TowRig.com - Diesel Discussion and Tow Tech

Please read the folowing links in its entirety:

http://www.internationaldelivers.com/assets/pdf/dyk236.pdf
http://129.33.208.17/site_layout/engine/t444edetail.asp#durability

This should clear up any and all myths between the two.

ps, Im only posting this to help clear up myths not start a flame war. And for the ones who think the Powerstroke(T444e) is inferior to the Cummins. Neither one is better than the other. waytogo

btw, the Powerstroke (T444e) is used in many more applications other than Ford trucks as with the Cummins.

DT466 (http://129.33.208.17/site_layout/engine/2004_Engines.asp) I'd long take the DT466 over the 444. It's a stouter and more efficient engine due to it's inline design. It's capable of 300HP and 860 ft lbs. The 444 is only capable of 235HP and 620ft lbs, not enough for me if I was driving a medium duty truck.

Dodge version ISBE (http://www.cumminsnorthwest.com/Cummins/Dodge.asp)

Here is the link for the Dodge ready ISBE, it in itself walks all over the T444. More HP, only 10 ft lbs short of the 444, less oil changes, and just read about engine life.

another link (http://www.cumminsnorthwest.com/Cummins/Trucks.asp) 260HP/660 in truck apps.

Here's yet another link (http://www.cumminsnorthwest.com/Cummins/IndustrialQSB.asp) the QSB makes 275HP and 730 ft lbs.

There are so many different apps I could list all kind of links, all of which have more power and engine life than the 444.

Have a nice day today. :D

Come on Bobby, let the inline montra go already...

From what I recall, in most cases, the I6 design is more efficient ONLY when used in narrow/constant rpm ranges. This makes them ideal for OTR, pump engines, and even light tow rigs that get on the road and just roll down the highway. The computer control of the CTD 600 goes a long way to improving this, but you can clearly see in torque graphs that it is no where near the width or range of the common V configs.

They tend to have "spiky" torque curves which make them less ideal for general purpose use such as daily drivers and even around town short haul delivery. The V config tends to have a broader operating rpm range and a flatter torque curve, although that often comes with a lower peak output for comparable displacement. They also generally have FAR less vibration issues, though that gap is narrowing as well in modern designs.

So, that "superior inline efficiency" only applies to applications where you can keep it on its peak most of the time. As soon as the torque drops (on either side) below the (often) table flat levels of the V configs, they become more efficient (assuming comparable displacement and design".

So, yet again, I maintain that it depends on the application. Do you really think that CAT, International, Detroit, Isuzu and all the rest continue to build V designs just because they are not as smart as you guys chanting the benefits of "inline"? That they just "don't get it", but you do? Do you think Navistar and GM/Isuzu built brand new from the ground up V configs for light trucks just because they lacked your wisdom in understanding the merits of inline design?

No, they build multiple configs for different applications because they each have characteristics that lend themselves better certain types of use. Don't you think maybe they analyzed the pros-n-cons of the various designs before deciding on a V config? If anything, I would say it's Dodge that's out of the loop. The CTD is a *FINE* motor and I love it for many reasons, but Navistar, Isuzu, Ford and GM all agree that for the usage of the light truck market, a V config is better. You CTD heads and all the fanatics chanting "inline is better because OTRs use inline engines" and "CTD is better in a light truck because it's a medium duty engine" (same applies similar statements about IN/NS medium trucks) are all drinking the cool-aid and not thinking about the TOTALLY different usage.

Hmm, lets see, the big players who designed new engines from the ground up for light duty trucks thought V designs would work better. Obviously economics played a part, but the "simpler", fewer moving parts, and your vaunted "more efficient" inline designs should have won there, don't you think? But Dodge, who grabbed a diesel pretty much off the shelf, quite likely based on economic inputs that had nothing to do with "best diesel possible for this application", and which happened to be an inline meant for a completely different class of use; somehow, that gets touted as being better than what was consistently chosen when starting with a more-or-less clean slate? Don't you see the obvious conflict here?

As for the "million mile motors", again, who cares in the light truck market? If your not a "hot shotter", horse fanatic or retired RV fanatic who lives on the road in their RV, *nobody* puts half that many miles on a light truck before the entire truck is literally falling apart. Those motors that run that long are almost invariably run OTR style where most of their miles are highway and spending almost ALL their time at operating temperature. Nothing at all like the usage of light trucks (even tow rigs) where there is much more start up, shut down, stop-n-go, and more often than not, spotty maintenance. If a "light truck" ever sees more than 200-250k miles, it is very rare in the over-all total numbers on the road.

Bottom line, the "medium duty" and "million mile motor" chants along with the "inline is better" arguments simply DO NOT APPLY in general to light duty trucks. They do apply in certain categories, and they are "good things" in some cases, but not across the board, and trying to act as if they do smacks of "its best because that's what I have" thinking and lacking of rational consideration.

BadDog,
That was an EXCELENT post! waytogo

I second the excellent post from BadDog! waytogo

Holy crap that is a long post, I don't have time for Novel. :) This thread isn't about engines in light duty pickups, this is about the T444 compared to the ISB. From the original post and the links provided, it is meant more about these two engines in medium duty applications anyway.

Come on Bobby, let the inline montra go already...



Nope, no way. You can claim they have a narrow powerband all you want, sure doesn't feel that way.

In almost every way an inline diesel is a better engine than a comparable V configured engine. Hardly ANYTHING uses V8 diesels anymore except for GM and Ford that I can think of. If a "v" configured engine's powerband was so much better I would think they would actually use this style in city delivery and suburb type vehicles, trucks that travel up and down their RPM range all day long. Pop the hood of most city trucks and you'll probably find the ISB, ISC, C7 or C9 cat, or a DT466. Very rarely will a newish truck have the T444, unless it's light duty enough.

You've made the claim that the V8 configuration is better for a pickup, thats fine. Maybe for racing and putting around town. There is one reason why the Dodges flat out pull better than the other two....

No, your wrong.

Since you don't like my long replies, I figured I would give you the short version first. ;) :stir: If you want a more detailed response, read on... :cool:

First off, this is "towrig.com" and the original post referenced "PowerStroke". So, either we are talking about their application in light trucks or this is OT, I chose to believe it was on topic. Those links are somewhat relevant only in the same way your constant references to CTD being a medium duty engine and how that makes it the best light truck diesel. Which is to say, not much… :stir: Interesting "facts", but not generally relevant for typical light truck usage.

And whether it "feels" that way or not does not matter in the least. Dyno charts and other scientific methods show clearly that they DO tend to have spiky curves unless compromises are made to flatten it out as with the 600. If "feels like it " matters, then all those guys claiming significantly higher gas mileage and dramatic power increases in relatively stock motors from simply adding a K&N filter would be right even though EVERY scientific test shows that gains are minimal at best. And we should start believing those "tornado" things work, and I've been told by more than one person that those "gas line magnets" work, so I better run out and get one. Or wait, maybe I should look for factual support rather than relying on "feels like" and "seat of the pants dyno" results…

And sorry, but your whole paragraph starting "In almost every way an inline diesel is a better engine than a comparable V configured engine" makes no sense at all. In limited application scenarios that is undoubtedly true, but it is simply not true across the board. Inlines ARE simpler and generally cheaper to produce and maintain. Don't you think that might be why they appear in fleet trucks so frequently? Or do you also believe that Ford makes the BEST truck, that's why fleets use them so heavily. Or could it be that Fords fleet incentives make it a better value?

And I do maintain that the V config is *generally* better in a pickup (aka "light truck"). You also seem to agree that the V8 might be best ("maybe") for drag racing and "putting around town". Hmmm, what do most of the folks here have? A pickup? How do most people here use their trucks? Don't you think most fall somewhere within the "light truck" usage patterns (ignoring the status seekers for the moment)? Doesn’t that mean they spend most of their time "putting around town" and a much small fraction towing? If that is the case, how can you say, "In almost every way an inline diesel is a better engine than a comparable V configured engine"? If they spend the majority of the time "putting around town", then how can an engine that is only (IMO) marginally better in typical towing scenarios (only a small fraction of typical usage) make it "better" in almost every way?

Honestly, your biggest problem in this respect, and generally the point where we end up at odds on an issue, is that your notion of "cause and effect" is terribly skewed. Mine is too, it's a natural human reaction. But I try hard to keep an open mind and look for the real relationships rather than letting myself fall into assumptions and circular logic.

As I have said before, the CTD is a fantastic motor and I could very easily have ended up with one when I bought mine if it were not for other considerations. The see-saw of better worse compromises between the DMax, CTD, and PS(pre-6.0 at the time) provided no hands down winner based on my estimated usage. I don't begrudge the CTD as superior where it is superior. What I can't stand is the constant crowing from CTD fanatics who go out into the world like a bunch of missionaries, intent on spreading the gospel according to Cummins, and stone all the heretics who just won't accept the one "true word".

Oh well, this is the "Brand Wars" forum. :D

In almost every way an inline diesel is a better engine than a comparable V configured engine. Hardly ANYTHING uses V8 diesels anymore except for GM and Ford that I can think of. If a "v" configured engine's powerband was so much better I would think they would actually use this style in city delivery and suburb type vehicles, trucks that travel up and down their RPM range all day long. Pop the hood of most city trucks and you'll probably find the ISB, ISC, C7 or C9 cat, or a DT466. Very rarely will a newish truck have the T444, unless it's light duty enough.




What about school busses? In the midwest I'd venture to say that at LEAST half of the fullsize school busses run a T444E. I think it is a HUGE stretch to say that "hardly anything" uses V8 diesels anymore.

Our entire school district has T444E's in their busses, and thats alot of busses. Most every rollback and school bus i see has a T444E in it, there are still lots of people using V-style diesels.

Once again, I'm not interested in a novel.

I disagree. I used to get on that guy "supertrucker" all the time when he would want to only talk about class 8 trucks and would rant and rave that this site is for pickups only. I'd then get slammed by a few that this site isn't only for pickups.

I completely disagree Russ, read the original post again, it is clearly refering the T444 in a medium duty application, THis thread is NOT about pickups.

I'll say it again, in a medium duty app. (like what this thread is about) the Cummins ISB, C7 Cat, DT466 will walk all over the T444.

Now, IF it was about pickups I would have a totally different view on it. Like many times before, you and I usually agree that all three engines are pretty much equal with all having their pros and cons over the next...in a pickup.

I'll play the same he said she said game "A pickup? How do most people here use their trucks? Don't you think most fall somewhere within the "light truck" usage patterns (ignoring the status seekers for the moment)? Doesn’t that mean they spend most of their time "putting around town" and a much small fraction towing?"

I agree that since most of these trucks see a minimal amount of miles towing vs. what they see as a daily driver, that the inline 6 isn't able to show it's advantages nearly as much as when it's actually worked harder, like in a medium duty application.

