PDA

View Full Version : 6.7 powerstroke or 6.7 cummins?


AEL
07-16-2010, 04:07 PM
Hey guys im looking at getting a 2011 Ford f350 4x4 drw or a 2010 ram 3500 4x4 drw for a daily driver and tow rig. Just wondering what your opinions are engine wise. I have herd alot of positive on the new 6.7 ps , but havent herd much on the new cummins. I will be towing a Goose neck trailer with a skid steer and mini ex on it frequently. Intake, exhaust, and gauges will be put on it almost right away to lower and monitor my egts. Both trucks will be crew cab/ mega cab configurations.

P.Services
07-16-2010, 05:54 PM
Why not just go with a proven winner? Dura-max.
Posted via Mobile Device

360ci
07-17-2010, 12:26 AM
What you decide to get ultimately comes down to what YOU want.

I vote the Cummins. Pros: longest TBO on the market, inline six proven design is easier on maintenance, labour costs and has fewer parts to worry about which means better reliability. It also does not require urea fluid to operate. Con: price

The Ford 6.7L is a new design and has yet to be proven, even if it's built by Ford and not Navistar, I'd give it a year at least for them to work out the bugs. Cons: Heavier engine than an I6, more moving parts, more that can go wrong. In other words, it's similar to a Duramax.

Sorry, I just don't like V8 diesels. Gas engine, yes, diesel I6. Unless it's a BMW.

Junior M
07-17-2010, 12:37 AM
I'd go with the cummins, its been on the market longer. Seems to have proved itself in this area.

Alot of new Dodges and Chevys running around. Nobody is sure about the Fords.

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-17-2010, 01:27 AM
heres the thing, although they tout the new cummins 6.7 as not needing def (urea) everything is headed that way. look at the 6.4psd and 6.6 dmax, they are both emissions diesels and are getting worse mileage than their pre-emissions predecessors.

now, with the new lmm dmax and 6.7psd using urea, people are seeing 20+mpgs again. i have even seen 24mpg hand cald by a guy on diesel stop in his 6.7. i have no info on the lmm's as they are not even out yet.

the point im trying to get at is that even if urea is an added item to keep track of, the mileage gains you are getting are pretty tremendous. especially in the ford trucks, as mine weighs 8500lbs and its an srw. and refill intervals arebetween 3000 and 5000 miles, so its not like your topping off every time you fill the fuel tank.

dodge is missing out by staying away from the urea game and relying solely on regenerations to meet the emission standards.

go out and test drive a 6.7 cummins and then try the new 6.7psd. i guarantee you that you will want the powerstroke. plus you get more bang for the buck with all the added towing goodies ford has vs. the dodge like hill start assist, hill descent control, trailer sway control, and the best integrated braking system.

now i may sound like a ford junkie but before i got my 09 6.4 psd i did go and test drive a 6.7 cummins and wasnt that impressed. besides they wanted the same amount of money on a mid level dodge quad cab short bed as i got my crew cab long bed loaded lariat.

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-17-2010, 01:35 AM
I'd go with the cummins, its been on the market longer. Seems to have proved itself in this area.

Alot of new Dodges and Chevys running around. Nobody is sure about the Fords.

just my observations but in my area its prolly about 60% powerstrokes then dmaxes followed by cummins and its been like this for a long time.


What you decide to get ultimately comes down to what YOU want.

I vote the Cummins. Pros: longest TBO on the market, inline six proven design is easier on maintenance, labour costs and has fewer parts to worry about which means better reliability. It also does not require urea fluid to operate. Con: price

The Ford 6.7L is a new design and has yet to be proven, even if it's built by Ford and not Navistar, I'd give it a year at least for them to work out the bugs. Cons: Heavier engine than an I6, more moving parts, more that can go wrong. In other words, it's similar to a Duramax.

Sorry, I just don't like V8 diesels. Gas engine, yes, diesel I6. Unless it's a BMW.

good points brought up. how many miles are year are you gonna put on it? will tbo be a deciding factor? i put about 25K per year on my truck. and no major issues. only motor related issue i had was a recall where they changed injector o rings and installed a new style egr body. only took a day in the shop.

the powerstroke is heavier but at least ford puts a big enough axle under there. this was extremely important to us as we do alot of snow removal and the 6K fgawr is key. had to replace both wheel bearings/hub assemblies on our chevy and now the passenger side cv axle.

the 6.7L cummins has had its fair share of initial problems mainly turbo issues. you just dont hear about them as often b/c there arent as many around as powerstrokes. check out the forums on both and dig up some info.

i know ford had plenty of issues with the early 6.0 and thats why i crossed my fingers and bought an 06. oasis report was clear and we got it with 82K in the spring and we are now close to 90K and no problems.

