I AM IMPRESSED

[jcmseven]

Robert,

You are exactly right. The Cummins engine is a great engine for modification. It makes fantastic power in this application. Unfortunately, the newer trucks are for many reasons problematic to modify. For this reason, I refer only to stock configurations, a point I should have made clear, but did not.

John M

 

[Builder]

Builder,

Whew, that was a windy one, but I'll reply to the meat of the post.

Many medium duty applications are well-suited to an in line 6 configuration, so I am not sure any major conclusions can be made there about the 6.4L not being a suitable choice. The power numbers are there and the service interval is similar between it and other diesels in this class.

I'm not going to write a book here, but obviously, if the 6.4L were durable enough for true medium duty work, it would be under the hood of the F-650. It would save Ford millions per year. The reason IH uses their version of the 6.4L in their mediums is because it's turned way down and it will survive, albeit a shorter life, than a true medium duty engine. Your comment that the "service intervals are similar" isn't true. A 360HP 6.4L would have vastly different service intervals IF it was used in a true MD application, but since it isn't, it doesn't really matter. My gosh, even a DT466 is only cranking out 300HP in a medium application and a DT466 will shame a 6.4L in durability and torque. I know a little about this, I own one.

I also do not feel the 6.4L engine was the cause of any termination in relationship between Ford and IH, but mainly issues from the preceeding 6.0L early production engines.

I never said it was. I always knew & assumed the 6 leaker was what caused Ford to divorce IH. Ford should walk away, the 6L will go down as the diesel engine that ruined one of the greatest manufacturing relationships in this country. Ford & IH collaborated for decades and swapped billions of dollars.

I feel perhaps conclusions are being drawn here that might be a bit reaching. I too wish Ford had carried this run of engine longer, but I suppose we could look at it as more a desire to continue diesel development for more power, durability and economy.

Then why not continue it with the 6.4L? Don't you think 4 completely different diesel engines is a tad excessive for a 8 years of Superduty production? Don't you think it causes some customer apprehension?
Would it surprise you to know that I was a "brand loyal" ford owner for 20 years (15 Ford trucks) and gave up my brand loyalty because I felt this apprehension? I also saw the end coming between Ford & IH and knew it meant an uncertain future at Ford.

If Ford's "scorpion" diesel has 430 hp; 750 pound feet of torque and gets 15 mpg pulling with a 400,000 service interval then the change might have not been so bad and the other companies will be scrambling.

That's a BIG "if", my friend. Over the last 5 years, Ford's been lagging in the power wars. If they can produce an engine like that with an improved drivetrain behind it (there's no way a torqshift will be reliable under those kinds of numbers) then I would happily consider going back to Ford even with you chastising me all the way to the ford dealer.

As for your next truck purchase, when you are ready to buy, I think a Dodge or GM would be a fine choice.

John M

I owe ford nothing (GM or Dodge for that matter). I'm buying the best new truck made at the time when I buy- period. If it's Ford, then I buy Ford. But being loyal to Ford if they build an inferior product when one buys is just plain stupid and a diservice to your best interests. Might as well get a Ford tattoo on your forehead and start collecting Ford Pintos on the side.

Ford uses the Cummins diesel and the allison transmission in thier bigger trucks. All I'm saying is that is the ultimate compliment to your competition. I'll leave it at that.

 

[pitt_md]

I have to say that I have a new 2008 F250 FX4 with the 6.4L engine.
I also have close to 2500 miles on with out a problem! It can pull a 500lb utility trailer loaded with a junk lawn mower like its not not even there!!! Thats close to 1200 pounds! Besides all that its Red.

 

[mikeymik'd]

Ford uses the Cummins diesel and the allison transmission in thier bigger trucks. All I'm saying is that is the ultimate compliment to your competition. I'll leave it at that.

http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/images/mediumduty/techspecs/engine.pdf

So what does that say about GM and the Isuzu?

Also, scroll down to the Power Curves, Duramax is not so flat after 3000.

 

[Builder]

http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/images/mediumduty/techspecs/engine.pdf

So what does that say about GM and the Isuzu?

....I dunno, Mikeymik, maybe you can tell me.
Looks like a catalog of Isuzu engines & specs.

Also, scroll down to the Power Curves, Duramax is not so flat after 3000.

Show me a diesel engine in a truck that has a flat curve after 3000+ RPM. My DT466 is done after 2500RPMs. I'm pretty sure you know that unmodified diesels in trucks don't generally operate much above that range before they quit making power scatter into little bits. Anyone who operates a diesel much over 2500RPM is just wasting fuel and causing excessive wear, anyway.

 

[mikeymik'd]

....I dunno, Mikeymik, maybe you can tell me.
Looks like a catalog of Isuzu engines & specs.

