have 31000 miles on it now and it is running strong. Best vehicle I've ever
owned. It is the Allison transmission that sold me but the engine has been
excellent. Stu
HHamp5246
<ka...@hvc.rr.com> writes:
>OK all you Diesels guys that are familiar with the Fords AND Chevys, if you
>had to choose the new Powerstroke or the Duamax which way would you go?
They are equally as good to pull 8,000 pounds....... I have a Ford and love it.
The guy in the campsite has the Duramax and loves it.
Get the one you liked driving or the one you can get the best deal on....
Hunter
darrz
The Duramax/Allison is a sweet combo. In 2002, neither the Ford's nor
Dodge could touch it. Torque, hp, low noise (especially at idle).
Now Dodge and Ford have both introduced 6L turbo diesels with better
designs. Each gets just a tad more hp or torque than the Duramax
(maybe 1% more, which you wouldn't notice), and are quieter than they
were before.
The Ford diesel had a little problem with it's sensors, but it's been
worked out, I understand. But it's a new engine and tranny, so there's
a risk there. Chevy went with Isuzu (which owns the small commercial
diesel market), for the engine, and world famous Allison name for the
tranny.
Oddly enough, the tranny's have had some few quality problems (related
to a seal), but CHevy doesn't care, it's a known problem and if you
get a leaker, they just give you a brand new tranny, and Allison eats
it. :)
But Ford is supplying their own brand new tranny and engine, and that
makes me nervous.
The Cummings engine is sweet, but Dodge has made their improvements
more to the sheetmetal, and less to the guts of their trucks, for
several years. I would love to see how their 3/4 or 1 ton diesel
trucks match up with the Fords and Chevy's in real world towing.
My brother got a brand new Dodge diesel just after I got my Chevy
Silverado 2500 diesel.
His truck had a great ventilation fan (I'm serious!) :) And was second
rate in every other way. His engine was the old (little) straight six
cummings diesel, however. Absolutely no match for the V8 Duramax
diesel. I could tow a 24' utility trailer up a steep hill nearby,
faster than he could accelerate just his truck, alone!
His Dodge rode like a tank, and sounded like a threshing machine, you
literally could hear it a block away, if the front door or window was
open!
But that's the old Dodge Ram and straight six Cummings, and that's not
the same as you'll get today. The new Cummings 6L V8 turbo diesel's
are a whole new engine. It's the "Dodge" part of the combo, that has
me worried.
Of course, the "truck awards" given out by motor trend, Car and
Driver, etc., are heavily influenced by racy gas engine (even track
racing!), not utility diesel truck uses.
On my 2001 Silverado 2500 HD, I'll say: Love the ride - it's a daily
driver for everything. Buddy has a Ford F-550, and my ride is better
than his, despite his air suspension, longer wheel base (10 ft. bed),
and custom Fontaine body. (The Fontaine body is made of fiberglass and
is cracking in several places, yuck!)
Quiet for a diesel. No troubles of any kind.
22 mpg on the freeway. Hauls U-Haul trailers and such like they
weren't even there. Even several hundred pounds in the bed and a
loaded U-Haul on the hitch, doesn't cause it to get out of level or
ride roughly.
Cons:
1) I couldn't get it with a decent sized fuel tank. Standard at that
time was 26 gals, which stinks for a diesel tower. I had Aero fuel in
Corona, CA add a 45 gallon tank inside the frame. Much better.
2) Wide mirrors, or lack thereof. I loved the Ford tow mirrors, Chevy
had nothing like that. Tried Power Vision mirrors, didn't like them.
Finally got Lucerix power mirrors. Much better.
3) My stock tires were Firestone Steeltex, which now have a quality
control "delaminating" problem. I had hoped that when Bridgestone
bought Firestone, quality would improve. But just the opposite.
I hear a fat frenchman famous for his quality tires, calling me. :)
Conclusion:
If you can get some preliminary data on durability for the new Ford
tranny and engine, and like the whole package (ride, price, etc.), I'd
go for it. Ford has been a leader in the commercial truck sector for a
long time, for good reasons.
If not, I'd go with the Chevy. The whole truck/engine/tranny is a
really good. See if you can get a better set of tires and 40+ fuel
tank and mirrors, though.
darrz
Hattmakr
..sninker...still not as bad as the shoddy Ford and the shoddy
Chevy...snicker...__>
AW
Miles
darrz wrote:
>
> His truck had a great ventilation fan (I'm serious!) :) And was second
> rate in every other way. His engine was the old (little) straight six
> cummings diesel, however. Absolutely no match for the V8 Duramax
> diesel. I could tow a 24' utility trailer up a steep hill nearby,
> faster than he could accelerate just his truck, alone!
Somethings wrong with his engine! My folks have a 1998 Dodge 2500 Quad
Cab with the turbo diesel. It is not the HO model. They pull a 32'
Fifth wheel that weighs 11,000lbs. I could not believe how fast he
could pull it up the grapevine (I-5 north of L.A.). Easily cruised up
the steep hill at 60mph without pushing it. I will say Chevy does have
something good going on since they went with the Allison tranny though.
Mike Simmons
"darrz" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nvj7fvsea8eaqsjrn...@4ax.com...
WHOA HOSS!! First of all, it's Cummins, NOT Cummings, secondly, the engine
is still a 5.9L in-line six NOT a 6.0L V8. It is NOT a whole new engine,
rather a refinement of the tried and true "B" series by Cummins. The '03
engines feature high pressure common rail fuel injection which makes the
engine more fuel efiicient, more powerful and MUCH quieter. The Cummins is
rated as a "medium" duty diesel as opposed to Ford and Chevy's "light" duty
diesels. The in-line six is a simpler, more elegant design incorporating 40
per cent fewer moving parts that the competition.
MIke
silverfox
Duamax if I could not wait a few more months for some good feed back on the new
Ford set up . I am a retired Ford employee and now have a 2002 f250 diesel so I
will just keep trucking for a year or two unless I start having some major
problems with this truck . I think the Duamax is a good motor . Good luck and
happy camping :<) .
Fox .
Nasty Milo
Her is a link to a first drive report, comparing Chevy, Ford, and Dodge in a
competition pulling heavy trailers up a long grade. Bear in mind the Dodge
was not HO, because they wanted the test vehicles to all have automatics.
Thanks. Ed
"Ken Aman" <ka...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QGDIa.82282$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
JDavis1277
you ever found a decent diesel tech in a GM dealer's shop? Me either. Nope,
think I'll give the GM a miss.... too bad because the tranny is excellent.
Cummins is an excellent diesel. Perfect if you can live with the rest of the
Dodge truck. Especially if you can live with the truck until the engine is
finally shot.... twenty years??? Nope, think I'll give the Dodge a miss.....
junky truck with a great engine.
Ford truck is pretty good item. The Navistar diesel is a great diesel, too,
from a manufacturer with decades of experience building truck diesels.
Transmission has been a weak point in very heavy duty towing but that has been
supposedly fixed. After all these years you'd think so, eh???
Ford would be my choice. Great truck and engine with an excellent tranny for
99% of RV towing applications. The other 1% I'd give them all a pass and get a
medium duty truck.
Just to show my lack of predjudice my fleet is:
Ford F-250 diesel
Ford chassis motorhome
Ford Taurus
Ford's rule!!!!!!!!!
Butch
Miles
JDavis1277 wrote:
> Cummins is an excellent diesel. Perfect if you can live with the rest of the
> Dodge truck. Especially if you can live with the truck until the engine is
> finally shot.... twenty years??? Nope, think I'll give the Dodge a miss.....
> junky truck with a great engine.
You say junky truck but do not state why. I've had far more problems
with Fords than any Dodge. Like Ford, Dodge has had its problems with
tranny's for heavy duty towing. With the Cummins engine being well
above Ford or Chevy in reliability I'll stick with Dodge. For heavy
duty towing many people beef up their trannies to make them bullet
proof. I do not believe any of the big 3 have engine/tranny
combinations from the factory that are dependable enough for heavy duty
towing.
