2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission I gots ta know, What IS wrong with Ram CTD

[cyborg]

I'm a little slow here, but what exacty is suppose to be the shortcomings of the Dodge CTD(according to the other two camps)?



I'll admit less foo-foo and bling-bling?

 

[HoleshotHolset]

2 fewer cylinders...

Less displacement...

I6 layout...

Fewer moving parts...

Lack of VGT/VNT turbo...

Lack of decent auto transmission...

No high pressure oil problems...

Less rods through the block...

Less trucks bought back on Lemon Law...

Lack of a 'blue oval' or 'bowtie'...



... just to name a few.



Matt

 

[JGK]

cyborg,



Nuthin'. It beats their pants off for less $, and they can't do anything about it.



That's the real problem the others have to deal with.



-Jay

 

[snowracer69]

cyborg,



Nuthin'. It beats their pants off for less $, and they can't do anything about it.





-Jay

So when exactly was the last time you stacked two boxes on your CTD and laid out 544 RWHP?



All I'm saying is that we aren't necessarily the easiest to BOMB anymore, and the others out there (ESPECIALLY the Dmax) has it's finer points too.



I used to be a hater/basher too, but sometimes you gotta realize that the other guys have things over us too... .

 

[John - K5AWO]

Well, the "other guys" sell trucks fit for ladies (soft ride).



Our trucks are made to work...

 

[MBean]

Cyborg, Things being things and all things considered... The most important thing is what the buyer thinks and/or wants when buying a truck. As previously pointed out by an adept member (John), both of the other two "camps" offer a "softer ride". We all must admit that the Phord and Shevy offer bigger back doors. I work with a few boys around here in ABQ that drive stock from the other camps and when we put them side by side, they really are quite equal, with a few exceptions going both ways. Take for example the lower ridge in the front window of a Super Duty, it offers increased side and rearward views as did there original larger tow mirrors, now our camp offers similar with our tow mirrors (except the lowered front window sill). Now, when you start Bomb-ing, certain additional items enter the list... like for example, if you added an after-market toolbox/fuel tank. In a new SD, you must run the linkage from the toolbox/tank all the way back to the area behind the rear axle to where the new SD fuel tank is located. It is a significant run of pipe. On ours (& the DMax), it is no more than 2-3 feet. There's is more like 8 feet.

Personally, I like more of the exterior or body features of the SD. I can't stand the DMax, personally. And I wouldn't take a SD interior if it came with $500. Bottom line, it all amounts to perceptions, and what the customer wants and/or thinks. I'll still take my CTD over either of the other two any day. I like the ride, handling, power, etc. of mine just the way it is and I have liked it for almost 70k miles in less than 3 years. Just my two cents... For what its worth...

 

[cyborg]

2 fewer cylinders...

Less displacement...

I6 layout...



... just to name a few.



Matt

Okay, there is NO SUBSTITUTE for cubic inches, not even boost.

The I-6 design has seven main bearings and torque properties you can't reliably get in a V-block.



I've always been an I-6 fan but could live without the cracked manifolds and the block weight. Jeep should keep the 4. 0 alive with an aluminum head and a turbo, (XJs forever, baby!!!).



Are their trannies really any better? Hasn't the Allison been like the Duramax? More hype than hop? Maybe after they deal with there problems for a few years they will go away.



I bought a 02 instead of a newer for the rear doors. and now I notice the other guys have the doors I like. I'm still a dodge guy.



In another post I mentioned DC thinking out of the box i. e if they made future trucks more truck like and not follow the pack or listen to the wives.

 

[JGK]

So when exactly was the last time you stacked two boxes on your CTD and laid out 544 RWHP?



All I'm saying is that we aren't necessarily the easiest to BOMB anymore, and the others out there (ESPECIALLY the Dmax) has it's finer points too.