No it's the available engines in GM Medium Duty trucks, shame the DM is not good enough to offer it alone in those trucks, think of all the money GM would save.

Show me a diesel engine in a truck that has a flat curve after 3000+ RPM. My DT466 is done after 2500RPMs. I'm pretty sure you know that unmodified diesels in trucks don't generally operate much above that range before they quit making power scatter into little bits. Anyone who operates a diesel much over 2500RPM is just wasting fuel and causing excessive wear, anyway.

You were the one talking about how impressive the DM was after 3000RPM.

. Then look what happens to the 6.4L at 3000RPM. It drops like a boat anchor. The DMAX keeps it's flat torque curve going beyond 3000RPM past the 6.4L.

 

[Builder]

No it's the available engines in GM Medium Duty trucks, shame the DM is not good enough to offer it alone in those trucks, think of all the money GM would save.

I never said it was offered in a medium duty application, and that was never my point to begin with My point I was making is that the 6.7L Cummins WAS qualified as a medium duty engine.

You were the one talking about how impressive the DM was after 3000RPM.

I didn't say it was "impressive". According to the graph that was supplied, this is what I said:

"Then look what happens to the 6.4L at 3000RPM. It drops like a boat anchor. The DMAX keeps it's flat torque curve going beyond 3000RPM past the 6.4L. " That's a direct quote from my post on page 1 of this thread.


I swear you Fordies are such a defensive bunch. It's like you think your trucks are above any criticism whatsoever.
Maybe if you stop putting words in my mouth and making me out to be someone who isn't objectively reading the graph, you'd see I don't hate Ford, I just report what I see.

 

[mikeymik'd]

I never said it was offered in a medium duty application, and that was never my point to begin with My point I was making is that the 6.7L Cummins WAS qualified as a medium duty engine.

Actually the DM is, however GM also offers the Isuzu.

I didn't say it was "impressive". According to the graph that was supplied, this is what I said:

"Then look what happens to the 6.4L at 3000RPM. It drops like a boat anchor. The DMAX keeps it's flat torque curve going beyond 3000RPM past the 6.4L. " That's a direct quote from my post on page 1 of this thread.

Show me a diesel engine in a truck that has a flat curve after 3000+ RPM. My DT466 is done after 2500RPMs. I'm pretty sure you know that unmodified diesels in trucks don't generally operate much above that range before they quit making power scatter into little bits. Anyone who operates a diesel much over 2500RPM is just wasting fuel and causing excessive wear, anyway.

Sorry for using the word impressive, what word would you like me to use to describe your enthusiasm for the DM power curve?

So what you are saying is you saw the power curve that showed the DM flat after 3000rpm, extolled it's virtues for this, all the while knowing that it was just wasting fuel and causing excessive wear?

I swear you Fordies are such a defensive bunch. It's like you think your trucks are above any criticism whatsoever.
Maybe if you stop putting words in my mouth and making me out to be someone who isn't objectively reading the graph, you'd see I don't hate Ford, I just report what I see.

I really can't believe that you actually call us "Fordies" defensive (something about a kettle and a pot comes to mind). For the record, yes, I do own one and have owned several Ford diesels, as well as 1 Dodge and 1 GM. I am asked on a regular basis my recommendation on tow vehicles. I haul horses, hay and equipment on a regular basis. This past weekend I recommended a GM with a DM to someone based on their use requirement.

So I will report what I see. I see a good 70% of diesel trucks on the road in Alberta are Fords. I see a 50/50 mix of Fords and Dodges for guys running hotshots. A small percentage GM's diesels on the road, mostly within the cities. FYI there is a high percentage of trucks on the road here.

I know my Fords have never left me stranded on the road hauling horses, cant say that about GM or Dodge. I know that I am very happy with all my Fords, but my favorite was my early 99 with a 7.3. I know I have no problem recommending a different brand when the need suits those trucks.

 

[RWolf]

Diamond mentioned that GM only used 3.73 gears in there trucks. Not true as I'm running a 2004 2500HD with 4.10's. I have 2 friends that are running 1 ton's with 4.10's. Now if you're referring to a 1/2 ton then yes they do put 3.73's in those models. As far as power it boils down to what works for you.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Diamond mentioned that GM only used 3.73 gears in there trucks. Not true as I'm running a 2004 2500HD with 4.10's. I have 2 friends that are running 1 ton's with 4.10's. Now if you're referring to a 1/2 ton then yes they do put 3.73's in those models. As far as power it boils down to what works for you.

In the current model and the last few years, 2005 and on, 3.73 is the only option with the Dmax and a 2500 or a single rear wheel in the 3500. You are right, the 4.10 is available in the dually 3500 as it should be. They do offer other gear ratios with the gas engines but the Dmax and a single rear wheel 2500 or 3500 truck only gets 3.73's.

