Your towing rigs and trailers

[Snobdds]

No reason to not believe what you say about stronger internals. You dont strike me as a liar or exaggerator. I would dispute the strength issue as an engine is an assembly and only as strong as its weakest link. That’s why a Cummins 6.7 is a medium duty engine with a far longer B rating than an ecoboost gas engine. So we are good there.
But to compare both engines, even if they were in the same truck, its lights out. The Cummins would do more work and last longer doing it.

The original premise was, can the ecoboost haul 10k day in and day out. I said yes, the engine has the strength in the block and internals to do it. I see landscape guys doing it all summer. I also noted the fact the ecoboost comes in F150 package which I don't think the light duty suspension can handle that load day in and day out.

Of course the purposes of the engines are different and can do different things. I agree. However that was never the original premise.

 

[TMGT]

I agree, nothing wrong with a walk around the barn once in awhile, plus it relates to towing. Speaking of which, the little small block 5.9 Cummins equipped with an exhaust brake...the gassers better move over on the down hill....all mine are so equipped.

Now the 2.0 Ecoboost in my Ford Escape, I love it

The exhaust brake on my 6.7 Cummins is fantastic, would love to add one of the Jake brakes but not really needed with my single wheel truck.

Thats the one thing I didn't have on my rollback with the 230hp 5.9, had to get the 260hp version to get the exhaust brake.
More then once I was going down a mountain with a heavy load and cooked the brakes(hyd), really wished it had at least an exhaust brake.

 

[Hay Dude]

The exhaust brake on my 6.7 Cummins is fantastic, would love to add one of the Jake brakes but not really needed with my single wheel truck.

Thats the one thing I didn't have on my rollback with the 230hp 5.9, had to get the 260hp version to get the exhaust brake.
More then once I was going down a mountain with a heavy load and cooked the brakes(hyd), really wished it had at least an exhaust brake.

On full setting, I barely need service brakes. Then combine it with the Aisin downshift function, it slows the truck down almost too much. I find the truck the best built pulling and stopping truck I have ever owned without air brakes. I have already approached 50,000lb GCWR and it didnt struggle pulling it uphill or stopping it coming down the other side

 

[Snobdds]

And too get some pictures in. A powerstroke, an ecoboost, a tractor, and the best of all...1988 Toyota truck. They don't make them like that anymore.

 

[Hay Dude]

I just sold off my last 6.4L powerstoke. Good riddance

 

[two_bit_score]

You guys might wanna go into PMs for the rest of this back-n-forth. I'm definitely not interested nor does it add value to the OP's subject at hand. Others might not be interested in your banter either. Just a reminder -

"Lets see your towing rigs.(truck,trailer,tractor) the more pics the better.I know I never get tired of the pics you guys post.

Matt T."

I think it's beneficial to debate these things, someone will learn something.

Its beneficial to the forum when people with sound knowledge but different perspectives engage is strong discussion civilly and politely.
I know Im learning by reading their discussion. It doesnt limit anyone elses ability to post or comment, so no problem.

 

[nisaacs]

I'd take a 5.9L Cummins over any gas engine in production today. Even with a low power rating, it can be cheaply and easily unleashed into a great puller. With a B rating far longer than anything gas out today, great fuel economy and longevity well into the 250-500K range.....easy decision. Thats comparing a 30+ year old diesel to the newest turbocharged gas-hog gasser.

I agree. The 5.9 is an amazing truck engine. My numbers posted on the old Ford, 260/700 are to the ground and is considered a mild build. With two transmissions, a loss of 20% off the crank is about right, so 315/860 at the crank@1900 rpm. And for the non believing gasser guys here is a dyno sheet and a small load, 29k gcw.