360ci
07-17-2010, 08:26 AM
heres the thing, although they tout the new cummins 6.7 as not needing def (urea) everything is headed that way. look at the 6.4psd and 6.6 dmax, they are both emissions diesels and are getting worse mileage than their pre-emissions predecessors.

now, with the new lmm dmax and 6.7psd using urea, people are seeing 20+mpgs again. i have even seen 24mpg hand cald by a guy on diesel stop in his 6.7. i have no info on the lmm's as they are not even out yet.

the point im trying to get at is that even if urea is an added item to keep track of, the mileage gains you are getting are pretty tremendous. especially in the ford trucks, as mine weighs 8500lbs and its an srw. and refill intervals arebetween 3000 and 5000 miles, so its not like your topping off every time you fill the fuel tank.

dodge is missing out by staying away from the urea game and relying solely on regenerations to meet the emission standards.

go out and test drive a 6.7 cummins and then try the new 6.7psd. i guarantee you that you will want the powerstroke. plus you get more bang for the buck with all the added towing goodies ford has vs. the dodge like hill start assist, hill descent control, trailer sway control, and the best integrated braking system.

now i may sound like a ford junkie but before i got my 09 6.4 psd i did go and test drive a 6.7 cummins and wasnt that impressed. besides they wanted the same amount of money on a mid level dodge quad cab short bed as i got my crew cab long bed loaded lariat.

Ford and Chevy use regenerations as well, every 500-600miles, PLUS the urea system. I also vote Cummins because they're currently keeping power and torque real for an operator. A 400hp diesel? WTF. Obviously the gas engine will get better mileage with it being in the mid to lower 300hp range. Ford and GM are starting down a bad path. The Fords performance still lacks mainly because it weighs nearly a half ton more than its competitors. Dodge also has the best turning radius in its class. So if plowing lots are tight, it'd be the one to get. five to eight feet can mean a big difference in how many times you gotta throw the vehicle from reverse to drive to get around objects.

I know I've said it again elsewhere on here, but Ford F250 Lariat was rated the second worst value and tops in worst fuel consumption in it's class for 2010 by Consumer Reports. I don't have anything against Ford, as I own a Taurus and it still runs like a top.

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-17-2010, 08:56 AM
Ford and Chevy use regenerations as well, every 500-600miles, PLUS the urea system. I also vote Cummins because they're currently keeping power and torque real for an operator. A 400hp diesel? WTF. Obviously the gas engine will get better mileage with it being in the mid to lower 300hp range. Ford and GM are starting down a bad path. The Fords performance still lacks mainly because it weighs nearly a half ton more than its competitors. Dodge also has the best turning radius in its class. So if plowing lots are tight, it'd be the one to get. five to eight feet can mean a big difference in how many times you gotta throw the vehicle from reverse to drive to get around objects.

I know I've said it again elsewhere on here, but Ford F250 Lariat was rated the second worst value and tops in worst fuel consumption in it's class for 2010 by Consumer Reports. I don't have anything against Ford, as I own a Taurus and it still runs like a top.
Reply With Quote

regenerations without urea last longer and occur much more frequently regardless of which diesel it is. the regen cycles on the new diesels are going to happen alot less often compared to the 6.7 cummins. and the regen cycles without urea can last up to 30min depending on conditions. and this is what kills mileage.

as for lacking performance b/c of weight, i can tell you that when i floor my powerstroke and those turbos spool that im not left with the idea of lacking performance. and when it comes to towing my 25' deckover and 10K lb asv rc100 ill go for the ford above all else b/c of the fact that it weighs more. just the empty trailer tends to toss our chevy around alot more. when your towing heavy you want a heavy truck to keep from getting bossed around.

i dont even need to touch the consumer reports statement, if you want a refridgerator or washing machine ya ask them. a work truck? please.

does dodge have a tighter radius than chevy? ill be the first to admit that our chevy will out maneuver my 350. but it excels in many other aspects as well.

i sat in the new dodges at the auto show and i was def not impressed with the interior. it felt very cheap. when pulling the door pull handles you can watch the interior flex, the plastic on the compartments was cheap etc... before 08 i think fords interior was very blah. 08+ i believe ford has the best interiors hands down. everything is built solid. im not a huge fan of the current chevy interior as it looks just like their impalas/malibus and is very sparse. but all this is opinion anyway.

honestly, go test drive each and decide on your own. read up on the forums to see what issues and how guys are feeling about their trucks after putting some miles on them.

and about the power numbers, if you can have ~400hp and almsot 800 tq (both dmax and psd are close to these #'s) along with 20 mpgs why wouldnt your? lol

ZTR_Diesel
07-17-2010, 10:14 AM
Forget all that modern EPA-approved machinery.

