Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-22-2010, 10:58 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed View Post
Thanks 360ci for the response. I appreciate your input. I need to get a new truck in the next little while. I currently own a 2000 GM 3/4 ton with a 6.0L gas engine. I'm giving this truck to my dad as his truck is getting too old and broken down. I'd love to get a duramax/allsion combo or a cummins/dodge combo but they're too expensive for my budget. I only do part-time lawn care so I figured getting a more fuel efficient 1/2 ton might be alright for me. The Ford F150 is an excellent truck but I don't like the height on it; too tall. However, this new ecoboost engine has me thinking about it. Yet, 2 turbochargers sounds like trouble down the road. The Dodge Ram 1500 is nice too but I don't know much about the truck nor the 5.7L Hemi engine and whether it's reliable and fuel efficient. The 5.3/6 speed combo on the GM is the most fuel efficient on paper, not sure about real life stuff but the GM truck is outdated. It won't be redesigned until 2013. It's too bad they shelved the plans to stick a 4.5L duramax in the 1/2 ton. So, I'm stuck as to which one to go with.
The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-22-2010, 11:10 PM
joed joed is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360ci View Post
The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!
The maintenance issue on the Dodge is one reason I'm not sure I want to get that truck. Which is the better engine: the 5.7 Hemi or the 5.3 Vortec on the GM?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-22-2010, 11:50 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 986
Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-23-2010, 08:58 AM
joed joed is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360ci View Post
Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.
How good is the 6.0L for fuel on the new 3/4 tons? I saw a 2011 3/4 ton last weekend and it looks like a really good truck but the price is over what I can spend. My current 6.0L averages about 22L/100km in the city and around 17 or 18 on the highway. I was hoping a 5.3L/6 speed combo, a 5.7L/5 speed combo or perhaps the 3.5L ecoboost/6 speed combo would significantly reduce the fuel consumption.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-23-2010, 04:59 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 986
I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-24-2010, 09:30 AM
joed joed is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360ci View Post
I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.
Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:45 AM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed View Post
Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?
I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:33 PM
joed joed is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360ci View Post
I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.
I went out and looked at the Ford, Dodge, and GM diesel trucks today. Wow, the price is insane. For a double cab 4X4, they all want about $60K + HST. That's insane. All 3 trucks look excellent. The GMC looks incredible.

I also saw a new 2011 Dodge. The hemi has been improved for fuel economy to 15.8L/100km in the city. I guess that mean in real life it should get about 18 or so. Can't wait to see what the ecoboost or 3.7L get in the Ford. I think the 5.3 in the GM will also get a boost in hp and fuel economy. Very tough decision to make. If GM would redesign their trucks quicker, I'd take theirs. I also don't know why the 4.8 engine isn't offered with a 6 speed tranny.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:49 PM
lyube's Avatar
lyube lyube is online now
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deployed To Fobbitstan
Posts: 6,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capemay Eagle View Post
Yeah the article said that the 150 with the Ecoboost can see 21-23 mpg and the hypermillers can see 30 mpg. Not bad for a fullsize. The wife just got a new Ford Edge and it getting something like 27mpg, I was pretty surprised when I looked on the systems computer and the average was 27, not bad and the thing is fast! The Edge is certainly my favorite SUV I have ever owned, I actually really enjoy driving the Edge.
The edge is built on the Crown Victoria body. It's enormous inside.

The shuttle van that took me to Parris Island on a cold January many years ago had 688k miles on it. I was shocked... that old guy ran it at 85 the entire trip out there.

Ford builds a good truck.
__________________
Semper Fidelis

Drug war veteran

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli
...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-24-2010, 11:06 PM
360ci 360ci is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 986
Airways Transit group here in Ontario has older 3500 Dodge vans with the 5.9L engine with over 750,000kms on them, and they still run them at 75mph on the highways here!

Still, if towing isn't an everyday thing for you, it'd be worthwhile to check out the 3.5EB. I know I would, but I tow regularly so a small engine will be overworked. If I wanted a blower, I'd throw one on my Durango and easily push out over 400hp and oh-my-gawd torque numbers, but I don't need that. Even then, mileage would be worse. Speed (or HP) equals money, and the question is how fast can you go financially?

I agree, the 4.8L engine would be well matched to the 6 speed auto for GM, however I think the transmission would hunt quite a bit unless GM adds the 3.42 ratio and gets rid of the ridiculous 3.21 axle ratio!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Page generated in 0.13944 seconds with 7 queries