What's With the Ford Super Duty Pricing?

[jcmseven]

L39B,

I have commented on how much I like your Chevy pictures, and I wish my Ford had a six speed, not five speed transmission. So far, though, I am not so sure the Duramax is a "proven more reliable engine" than the 6.4L Ford. It certainly is a proven engine, but the Ford seems to be its equal. Also, many of the dyno numbers I have heard coming from some of our local diesel shops tell a different story on the torque numbers than that mentioned. I think both Ford and Chevy (and really Dodge too) are making good trucks now, and I wish the emissions standards did not dictate design as much as they do, but it is what we have. The biggest advantage I see on the GM products right now is that they are a fair amount less expensive than the equivalent Ford. My good work friend just bought a GMC with the D max and six speed auto. I drove the truck from the dealership for him. I liked it, not as much as my truck for me, but it was plenty nice and ran well. It also cost about $6000 less than my truck, which to me is substantial.

John M

 

[Builder]

L39B,

I have commented on how much I like your Chevy pictures, and I wish my Ford had a six speed, not five speed transmission. So far, though, I am not so sure the Duramax is a "proven more reliable engine" than the 6.4L Ford. It certainly is a proven engine, but the Ford seems to be its equal. Also, many of the dyno numbers I have heard coming from some of our local diesel shops tell a different story on the torque numbers than that mentioned. I think both Ford and Chevy (and really Dodge too) are making good trucks now, and I wish the emissions standards did not dictate design as much as they do, but it is what we have. The biggest advantage I see on the GM products right now is that they are a fair amount less expensive than the equivalent Ford. My good work friend just bought a GMC with the D max and six speed auto. I drove the truck from the dealership for him. I liked it, not as much as my truck for me, but it was plenty nice and ran well. It also cost about $6000 less than my truck, which to me is substantial.

John M

How could the DMAX not be less proven??

DMAX has been out since 2001 with pretty impressive results. That's 7 FULL years of successful production.

6.4L Ford has been out for all of about a mere 6 months with a completely unknown track record.

No doubt the DMAX has completely humiliated the Ford 6L. The DMAX is still here since 2001, the Ford 6L is history, only lasted 2003-2007. The 6.4L is just starting to hit the market. It's completely unproven and has no reliability record at all...positive or negative. I hope it does well, but based on the 6L, it's got a long tough hill to climb to repair Ford's reputation in diesel trucks. Ford has already announced they are cutting ties with IH and will be building their own in-house diesel by ~2010. So it looks like Ford will be once again terminating another new diesel after just 3 or 4 model years. That would make me uncomfortable.

I see it a lot like how GM damaged their diesel reputation with the 6.5TD, however the DMAX has made a lot of people forget the underperforming 6.5TD.

 

[jcmseven]

L39B,

I believe your original comment might have been victimized by semantics. You stated the Duramax to be a "proven more reliable" engine than the 6.4L. This simply is not the case. The Duramax is a proven engine, but no one can say it is more-reliable. The 6.4L Ford might be the best engine ever made. So far, it has "proven" to be an excellent engine, and I feel this will continue. I think the Duramax is an excellent powerplant and the Allison transmission is good (but not perfect, either). To prove something more reliable, one has to compare them over the long haul and in similar venues. The implication with your original statement was that the Duramax is more reliable and proven so. It, in reality, might not be any more reliable at all--the two have never been compared and cannot be at this point. The number of moving parts has little to do with reliability. As examples: my dad had a old Poulan chainsaw with a two stroke engine. It was very simple--and junk. A Ferrari 599 has an engine with nearly 1000 moving parts that revs to 9000 rpms, yet it is very reliable and makes 630 bhp. A lot of reliability has to do with good engineering and good manufacturing, both of which Ford has taken to heart after the original 6.0L debacle. I encourage potential buyers of any truck to compare all three and see which one fits their needs. I have loved my truck so far, mainly because I like good workmanship and I see better workmanship in this truck than in any vehicle I have ever owned. It makes me excited to see better workmanship coming out of our American factories, be it Ford, GM or Dodge.

John M

 

[jcmseven]

One more thing....I LIKE your truck. I like Chevy's fine. I think it is an excellent powerplant and a nice truck (although I am not a fan of the new body style that much). I do not want to imply anything to the contrary. I know you like Ford's also, as you have stated. I think they are both nice. I do not though think that one can make the assumption that the 6.4L will repeat the foibles of the 6.0L. Also, interestingly, most of the issues with the 6.0L were earlier in its run. Sure, people had trouble on occasion with the later models but for the most part they proved to have similar reliability toward the end of their run to the 7.3L which has earned the reputation of a very reliable engine.