JDavis1277
To me the Dodge is just too much of an "old farm truck" in new style truck
bodywork. I mean who expects a truck to ride like a well... truck any more?
Not me, for just one of the many thousands of truck buyers. GM and Ford trucks
ride like modern trucks, unlike Dodges.
And, how bout those creature comforts in the Dodge. Does anyone think the
interior appointments and comfot level of the Dodge compares with the other
two?
Dodge finally came out with a truck with a little style. But instead of
refining the looks they turned it into some kind of sledge hammer look alike to
attract the folks who want a truck to help them look more macho. Jeeze it
looks awful now.
Seriously though, if I wanted a truck for towing and put a lot of miles on it
and didn't intend to use it for much else, I'd consider the Dodge with the
HO(?) Cummins and standard transmission. Pretty utilitarian, but that's a good
thing when your needs match up.
Butch
Miles
JDavis1277 wrote:
> Obviously, "junky" is a word with different meanings for different people.
>
> To me the Dodge is just too much of an "old farm truck" in new style truck
> bodywork. I mean who expects a truck to ride like a well... truck any more?
> Not me, for just one of the many thousands of truck buyers. GM and Ford trucks
> ride like modern trucks, unlike Dodges.
They ride and handle like cars. Great if you want a car. I want a
truck that handles the road when doing, well...truck things such as
towing heavy loads or off-roading. Same thing thats happened with SUV's
today. Sporty is emphasised and the Utility of them is gone. I want a
truck, not a car.
> And, how bout those creature comforts in the Dodge. Does anyone think the
> interior appointments and comfot level of the Dodge compares with the other
> two?
I greatly prefer the dash layout of my 2001 Dodge over that same model
years GM or Ford products. I did not like the 94-98 Rams layouts.
>
> Dodge finally came out with a truck with a little style.
Style? Dodge broke new ground in 1994 with a truck that looked like a
truck. GM and Ford soon came out with their versions of the same type
of body style. I don't care as much for the newer Dodge bodies. Looks
more and more like a sports car than a truck. Why is it that people buy
a truck but want it to behave and look like a car? Thats the only thing
I dislike about the new dodges.
> But instead of
> refining the looks they turned it into some kind of sledge hammer look alike to
> attract the folks who want a truck to help them look more macho. Jeeze it
> looks awful now.
Watch GM and Ford to follow suit. People want sports cars with pickup
beds that they'll never use. Why I'll never know.
>
> Seriously though, if I wanted a truck for towing and put a lot of miles on it
> and didn't intend to use it for much else, I'd consider the Dodge with the
> HO(?) Cummins and standard transmission. Pretty utilitarian, but that's a good
> thing when your needs match up.
Exactly. A truck built to be a truck. Exactly what I want. If I want
a car, I'll buy a car.
Mike Simmons
with ANY offering from Ford or GM in performance, handling, power and
creature comforts. Heated leather seats, rack and pinion steering and radio
controls on the steering wheel ain't exactly "farm truck" options.
Mike
"JDavis1277" <jdavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030621192920...@mb-m13.aol.com...
HHamp5246
(JDavis1277) writes:
>Dodge finally came out with a truck with a little style. But instead of
>refining the looks they turned it into some kind of sledge hammer look alike
to attract the folks who want a truck to help them look more macho. Jeeze it
looks awful now.>
I have to agree 100%.
I think the new Dodge trucks look like a big mouth bass coming down the
road....
Hunter
GBinNC
>I think the new Dodge trucks look like a big mouth bass coming down the
>road....
Have you ever seen a big mouth bass coming down the road? If not, how
can you say for sure what one would look like?
(Never mind. Just an interesting mental image, that's all. <g>)
GB in NC
Hattmakr
>His truck had a great ventilation fan (I'm serious!) :) And was second
>rate in every other way. His engine was the old (little) straight six
>cummings diesel, however. Absolutely no match for the V8 Duramax
>diesel.
You know very little about the Dodge CUMMINS. The 6 cylinder medium duty engine
is similar in design as those inline 6's found in class 8 rigs. Amazing isn't
it that the "little" Cummins with its grunt force is feared by those with light
duty V8 diesels.
> I could tow a 24' utility trailer up a steep hill nearby,
>faster than he could accelerate just his truck, alone!
Pickuptruck.com will prove that wrong. Look and part 3, the 15% hill climb. The
Dodge, weighing close to a half ton more that the chevy or ford, hooked up to
12,000 lbs and out pulled em both.
>But that's the old Dodge Ram and straight six Cummings, and that's not
>the same as you'll get today. The new Cummings 6L V8 turbo diesel's
>are a whole new engine.
Uhhhhh, wrong homes. Like I said, you know little about the CUMMINS
>Cons:
>1) I couldn't get it with a decent sized fuel tank. Standard at that
>time was 26 gals, which stinks for a diesel tower. I had Aero fuel in
>Corona, CA add a 45 gallon tank inside the frame. Much better.
>
>2) Wide mirrors, or lack thereof. I loved the Ford tow mirrors, Chevy
>had nothing like that. Tried Power Vision mirrors, didn't like them.
>Finally got Lucerix power mirrors. Much better.
>
>3) My stock tires were Firestone Steeltex, which now have a quality
>control "delaminating" problem. I had hoped that when Bridgestone
>bought Firestone, quality would improve. But just the opposite.
>
>I hear a fat frenchman famous for his quality tires, calling me. :)
You forgot con #4...them aliminum heads. Six bolts per cylinder holding them
things on so they won't move around on top of that iron block...no thankye,
I'll stick with my all cast iron, forged steel CUMMINS.
>If you can get some preliminary data on durability for the new Ford
>tranny and engine, and like the whole package (ride, price, etc.), I'd
>go for it. Ford has been a leader in the commercial truck sector for a
>long time, for good reasons.
Funny. I've yet to find good reasons.
>If not, I'd go with the Chevy. The whole truck/engine/tranny is a
>really good. See if you can get a better set of tires and 40+ fuel
>tank and mirrors, though.
>
Not to mention them heads...he needs to get some cast iron heads.
AW
Hattmakr
>Obviously, "junky" is a word with different meanings for different people.
>
>To me the Dodge is just too much of an "old farm truck" in new style truck
>bodywork. I mean who expects a truck to ride like a well... truck any more?
>Not me, for just one of the many thousands of truck buyers. GM and Ford
>trucks
>ride like modern trucks, unlike Dodges.
>
>And, how bout those creature comforts in the Dodge. Does anyone think the
>interior appointments and comfot level of the Dodge compares with the other
>two?
>
>Dodge finally came out with a truck with a little style. But instead of
>refining the looks they turned it into some kind of sledge hammer look alike
>to
>attract the folks who want a truck to help them look more macho. Jeeze it
>looks awful now.
>
>Seriously though, if I wanted a truck for towing and put a lot of miles on it
>and didn't intend to use it for much else, I'd consider the Dodge with the
>HO(?) Cummins and standard transmission. Pretty utilitarian, but that's a
>good
>thing when your needs match up.
>
>Butch
Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
around so I bought a Dodge.
Ain't life good.
AW
LKing37516
>owned
If 31000 mi. qualifies it as the "best" you ever owned, just what have you
owned in the past? Yugos? :-)
Mike Simmons
Don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is made up.
:^)
Mike
"Hattmakr" <hatt...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030622173300...@mb-m03.aol.com...
HHamp5246
<GBi...@yahoooo.com> writes:
>Have you ever seen a big mouth bass coming down the road? If not, how
>can you say for sure what one would look like?
Because I've seen one on the wall that sings.... and pictured it coming down
the road...
Hunter
GBinNC
><GBi...@yahoooo.com> writes:
>
>>Have you ever seen a big mouth bass coming down the road? If not, how
>>can you say for sure what one would look like?