Why don't you just install this in your current truck and enjoy it: :dancing:

360ci
07-17-2010, 05:02 PM
I'd get a HD GM, but only with the gas engine. I won't even look at a Ford 5.4 (maybe a 6.2!) or a Ram Hemi. For diesel, I'd take the Dodge. I'd rather get a couple mpg less at times than having to worry about refilling the urea, which you will go through quite a bit when working the truck hard. Urea makes more sense in smaller passenger diesels, or on this continent V6 diesels which are only found on premium SUVs, for the most part.

If I planned to commute like crazy, a diesel would make sense if I just wanted longer range, decent mileage and wasnt' planning to tow haul more than a couple passengers. For a HD truck, I won't want one with the urea after treatment system.

Knowingly if I get a HD truck, it'll be the gas GM, as all the diesels are $10K, plus 2-3K for the transmission, whereas I can get a 6 speed manual with the Ram and save me that extra $2.5K. Canadian prices are way out of control.

GravelyGuy
07-17-2010, 07:12 PM
I went and drove one of the new Powerstrokes today. OMG, awesome:dancing:

The 6.7 is amazing. The truck is effortless to drive with it. I am considering one.

The dealer told me 5 gallons of Urea every 5000-7500 miles at $2.50-$5.00 per gallon depending where you get it. The fill up is by the gas door. Not really a huge deal IMO.

He did say that the truck would not run past idle once the urea runs out. He said it will give you plenty of advance warning.

castlerockmo
07-17-2010, 07:30 PM
I don't know if it has been brought up, but I know a guy who has a 6.7 cummins and he is only getting 7mpg pulling his horse trailer. The new cummins has the urea injections as well. So my vote is for the PSD, it get way better fuel mileage and is way quieter!
Posted via Mobile Device

360ci
07-17-2010, 09:23 PM
I don't know if it has been brought up, but I know a guy who has a 6.7 cummins and he is only getting 7mpg pulling his horse trailer. The new cummins has the urea injections as well. So my vote is for the PSD, it get way better fuel mileage and is way quieter!
Posted via Mobile Device

I wouldn't base it off of one poor mileage truck. I'd get the cummins for the I6 design, even if it's 40 or so HP less. I know of someone else who had an older 5.9L 4valve cummins and he was getting poor mileage when towing. The dealer flashed the computer and by weeks end his mileage improved some 35%.

TGM
07-18-2010, 01:39 AM
rip the DPF crap off and you're back up towards the 18,20 mpg range on the 6.7 cummins. i'm sure the 6.7 ford will be similar too.

any new engine makes great power with just a programmer (the cummins tends to need bigger injectors though). i've always been a cummins guy, but am impressed by the 6.4's being so damn quick with just a spartan tune.

ford 6.7 straight pipe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3eRKxGuJFM

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-18-2010, 04:55 PM
The new cummins has the urea injections as well. So my vote is for the PSD, it get way better fuel mileage and is way quieter!
Posted via Mobile Device

the cab & chassis have the urea, p/u's dont yet. at least until the next wave of epa standards comes down the line.

as was mentioned, you could prolly get some killer deals on a 2010 6.4 psd, do a dpf delete and get a spartan tune and pretty much destroy any truck on the road while getting 18mpgs empty. the 6.4's are VERY responsive to tuning and once all the egr and dpf crap are gone and the motor isnt choked you get rid of prolly 90% of the problems that you would run into.

WH401
07-19-2010, 01:52 PM
Other than having an 01' 7.3 Excursion, I been a long time Dodge buyer, and I honestly have to say that I wouldn't by the 6.7 Cummins. Not because it's a bad engine, it's really a pretty stout engine, but the lack of urea injection on it is really hurting it. Yeah, Dodge can boast that they don't have to use it, but they really should. The thing about urea injection is that it eliminates the need to heavily engineer the engine to treat itself, where as urea injection after treats the exhaust and the engine can stay relatively normal. This lets you keep the decent fuel mileage, power, and reliability. Another reason I wouldn't buy the Dodge is that because other than the engine, the rest of the truck is a Fiat, and I refuse to buy a foreign/government owned vehicle.

The new 6.7 Powerstroke so far has turned out to be nothing short of amazing. It has great power with very good mileage for a post "emission required" diesel. Not to mention that it's mated to the all new 6r140 6 speed Torque-shift transmission which bests the Allison in every category. The transmission can be started off in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gear...the torque converter locks up at 30 miles an hour, the unique gearing of the transmission allows you to run a 3.55 rear axle and still have a better final drive ratio then that of a truck with a 5r110 auto and a 4.30 rear axle, and to top it all off it has a manual shift mode. There are a few other reason I would buy a Ford too, the main one being that the Super Duty is the only truck on the market that still comes offered with manual locking hubs on the front wheels. Ford has really hit a home run with this truck, and I have only heard of two small issues with the truck so far, but nothing catastrophic that would keep you from driving it like with the 6.0 or 6.4.

lawn king
07-19-2010, 08:12 PM
Why not just go with a proven winner? Dura-max.
Posted via Mobile Device

5 proven generations over the last decade. Duramax/allison is a tough act to follow!