John M

 

[john_bud]

L39B,

I believe your original comment might have been victimized by semantics. You stated the Duramax to be a "proven more reliable" engine than the 6.4L. This simply is not the case. The Duramax is a proven engine, but no one can say it is more-reliable. The 6.4L Ford might be the best engine ever made. So far, it has "proven" to be an excellent engine, and I feel this will continue. I think the Duramax is an excellent powerplant and the Allison transmission is good (but not perfect, either). To prove something more reliable, one has to compare them over the long haul and in similar venues. The implication with your original statement was that the Duramax is more reliable and proven so. It, in reality, might not be any more reliable at all--the two have never been compared and cannot be at this point. The number of moving parts has little to do with reliability. As examples: my dad had a old Poulan chainsaw with a two stroke engine. It was very simple--and junk. A Ferrari 599 has an engine with nearly 1000 moving parts that revs to 9000 rpms, yet it is very reliable and makes 630 bhp. A lot of reliability has to do with good engineering and good manufacturing, both of which Ford has taken to heart after the original 6.0L debacle. I encourage potential buyers of any truck to compare all three and see which one fits their needs. I have loved my truck so far, mainly because I like good workmanship and I see better workmanship in this truck than in any vehicle I have ever owned. It makes me excited to see better workmanship coming out of our American factories, be it Ford, GM or Dodge.

John M

John,

Just to be upfront here, I have a 2003 duramax/allison.

The Ford 6.4 engine has been out for 6 months and has sold only in small numbers. (so far) The majority of the 6.4 fords sold have less than 10,000 miles on the. Heck, the majority probably have less than 2500 mile! The duramax has been out for 7 years and has cumulatively sold about 25 times as many as the 6.4. Naturally that ratio is dropping. The majority of the duramax engines sold have more than 60,000 miles. (at 15k per year) There are credible reports of some duramax's with 500,000 miles on them by guys that hotshot. It's not uncommon for one to have 200,000 miles at 3-4 years of use. But most are probably used like a car and accumulate 15,000 miles per year.

Can you tell me how a small number of trucks that still have that "new car smell" can be PROVEN as reliable as a larger number of trucks with an average of 100 times the miles driven ? You may or may not be familiar with the use of statistics, but as the number of units studied gets smaller, the importance of each datum (failure in this case) gets more important. Also in failure analysis the rate of failures increases with use (wear out mechanism). There currently is no data to even suggest what the ford reliablity will be. For Ford's sake, it had better be good. The 6.0L debacle is still souring many people's thoughts towards a ford diesel...

jb

 

[jcmseven]

JB,

I have been following this post closely as of course I enjoy reading these thoughts==I also have had a couple of days off recently and find it relaxing. Like L39, I am certainly not arguing the point that the Duramax is not a proven engine. I am not implying that one should not look at one who might be in the HD market. My concern is that one cannot make the assumption that the 6.4L engine will be somehow less reliable than the current Duramax. The implication has been and was stated that the Duramax is a "proven more reliable engine" This is not the case. The Duramax is proven reliable and a proven engine. The 6.4L is not, but to compare them at this juncture would not be totally fair to the 6.4L. Essentially, it is implying that the 6.4L is a less good engine, which very well might not be true. I agree with you, actually both of you, in that there is not enough data to compare the two. Which is exactly my point. We do not know. I suppose the comment might have better stated, "the Duramax is a proven engine, the Ford is-as of yet-an unproven engine." I am not trying to draw any comparision regarding reliability between the two, it is most clear the GM contracted engine is a good one and proven, but as a Ford supporter and one who has been pleased with his product I also do not want to demean the product by assuming already without adequate data that it is less reliable than the Duramax. This is the only point I am trying--and apparently failing--to make.

John M

 

[Builder]

John,

You're correct. We don't have enough data to "prove" the DMAX is more reliable than the 6.4. We'll neeed about 5 years of real-world data to see who's more reliable.

The point I was trying to make is that the DMAX has already proven itself to be reliable-it's a very dependable, well made diesel. The 6.4L is still a blank slate in terms or "proving" itself. It may go down in history as more or less reliable than the DMAX- we don't yet know.

But for a new truck buyer, you must admit that it's taking more of a chance buying an unproven 6.4L Ford, especially coming off the 6L debacle, than buying a very well proven DMAX. The 6.4L shares a lot of 6L engineering. the 6.4L is MUCH more complex under the hood compared to a DMAX. You can barely see the engine, not to mention work on it.

Couple that fact with GM's clearly superior 6 speed, tap up/down transmission, superior rear axle and superior drivetrain warranty, and in this Ford/GM diesel owner's mind, I find very few reasons to buy Ford over GM right now. I mean we're talking about an allison darn near medium duty transmission versus a Ford built transmission. You do know that allison builds a world-class transmission, right? Ford has a poor reputation building automatic transmissions.

