6.0 Powerstroke vs. 5.9 Cummins

[marksmith]

I have worked road construction for two companies in the past four years. One company ran PSD and the older ford diesels. The other company has ran mostly Cummins and a few Older ford diesels.

All rigs run about 12K ALL THE TIME



the results

the PSD's and the older fords have transmission problems too. I have seen a few glow plugs, starters etc go out but that is normal. The ford that I drove regularly had 220K miles on it and still did relatively well. My worst year I replaced two trannies. The whole company replaced 5 or 6 trannies in a fleet of 20 in a years time.



The company I started for six months ago runs primarily Dodges and a few OLDER (non turbo diesels) They too have had transmission problems (even from the fords) but out of thirty rigs they have only replaced 11 trannies in six years (according to the head mechanic) The fords account for two trannies, the dodges account for the rest. Other than that, and replacing one head gasket on a Dodge there were no problems what so ever from the fleet.



The owner of the company I work for now thought of switching to the Duramax and bought a truck for a superintendant and at 100K bought two more because they seemed reliable enough. Needless to say as soon as the new trucks got delivered the super's truck was Out of commission for almost two months cause of a head gasket, at 12K my foremans truck was Out of commission for six weeks because of an electrical fire, and the third truck is shifting funny and makes funny noises.



Bottom line is that the new PSD and the Maxipad are unproven engines. The CTD is using an unproven fuel delivery system.

All are new, but if I were going to choose It wouldn't be a GM.



I would have to say that the Ford and Dodge rigs are better meant for serious work trucks. The Dodge is easy to work on and in my opinion more reliable than the Fords. But I have seen both go through the gauntlet (in my profession it is rare to find a person who doesn't drive a company rig like it was stolen) and have seen both with over 250K on them and still run well. It is at this point a matter of choice.



I chose Dodge because I KNOW that I won't wear out the Cummins and I like the way the Dodge fit me. I like the PSD, just don't find the power available in a range that I can use it.



On a side note, in my opinion the PSD is better at keeping a load moving. I have gone over passes in a PSD weighing 13K and dropped from 65 to about 53, the same pass in a cummins weighing 12K I went from 70 to 50. Not much difference but it is a difference.



You wanted an honest opinion, There it is

Mark

 

[Big_Daddy_T]

Its nice to here from somebody who has driven both. Good honest opinions. Ive seen dodges and fords working on the 3rd to 5th transmission at under 100k. Honestly the ford was fairing far worse. 5 by 36k. there are lemons in every bunch so I dont rub that one in too many psd owners faces unless they really push me. Im on my second transmission but I will say abuse was the reason for failure. How many people do you know that blew up the OD planets backing out of a 4 or 5 foot deep mud hole. It was just below the windows and I was spinning 35" tires with 3. 55 diffs. while pushing 700 lb ft of tq. DUH. My present transmission has over 170k on it. The configuration of the I6 allows it to have a better angle on the crankshaft. An 8 is out of balance. 4 cylinders banging away on the crankshaft from 2 different angles. It nets more hp but less torque. Fords' Shelby said this "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races". I love torque.

My dad went out and bought a new chevy. 6 liter. It has a great power band for a gasser. I found it a pleasure to drive. It sucks in the winter, real bad. He really wants to sell it. He has a ford 7. 3 turbo charged but not intercooled navistar. It drives like its on rails. In 8 years he has never been stuck. It will drive circles on ice around my dodge. That is what is important to him. Its got enough power to drag around a 13k payload. It is exactly what he needs. Mileage is so so but all around it has served him well. I wouldnt even recommend a dodge to him. Doesnt fit him. He drove mine. He liked the power but it just didnt feel right to him. Id like to see him in a new super duty. His truck is a pain to start in the winter. Its a garage princess. Even in the garage it smokes pretty good on startup. But he is an oldtimer and very patient.

 

[Big_Daddy_T]

You guys didnt tell me that there was an inline 6 duramax. Im disappointed in this oversight. 7. 8 liter 275 hp with 860 lbft of torque at 1450 rpm. Thats one tough mutha. Id still get the 8. 3 cummins instead.