GravelyGuy
07-19-2010, 08:41 PM
Other than having an 01' 7.3 Excursion, I been a long time Dodge buyer, and I honestly have to say that I wouldn't by the 6.7 Cummins. Not because it's a bad engine, it's really a pretty stout engine, but the lack of urea injection on it is really hurting it. Yeah, Dodge can boast that they don't have to use it, but they really should. The thing about urea injection is that it eliminates the need to heavily engineer the engine to treat itself, where as urea injection after treats the exhaust and the engine can stay relatively normal. This lets you keep the decent fuel mileage, power, and reliability. Another reason I wouldn't buy the Dodge is that because other than the engine, the rest of the truck is a Fiat, and I refuse to buy a foreign/government owned vehicle.

The new 6.7 Powerstroke so far has turned out to be nothing short of amazing. It has great power with very good mileage for a post "emission required" diesel. Not to mention that it's mated to the all new 6r140 6 speed Torque-shift transmission which bests the Allison in every category. The transmission can be started off in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gear...the torque converter locks up at 30 miles an hour, the unique gearing of the transmission allows you to run a 3.55 rear axle and still have a better final drive ratio then that of a truck with a 5r110 auto and a 4.30 rear axle, and to top it all off it has a manual shift mode. There are a few other reason I would buy a Ford too, the main one being that the Super Duty is the only truck on the market that still comes offered with manual locking hubs on the front wheels. Ford has really hit a home run with this truck, and I have only heard of two small issues with the truck so far, but nothing catastrophic that would keep you from driving it like with the 6.0 or 6.4.

What were the small issues you've hear of?

Your right about the gearing. I don't think you can even get the 3.73 or 4.30 anymore. Now it's 3.33 or 3.55.

I drove the 3.33 and it had no low end problems.:clapping:

lawnspecialties
07-19-2010, 09:34 PM
If you're looking for a new Power Stroke, wait a few months. Seems they want to do a little more. When do we stop? 1000 lb./ft.?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/sources-say-ford-planning-800-pounds-feet-of-torque-for-6-7-power-stroke-diesel.html

360ci
07-19-2010, 09:43 PM
If you're looking for a new Power Stroke, wait a few months. Seems they want to do a little more. When do we stop? 1000 lb./ft.?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/sources-say-ford-planning-800-pounds-feet-of-torque-for-6-7-power-stroke-diesel.html

Exactly. People wonder why the economy is the way it is. More, more, more. My generation is the worst, they want everything without having to work for it.

TGM
07-19-2010, 10:00 PM
Exactly. People wonder why the economy is the way it is. More, more, more. My generation is the worst, they want everything without having to work for it.

i'm a bit confused about your statement when it comes to talking about 1000 foot pounds of torque. first of all, it's at the engine. second, you can easily get past that with a programmer, injectors, etc. at the rear wheels. third, we're talking about diesel engines :confused:

Gravel Rat
07-19-2010, 11:44 PM
New emmissions diesels are not worth it the newer they get the worse they are. If you are doing towing on a regular basis I would be considering a medium duty like a Freightliner M2. The truck will last 10 years they are easier to work on and easily get 500,000 kilometers on the truck.

ZTR_Diesel
07-20-2010, 12:32 AM
Exactly. People wonder why the economy is the way it is. More, more, more. My generation is the worst, they want everything without having to work for it.

Exactly why I "settle" for a 12-valve, stock Cummins with "only" 215 bhp and 440 lb-ft of torque. Contentment and lack of any payment = freedom. Plus, who on earth actually cares how much lb-ft your engine makes. If you need all that...go back to the post I placed on the first page of this thread.

At least that was homemade by someone with some creativity.

As to your truck decision, get what suits your needs. But consider the fact that it's still a pretty unstable time, and saving your money a while may be a wise choice down the road. :usflag:

lawn king
07-20-2010, 06:36 AM
Torque,torque,touque! These trucks go through rubber fast. I dont drive hard at all, if i spin my tires its by accident or plowing snow, but the torque is always there & it eats up the rubber!

Junior M
07-20-2010, 10:13 AM
having the power available is nice! just because you got 1000ft/lbs doesnt mean you gotta use it.
Posted via Mobile Device

lawn king
07-20-2010, 12:42 PM
having the power available is nice! just because you got 1000ft/lbs doesnt mean you gotta use it.
Posted via Mobile Device

True, but the torque is always there, tires go fast.

DoetschOutdoor
07-20-2010, 02:10 PM
Show me your dyno #'s for 1000lbs of torque...Ive owned a diesel for a whopping 4 payments so far and 1000lbs is very much on a stock driveline, even I know that. Once you get up to them kinda numbers, hope you got 4k cash sitting in a bank just waiting to throw away. All those ppl on the forums and in magazines pushing 1,000lbs, their trucks are HIGHLY modded. Might be nice coming from Ford with a 100k warranty but....