>Because I've seen one on the wall that sings.... and pictured it coming down
>the road...
Okay, I guess that would do it...
GB in NC
HHamp5246
writes:
>Fella in the next site has one, a dually Dodge that he named Soprano.
Because it looks like a singing Billy Bass? Or because it's "connected"
Hunter
GBinNC
LOL. My first thought was because it has a high voice. (But then, I
don't watch much TV, so I missed the point.)
GB in NC
Dan Overes
Miles wrote:
<snipped>
> Style? Dodge broke new ground in 1994 with a truck that looked like a
> truck. GM and Ford soon came out with their versions of the same type
> of body style. I don't care as much for the newer Dodge bodies. Looks
> more and more like a sports car than a truck. Why is it that people buy
> a truck but want it to behave and look like a car? Thats the only thing
> I dislike about the new dodges.
I agree. I really hate what Dodge did to the next generation of trucks (2002
for the 1500s and 2003 for the 2500/3500s). That sloped windshield thing did me
in -- I went to sit in a new Dodge at the dealership and found I had to do some
strange moves to get my head inside.
Of course, I remember I really hated the new styles when they came out in 1994
so who knows -- I'll likely drive one some day.
> Exactly. A truck built to be a truck. Exactly what I want. If I want
> a car, I'll buy a car.
Right on. I don't find my truck rides bad at all -- I'll never mistake it for a
car, but that is a good thing. The real downside of the Dodge is the automatic
tranny, especially when coupled to the Cummins.
The only thing I would change on my Dodge would be having a six-speed instead of
a 5-speed.
--
Dan
2001 Dodge Ram 2500
2001 Mallard 19N
"My butt may be in the office, but my heart is in Kananaskis."
Brian Elfert
>Right on. I don't find my truck rides bad at all -- I'll never mistake it for a
>car, but that is a good thing. The real downside of the Dodge is the automatic
>tranny, especially when coupled to the Cummins.
My F-350 doesn't seem so bad when I drive it every day, but when I drive a
regular car I realize just how bad a 1 ton truck really rides. Bumps that
jolt me every day in the truck are not even noticeable in a car, even
something as cheap as a Ford Focus.
Brian Elfert
Miles
Dan Overes wrote:
>
> Right on. I don't find my truck rides bad at all -- I'll never mistake
> it for a car, but that is a good thing. The real downside of the Dodge
> is the automatic tranny, especially when coupled to the Cummins.
Thats true. But Ford and Chevy transmissions have not been much better.
Chevy's use of the Allison is a big plus. The thing with GM products
I have had is constant replacement of starters, alternators,
compressors, water pumps etc. They just do not seem to last.
Quite a few people I know bought Dodge Rams with the Cummins, then spent
quite a bit to have a performance shop beef up the tranny and make it
bullet proof. It's costly but they got what they wanted.
Miles
Brian Elfert wrote:
>
> My F-350 doesn't seem so bad when I drive it every day, but when I drive a
> regular car I realize just how bad a 1 ton truck really rides. Bumps that
> jolt me every day in the truck are not even noticeable in a car, even
> something as cheap as a Ford Focus.
Thats true but I have yet to see a truck capable of pulling 12,000lbs
easily and drive like a car.
Brian Elfert
>Quite a few people I know bought Dodge Rams with the Cummins, then spent
>quite a bit to have a performance shop beef up the tranny and make it
>bullet proof. It's costly but they got what they wanted.
I spent $2400 to have my Ford 4R100 tranny beefed up. I now have a two
year unlimited mile warranty on the tranny.
The 4R100 tranny often breaks when towing, so I figured $2400 to have it
beefed up is less than the cost of one new tranny.
The news 5 speed auto with the 6.0 diesel is supposed to be a lot nicer.
Brian Elfert
Steve Barker
pay the labor.
--
Steve
=======================
Remove the not dot from my address to abuse my email box
"Brian Elfert" <bel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3ef7a7b3$0$1387$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
Miles
Steve Barker wrote:
> We spend $2000 on a Jasper and have a 3 year 75,000 mile warranty and they
> pay the labor.
>
>
> www.jasperengines.com
Looking at their website it doesn't appear they beef up the tranny at
all but rather rebuild it to OEM specs. Maybe a good deal though, good
warranty.
Steve Barker
--
Steve
=======================
Remove the not dot from my address to abuse my email box
"Miles" <unk...@unlisted.com> wrote in message
news:3EF7C67...@unlisted.com...
Steve Barker
REMANUFACTURING, (not rebuilding). They'll talk to you as long as you like.
They're very friendly.
--
Steve
=======================
Remove the not dot from my address to abuse my email box
"Miles" <unk...@unlisted.com> wrote in message
news:3EF7C67...@unlisted.com...
>
>
darrz
>darrz da...@earthlink.net writes:
>
>>His truck had a great ventilation fan (I'm serious!) :) And was second
>>rate in every other way. His engine was the old (little) straight six
>>cummings diesel, however. Absolutely no match for the V8 Duramax
>>diesel.
>
>You know very little about the Dodge CUMMINS. The 6 cylinder medium duty engine
>is similar in design as those inline 6's found in class 8 rigs. Amazing isn't
>it that the "little" Cummins with its grunt force is feared by those with light
>duty V8 diesels.
>
>> I could tow a 24' utility trailer up a steep hill nearby,
>>faster than he could accelerate just his truck, alone!
>
>Pickuptruck.com will prove that wrong. Look and part 3, the 15% hill climb. The
>Dodge, weighing close to a half ton more that the chevy or ford, hooked up to
>12,000 lbs and out pulled em both.
Well, you're crackers, Hattmakr.
Pickuptruck.com #3 was a downhill test, not an uphill test. However,
in the uphill test, page #5, this is what pickuptruck.com had to say:
"
With the other trucks ahead of us by about half a mile we started
chasing after them. The hill is about 10 miles long so we had plenty
of time to catch and pass the Dodge, equipped with a standard
5.9-liter Cummins I6 turbo diesel and 4-speed automatic, within about
2 miles from the start of the hill. Near as we could tell the speed
difference was approximately 18 MPH as we were moving at about 78 MPH.
In a later test when we drove the Dodge ourselves we found its maximum
speed was 60 MPH with the accelerator down to the floor the entire
climb. That's a significant speed difference.
"
So the Dodge & Cummins could go 60 MPH max speed up the hill, and the
Chevy & Duramax could do about 76 MPH, and the new Ford & Navistar
could do about 78 MPH.
I'm not sure what "grunt force" of the Cummins I should find fearful,
in light of the above. ;)
Especially since I'm in California, where the HO Cummins engines can
not be sold.
You're right, I know little about Cummins engines. They may be
mechanical marvels, but if they can't get their power up and/or their
emissions down (in the case of their HO engine), they won't be
competitive and/or available.
>>But that's the old Dodge Ram and straight six Cummings, and that's not
>>the same as you'll get today. The new Cummings 6L V8 turbo diesel's
>>are a whole new engine.
>
>Uhhhhh, wrong homes. Like I said, you know little about the CUMMINS
Well, you're right. I thought they'd gone to a V8 config. That
straight six they had for 2001 was very small and underpowered.
>
>>Cons:
>>1) I couldn't get it with a decent sized fuel tank. Standard at that
>>time was 26 gals, which stinks for a diesel tower. I had Aero fuel in
>>Corona, CA add a 45 gallon tank inside the frame. Much better.
>>
>>2) Wide mirrors, or lack thereof. I loved the Ford tow mirrors, Chevy
>>had nothing like that. Tried Power Vision mirrors, didn't like them.
>>Finally got Lucerix power mirrors. Much better.
>>
>>3) My stock tires were Firestone Steeltex, which now have a quality
>>control "delaminating" problem. I had hoped that when Bridgestone
>>bought Firestone, quality would improve. But just the opposite.