P. S. Just thought Id add this quote from a Medium duty truck site

"Inline engines are where the big torque ratings come from. The V8's run a little smoother, but they run at a higher rpm and their life expectancy is lower. " This guy sells cummins mercedes and cat. Wheres the duramax? Too new?

 

[Jeremiah]

Re: Just want the input.. not a conflict!

Originally posted by agoldbach

I appreciate your indulgence with this post. Like I said in the original, my intent isn't to bait. If people get heated, it wasn't my intention. It is my personal belief that those who do no at least aknowledge the presence of competing diesels as legitimate competition to Cummins are being shortsighted. Allow me to furthur clarify my intent. I have family members who refuse to admit that there could possibly be a truck made that is any good which does not have a blue oval on it. I have found this attitude to be extremely frustrating. I am continually impressed with the level of knowledge on compression ignition engines on this roundtable and I wanted to pool all of my fellow TDR members for their expertise. Let me all know what you think. My statement about the Super Duty platform is fromo experience. I owned a 99 Ram and found the fit and finish to be inferior to Fords. Can all of you out there who have owned a G2 and switched to a G3 please weigh in on the new fit and finish of the HD's?

After discussing the issue furthur with my friend, he said that the size and weight issue was the primary reason for the geometry change. I definitly agree with your input about the inline configuration and you are most definitley correct, the physics don't lie. I simply wanted to clarify with my V-6 example that I would like actual factual input to my original question and not an answer like "Because Dodge/Cummins is the best because I said so" . I know that there are those out there who can appreciate all diesel pickups and I want their opinion. The entire reason for this post is that I am stuck dead in the middle of deciding which to buy and I want solid data and not opinion to help me decide. I am confident that you all can help me. Please do not respond negatively to this post because if it gets pulled, I will have lost an invaluable tool in my research! :{ Thanks to all my friends out there who hold Rudolph's invention in a special place in their hearts!

Adam

Hello, Adam ... I too struggled with deciding between the two trucks. It was an easy choice for me because the 6. 0 Fords weren't on the lots and all I had to compare the Dodge to was the 7. 3L diesel. I decided against the Ford because the old 7. 3 has been around for years and I couldn't see buying such a big engine that didn't produce that many more horses or ft-lbs of torque. I'ts also true the Dodges haven't met Ford quality in recent years, but I think they are catching up quickly. The 2003 is a well-built machine and the fit and finish is superb. Plus, the Cummins is known in the industry as a 400,000 mile engine. I've been wanting one for 10 years and saw no reason to back away now just because Ford is coming out with a 6. 0. Either way, you won't go wrong. I just wanted to stick to the tried and true.

 

[CAROLINA CUMMINS]

Dodge/Cummins





Nuff said.

 

[agoldbach]

This has been a great thread for me to gain insight into all aspects of buying a new truck. I honestly do apreciate all of your input. This is why I love being a TDR member so much. Thanks again! Adam

 

[Frmrdug]

laying low

I don't know about you all, but I'm not going to encourage any Ford's with my '03 til it gets a power box. This one has to have the worst top end peformance of any year yet... what's the deal??

 

[Jeremiah]

Re: laying low

Originally posted by Frmrdug

I don't know about you all, but I'm not going to encourage any Ford's with my '03 til it gets a power box. This one has to have the worst top end peformance of any year yet... what's the deal??

Hi, Doug ... sincere question: what do you mean, worst top end performance? I ran my '03 to the red line (3200 rpm) in 6th gear and it was doing better than 100 mph. That ain't bad for a 4 x 4 that's built for heavy duty hauling.

 

[D808]

From what I'm hearing, there must be quite a bit of power difference between the 2003 standard and high output engines. I haven't driven the 2003 standard version, but I can say with no reservations that my new 2003 high output has consideraby more power than the 1996 high output that I previously owned. One particular observation is that my 1996 struggled to keep up with gasoline powered trucks (or rice powered), but the 2003 keeps up with them effortlessly. Although I loose a little time going through the first three gears, "Big Red the Second" kicks butt and takes names through the last three!!!!!



Also, the 1996 had 4. 10 to one gears and would top out at about 85 m. p. h. It's comforting to know that the 3. 73 gears in my 2003 will get me to the tripple digits if need be, as was mentioned in a previous reply to this thread.