OK, snowracer69, I'll conceed my post was a bit flippant, but it was meant to be. I'll admit the DuraMax engine has been proving itself as being a very bomb-able platform. The remaining question is how long it will last at these levels relative to the proven history of the CTD. But the point is still valid. Up until the last few years, the CTD has been a very durable, reliable and comparatively inexpensive engine to uprate. Now they are still durable, it just costs more. There's not a lot of DuraMaxs or Powerstrokes out there doing 800 HP on #2 alone, but there are CTDs. And they're holding together. The new '04 CTD could swing the pendelum back our way.



And the CTD is not without problems (KDP, lift pumps, etc. ). But the basic motor is tough to beat.



Notice also that Cyborg asked about the CTD, not the truck it's in. I like the looks and features of the other brands, especially the true crewcab versions.



So, cheers to you for sticking up for the others. They do deserve some credit. That competition keeps the Big 3 providing us with better trucks every year or two.



One last thing - the only boxes I stack in mine are in the bed. Mines a 12-valve!



-Jay

 

[HoleshotHolset]

One last thing - the only boxes I stack in mine are in the bed. Mines a 12-valve!

Amen to that, brother!



It is quite a amazing how much power the DMax guys/gals are getting with the stock turbo...



Matt

 

[snowracer69]

It is quite a amazing how much power the DMax guys/gals are getting with the stock turbo...



Matt

nearly 800 now... . he's on both drugs though, but still... . 800 on stock turbo? :--)

 

[DPelletier]

Cyborg,

I'll tell you what thier perception (not necessarily reality) is in my experience;



The Ford guys will tell you;

- The Dodge isn't as well built

- The Dodge auto sucks

- The PSD is faster

- Ford trucks are tougher

- the Dodge crewcab sucks



The GM guys will tell you;

- The Dodge isn't as well built

- The Dodge auto sucks (they'll go on and on about the Allison)

- The DM is faster

- The GM interior is nicer

- the GM truck rides better

- The Dodge crewcab sucks



They both will generally admit that the Cummins is a good engine and is reliable, although it's usually followed by a comment suggesting that it is an old-fashioned power plant and that aluminum/VGT/V-8/High revving/quiet/high-tech diesels are the way of the future. Some guys still think that Ford owns Cummins, so they'll throw that out there as proof that the PSD is a better engine (otherwise, Ford would have just used the Cummins). On the other hand, thier website had a poll a while ago and even most of the Ford guys indicated that they'd rather have the Cummins than the 6. 0 PSD. Of course the poll was shut down.



The reality? Well, reality changes greatly depending on our own point of view, but I would suggest;

- The Dodge build quality is up there with the others. Maybe some truth to this 20 years ago, but DC has come a long way.

- The 48RE has proven to be very reliable, although it should be a 5 spd and be exhaust brake compatible if we wanted to claim superiority in this department.

- The Cummins cranks out as much power as the others, but that isn't really why its better. It's better because it develops way more low end torque, its simpler and WAY stronger. It will outlast the others by a long shot. (They'll just say "what difference will it make, the truck will fall apart long before that")

- interior and exterior asthetics are purely subjective, but no matter what you like, you have to give DC credit for being the ones braking new ground. The current Ford and DM styling cues are copied from the 2nd gen trucks. Personally, I think the Ford looks OK, the Dodge looks good, and the Chevy looks like it was designed by a high school dropout on crack. The Dodge interior may not be the "cushiest", but I believe it is the most functional. I like it.

- I think the Dodge rides too nice, if anything. My 3500 4x4 DRW truck rides smoother and softer than any 3/4 ton I've had before. Soft rides sell trucks, but I would prefer stiffer rear springs

- The crewcab issue is real, although the Quad Cab is much better than the other's extended cabs. Personally, the QC is enough for my purposes, but for those that need or prefer the larger cabs, ours falls a little short.



ps. I assumed that when you said "Dodge CTD" that you were talking about the whole truck, not just the engine.



Cheers,

Dave

 

[CyberRanger]

What hasn't been mentioned here specifically, is that the CTD is a mid-size engine that was placed in a light duty truck. By "light duty" I mean "pickup. " "Medium duty" is the F600-F800 Fords, C60 GM, S1600 International sized trucks, w/ GVW in the ~15K-30K range. "Heavy Duty" refers to anything bigger than that.



