Back to Back to Back, Chev Ford and Dodge

[JUeckert]

No implications here. I just want to confine the discussion to the 6. 0 vs the 5. 9. Like you, I only buy manuals so any superiority of the Ford transmission is nothing more than an interesting aside to me.

As far as the RPM range goes, I disagree that the Ford's powerband offers it any particular advantage. That's why I have a 6 spd. When I look down, low and behold, I'm at the peak power rpm for the Cummins! I do that on purpose, of course. The broader powerband and extreme torque advantage at lower rpms makes the Cummins a better towing motor IMO, not to mention the effect of the lower rpm on longevity. The Cummins just takes less rpm to make more than the Fords rated torque.

While I will also agree that any brand vehicle can have problems both the 6. 0 PSD and the 7. 3 PSD statistically have way more of them than the Cummins. Not my opinion, just the facts. $1500. 00 for an injection pump doesn't sound too bad for me after replacing four 7. 3 HEUI injectors at $1,200. 00 EACH!.



Anyway, I guess we will agree to disagree. If everyone agreed with me we would all be driving Cummins/NV5600 trucks.



Cheers,

Dave

friend if you paid $1200. 00 dollars for a injector in a 7. 3 engine,you got shafted. cackle,that was know a possibility in 99 and 2000,memory serves the number 8 injector was responsible for that. cavitation,add dca just like the medium duty and up trucks do,cost about 4. 00 bucks once a year. cavitation was a rare occurance,and was found in engines with no maintance to the cooling system. new 7. 3 engines come with a maintnance free coolant. the effect of lower rpms on long engine life?well if you tow your trailers at 45mph you might have a point there. however,with similar gear ratios,trannys and tire sizes,ford chevy and dodges will all turn out similar rpms at highway speeds. if its running much higher rpms,then its traveling at a higher speed! a while back i answered a fellow posters response on opinions about earlier model gm diesels and my success with them also,you gave a similar slam to my opinion and a $10. 000 + repair bill for that engine also,whats the deal? is your luck really that bad with all brands but dodges,or do you simply have a beef with me because i own gm and ford diesels also. to be honest,the worst luck i have ever had out of a pickup was a 92 dodge diesel,it was how you say,a P. O. S . but i dont get on here bad mouthing some who has had good luck out of theres,or someone inquireing about buying one. now back to the original topic of the performance of a 6. 0 ford,if you still have your#45 issue of the tdr magazine,check out page 51,52 . to be quite honest ,i dont much like the 6. 0 myself ,but i will give credit where its due. yes i agree,the new cummins and a 5600 makes a great combo,think i will buy one at the end of this month. . good day.

 

[DPelletier]

Jueckert,



Firstly, I don't have a beef with you and I didn't realize it was you that posted on the GM 6. 5TD thread until I read this post.



Secondly, I paid $1,200. 00 (Canadian) installed for each of the 4 7. 3 PSD injectors I had to install and yes, I'm sure the dealer made good money doing it.



Your wrong about the whole RPM range thing. I'll try this one last time: a 6. 0 PSD at 2800 rpm makes WAY less power than a 5. 9 CTD at the same rpm. The only way the 6. 0 makes similar power is to rev it higher than the Cummins' redline. Remember HP is simply torque x rpm. The Cummins has more torque. The Cummins will generate more torque at a lower rpm, maintain good power due to its extremely long and flat torque curve before signing off. The Ford doesn't have the jam until you rev the crap out of it and revving the crap out of it isn't conducive to stellar longevity.



You may have had good luck with your GM diesels, but I have not. I think they are a light duty engine with limited potential that typically run pretty good for the first 100,000 mi or so. Basically a throw away compared to the Cummins. Plastic valve keepers, what the heck were they thinking?!



Credit where credit's due? I believe in that philosophy, I just don't think the 6. 0 deserves any credit. The Ford truck is OK though. I keep a copy of the 600 test in my desk drawer, the one where they hooked up all three trucks and ran them uphill with 10,000 lbs in tow (all six speeds) and the Dodge won by a significant margin.



Despite what you may think, I'm not particularly brand loyal. I buy what I think is the best and at this point in time I think the Cummins is so much better than the competition that it isn't even close. Wouldn't mind a new Mustang GT, though.

I've owned 27 vehicles, including ten Fords (two diesels), nine GM's (1 diesel) and 6 Dodges (3 diesels).



Ultimately just because you had good luck with your 6. 2 or 6. 5 doesn't make it a good motor, it makes you lucky.



I hope this post isn't viewed as any sort of personal issue, because that isn't my intent. I'm just expressing my opinion.