Make fun of my "it doesn't feel like it" all you want. The bottom line is my inline 6 pulls just as hard at 3,000RPM's as it does at 1,800RPM's. It feels equally strong from 1,800 to redline, I never feel the so called power spike that the dyno shows. Regardless if I'm fueling it from a light or pulling a grade with a trailer. I know for a fact that my grandfather's F250 PSD doesn't have any wider powerband than my Ram Cummins. Both pull the same from lower RPM's to redline.THe only difference I've noticed is that I can HOLD lower RPM's while pulling if I want, to where he HAS to keep the motor revved up more. Thats where the Cummins, IMHO, shines and why it's better in a heavier worked medium duty application, which is what this thread originally is all about.

Our entire school district has T444E's in their busses, and thats alot of busses. Most every rollback and school bus i see has a T444E in it, there are still lots of people using V-style diesels.What kind of busses are these? All our buses around here have C7's in them, that or C9's, I can't remember fully. Just that it was a smaller Cat. THe old busses that I used to ride in had Detroit 2 stroke diesels.

You didn't have to read the book, I gave you an executive summary. :stir:

Ah well, I'll concede the point on whether this is light vs. medium duty. I can see it either way, just different in my initial impression I guess. I took it as another go at "look at the reality of medium duty and assume it applies to light duty", and then went on from there.

Some of the other stuff, we will just have to agree to disagree. Bottom line is, if it's good for you, then I say "good for you!" whatever it is. :cool:

That short enough for ya? Take care Bobby, debating with you is always fun... waytogo

Actually, we've got lots of International powered school busses here in the PV district too. No idea exactly what it is though...

What kind of busses are these?

Big yellow ones. 65-72 passenger.

http://www.catskill.net/walton/school%20bus.jpg

Oh, we don't have any conventional style international buses like that around here. Mostly the Blue Bird type Cab over styles with the motor in the back.

Hmm, I think your view of "everything" and "nobody" is skewed by the odd frequencies of your location and state in general which is not at all representative of the other 49. Kali is the odd ball state by far in most every way. And a good thing too, otherwise I would have to move to Australia or something. :D

That and your more involved in the OTR, Medium Duty, and Farm implement side than the rest of us. All places where the characteristics of an "inline" do win (pretty much) hands down...

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby, you've talked about inline engines in OTR trucks. The reason most have inline engines now is smog rules. In the '60s/ '70s you'd see I-6, V6, V8, and V12 engines in OTR trucks. Back then the limiting factor was the trans couldn't handle big HP or torque unless you went with a 5x4 or a 6x4 "twin stick" trans, and most drivers wanted a "roadranger" trans. By the time the trans makers caught up to the HP wars the smog laws had engines limited.

That and your more involved in the OTR, Medium Duty, and Farm implement side than the rest of us. All places where the characteristics of an "inline" do win (pretty much) hands down... Thats all I was getting at... rotfl Now, lets go talk about pickups in a different thead that is about them. :popcorn:

I cant seem to figure how you guys can say that a v8 configured engine is even half as durable as an inline six. I dont know if you guys are mechanics or not but its very simple if you think about it. If v8's are just as durable as an inline six then why dont they put them in over the road trucks? Ill answer the question for you becuase they are junk. All of the big names in diesel motors (CAT,CUMMINS,DETRIOT) have gone to inline six. Its not that they never made V8 motors. For example the only reason Cat made the 3208 was because Ford asked them to make a "throw away diesel" for the 5 and 10 ton trucks. Instead of a gas job. But these have been replaced with 3116 C7 INLINE SIX. Anyway to sum this up International is a joke. They are just now coming out with an inline six for heavy duty applications. O and about the busses in the midwest im guessing that they are International well geeze what do you think they would put in there bus a Cummins or a Cat. Sorry Ford guys the 7.3's sucked 7.3 powerjoke's sucked and the 6.0's suck even worse...THE END

I cant seem to figure how you guys can say that a v8 configured engine is even half as durable as an inline six. I dont know if you guys are mechanics or not but its very simple if you think about it. If v8's are just as durable as an inline six then why dont they put them in over the road trucks? Ill answer the question for you becuase they are junk. All of the big names in diesel motors (CAT,CUMMINS,DETRIOT) have gone to inline six. Its not that they never made V8 motors. For example the only reason Cat made the 3208 was because Ford asked them to make a "throw away diesel" for the 5 and 10 ton trucks. Instead of a gas job. But these have been replaced with 3116 C7 INLINE SIX. Anyway to sum this up International is a joke. They are just now coming out with an inline six for heavy duty applications. O and about the busses in the midwest im guessing that they are International well geeze what do you think they would put in there bus a Cummins or a Cat. Sorry Ford guys the 7.3's sucked 7.3 powerjoke's sucked and the 6.0's suck even worse...THE END

OK, but why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? Stop beating around the bush, geez...rotfl

I've found that those who speak in absolutes are usually the most biased for reasons other than the facts.

Oh dear lord, another member with assumption based cause and effect delusions... To restate the obvious, in-line dominance in OTR trucks has absolutely no relevance to light duty trucks (aka pickups). And your "their junk" assertion doesn't even apply to OTR. If you care to see beyond your personal choice justifying biases, do some searches here, even I don't feel like typing it all over yet again…

I wouldn’t go as far as saying that V8's are junk by any means. I think that the duramax is a good engine, along with the PSD. But, I really believe that there are so many people driving the chevys and fords because America has a V8 mentality. I know many people that drive chevy and ford diesel pickups, and when I ask em why they didnt go with the cummins, they say they didnt want a 6 cylinder. Granted these guys arent into diesels like we are and dont know the difference, but I think this is why GM and Ford market V8's. Is the
V8 bad, HELL NO!!! Is the Inline 6 better? I think so. The cummins is able to produce more torque with less cubic inches than the others. The 6.0 isnt that much bigger, but Ford is gonna be to be replacing it soon with a bigger V8 to compete with Chevy and Dodge. All in all, all engines are incredible if you compare the diesel engines we drove in the early 80's and early 90's, I think we'd all agree on that. I don’t think GM and Ford are marketing V8's because they're more practical in a light duty truck, but because people love V8 engines.

Now that makes sense. I too love the CTD and I6 has a lot going for it in a pickup or OTR. But it really gets on my nerves the way the same miss-information, propaganda, and FUD is mindlessly chanted over and over again on any and every truck or diesel related site you find. Oh well, that's the internet for you.

I cant seem to figure how you guys can say that a v8 configured engine is even half as durable as an inline six. I dont know if you guys are mechanics or not but its very simple if you think about it. If v8's are just as durable as an inline six then why dont they put them in over the road trucks? Ill answer the question for you becuase they are junk. All of the big names in diesel motors (CAT,CUMMINS,DETRIOT) have gone to inline six. ...THE END


What are you a 20 something.... Do you know why you don't see 8V71's, 12V71's, 8V92's, 3408Cats etc. anymore? Smog laws killed them. OTR trucks use the engines they do now because of cost and smog laws and with the 3408 cats not having a trans that would hold up to their torque. Till they trans makers came out with the big 13/15/18 spd roadrangers the only trans that would last behind a 3408 Cat were the big twin stick trans and drivers didn't want the hassle of them.

Also there is the weight vs. power issue in OTR trucks. The more it weights the less you can haul.

Why don't OTR's use disc brakes? Cost!!!

Hmm...

I think Bobbies (and others) bias towards the inlines would be carried into talking about light duty trucks as well. Saying that you are arguing for them in the medium duty app, is a lame attempt at back peddling. You'd pose the exact same argument in a thread about light duty engines.:rolleyes: :popcorn:

I see you guys are keeping it real, That what I like about this forum.waytogo

Why don't OTR's use disc brakes? Cost!!!
hell, drum air brakes stop a semi just fine. as long as they are S cam they are cheap, easy to service and usually last 100k on the fuel truck fleet i service that does all city driving.
i dont like the power piston deal discs, kind a PITA, butneither are as bad as hydraulic drums, or air brake wedge ones. my back gets tired of smashing the wedge drums with a sledge to break them off the truck when the wedge wont back off.

How old are you... 90 somthin? You really think that Cat couldnt come out with a V8 that would work in todays OTR trucks...are you serious." in-line dominance in OTR trucks has absolutely no relevance to light duty trucks (aka pickups)." How do u figure other than the fact that the motors are bigger in OTR trucks . What changes? An inline six diesel in a pickup is the same thing as a rig just smaller. Where as a powerstroke diesel is a cluster **** of rotating mass. 8V71's, 12V71's, 8V92's, 3408. A C-15 would out pull one of those on any grade. But here is the bottom line i am not bias to any motor. But the fact is an inline six is much better than a V8. All of us have some bad ass diesel pickups. And just like OTR trucks they all have a different logo on the hood and a different motor underneath. But there all diesel powered monsters. And thats somthing everyone on here can agree on Chevy,Ford,Dodge,Cummins,Duramax,Powerstroke. All beasts.:pimp: Its like bein in a club. Not everybody has a diesel powered truck. How many of you guys have ever been fueling up and somebody pulls in with another Diesel pickup and you started talkin about what you have done to it etc. I would be proud to be driving any of these trucks. Because nothin runs like DIESEL engine.

Yep, that's right, OTR is a completely different animal as is Medium duty. Different requirements, goals, usage patterns, economics, different everything. Saying that because something is "better" for OTR or Medium duty makes it better for Light Duty is ridiculous, they have different classifications for a reason, and it's not just so they can provide arbitrary groupings of ratings. Saying that what is good for one MUST be good for anything in a lower weight rating is like saying that because a an LS6 kicks butt in a 70 Chevelle, it must be great in a Civic. Or that weighing over 300 lbs is great for a lineman, so that's what you need in a Quaterback.

So, why do you think EVERY modern diesel motor *designed specifically for* light duty trucks is a V design? Everyone whines about the big 3 cutting corners and doing things the cheap way, all in the name of saving money and "economics". So don't you think they can figure out that it would be cheaper to do like Dodge and pick a cheaper to produce and maintain (fewer machined/moving parts) that is already in production so they don't need all the engineering, testing, and infrastructure to support maintenance on a brand new design? Everyone lauds Dodge's "superior" ISB Cummins power plant, but when you get right down to it, Ford and GM invested far more effort, development, engineering, and effort in creating diesels specifically targeted for the Light Duty segment and Dodge went with "smarter" economics and chose a readily available sub-optimal solution that nets them roughly the same price premium that GM and Ford get.

Or do you really think Ford/IH and GM/Isuzu spent all that money on brand new V designs just to piss off all you I6 fanatics who know so much more than ALL the engineers who generally agree? Seems to me remarkably like all the "armchair quarter backs" telling what "should have been done" the day after the Super Bowl. BTW, Isuzu already has some fine Medium duty I6 designs that rival or exceed the Cummins rep in the international market and are sized to work just as well as the ISB CTD in light duty trucks. I guess they just wanted to design a new engine for fun? Too bad they didn't consult with you and save all that money…

Don’t get me wrong, the CTD is a fantastic motor and I wouldn't be at all hesitant to own one, especially if I was a "hot shot" driver or otherwise fit the profile where a CTD will shine. But I have no patience for people who feel the need to slam anything that is not what they believe is "the one true way" with skewed or backwards logic and assumptions misrepresented as fact. They are all good motors (with the possible exception of the problematic early IH 6.0) and each has strengths and weaknesses that should all be considered when making a decision, and the "I6" or "designed for medium duty" arguement does not really have much to do with it in most cases...