In 2 years, it could be a different story. This is not a brand loyalty issue. Ford could be making a superior product in 2 years. I wouldn't have said the same thing in 1999 when it was a 235HP 7.3L Powerstroke or a 195HP 6.5TD in a GM. Hands down Ford was a better choice. That's why I bought TWO '99 Ford Powerstrokes.

I see what you're saying-I have no problem with that.

But if you're buying a new truck, you're taking a bigger chance with a Ford than a GM. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

 

[Marcussen]

You need to compare similar engines the 2008 Ford 6.4 has a lot of enviromental stuff the the older diesel do not have.
Compare the 6.4 to the cummins 6.7 and the duramax 6.6 that has the same enviromental requirements. None of these engines are proven yet. And none of them are the same as the older proven diesels, all are new designs. Time and miles will tell if they are any good.
From what I can tell the only thing thats proven is that the fuel economy is less than previous models.

 

[Marcussen]

John,

You're correct. We don't have enough data to "prove" the DMAX is more reliable than the 6.4. We'll neeed about 5 years of real-world data to see who's more reliable.

The point I was trying to make is that the DMAX has already proven itself to be reliable-it's a very dependable, well made diesel. The 6.4L is still a blank slate in terms or "proving" itself. It may go down in history as more or less reliable than the DMAX- we don't yet know.

But for a new truck buyer, you must admit that it's taking more of a chance buying an unproven 6.4L Ford, especially coming off the 6L debacle, than buying a very well proven DMAX. The 6.4L shares a lot of 6L engineering. the 6.4L is MUCH more complex under the hood compared to a DMAX. You can barely see the engine, not to mention work on it.

Couple that fact with GM's clearly superior 6 speed, tap up/down transmission, superior rear axle and superior drivetrain warranty, and in this Ford/GM diesel owner's mind, I find very few reasons to buy Ford over GM right now. I mean we're talking about an allison darn near medium duty transmission versus a Ford built transmission. You do know that allison builds a world-class transmission, right? Ford has a poor reputation building automatic transmissions.

In 2 years, it could be a different story. This is not a brand loyalty issue. Ford could be making a superior product in 2 years. I wouldn't have said the same thing in 1999 when it was a 235HP 7.3L Powerstroke or a 195HP 6.5TD in a GM. Hands down Ford was a better choice. That's why I bought TWO '99 Ford Powerstrokes.

I see what you're saying-I have no problem with that.

But if you're buying a new truck, you're taking a bigger chance with a Ford than a GM. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

I bought a 2008 Ford V10 gasser. I needed something reliable for occasinal towing. My fuel economy appears similar to the 6.4 diesels.

 

[Builder]

One more thing....I LIKE your truck. I like Chevy's fine. I think it is an excellent powerplant and a nice truck (although I am not a fan of the new body style that much). I do not want to imply anything to the contrary. I know you like Ford's also, as you have stated. I think they are both nice. I do not though think that one can make the assumption that the 6.4L will repeat the foibles of the 6.0L. Also, interestingly, most of the issues with the 6.0L were earlier in its run. Sure, people had trouble on occasion with the later models but for the most part they proved to have similar reliability toward the end of their run to the 7.3L which has earned the reputation of a very reliable engine.

John M

Thanks. I know you're not ripping my truck. Believe me-NOBODY was more gung-ho about buying a 6.4L Ford than me. I had a F-450 4x4 crewcab XLT all priced-out & ready to order and then I just changed my mind. The main reason was I saw the friction between Ford & IH, Ford's general poor health as a company, and all the other advantages GM was offering.

The Ford would have been a heavier-duty chassis-no doubt. Ford chassis are stronger, but the GM chassis was "enough". The drivetrain was what sold me and GM's willingness to back it up with a superior warranty. Just take a look at how much quicker the DMAX makes its' full 650 ft lbs of torque than Ford. The Ford has to rev higher to get in it's peak torque range.

Know what that means? More wasted fuel and quicker engine wear.

Even small stuff, like OnStar. I used to make fun of On Star. I said I'd never use it, waste of space. Now I use the hands free telephone that comes with it. The theft deterrent it provides is great-it can be located if a theif steals it. The XM radio is great. It's all bundled into one neat package in the rearview mirror, stereo and steering wheel buttons.

The GM has MUCH better gauges than the Ford. They're also true "proportional" gauges, not just "dummy light" gauges. The Ford transmission temp gauge is just hooked up to the PCM and doesn't tell you the trans is overheating until it's too late. The GM guage is a nice big old fashioned big-rig like guage with a real sending unit that goes up gradually, same with the GM engine temp gauge.

Ford has advantages, too. I think it's all in what you need, but the more I investigated & did my homework, the more GM looked better to me.

I bought the '07 classic to avoid all the DPF junk making it even better, IMO.