Drove all three - Ford, Chevy, Dodge

[Mikey-KE7LBB]

according to the spec sheets I found online.

Amazing what you can find on line isn't it?? :-laf

 

[ENafziger]

Chevy Ford Dodge
MPG Solo 22. 2 MPG Solo 22. 0 MPG Solo 21. 8

Are these new trucks REALLY getting this kind of fuel economy? What gives?

--Eric

 

[RustyJC]

Granted, I only have ~2K miles on the truck, but I haven't seen anything even approaching that mileage to date!!



Rusty

 

[Dieselnut59]

That is correct because the wimpy V8 diesels in the two inferior brands don't produce sufficient torque at low rpm to launch an empty truck in first gear without revving the engine and slipping the clutch like we did years ago with small block V8s of the '50s and '60s.

HBarlow, you are exactly my mother's age and that lil lady is as feisty as you! LOL

It is sad if what you are saying is true about the transmissions though. I know the naturally aspirated 6. 9s, 7. 3s and 6. 2s, 6. 5s were STANDARD with manual transmissions and they were TRULY gutless!!

As for those saying "brand bashing" well, I am not doing ANY of that. I do not like ANYONE's automatic transmissions and if Dodge/Cummins is the only one offering a manual transmission behind a diesel, when I get ready to buy a new truck(in the distant future), it will be without a doubt a Cummins powered Dodge with a manual transmission! I am glad they are still offered with a manual transmission. Damn, did we ever figure this would have been an issue 10 years ago?

 

[rscurtis]

Are these new trucks REALLY getting this kind of fuel economy? What gives?



--Eric

We don't know at what speed those figures were obtained. If it was at 50 or 55 MPH, it's nothing to write home about. I doubt it's at 65.

 

[HBarlow]

We don't know at what speed those figures were obtained. If it was at 50 or 55 MPH, it's nothing to write home about. I doubt it's at 65.

Good point. I find the Furd figures I've heard very hard to believe. Furd cannot overcome the laws of physics no matter how much hype they throw out.

 

[HBarlow]

HBarlow, you are exactly my mother's age and that lil lady is as feisty as you! LOL
It is sad if what you are saying is true about the transmissions though. I know the naturally aspirated 6. 9s, 7. 3s and 6. 2s, 6. 5s were STANDARD with manual transmissions and they were TRULY gutless!!
As for those saying "brand bashing" well, I am not doing ANY of that. I do not like ANYONE's automatic transmissions and if Dodge/Cummins is the only one offering a manual transmission behind a diesel, when I get ready to buy a new truck(in the distant future), it will be without a doubt a Cummins powered Dodge with a manual transmission! I am glad they are still offered with a manual transmission. Damn, did we ever figure this would have been an issue 10 years ago?

I have posted the story here several time. When I had owned my '01 Ram HO/six speed a year and a few months I was at the dealer where I bought it when the new Furd Sick. Ohhs came out in late '02. Out of curiosity, I asked my favorite salesman if I could drive one and he brought out a Furd Sick. Ohh six speed dually.

I put it in first gear and eased out the clutch like I had grown accustomed to doing in my Dodge and stalled the engine. Not once but repeatedly. It was embarrassing. In my Dodge I could ease the clutch out at idle in second gear with my HO/six speed Ram with 3. 54 gears, even with a 30' Airstream hooked up. It would launch without protest because it is a truck engine. That lousy Sick. Ohh Furd produced no torque until about 2500 rpm.

 

[KLauber]

My truck will show 20 to 22 MPG on the overhead display at 50 MPH, 5th gear at a little under 1900 RPM. Can't get anywhere around here at that speed though!

Ken

 

[Dieselnut59]

I have posted the story here several time. When I had owned my '01 Ram HO/six speed a year and a few months I was at the dealer where I bought it when the new Furd Sick. Ohhs came out in late '02. Out of curiosity, I asked my favorite salesman if I could drive one and he brought out a Furd Sick. Ohh six speed dually.