This and much more have been discussed here more than enough already and I don't feel like going over it all again just to satisfy every new arrival that can't follow logical cause and effect.

BadDog for president.

BadDog, Amen brother

BigChardCummins, wise men only speak when they know what they are talking about. So, do the wise thing.......:o

Bad Dogs a lil pup lost without a collar...He just types so much crap that by the time you get done reading it you might as well agree with what you just read because you wasted 3 hours of your life reading it why not. I would like to know how many of you guys actually have a profession in the diesel field...???

Bad Dogs a lil pup lost without a collar...He just types so much crap that by the time you get done reading it you might as well agree with what you just read because you wasted 3 hours of your life reading it why not. I would like to know how many of you guys actually have a profession in the diesel field...???


BigChadCummins, Do you feel good about yourself yet? Cause your doing a fine job of making an jackass of yourself.rotfl

It wouldnt take you 3 hours to read if you had just stayed in school long enough to learn how to read:D

LOL, I have a collar, and a chain, just ask my wife... :D

Sorry, didn't mean to overwhelm you. Let me see if I can summarize to keep it short just for you:

Your wrong... For more details of why, you can read my previous post...

rotfl

Sorry, couldn't resist...

I do find it funny that the people who make assertions of opinion without anything but that opinion to back it up, are generally the first to resort to juvenile taunts.

And as for working in "the field", that carries no weight. I know people with extensive experience in fleet and OTR shop work who have all sorts of varied *opinion* on what's the best based on their *personal* experience. I've head that "I work in the field" excuse used to support opinions that Fords are best, Chevy is best, Dodge is best, Mack is best, Cummins is best, Cat is best, Intel is best, Motorola is best, Apple is best, and on, and on… It's all just opinion, perhaps based on wildly different criteria, and yours is no different. You have experiences and have formed an opinion, but that is no more or less valid than any other, unless you can back it up with fact and logical debate, and childish jabs don't count. And having people around you that agree also does not make you right, it just means that you all came to the same opinion, probably for a variety of different reasons and with different experiences. Personal experience plays into the opinions we form ourselves, but it takes a lot more than that if you want to make the argument to someone else, especially if that person's opinions already differ from yours.

So, you have your opinion, I have mine, and we both have people on this site that agree, and those that disagree. I only jumped on board because of the "attitude" of your earlier post and I have no problem with the fact that you and I disagree and will probably continue to disagree. Welcome to the site, and please don't take this as a personal vendetta between you and I. Oh, and sorry to waste another 3 hours of your life, it only took me 10 minutes or so to type it, maybe less… :D

Bad Dogs a lil pup lost without a collar...He just types so much crap that by the time you get done reading it you might as well agree with what you just read because you wasted 3 hours of your life reading it why not. I would like to know how many of you guys actually have a profession in the diesel field...???

Let me see,










35+ years of working on and driving DIESEL powered trucks, heavy equipment, and boats. I think that would do.

So, why do you think EVERY modern diesel motor *designed specifically for* light duty trucks is a V design? Everyone whines about the big 3 cutting corners and doing things the cheap way, all in the name of saving money and "economics". So don't you think they can figure out that it would be cheaper to do like Dodge and pick a cheaper to produce and maintain (fewer machined/moving parts) that is already in production so they don't need all the engineering, testing, and infrastructure to support maintenance on a brand new design? Everyone lauds Dodge's "superior" ISB Cummins power plant, but when you get right down to it, Ford and GM invested far more effort, development, engineering, and effort in creating diesels specifically targeted for the Light Duty segment and Dodge went with "smarter" economics and chose a readily available sub-optimal solution that nets them roughly the same price premium that GM and Ford get.

Or do you really think Ford/IH and GM/Isuzu spent all that money on brand new V designs just to piss off all you I6 fanatics who know so much more than ALL the engineers who generally agree? Seems to me remarkably like all the "armchair quarter backs" telling what "should have been done" the day after the Super Bowl. BTW, Isuzu already has some fine Medium duty I6 designs that rival or exceed the Cummins rep in the international market and are sized to work just as well as the ISB CTD in light duty trucks. I guess they just wanted to design a new engine for fun? Too bad they didn't consult with you and save all that money...

Your opinion made sense up until some of these thoughts. How was the Cummins (or I6 design) sub-optimal? Maybe you have already gone over this, but why is a V8 design, in your opinion, better for light duty use? Also, how was the Dmax and PSD a brand new design, other than the fuel systems invented by other manufacturers? Of course, they have more valves and more aluminum in some cases, but nothing groundbreaking that I know of, except for the fuel system and related ECM controls. Also, are you saying Ford and GM flipped the bill for these engines development? Seems to me that most of the money would have been spent by Navistar and Isuzu.

I've gone over my views on it in other posts, but I'll give a short(ish) version again. At least shorter than the others taken separately… ;) Sorry, BCC, you probably should just skip this one… :D

It is my opinion, which is apparently the same as GM/Issuzu and Ford/NS/IH that the V8 is superior for the light truck market. This is mainly due to the broader torque curve (practically flat from 1800-4000k and beyond without the factory crippled computers) in the case of the DMax, and somewhat less so with the various PS. They also tend to have a wider over all rpm range and far less vibration.

The I6 designs tend to be more "peaky" and are much happier with sustained runs in a fairly narrow rpm range such as "hot shots" and the like, and of course, better over-all longevity. And, if you drive it right, they generally seem to get better fuel economy for the same work. But the "peakish" torque curve and more narrow rpm range cuase some problems with typical LD gear selection limitations (basically, it wants a gear splitter) and the quick low rpm rise in torque plays havoc with most LD automatics.

So, since LD trucks typically have a much more varied usage pattern (as long as it's does not belong to a hot shotter or RV fanatic), and are much more frequenly used for a combination of daily driver chores, runs to HD, camping trips, and only (relatively) occasional trips down the highway with a heavy "toy" or "RV" of some sort behind them, the V8 provides a better over all package for most of us.

Of course, the later Cummins motors have adopted pre-injection and other features that make it more acceptable for the typical LD crowd. And the DMax/Stroke (at least until the 6.0) has been encroached considerably on the long haul longevity and dedicated towing areas where the I6 is king. Plus how many people really want or need an LD truck to go much over 200k? So it's not as big an issue as it once was, but still, IMO, the I6 *would* be suboptimal for my usage, and I believe that is generally true for the segment I feel I represent, which is the largest part of the heavy LD crowd.

Not that I would hesitate in any way to choose a Cummins if some of the other problems with the package were addressed (like a real Crew Cab, better auto, and something more along the lines of the previous body, which I have owned before). The shortcomings (in my mind) are no where near deal breakers, and it does bring some great stuff to the table as well, so it makes a fine engine in it's own right. I just believe that totals stack up in favor of a V8, though not by a whole lot.

So the comment on the Cummins being "sub optimal" was in no way intended as a slander against the Cummins. Just that I believe the characteristics V8 fits the largest part of the target market segment better than the characteristics of an I6, and I believe that Dodge had more interest in the easy, economical acquisition of a well known "brand" (much like "Eddie Bower", "Shelby", and others) more than choosing what was "best" for the segment.

As far as the "new designs", other than changes in materials, head design, intake/exhaust geometry, emissions, and of course, computers and injectors (pre-ignition, higher rail pressures, etc), what has changed in any IC engine in the last 50 years? Both the DMax and 6.0PS were brand new designs specifically targeted at the HD end of the LD market. Brand new head designs (especially the DMax) and injection systems were used, but the key to me is the choice of a V config for the reasons I mentioned. There is also the easier packaging, but if Dodge can do it, and GM was making major package changes at the same time the DMax was introduced, so I'm sure they could get an I6 in there IF they thought it was the best decision. They could certainly have saved money AND time to market as well as support costs by using an Isuzu I6 comparable to the Cummins, but they feel (rightly so, as is obviously my opinion) that the V8 brought things to the table that made it the right choice for their "new" design.

On who paid the bill? Who knows... Ford and GM have part ownership and make investments into relevant projects in NS/IH and Isuzu respectively. How much, what percentage, and how much direct influence I have no real clue, that's why I attributed the investment to all parties. I do know that Ford's influence has been blamed for the early 6.0 fiasco, but again, it's all just rumors. But the fact is, they did choose to bank on V8 as the right choice when they could just as easily gotten behind (whatever their contribution and influence) an I6, I4, or some other design.

To say it one more time so that nobody gets me wrong, I have nothing against a Cummins or even the Ram that "it comes wrapped with" that so many seem to look down on. Frankly, if Dodge had offered a crew cab in '02, I would probably have gone with another Ram to replace my '08. That would have been largely due to my early concerns about the (then) brand new DMax. I was a bit concerned that there would be something of the nature of the 6.0 intro. But fortunately, I have never regretted the choice I made nor would I change it if I could go back and get a Cummins Ram with a real crew cab.

How many times do you actually rev past 2500 rpm? I for one towing or empty never do, I do not have to. Also, you need to start making a distinction between the 12 valve Cummins and the electronic Cummins engines. The 12 valve is "peaky" from the factory because the governor is built in such a way as to defuel the engine at about 2700 rpm and is defueled completely around 3000 rpm. That is NOT because it is an I6, it is because Cummins and Dodge realized that their engine does not need to rev high like a Dmax or PSD (which those should not really need revved either unless you are hotrodding around in which case you are not using the truck for its intended use). It takes about 250 bucks (governor springs and 60 lb valve springs) to make my 12 valve rev to 4000 and make power to 3500 or so, which puts in right in the ballpark of your Dmax. Of course, due to the characteristics of the I6, I should never have to rev it that high unless I am sled pulling or racing, but it is there. The electronic engines, of course, are a different story as they rev pretty high from the factory and are not at all peaky as you always like to point out. Another thing, you make it sound like the V8 design was new for GM and Ford. I am pretty sure they have both used V8s since the early 80s. Maybe since that worked (kinda), they decided to stick with the V8 design.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you had bought a Dodge and not a GM. Would you be talking up all the reasons an I6 is better and a V8 is not? I, for one, have owned both, and in my opinion, the I6 is better for towing AND all around driving. The slightly better mileage (in most cases), greater longevity, and less complicated design are just bonuses.

Russ can continue on his journey of how the V8 was specifically designed for an LD and the Cummins just got stuck in, and that the Cummins is peaky and isn't as good as a V8 for driving....yada yada...blah blah.

The Cummins Dodges outpull the GM's and Fords when it comes to the hills under some big heavy loads. Why? Is it the inline 6? I don't know, but whatever it is it works, regardless if Dodge just "chose" the engine because it was economically smart or not.

