What a Joke

[RollingsFarms]

I use it to tow and carry lots of tools & lumber for a construction business


I do this all day long on my farm with a 2004 Z71. so do 90% of the farmers around me. mostly the folks you see driving diesels(that ive seen) are women and a few teenage boys. i doubt i'll ever need a 3/4 or 1 ton diesel. my 1/2 ton Z71 5.3 does all i need and more. as i'm sure you're aware, farm work can take a real toll on a truck, as can the construction business.

 

[Builder]

I use it to tow and carry lots of tools & lumber for a construction business


I do this all day long on my farm with a 2004 Z71. so do 90% of the farmers around me. mostly the folks you see driving diesels(that ive seen) are women and a few teenage boys. i doubt i'll ever need a 3/4 or 1 ton diesel. my 1/2 ton Z71 5.3 does all i need and more. as i'm sure you're aware, farm work can take a real toll on a truck, as can the construction business.

I prefer the feel of pulling 11-12K off the bumper with a 3500 diesel over a 1500 gasser. A 1/2 ton is a stretch for a loaded utility body, too.

 

[RollingsFarms]

I prefer the feel of pulling 11-12K off the bumper with a 3500 diesel over a 1500 gasser. A 1/2 ton is a stretch for a loaded utility body, too.

cant say i blame you

 

[Diamondpilot]

I do agree that Ford lacks GM on the current HP Torque war but they lead both GM and Dodge in every other category like GVWR's, GCVWR's, and tow ratings. As for the trannys in Fords, I have owned 10 or more in the last 10 years, usually 4 vehicles at a time, and have never had a single tranny problem. I use my trucks hard in my marine business. We tow boats that range from 6,000# to 25,000# and more with out a single problem. We have broke hitches, bent draw bars but never a single drive line problem. Now my 2500 Hemi Dodge was a different story, it had 2 tranny operations before the warranty was up then quickly traded on a Ford.


Chris

 

[Builder]

I do agree that Ford lacks GM on the current HP Torque war but they lead both GM and Dodge in every other category like GVWR's, GCVWR's, and tow ratings. As for the trannys in Fords, I have owned 10 or more in the last 10 years, usually 4 vehicles at a time, and have never had a single tranny problem. I use my trucks hard in my marine business. We tow boats that range from 6,000# to 25,000# and more with out a single problem. We have broke hitches, bent draw bars but never a single drive line problem. Now my 2500 Hemi Dodge was a different story, it had 2 tranny operations before the warranty was up then quickly traded on a Ford.


Chris

That's funny. I probably towed less than you (mostly a 11K trailer) but spent over $10,000 repairing & upgrading Ford transmissions in the last 15 years. IMO, they made brutally bad transmissions. My Ford dealer has them in stock lined up on the garage floor waiting to be installed. In the early 2000's I swore Ford was making more money selling truck trannys than selling trucks. The torqshift is a step in the right direction, but I know a few expert transmission builders, like BTS who say they're only marginally better. They also say not as good as an Allison, no way.

I mean, why does Ford put an Allison tranny, like the one in my GM pickup in their F-650 medium duty? Why not the Torqshift if it's so great?

How about warranty....you know, how long the manufacturer thinks the truck is worth repairing, free of charge for the customer? How does that speak for GM's faith in their product compared to Ford's shorter warranty?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Builder, I can't say which tranny's exactly but the two tranny shops here both say they had more work repairing GM trannys since 2000. I was surprised as I thought Dodge would give them the most work. But Ford gave them the least. Now as I said, I do not know how many of each particular truck transmission as they lumped all full size trucks together when they talk about them.

The Allison tranny may be a great one but I don't know as I don't have a use for a truck that size just yet. But if Ford's Tourqshift tranny isn't failing on a regular basis for the type of work it is designed then what is the problem with it? Now if the people running them are overloading them and abusing them on a regular basis then it is their own fault.

And which transmission was it that Ford and GM built together a few years back? Was it one of the truck or car trannys?

 

[bota7800]

I apologize for going ON topic:

Toyota is a major sponsor of the National Western Stock Show in Denver and therefore have a prime display area (that, incidentally, was always a Chevy display until the last couple years).

At the display they had a bare chassis. I didn't look at it much as I am not in the market but it looked fairly substantial. What surprised me was that they had a Tundra dually on display. I assume it is a custom and not a commercial offering.

