looking at a 09 superduty 6.4L powerstroke

[MikePA]

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.

Regardless, it's your opinion, based on zero facts, that 'Sales figures are more a measure of the company's ability to MARKET a product more successfully than the competition.'

 

[Builder]

Regardless, it's your opinion, based on zero facts, that 'Sales figures are more a measure of the company's ability to MARKET a product more successfully than the competition.'

"regardless"?
OK, that's what I thought. I was misquoted.

 

[Builder]

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.

I think there's a distinct difference between "bashing", personal insults (saying someone has no friends-what does that have to do with the topic?) and just flat out lies. For example the statement that "GM trucks weigh 800lbs less than Fords because they have lighter frames" is just a flat out lie, born of ignorance. Instead, I researched it and found the TRUTH and posted my findings, pointing out the GM diesel weighs 300lbs less, the front suspension weighs less, without negative emotion, name calling, etc. I mean does anyone with 1/2 a brain really think one brand of pickups truck's frame weighs 800 lbs more than the other brand? I'd doubt the whole frame system on any of them weighs 800lbs total!

Another example: Most of the less educated truck enthusiasts here have no idea the GM Allison locks up in gears 2-6, but the Torqshift doesn't. Is informing the forum readers of that "bashing"? No, it's just a fact. What's wrong with informing others even if it makes one brand look inferior to the other?

How about the previous poster who thinks GM diesels are still made by Isuzu? Or that GM doesn't own the plants that make their Allison truck transmissions? Is it bashing to clear up the ignorance of that post so others may be better informed?

If I state the DMAX makes more low end torque than the Ford 6L or 6.4L is that a bash? No it's just a fact....GM has less GCWR than Ford is a fact, not a bash.

I say stop bashing, yes, but also stop confusing printed & published facts with "bashing".

 

[Diamondpilot]

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.

You are 100% correct but HP is only 25% of the buying equation for me. 25% is interior layout and comfort, 25% is fit and finish, and 25% is capabilities. In my eyes when you do the math Ford was the clear winner for the past 10 years. This year for the first time GM may be the winner since they finally have a truck that can truly compete.

Thats the way the smart buyer does it....

Chris

 

[Ford850]

You are 100% correct but HP is only 25% of the buying equation for me. 25% is interior layout and comfort, 25% is fit and finish, and 25% is capabilities. In my eyes when you do the math Ford was the clear winner for the past 10 years. This year for the first time GM may be the winner since they finally have a truck that can truly compete.

Thats the way the smart buyer does it....

Chris

I agree, as most people buy a truck based on the whole package. They weigh all the pros and cons and make a purchase. They do not buy a truck based soley on a biased test they saw Chevy or Ford win, or on who sells the most. That might get their attention but then they buy the 'truck' not the one 'feature'.

 

[johnk]

The only reason I bought my FORD is because it offered the girlie tailgate step so my wife can empty out the bed. Just kidding. I bought my truck because I drove and owned quite a few and my Ford is what I wanted. My friends own newer Chevies and say they like my FORD better....Not bashing.... Just saying..

 

[Soundguy]

I know when my friends 'other' brand vans and trucks break down out of town.. it's my ford and trailer that rolls up the interstate in the middle of the night to go tote them home..

soundguy

 

[Egon]

Yes you're right, the Dana 50 fitted the 1999-2004 SRW F-250's

I believe My 96 2500 Dodge has Dana 60 axle on the front and a Dana 80 on the back. The back having the Dana 80 differential with Dana 70 axles and wheel bearings???

 

[JB4310]

I believe My 96 2500 Dodge has Dana 60 axle on the front and a Dana 80 on the back. The back having the Dana 80 differential with Dana 70 axles and wheel bearings???

Something like that, if yours is diesel. I remember my 95 2500 had a typical 3/4 ton rear axle on the front and a one ton in the rear, presumably for the ubber Cummins torque produced.

That's one thing I was disappointed about when buying my 07 Ram, no more Dana axles. Not sure who makes Dodge's axles now or how they compare, but Dana was a name you could trust.

We need more of a Dodge presence here.

JB.

