looking at a 09 superduty 6.4L powerstroke

[slowzuki]

397/400 hp? Who cares? Its all more than most of us need. BTW the 4x4 Ford's actually have 6000 lb front axles, but are limited by the tires installed, likely the same as chev. I happen to like solid axles but lots of folks like the IFS setups.

I've never liked the chev IFS but a close friend of mine loves his. He finds the increased maintenance vs the solid axle is worth it for the nice plush ride. To be fair, he only spends about 400$ a year on front end parts for a truck that is used to plow with in the winter.

 

[Soundguy]

i'd love to see an affordable diesel half ton.

when my dodge 5.9l gasser finally dies.. I want to replace it with an every day driver diesel. had originally been considering a 5-10yr old f350 v8d for durability.. but it's not super practicle. would love to see a half ton pickup diesel in affordable range especially a dodge ram. I like my ram truck.. the layout..e tc. could even do with a regular cab.. don't need to be extended.

soundguy

 

[MikePA]

Sales figures are more a measure of the company's ability to MARKET a product more successfully than the competition.

Good marketing can sell a bad product only once. If people keep buying the product it's because they like it and find value in it.

 

[Dargo]

John I think it's because Cummins has traditionally had the longest B50 rating of the 3 diesel engines at 350,000 miles.

Interesting. The plant isn't that far from my house and the uncle of one of my employees has worked on the Dodge/Cummins relationship since the late 80's in an engineering capacity. Cummins rates the average and expected (with normal maintenance) of the 5.9 at 500k and 15 years and the 6.7 at 410k and 15 years. They used to keep a nice "club" of Dodge owners who passed the million mile mark with their 5.9 Cummins powered pickups, but it's become so common that there isn't anything particularly special about such stories. My two relatives who have worked at the Ford truck plant in Louisville said the 7.3 was supposed to make it to 250k (again with normal maintenance) before a rebuild. Anymore, 250k isn't anything special for many gasoline engines. I'll admit I've never bothered to do the math, but I'm not even sure that the slight bump in fuel economy would pay for the diesel engine surcharge at 250k. Makes me sad to see the V10 go. I heard figures between 200 to 250k tossed around for it. Can't say I've heard any average life figures for the 6.4.

 

[Builder]

397/400 hp? Who cares? Its all more than most of us need. BTW the 4x4 Ford's actually have 6000 lb front axles, but are limited by the tires installed, likely the same as chev. I happen to like solid axles but lots of folks like the IFS setups.

I agree with that much HP, "who cares", but that's not my point. It's the way they direct the advertising that I don't like. It's like we are left in the dark about the real power of the truck. Why not list rear wheel HP at a certain RPM with the TC locked? does Ford actually believe they have "the most diesel horsepower" as their ads say, when in fact, on the rollers they make less rear wheel horsepower than the competition?

Let me make it simpler: Let's say you have 2 identical trucks with only a few minor differences. One has 400 flywheel HP and say 320 RWHP. The other has 397 flywheel HP and 340 RWHP. Wouldn't a smart person take the truck with more RWHP and leave the truck with the 400 flywheel HP to the braggers and kids on the internet?

BTW: My F-350 SRW 4x4 only had a 5,400lb front GAWR and a dana 50 front axle.

I've never liked the chev IFS but a close friend of mine loves his. He finds the increased maintenance vs the solid axle is worth it for the nice plush ride. To be fair, he only spends about 400$ a year on front end parts for a truck that is used to plow with in the winter.

That's about what I spent on ball joints per year for ford. I agree with your buddy. I'd rather have the nice ride for the 95% of the time we use trucks over the road than the SFA for the 5% of the time I plow of off-road. If I was a pure off roader and I had to have a stock truck, then Ford would be a better choice.

 

[Builder]

Good marketing can sell a bad product only once. If people keep buying the product it's because they like it and find value in it.