So what it comes down to, is the Dodges have a medium duty engine in a light duty truck which translates to a ridiculous lifespan on the engine and/or the ability to put out silly power. Both the Duramutt & the PowerSmokes are light duty engines. You'll never see either one in anything bigger than a 1½ ton pickup. The Cummins 5. 9 is possibly the most widely used engine in its class. I've seen 5. 9s in virtually every type of lighter duty construction equipment (pavers, small graders, rollers, compactors, even gensets. )



Yes, the CTD is heavy. So far, there is no such thing as a lightweight, long lasting powerful diesel engine. You either lose the weight along w/ longevity & power or you keep the weight & have an engine that'll outlast & out torque everthing else. Besides, the heavy CTD makes it ride better. :-laf



Also, Dodge & Ford are usin' the same axles now. So that's a wash. GM is usin' lighter (weight) axles in order to increase capacity, but losin' strength in the mix. So, there's area where Dodge & Ford are superior. Back in the early '70s, the only real differences between the Big Three were the body & the engine. They all, for all intents & purposes, used identical drivelines. Dana axles, NP transfer cases (4x4s) & SM trannies (except for automatics). I have Ford hubs on my '71 Chevy K20! Could it be we're headed back there again?



Personally, I don't believe an juice transmission belongs behind a diesel unless its an Allison 7500 or the like. All three (except of course now the Duramax Allison) are usin' beefed automotive style autos, none of which were designed nor ever intended for use behind a diesel. Diesel engines put out harmonic vibrations automotive engineers designing auto trannies never dreamed about. Frankly, the Allison, in being reliable behind a diesel, sucks up far too much engine power, which is why you don't see Allison trannies in over-the-road trucks. They are used in specific situations where shifting a lot is either totally undesirable or unwanted (local delivery, rentals, emergency equipment, etc. ).



What it comes down to for me is which truck is really a better truck (not a truck that is tryin' to act like a car). The Cummins is the far superior engine. Dodge & Ford have the same axles, so the Dodge gets the nod b/c of its engine. Dodge has the GMs beat on engine & axles, so Dodge gets the nod there, too. Ford is movin' to the same front axles geometry as the Dodge (what does that say?). Don't even talk to me about their old "Twin Traction Beam" ******* child they had for years. I used to be a front-end alignment guy & that was an experiment that lasted way too long. GM is still beatin' the same dead IFS-front-suspension horse. It has the wheel travel of Tonka Toy & about the same ride. Its fine--as long as you stay on perfectly smooth pavement & never experience a pothole deeper than 1½". On anything else it sucks. My Dad has a GMC & has finally come to this same conclusion (after buyin' the GMC b/c of its superior ride). Now he's wishin' he'd bought a Dodge, especially given the price of gas & fuel.



If you want a truck that behaves like a car, buy a Ford. If you want a truck to use as a truck, get a Dodge. Why you'd want a GM, I have no idea, unless gizmos like 4 wheel steering (more stuff to break & less capacity) & the goofiest lookin' front grill since the '58 Dodge appeal to you.

 

[JL penner]

Amen to that brother!!

 

[pwerwagn]

Im not starting a war here, just clearing a few things up:

Also, Dodge & Ford are usin' the same axles now

Actually, ford and dodge dont use the same axles. Ford uses a Dana 60 up front (new for 05, used to be a dana 50). The rear is still a sterling 10. 25 I believe. Dodge uses AAM axles, as well as chevrolet. The rear axle in a dodge is either a AAM 10. 5 or an AAM 11. 5 (I believe the 10. 5 is only used in 2500 hemis, but maybe also 2500 cummins). Dodge uses an AAM 9. 25 up front, similar in design but not exactly the same as the older "light duty" GM 2500 rear semi floating axles. GM uses AAM rear axles.

