Dodge gets slammed in Diesel Power Mag!

[AHolbert]

Powder Extreme, thanks for your owner's report on the Duramax. I'll admit to being a CTD fan, I've got two of 'em and they've both been fantastic trucks. I'm in the market for a new one and It's not going to be a CTD unless/until the corporate types at Dodge figure out how to compete with the Duramax and Ford on power, mileage, and weight ratings (GCWR). I like/love the looks and features of the new Rams and I do think they've got the upper hand as far as durability but I don't live in a vacuum and one's competition is what make's one better ! Ram needs to improve the product in order to stay competitive and I for one will give them a little more time before I buy a new truck but I'm not waiting forever. I got flamed in a previous thread for pointing out the fact that I don't want any exposure to potential liability because I was operating over max GCWR.

Another issue related to towing over weight is: I know the trucks can pull the overweight loads and do it all day long in and out, but at the very least, why should I take a chance of them (Dodge Ram) not honoring my warranty in the event of a mechanical failure because I operated the truck over their tow rating ? If I'm going to be spending that kind of money, I do want it all, power, economy, durability, reliability, comfort, looks, features, weight/tow ratings, etc. If the mighty Dodge Ram won't give me that, and someone else will ???? I'll be voting with my checkbook !! Thanks for the report and I hope you'll keep us updated... ... ... ...

 

[cerberusiam]

just looks at the cost of ownership.

Bottom line, that is the commonly ignored part of every article, comparison, and discussion around these trucks. Why? Because Ford and GM loose it where it counts EVERY time. If it is ignored it doesn't exist, right?



The whole sturcture of the marketing and build campaign is for the short term satisfation. Who has the most power, the most comfortable, interior, etc. They are betting on selling another one of those in a 3 year period because the cost of keeping the old one will exceed the new one.



Cummins and dodge discussed this and purposely derated the commercial line to maintain an acceptable life expectancy and cost benefit ratio. The cost of ownership is a BIG influence in the fleet market.



Its been firmly established the Cummins motor has 2-3 times the life expectancy of the other 2. That is simply ignored when targetng the emotional purchases they rely on to sell vehicles, and it WORKS.



An informed buyer is aware of all this and buys accordingly, irregardless of the claims of the most HP, comparisons to MIL spec equipment, and rather outrageous claims of efficiency. Add back in the high impact parameters and we all know who sits on the top of that heap. We don't need a diesel rag or furd wheeler to establish it.



The Rams will still be rolling cross country when the others are relegated to short haul delivery sporting the FOR SALE sign because they can't be trusted outside the favorite shop's working radius, and THAT is the rest of the story. :-laf

 

[Powder Extreme]

$10,000+ per 100k in fuel savings is pretty substantial in my book...

 

[cerberusiam]

$10,000+ per 100k in fuel savings is pretty substantial in my book...

Another good reason to buy a Cummins then, perfect example of more power uses more fuel and how it effects the overall cost. A truck does NOT have to pull the weight the fastest to the the top of the hill, it simply has to do it more often with less or equal cost.

 

[Powder Extreme]

Another good reason to buy a Cummins then, perfect example of more power uses more fuel and how it effects the overall cost. A truck does NOT have to pull the weight the fastest to the the top of the hill, it simply has to do it more often with less or equal cost.

Uh we're talking about new trucks. The new Cummins does NOT get fuel mileage. My GMC is 4-5mpg better than my Dodge.

 

[cerberusiam]

My GMC is 4-5mpg better than my Dodge.

I've seen the marketing hype. There are a lot of GM owners that WISH that was true.



Wait a minute! Are you talking about the trucks in your sig?



Are you saying GM avergaes 4-5 mpg better across the brand or just what you saw? You have 100k worth of receipts for EACH truck with comparable loads and roads to back up a $10k difference in operational costs?



Are you really saying a V8 with more HP is going to be more efficient at fuel usage than an I6 given all things are EQUAL??



Your kidding, right? 3. 42's compared to 3. 73's and you base a blanket statement on that? C'mon man!!!! You have to compare equally or its just noise.



Put 4. 10's in the Dodge and it will run away and hide from the GM and use less fuel. :-laf

 

[JMetzger]

You know they might as well have their fun because I think next year or the year after they are all going to choke trying to meet EPA fuel mileage because if I remember right it is going to be higher then what any of them are making now.

 

[meanmatt]

I love reading these debates. In my opinion once SAE gets ahold of theses trucks and puts them through the towing test I have a feeling all of these high tow rating numbers will come down no matter whos name is on the hood.

I work on a fleet of many trucks ,We have a bunch of Freightliner M2's with the 6. 7 . They are tuned to 250hp. These are 25,999 gvw rental trucks . Our 33,000 gvw lease trucks are running the 8. 3 and guess what they are also 250 house power . No torque numbers are labled any place on the truck, or in the spec sheet in the shops computer.