I put it in first gear and eased out the clutch like I had grown accustomed to doing in my Dodge and stalled the engine. Not once but repeatedly. It was embarrassing. In my Dodge I could ease the clutch out at idle in second gear with my HO/six speed Ram with 3. 54 gears, even with a 30' Airstream hooked up. It would launch without protest because it is a truck engine. That lousy Sick. Ohh Furd produced no torque until about 2500 rpm.

That is sad! So are the new ones so gutless off idle that they won't even offer them with a manual transmission? Heck, I hardly ever even use first gear in either of my trucks and I sometimes start in third on my '96 (with 4. 10 gears).

I am glad the Cummins is still mated to a manual transmission. I have always and will always love em!

 

[HBarlow]

That is sad! So are the new ones so gutless off idle that they won't even offer them with a manual transmission?

I guess we can't KNOW that answer because Furd and GM both quit offering them about seven years ago.

We can make informed predictions though. I am not a mechanical engineer so my understanding is only that of a lay person.

A long stroke engine naturally produces greater torque at all engine speeds and maximum torque begins at lower engine operating rpm.

It means little for the buyer who will tow heavy trailers across the Appalachian or Rocky Mountains if his new truck claims 600 ft. lbs. of torque. What matters is at what rpm does his engine produce max torque? A Ram with a Cummins engine can pull steep grades with heavy loads at engine rpms as low as 1600 to 2100 rpm. A V8 diesel must be revved to 2500 to 3000 rpm to pull the same load up the same grade. Which will wear faster and burn more fuel?

On the other hand, a short stroke high revving V8 engine will naturally accelerate faster because the short stroke V configuration naturally increases engine speed faster. That, and the fact that V8 engines are cheaper to manufacture, is the reason why smalll V8 engines dominate the quarter mile tracks since the '50s.

It is relatively easy for the engineers to design and build an inline six cylinder engine with a very long stroke to capture the torque advantage. It is not easy or practical for engineers to design and build a V8 engine with a similar long stroke because of the need to have the crankshaft and rod bottoms clear the bottom of the engine block as it rotates.

 

[Ereynolds72]

I went to drive them all to confirm my feelings for the Dodge/Cummins or to realize there might be a better product on the market (for me).

UUUhhhh..... I'm not sure what the problem is. It sounds like you are desperately trying to convince yourself that there's something better than the Dodge CTD. If you have to try that hard, then stick with what you know and you won't be disappointed. I love my 2010. I've got 36k miles on it now. I knew the mileage wasn't going to be as good as what they used to do but I still have no regrets about my purchase... . except that I do wish I had gone with the manual. This transmission works great; the grass is just greener is all.

 

[rscurtis]

The new Ford and the updated Duramax would probably now work better with a stick than their predecessors, as they are low RPM engines like the Cummins. They both redline somewhere around 3000 RPM and produce maximum torque in the 1600 RPM range.



The issue, as I see it, is finding a manual to handle the 750-800 ft/lb of torque now available. Note that the Cummins is de-rated to 610 ft/lb with the G56. Additionaly, with the improvement in automatics, the market for a stick, which would require a true MD truck transmission, is probably so small as to be impractical at this stage of the game.

 

[Scooby]

This was my understanding as well - that the other two engines are producing peak torque in lower rpms now as well. I also heard that they simply couldn't cost effectively produce manual transmissions to handle the power... . and when Ford and Chevy customers demand automatics..... they build automatics.

 

[Scooby]

UUUhhhh..... I'm not sure what the problem is.

No problem here.....

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

When talking about Ford trucks you can't compare the 6. 7 to the Powerstroke of yesterday since they are built by Ford and not supplied by Navistar.