>>
>>I hear a fat frenchman famous for his quality tires, calling me. :)
>
>You forgot con #4...them aliminum heads. Six bolts per cylinder holding them
>things on so they won't move around on top of that iron block...no thankye,
>I'll stick with my all cast iron, forged steel CUMMINS.
It could be a design problem, but I haven't heard about any trouble
from it, yet. I certainly have not had any, nor spoken with anyone who
has.
>Funny. I've yet to find good reasons.
Well, my last Dodge truck, the wiring harness was put in wrong, and
burned up, within 90 days, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I mean you go to a Ford dealer and you can get a truck set up just the
way you want it for a work truck, personal truck, etc.. Ford dealers
are used to this and "get it", right away.
Chevy dealers haven't been that successful in the work place for
trucks. They don't "get it" sometimes, like I mentioned in my "cons"
list, above. They make a great diesel truck, now, but they just don't
have a great truck buying experience with important options being
available, yet.
I've only bought one Dodge truck, new. The whole dealership was
unbelievably bad. Maybe Mercedes can straighten them out.
>>If not, I'd go with the Chevy. The whole truck/engine/tranny is a
>>really good. See if you can get a better set of tires and 40+ fuel
>>tank and mirrors, though.
>>
>
>Not to mention them heads...he needs to get some cast iron heads.
>
>AW
So my truck can "fly" down the road with 50 lbs more useless weight.
:)
In the long run, you may be right though about the aluminum heads.
Time will tell.
darrz
Miles
Everything listed was to OEM specs. I didn't see where they install
oversized clutches etc.
Miles
darrz wrote:
>
> You're right, I know little about Cummins engines. They may be
> mechanical marvels, but if they can't get their power up and/or their
> emissions down (in the case of their HO engine), they won't be
> competitive and/or available.
I do not know where they drove for those tests but I just got back from
a trip with a Dodge non-ho pulling a 12,000lb trailer up and over the
grapevine on I-5. That is a steep hill. Easily pulled it at 65mph.
Not anywheres close to being at full throttle. Traffic was more of a
limiting factor than the hill.
HLBRSMA
>regular car I realize just how bad a 1 ton truck really rides. Bumps that
>jolt me every day in the truck are not even noticeable in a car, even
>something as cheap as a Ford Focus.
>
>Brian Elfert
I bought my truck ( GMC 2500HD Sierra D/Max/Allison) in Ohio and drove it back
to California. That was a rough ride especially on those concrete roads through
the Sierra/Nevada mountains I was afraid I would need dental work when I got
back, but alas I survived it and I have tamed the ride with a Moryde suspension
and a 135 Gal. fuel tank in the bed,a fiberglass shell and a 250# Quick and
Easy trailer hitch. A friend rode with me the other day and thought my truck
rode better than his Ford Eplorer toad. The moral of this story is there is a
number of things you can do to a rough riding truck to make it ride better. All
it takes is money, the best thing on the market is the Kelderman airride. Stu
jeb
Keep in mind that test was rigged, er, I mean, setup by Ford. You don't think
they may have used particularly strong running fords and maybe some weak
running other brands for their little demo, do you?
Also, if you do the math at what speeds they quoted and being able to catch the
other trucks with a 1/2 mile start, it doesn't add up. It'd take a lot longer
to make up the 1/2 mile.
There's a much more recent test but I can't find the link to it. The new gen
PSD still out performs the others, though.
I've been following some of the threads on the ford diesel truck forums. They
seem to be having some major issues with that new motor thus far:
http://forums.thedieselstop.com/ubbthreads/
Here's a link to a GM truck forum:
http://forum.62-65-dieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
I own an 01 Chevy duramax/allison. I have almost 30k on it so far and I really
like it. Lots of power, very, very quiet for a diesel and, so far, totally
trouble free. I've not had into the dealership for any repairs beyond a couple
of minor shakedown issues in the first week. A larger fuel tank would be nice,
though. 26 gallon in the short box, 32(?) in the long box.
This is my first diesel so I can't really compare it to the others. I looked
real hard at the PSD when I bought mine but it was so much noisier (could've
probably lived with it, though), the interior was much more dated and the
Duramax clearly performed better.
Some of the drawbacks to diesel are the fumes when starting it in the garage,
mostly a winter problem. Fueling can be messy. Some stations don't keep up the
pump areas well and diesel fuel doesn't evaporate away like gas so it can leave
an oily mess on the pump handle and on the ground around it. And it's not the
most pleasant smelling stuff, at least to me, so don't get it on your hands.
Most stations do a good job of cleaning up, though, so this isn't a huge issue.
Finding fuel hasn't been a problem but could be if you're way off the beaten
track. Diesel costs as much as or more than unleaded in most areas here in the
midwest but you get a lot more mpg with it compared to big gasser so it's still
more cost effective.
Good luck with your decision.
jeb
jeb
>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
>around so I bought a Dodge.
Somebody explain to me what difference the medium duty and light duty
designation has to do with this? Aren't all of these trucks rated about the
same in pulling and carrying capacities, given the same ton rating/wheel
configuration?
As far as a truck having to have a harsh ride, why? Again, aren't they all
rated about the same for capacity? So if I can have a 3/4 ton that will do
everything a harsh riding 3/4 ton truck will do and yet have it ride more car
like when not loaded, why isn't that a good thing?
jeb
darrz
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:20:25 -0700, Miles <unk...@unlisted.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>darrz wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right, I know little about Cummins engines. They may be
>>> mechanical marvels, but if they can't get their power up and/or their
>>> emissions down (in the case of their HO engine), they won't be
>>> competitive and/or available.
>>
>>
>>I do not know where they drove for those tests but I just got back from
>>a trip with a Dodge non-ho pulling a 12,000lb trailer up and over the
>>grapevine on I-5. That is a steep hill. Easily pulled it at 65mph.
>>Not anywheres close to being at full throttle. Traffic was more of a
>>limiting factor than the hill.
>
>Keep in mind that test was rigged, er, I mean, setup by Ford. You don't think
>they may have used particularly strong running fords and maybe some weak
>running other brands for their little demo, do you?
Actually (I know, hard to believe), but no real slanting here, Jeb.
The new Navistar diesel (was International I believe, years ago), is
known to have more torque and hp than any other diesel in it's class
right now. As the newest "kid" on the block, that's expected.
Just a touch more power than the Duramax, and about 70 more torque lb.
ft. than the (non-HO) Dodge Cummins
It will indeed outperform my Duramax (just by a little), and both the
Duramax and Navistar will widely outperform the Cummins (non HO)
diesel in the Dodge.
They do mention the outdated interior of the Ford, also. Interiors are
a matter of taste, style, and just what you're used to having. I'm not
used to inlaid wood panels on doors (whether real or fake), on a
truck, but if Ford's have it, I'm not going to vomit, either.
>
>Also, if you do the math at what speeds they quoted and being able to catch the
>other trucks with a 1/2 mile start, it doesn't add up. It'd take a lot longer
>to make up the 1/2 mile.
Oh, it adds up, alright! Remember they mentioned that one of the
testers took the Ford up to 98 MPH!
At that speed (even close), you could overtake any legal speed truck
you wanted to.
It was obvious the Ford driver treated the whole run like a race,
rather than just a test run. Obviously, the Chevy driver caught that
spirit a bit, also.
>
>There's a much more recent test but I can't find the link to it. The new gen
>PSD still out performs the others, though.
Right.
>
>I've been following some of the threads on the ford diesel truck forums. They
>seem to be having some major issues with that new motor thus far:
>http://forums.thedieselstop.com/ubbthreads/
Dr. Tate mentioned that the sensors, injectors, and software were the
major parts of the problem, and Ford had now got a good handle on
this.
I wonder just how well Ford is prepared to make good for the poor
guinea pigs who got bad one's, though.
I'm not looking to trade in my Duramax on the Ford diesel, just yet!