 

[jcmseven]

Builder,

I am in no way saying GM does not make a good product. I do not wish this point to be lost. I take issue with the comment that originally got this thread within a thread started. I have no doubt as to your experience with hauling machines and heavier duty trucks than that which I own. I do think, though, that the innuendo given--in this post with sentiment in others--was that Fords somehow break easier than GM's and this simply is not the case. Both are fine machines and I feel this position may have been based on one of the older trucks used. In this post, the examples you use are valid, but relatively few in number. GM does have a heavy duty transmission, but I have found no one in my area, either towing or wrenching that feels it substantially more durable or functional than the Torqshift. GM does have a heavier rear axle. The drive shaft on my truck is actually larger in diameter/circumference than my friend's GMC--though I do not know if that translates into the larger models. GM has an extra gear with the trannie--which is really nice; but it takes about five minutes on a service dolly to see that Ford has a solidly built and heavy duty truck. It has a heavier duty suspension/front axle/control arms/steering assembly/brakes, etc. The frame is heavier and has a full bulkhead enclosure--which I think is currently exclusive (at least as of last year). It is also a much heavier truck, based on curb weight. My position based on this is that a Ford truck is no more likely to leave one stranded with a load or on a job than is a GM product. And for what its worth, my "idiot gauges" never seem to vary from dead center, so a difference of 200 degrees v. 205 is not that material for me. The power towing mirrors, back up camera to accurately line up your trailer (does GM have these??) and tailgate step are. The trailer brake controller, which GM liked so much it copied it, is also nice. It is also the case that for 2008 MY the truck is upgraded substantially v. previous renditions and lest we forget, they in all were pretty durable machines, albeit spartan. I read into your post the implication that perhaps I and others such as me do not use their trucks as a diesel "should be used" and that you do. While I have no doubt you use your truck fully, I do as well so I feel no less credible in saying pulling right at the limit for weight when I pull, it does great. Stable as a rock and good power--and no, even though I do not pull often I do not feel for my current needs a half ton would do it safely for me--thus why I kept my truck (even though I still cannot fit it into the parking garage at work). It is true that currently there are no 1000 HP 6.4L's out there--I thought the poster you mention had a Dodge--but I could be wrong there--but you and I both know that big HP 6.4L's are coming. Twin turbos, and a block and engine assembly that heavily made logically speaks to more power by aftermarketeers. Remember it is UNPROVEN (your statement), which means it is new--give them some time and the natural thermodynamic improvements harbored by such a design will support mods for those that wish to. I am not trying to sell you on Ford, or anyone else for that matter. I really have no interest in getting anyone to buy the truck I have. I do have an interest in letting folks know that I have one and it is a whopping improvement over previous models. Our OP and the intent of the thread was discussing the liablities of high capacity half ton's v. 3/4 ton trucks or heavier. This inevitably leads to X truck will do this; Y truck that, etc. I have no doubt that a Toyota 1/2 ton can safely pull 10,300 pounds; I also have no doubt that my Ford is very UNLIKELY be "Ford Tough--until it breaks." (1999 model??) It will break sometime, but I doubt any sooner than any other make.
Also, since GM sold its medium duty lineup (I read 4500 and up) to NAVISTAR, what are we going to do? I have read that Isuzu will continue to supply the Duramax through 2008 but after that it might be a, gulp, 6.4L as an option(???) I hope that's not true because then we we cannot discuss the 4500/5500 topics in the same light.

John M

 

[jcmseven]

Bota7800,

Word has it that Toyota will offer a dually with an 8.0L Hino diesel and six speed Eaton transmission, NOT an Allison, in 1-2 years. It will be rated at 300 hp and 600 pound feet of torque in initial form, likely more based on current competition. I have seen a picture. It looks a little funny but was unpainted to give it the industial look, so with paint it might look fine.

John M

 

[jcmseven]

DiamondPilot,

I am not 100% sure that Ford is really behind in the torque/HP wars, although I know you speak of advertised power. On paper it is, but some of the testing may show otherwise. Most articles I have seen have shown unloaded the GM products to be faster unloaded, both in 0-60 and 1/4 mile testing. I direct these testers to the Tow/Haul switch on the shift column. When engaged, the Ford truck accelerates much faster than when in "D". The articles I have seen suggest that the 2008 model Ford's lose less when towing than do the other makes out right now. Specifically v. GM, the towing times for similar loads with similar axle ratios are EXTREMELY close, this is despite the average curb weight of the Ford product being 1000+ pounds more than the equivalent GM and working with one less gear and similar axle ratios (and in many cases taller/larger wheels/tires). This suggests that the GM product has less power than advertised or the Ford has more, or both. From my personal experience, my friend's 2500 GMC is faster than my 250 without Tow Haul engaged. With it engaged, we will run a dead heat, all the way to speed limiter (no mods on either yet). The truck that wins is the one with the better "jump." (I do not advocate doing this--desolate road, no traffic). Our trucks are geared the same and his is six speeds, mine five in the trannie. Mine weighes approximately 1,100 pounds more than his, based on scaled weight. I do know that power is not the only criteria for acceleration but it is an easy way to roughly gauge. I recall an article from "Truck Trends" back when the Duramax first came out. It was tested v. a Ford and Dodge. The trucks were dynoed and the Chevy calculated very close to advertised power. The Dodge and Ford (7.3L) were grossly UNDERrated. This might still hold true. I would bet that if one were to dyno 10 trucks of each make or diesel pickup with similar chassis and driveshaft lengths/mileages on a chassis dyno, the "big three" are really within five HP of one another and probably the same on torque. Also, Ford and Dodge are not going to let the General get any edge, nor vice versa, so I suspect they know something we don't. You bring up a very interesting point.

John M