GravelyGuy
07-20-2010, 08:05 PM
If you're looking for a new Power Stroke, wait a few months. Seems they want to do a little more. When do we stop? 1000 lb./ft.?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/sources-say-ford-planning-800-pounds-feet-of-torque-for-6-7-power-stroke-diesel.html

Do you guys think this will just be a computer update like the article says? I would hate to buy now and miss out. I mean I will barely be able to pull my trailer without that extra 65 lbs torque:rolleyes:

WH401
07-21-2010, 12:38 AM
What were the small issues you've hear of?

Your right about the gearing. I don't think you can even get the 3.73 or 4.30 anymore. Now it's 3.33 or 3.55.

I drove the 3.33 and it had no low end problems.:clapping:

The two issues I heard about were:

1. The DPF lines that run along the frame from the tank to the engine getting crushed when the truck was strapped to a trailer or train car during shipping. Just caused a CEL and the dealer replaced without an issue. Didn't seem like it was wide spread.

2. A hiccup, if you could call it that, with the shift from 1-2 or 2-3, can't remember specifically which. Owners have said it wasn't really a bother or a drive inhibiting issue, but they just wondered about it. I'm pretty sure it was something that could be fixed in a programming TSB.

A 3rd issue I have heard about is something with the waste gate not being adjusted properly from the factory, but this turned out to be only a very, very, isolated issue that only affected a few trucks. I've only read about handful of people on dieselstop having this issue and it just caused the truck to randomly seem like it had no boost, and then later it would return.

That said, I'd still buy one if I was in the market for one.

Another plus for the truck?, required cab removal for repairs are a thing of the past.:clapping:

GravelyGuy
07-21-2010, 01:10 AM
The two issues I heard about were:

1. The DPF lines that run along the frame from the tank to the engine getting crushed when the truck was strapped to a trailer or train car during shipping. Just caused a CEL and the dealer replaced without an issue. Didn't seem like it was wide spread.

2. A hiccup, if you could call it that, with the shift from 1-2 or 2-3, can't remember specifically which. Owners have said it wasn't really a bother or a drive inhibiting issue, but they just wondered about it. I'm pretty sure it was something that could be fixed in a programming TSB.

A 3rd issue I have heard about is something with the waste gate not being adjusted properly from the factory, but this turned out to be only a very, very, isolated issue that only affected a few trucks. I've only read about handful of people on dieselstop having this issue and it just caused the truck to randomly seem like it had no boost, and then later it would return.

That said, I'd still buy one if I was in the market for one.

Another plus for the truck?, required cab removal for repairs are a thing of the past.:clapping:

Thank you.

I know they are saying no cab removal, but if you look under the hood all you can say is WTF?

Gravel Rat
07-21-2010, 01:23 AM
Big power numbers sell vehicals you don't need big power in a pickup truck. People have forgotten the KISS principal the new trucks are so overly complicated and expensive to repair you walk like you have rode a horse for 8 hours.

Sorry gas pots are the only way to go you may burn more fuel but atleast the truck isn't costing you more to buy. A gas engine is easier to fix any mechanic at a dealer can work on it. Gas engines don't have the extremely expensive emmission crap that will fail and cost you more money.

Diesel trucks don't get the fuel mileage anymore your lucky to break the 15mpg mark. Owning a diesel for fuel mileage it out the window and owning a diesel truck for resale value is another joke people forget how much extra they paid for the diesel truck. Who is going to buy a used diesel truck with no warranty.

In Canada we get taken to the cleaners on vehical prices what you can buy in the USA we pay almost 10 grand more.

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-21-2010, 09:29 AM
c'mon gr keep up! the new urea treated diesels are getting 20+ mpg again.

to tell you the truth, i rarely do anything under the hood of my 6.4L psd. the only thing i do under there is run wiring for aux lights, HID's etc... i get oil changes done at the dealer as they can do it cheaper than what i can get the materials for and same with fuel filter changes every 15-20K. like i said, havent touched a thing under there which is very unusual for me as we do all our maintenance in house or should i say in driveway.

WH401
07-21-2010, 12:00 PM
Thank you.

I know they are saying no cab removal, but if you look under the hood all you can say is WTF?

No problem.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think there thought is that everything that's vital, or that was a common failure in the past, is now in easily accessible area's. Who knows though.

Gravel Rat
07-21-2010, 03:02 PM
c'mon gr keep up! the new urea treated diesels are getting 20+ mpg again.

to tell you the truth, i rarely do anything under the hood of my 6.4L psd. the only thing i do under there is run wiring for aux lights, HID's etc... i get oil changes done at the dealer as they can do it cheaper than what i can get the materials for and same with fuel filter changes every 15-20K. like i said, havent touched a thing under there which is very unusual for me as we do all our maintenance in house or should i say in driveway.