:)
>
>Here's a link to a GM truck forum:
>http://forum.62-65-dieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
>
>
>Some of the drawbacks to diesel are the fumes when starting it in the garage,
>mostly a winter problem. Fueling can be messy. Some stations don't keep up the
>pump areas well and diesel fuel doesn't evaporate away like gas so it can leave
>an oily mess on the pump handle and on the ground around it. And it's not the
>most pleasant smelling stuff, at least to me, so don't get it on your hands.
That's a fact. I keep some throwaway plastic gloves and rags for
handling any messed up pumps.
>Most stations do a good job of cleaning up, though, so this isn't a huge issue.
>Finding fuel hasn't been a problem but could be if you're way off the beaten
>track. Diesel costs as much as or more than unleaded in most areas here in the
>midwest but you get a lot more mpg with it compared to big gasser so it's still
>more cost effective.
>
>Good luck with your decision.
>
>jeb
What sells me on diesel's is their torque at low rpm. Going up a hard
hill at 60 - 70 mph is SO much better than c-r-a-w-l-i-n-g up the hill
at 35 with a gas engine.
And then there's the durability (which may or may not actually occur,
however).
And the better fuel mileage. I can usually find diesel at a better
price than unleaded if I keep my eyes open.
And lastly, although diesel will burn, it can never burn like
gasoline! Inherently safer.
Thanks for the links.
darrz
darrz
>On 22 Jun 2003 21:33:00 GMT, hatt...@aol.comnospam (Hattmakr) wrote:
>
>>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
>>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
>>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
>>around so I bought a Dodge.
It only has what, about 252 lb. ft. of torque?
I want to drive up the hills, not push the darn thing!
>
>Somebody explain to me what difference the medium duty and light duty
>designation has to do with this? Aren't all of these trucks rated about the
>same in pulling and carrying capacities, given the same ton rating/wheel
>configuration?
Oh! OK, NOW I get it.
The I6 Cummins (reportedly), is a class "B" service diesel. There are
3 classes, A, B, & C. Ford and Chevy diesel's are, class "C", meaning
their service life will be significantly less, overall, before needing
rebuiding/replacement, than the I6 Cummins.
As you go up in Classes, the engines become quite a bit more
expensive, naturally. Unfortunately, the engines don't always read the
factory message, and KNOW that they're supposed to last an extra 30K -
50K miles, or whatever.
Only time will tell how accurate the durability assessment may be.
>
>As far as a truck having to have a harsh ride, why? Again, aren't they all
>rated about the same for capacity? So if I can have a 3/4 ton that will do
>everything a harsh riding 3/4 ton truck will do and yet have it ride more car
>like when not loaded, why isn't that a good thing?
>
>jeb
Chevy & GMC light duty trucks use a suspension more like a car for the
front end. You get a smoother ride than a similar light duty Ford or
Dodge.
In my opinion, it's great having a smooth ride in a truck - the
smoother, the better. Obviously, most of my time spent driving, I'm in
an empty-bedded truck.
If you think that my 2500 Duramax with trailer/tow options (and quite
standard otherwise), can't take a load well, you're quite mistaken.
Even the RV dealer remarked "that truck doesn't sink much" when
putting the 5'er load on it.
I've had a Ford truck that did just as well, maybe better - but it had
suspension upgrades, and rode in such a way you could FEEL the date of
any coins you ran over, in your incisors, or kidneys. ;)
Chevy/GMC Duramax has taught me, that's just unnecessary.
I haven't ridden in the new 6.0L Ford's yet. With less unsprung
weight, they may have a significantly better ride than the heavier
7.3L diesel trucks from Ford.
I have ridden several times in my bro's Dodge I6 diesel, and it's no
match for the ride quality of my Chevy, even my bro says so.
darrz
jeb
>>Keep in mind that test was rigged, er, I mean, setup by Ford. You don't think
>>they may have used particularly strong running fords and maybe some weak
>>running other brands for their little demo, do you?
>
>Actually (I know, hard to believe), but no real slanting here, Jeb.
How do you know that?
>>Also, if you do the math at what speeds they quoted and being able to catch the
>>other trucks with a 1/2 mile start, it doesn't add up. It'd take a lot longer
>>to make up the 1/2 mile.
>
>Oh, it adds up, alright! Remember they mentioned that one of the
>testers took the Ford up to 98 MPH!
But that test was with trailers and going up hill. For instance, they said the
Chev had about a 2 minute head start but was only 1/2 mile ahead. That'd make
the average speed about 30mph. Yet they say they slowed down to 45 to let the
chevy re-pass them once they caught it. Plus, the newer, more independent tests
don't show near that kind of speed differential in towing tests. I'm not saying
the new get PSD isn't more powerful, just that something wasn't entirely kosher
in the above test.
>>I've been following some of the threads on the ford diesel truck forums. They
>>seem to be having some major issues with that new motor thus far:
>>http://forums.thedieselstop.com/ubbthreads/
>
>Dr. Tate mentioned that the sensors, injectors, and software were the
>major parts of the problem, and Ford had now got a good handle on
>this.
There still seem to be quite a few brand new trucks breaking down from reading
the posts on that website. And the problems are more than just the one's you
mentioned. Go spend a couple of hours reading posts. There seems to be some
major issues with this motor. They'll probably sort them out eventually but, as
you say, I'm not ready to buy one yet.
jeb
George Starcher
"jeb" <je...@att.nospam.net> wrote in message news:3efad289.1502720@news...
d> There still seem to be quite a few brand new trucks breaking down from
reading
> the posts on that website.
Yet another reason to keep your truck away from your computer. <LOL>
George Starcher
Wade
"darrz" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d6hlfvokmp83nraaf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:58:51 GMT, je...@att.nospam.net (jeb) wrote:
>
> >On 22 Jun 2003 21:33:00 GMT, hatt...@aol.comnospam (Hattmakr) wrote:
> >
> >>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
> >>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas,
I
> >>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty
engine
> >>around so I bought a Dodge.
>
> It only has what, about 252 lb. ft. of torque?
>
> I want to drive up the hills, not push the darn thing!
>
> >
>
stats the Duramax has to rev what most diesel consider red line to achieve
max horsepower, see below
Duramax 300 horses @ 3100 rpm and 520 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm
B 5.9 L Cummins HO 305 hp @ 2900 rpm and 555 lb-ft torque @ 1400 rpm
Besides the Cummins can be and often has been supped up to as high as 500
horses, wonder how well the aluminum can would perform with that kind of
force or could you get a refund on the recycling fee on aluminum cans.
Wade
Mike Simmons
It's highly doubtful that the DMax or PStroke can be bombed to the extent of
the Cummins. The Cummins is extraordinarily stout and in its Dodge truck
application it is just loafing.
For some illuminating info, go to the Turbo Diesel Register website
(www.turbodieselregister.com)
and do a search of their discussion forums. Folks have posted pix of the
connecting rods, cranks and bearing specs of the Cummins, DMax and PStroke.
What you will see will quiet even the most ardent DMax/PStroke aficionado.
No loominum or light duty construction in the Cummins. They adhered to the
old engineering axiom.... "When in doubt, make it stout, out of stuff you
know about".
Mike
"Wade" <Ilk_R_us@.com> wrote in message
news:4FEKa.319773$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Wade
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:QJqcnbtE-ME...@fidnet.com...
> Wade:
>
> It's highly doubtful that the DMax or PStroke can be bombed to the extent
of
> the Cummins. The Cummins is extraordinarily stout and in its Dodge truck
> application it is just loafing.
>
> For some illuminating info, go to the Turbo Diesel Register website
> (www.turbodieselregister.com)
> and do a search of their discussion forums. Folks have posted pix of the
> connecting rods, cranks and bearing specs of the Cummins, DMax and
PStroke.
> What you will see will quiet even the most ardent DMax/PStroke aficionado.
> No loominum or light duty construction in the Cummins. They adhered to
the
> old engineering axiom.... "When in doubt, make it stout, out of stuff you
> know about".