 

[slowzuki]

Egon you must have the diesel? They had a heavier rear axle due to the torque of the Cummins.

They have AAM axles in them now like some chevs.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Something like that, if yours is diesel. I remember my 95 2500 had a typical 3/4 ton rear axle on the front and a one ton in the rear, presumably for the ubber Cummins torque produced.

That's one thing I was disappointed about when buying my 07 Ram, no more Dana axles. Not sure who makes Dodge's axles now or how they compare, but Dana was a name you could trust.

We need more of a Dodge presence here.

JB.

Not to start a war here but in all the truck owning and friends/customers I have had over the 20 plus years I have been in the towing business I have only seen 3 rear ends fail. 2 in the last year in newer Dodges. One tore the rear cover off. The other was on a 04 Yukon at very low miles, attribute that to a bad part from the factory.

I am not impressed with the axles the Dodges are using either. Look at them, they use a rubber stopper plug instead of a threaded pipe fitting for the oil sight level gauge. Just cheap, easy to loose, and easy to get water in if driving though creeks or at the boat launch ramp.

Chris

Chris

 

[Builder]

Something like that, if yours is diesel. I remember my 95 2500 had a typical 3/4 ton rear axle on the front and a one ton in the rear, presumably for the ubber Cummins torque produced.

That's one thing I was disappointed about when buying my 07 Ram, no more Dana axles. Not sure who makes Dodge's axles now or how they compare, but Dana was a name you could trust.

We need more of a Dodge presence here.

JB.

AAM

Read here. Used to be GM's Saginaw Axle division: American Axle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW: Dana is a good name, but they baled on the USA and moved to foreign countries like Mexico. They closed a plant near me in Pottstown, PA about 15 yrs ago.

 

[Builder]

You are 100% correct but HP is only 25% of the buying equation for me. 25% is interior layout and comfort, 25% is fit and finish, and 25% is capabilities. In my eyes when you do the math Ford was the clear winner for the past 10 years. This year for the first time GM may be the winner since they finally have a truck that can truly compete.

Thats the way the smart buyer does it....

Chris

But not everybody buys a truck based on those same ratios. For example here's mine when I bought my truck:

Powertrain (Engine, trans, rears): 35% GM won
Price: 15% Tie
Warranty: 20% GM won
Capacities (towing, payload): 20% Ford won
Fit finish: 10% Tie

Intangibles: Dealer.

So when I bought my truck, GM won. I couldn't possibly fathom worrying as much about fit & finish as my truck's powertrain, but you do. :laughing:

See, to me weighting fit & finish the same as "HP" (I'd call it powertrain), is ridiculous, but that's what is important to you. So while you & your followers here might agree with you, I use a different weighting system. In fact, everyone uses their own system, not yours or mine.

In fact, there's no way I'd rate "fit & finish" as high as powertrain, warranty or price. No way, but more power to ya if that's your M/O.

GM dealer was better. Ford was take it or leave it even after the 15th Ford light or medium duty truck. They could care less because they were the best selling truck. I'm sure there's good Ford dealers, too.

 

[Diamondpilot]

But not everybody buys a truck based on those same ratios. For example here's mine when I bought my truck:
Powertrain (Engine, trans, rears): 35% GM won
Price: 15% Tie
Warranty: 20% GM won
Capacities (towing, payload): 20% Ford won
Fit finish: 10% Tie

Intangibles: Dealer.

So when I bought my truck, GM won. I couldn't possibly fathom worrying as much about fit & finish as my truck's powertrain, but you do.

See, to me weighting fit & finish the same as "HP" (I'd call it powertrain), is ridiculous, but that's what is important to you. So while you & your followers here might agree with you, I use a different weighting system.

There's no way I'd rate "fit & finish" as high as powertrain, warranty or price. No way, but more power to ya if that's your M/O.

We will never see eye to eye and each has his own needs but there is now way in 2007 the fit and finish of GM was on par with Ford. Same with the interior. The warranty was not a issue for me with Fords because I had good service out of them in the past but it sure was on the GM because every one I ever owned gave me fits.

If I were to rate the trucks that me and you have 06/07, it would be like this.