Which seems to work more towards my thinking. Even with McD's food being bad, people keep coming back and buying the same crappy cheeseburgers over & over, even though the recipe never changes. Reason is because they do a GREAT job of marketing their food through advertising & availability more than actually making quality food. So yes, people will buy the same poor product over & over is the product is well marketed. McD's is an iconic example.

If someone buys a Ford truck and doesn't like it, they keep it for years, then trade it for a different brand. By then, many new customers become able to buy. Ford does a great job of changing the looks of their trucks often and has a lot of dealerships to serve their customers. I always thought GM was slower to change and freshen their line-up to a new look.

I'm not saying Ford makes a bad truck, I'm saying I think Ford does a great job at marketing and keeping their slight sales lead. How does that slight sales lead equate to being a better truck ??? Yet that's what ford shoves in your face on EVERY F-150 ad they run on radio/TV.

Does a real deep thinking person believe that small sales lead makes Ford a superior truck?

 

[MikePA]

Which seems to work more towards my thinking.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Builder]

Whatever you say.

 

[MikePA]

Whatever you say.

It's real simple. You claim the only reason Ford sells more trucks is solely due to marketing. You're wrong.

 

[Builder]

It's real simple. You claim the only reason Ford sells more trucks is solely due to marketing. You're wrong.

Where did I say "Ford sells more trucks soley due to marketing" MikePA?

 

[MikePA]

Where did I say "Ford sells more trucks soley due to marketing" MikePA?

See my first post where I quoted your claim.

 

[Builder]

See my first post where I quoted your claim.

This one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Builder
Sales figures are more a measure of the company's ability to MARKET a product more successfully than the competition.


I don't see where I said "solely..." anywhere, MikePA.

 

[Builder]

I was going to mention that, but you beat me to it. They had to go to outside vendors for their engine/trans combo. GM doesn't own either one anymore. OK, now it's time for the snarky comments from the usual suspects.

I believe you have made all those comments just fine all by yourself.

Just to illustrate your ignorance on this subject, when the DMAX was designed, it was a collaboration between Isuzu & GM. GM engineers & Isuzu engineers formed a joint venture called "DMAX ltd". At that time GM owned 49% of Isuzu. If you own 49% of something, are you an "outside vendor" of course not. No, an "outside vendor" example is like when Ford bought the millions of 6.9's, 7.3's, 6.0's & 6.4's from IH. THAT'S an "outside vendor".
And just to bring you up to speed, GM bought the DMAX Ltd. joint venture from Isuzu about 7 years ago. So now GM owns DMAX Ltd. joint venture, not just 49%. GM owns as much of their diesel engine apparatus as Ford, which just got into building their pickup diesel a whopping 1 year ago.

From Wikipedia:
"DMAX of Moraine, Ohio is a manufacturer of Diesel engines for trucks.Originally A joint venture between General Motors and Isuzu Motors, the formation of DMAX was announced in December 1998. General Motors acquired a majority stake of the venture in 2003, including all engine designs. The company's Duramax V8 engine has been extremely successful for GM."

As far as the Allison, GM owned Allison when that transmission was designed and for years when it was built. It still owns a smaller part of Allison that builds the transmission for the HD today.

Please stop spewing untruths about GM.

 

[Lt CHEG]

To me, I think it's an advantage to have your diesel engines built by someone else. Ford, GM and Chrysler make dozens of different gasoline powered engines each, there's no question that they ALL have the bugs worked out for the most part when it comes to building quality gasoline engines. Now those same 3 companies each offer one single diesel engine in their lineup of passenger vehicles. They produce probably at least 150 gasoline powered engines for every diesel powered vehicle that they produce. I'd rather have a truck with an engine built or at the very least designed by a diesel engine specialist. The Duramax was mostly designed by Isuzu, which had a lot of experience building medium duty truck engines, and this fact was rightfully flaunted by GM. Ford engines were designed and built by International, who had a ton of experience building diesel engines for medium duty on up through the biggest of trucks on the road, also a relationship worthy of flaunting. And the success of the Chrysler and Cummins partnership goes without saying as the CTD powered Dodges are likely one of, if not the biggest reasons why we're seeing such high performance diesel engines in pickups today. Dodge went to a manufacturer of premium diesel truck engines and had them put one in their pickups, and they flaunted that again rightfully so.