In all actuality I feel that a 3.73 gear is the best of both worlds in a single rear wheel truck for the loads they are certified for. Now if I needed a Dually 3500 I would want nothing less than 4.10's no matter what brand truck it is because I would be hauling in the next weight bracket.

My neighbors Dmax 3500 SRW 3500 does just fine with 3.73's and his 14,000# camper as does my F-350 PS SRW with 3.73's and my 15,600# boat.




Chris

 

[Builder]

Diamond mentioned that GM only used 3.73 gears in there trucks. Not true as I'm running a 2004 2500HD with 4.10's. I have 2 friends that are running 1 ton's with 4.10's. Now if you're referring to a 1/2 ton then yes they do put 3.73's in those models. As far as power it boils down to what works for you.

Yes, Gm does offer 4.10's.

At 365/650, the current dmax ally combo has the grunt that a 4.10 rear isn't really needed anymore.
These trucks have so much torque, combined with 6 forward gears, 5 of which lockup (unlike the competition) and a reverse gear that's very low and you don't really have the need for 4.10's that much anymore.

 

[AKfish]

Yes, Gm does offer 4.10's.

At 365/650, the current dmax ally combo has the grunt that a 4.10 rear isn't really needed anymore.
These trucks have so much torque, combined with 6 forward gears, 5 of which lockup (unlike the competition) and a reverse gear that's very low and you don't really have the need for 4.10's that much anymore.

Too bad they all dropped so badly on fuel economy...! The "coke off" re-burn chamber is a sad state of affairs - IMO.

My '03 has a few years left in it; and I can wait for the engineers to get back on track with newer diesel designs that will allow consistent, 20+mpg highway mileage (once again..).

AKfish

 

[Builder]

Too bad they all dropped so badly on fuel economy...! The "coke off" re-burn chamber is a sad state of affairs - IMO.

My '03 has a few years left in it; and I can wait for the engineers to get back on track with newer diesel designs that will allow consistent, 20+mpg highway mileage (once again..).

AKfish

If you think it's bad now most will be blowing urea into them to take emissions down even lower in '010!!

 

[Turbys_1700]

It will be interesting to see how much the urea additive will add to the cost of service...

I understand that the urea will need to be replenished at specific service intervals...

I'm just not sure when that interval will be or how much the cost will be...

I guess that I will just have to keep my pitiful old 7.3 another 10 years or so...lol

 

[Diamondpilot]

Yes, Gm does offer 4.10's.

At 365/650, the current dmax ally combo has the grunt that a 4.10 rear isn't really needed anymore.
These trucks have so much torque, combined with 6 forward gears, 5 of which lockup (unlike the competition) and a reverse gear that's very low and you don't really have the need for 4.10's that much anymore.

Hope that makes you feel better.

Chris

 

[JB4310]

My '03 has a few years left in it; and I can wait for the engineers to get back on track with newer diesel designs that will allow consistent, 20+mpg highway mileage (once again..).
AKfish

Unlikely, more of a chance that they regulate these domestic diesels out of existence. unless your waiting for a 4 cylinder Isuzu

If you think it's bad now most will be blowing urea into them to take emissions down even lower in '010!!

I thought the 08 and up Dodge pick ups with 6.7 and blue tech engineering/programing already have Urea injection to meet 2010 emissions? I have an 07 6.7 in cab/chassis that does not meet 2010 emissions standards.

JB.

 

[Builder]

Hope that makes you feel better.

Chris

Definately does.

3.73's get better fuel mileage. I wouldn't touch 4.10's unless I towed almost everyday for a living.

I only tow once a week, not nearly as frequently as you.

 

[Builder]

I thought the 08 and up Dodge pick ups with 6.7 and blue tech engineering/programing already have Urea injection to meet 2010 emissions? I have an 07 6.7 in cab/chassis that does not meet 2010 emissions standards.

JB.

I haven't seen any urea injected trucks yet.

 

[WH401]

I thought the 08 and up Dodge pick ups with 6.7 and blue tech engineering/programing already have Urea injection to meet 2010 emissions? I have an 07 6.7 in cab/chassis that does not meet 2010 emissions standards.

JB.

All the 6.7 engines that have been put in the Dodge trucks are already 2010 compliant. They don't use urea injection at the moment but it's been mentioned that by 2010 they will use it.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Definately does.

3.73's get better fuel mileage. I wouldn't touch 4.10's unless I towed almost everyday for a living.

I only tow once a week, not nearly as frequently as you.

I don't own any 4.10 trucks either, all 3.73's. Then next 1/2 ton will probably have 4.10's because that is the only way I can get it with the options I want but like you said its really not needed. Just taking a stab at you GMies.

Chris