New truck suggestions
- Thread starter Morning Wood
- Start date
- Views: 13513
Fordman1981
Platinum Member
Sounds like they were right. I'm certainly not starting a brand war. Just basing my opinions on service data at our local dealership that sells both.
Not starting a brand war either but why put a body on a truck sale it then say the body is too heavy and not warranty it. I didn't choose the body they were put on by the dealership. Have the same body on a ram 3500 with over 150k now and no issue. Just saying.
Fordman1981
Platinum Member
To the op go and drive them all and pick the one you feel you like the best they all make good products. I just bought a Ram 3500 C&C because I'm getting really good service from ram right now. The 6.2 in the ford isn't bad it likes the upper RPMS a little too much for my taste. We had one Chevy 6.0 it's a good motor too. For me I'm staying gas for as long as diesels have DEF tanks.
Green Power
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 964
- Location
- Nebraska
- Tractor
- LS R4047H, Kubota L33400 JD: 5075E 6150M 9230 and 8520
Take it straight to Line X and have the underside/ rocker panels coated, Put oil or fluid film on the underside 2-3 times a winter, wash off the salt with hot water after driving in salt... Those are my best geusses since i dont have to deal with it.
Monster5601
Platinum Member
I'm using the EVIC, hand calculating is impossible because of my mixed driving between work travel and pulling the fiver on weekends. The numbers are close enough for comparisons and line up with the MPG numbers other Cummins owners are seeing (cumminsforum.com, rv.net). I know most don't trust the MPG numbers vehicles calculate and display but I recorded for a year, the EVIC mileage and my hand calculated mileage on my 2013 RAM 1500 and the result, the EVIC read 0.8371 MPG higher than hand calculations. I don't know how to calculate the error factor in hand calculating but the EVIC averages over time. The experts all say MPGs start with your foot. I don't make jack-rabbit starts and I do not have a lot of start/stop traffic.
You are living in the past, the new emission equipped diesels (since 2013) are getting excellent mileage equaling pre-emission diesels. I haven't deleted nor am I going to delete any of the emissions, I'm happy with the performance I'm getting and have a 120,000 mile 8 year bumper to bumper Chrysler warranty that covers the emissions system. I smile when I wash the truck and see the inside of the exhaust pipe is cleaner than the outside of the exhaust pipe. There is a lot to rediscover about the 2013 plus Cummins/RAM solutions at http://www.cumminsforum.com/forum/2013-general-discussion/
Monster5601
Platinum Member
^^^^What he said.
This thread is quickly going to what happened in the past and has nothing to do with current production and no one is answering your questions (I did give you MPG numbers). Ford is coming out with new SD's for 2017, RAM in 2019, and haven't heard anything from GM, that is if you can wait. As far as engine reliability of the newer diesels, don't really know yet. For Cummins, the new was introduced in MY13, so far so good.
PsRumors
Gold Member
Two things Cummins Forum is littered with, people stating the EVIC should not be trusted, and people complaining about their fuel mileage. Several rebut the fact that people are getting lower than touted fuel mileage but there are plenty of posts. I personally like fuelly much better than forums as that is real world, hand calculated and are not relying on any type of guesstimate.
4 million miles of tracking 2014 and up 6.7 liter RAM Cummins trucks. Very few trucks are above 18 with the majority of trucks below 18.
Ram 25 Mileage | Fuelly
That 120k mile warranty is great but what happens after? The DPFs fill and are around $3k to replace. I've seen DPFs full at 80k miles and last upwards of 170k miles. That can add significant upkeep costs to these trucks.
I'll stick by my statement, I would not buy a new diesel unless one is willing to delete the emission equipment. Your engine will be much happier for it.
Now, if I were going to buy a new diesel and not delete, it would be between a Ford or Dodge as they both have solid front axles. And between the two I would lean hevily toward the Dodge as they are easier to work on as there is more room in the engine bay.
For the record, I maintain 3 Dodge 4500 and 6 Fords that are mixture of 450s & 550s. All 2012 and newer. They all get loaded to capacity on a daily basis and worked hard.
18 avg is pretty darn good actually.
PsRumors
Gold Member
But the average isn't 18, the majority are in the 16mpg range, which even at that isn't bad really.
Cars aren't getting better mileage due in part to the EPA. For OBDIII several manufactures presented they could get cleaner exhaust with better mileage without the catalytic converter but were told no, the cat would not be an option to be removed no matter the results.
When the cat was implemented carbs weren't very efficient and EFI was not very good. As EFI has progressed and the o2 sensors have become faster and more accurate, cars can become cleaner but part of the problem is the fuel mixture must be kept slightly rich to keep the cat at a temp to be efficient.
If the EPA would set a standard and allow the manufacturer to get there on their own, we would see much better fuel economy but as long as the EPA demands what type of equipment is required, we are stuck...to a point.