Federalman

 

[Jeremiah]

Originally posted by federalman

From what I'm hearing, there must be quite a bit of power difference between the 2003 standard and high output engines. I haven't driven the 2003 standard version, but I can say with no reservations that my new 2003 high output has consideraby more power than the 1996 high output that I previously owned. One particular observation is that my 1996 struggled to keep up with gasoline powered trucks (or rice powered), but the 2003 keeps up with them effortlessly. Although I loose a little time going through the first three gears, "Big Red the Second" kicks butt and takes names through the last three!!!!!



Also, the 1996 had 4. 10 to one gears and would top out at about 85 m. p. h. It's comforting to know that the 3. 73 gears in my 2003 will get me to the tripple digits if need be, as was mentioned in a previous reply to this thread.



Federalman

It does kick butt, but remember that the torque is down low, not in the upper rpms like the Ford PowerStroke. To shift correctly with a light load, shift out of each gear around 2,000 rpm, maybe even as low as 1800 rpms. You won't win any drag races this way and you'll be a bit slow getting off the line at traffic lights. But by the time you hit 5th and 6th gear you should be catching up and moving on down the road. And your clutch will love you for shifting this way!

 

[Frmrdug]

Jeremiah,



Interesting that my comparisons are to my '96 as well. It's an automatic, too. It has been substantially upgraded in power, and that caused the transmission to get upgraded as well when I shelled it.



My 96 goes from 70 to 95 probably faster than it does from 30 to 55. When that t/c locks up, she's gone! I love to pass a series of cars with it! This one grabs a bit better down low, as they've obviously put a t/c in it with a better stall to fit the torque curve. The 96 stock would redline and sit and wait for the mushy t/c to catch up and shift. Then when I enhanced the engine, the transmission was still the same.



My new one bites better down low, and this '03 will get up to 105, but is sure takes a stretch of highway to get there. When I put the 315/75 tires on, it didn't want to go much more than about 87 on flat ground. I couldn't believe it.



I bet the manual transmission and HO are a totally different story. I'm confident some more horses from a powerbox will get me where I want to be.

 

[Jeremiah]

Originally posted by Frmrdug

Jeremiah,



My new one bites better down low, and this '03 will get up to 105, but is sure takes a stretch of highway to get there. When I put the 315/75 tires on, it didn't want to go much more than about 87 on flat ground. I couldn't believe it.



I bet the manual transmission and HO are a totally different story. I'm confident some more horses from a powerbox will get me where I want to be.

Don't have a clue about the auto, except to recite what sales people say, which is that it shifts when it should and won't shift when it shouldn't.



Sales people always say that about the auto trannie, and it might even be true. Except that purists like me want to do our own shifting. I've found I can shift at 1,000 rpm with a light load and do just fine working my way up through the gears.



Of course, my wife rolls her eyes at all this shifting, which means she wonders why I am getting off doing this when an auto trannie does it for you. I tell her the engine just sounds better without the automatic - more of a direct-to-direct sound without all the excess rpms.



I'd be cautious about adding the power boxes until the power train warranty runs out. It's tempting to add 100 hp to what we have from the factory (and I'm sure I'll do it one of these days), but I don't think I will do it until Edge, Banks or the other aftermarket manufacturers can tell me that what they have to offer won't void the warranty.

 

[Prairie Dog]

I've only done this once with the new truck but I was able to out- run a late model ford on a 2 lane on-ramp. I thought it pulled great at 3000 RPM!

 

[jimnance]

I haven't had a chance to pull with my new '03 2500 H. O. Q. C. , but I have a few observations:



1) The '03 has a nice smooth power curve, but my '99 spools up quicker and hits much harder. The '99 feels like it has more power, but this is subjective at best. With the straight through exhaust the turbo whine and exhaust noise at least make it seem faster.



2) I can hear the radio in my '03.



3) I think the '03 having a 6 speed will pull better up the hills and should certainly be more durable than the auto in my '99



4) If/when a fueling box comes out for the new engine it could be an assume power plant.