I would like to see a diesel truck get 20 mpg a person would have to be dreaming or live where there is no hills. Nobody around here has bought a new 6.7 yet not many people have 75,000 dollars for a new pickup no guinea pigs to see what the new engine is like.

There is many 6.4s around here that have been problem free and happy with them.

Chevy z71
07-21-2010, 03:18 PM
dura max or cummins

lawn king
07-21-2010, 05:10 PM
I can get 20 mpg in my duramax if i keep it 60-65 mph. Thats on rt 89, through the mountains in vermont.

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-21-2010, 05:15 PM
ok, heres some info:

poll on whether or not 6.7L owners are happy with their purchase:
http://www.thedieselstop.com/forums/f149/current-6-7-owners-you-happy-261480/

thread on mileage numbers that current owners are reporting along with conditions:
http://www.thedieselstop.com/forums/f149/what-kind-mileage-you-guys-getting-256088/

ProTouch Groundscapes
07-21-2010, 05:34 PM
and heres a head to head to head comparison of the newest offerings of each of the big three, and yes its an LMM duramax in that gmc:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/comparisons/heavy-duty-diesel-pickup-comparison-test

Junior M
07-21-2010, 11:00 PM
True, but the torque is always there, tires go fast.
But if you learn the feel of the truck, you can pull away from stop lights at a normal speed without testing zero to sixy and leaving blackmarks.

Gravel Rat
07-22-2010, 12:23 AM
Have to give the new engines a year to see what happens and what problems arise.

lawn king
07-22-2010, 06:55 AM
But if you learn the feel of the truck, you can pull away from stop lights at a normal speed without testing zero to sixy and leaving blackmarks.

There is no toggle switch to turn down the torque, no matter how you drive. These big power pickups go through tires faster, i have 50,000 on my dmax & have seen it myself.

lawnspecialties
07-23-2010, 04:28 PM
i'm a bit confused about your statement when it comes to talking about 1000 foot pounds of torque. first of all, it's at the engine. second, you can easily get past that with a programmer, injectors, etc. at the rear wheels. third, we're talking about diesel engines :confused:

Continuing to crank these engines up is fine. But if one manufacturer would stop at the point we're at now and start turning out huge mpg numbers and a tremendous durability reputation, I think you'd see quite a few folks heading their way and leaving the big HP trucks to the sled pullers and drag racers.

underPSI
08-10-2010, 05:39 PM
But if one manufacturer would stop at the point we're at now and start turning out huge mpg numbers and a tremendous durability reputation

Isn't this what the Duramax has already done? Highest hp/torque and the best mpg along with proven reliability!

all ferris
08-10-2010, 10:58 PM
these truck are starting to become like computer equipment. I have a 02 duramax and a 08 powerstroke and both of them are ancient. Spend 50k on a truck and 6 months later you have technology that may as well have been from the ice age.:hammerhead:

outlaw1960
08-11-2010, 12:34 AM
We have been running class 8 trucks with the urea injection and they are averaging 9 mpg....with 44k average behind them, which is up from 5.6 to 6.3. I average 15.6 with 8k behind my pre=emission 7.3l......in the foothills of Colorado.

maelawncare
08-11-2010, 08:31 AM
I average 15.6 with 8k behind my pre=emission 7.3l......in the foothills of Colorado.

Must be nice. I average 9.1mpg with my 7.3 dually towing 6k enclosed :( But its better than the 7.2mpg that my f250 v10 was getting. My cost per mile on the 7.3 is only $0.29 and on the v10 is $0.40. So not only is it much better to drive but i am saving a little bit of money, even with the extra cost of oil changes.

POPO4995
08-11-2010, 08:39 AM
I would go with a Cummins. Play with it a little and you should see a mileage increase.

AA+ landscaping
08-12-2010, 06:29 PM
I'm running a dodge 5500 dump pulling a 20ft enclosed trailer and get around 9.6 miles to a gallon.

stuvecorp
08-13-2010, 09:23 PM
I had a cam sensor go on my 550 and the mechanic was very positive on the new Ford 6.7. He thought Ford got it right this time, I was intrigued that he was so positive.

SellingIron
08-13-2010, 09:56 PM
I run a 2006 Dodge 3500 5.9 with edge and attitude with 120000 miles. No major issues (Wheres a piece of wood) I tow on average around 11,500 lbs most of the time.

I talked to my customer last week and he runs a 2006 GMC DURAMAX with 100k. Replaced brakes and transmission. Since he has owned it, has spent around $16k in service work. Last one he will buy...


NO SURE ON THE Ford and the 6.7. I would wait until the bugs are worked out on it..

lawnspecialties
08-24-2010, 07:58 PM
Isn't this what the Duramax has already done? Highest hp/torque and the best mpg along with proven reliability!