The V8's are better for around town than the ISB? I will admit that I have agreed on this once before, but mainly to just let a thread die off. I don't think so. I never run out of RPM's and the truck pulls great from 1,700RPM's to 3,200RPM's. THe argument that the V8 is better around town just seems silly to me, because I have never seen or experienced the V8's perform any better. I have driven both the 7.3 and 6.0 Ford and an LLY Dmax. Nothing impressive, infact I found the 6.0 Ford to be way too high revving for my taste and the 7.3 to be somewhat of a dog. THe Dmax was ok, but nothing special there. With that said, I don't really see how my ISB has any advantages over the others in town either, except not winding the snot out of it like the 6.0PSD. However, I have never driven a 12v Dodge, and wouldn't be suprised if it's in town driveability isn't quite as effective as the others since it's RPM peak is lower than the ISB, don't know, never drove one.

I don't see any of the diesel engines having an advantage over the other period. Yes Russ, that means I see no advantage of any of the different V8's over the ISB's in town.
THe only advantage I see any of them having over the rest is over the road towing where the Ram Cummins rule.

Cat:
You seem to think I'm slamming the CTD, I'm really not. I'm only saying that the V8 design is better suited to the typical (but certainly not all) LD users, myself included.

Actually, I did distinguish between the various versions, and I specifically said that it was becoming more comparable over the years in both rpm range and broad, flat torque curve.

I do tend to like to "hot rod around" a bit, that's part of the different market segment. As much as some of the guys here like to put down anyone who doesn't use an HD LD for 80%+ towing, that is nothing more than lame "elitism" and ridiculous in the extreme. 90% (probably more lately) of the time, I DON'T need a diesel or 2500HD. I bought it because it was "fun" (the power"), had room for what I want to haul (family = CC), *AND* when I want/need to loader 'er down to15-20+k, I can do it without flinching, even if it's only a few times a year. And I feel confident in saying that 99%+ of this market segment has the same goals and usage that I do. Well, except for the fact that probably 1/2 or more of them don't ever actually get loaded beyond what a 1/2 ton could do. But for whatever reason, that's the market, and I still maintain that for these folks, the V8 is a better config than the CTD any every category except "bragging rights" which is only important (in my mind, bias admitted) for those with "compensation" issues, the same guys that run big lifts and tires on the street and never go off-roading. But again, this is a valid part of the target market, so for "compensator", CTD wins that category too. :D Sorry, just poking fun at you. For a detailed point by point, read on…

My DMax has a broad flat curve so that it makes little difference whether I'm at 2000 or 4000, and even the CTD 600, which is the flattest and broadest CTD I've seen slopes off quite a bit beyond (was it?) 2k or so. I also run higher rpms when towing in the mountains. Going up a grade, if for safety or any other reason, I drop below 75, then I loose OD and can't get it back, but I can hold speed running against the governor. Yeah, it an Allison/Auto issue, but with my bum leg, a manual is no longer really an option. I don't have the low rpm torque that a Cummins does, but I have a deeper axle gear to make up for it, and higher torque at a higher rpm so over all, especially if it's an auto, DMax come out ahead except on peak torque which is a lead the CTD holds only for a narrow range. I think this is also why a manual, with more gears and driver control of gear/rpm matching, makes so much more difference in a CTD than the V8s. Stock to stock of course, all bets are off with mods.

And thanks for the info on the reason for the early CTD having and excessive peaky curve. I have not heard that before. Can't image why Cummins/Dodge would intentionally kill the back side of the curve just because "they decided they didn't need it". The upper end of the curve is where "all the fun" is (HP being a function of torque and all) so why would they intentionally remove that and kill part of the market? Warranty/liability issues I suppose... I did know the mod'ed trucks were much better than stock, but the dyno graphs even from moded pre-computer CTDs always seem peaky in comparison from what you see from the V8s. And I've been told (no engineer myself) that this was a characteristic of the I6 design. In particular, I discussed this with one of the guys at Edge (briefly, as to what was being done with CTD vs DMax at the time) and a couple of dyno guys who run both quite frequently. Multiple sources that I deemed credible, but certainly not 100% I guess.

As for peak prm, the torque curve on a DMax is still running pretty level when it hits the stock governor (which just stops the motor rather than degrading torque across a wide range), and when the governor limit is removed (chip) and no other changes are made (chip or otherwise), it continues happily along well beyond 4k. (I've seen the results some time ago, and don't remember the exact numbers, so I'll leave it at that) So apples to apples, the Dmax is still pulling on well beyond where the CTD falls off, even in the CTD 600 version. Is it needed? Depends on what you want to do. If you mostly sit on the interstate, and don't mind bleeding off speed on the passes till you lug it up against the engine and continue, then no. That's why I say hot-shotters, RV fanatics, and the like will probably like the CTD better. I have always freely admitted that the CTD is the better engine in many applications, just not in *EVERY* application.

Since we are talking about curves, here are dyno charts from Edge for both '03 Dodge '03 Ford, and '02 GM. Closest matches I could think of for our discussion. Not interested in the chip curves, but rather stock, otherwise hard to compare apples and apples (which I guess stock isn't anyway).

http://www.edgeproducts.com/images/DC_DodgeEZ2003TRQchart.jpg
http://www.edgeproducts.com/images/DC_ChevyJuiceTRQchart.jpg
http://www.edgeproducts.com/images/DC_FordJuiceTRQchart.jpg

Like I said, and you support, they have been growing ever closer over the years, but particularly when compared to the DMax, the CTD does not have the range or torque curve to match.

So, onto your statement that I "you make it sound like the V8 design was new for GM and Ford" is not in any way true. They have both used V8 diesels since the 6.2 DM/Detroit and the 6.9 IDI NA Ford/IH. But notice anything? They've chosen V8s at ever step. Why? Are they all stuck in a rut for the last 20+ years and have nobody who can see beyond what came before?

In any case, even if you disagree with my reasoning, and you have made some good points, I think you will have to agree that to say that the V8 is inferior simply due to it's design is ridiculous. They each have their own pros and cons and all 3 are great motors that stack up well against each other. Maybe I come off a bit strong simply because I'm so sick of the "I6 rules and V8 drools" grade school mentality some of these guys have. I try to stick to the facts as I believe them to be, but my emphasis probably does lean too far at times just in trying to make a counter point or represent the opposing view.

And please don't try that "you support it because you own it" angle on me. I had credited you as above that tactic… IMO, there are those here who certainly fall into that rut, but I'm not one of them. I have owned/driven trucks from all 3 makers, I6, V8s, and different weight classifications up to medium duty. With a few exceptions I have liked them all with a little give and take here and there. All that previous experience led me to make the choice I did, I didn't just buy what everybody said was best and then defend it blindly as many here have done. I chose the truck based on the package, and while I've learned a bit and changed a few opinions since then, I still believe it was the right choice and I represent my opinions as they are which is unrelated to the current truck I drive.

And *again*, I'll give you all your points in favor of the I6, and there are many. And yes, I can make a good argument for an I6 by focusing on the places it shines. Please pay attention here THIS TIME, I've said it many times, each has areas of superiority and areas where it lags a bit, but they are all great and NO CLEAR WINNERS *OR* LOSERS. Problem is, the I6 fanatics seem to fall into the personality category where they can't accept anything other than "my way is the one true way". So, I generally argue this side for balance, accuracy, and *completeness* simply because most people will not stand up against the onslaught of I6 fanatics who can't see beyond their own personal goals and opinions. I happen to have chosen the GM for a variety of reasons including the Dmax characteristics, but I'm sure I would have been equally happy with a CTD if other factors had not closed that door.

Bobby:

It's not my "journey", it's a statement of opinion that I try to back up with my "facts" as I understand them rather than resort to sad attempt to discredit or belittle those who disagree.

And it is a fact, Dodge "chose" an off the shelf engine that is I6 when Ford and GM participated in and used engines specifically designed for that market segment. I've drawn conclusions, and posted my opinions based on possible scenarios I think likely. Your obviously free to believe or not believe, but if you want to argue that I'm wrong, you'll need more do than chant "nah ah" and "I6 is better". Tell me where and why I'm wrong (other than just saying I am). Present another scenario that makes sense as to why the "big 2" spent all that effort on new engines (or even if they just chose what ever Detroit/Isuzu/IH/NS was working or recommended at the time, it makes no difference) to wind up with an engine that is both more expensive to build and to maintain. Hmm?

And your angle on the "around town" is wrong too. Yet again, you are misrepresenting me as all you I6 fanatics love to do. "Better" is a matter of degrees. I've driven stock 12 an 24V CTDs "around town" as well as "turned up" versions and never felt lacking. I *AGREE* with you! But the simple fact is that side by side, back to back, I (and MANY others) will notice the V8 characteristics (by nature, or design, I don't know enough do say for sure, just opinions) will "feel better". That is all. I have never said that the CTD will leave you feeling inferior or anything of the sort. It's a matter of degrees.

A Porsche and a Ferrari are both great cars, but each has elements that exceed the other based on how you use them, and this discussion is no different IMO.

As I've always said, with a few exceptions, anyone will likely be very happy with any of the current "big 3" LD diesels in all scenarios. Nobody is going to feel disappointed whether it's towing, around tow, dragging a sled, or burning 1/4s. But if you have specific goals that make one or the other package (each has trade-offs, GM, Dodge, or Ford - it should never be JUST about the engine…) "better" on the whole for you, then choose that package. Depending on the goals, one may stand out above the others, but even if you flip a coin, none are going to leave you crying in your beer, though a different selection might have been marginally better.

Just one question, whys is it that on those Edge charts that the DMax and 6.0 have 5 levels, and the dodge only has 4? Im not sure who would have the answer, just caught my attention.

Hmm, no idea, just an Edge thing I guess.

I just grabbed those charts since they were easy to find, showed the stock torque I was mentioning (and what chips can do as an aside) and I figured they would give the best chance of acceptance as an "authority" of sorts... Unfortunately, with the leap-frog year by year and the disparity of torque curves from one truck of the same make and model to another, any curve other than the one dyno'd for your truck is really only for reference and general "shape".

And thanks for the info on the reason for the early CTD having and excessive peaky curve. I have not heard that before. Can't image why Cummins/Dodge would intentionally kill the back side of the curve just because "they decided they didn't need it". The upper end of the curve is where "all the fun" is (HP being a function of torque and all) so why would they intentionally remove that and kill part of the market? Warranty/liability issues I suppose... I did know the mod'ed trucks were much better than stock, but the dyno graphs even from moded pre-computer CTDs always seem peaky in comparison from what you see from the V8s. And I've been told (no engineer myself) that this was a characteristic of the I6 design. In particular, I discussed this with one of the guys at Edge (briefly, as to what was being done with CTD vs DMax at the time) and a couple of dyno guys who run both quite frequently. Multiple sources that I deemed credible, but certainly not 100% I guess.