As for bore and stroke Ford's new Scorpion diesel has a long stroke for a V8, even longer than the 4. 18" stroke of the old 7. 3L Navistar:

Cummins 6. 7 4. 88"
Scorpion 6. 7 4. 25"
DuraMax 6. 6 3. 90"

As for cost of ownership calculating MPG & cost of DPF urea from what I'm reading the DuraMax burns through the stuff at a much greater rate than the Powerstroke, to where it more than cancels out the benefit of higher MPG.

 

[AHolbert]

I'm in the market for a truck with a higher GCWR. This is the area Dodge/Ram is shooting themselves in the foot. I much prefer the Ram and the CTD over the other engines but for whatever reason, the Rams don't have nearly as high a GCWR which really comes into play when towing the bigger, heavier, 5th wheel and goose neck trailers. Yes, I'm aware that the Ram will pull just about anything you hitch it up to, but there are many of us that don't want the potential liability that one is exposed to when towing overloaded. The Rams are definitely deficient in the rated GCWR when compared to the Fords and GM's.

 

[NStates]

Comparing the big three

There is an interesting towing comparison of Ford Chevy and Dodge in the most recent Trailer Life Magazine. Unfortunately they place a light load (under 8,000) on each and rate them for how quick they are among other towing comparisons. What they should do is max them out and place them on a steep long grade. The results will be much different as the inline six will out pull the V-8 under a heavy hard haul. I have found the Cummins to outlast and out pull the others. Just purchased a new 2011 loaded and find it a pleasure to drive.



ROVOL



2011 RAM 3500 Laramie Quad Cab 4X2

6. 7 Liter I6 Turbo Diesel Engine, 6 -Speed Automatic 68RFE Transmission, 3. 73 Differential, Brilliant White, Integrated Navigation System, ISSPRO Gauges, Transfer Flow Fuel Tank, PullRite 20,500 Super 5th Hitch, RAM Spray Bed liner , Integrated Brake Controller, PML Deep Transmission Pan, Custom Graphics, Pull a Mobile Suites Fifth Wheel.

 

[Dutch & Di]

I agree with you-- Our Dodge can tow us anywhere we went to go and stop us whenever needed. It has in fact since 1997. We've been kicking around the idea of getting a shiny new Dodge===but if I'm going to trade in our "baby" for a new Dodge, I expect to be "legal". By not jumping on this, Dodge is they are going to lose customers to Chevy who has a rating of 29+k. I'm not talking about die hard Dodge guys but the average Joe who just wants a truck that will tow within the specs called for.

If Chevy can do it, Dodge sure should be able to!!! Diana

I'm in the market for a truck with a higher GCWR. This is the area Dodge/Ram is shooting themselves in the foot. I much prefer the Ram and the CTD over the other engines but for whatever reason, the Rams don't have nearly as high a GCWR which really comes into play when towing the bigger, heavier, 5th wheel and goose neck trailers. Yes, I'm aware that the Ram will pull just about anything you hitch it up to, but there are many of us that don't want the potential liability that one is exposed to when towing overloaded. The Rams are definitely deficient in the rated GCWR when compared to the Fords and GM's.

 

[PLefever]

I my opinion you are focusing on the wrong number. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating is the only one that counts, GCWR is Gross combined, as far as the law is concerned gross combined is the gvwr of your tow vehicle and the gvwr of the towed vehicle added together, for example my 4500 has a gvw of 16k, a f350 has a gvw of 13k, but has a "higher" trailer tow, all it is is horse **** advertising to mislead the public to make them think they are buying something special, johnny law doesn't care how much power you have, they look at overweight based on gvw and tire ratings, bridge laws etc. I will guarantee they will never look past the door plate gvwr and your trailers gvwr oh and check to see if your tag is right,



just my 2 cents



Perry

 

[PLefever]

guess what I really should have said was I have never got an overweight ticked based on the mfg gcwr, even though I have exceeded it substantially, I actually only got a ticket for overweight on tires. And wasn't trying to say that its not an important consideration, I just believe that its arbitrary and could be why it doesn't seem (again in my experience) get alot of attention at the scale house.