>
> Mike
>
I did not want him to be confused with reality.
Wade
Hattmakr
>
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:58:51 GMT, je...@att.nospam.net (jeb) wrote:
>
>>On 22 Jun 2003 21:33:00 GMT, hatt...@aol.comnospam (Hattmakr) wrote:
>>
>>>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
>>>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
>>>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
>>>around so I bought a Dodge.
>
>It only has what, about 252 lb. ft. of torque?
Yep, LOL. Thats the total ft. lbs. of 2.75 of the Cummins 6 cylinders. You do
the math. LOL.
>
>I want to drive up the hills, not push
Shoulda thought about that before you bought a diesel with aluminum heads.
>The I6 Cummins (reportedly), is a class "B" service diesel. There are
>3 classes, A, B, & C. Ford and Chevy diesel's are, class "C", meaning
>their service life will be significantly less, overall, before needing
>rebuiding/replacement, than the I6 Cummins.
You should also tell him that the tried and true, all cast iron, forged steel
Cummins is used in the industrial/construction environment where it is
regularly abused 24/7 at WOT as well as idle to redline and back hundreds of
times an hour.
Reminds me of the little bunny...
>As you go up in Classes, the engines become quite a bit more
>expensive, naturally. Unfortunately, the engines don't always read the
>factory message, and KNOW that they're supposed to last an extra 30K -
>50K miles, or whatever.
Yep. Whatever.
>Only time will tell how accurate the durability assessment may be.
Since the Cummins and maybe the 7.4L PS have proven themselves to be durable,
you must be speaking of the duramax or the 6.0 PS
>Chevy & GMC light duty trucks use a suspension more like a car for the
>front end. You get a smoother ride than a similar light duty Ford or
>Dodge.
So thats why Cummins won't let chevy and ford use the ISB...their suspensions
arent beefy enough for the 1000+ lb. (with fluids topped off) engine. Well well
well, and all this time I thought it was redtape contract agreements.
>In my opinion, it's great having a smooth ride in a truck - the
>smoother, the better. Obviously, most of my time spent driving, I'm in
>an empty-bedded truck.
Every bump I hit and every dip in the road that bounces me up from the seat
reaffirms the fact that those 40 sheets of 10' long sheetrock or 1800 lbs of
3/4" hardwood flooring in the bed will smooth out the ride just a little.
>If you think that my 2500 Duramax with trailer/tow options (and quite
>standard otherwise), can't take a load well, you're quite mistaken.
>Even the RV dealer remarked "that truck doesn't sink much" when
>putting the 5'er load on it.
That RV dealer will give the same line to the fella who drops a 5er on his
S-10.
>I've had a Ford truck that did just as well, maybe better - but it had
>suspension upgrades, and rode in such a way you could FEEL the date of
>any coins you ran over, in your incisors, or kidneys. ;)
>
>Chevy/GMC Duramax has taught me, that's just unnecessary.
>I haven't ridden in the new 6.0L Ford's yet. With less unsprung
>weight, they may have a significantly better ride than the heavier
>7.3L diesel trucks from Ford.
>
>I have ridden several times in my bro's Dodge I6 diesel, and it's no
>match for the ride quality of my Chevy, even my bro says so.
>
>darrz
Lemme see, he's got a Dodge/Cummins. Lemme guess, he's a right smart
fella...right?
AW
Hattmakr
>
>Wade:
>
>It's highly doubtful that the DMax or PStroke can be bombed to the extent of
>the Cummins. The Cummins is extraordinarily stout and in its Dodge truck
>application it is just loafing.
>
>For some illuminating info, go to the Turbo Diesel Register website
>(www.turbodieselregister.com)
> and do a search of their discussion forums. Folks have posted pix of the
>connecting rods, cranks and bearing specs of the Cummins, DMax and PStroke.
>What you will see will quiet even the most ardent DMax/PStroke aficionado.
>No loominum or light duty construction in the Cummins. They adhered to the
>old engineering axiom.... "When in doubt, make it stout, out of stuff you
>know about".
>
>
I've always said that I would rather have an old worn out Cummins than a new
PowerStroke.
AW
darrz
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:06:01 GMT, darrz <da...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>Keep in mind that test was rigged, er, I mean, setup by Ford. You don't think
>>>they may have used particularly strong running fords and maybe some weak
>>>running other brands for their little demo, do you?
>>
>>Actually (I know, hard to believe), but no real slanting here, Jeb.
>
>How do you know that?
Every mag that has reported on these engines has stated the same power
and torque. They mostly don't do their own dyno testing, but rely on
figures from the manufacturers.
The new Ford Navistar is slightly more powerful than the Chevy/Isuzu
Duramax, and both are 70 ft. lbs. more than the Dodge Cummins I6 (non
HO).
>
>>>Also, if you do the math at what speeds they quoted and being able to catch the
>>>other trucks with a 1/2 mile start, it doesn't add up. It'd take a lot longer
>>>to make up the 1/2 mile.
>>
>>Oh, it adds up, alright! Remember they mentioned that one of the
>>testers took the Ford up to 98 MPH!
>
>But that test was with trailers and going up hill. For instance, they said the
>Chev had about a 2 minute head start but was only 1/2 mile ahead. That'd make
>the average speed about 30mph.
We can only know that there was a 1/2 mile gap at the start, after a 2
minute head start. Since undoubtedly the trucks were accelerating from
a dead stop to their best highway (or even top speed possible under
the circumstances).
So the Chevy, for instance, may have averaged 30 mph in the first two
minutes from a dead stop, but it certainly had to be going faster than
30 mph after 30 minutes in order to achieve that distance.
I can say positively, that no 7,000 lb. trailer with good wheels would
limit my duramax to 30 mph on any freeway-speed 5 - 7 % uphill!
Either the driver was checking out the truck's features, or figuring
out the "tow/haul" mode switch, or whatever, or just recording his
impressions into a voice recorder for the article.
Clearly, he wasn't putting the "pedal to the metal". Then the Ford
passed him, and he got the idea to really gun it.
> Yet they say they slowed down to 45 to let the
>chevy re-pass them once they caught it. Plus, the newer, more independent tests
>don't show near that kind of speed differential in towing tests. I'm not saying
>the new get PSD isn't more powerful, just that something wasn't entirely kosher
>in the above test.
Oh I agree 100%. It's a really unscientific report. A writer's
impression of a run of similar trucks with the same trailer load on
the same hill.
But note the astounding lack of hard data - where are the graphs for
each truck of their speed over distance on the hill?
Having said all this, I was riding in my neighbor's Ford F-550, and we
heard this terribly loud "WHINE" noise, like from an aircraft.
Looked around and what was it?
A brand new 6.0L turbo diesel Ford. Obviously having horrid turbo
problems.
Hopefully, they'll get it all sorted out, soon.
darrz
darrz
Wade,
The HO Cummins isn't legal for CA, so it's pretty irrelevant here. I'm
sure the Cummins folks are working hard to make it comply with the
newer emission standards.
All diesel's can be souped up, wonderfully, but you won't like what it
does to your engine's lifespan, at all!
Just plop your butt in a Silverado HD for a test drive and tell me
what you think. :)
darrz
(converting more Dodge and Ford lovers to Chevy, every day) <grin>
darrz
>darrz da...@earthlink.net writes:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:58:51 GMT, je...@att.nospam.net (jeb) wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Jun 2003 21:33:00 GMT, hatt...@aol.comnospam (Hattmakr) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
>>>>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
>>>>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
>>>>around so I bought a Dodge.
>>
>>It only has what, about 252 lb. ft. of torque?
>
>Yep, LOL. Thats the total ft. lbs. of 2.75 of the Cummins 6 cylinders. You do
>the math. LOL.