Not bad for a 47 year old truck that spent 20 years in the log woods. 13 years as a gasser and 7 as a diesel hauling heavy. To this day, I would put it against any new 1 ton dually hauling heavy in the log woods. On the big highway, not so much

 

[groundcover]

I just sold off my last 6.4L powerstoke. Good riddance

They say you don't want to own that engine out of warranty ! Could never see the Envoronmental advantage of that 6.4 . When it went into regen you couldn't see the truck in the cloud of gray smoke. Meanwhile my 5.9 with the stainless 4" from the turbo back was perfectly clean unless you abused your right foot !

 

[Hay Dude]

They say you don't want to own that engine out of warranty ! Could never see the Envoronmental advantage of that 6.4 . When it went into regen you couldn't see the truck in the cloud of gray smoke. Meanwhile my 5.9 with the stainless 4" from the turbo back was perfectly clean unless you abused your right foot !

And what they said was true. It would do a deep regen and blow out gray smoke every few weeks. I put up with that nonsense for 7 years. When properly running, they pull real hard and run exactly like a big block gasser when driving empty. Crazy fast stock. However, they suffered rocker arm problems, dpf problems and other problems. Typical of the V8 mentality, it revved too much. I was willing to deal with it to get the Ford rolling chassis and towing advantages.
RAM and GM passed Ford in many ways in the HD pickup market. GM made the IFS front end much stronger and RAM.....well, lets just say you need to own one to really explain the Cummins pulling experience. Its a calm, steady, low RPM diesel. More like a real, big truck feel. No more screaming at 4000 RPM. It pulls 18 tons no problem.

 

[Hay Dude]

I agree. The 5.9 is an amazing truck engine. My numbers posted on the old Ford, 260/700 are to the ground and is considered a mild build. With two transmissions, a loss of 20% off the crank is about right, so 315/860 at the crank@1900 rpm. And for the non believing gasser guys here is a dyno sheet and a small load, 29k gcw.

Not bad for a 47 year old truck that spent 20 years in the log woods. 13 years as a gasser and 7 as a diesel hauling heavy. To this day, I would put it against any new 1 ton dually hauling heavy in the log woods. On the big highway, not so much

View attachment 687850View attachment 687851

You know it really is. It has powered small and medium trucks longer than any other diesel outside of maybe the DT466 (which was discontinued- it was a great diesel, too) The 6.6L Duramax has posted up a lot of years now, too. Ford changed engines 4 times in 12 years. Off pedal torque with the in line 6 configuration and design simplicity are something that may never be replicated. I am part way in “ the club “ with the 6.7 and understand why these trucks have a cult like following. Nothing pulls like an in line 6. That’s why the 5.9/6.7 are so successful....the engine is basically a miniaturized big rig engine.

 

[oliver1555]

View attachment 687850View attachment 687851

Nick, I still think that is the coolest build ever! How many of you know what he's hauling?

 

[Reb954]

Looks like cattle guards to me.

 

[deezler]

I agree. The 5.9 is an amazing truck engine. My numbers posted on the old Ford, 260/700 are to the ground and is considered a mild build. With two transmissions, a loss of 20% off the crank is about right, so 315/860 at the crank@1900 rpm. And for the non believing gasser guys here is a dyno sheet and a small load, 29k gcw.

Not bad for a 47 year old truck that spent 20 years in the log woods. 13 years as a gasser and 7 as a diesel hauling heavy. To this day, I would put it against any new 1 ton dually hauling heavy in the log woods. On the big highway, not so much

View attachment 687850View attachment 687851

So... whats up with your very odd power curve there? Most Cummins 5.9's will build power out nicely to around 3000 rpm. Yours only peaks at 1800 and goes down from there? 260 HP is nice for an old 12v, but the curve is odd. Just curious.

 

[Hay Dude]

It is a little “ peaky “. Could use a little fuel map adjustment, but still better than stock...