15 years ago, nobody bought a diesel pickup for the "fun", they bought them to work. The trucks were not fast and for the most part people were fine with that, so long as they would get the job done safely. Those early rotary pumped 12 valves will pretty easily pull anything that todays trucks will pull, they just take a long time to get to speed and are very limited in top end. With 4.10 gears, and stock tires they would barely do 70mph empty before you were on the governor, but they would pull right to their max rating without much problem up just about any hill. Another reason for the severly limited power was dodges weak drivetrain. The getrag was not the stoutest 5 speed, i wont even start the auto's of that era, and they only had a Dana 60 rear end. About the only part that didnt need attention was the NP205.

Good points, that's what I meant about warranty/liability concerns.

Still, even 15 years ago, when you are getting paid to work with your truck, whether it's job rate or miles, you need to get it done. So even though "fun" has really only been a largish part of the "what do I want" equation for HD diesel pickups in the last, say, 6 or 7 years, frustration for RV'ers and working drivers was always an issue. Of course, break downs are even more of an issue, and for the points you made, they really had no choice other than to upgrade other components. And since they had no real competition back befor the later 7.3 PSDs and (when GM FINALLY gets in the game) the DMax, I guess they felt that what they had was the "sweet spot" for return on investment.

And BTW, I don't discount the 6.2, 6.5TD, or even the old IDI Fords. I was even looking for a 6.2 for my K5 for a while due to the crazy high mileage they can achieve. They all had good points and are still working today, but they are pretty much eclipsed by the modern crop of diesels in every category.

I do not know why you continue to make this I6 vs. V8 distinction. If I was an engineer for Cummins, and I wanted to make the engine run the same torque curve as a Dmax, I easily could. It has more to do nowadays with how the ECM is programmed, not the config of the engine. Hell, we (Cat) had a race truck that was twice the displacement of a Dmax and still made peak power at 3000 rpm. It was of course an I6, so it must have automatically had a peaky torque curve, right? Of course it did not, the ECM fueling was such that fuel was injected at a high rate all the way to 3000 rpm and beyond, the I6 design did not hamper its torque curve at all. I am simply providing counterpoints to your assumption that an I6 is peaky and V8 has a broad, flat curve. You want so bad to lump all I6s together and say they are peaky, when you and I have both seen graphs showing that newer Cummins engines (I6s of course) are quite flat across the chart as shown here: http://towrig.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3260#post3260

Funny how on the charts you just posted you used the older ISB which is obviously lower power than the Dmax and older technology (fuel system). Compare apples to apples, Dmax vs. Common Rail Cummins if you want to compare I6 to V8 designs since these two have the same fuel system and the only major difference is I6 vs. V8.

I know you are not bashing the Cummins, but I think your theory that a V8 diesel is better than an I6 in a light truck is incorrect, unless you are constantly running over 2500 rpm, which is a waste in a diesel truck anyway in my opinion. If that is your method of driving, fine, but do not try to make it sound like everyone else drives like that, cause it is certainly not the norm except for most of the younger "ricer" types that happen to own diesels. I am not an elitist when it comes to the use of a truck. I certainly do not tow near as much as I should, and I did mostly buy my truck for the fun factor. For me, it would not be near as fun to have a V8, because to me they feel numb below 2000 rpm, and that is where I like to drive my truck. To each his own I guess, but please do not continue to push your I6 is peaky, V8 is flat and broad theory, if you want to be correct, you should say a stock 12 or 24 valve is "peaky" and the newer common rail engines are all rather flat along their torque curves.

It has more to do nowadays with how the ECM is programmed, not the config of the engine.


It sure does, just look at the new LBZ durmax. 650 ft/lbs of torque at 1600 rpm, and it stays above 600 pretty much all the way till redline.















:stir: :stir: :popcorn:

I think your right CatDPwr. I really think the reason GM and Ford market the
V8 diesel is because America loves V8's. I know I've said this before, but for people that dont know much about diesel engines usually buy the V8 because the automaticlly think it will have more power. A chevy 454 has alot more power than the inline 300, so a 6.6L V8 diesel must be better than a little 5.9Liter inline right? Not really. Can you imagine if the cummins was a 6.6 liter, or even a 7.3 liter? It would be putting out huge amounts of torque and there is no way Ford or GM could compete wiith that. All 3 are truly good, but I think the inline truly is a better design, lighter trucks or heavy application.

LOL, thank you! Its nice to see someone who can discuss and debate in a rational way.

As for lumping I6 into a category of "peaky torque curves" unfairly, ok, maybe I have. I'm no engineer, and base my opinion on my limited experiences and those who I think are credible (which you seem to be). I really know nothing of I6 CATs or the other OTR engines to say what is possible, but in my experience with I6 gassers and diesels (which is pretty much limited to CTD, Perkins, and the like) shows a consistent tendency for "peaky" torque curves. Perhaps your right and my opinions are based on limited scope of experience and listening to the wrong people. But I still maintain that with regard to the trucks and engines in question, my facts do stand even if I incorrectly associate them with the I6 design.

And even thought we have seen flatter torque curves on the Cummins, it still falls off (for whatever reason) well short of the DMax, and to a lesser extent, the 6.0 PS. And again, the computer controlled engines are bringing them closer as I've said all along.

Look at the charts again. They are all from the same range of diesels, and I even handicapped the V8s by using first gen charts ('02 and '03) against an evolved CTD at '03. How could I have gotten closer? I could step it up in years and show a LLY against the CTD where GM leap-frogged ahead. I could step on and grab the CTD 600 at a point where Dodge was ahead. I could step on more and grab the newest DMax which pulls ahead again. So if anything, I *handicapped* the GM which is a year previous to major "upgrades" (debatable in Fords case) by both others. I just chose what I thought was the best match and easy to find that allows remote linking. So in your own words, "funny" how you missed that. ;)

And I'm soon to be 40, so I don't think I fall into the "younger ricer types" crowd. :D And in general driving around town, the DMax typically shifts a bit above 2k. But if I'm in a mood to do so, it'll wrap on up there and it's a blast to drive, especially with the chip. That does make the V8s ability, particularly in the years I bought mine, much "better" for my usage, and there are a LOT of people I know personally who do love that they can have the best of both worlds. A reving "hot rod" when they want it, and a lugging pulling beast when they need it. Even if the CTD (because of I6 or not) would do better in the second category, it's not worth the trade in the first for many of us, though that trade-off is certainly less significant with the later CTDs or with upgrades. And the newest CTDs are as you say "rather flat", but not in even in the same category as the curve represented by the DMax then or now (though the latest DMax does seem to roll off on the back, so getting closer still eh? :D ). Good enough or "rather flat" does not mean "best", though it may mean "good enough for any practical purpose" depending on the persons assigning values.

It is hard to compare them, especially if you extend it into the realm of what's possible instead of what's stock in the big 3. All things being relatively equivalent though, the V designs are designed (for whatever reason) to run higher rpms and hold the power up at those rpms and the I designs are designed to build lower and fall off higher. I have my own theories as to why GM and Ford consistently choose a V design for this market, but they are only theories and opinions, I've never said otherwise. Whether I've mistaken cause-and-effect myself and mistakenly "assumed" that this is the nature of the I vs. V design can certainly be debated as you have effectively done. I lean to the V8 side for reasons stated, you lean to the I6 side for reasons stated, and I don't think either of us is wrong, we just have different criteria, and so, we each have our own "editors choice" for "best". But we both agree that they are all good designs and suitable for the market.

Just like with Bobby in previous (somewhat) heated debates, it comes down to we are not that far apart, we are just on opposite sides of a debate, each making our point the best we can. I think your biggest problem with my posts is that I did focus/slant my stance on the V8 strengths vs I6 weaknesses (as I see them) and did not fairly emphasize the opposing points. But you I6 guys keep that covered quite effectively, so where is the fun (or fair representation) if I provide both sides of the debate? ;)

If someone comes on here making sweeping unsupported statements that I6 sucks and V8 rules and as Bobby used to be fond of saying, "it is better "hands down", then you'll see me just as vocal on the I6 side. :D I'm more about "complete" and "accurate" (within my limits of understanding and natural human bias) than about pushing my view or "winning". That's part of why my posts are so long. I'm not trying to snow you under like some lawyer with overloads in paperwork and I do not want to come across as elitist either. It's just that I not only do I not want to respond to the next 16 posts as people fail to see what/why I said something (especially if that something is contentious, as it always is if you don't agree that I6 is best), but I also give you guys as much of my background logic/"fact" as possible *HOPING* that if I'm wrong or missed something you'll correct me, and we can all learn the truth rather than the mindless self-serving propaganda you get on the targeted sites like TDS, TDP, TDR, and such like. Those sites are great if you need info on a specific brand or something, but useless to compare and figure out how they stack up against each other…

Thanks for the great debate/discussion. waytogo

Cummins:

You have a valid point, to an extent. But I don't think that holds water in the HD pickups market. The "Cummins" name and the legions of "I6 is the only way to build a diesel" followers more than neutralize (IMO) the knee-jerk "I want a V8" American response for diesel truck buyers. Especially in an age when V6s and I4s are ever more popular as performance platforms and the V6s offer power comparable to and often exceeding V8s while getting better mileage. Especially after the Buick GN, I really don't think "V8" is all that significant as a "compensator" in the current automotive culture. Of course, we still have the big GM V8, V10s and V12 too, but they have relatively little appeal for the most part. So, for gassers, I agree that nobody wants a truck that is not a V8, and preferably at least 350(ish) ci, but not for diesel where I think most (as evidenced by the posts here, which admittedly are no where near statistically significant as an over all indicator) feel that it's a minus, not a plus.

Russ,

Honestly, I think you are trying to make the torque peak and RPM range to be a lot bigger thing than it really is.

I don't know why you are racing around at 4,000RPM's for, that seems silly. I rarely even hit 3K, because I don't need it. My transmission is designed to shift and keep the engine in it's RPM range, which is about 1,600RPM's to 3,000RPM's. The I6 Cummins doesn't need to rev to 4K to make it's power and I don't know why you are turning that many RPM's for. I knew the V8's made their power slightly higher than the I6 engines, but not 1,000+RPM's.:eek:

Your Edge graphs aren't impressing me. Besides that the ISB brings on the power earlier than the other two, and holds it for nearly as long. Yes the Cummins drops off at about 2,700RPM's, but by then I'd already had shifted.:D

All:

Oops, sorry, just realized the dyno charts for the GM and Ford do not list the years. As I mentioned in the text, it is '02 GM LB7 and '03 Ford 6.0 PS. Sorry for the confusion…

Bobby:

I don't race around at 4,000 rpms, but I do hit it if I'm racing or feeling like a little fun merging into 70+ mph traffic with less than an 1/8 mile on ramp or something (especially if loaded). :D And sometimes when I drop from OD going up a 6% with 15k and I don't want to drop below 70. Is it *needed*, no, but it can be fun and that has some value to me.

