Best argument against Dmax

[DPKetchum]

I don't. He's a RANCHER with NO mech. ability. I told him I read several diesel sites and asked him about injectors etc. He had no real clue about such and he admits it with no problem.

 

[MHirst]

My neighbor has the 04 Quad cab Duramax and I have the 05 Cummins I can tell you that when traveling with a load his mileage is 13 to 14 and he has no trouble pulling right with or ahead of my Dodge the last trip we made togeather last month to southern Utah 850 miles he averaged 13mpg and my average was 8. 5 no lies I was right there each time we fueled, these new Dodges are nice but I have to say that I am not that impressed with the mileage or the power yet I only have 5000 miles so far so I am hopeful that things will improve in time, however the Duramax also has the same mileage as mine, bottom line is I am not sure what my next Truck will be in a few years, they all are fine depending on what you like, right now MPG is a hugh issue for me. Good Luck!!

 

[Tim]

Like I said, you are probably not old enough to know. Chebby trucks back in the fifties were basically a car frame with a pickup bed, they did'nt even compare to a GMC. You should dig a little deeper in your history. I was there, you obiviously wern't.

Not only was I not there, but neither was my FATHER. Talk about HISTORY.

 

[DPKetchum]

Only TWO are fine! Duramax and Dodge.

 

[Camp]

I would not advise anyone on the brand of truck for the same reasons everyone else has listed.



As for the Duramax, I believe there is a lot of tale in this thread unless it is just the difference between the Allison and the handshaker. I own a race team and we have pulled with an '02 Dmax, '03 Dmax, and '04. 5 Cummins. We still have the '03 Dmax and I am here to tell you, I can still not match the economy of it with my '04. 5 Cummins nor can I pull with it in stock trim. The Dmax has never had a single mod done to it to increase performance and it will walk-off on my Cummins in stock trim with equal loads pulling the passes in the Rockies. Trust me, I have felt the embarrasement of getting a big grin and the finger as he pulls out from behind me and walks away. Mind you, he still gets better economy than me.



All three trucks are 6-speeds and the '02 Dmax was sold in order to buy the Cummins, not because there was anything wrong with it.



Don't get me wrong, I like my Dodge and the power the Cummins makes is significantly different than the Dmax but, when I have to put $900 worth of computer goodies on it to out pull a truck that is supposed to have less power, I say BS to a lot of the claims in this thread.

 

[Matt400]

Thats just odd, I have driven a couple of 05 Dmax's and they don't have the seat of pants/torque feel that my truck has and no one I know of claims good mpgs with them.

Wonder if its because we are in CA?

How does a higher reving bigger cubic inch V8 get better mpgs than a smaller lower reving 6?

 

[Camp]

How does a higher reving bigger cubic inch V8 get better mpgs than a smaller lower reving 6?

The number of cylinders and rpm's are not nearly as important as the efficiency of burn you get in the cylinder chamber.



The oil on the Durmax's seems to stay clean and clear forever. The Cummins is black right from the get go. This is partially due to the type of burn occuring in the combustion chamber. The Dmax seems to be burning more of the fuel and creating less soot than the Cummins.



Both Dmax's get/got 20-22 empty and 12-14 pulling a one car hauler and rock buggy that was equal to about 6000 lbs.



The Cummins gets 15-17 empty and 10-12 pulling that load.



These numbers are at the speed limit, which is 75 mph in most places here.

 

[Matt400]

The Cummins gets 15-17 empty and 10-12 pulling that load.

There is some of the difference, I get 19. 5 empty on mountain roads, haven't checked it on the freeway and 14-16 towing 6000 depending on the grades.

 

[Camp]

There is some of the difference, I get 19. 5 empty on mountain roads, haven't checked it on the freeway and 14-16 towing 6000 depending on the grades.

Yeah, you also have an '03 without the pilot injection. My roommates '02 Cummins does compete with economy but, in stock trim both Dmax's will walk on it too.



The torque is available much lower in the Cummins than the Dmax and that makes it more pleasurable to drive. You don't feel like you are pushing the truck so hard all the time. Both Dmax's prefer to be wound up to make power but, EGT's still seem to be in check. The Cummins gets hot when I have to run high rpm, such as downshifting on a pass and trying to keep up.

 

[CLAYTON]

Connecting Rods

I can't believe that no one has posted this pic of the famous connecting rod yet... so I guess I'll go ahead and post it... Take a look at the difference it goes Chevy. . Ford... then Dodge. And they say size doesn't matter :-laf

 

[DPKetchum]

The only thing I tell folks if they ask is stay away from 6. 0 Fords. Will continue to do so until they show huge amounts of improvement. Which at this time I don't think they have.