My piont being 350 hp/650tq is not detuned ,and is more than enough for the size of the truck it's in.

The only reason all those medium duties are fling around so fast is that the driver doesn't pay the repair bill . Or the fuel bill .

 

[RVTRKN]

go back 5 yrs and Dodge had injector issues, go back 6 yrs GM had overheat issues,

Get real, My 04. 5 runs like a top and never had injector issues, so lets say some Dodges had failures as well as all makes throughout the Diesel industry. I used to calibrate the injectors for the M60 tanks that ran the V12 Diesel and the one thing I learned, is that injectors fail, Period. It is not allways the injectors fault, it can be the grade and quality of fuel used. It is the main reason for 100K mile warranty, but GM had it so bad that they had to extend that warranty. And the overheating issue we have argued about that before, GM has not solved it, they just increased the cooling capacity to keep their hot running engine within tolerable temps. And you remember that every time your clutch fan engages, even without a load in slightly warm ambient. I know that 05 D/A would engage at 65 MPH with 60* ambient temps. So keep telling yourself, it is not a problem, when you get stuck somewhere because your coolant ran a little low, you will remember this. But we all know you wont report it here. :-laf





FWIW the front ends wear on the IFS are far worse in my opinion. I would rather have the front end repaired with better parts, than have an IFS fail every 75-100K or replace the CV boot every two years, to make them last.

 

[RVTRKN]

BTW, I forgot to add the Glow Plugs that the Duramax used to eat, even when brand new, how's that going over on the TDP, still eating them?

 

[WMoroni]

And the overheating issue we have argued about that before, GM has not solved it, they just increased the cooling capacity to keep their hot running engine within tolerable temps. And you remember that every time your clutch fan engages, even without a load in slightly warm ambient. I know that 05 D/A would engage at 65 MPH with 60* ambient temps. So keep telling yourself, it is not a problem, when you get stuck somewhere because your coolant ran a little low, you will remember this. But we all know you wont report it here. :-laf

This is another thing concerning me about my new truck. Pulling the little dozer my 07 never never ran over the 200 mark. The new truck, same dozer same trailer, never runs below 205 and is constantly going to 221 fan kicks on cools to 205. Outside temp hasn't been over 50 yet with the trailer on. Normal temp empty is between 205 and 215 depending on if its in a regen cycle or not. Can't wait till its 100 outside this coming summer. I have to say though the aisin transmission runs very cool. Never seen it over 170 yet.

 

[Powder Extreme]

Actually, the cooling fan in my Dodge kicks in quite a bit more than it does in the GMC pulling the same loads.

Never had a problem with the front end of any of my GM's had to rebuild three of my Dodges. Sounds like you did too. And was happy about it even. Good for you!

Btw, how's the fuel mileage on that 07? My 07 would get about 12mpg empty.

 

[Powder Extreme]

This is another thing concerning me about my new truck. Pulling the little dozer my 07 never never ran over the 200 mark. The new truck, same dozer same trailer, never runs below 205 and is constantly going to 221 fan kicks on cools to 205. Outside temp hasn't been over 50 yet with the trailer on. Normal temp empty is between 205 and 215 depending on if its in a regen cycle or not. Can't wait till its 100 outside this coming summer. I have to say though the aisin transmission runs very cool. Never seen it over 170 yet.

Yup, sounds about normal. My Dodge will run up to about 224 and run the fan quite a bit.

GMC same loads and roads runs quite a bit less. The Allison runs about 145 pulling 20k up the hills. 120 on the flat.

 

[WMoroni]

I'm pretty happy with my transmission temps. To get it to 170 you have to be pulling stupid heavy stop and go. Normal is proably 120-140 somewhere in there. Engine temp really has me concerned though. I would think 220s is getting pretty close to HOT. I seen mine as high as 224 but my fan kicks on at 221. It doesn't take it to long to get back to 205, but its also cold enough outside to have the heater on. Whats it going to do this summer?

 

[Powder Extreme]

Are you really saying a V8 with more HP is going to be more efficient at fuel usage than an I6 given all things are EQUAL??

Uh ya, that's precisely what I'm saying, thought I made that pretty clear?



Surely you're not naive enough to believe that just because a motor has fewer cylinders it HAS to get better fuel mileage? Certainly little things like TECHNOLOGY can't possibly affect fuel mileage! The GM uses significantly less EGR, allowing for cooler, cleaner intake air. (I think that just MIGHT help the combustion process) It can also run higher pressures and more advanced timing giving it better mileage thanks to the DEF (if I recall the chips and tuners for the Cummins increase timing and pressures which in turn gives better economy, sure did in my previous trucks and darn near everybody's "chipped" truck on this forum as well)



So ya, that's precisely what I'm saying. My '07. 5 Dodge 3. 73 with SRW would get 13mpg empty. My '08 GMC 3. 73 SRW would get 19mpg empty. My '10 Dodge 3. 42 DRW gets 12mpg empty. My '11 GMC 3. 73 DRW gets 18 empty. And yes, that is hand calculated. For reference my '01 Dodge 3. 54 DRW would get 19mpg and my '94 Dodge 3. 54 SRW would get 22mpg. So I seriously doubt running 4. 10's would help the economy.

