Guys, I am looking at buying a new 2011 or 12 in the next year or so and want to hear all the knocks pro and con on the 6.7 and the truck in general. I will be towing the hills of Pennsylvania.

Haven't made up my mind on dually or not. Don't really need it for towing capacity but they sure do handle better.

Any opinion on 3.31 or 3.55? Pretty sure if I go dually, ratios are 3.73 and no other option.

I am not at all interested in feeding a gasser, but I do want to hear MPG's from both engines.

 

My 6.7 gets around 17-18mpg daily driving. If I am all highway it can be a bit higher. I haven't had any issues to date, other than a couple glitches that showed once and never came back. I do have the weird shifting (it stutters a bit). I wouldn't call it an "issue" as the truck still runs fine. I will take it in for an update once they get it straightened out to take care of it. The truck is a real strong truck.

I wouldn't knock the 6.2 gas engine though. It pulls surprisingly well. It does like its fuel though and will suck it down.

If you aren't pulling too much and/or not super heavy I wouldn't bother with a DRW. I used to haul cars in a 2005 F350 DRW and I will say that it was a very nice pulling truck. I had to make some quick maneuvers in it with a couple cars on the back and the truck was rock solid. That having been said, my SRW truck does just fine and I only have 4 tires to worry about, not 6.

If you go SRW 3.31's are available with 18" wheels with 3.55's optional and with 20" wheels the only option is 3.55's. Personally, I wouldn't mind having 3.31's with my 20" wheels for fuel mileage reasons. The 6 speed transmission is very stout and for my uses of the truck it would still perform very well with the taller gears. The 6.7 has plenty of power and the 6 speed transmission adds another gear for even better power management.

If you lean towards the gas route I think 3.73's and 4.10's are your options. 2000silverbullet pulled with his F350 at the Ohio Truck Meet and it has 4.10's. It does much better than you would think for a gas V8 in a big truck with a lot of weight behind it

 

Steve,

Thanks for the info. I will take that under advisement along with any other posts.

I noticed that you list your truck with NAV system. I have not looked close yet but does that dash computer screen have an independent dimmer controll.

I rode in a friends GMC Acadia with one of those screens after dark and it was about the most annoying thing I have ever seen on a dashboard....

 

I don't like that it is chock full of emissions stuff. I don't like that it can't be had with a manual transmission. Most of all I don't like how I can't afford it.

 

So you admit that if you could afford it you would buy one?

I dont mind the emissions stuff. They are there for a reason. If we didnt evolve emissions standards from when cars were first invented we would have to walk around with SCBAs all the time. The EPA has good intentions, and they are right 99% of the time. The problem is they put the cart before the horse. They say "DO THIS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS" and dont really tell manufactures how to do it so they have to figure it out and they it ends up not working well and hurting the engine one way or another. Its trial and error, and the consumer is the test subject.

Eventually they will figure out how to do emissions control better, with out putting stress on the motors. By no means do I like emissions stuff either, but in the grand scheme of things, its the right thing to do, and I dont think any reasonable person could deny that.

End rant.

 

I would like to have one of the new trucks. I don't like how emissions equipment brings down reliability and increases expense. Clean air is great, but the EPA should be shut down.

 

Unrelated rant
My opinion is that if you can reduce emissions without increasing fuel usage (notice my wording) or decreasing drivability then it's worth it.

Examples:
2003 ford mustang
When you let off the gas, the computer slowly, over the period of 2-3 seconds, releases the throttle. This prevents sudden changes in airflow which helps the quality of the emissions
The problem is twofold

One, you lose an element of control in the vehicle. If you are climbing a hilland have your foot steady, the round the top and let off, there is a distinct acceleration while the computer is slowly reducing the throttle

Problem 2
Even though the QUALITY of he exhaust is better this way, there is still more fuel burned than if you suddenly closed the throttle, which means that overall, more emissions are created. This seems to not be obvious to the EPA

Example 2:
Smog pumps installed on vast majority of 70's-90's cars

The idea is to pump unburnt gasses through the engine to reduce combustion temps, which reduces NOx
The problem is that you create a less ideal combustion and create more unburnt fuel for the cat to deal with. The emissions are better but you use extra fuel to decrease emissions

Also power and drivability are again affected and this is completely counterproductive.

There are many more examples, including the bumper melting mishaps that ford diesels went through a few years back.

I better end my rant now before I get carried away haha

 

Don't get me started on this unreliable emmision BS.

Anyway lets get back on topic.