Cheers,

Dave

 

[JUeckert]

dave,dont take it as a attack,just simply trying to gat facts on the board. many people read these post looking for infomation to help them make decisions. i simply believe in giving honest info,good or bad,without bashing. yes i agree the 6. 2,6. 5 is a lightduty engine when compared to the ford and dodge offerings. the plastic rocker arm keepers in the later models was foolish,although not a common problem,while we are at it,the timeing chain on them was a stupid idea to,didnt have any probs with them,but it was still a stupid idea. i have had 2 6. 5 and 6 6. 2 powered trucks,the only problems i had were out of one of the latter model computerized 6. 5,s ,most of these trucks saw some serious towing and abuse. yes i understand what you are saying about the cummins and its lower rpms,i have hauled a many a load with cummins powered dodges,and a couplle of 2 tons trucks also. like i said,the older models pulled best at lower rpms[which means lower travel speeds]than ford or gm diesels. but as mentioned at highway speeds they dont pull or perform any better. fact is the new commonrail is built to perform more like the v8 diesels always have,it revs higher,and has a broader power band. the 24 v was a step in that direction. does the 5. 9 have the ability to carry a load at 1800 rpms better than the 6. 0,yes,but with the transmission and rear axle ratios we have to choose from in lightduty pickups,that aint happening unless you want to drive below the average highway speeds,of course you could always add a splitter,this would make it possible to use the engines lower rpms trq advantage,which means less rpms,and like you say,longer engine life.

 

[mcoleman]

I've driven 3 new 6. 0s in hay hauling conditions and they are horrible here in our hills where you are stuck below 50mph and climbing all the time. No torque what so ever. You have to hold them on the floor to get the rpms up just to climb hills that the Dodges idle over. And it takes low range to move anything heavy in a barnlot as they simply don't have anything on the bottom. The gasser trucks will move heavy loads around the fields and barnlots with much less throttle than the Fords. They must be designed for the 75mph interstate towing crowd.

 

[cpeters]

Well said mcoleman, They need lots of rpm.

 

[DPelletier]

dave,dont take it as a attack,just simply trying to gat facts on the board. many people read these post looking for infomation to help them make decisions. i simply believe in giving honest info,good or bad,without bashing. yes i agree the 6. 2,6. 5 is a lightduty engine when compared to the ford and dodge offerings. the plastic rocker arm keepers in the later models was foolish,although not a common problem,while we are at it,the timeing chain on them was a stupid idea to,didnt have any probs with them,but it was still a stupid idea. i have had 2 6. 5 and 6 6. 2 powered trucks,the only problems i had were out of one of the latter model computerized 6. 5,s ,most of these trucks saw some serious towing and abuse. yes i understand what you are saying about the cummins and its lower rpms,i have hauled a many a load with cummins powered dodges,and a couplle of 2 tons trucks also. like i said,the older models pulled best at lower rpms[which means lower travel speeds]than ford or gm diesels. but as mentioned at highway speeds they dont pull or perform any better. fact is the new commonrail is built to perform more like the v8 diesels always have,it revs higher,and has a broader power band. the 24 v was a step in that direction. does the 5. 9 have the ability to carry a load at 1800 rpms better than the 6. 0,yes,but with the transmission and rear axle ratios we have to choose from in lightduty pickups,that aint happening unless you want to drive below the average highway speeds,of course you could always add a splitter,this would make it possible to use the engines lower rpms trq advantage,which means less rpms,and like you say,longer engine life.

Fair enough. You've had more experience with the 6. 2 and 6. 5 than I have (my father did have two in addition to my '93) and I will admit to having a bitter taste in my mouth due to my own personal experience which was two top ends and another bill for $4700. 00 due to the dual mass flywheel explosion and it's subsequent destruction of my transmission input shaft and everything else in the general vicinity. I think the lower power versions of the engine, the 6. 2 had the potential to last quite a while and be generally reliable (albeit very weak) and although the 6. 5TD is a bit of a lightweight they seem to be OK until they either get alot of miles on them or are overworked. Obviously the Cummins is much more HD, but that is true comparing the 5. 9 to anything ever put in a light truck.



As far as the 6. 0PSD and the rpm issue, I see what your saying, but consider this;

- yes the Cummins has more power at 1800rpms, but it also has more power at 2800 rpms. I can maintain approximately 60mph in 5th gear at 2800rpms, and I'm sure I can tow as fast as I need to go in 6th without exceeding 2800rpms. At this level the Cummins has more power.

My point is simply that the Ford makes the same peak horsepower (325hp) as the Dodge, but at a much higher rpm with less torque (570 compared to 610 ft lbs) and a weak bottom end. OK for drag racing, but not for towing IMO. You would have to run lower gears in the Ford to take advantage of the increased rpm range and to make up for the lack of low end torque, but of course that would negatively impact top speed and engine longevity.



Dave

 

[JUeckert]

i have only driven one 6. 0 with a manual transmission,in my opinion it lacks verses the 7. 3 or even the older ho 24v engines. topend its a stout performer,for better low end performance a person would be better off with a auto. the funny thing about the 6. 0 is the fact that when the engine was first announced,the power rateings were 350hp,600trq ,it was nicknamed the super 600. by the time it found its way into ford pickups,it was watered down. the only way to get a factory rated 6. 0 with 600[actually 620 lbs of trq] is to buy one in a international truck. my opinion is the engine is better suited for 4. 10 or 4. 30 gears if a person wants to do some serious heavy towing. while the old rule of thumb is lower rpms = longer engine life,i have seen tons of 450 and 550 fords with 4. 30 or lower gears rack up lots of miles with no ill effects to the engine. one thing is for sure,lower gears in most cases= less fuel mileage.

 

[DPelletier]

Well,

I can agree with all of that



Cheers,

Dave