 

[Powder Extreme]

I'm pretty happy with my transmission temps. To get it to 170 you have to be pulling stupid heavy stop and go. Normal is proably 120-140 somewhere in there. Engine temp really has me concerned though. I would think 220s is getting pretty close to HOT. I seen mine as high as 224 but my fan kicks on at 221. It doesn't take it to long to get back to 205, but its also cold enough outside to have the heater on. Whats it going to do this summer?

I don't think you'll have any problems. I ran mine grossing 31k up the hills between Barstow and Vegas (long and fairly steep) temp never went over 224. Fan ran almost continuously but the outside temp was in the 90's. 224 isn't anything to worry about with a diesel. No need to worry till you start getting into the upper 230 range.

 

[cerberusiam]

Both of those trucks have potential issues with software to do that low of mileage. Thats pretty much a given and has been found to be the problem. Now whether or not one can get a Dodge delaership to fix it is highly suspect.



Then again how its driven makes a huge difference. I am not buying it as a blanket statement, only as one persons experience without any control parameters.



I will give you that the DEF is allowing better tuning. Cummins knows this and is using it, Dodge on the other hand is lagging in adoption. However, if you don't understand how 4. 10's are better than 3. 42's then its an uphill battle.



The fatc remains that when Dodges goof ups are fixed then engine performs up to potential and will outpull and out mileage any V8 out there. Should we have to do this on our own? Absolutely not.



The fact that GM got it into production is a big plus, but, there is still not enough info to suggest the cost benefit is there. Neither the Dmax engine or Allison trans has proven themselves to be reliable in the long term. Thats the rreal guts of the controversy.



The cost ofthat short term satisfaction warm fuzzy has yet to be determined.

 

[Powder Extreme]

I never said the mileage was a blanket statement. But there are numerous members on here that complain about poor fuel economy so it isn't just one man's truck.

Running empty I don't believe a 4. 10 rear end will get better fuel mileage. When I tow with the dodge I run in 4th or 5th so the final drive ratio is about the same as a 4. 10 running 5th or 6th anyway.

 

[CBlack]

Uh ya, that's precisely what I'm saying, thought I made that pretty clear?



Surely you're not naive enough to believe that just because a motor has fewer cylinders it HAS to get better fuel mileage? Certainly little things like TECHNOLOGY can't possibly affect fuel mileage! The GM uses significantly less EGR, allowing for cooler, cleaner intake air. (I think that just MIGHT help the combustion process) It can also run higher pressures and more advanced timing giving it better mileage thanks to the DEF (if I recall the chips and tuners for the Cummins increase timing and pressures which in turn gives better economy, sure did in my previous trucks and darn near everybody's "chipped" truck on this forum as well)



So ya, that's precisely what I'm saying. My '07. 5 Dodge 3. 73 with SRW would get 13mpg empty. My '08 GMC 3. 73 SRW would get 19mpg empty. My '10 Dodge 3. 42 DRW gets 12mpg empty. My '11 GMC 3. 73 DRW gets 18 empty. And yes, that is hand calculated. For reference my '01 Dodge 3. 54 DRW would get 19mpg and my '94 Dodge 3. 54 SRW would get 22mpg. So I seriously doubt running 4. 10's would help the economy.

You can't use your personal experience with your trucks to make a blanket statement about all of them.



My in-laws D/A 07 or 08 (I can't remember) gets 13-14mpg empty and 7-8mpg with his 5er.



I know of people with 6. 7 DC that are getting similar results to you, but the majority of them I've talked to are getting 15-17 empty and 11-13 loaded. Then if you get rid of the emissions crap it only gets better.



This is why I hate HP/TQ wars that people keep harping on. People who love Dodge Cummins will buy, surprise!, a Dodge Cummins. The same goes for the Duramax/Allison and Ford/Powerstroke.



And from my personal experience the only thing that Chevy or Ford owners can tell you is that all diesels have glow plugs that the type of engine they have is a Duramax or Powerstroke, respectively.



HP/TQ ratings will win over the 10-20% of people who aren't brand loyal. And let's face it, there is a whole lot of people on this forum who are loyal to Cummins, not Dodge.

 

[Powder Extreme]

Also, I never claimed Dodge / Cummins can't do it right. My point is as of now with the 6. 7 they haven't done it right. When / if they come out with the rumored 8spd and 400+ horsepower, I'll probably buy another Dodge. I would guess they will up the towing to match GM as well.