Back in the early '70s, the only real differences between the Big Three were the body & the engine. They all, for all intents & purposes, used identical drivelines. Dana axles, NP transfer cases (4x4s) & SM trannies (except for automatics).

Back in the 70's, much was different than the body/engine. Dodge and ford both used dana parts in 3/4 tons, but not rear axles on 1/2 tons, where Ford mostly used a 9" and dodge used a 8-3/4" and then a 9-1/4". The fronts were both dana, but ford was on the drivers side as opposed to the pass side. chevy used dana front ends up until ~77/78 and then went with the 10-bolt. Chevy rarely used dana's in the rear. They had 10, 12 and 14 bolts (the 14 bolt is pretty close to the AAM 10. 5 today).

Dodge never used an SM trans, and neither did ford. Chevy used SM420's and 465's. Dodge and ford used NP435's. Ford also did not exclusivley use NP X-cases either, they also used dana cases. To sum up, chevy never used dana in the rear, dodge and ford never used SM trannies, and although the fronts of all three were dana in the early 70's, none were the same.



Everybody I talk to with psd's and dmax's tell me they dont want a cummins for these reasons:

small 4-door

interior is junk (i disagree)

the cummins is slower

the whole ford owns cummins story discussed earlier

the auto sucks

and the new one going around is the cummins 600 gets bad mileage.

 

[BigDan]

Actually GM was still using Dana 60's upfront until the late 80's. I know this because that where I got my 60 front for my toyota. Off a 85 K30 SRW

 

[pwerwagn]

yeah, I was implying 1/2 and 3/4 tons only, even though I did not state that. Actually, GM used dana 60's up until 1991. If you got a suburban or a 1-ton truck, the solid front axle was used until 91. Every 1-ton truck from the big three used the dana 60 front, up until 91 for gm, until 97 for ford (and now in 05 again), and until 02 for dodge.

 

[biggy238]

Well... Given the number of log trucks around here. . I've been raised under the impression that a TRUCK only needs a steering wheel and A shifter of some sort. . The brakes/pedals are optional. That's all you need for an interior.



Look at any old toyota with half the body gone and it's still clucking down the road and that should give you an idea that the bodies on trucks are also worthless to a point.



That leaves us with the engines. The cummins, 4. 0 jeeps, ford 300's and gm inlines are all inherently torquers due to the crank throw and duration afforded to these engines. You just can't do that with a reasonably small v8 anything. I bought my diesel because it can MOVE the 10,000lb truck that I found to be most comfortable given my size. It and anything I load in it, that is. And all on decent mileage.



That leaves me at this.



If you want a lightweight, highrevving engine, grab the Dmax. Thats what import engines do. Thats all it's good at and people can use it to their advantage.



This is where i'll give it up to ford. Ford Has the international v8 thing worked out. What they don't have (as with any international i've ever seen) is an injection system.

Ford has been so thoroughly dissappointed with Internationals 6. 0 computers that they are considering cummins for a true light duty diesel to put in the -150 whatever truck platform.



This is where cummins Shines. Cummins might not out run, or outrev anything but By God it will be there when the others have gone to the house because they tried to outwork it.



Since i've joined the TDR i've noticed the trend that the Automotive Cummins platforms are SERIOUSLY detuned engines. The Fords and the Chevy trucks have been pulling out everything they know to do to keep up, stay legal and maintain stamina. It just isn't working out for them, with engine revisions every 18-24 months. Cummins hasn't done that. They've had what, 4 major revisions in design in the last 16 years? Thats the same I6 design for almost as many years as I am old.





For all this. . I'll stick with cummins until mine dies in another 300,000 miles, the same amount of time in which GM will have switched to honda diesel rather than Isuzu, and ford will have killed international completely. By then I should be able to buy the new 1000ft-lb cummins i'm sure will have come to market.

 

[RobertMiller1]

I wouldn't bet on the "inferior" isuzu diesel. Isuzu makes more diesels than anyone in the world. The duramax is a respectable engine.



... and the torqueflite is mighty fine with a shift improver kit in it.