And your right about the need for the trans to keep the engine in it's range, auto or not. My trans will let my engine rev as needed, and it will let it rev higher than your CTD governor (if stock) or tranny will typically allow. I does because it *can*, and there are scenarios where that is "better" assuming the whole package works together (final drive ratios and all). :D

And surely you don't think those graphs were meant to impress you or anyone else, I assure you that was not the case. I was just showing a snapshot of a point in time that backs up what I was saying. And I would certainly hope you would have shifted before falling off that back side, that would be true of any engine including a gasser 350 with TBI that falls off rapidly around 5k, or any other config. You drive/shift based on what you have, so that point of "I would already have shifted" is really irrelevant. Sure, you can get the work done, and at the end of the day (god I hate that phrase) that's the most important thing. But having a wider, flatter curve with "more area under the curve" does provide additional value and opens up more options for gearing and such that a narrower curve (for whatever reason) does not have. I don't care one whit (whatever that is) about your seat of the pants feeling in this case, it is generally accepted the more area under the curve is a benefit, but for some reason, the CTD fanatics just can't accept that or anything else if it means their precious object of affection is in any way not coming out on top.

I'm well aware that there are uses and scenarios where my DMax is inferior to the CTD and that does not bother me at all because I'm confident that I found and bought the truck that had the balance I needed/wanted. Why can't you CTD heads accept the same? Frankly, the way you guys respond (with a few exceptions noted) strikes me more as someone lashing out to protect their baby from a general feeling of insecurity and lack of confidence. Which, as I've already pointed out, is one of the big draws of that CTD badge on the fender…
rotfl :stir:

LOL, I guess you guys really hate it when my work slows down (as it has been this week) and I have time to keep up on the boards... :cool:

BadDog

In my opinion, I still think many people do buy V8 diesel truck because they like V8's. Not all, but some do. People buying these trucks aren't concerned with fuel mileage. If they were, they'd buy a little 4 banger. Does it really matter though? No. Do you think the DMax is better? Yes. I think the Cummins is better. But, not that much better. Any 3 of these trucks will do more than we need honestly. I love the inline, but if Dodge keeps getting uglier, like they have been, then my next truck will also be a DMax.........can't believe I just said that.

You may be right, but it just seems like most of the HD pickup crowd is fixated on I6 as superior, and the winner for "cachet" (most important criteria for the yuppie and status seekers) is definitely the CTD badge (IMO).

One correction though, I really don't think the DMax is "best". In fact, I would say flat out it is NOT "the best", but also that none of them are deserving of that status... I just think it offers the best mix for my needs and many others.

Hehe, I may cross to Dodge for the same reason if the GMC starts following the Chevy designs. No way I could stand that Chevy front, it's a deal breaker for me. But your right, the new Dodges are not much better and keep getting worse. So if I wind up needing a new truck (no plans any time soon) and GMC follows the general trendof getting uglier, who knows, I may suck it up and go PS, which to me has the least to offer of the 3 engines) just because of the looks. Maybe they'll have a decent engine (IMO) by then if it comes to that.

You may be right, but it just seems like most of the HD pickup crowd is fixated on I6 as superior, and the winner for "cachet" (most important criteria for the yuppie and status seekers) is definitely the CTD badge (IMO).

One correction though, I really don't think the DMax is "best". In fact, I would say flat out it is NOT "the best", but also that none of them are deserving of that status... I just think it offers the best mix for my needs and many others.

Hehe, I may cross to Dodge for the same reason if the GMC starts following the Chevy designs. No way I could stand that Chevy front, it's a deal breaker for me. But your right, the new Dodges are not much better and keep getting worse. So if I wind up needing a new truck (no plans any time soon) and GMC follows the general trendof getting uglier, who knows, I may suck it up and go PS, which to me has the least to offer of the 3 engines) just because of the looks. Maybe they'll have a decent engine (IMO) by then if it comes to that.

Around these parts, the yuppies generally drive Dmaxes, the construction guys run PSDs, and farmers and hotshotters run Cummins, so, at least around here, your theory about the "compensator" being a Cummins is actually quite wrong.

Around these parts, the yuppies generally drive Dmaxes, the construction guys run PSDs, and farmers and hotshotters run Cummins, so, at least around here, your theory about the "compensator" being a Cummins is actually quite wrong.Things reflect that here too. I have a theory on why this is...

Russ is going to love this.....:pimp: :stir:

Your majority white collar folks that sit behind a desk and live in a 5 houses to an acre division(us farmers would call yuppies) that are interested in diesels generally don't have things like drivetrain strength and suspension on the brain but more of heated seats and whats the best riding diesel out there.

What does this lead too???? Lots of guys wearing ties that drive Dmax's.:poke:

Ford has always had the reputation of a tough, hard working truck, coupled with Ford having the best fleet department is my guess why you see Fords mostly in construction and the like.

Farmers, diesel mechanics, heavy equipment operators and the like seem to prefer Dodge because of the "no BS" drivetrain. Most of these types of people work around inline 6 engines with many of them that are painted black/red or tan and feel "at home" with the Ram Cummins and the stout drivetrain that is found underneith and behind it.

This should be good......:popcorn:

LOL! rotfl Good ones actually...

But I think you've got it twisted, and I probably wasn't clear either which is the problem.

Yeah, the "yuppies" and Lexus/BMW/Cady crowd tend to gravitate to the GM due to the plush creature comforts including superior ride and handling both loaded and unloaded, but those are not really the target of my earlier jab, though I did scramble it in my flurry of hasty typing.

What I was really poking at is the *POSER* crowd of "I'm a big tough guy and drive a REAL truck with a REAL I6 Diesel in it!" crowd... For the poser, nothing says "I'm a man" like a big honking "big rig" pretending Dodge with CTD in big ol' proud letters on the fender or door. For those guys, a DMax is out of the question since all that plush comfort would make them feel sissified and there egos can't handle that, sorta like wearin' a pink shirt, though they might go for the synthetic Ford "working truck image" (primarily a result of aggressive fleet sales and advertising) if they are not "in the know" enough to recognize the "stature" of that CTD badge... It's certainly easy to spot those compensating, "not secure in their manhood" folks in the crowd here...

Back at cha! :poke: :stir: rotfl Now don't be pokin' no sticks at me... rotfl I can sling the hash too! :D

Bobby:

I'm well aware that there are uses and scenarios where my DMax is inferior to the CTD and that does not bother me at all because I'm confident that I found and bought the truck that had the balance I needed/wanted. Why can't you CTD heads accept the same? Frankly, the way you guys respond (with a few exceptions noted) strikes me more as someone lashing out to protect their baby from a general feeling of insecurity and lack of confidence. Which, as I've already pointed out, is one of the big draws of that CTD badge on the fender…
rotfl :stir:

I've got no problem with listing what drawbacks the CTD has, thats never been an issue for me.

The Dmax has a better head setup in stock form, the Cummins VP44 is not as durable as it should be, the Dmax has a better tranny behind it.

I on the other hand DON'T find being able to rev sky high on the tach all that benificial. It's a diesel, it may not rev like a gas engine but it makes it up by having an usefull 2,500RPM and down RPM range to where that is pretty much a worthless range for a gas engine.THe Dmax's RPM range is sounding more like a gas engine's range to me. I'd rather make my power at 1,700 to 3K than 2,500 to 4K. THe low end grunt that the 5.9 cummins has over the Dmax and Ford is a lot more usefull than having extra RPM's on the top end IMHO.

What I was really poking at is the *POSER* crowd of "I'm a big tough guy and drive a REAL truck with a REAL I6 Diesel in it!" crowd... For the poser, nothing says "I'm a man" like a big honking "big rig" pretending Dodge with CTD in big ol' proud letters on the fender or door. For those guys, a DMax is out of the question since all that plush comfort would make them feel sissified and there egos can't handle that, sorta like wearin' a pink shirt, though they might go for the synthetic Ford "working truck image" (primarily a result of aggressive fleet sales and advertising) if they are not "in the know" enough to recognize the "stature" of that CTD badge... It's certainly easy to spot those compensating, "not secure in their manhood" folks in the crowd here...

Back at cha! :poke: :stir: rotfl Now don't be pokin' no sticks at me... rotfl I can sling the hash too! :Drotfl Hah, not bad.

I will definantly say I gravitate to the biggest stuff for the most part, like most men do.

I don't mind the GM interiors and ride, I just like the Dodge black leather interior better along with the positioning of the driver. I feel that I sit above the hood higher to where the new GM's feel like I sit deep into a cockpit. I like driving a pickup, not an airplane.:D I will definantly say that I gravitated to the Cummins for it's commanding sound over the other two's "sissy" idle. (might as well throw the Common rail Rams in there too, they sound like doodoo also). But, that comes from my farmer blood and background. Not from a small "ding-a-ling." Is that politically correct?rotfl

Like I said previously, people will naturally gravitate towards what they are familiar with, just like why I drive a Ram Cummins. I'm a farmer and an OTR mechanic. Not that it makes me or anyone that I know feel "more like a man" but just is what I like because I grew up around it. Just like the yuppie crowd, they would look at my "noisy" and "clunky" diesel and frown with a "thats irritating." They are used to their quiet BMW's. As a farmer, my best reply would be "what? Thats what a diesel sounds like."....because thats what I'm used to.;)

As far as the poser thing, that goes for anyone driving anything. You obviously made your shot at "my" crowd, but thats almost as bad as a yuppie buying a Dmax so he has a bigger pickup than the fellow co-worker that has a parking space next to him.:rolleyes:

If you drive around a diesel pickup just so you can say you have a diesel pickup than the poser comment can fly, regardless of brand.

You won't find that around my parts....I've got a small fleet of trailers out back....which is why I really bought a diesel in the first place. waytogo

Around these parts, the yuppies generally drive Dmaxes, the construction guys run PSDs, and farmers and hotshotters run Cummins, so, at least around here, your theory about the "compensator" being a Cummins is actually quite wrong.


all the fleets, construction, city and other fleetsd use powerstrokes because ford is the best company to deal with in such big numbers, look on the road, how many cab and chassis fords do you see ion comparision to dodge and chevy in 1 ton pickups?
around here 6 out of 10 are ford, 2-3 chevy, and the remaining is a dodge.
farmers around here prefer the fords over dodge...

No worries, it's all good.

But on the low rpm torque, look back at those graphs. According to them (in those years of course), which appears to be making the most torque below 1800? Based on the shape of the curve, the CTD is dropping faster going down in rpms and even appears to hit 1800 at a slightly lower point that the '02 DMax. Looks to me like the DMax is making more torque below 1800 than the CTD, though I generally will give the "low end" arguement to CTD anyway (maybe I shouldn't?). The CTD is climbing faster from 1800 to 2000 or so where it finds it's peak, where the DMax finds a lower peak a 100 or so rpms higher, but that low rpm torque isn't as big a split as you think between a stock DMax and CTD (at least on those charts).

But it doesn't really matter as long as the whole drive train is set up to utilize the engine in the right rpm range through proper gearing. The wider curve (which rose to match or exceed the peak of the 03 CTD in the 04 DMax, leap-frog again) just give the DMax driver more options.