The Dodge/Cummins I6 specs are:
(from
http://www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/products/dodgeram/cummins24vturbodiesel.cfm
)
High Output (HO) 305 hp @ 2900 rpm 555 lb-ft torque @ 1400 rpm
Standard Output (SO) 250 hp @ 2900 rpm 450 lb-ft torque @ 1400 rpm
California Engine (and MA, ME) 235 hp @ 2700 rpm 460 lb-ft torque @
1400 rpm
And clearly I've swapped torque with hp figures.
But clearly, the CA engine, at 250 hp is no match for the Ford or
Chevy diesels at 300 hp and up, either.
I'm encouraged by what Cummins has done to improve their engine, but
they need to make their HO engine emissions-compliant to be
competitive in three states, including CA.
I'm also encouraged by their work to QUIET their I6 engine down!
>>
>>I want to drive up the hills, not push
>
>Shoulda thought about that before you bought a diesel with aluminum heads.
Lots of engines have aluminum heads these days. Some are very poorly
designed/built, other's are very well designed/built.
Have you seen any figures for durability for the Duramax? Something
like mean miles before overhaul?
>>The I6 Cummins (reportedly), is a class "B" service diesel. There are
>>3 classes, A, B, & C. Ford and Chevy diesel's are, class "C", meaning
>>their service life will be significantly less, overall, before needing
>>rebuiding/replacement, than the I6 Cummins.
>
>You should also tell him that the tried and true, all cast iron, forged steel
>Cummins is used in the industrial/construction environment where it is
>regularly abused 24/7 at WOT as well as idle to redline and back hundreds of
>times an hour.
>
>Reminds me of the little bunny...
I'm fascinated why a diesel engine reminds you of a little bunny, but
let's take this one topic at a time, OK? :)
>>As you go up in Classes, the engines become quite a bit more
>>expensive, naturally. Unfortunately, the engines don't always read the
>>factory message, and KNOW that they're supposed to last an extra 30K -
>>50K miles, or whatever.
>
>Yep. Whatever.
>
>>Only time will tell how accurate the durability assessment may be.
>
>Since the Cummins and maybe the 7.4L PS have proven themselves to be durable,
>you must be speaking of the duramax or the 6.0 PS
On the individual level, it is little comfort to know your engine
should have lasted 300,000 miles, but only made it to 150,000 miles.
There are no guarantees. One engine goes 1,000,000 miles, and yours
may go just a quarter of that.
>>Chevy & GMC light duty trucks use a suspension more like a car for the
>>front end. You get a smoother ride than a similar light duty Ford or
>>Dodge.
>
>So thats why Cummins won't let chevy and ford use the ISB...their suspensions
>arent beefy enough for the 1000+ lb. (with fluids topped off) engine. Well well
>well, and all this time I thought it was redtape contract agreements.
Has nothing to do with why Cummins won't let Chevy or Ford use their
engine.
Has everything to do with the success Chevy and Ford trucks have had
improving their suspensions.
I would take a guess that Dodge has Cummins on an exclusive engine
contract for small duty trucks, of course.
>
>
>>In my opinion, it's great having a smooth ride in a truck - the
>>smoother, the better. Obviously, most of my time spent driving, I'm in
>>an empty-bedded truck.
>
>Every bump I hit and every dip in the road that bounces me up from the seat
>reaffirms the fact that those 40 sheets of 10' long sheetrock or 1800 lbs of
>3/4" hardwood flooring in the bed will smooth out the ride just a little.
>
>>If you think that my 2500 Duramax with trailer/tow options (and quite
>>standard otherwise), can't take a load well, you're quite mistaken.
>>Even the RV dealer remarked "that truck doesn't sink much" when
>>putting the 5'er load on it.
>
>That RV dealer will give the same line to the fella who drops a 5er on his
>S-10.
Probably. :)
I thought of that 2 seconds after I'd sent the post.
>>I've had a Ford truck that did just as well, maybe better - but it had
>>suspension upgrades, and rode in such a way you could FEEL the date of
>>any coins you ran over, in your incisors, or kidneys. ;)
>>
>>Chevy/GMC Duramax has taught me, that's just unnecessary.
>
>>I haven't ridden in the new 6.0L Ford's yet. With less unsprung
>>weight, they may have a significantly better ride than the heavier
>>7.3L diesel trucks from Ford.
>>
>>I have ridden several times in my bro's Dodge I6 diesel, and it's no
>>match for the ride quality of my Chevy, even my bro says so.
>>
>>darrz
>
>Lemme see, he's got a Dodge/Cummins. Lemme guess, he's a right smart
>fella...right?
Actually, he's self absorbed and socially abrasive. In his career in
law enforcement, he never could advance in rank. He's very stubborn,
but unlike our Dad, he doesn't have the brains to make it work well.
darrz
Wade
>
> The HO Cummins isn't legal for CA, so it's pretty irrelevant here. I'm
> sure the Cummins folks are working hard to make it comply with the
> newer emission standards.
>
Now if you were from California you could possibly have a point as you are
not, your argument is no more then brain farts.
> All diesel's can be souped up, wonderfully, but you won't like what it
> does to your engine's lifespan, at all!
>
True and very few will survive with the exception of Cummins that is
frequently souped up by Motorhome owners and truckers without ill effects,
and with GM's dismal record in the RV industrie and earlier thinkering with
aluminium that had the only effect of leaving consumers to hold the bag, I
doubt very much that they might have success this time.
> Just plop your butt in a Silverado HD for a test drive and tell me
> what you think. :)
>
No thank you I own a Disel Pusher with the true and tried Cummins, and there
is something else, the only names you see there is the Cummins and CAT no
aluminium reciclyng depots there.
Wade
Hattmakr
>The Dodge/Cummins I6 specs are:
>(from
>
>http://www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/products/dodgeram/cummins24vturbodiesel.cfm
>)
>
>High Output (HO) 305 hp @ 2900 rpm 555 lb-ft torque @ 1400 rpm
>Standard Output (SO) 250 hp @ 2900 rpm 450 lb-ft torque @ 1400 rpm
>California Engine (and MA, ME) 235 hp @ 2700 rpm 460 lb-ft torque @
>1400 rpm
>
>And clearly I've swapped torque with hp figures.
>
>But clearly, the CA engine, at 250 hp is >no match for the Ford or Chevy
diesels at 300 hp and up, either.
>I'm encouraged by what Cummins has done to improve their engine, but
>they need to make their HO engine emissions-compliant to be
>competitive in three states, including CA.
>I'm also encouraged by their work to QUIET their I6 engine down!
I'm not in CA so I could care less. Cummins has done very little to improve an
already excellent engine. They added valves in 98.5 and changed the fuel
delivery system in 02 for 03 models.
>Lots of engines have aluminum heads these days. Some are very poorly
>designed/built, other's are very well designed/built.
No doubt you are correct, but diesel and aluminum together in the same
engine???? Call me ol'fashion with a negative attitude toward changing with the
times. I'd still have my cast iron forged steel Cummins.
>Have you seen any figures for durability for the Duramax? Something
>like mean miles before overhaul?
No. I'm afraid I have not been that interested in checking it out.
>I'm fascinated why a diesel engine reminds you of a little bunny, but
>let's take this one topic at a time, OK? :)
'cause the Cummins keeps going and going and.....You should'nt be fascinated by
that since most folks know how durable and long lasting the Cummins is.
>Has nothing to do with why Cummins won't let Chevy or Ford use their
>engine.
>
>Has everything to do with the success Chevy and Ford trucks have had
>improving their suspensions.
>
>I would take a guess that Dodge has Cummins on an exclusive engine
>contract for small duty trucks, of course.
No. Well, yes, depending on how one interprets your statement. The same medium
duty Cummins engine used by Dodge is offered by ford as an option in the
f-650/750 medium duty trucks.
>Actually, he's self absorbed and socially abrasive. In his career in
>law enforcement, he never could advance in rank. He's very stubborn,
>but unlike our Dad, he doesn't have the brains to make it work well.
>
Still brainy enough to buy a Dodge Cummins.