Styling = Dodge
Powertrain = GM
Chassis = Ford
Brakes = Ford
Fit & Finish = Ford
Capacities = Ford
Interior = Ford
Dealer in my area = Ford/Dodge Tie
Price = GM (was cheaper at the time I bought)

Clear winner in my eyes. I guess if I cared only about HP and Warranty it would have been GM or if I wanted the best looking truck it would have been Dodge.

Comfort is a big deal to me. I drive 8 hours at at time or more going to get customers boats. My 05 Dmax seats were just plain uncomfortable and the interior panels squeaked and rattled.

Chris

 

[Ford850]

Builder,
When you rate powertrain as 35%, do you give the brand that 35% even if they won by 5%? What if there are various tests that prove either has an advantage depending on the test? When the trucks are so close and competetive in some of the categories, I could care less about one beating the other by a slim margin. That's a reason why some would rate fit/finish, or overall quality, more important than powertrain. For me, with all else close to equal, it comes down to subjective things like comfort for me, dash layout for me, general feel for me, etc. Afterall I'm the one driving it for years and I could see it as ridiculous to weight a category 35% just so I could say i can get from point A to point B, x seconds faster. We all have different criteria I guess. Some want bragging rights, some want cutting edge power, some want comfort, some want a good combination of everything. It's nice to have a choice.

 

[westcliffe01]

2 big turn offs for me:

Susceptibility to rust (My Ram is rusting out after 6 years). This has a huge impact on resale value if it is otherwise well taken care of and has relatively low miles (less than 60k)

Extremely flat body panels on the new GM's. They will get parking lot rash very quickly and due to the flat surfaces one will see it a mile away. Has no impact on function but turns used car buyers off big time.

Slightly lower on the subjective ranking:
I think GM interiors absolutely suck. Hard shiny plastic, cloth seats that look like they were styled 10-15 years ago. Dated dash layout and styling on all the ones I looked at and that did not include post 2007 DM trucks since none were in my price range.

 

[Soundguy]

Not to start a war here but in all the truck owning and friends/customers I have had over the 20 plus years I have been in the towing business I have only seen 3 rear ends fail. 2 in the last year in newer Dodges. One tore the rear cover off. The other was on a 04 Yukon at very low miles, attribute that to a bad part from the factory.

Chris

Ditto that. not counting large trucks like semi-tractors.. the only rear end failure of any of mine or my companies vehicles was a 90's era suburban that had 'something go wrong with the rear end. Driver pulled away from a stop light then truck rear locked up and skidded. backed up and it unlocked.. drove it straight to a dealer with a skip in the rear and traded it right then and there ( rear end problem was fully disclosed to dealer ).

soundguy

 

[roamerr]

Note that you found a Good Deal on a Ford 6.4L diesel because it is a Ford 6.4L Diesel. The resale values are poor due to the mechanical issues. If you are looking used it's hard to beat a Cummins. The Ford has the nicer interior but the motor is an issue....

 

[Egon]

Egon you must have the diesel?

Surely do. It's gota be the ugliest looking truck on the South Shore what with the peeling paint.

One midsummer day had a fellow ask me if "That was frost on the hood" he he.

 

[westcliffe01]

I have not heard of a lot of mechanical issues. I have heard horror stories regarding fuel consumption that I have found to be BS.. Next. There was the famous 2007 model "software glitch" which kept the injectors in post injection mode for waaaayyyyyy longer than needed to regenerate the filter YouTube - 2008 Ford F250 Flame Thrower

The particular example on the video sounds like the engine has already failed based on the slapping sound. Ford ended up replacing engines and entire exhaust systems. The soot filter in the Ford and GM is made from Silicon Carbide, which melts at over 2000 deg C (higher than the melting point of steel). I have seen filters where the exhaust on the downstream side got so hot if flowed like lava. But those days are far behind us and there has been nothing similar posted since that time and no rumors of any recall, so what new is there that I have apparently missed ?

Note that you found a Good Deal on a Ford 6.4L diesel because it is a Ford 6.4L Diesel. The resale values are poor due to the mechanical issues. If you are looking used it's hard to beat a Cummins. The Ford has the nicer interior but the motor is an issue....