 

[mred2]

I know most of you guys like diesel, but I like my 2014 ford f-250 gas, 4x4. I only pull hay about 2 or 3 days a year. 14k dump trailer about 10 times a year hauling sand, gravel, and dirt. Horse trailer about 2 times a year. The rest of the time, it is driven to town for parts, lumber, feed and other stuff. On the farm, it is my tool box. It is what I wanted and needed. Gas? yes, but I don't have to have any more hp and only drive a total of about 5,000 miles a year. Would I want diesel? Not for me. But I do think Ford lost their mind in the brakes on my truck. I understand that the front brakes on a 2014 diesel has larger brakes and therefore a larger tow due to the ability to stop. I like to go, but I love to stop.

 

[Rowdy Redneck]

I know most of you guys like diesel, but I like my 2014 ford f-250 gas, 4x4. I only pull hay about 2 or 3 days a year. 14k dump trailer about 10 times a year hauling sand, gravel, and dirt. Horse trailer about 2 times a year. The rest of the time, it is driven to town for parts, lumber, feed and other stuff. On the farm, it is my tool box. It is what I wanted and needed. Gas? yes, but I don't have to have any more hp and only drive a total of about 5,000 miles a year. Would I want diesel? Not for me. But I do think Ford lost their mind in the brakes on my truck. I understand that the front brakes on a 2014 diesel has larger brakes and therefore a larger tow due to the ability to stop. I like to go, but I love to stop.

What configuration is your truck and how many miles? Have you had any issues with it? I'm looking for a 2011-13 with the 6.2. Would prefer a 4x4 dually F350 flatbed single cab. But looking at everything from regular cab, extended, and crew F250 to utility bed and more. My uses are similar to yours and probably about 5k a year also, but a little more tilted towards towing. I think I will max at a 10k trailer though. Have been looking at some with the 5.4, but it seems like the 6.2 is worth holding out for. Also been looking at some bigger ones with the 6.8. I've mostly been looking at online auctions. Risky I know but the potential savings seem worth it.

 

[nisaacs]

So... whats up with your very odd power curve there? Most Cummins 5.9's will build power out nicely to around 3000 rpm. Yours only peaks at 1800 and goes down from there? 260 HP is nice for an old 12v, but the curve is odd. Just curious.

Winter fuel?..Lol I think mostly because it is an industrial version, rated at 2500. It appears to defuel at about 2200.

Here is a similar 5.9 but in a Dodge D-250, 1991. First sheet is before injectors and the second one with 30 hp's.

 

[Hay Dude]

Winter fuel?..Lol I think mostly because it is an industrial version, rated at 2500. It appears to defuel at about 2200.

Here is a similar 5.9 but in a Dodge D-250, 1991. First sheet is before injectors and the second one with 30 hp's.

View attachment 687918View attachment 687919

I had 2 JCB fast tracs with 5.9L/6.7L Cummins in them. One was 185HP and the other was 220HP.
Crazy low torque in them. They also had close to 40mph road speed. I was talking to a JCB dealer service tech and he told me the JCB Cummins versions that went in the Fast trac were a little different than the Dodge/Ram units. They speced out a heavier bedplate and bottom end for continuous lugging and high demand. My smaller Fast Trac has over 8,000 hours on the on the original 5.9. I think thats impressive.
Probably would have fared better with a Ford Ecoboost due to its larger crank surface area :shocked:

 

[DavesTractor]

I think those Fast Tracs are very cool. If only they had more crank surface area! Seriously though, a turned down 5.9/6.7L Cummins will last about forever.

As mentioned, I have several newer Ram 2500/3500 diesels for tractor delivery trucks, but owning a Raptor as my daily driver has given me a ton of respect for the twin-turbo 3.5l Ecoboost. I think each has its place. I won't tow heavy or often with the Raptor, and I won't jump the 3500 dually.

 

[nisaacs]

Dang! That is a bad azz tractor. Does it have both pto speeds or just 1000 rpm? I would also guess with 200 hp it will be the large pto 1000. My Case/IH 995 only has 104 hp with the 540/1000 small.