So this has happened to more than one truck?

Sent from my Telegraph using IB AutoGroup

 

Better question is has this happened to all the dodge trucks?

 

I was thinking of my friends mid 90s Dodge, it had a Center Axle Disconnect I'm not sure how it was supposed to work but it didn't work well. Some of the new Ram's evidently have them but not all? The ball in the double cardan failing makes sense knowing that, in my experience with this, a 89 Ranger not a Ram, there is significant driveline vibration way before you should explode anything.

 

My 1990 Dodge has that double cardon joint in it and I've rebuilt it once. Next time I'll have a cv joint shaft built.

As for the other Cummins stuff. I've owned three and IMO they stopped being reliable in 2007 when the 5.9 went away. I had an '06 that was trouble free and after deleting the emissions (no tuner) I'd get 21 mpg regularly and could best 24 with a light foot. Ffwd to my second cummins which was a 2010 with 6.7 that thing had all the creature comforts but drank fuel. Best I ever got was 13.5. My third cummins is a first generation 1990 non intercooled with the small turbo (160hp). I get 20 loaded or empty regardless of how heavy my foot is, but 65 is top speed with the old 3 speed auto. The reliability is there if they are left alone.

I'm not saying Cummins is the best thing since sliced bread but my experience tells me they're a good engine in stock form and the trucks can be good when the other issues are fixed before problems start (transmissions).

 

Whats to say a 6.0 engine wouldn't be as reliable as a 5.9 cummins if it was running a 160 hp tune?

 

You're absolutely correct! I had an '05 F250 with the 6.0 and I never had an issue with the engine/drivetrain. Wife wrecked it so it went away. I think that they're all probably pretty reliable if you leave the stock tune alone.

 

Many do alright at 325 hp, for a long long time.
Imagine a 160 hp tune lol.

 

I'm running the stock 160 HP lol. She's a dog but rock solid. Amazes me how far trucks have come in the past 25 years lol

 

Nobody would buy it.

Sent from my Telegraph using IB AutoGroup

 

This has happened to at least three of their trucks.

 

From the sounds of it, lack of grease is the cause?

 

Nobody would buy it fair enough, but the point I was making is that the old 5.9 cummins seems to get compared to everything, as if it is the best, but it is only 160 hp. Any pickup diesel will last forever at 160 hp. Heck I bet the 6.4 would pass emissions with a 160 hp tune without the DPF even on.

 

The 5.9 is what got Ford and Chevy off their butts and brought us to where we are now. If anything I'd say that the 5.9 is the grandfather to the light duty diesels. It took Ford what nearly 4 years to offer a turbocharged diesel after the 5.9 appeared and even then the diesels were only putting out 225HP.

I've owned three cummins trucks to my two ford powerstrokes and if I ever bought another cummins it'd not be a 6.7. I personally think that's one reason why the 5.9 is regarded with such high praise. Because the 6.7 cummins trucks with emissions suck.

 

the original 7.3 naturally aspirated IDI had 25-30 more hp than the 5.9 turbo, and would out pull it any day of the week. the 7.3 also got better fuel mileage.
but everyone still swore the gold plated cummings turd was the best thing since buttered bread.

every single cummings turd that was bought by people i know because it was 1000 times better than my "junk" 7.3 has been melted down for scrap for many years now, while my "junk" 7.3 is still purring like new with a little over 494,000 miles on it.

 

I though the 7.3 idi was 170 hp? Or was it 180 hp?

In any case, I found that the idi trucks had more than enough power for a daily driver and occasional towing. Far more practical than what you can buy today.