So far, I like

 

[MCummings]

Originally posted by Jeremiah

It does kick butt, but remember that the torque is down low, not in the upper rpms like the Ford PowerStroke. To shift correctly with a light load, shift out of each gear around 2,000 rpm, maybe even as low as 1800 rpms. You won't win any drag races this way and you'll be a bit slow getting off the line at traffic lights. But by the time you hit 5th and 6th gear you should be catching up and moving on down the road. And your clutch will love you for shifting this way!

Your truck should be running 2,000 to 2,500 RPM for quick driving. I don't have much experiance with the '03's, as I have only driven the auto, but I know my '98. 5 runs best between 1,800 and 2,700,, If you are to heavy on the throttle down low, you can lug the engine.



Heavy throttle Below 1,500 and the inherent design of the I-6 will 'cause vibrations that are damaging to the clutch and drivetrain. Many causes of the "5th gear nut" problem was due to excessive use of RPM below 1,500RPM in 5th gear. (in 2nd Gen. Trucks)



My $. 02



Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[Jeremiah]

Headlights

Originally posted by jimnance

I haven't had a chance to pull with my new '03 2500 H. O. Q. C. , but I have a few observations:



1) The '03 has a nice smooth power curve, but my '99 spools up quicker and hits much harder. The '99 feels like it has more power, but this is subjective at best. With the straight through exhaust the turbo whine and exhaust noise at least make it seem faster.



2) I can hear the radio in my '03.



3) I think the '03 having a 6 speed will pull better up the hills and should certainly be more durable than the auto in my '99



4) If/when a fueling box comes out for the new engine it could be an assume power plant.



So far, I like

Have you driven it at night yet? The illumination is about half of what it should be. Can't see a deer in the headlights from this truck. I took it back to the dealer and had 'em raised a bit (it's done manually, by the way, with an allen wrench), but it didn't do much good. The dealer said the manufacturer wants "diffusive" light and not beams that shoot down the highway to let you see what's ahead of you.

 

[D808]

If you're racing with a Diesel engine, rev it until the torque starts to drop off. Then it's time to grab another gear. You just won't win a race if you drive a diesel like you would a gas burner.



Another thought: if a "Dura-Lax" beats a 2003 HO, the driver of the HO must have forgotten to release his/her parking brake!!!!

 

[jimnance]

Still haven't pulled with my H. O. yet, but got to experience the MONSTER torque today. In FIFTH gear and rainy road I started spinning the tires under normal acceleration as soon as I hit 2,000 RPM.



The truck doesn't doesn't spool up as quickly as my bombed '99, but pulls very hard.



I can't wait to hook up the fifth wheel and stomp some Dura-Turd up the hill. Guaranteed, this engine will pull a load.

 

[GDouglas]

I was working as a Ford tech back when the 7. 3 powestrokes first came out. The first 2 years of them spent more time in the shop than on the road. Watch out for Ford when they come out with something new. Let a couple of years go by before considering one. Ford is famous for rushing something new into the market before it is tried and true and it doesn't just apply to just diesel trucks, it is their whole model lineup. After a couple of years of agonizing the consumers, the bugs had finally been worked out of the 7. 3 ps and it turned out to to be a decent engine for the most part. Now another design is ready for sale and I'll bet that Ford has probably rushed this one to the market too. At least the new Cummins has been around for a couple of years in Europe in real world conditions before it comes to us.



As far as transmissions go, Ford does have the upper hand on the 4R100. Both Ford and Dodge are faulted with inadequate torque converters as stock equpment, but I haven't seen/heard any details on the 48RE yet. Some say it is just a beefed up version of the current 47RE and others claim that it is an entirely new animal. Guess we will see in time.

 

[Jeremiah]

Transmissions

Originally posted by GDouglas

As far as transmissions go, Ford does have the upper hand on the 4R100. Both Ford and Dodge are faulted with inadequate torque converters as stock equpment, but I haven't seen/heard any details on the 48RE yet. Some say it is just a beefed up version of the current 47RE and others claim that it is an entirely new animal. Guess we will see in time.

I don't have any experience in the older transmissions. Maybe that's a good thing. My '03 6-speed is about as smooth as they get.