Everything that I have heard about the new Ford built 6.7 liter Powerstroke has been superb, there's no doubt it's a terrific engine. However if I honestly had the choice of buying a Ford powered by an International engine or a Ford engine and both were equal in performance, fuel economy, maintenance requirements, etc. I'd buy the Ford which was powered by International. I simply don't think that it's a bad thing that a company recognizes that they can reach out to a specialist to produce a particular part of their vehicle when that specialist has a proven track record of delivering a quality product.

 

[Builder]

I simply don't think that it's a bad thing that a company recognizes that they can reach out to a specialist to produce a particular part of their vehicle when that specialist has a proven track record of delivering a quality product.

Great post. I agree. I use experts in their respective fields (plumber, electrican, HVAC, etc.) when I build.
I'd take a transmission built by a transmission specialist over a transmission built by a car/truck manufacturer anyday, too.

 

[Builder]

Everything that I have heard about the new Ford built 6.7 liter Powerstroke has been superb, there's no doubt it's a terrific engine. However if I honestly had the choice of buying a Ford powered by an International engine or a Ford engine and both were equal in performance, fuel economy, maintenance requirements, etc. I'd buy the Ford which was powered by International.

Now that comment is interesting. I really haven't been overly impressed by the first 3 IH diesels (6.9, 7.3, 6). The 6.4 is better and rightly so, it's got the most technology dumped into it. However, isn't it interesting that Cummins 5.9L spanned the time period of the first 3 IH diesels I listed and pretty much beat them, too? Doesn't make IH (or Ford) look that good..... I never thought they lived up to the nice rolling chassis that Ford wrapped around the IH diesels.

Now the DT466, that's a nice IH diesel. I always wished Ford would have embraced that diesel and went head on with Cummins.

 

[Lt CHEG]

I'd take a transmission built by a transmission specialist over a transmission built by a car/truck manufacturer anyday, too.

I think that GM putting Allison transmissions in their trucks was frankly a much bigger selling point than the Duramax engines in my opinion, so I agree with you about truck transmissions too. Frankly I think that when GM unveiled the Allison auto it was almost like when Dodge unveiled the Cummins Turbo Diesel. Having been around people who believed in diesels enough to suffer through ownership of several crappy 6.2 liter GM diesels I fully appreciate the need for a good heavy duty truck transmission. Frankly, until GM put the Allison in their trucks I'd say that none of the manufacturers offered an adequate automatic transmission for their diesel trucks, and this is back when diesels were putting out less than 200 horsepower.

Having said all that I really like my Ford tranny, and International engine. I think they are both adequate for even more than I would ever put them through. However, if I could pick and choose components for my pickup like you can in the medium duty truck segment, I think I'd probably stick with my Ford chassis for right now, but equip it with a Cummins and Allison.

 

[slowzuki]

The advertisers are trained to build on comparison points, all the big three use the same advertising companies and techniques. Not going to change.

We aren't left in dark of the real power of the truck, they list 0-60 times and other performance specs, and engine hp is the standard measure for years and years. If they started with the RWHP they would start by going to the 2wd models, then they would list the manual transmission models (well, not now I guess!). Then they would make sure its base model with no AC, then try to fit small PS pumps etc to reduce parasitic loads etc etc.

Standard engine hp is fine by me, and I'm not too concerned about max rear wheel hp to be honest.

Yes you're right, the Dana 50 fitted the 1999-2004 SRW F-250's and F-350's is rated for closer to 5000 lbs. To be fair though, except for the smaller differential and necked down inner shafts, its construction is identical to the D60 rated for 6000 lbs.

I don't know anyone that has to do the ford ball joints every year? The chev isn't bad but there are a lot of wear components in the suspension and steering. MOOG has some good beefier parts to solve the idler and ball joints but they are twice the price of the cheaper OEM style stuff. The other problem is with plows the chev's torsion bars tend to get thrashed. Guys crank them to the max and they get ruined. It doesn't make sense to me why the owners do this rather than put some timbrens or heavier bars in?