I wouldn't use a Duramax for anything but a boat anchor.

Turf Commando
08-24-2010, 10:37 PM
It's called ''HYPE '' Duramax runs on it....

underPSI
08-25-2010, 10:23 AM
I wouldn't use a Duramax for anything but a boat anchor.

Lol, it wouldn't even make a good anchor. An anchor's job is to hold the boat in one place. The Duramax would drag the boat all over the place since it can't be stopped!

TGM
08-25-2010, 10:55 AM
..Highest hp/torque and the best mpg...


do you guys really think that a certain diesel engine is better because it makes another 20ft pounds of torque (at the flywheel:hammerhead:) from the factory than the others? c'mon...

:rolleyes:



they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

underPSI
08-25-2010, 09:30 PM
do you guys really think that a certain diesel engine is better because it makes another 20ft pounds of torque (at the flywheel:hammerhead:) from the factory than the others? c'mon...
:rolleyes:
they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

True, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I just hope Ford got their new engine together right and it lasts. However, the new '11 LML Duramax-equipped GM 2500HD destroyed Ford and Dodge in towing, 1/4mile sprints, and fuel mileage so 20lbs./ft of torque obviously can make a huge difference.

GravelyGuy
08-25-2010, 09:35 PM
True, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I just hope Ford got their new engine together right and it lasts. However, the new '11 LML Duramax-equipped GM 2500HD destroyed Ford and Dodge in towing, 1/4mile sprints, and fuel mileage so 20lbs./ft of torque obviously can make a huge difference.

As of 8/29 the Powerstokes will be factory tuned to 400HP/800TQ + 2% better economy.

05 superduty
08-28-2010, 10:54 PM
I just hope Ford got their new engine together right and it lasts. However, the new '11 LML Duramax-equipped GM 2500HD destroyed Ford and Dodge in towing, 1/4mile sprints, and fuel mileage[/B] so 20lbs./ft of torque obviously can make a huge difference.

:laugh: one of those you were right about, lol

GravelyGuy
08-28-2010, 11:43 PM
Not that it really matters because these trucks have more than enough power to do what any one needs to do with them, but the Duramax is probably pretty close to being maxed out at 765 lbs. tq without a redesign. Ford is just getting started with the 6.7 Powerstroke at 800 lbs tq.

None of these number will matter if the trucks start falling apart from all the power.

TurboMazda
08-28-2010, 11:57 PM
do you guys really think that a certain diesel engine is better because it makes another 20ft pounds of torque (at the flywheel:hammerhead:) from the factory than the others? c'mon...

:rolleyes:



they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

20ft pounds of torque is a huge difference.

underPSI
08-29-2010, 05:01 PM
the Duramax is probably pretty close to being maxed out at 765 lbs. tq without a redesign. Ford is just getting started with the 6.7 Powerstroke at 800 lbs tq.

The Powerstroke folks wish that were the case. The Duramax has proven itself by pushing 1000hp with stock internals. I'm not saying the new 6.7 'stroke couldn't do the same but the Duramax is no where near to being maxed out. Now the beloved Cummins on the other hand is a different story. It has been stated the engine needs to be built with stronger internals before they can safely increase the power output which explains why it is so far behind Ford and GM.
The major problem with all this power is the drivetrain. As long as GM beefs up the Allison correctly there won't be any problems. Hopefully the Torqshift will withstand the additional power as well but, again, I'm weary. I'd let time prove itself before I jumped on the bandwagon.

GravelyGuy
08-29-2010, 07:21 PM
The Powerstroke folks wish that were the case. The Duramax has proven itself by pushing 1000hp with stock internals. I'm not saying the new 6.7 'stroke couldn't do the same but the Duramax is no where near to being maxed out. Now the beloved Cummins on the other hand is a different story. It has been stated the engine needs to be built with stronger internals before they can safely increase the power output which explains why it is so far behind Ford and GM.
The major problem with all this power is the drivetrain. As long as GM beefs up the Allison correctly there won't be any problems. Hopefully the Torqshift will withstand the additional power as well but, again, I'm weary. I'd let time prove itself before I jumped on the bandwagon.

Can they get the Duramax over 800 lbs with a tune only?

WH401
08-29-2010, 09:44 PM
The Powerstroke folks wish that were the case. The Duramax has proven itself by pushing 1000hp with stock internals. I'm not saying the new 6.7 'stroke couldn't do the same but the Duramax is no where near to being maxed out. Now the beloved Cummins on the other hand is a different story. It has been stated the engine needs to be built with stronger internals before they can safely increase the power output which explains why it is so far behind Ford and GM.
The major problem with all this power is the drivetrain. As long as GM beefs up the Allison correctly there won't be any problems. Hopefully the Torqshift will withstand the additional power as well but, again, I'm weary. I'd let time prove itself before I jumped on the bandwagon.