But enough, I think we've beat this to death and we are not really all that far apart, just on oposite sides of the fence "chewing the fat" so to speak...

I think this topics been beat to death also, so here's my last say........

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

....after following along with this thread, I thought a newbie may shed a little light. I bought my 03 7.3 CC LB DRW after looking at all 3 back in 02. Dodge's interior just does nothing for me, looks nor comfort. The Dmax was new, and having problems. The PSD just seemed to have the best ALL AROUND package back then....good motor, good tranny, good rear end, good looks, good/spacious interior, good ride. I love all 3 trucks, and even own an 05 1/2 ton Chevy gasser, and currently in the market for an older Cummins (or PSD) for a work truck. I think the newer Dmax may have the best ALL AROUND package now, then the Dodge then the PSD. They all have their ups/downs, and the debate on I6 vs. V8 will rage on for years and years after we are all gone. I think those that are loyal to one brand and one brand only are closed minded, and need to open their eye's in life to see what is going on. My wife and I have an 03 Ford PSD, 05 Chevy, 71 Dodge Challenger (484" Hemi) 97 Chevy Astro Van, and an 02 Jeep GC Overlander. And we just got rid of a Toyota camry. I drive em all, because I buy what suits me and my wife, not loyal to one brand, and never will be. waytogo :D :popcorn:

I agree with you that the best al around package now in the GM's Crew Cab w/Duramax. Ford totally dropped the ball with the 6.0 and i wont trust the 6.4 until its been out for a couple of years. Dodge refuses to do the right thing with the cab situation and besides the newer cummins is have problems as well.

I just have a few comments. First for whoever was touting I6 in class8 trucks over V8's, check out a numberred Pete 359 from late 70's -mid 80's. Those Pete's with the 3408 Cat@450hp stock would whip any variation of I6, then or now. Emmissions are what killed those engines along with the fact that mileage sufferred and were expensive to work on. Don't believe me, just ask any truck driver if he could have any wish for a truck that would spank any other, and he "will" tell you about the Cat V8. Those guys had so many tranny problems too. Check out what a '84 Pete w/V8 Cat is worth compared to the same with an I6. No comparason. Someone else started this with that C15 comment, not me.
Secondly, class8 truck engines have completely different objectives than light duty truck engines. Now, before anyone goes off on me because I own a 6.0L PSD, I'll stop you now. I like the Cummins engine just fine. It just don't fit my bill for what I want. Some claim better reliability, simpler design, etc. Not hardly! It does have 2 less cylinders, it's inline design, but not more simple. If anything, I like the fact that the PSD has quite a bit in common with Cat products of today and yesterday. Does HEUI mean anything to anyone? Some may argue it's had it's problems, but so has Duramax and the Cummins with their injection control.
Third, I truly believe you can expect more from the V8's if the technology was available. How many race cars hop up I6's compared to V8's? Well, maybe ricers, but that's because of the room they have to work with. Two more cylinders to improve performance. This usually comes with a broader RPM range than an inline. Hell, if the PSD was as thick as the Cummins, we could take them to new heights. It wasn't me that wrote that Henry Ford rewrote history with that tiny V8 flathead. I wasn't even born yet, hell, my Dad wasn't even born yet. That changed the world. All things being equal, if money was no object, and I could start with a new slate to build a "hoss" engine from scratch, it would definely be a V8. Maybe a V10 or V12? Even Harley Davidson and Briggs & Stratton think the V design is superior. Honda motorcycles, hell yall get my drift.

As I stated before, there is nothing wrong with the I6 Cummins, I choose to drive the PSD because it behaves better all around with my operation. And yes, I probably tow more and more often with my pickup than alot of posters here. Before hollering at me for stating this, let me say that I do own a '99 PSD that runs hotshot and has 376K miles, same driver and he does not want a new truck. Not hotshot as in 600lbs. in the bed, I mean hotshot as in 40' Big Tex GN25 hanging behind it.
Just like every other argument, I think everyone has an intended use for their own truck. Mine fits my intended use very well and sometimes my intended use changes on Saturday night while heading home from a baseball game with the kids and the need arises to smoke an overzealous Cummins boy. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I catch one who has bombed the crap out of his truck. Those are the breaks. Oh, I would like to say that my PSD is at the bottom of the mileage war.

I just have a few comments. First for whoever was touting I6 in class8 trucks over V8's, check out a numberred Pete 359 from late 70's -mid 80's. Those Pete's with the 3408 Cat@450hp stock would whip any variation of I6, then or now. Emmissions are what killed those engines along with the fact that mileage sufferred and were expensive to work on. Don't believe me, just ask any truck driver if he could have any wish for a truck that would spank any other, and he "will" tell you about the Cat V8. Those guys had so many tranny problems too. Check out what a '84 Pete w/V8 Cat is worth compared to the same with an I6. No comparason. Someone else started this with that C15 comment, not me.


Since I was involved in trucking in the 70's-'80's I would have to disagree with a Cat 3408 being the leader. The king of the OTR truck engines was (& still is) a "K" Series Cummins. The K was a 6 cyl @ 1150 Cu. In. that had 750 Hp if you didn't turn it up, One that still hauls out of LA has a mear 1000HP. I asked the owners wife once one time why he wanted so much HP and she informed me that he doesn't like getting passed:D We do agree that emissions reg's have basically stopped these engines from being produced for OTR trucks......

Oh yeah, I stand down. Never hardly see those anymore. Those KTA's were the big boy on the block like you say in stock form. Some claim the Cat 3408 could not touch that engine but I know a different story about that. They would do better than people think. The KTA600 wasn't quite as strong as the numbers that were often thrown around though. Or was that the KTA1150. I only remember ever seeing one in person in a truck and it was one bad motor scooter. I only know the stories my Dad used to tell of these and unless you were running a V8, you didn't stand a remote chance. The one I know of was my uncle's and it was an IH Imoryville(not sure on that spelling) but I remember it being an oilfield engine transplanted into that old cabover. It sounded great too. Funny how a person can remember what that sounded like 25 years ago but can't remember thier own anniversary.

Ha, You better not let the other half read that anniversary part;)

If you want some good reading look at Bruce Mallinson's HP & Torque articles. Although the Cat's still can't quite come up to the might of the Cummins K, after Bruce gets through with them they can be close contenders!

Yes they are some bad hot rods. I came down to the Cummins shop that my son works at and watched them put one of the few K's left on their rollers after he rebuilt it. That truck would make the hair on your arms stand up when they started running it, really some beautiful music.... As a matter of fact the whole shop came out to watch that one!

http://dieselinjection.net/frames.html

My dad never had any of these K series giant cummins or 3408's but many a time I have been told that back in the day the small and big cam Cummins motors would eat up Detroit 8V71's, 6V92's, and 8V92's, which was the only thing anyone ran around here. An inline 6 Cummins with the same HP as any of the Detroits listed would eat them up on a hill.

That's definitely a fact. A 400 Cummins with a #5 button and 1-1/2 turns would really put out.

All I know is that an inline diesel uses less mechanical parts then a comparable "V" engine. I found this article which is quite interesting. This should ease some debate about reliability. The top 3 all make great trucks. People purchase diesels for power and reliability. I am on my 3rd Ram 2500 and I have great success with them. I put 300000 miles on my first one, which was a 99'. I'm sure there are some of you that might of had simular luck. Bottom line is that the most important factor for me is reliability. I run a hot shot service traveling as much as 1500 miles one way, 7 days a week.

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/SUB/51208024&SearchID=73231560627711

I figure id share a post from one of our fellow posters from another forum site:

I have a 96 Powerstroke F350 that had 917,000 on the original engine, the curent engine (http://campaigns.ford-trucks.com/campaigns/direct.php?log=yes&bannerid=89)was a factory replacement and the truck has 1,041,000 on it an still runs great. I adverage about 265,000 on the trans, I'm on the third for the 96. I also have a 2001 F550 with the 7.3 Powerstroke it has 341,000 on it and I'm now on the second trans, the first lasted almost 296,000, then the rear shaft wobbled out due to the fact that I've lengthened the wheel (http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3289693#) base to 279 in. Both trucks are crewcabs and I run a hotshot delivery service that covers all 48 states and handle loads on the 350 up to 6500 lbs and up to 9500 on the 550. The rule is simple....Service, oil, filters, belts, air cleaners,etc and they'll last. Other than the extended wheel base on the 550 and air bags (http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3289693#) added to the rear of the 350 no other mods have been made and both trucks pull a 20 foot 12k trailer when I need to.The 96 has a 8 1/2 foot flatbed and the 01 has a 16 1/2 foot flatbed.

they both have problems. i have a f650 in my one bay now with the IPR that blew out of the back of the HPOP pump, and f700 cummins next to it that needs an injector and a pump, and should get rebuilt as it came in with a no power complaint for the last 2-3 weeks of there daily use of the truck. IC hose was blown off for this 3 weeks, and thus no air filter was used.

Things reflect that here too. I have a theory on why this is...

Russ is going to love this.....:pimp: :stir:

Your majority white collar folks that sit behind a desk and live in a 5 houses to an acre division(us farmers would call yuppies) that are interested in diesels generally don't have things like drivetrain strength and suspension on the brain but more of heated seats and whats the best riding diesel out there.

What does this lead too???? Lots of guys wearing ties that drive Dmax's.:poke:

Ford has always had the reputation of a tough, hard working truck, coupled with Ford having the best fleet department is my guess why you see Fords mostly in construction and the like.

Farmers, diesel mechanics, heavy equipment operators and the like seem to prefer Dodge because of the "no BS" drivetrain. Most of these types of people work around inline 6 engines with many of them that are painted black/red or tan and feel "at home" with the Ram Cummins and the stout drivetrain that is found underneith and behind it.

This should be good......:popcorn:
Well, let's see. My first job--we had a brand new 1982 C30 6.2 with a 400 gallon sprayer tank and pulled machines behind it--barnyard 4-speed in it. The speed limit was only 55 then, but we did 65 loaded with the pedal to the mat.

GM was first with the diesel and it was a V8--designed from the ground up to fit in the 454 size with enough naturally-aspirated cubes to get a load moving and enough power to keep it moving. A turbo would have been nice, but we didn't know about it then and we liked that truck. The fuel curve was very aggressive and the compression was very high and with 16,000# of combined weight it would shrug into motion without a problem--and the 150hp was enough power for it then.

Fast forward 18 years to 2000 and the same motor with a few improvements--a bit more displacement and a turbo, and you have a 195hp, 430ft# motor coming out of the same plant in Dayton. It worked fine--and is still produced by AMG. I think GM just kept with the V8 because they had been successful with it for a long time.

Same with Ford and the 6.9/7.3--it truly makes no difference. The cylinders were not informed that they were laying over 45* each way. Both engines are over-square. By the way, the 6.9 was developed from an industrial gas engine.