AW
darrz
>
>"darrz" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:5eetfv4020gpepqe7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The HO Cummins isn't legal for CA, so it's pretty irrelevant here. I'm
>> sure the Cummins folks are working hard to make it comply with the
>> newer emission standards.
>>
>
>Now if you were from California you could possibly have a point as you are
>not, your argument is no more then brain farts.
I AM in CA. Haven't lived out of the Golden State for more than 30
years. Even born here at the Naval Hospital. Our flower is the Golden
Poppy, and our Bear Flag flies over Sacri-tomatoe.
But the only state song I can actually sing is Alaska's:
"Eight stars of Gold on a field of blue..." , OK, I could use a good
shower acoustics for the rest.
>
>> All diesel's can be souped up, wonderfully, but you won't like what it
>> does to your engine's lifespan, at all!
>>
>
>True and very few will survive with the exception of Cummins that is
>frequently souped up by Motorhome owners and truckers without ill effects,
>and with GM's dismal record in the RV industrie and earlier thinkering with
>aluminium that had the only effect of leaving consumers to hold the bag, I
>doubt very much that they might have success this time.
The Duramax was designed by Isuzu, not GM. I would not buy a GM diesel
after the "let's take a 350 c.i. gas block, and make it into a
diesel", fiasco.
>
>> Just plop your butt in a Silverado HD for a test drive and tell me
>> what you think. :)
>>
>
>No thank you I own a Disel Pusher with the true and tried Cummins, and there
>is something else, the only names you see there is the Cummins and CAT no
>aluminium reciclyng depots there.
>Wade
>
>
But do check my other post, Wade, about the Cummins.
Darrz
darrz
>No doubt you are correct, but diesel and aluminum together in the same
>engine???? Call me ol'fashion with a negative attitude toward changing with the
>times. I'd still have my cast iron forged steel Cummins.
>
>>I'm fascinated why a diesel engine reminds you of a little bunny, but
>>let's take this one topic at a time, OK? :)
>
>'cause the Cummins keeps going and going and.....You should'nt be fascinated by
>that since most folks know how durable and long lasting the Cummins is.
The energizer bunny - of course, that just flew right past me,
somehow! :)
>No. Well, yes, depending on how one interprets your statement. The same medium
>duty Cummins engine used by Dodge is offered by ford as an option in the
>f-650/750 medium duty trucks.
My Ford buddy tells me you can also get a Cat engine for the Ford
MDT's.
Interesting. The way the Ford turbo diesel (6.0L) is working (not
working), out, if I had to get a Ford MDT, I'd sure get the Cummins or
the Cat, not the Ford (Navistar), engine.
>
>>Actually, he's self absorbed and socially abrasive. In his career in
>>law enforcement, he never could advance in rank. He's very stubborn,
>>but unlike our Dad, he doesn't have the brains to make it work well.
>>
>
>Still brainy enough to buy a Dodge Cummins.
>
>AW
Trust me, brains and my bro do NOT mix well together. Let's call it
dumb luck, OK?
darrz
Wade
>
> I AM in CA. Haven't lived out of the Golden State for more than 30
> years. Even born here at the Naval Hospital. Our flower is the Golden
> Poppy, and our Bear Flag flies over Sacri-tomatoe.
>
So you are, San Diego at that, oh well you should have elected Regan for
governor, in spite of his advanced state of dementia he would still be a
better man for California. Albeit we will feel for you as we breeze by your
aluminum can in our unrestricted Cummins and have you eat our dust.
Wade
Jan Eric Orme
>On 29 Jun 2003 21:31:01 GMT, hatt...@aol.comnospam (Hattmakr) wrote:
<snip>
>>No. Well, yes, depending on how one interprets your statement. The same
>medium
>>duty Cummins engine used by Dodge is offered by ford as an option in the
>>f-650/750 medium duty trucks.
>
>My Ford buddy tells me you can also get a Cat engine for the Ford
>MDT's.
>
>Interesting. The way the Ford turbo diesel (6.0L) is working (not
>working), out, if I had to get a Ford MDT, I'd sure get the Cummins or
>the Cat, not the Ford (Navistar), engine.
<snip>
>darrz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep! The CAT has been available in those Ford MDT units for several years.
And....the real good news IMHO is that the Big 3 have figured out that they
should develope their diesel lineup with folks like Isuzu, Navistar, CAT and
Cummins. Companies that really understand diesel. The 70's GM experiment was
indeed a flaming disaster!
AND...the good news is that they are really scratching away at each other on
this deal. The winners are US!
GM has had a relationship with Isuzu for many years now. We all now that
Cummins and CAT are just good period! Navistar/International has decades of
development and solid diesels!
To me the real cats meow news are the GM and Ford transmissions. GM went with
Allison wich is renouned for it's trannies. Ford looked at that design and came
up with their own that is on paper maybe even better. Ford also has seen the
need to split the line up and go smaller displacement for the smaller units and
go with CAT and Cummins on the heavier units. Good decision me thinks! They are
trimming the fat with the 6.0 to have something more fuel and emmisions
efficient etc.
We are in for some nice rides folks. If I was going to choose a new one I would
wait some months and get the Ford 6.0 and new tranny. But I think we all are
going to get some great equipment out of this little old race.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme
"Work like you don't need the money, love like you
have never been hurt and dance like nobody is watching!"
Alan King
> To me the real cats meow news are the GM and Ford transmissions. GM went
>with Allison wich is renouned for it's trannies.
Uh, GM "went with Allison" for it's heavy duty transmission because Allison
transmission is a division of General Motors, which makes it a logical place
for GM to get a heavy duty pick-up truck transmission.
>Ford looked at that design and came up with their own that is on paper maybe
>even better.
Leaving aside the humor in the above statement about Ford designing a better
transmission, it would probably be a cold day in hell before GM produced
Allison transmissions would ever had appeared in Ford pick-up trucks.
Alan King
jeb
>> old engineering axiom.... "When in doubt, make it stout, out of stuff you
>> know about".
>
>I did not want him to be confused with reality.
>Wade
Confuse who? I understand that sometimes stouter is better but I also
understand that new technology can be great stuff. Think about how much more
reliable vehicles in general are now compared to 20 years ago when everything
was built more stoutly. It's always a little worrisome buying an all new motor
but I've got no regrets so far and a long engine warranty in case I do have any
problems.
Seems the biggest issue with the dmax for other diesel owners is the aluminum
heads. But I've been reading the forum I listed above since I got my dmax in
7/01 and it's a very rare thing to see any head problems.
There are a lot of chipping options for the dmax but I'd never stick one in it
or any other vehicle I own. Warranty and durability concerns top the list of
reasons. Plus, the dmax is really powerful enough stock for me.
jeb
jeb
>>Ya know bro, if I wanted creature comforts and a car like ride, handling
>>blahblah blahblahblah, I'da went and bought a chevy or a ford. But alas, I
>>wanted a 3/4 ton truck, yea its a TRUCK, with the best medium duty engine
>>around so I bought a Dodge.
>
>Somebody explain to me what difference the medium duty and light duty
>designation has to do with this? Aren't all of these trucks rated about the
>same in pulling and carrying capacities, given the same ton rating/wheel
>configuration?
Okay, I get the difference in the label now. It would not have made any
difference in my buying decision but I can understand how it might influence it
for others.
>As far as a truck having to have a harsh ride, why? Again, aren't they all
>rated about the same for capacity? So if I can have a 3/4 ton that will do
>everything a harsh riding 3/4 ton truck will do and yet have it ride more car
>like when not loaded, why isn't that a good thing?
????
jeb
R.J.(Bob) Evans
>Leaving aside the humor in the above statement about Ford designing a better
>transmission, it would probably be a cold day in hell before GM produced
>Allison transmissions would ever had appeared in Ford pick-up trucks.
>
But were it to happen there would be a long line of buyers waiting to
order one. That would be a truck.
R.J.(Bob) Evans
(return address needs alteration to work)