 

[BHolm]

I guess I should call BUNK on some of the d-max claims. I also have owned two of them, an '01 and an '03. I have made several cross country trips with the '03 d-max and '03 CTD pulling very similar loads. The d-max NEVER got better milage than the Cummins. Empty my '03 d-max CC LB SRW was getting 14-15 mpg. It also falls off quickly with speeds above 70-75 like my '05 CTD does. With a 32' gooseneck and a couple cars on, the d-max averaged 8 mpg on two different loaded trips from MN to SW Colorado, that means they both spent a day running Nebraska and a day running several of the bigger passes in CO. My CTD averaged 11 mpg. Empty the '03 CTD gets 18-19 easily.



I will go along with the d-max being faster than the CTD, and all of my trucks have been bone stock except tires. As noted though the d-max REALLY works for it. It was seriously loud inside and cranking 3000 rpms. I much prefer the torque of the CTD and the much quieter running whether at high or low rpm.



If I wanted to race a truck, no offense to those who do but WHY?, I would have a d-max/Allison as they can be made into screamers. I prefer to haul the Buick to the strip with the Dodge and knock off some low 12's

 

[Camp]

Well, that must be the handshaker thing, like I was saying. Neither of the Dmax's I was talking about have the allison and they both get better fuel economy than anything I have been able to run along side them. Real world, side by side testing is all I have to go on.

 

[BHolm]

Sorry, overlooked the handshaker part Camp. It has been said that the Allison consumes a lot of power, more than the other brands trannies. I would expect a manual to be more efficient, especially in a D-max. The Allison doesn't like to run in OD and with a six speed, you get to choose where it runs. That alone would make a difference.

 

[OHale]

A few minor things I didn't care for for in the Duramax:



1. If you select the shortbox you have only 25 gallons of fuel. The Dodge loses only one gallon in the SB configuration (34 gallons. ) That was a critical flaw in my book.

2. I don't know if it is still the case, but with the premium interior came a large center hump console in the front seat that is as high as the seat. I didn't like it and neither did the Chevy salesman. It is a huge waste of space in the front seat area IMHO.



Minor things I suppose.

 

[hasselbach]

the new ones are 605 torque... and the gm torque management defuels in 1 and 5... in 1 you don't need full torque [gearing multiplication], and in 5, you can't put full torque down as most slushbox will downshift... the chevy trucks are very nice i think. . the IFS doesn't bother me. i don't like trucks that sit way high up. if i had to get a truck with an automatic, the dmax is something i would look at [straight out of the box, the best auto i think]... i don't like that the manual trans with the dmax is still the old trim [300/520]

Not exactly true, only defuels in 1st in 4 low per the service manual, it has nothing to do with the allison, but rather the transfer case. There is no defueling in 5th, and a nano second between 4-5 shift (dodge does the same between shifts whether or not you want to believe it). If it was defueling throughout 5th, then why would you have similar EGT's as in 4th and 3rd? Also, I've seen dyno runs posted in 4th and 5th gears that further support no defueling in 5th.



Who ever started this rumor didn't know what they are talking about.

 

[hasselbach]

I can't believe that no one has posted this pic of the famous connecting rod yet... so I guess I'll go ahead and post it... Take a look at the difference it goes Chevy. . Ford... then Dodge. And they say size doesn't matter :-laf

Has anyone actually heard of anyone throwing a rod out of a duramax, especially a hot rodded one? I sure haven't.



Since the dodge is a 6 vs. the V8 design for the ford and chevy, it stands to reason the dodge connecting rod would be somewhat bigger. I've seen some d-max motors post over 700 hp on stock rods.

 

[Matt400]

If you select the shortbox you have only 25 gallons of fuel.

Didn't know that, thats a disappointment for sure.

 

[robertyoke]

Has anyone actually heard of anyone throwing a rod out of a duramax, especially a hot rodded one? I sure haven't.



Since the dodge is a 6 vs. the V8 design for the ford and chevy, it stands to reason the dodge connecting rod would be somewhat bigger. I've seen some d-max motors post over 700 hp on stock rods.

I know of one that went boom at Bandimere track running high 13's.

they don't know if it was piston or rod that let go. but it was the rod that went through the block. :-laf



hasselbach do you have a 605 rated lly? how do you know that egts are the same 4 gear vs 5 gear?

-robert