With boost and computers, the engine does whatever the fuel map tells it to do--the engine can do anything at any rpm--it's about not breaking the driveline and making the truck feel 'right' to the driver. Cummins guys always claim they make more torque at low rpms--but look at the curves here (LINK (http://www.bankspower.com/test_results_AC02.cfm)):
This is rearwheel--207hp and 375ft#--add about 15% for flywheel so make it 235hp and 430ft#.

http://www.bankspower.com/tr_graphs/AC02_turbo-graph.gif
And here (LINK (http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/applications/ram67_ratings.jsp)):
http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/applications/images/67_torquecurve.gif
At idle speed with the pedal to the metal, the Banks 6.2 can make 400ft#. Trust me, when I'm out in town here in Columbus, Indiana (heard of it?) everyone in the world tries me--this place is packed with Dodge Cummins with stacks blowing black smoke all over the place. You won't beat me across an intersection in my 6.2. I let them drive angerily away because I don't race on the street, but they know they got whipped. Cummins didn't give you the fuel at low rpms to do it. Yeah, you can 'chip it'. But you have to.

A buddy has a 2002 7.3--the last one--275hp and 520ft#. I borrowed it to go pick up a 65 Mustang--about the lightest thing that's ever been on my trailer. It was very weak in acceleration compared to my Banks 6.2--but once you punch the cruise button, it would hold the hills better than my 6.2. Ford doesn't let the driver have as much fuel. Great for everywhere but trying to scoot into traffic on the beltway.

I've been driving these diesel pick-ups as long as they have been out--and they all do the job in easy diesel fashion. The last gasser I drove got 8mpg with a 6,000# trailer and the next week on the same run I got 16 with my diesel and didn't have to downshift for the hills. The '02 Powerstroke gets 12 with that load and 15-16 empty. My 6.2 gets 23 empty and 17 town--better than my wife's new Honda Pilot.

Nobody has made a diesel that will get me out of the old Chevy crewcab yet. It runs with one electrical wire. You can talk all the yak you want but I don't have a 5" exhaust or carpet or bucket seats or power windows or even a tachometer and pillar gauges. It just does it's job and I plug it back in at night.

There's no difference between any of the three modern trucks. They are all big, powerful luxury trucks and I'm afraid to own one.

well these are all good points but im a powerstroke lover and thats that but i do own a cummins and like it to, so as one member said a long time ago, their all diesels so there all good!

The day I can see a 6.2 turbo'd do what my Cummins can, I will swap one into my early K30 CC Chevy.

The 6.2 with the Banks turbo isn't bad, but it still isn't even close to the realm of the 7.3L PSD, DMax, and any Cummins found in a Dodge for that matter. It's internals are no where even close to being as strong as the bottom ends of the motors listed above.


The idea that 6.2's get great fuel economy is also a myth. People have gotten mid 20's (that really is great as stated by many) out of 6.2's, there is no question about that. But, said people also forget to mention it's in a 1/2ton C10 regular cab short bed that doesn't weigh even close to 5K.

Every 6.2 I've seen and heard of in a real pickup like a K20 or K30 can't break out of the teens on ideal conditions.

Obviously, there are exceptions out there. Turbo'd versions probably do a hair better in heavier trucks, but the average 6.2 N/A can't hang with it's economy vs. the later motors.

All in all, the 6.2 is a great engine. They run forever. I originally wanted one in my K5 blazer when I was blazer buying. But, I wanted more than stock 305 small block power.

Well i'm new here and i know this is gonna make me some enemies real quick. All the big three make phenomenal truck's, but as one gentleman quoted the 3208 was a throw away motor, it was but it also came in other trucks besides fords. anyway most v8 diesel's are throw away's as is the ih 444 which is really used in the light end of medium lines the 466 is used in most of the true medium duty trucks. As for the duramax its a great motor but isuzu built gm motor because americans buy v8's, that's also why ford uses a v8. Your average american believes a v8 is better and it doesn't matter what fuel they run.Manufactures build what sells period end of story. It's all about the benjamins baby. I would also like to add that isuzu own personal line of medium duty trucks mostly come with inline motors not v configurations. Yes i am a diesel truck and equiptment tech i own my own mobile repair business. I' m also older than some on this site but i'm probably younger than most and have heard alot of glory days stories. ALL OILBURNERS ROCK NO MATTER WHAT BADGE IS ON IT

ALL OILBURNERS ROCK NO MATTER WHAT BADGE IS ON IT

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!waytogo

I use to agree with everything you just said. Use To!! The inline with out a doubt work alot better in our tractors and in the big rigs. But, I believe Inlines have their place. I personally love the feel of the V8 diesels, but its all preference. I'm Cummins owner and have two sitting in our drive way at home!!! If I had to choose, Dmax hands down!!

OH CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO GET THAT 1/2 TON HAULER THING CHANGED:mad:

OH CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO GET THAT 1/2 TON HAULER THING CHANGED:mad:

Ive been wonderin that same thing! :confused:

http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/applications/images/67_torquecurve.gif
At idle speed with the pedal to the metal, the Banks 6.2 can make 400ft#. Trust me, when I'm out in town here in Columbus, Indiana (heard of it?) everyone in the world tries me--this place is packed with Dodge Cummins with stacks blowing black smoke all over the place. You won't beat me across an intersection in my 6.2. I let them drive angerily away because I don't race on the street, but they know they got whipped. Cummins didn't give you the fuel at low rpms to do it. Yeah, you can 'chip it'. But you have to.



I'm sorry, that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. rotflrotflrotfl

Ive been wonderin that same thing! :confused:
It has to do with your post count, as you gain more posts it will change.:D

i think i just realized that since mine says 3/4 ton hauler now. but thanks!

It has to do with your post count, as you gain more posts it will change.:D

Ya, you get more than 10 i think, you go to 3/4 Ton Hauler, then 100, you become a 1 Ton Hauler, and etc...

well looks like i have a ways to go then...ha!

ya know i figured that out about 2 seconds after the brain fart that made me type that

and the lists go longer on whats best to own..lol

The day I can see a 6.2 turbo'd do what my Cummins can, I will swap one into my early K30 CC Chevy.

The 6.2 with the Banks turbo isn't bad, but it still isn't even close to the realm of the 7.3L PSD, DMax, and any Cummins found in a Dodge for that matter. It's internals are no where even close to being as strong as the bottom ends of the motors listed above.


The idea that 6.2's get great fuel economy is also a myth. People have gotten mid 20's (that really is great as stated by many) out of 6.2's, there is no question about that. But, said people also forget to mention it's in a 1/2ton C10 regular cab short bed that doesn't weigh even close to 5K.

Every 6.2 I've seen and heard of in a real pickup like a K20 or K30 can't break out of the teens on ideal conditions.

Obviously, there are exceptions out there. Turbo'd versions probably do a hair better in heavier trucks, but the average 6.2 N/A can't hang with it's economy vs. the later motors.

All in all, the 6.2 is a great engine. They run forever. I originally wanted one in my K5 blazer when I was blazer buying. But, I wanted more than stock 305 small block power.

You know almost nothing.

I'm serious about that.

Will, you are full of ****.

I'm serious about that too.

I'd love to see you race any newer diesel truck, anything other than stock and you will get crushed. You said you beat people across an intersection, most races go a little longer than that.

You know almost nothing.

I'm serious about that.
Coming from a guy that thinks his econo getter 6.2 is a PSD, Dmax, Cummins killer.

Although, you could likely beat me across an intersection, only due to the fact your econo diesel doesn't have enough power to hardly chirp the tires and I'd be sitting still at the line trying to not melt my tires off the rims.:rolleyes:

Just because you manage to zip past someone from a light doesn't mean much, it takes TWO to make a race...:poke:

Regardless if you like it or not, the 6.2 was an engine designed mainly to deliver better than V6 fuel economy and engine longevity. Thats mainly why you could get them in 1/2ton 10's. GM clearly stated that it is an engine with 305 power (it's factory power numbers reflect that of a 305) with V6 economy, as I just said GM clearly stated this. WIth it being a diesel and having more low end torque, it could out pull a 305, but not do much more than a 350.

Like it or don't, I don't much care. Diesel Power magazine has a great article that you should read if you haven't already. They took identical '97 2500 Suburbans and compared them head to head, one with a 6.5TD and one with a Vortec 454. In every aspect but fuel mileage, the 454 completely spanked the 6.5TD.

With that, I have a vortec 454 Chevy also. My stock Cummins can hand it's butt to it pulling loads.

I am sure your turbo'd 6.2 is right around the power of a late 6.5TD, and thats on it's best day if all you have is a turbo added.

The 6.2 was designed mainly for fuel mileage, and light duty towing, like it or not. Your turbo'd version really helps, but still doesn't even get it close to what a PSD, Cummins, or Dmax is. Not even on the same planet as those three engines.

You like to point out you can spank them "across intersections" (intersection racingrotfl ) and can beat them due to computers limiting fuel. Bring your 6.2 up against a 12V Cummins Dodge, no computer. Once again, not even on the same planet as a P Pumped 12v Ram.

Lastly, I'll take you are also calling me BS on my fuel mileage remarks, as you didn't specify. I would bet your turbo upgrade does help mileage, and I won't make any statements on what I think they can do mileage wise as I have no idea. BUT, an N/A 6.2 DOES NOT lay down the mileage of a Cummins/PSD/Dmax in identical trucks. Like I said, 6.2's have a hard time crawling out of the teens with a 7K rig, not a dinky C10 regular cab.

If you plan on pulling out the BS flag again, at least back it up this time, and I'm serious about that....:poke:

rotfl rotfl rotfl Tell em RJF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im sorry WILL but I do not believe you. The 6.2 is just not up to the PSD Cummins or Dmax. I have family friends that use to run them on their Farms. They were for the most part reliable, but SLOW and WEAK!!!!!!!!!!! They did put an after market turbo on one and it would outrun a stock 6.5, but would never touch a Cummins PSD or Dmax! Im sorry but Im calling shananigans on you WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds as if one chose to build a 6.9 turbo set up it wouldnt touch a 7.3,6.0 or 6.4.The 6.2 and 6.9 where not powerhouses and have never intended to be just marketing starts to see if folks would buy them that happily got us to where we are now.I have seen non turboed 6.2's and 7.3's in action the 6.2 didnt hold up as well and is always needing maintence vs the 7.3 taking it for the long haul.The non turbo diesels arent the same beast as the new turboed engines and I feel are not a competent either like it or not 7.3's,6.9's and 6.2's turboed or not will never preform as well as the 6.5's,5.9's,6.6's,6.4's,6.0's,or 7.3's yeah and do not forget the 6.7's.

Will you got pwned. Not just owned, pwned. rotfl

Will you got pwned. Not just owned, pwned. rotfl
Is that what you think? Is this the first time, in 25 years of working with 6.2s that I have encountered adversity?



Yawn.


I just want the truth to be known by the 'little guy' that doesn't confuse his truck with his penis and simply wants to get the j