We've got a little group of us here, one of the last 5.9 cummins in a 1 ton, a couple of 2500HD's with duramax's and gassers, and a few superduties, even an old f-super 450. (I've got a 2001 F350 4x4). All of them have good aspects, so I couldn't outright advise against any of them. One of the group used to have fleet of 5 various age and brand 1 tons for his landscaping business so he got a bit of experience with costs. The much hated 6.5 chev diesel actually worked out pretty cheap for him, the guys couldn't tear up the trucks too badly with such little power.

I agree with that much HP, "who cares", but that's not my point. It's the way they direct the advertising that I don't like. It's like we are left in the dark about the real power of the truck. Why not list rear wheel HP at a certain RPM with the TC locked? does Ford actually believe they have "the most diesel horsepower" as their ads say, when in fact, on the rollers they make less rear wheel horsepower than the competition?

Let me make it simpler: Let's say you have 2 identical trucks with only a few minor differences. One has 400 flywheel HP and say 320 RWHP. The other has 397 flywheel HP and 340 RWHP. Wouldn't a smart person take the truck with more RWHP and leave the truck with the 400 flywheel HP to the braggers and kids on the internet?

BTW: My F-350 SRW 4x4 only had a 5,400lb front GAWR and a dana 50 front axle.

That's about what I spent on ball joints per year for ford. I agree with your buddy. I'd rather have the nice ride for the 95% of the time we use trucks over the road than the SFA for the 5% of the time I plow of off-road. If I was a pure off roader and I had to have a stock truck, then Ford would be a better choice.

 

[Builder]

I think that GM putting Allison transmissions in their trucks was frankly a much bigger selling point than the Duramax engines in my opinion, so I agree with you about truck transmissions too. Frankly I think that when GM unveiled the Allison auto it was almost like when Dodge unveiled the Cummins Turbo Diesel. Having been around people who believed in diesels enough to suffer through ownership of several crappy 6.2 liter GM diesels I fully appreciate the need for a good heavy duty truck transmission. Frankly, until GM put the Allison in their trucks I'd say that none of the manufacturers offered an adequate automatic transmission for their diesel trucks, and this is back when diesels were putting out less than 200 horsepower.
.

Those you speak of were GM, Ford or Dodge built transmissions. I agree that going to a medium duty trans builder is smart. Ford equipped probably millions of medium & heavy trucks with allison transmissions because they knew they couldn't build it right themselves.

My brother in law is over in Afghanistan in a 6.5TD powered Hummer with a 4L80E GM transmission and GM IFS in it. When he tells me what they do with the Hummer and the crap they run that thing through, he said the transmission holds up pretty darn good.

 

[dstig1]

Those you speak of were GM, Ford or Dodge built transmissions. I agree that going to a medium duty trans builder is smart. Ford equipped probably millions of medium & heavy trucks with allison transmissions because they knew they couldn't build it right themselves.

Come on. You know that med and heavy trucks are a whole different world from passenger vehicles and even 3/4-1 ton PUs. They are industrial equipment and are spec'd as such with the main subsystems built by companies that ended up specializing in them. Which is why you could buy Cummins engines in Cat equipment even though Cat was a huge diesel engine maker. This stuff is specified at the component/subsystem level by the purchaser.

Everything 1 ton and below is under the total control of the automaker. They either make it or specify it, and there are only the choices they want you to have. Dodge chose wisely with Cummins years ago. But they have had tranny and body/frame issues. Ford had a mixed bag with IH and their trannys until recently, but had solid bodies and frames. GM chose wisely with the Allison tranny and eventually the DMax, and had good bodies but weak frames until recently. Key point here is the "until recently" where you see competition making them all better. Really at this point, I doubt you can go wrong with any of them. Get what you like and works for you...and stop bashing what you didn't choose.