Interesting. You say the Duramax has proven itself by pushing 1000 hp on stock internals, yet this power wasn't made from the factory, but with a combination of aftermarket tuners and parts by some guy looking to get the most power he could out of it. The likeliness of it even staying together for long with internals that were designed for a 1/3rd of that power isn't high either. Unless it came from the factory with 1000 hp and a warranty, which it didn't, than it doesn't matter. I'm not saying the 6.6 couldn't handle 400/800, but it is getting towards it's theoretical "envelope" on an engine that was originally designed for 100 less hp and 300 less torque. The 6.7 Powerstroke on the other hand, is a completely new engine, that was obviously designed with a power margin in mind if Ford was so quick to release a 400/800 tune. The 6r140 Torqueshift was obviously built with this power margin in mind as well. The 6.7 Cummins...I have no doubts that it could easily handle 400/800, since it's basically a 5.9 bored out to a 6.7 with most of the internals carried over...and we all know how the 5.9 does for power when it's hopped up. The biggest problem of why Cummins/Dodge hasn't upped power at all is because the emissions system can't handle it. The 6.7 was 2010 compliant when it debuted in 07, but just barely. Until they implement urea injection, and revamp the regeneration process to not dump huge amounts of raw fuel into the combustion cycle to increase egt's to burn out the DPF...they aren't going to increase the hp/tq at all because the engine won't be able to meet emissions standards without those features.

TGM
08-29-2010, 10:48 PM
20 foot pounds of torque isn't much, minus the 20-30% loss through the driveline. yeaaaahhh, i don't think a truck DESTROYS another one towing uphill because he makes another 15 ft lbs of torque at the wheels:laugh: it all has to do with what the engine is getting for power to the ground and general set up.


i'd like to know what duramax has made 1000hp with stock internals, they start throwing stock rods around 550-600 rear wheel horsepower, especially with high timing. trucks like Nasty Girl certainly don't have stock internals!

underPSI
08-30-2010, 03:24 PM
I'm not saying the 6.6 couldn't handle 400/800, but it is getting towards it's theoretical "envelope" on an engine that was originally designed for 100 less hp and 300 less torque.

This would be true if the LML shared all of the same internals as the LB7 which they don't.

Can they get the Duramax over 800 lbs with a tune only?

Easily.

lawnspecialties
09-01-2010, 11:43 PM
This would be true if the LML shared all of the same internals as the LB7 which they don't.



Easily.

Why is this guy even posting? Is anyone really listening to him?

I see this guy quite often around town. He pulls a 4'X6' trailer with a Subaru Brat. Good grief.:hammerhead:

TGM
09-02-2010, 09:35 AM
yeah my buddy drives a chevy LML and personally i drive a dodge CTG. another friend of mine has an LB5 duramax too!


I love arguing with people on the internet who know don't know what they're talking about, especially in diesel performance
:rolleyes:

underPSI
09-02-2010, 11:40 PM
yeah my buddy drives a chevy LML and personally i drive a dodge CTG. another friend of mine has an LB5 duramax too!


I love arguing with people on the internet who know don't know what they're talking about, especially in diesel performance
:rolleyes:

First, what's a CTG? Do you mean CTD as in Cummins Turbo Diesel? Also, since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about in regards to diesel performance, when was the the Dmax LB5 made? Is it 2 production models before the LB7 which was introduced in '01? No, can't be because before the LB7 was the 6.5 Turbo which was preceded by the 6.2N/A both of which were GM engines. Please enlighten me on your vast knowledge of diesel performance so I may hopefully one day reach your level.

TGM
09-02-2010, 11:47 PM
i was being facetious and crass.

my point being that there's no such thing as an LML duramax. and i'd still like to know what duramax is making 1000+rwhp on stock rods

Stephen M.
09-02-2010, 11:57 PM
I've got 3 Ford Powerstrokes and a friend recently took the wife and I down to Portland Oregon in his diesel Ram. He used to be a powerstroke fan until his wife wanted the Ram.

His question to me was "do you want to Ram or Powerstroke?" After the weekend, I think I'd rather Ram it.

underPSI
09-03-2010, 10:45 PM
i was being facetious and crass.

my point being that there's no such thing as an LML duramax. and i'd still like to know what duramax is making 1000+rwhp on stock rods


See how easy it is to learn something (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lml+duramax)

and i'd still like to know what duramax is making 1000+rwhp on stock rods

Now that I've taught you how to do an internet search do you still want me to search this one for you too or do you think you can handle it now?

underPSI
09-04-2010, 03:35 PM
Why is this guy even posting? Is anyone really listening to him?

I see this guy quite often around town. He pulls a 4'X6' trailer with a Subaru Brat. Good grief.:hammerhead:

Listen here you sack.......*trucewhiteflag*