This is in reply to otto, Ford is not going to use a hydramatic gm design transmission in FWD now or ever, however GM and Ford will be using very similar transaxles in there cars that are designed by ZF and built in there respective GM and Ford plants! That's the whole truth about the whole tranxaxle deal. Also if you would like to here about fifth year problems do a little research on the GM 3.4, I have one and love it, but its problems were never resolved, they just stopped its production!

 

i have a 95 3point4 GTP and it always runs great no problems, 96k great little runner, I beat on daily and it just takes the abuse, whats the problem with it?

Its block is still in use today and will still be around after the 3.8 dies or it will die with the 3.8 which is like next year, and I didnt hear a thing about ZF in the GM/Ford tranny coalition, listen if Ford is using ZF also thats a 3 way transmission thats terrible for Fords reputation anyway, Im positive the Generals Hydramatic division gets most their automatics done in a timely fashion and deliver a product that is solid and reliable, I have 2 and they couldnt be better, My 95 Cougar 4R70W tranny needed late model Mercon 5 tranny fluid to get rid of the overdirve shift shutter (typical ford autotrans blues)

I also replaced the headgaskets on my cougars 3.8 @ 112k, it still ran great after that tho, no coolant in crankcase....the cylinder walls still had cross hatch in them and looked beautiful

Im merely an automotive observer

 

The 6 speed manual tranny in the GM HD p-ups and Ford SD p-ups are the same transmission.

 

By ZF which is a german company isnt it ?, I will say this tho a company here casts ZF truck trannies, Intermet Die Casting does them in big numbers

JL French Die casting in Sheboygan WI and Glasgow KY does gm and Ford and GM engine blocks and Ford auto tranny cases, Chrylser has their own huge die casting plant in Kokomo IN

 

I respectfully disagree. The EPA rates engines based on emissions, not engine life.

My proof: My father is a government contractor for the EPA, and he used to do testing on those engines.

Engine life is irrelevant to their duty ratings in the EPA. It is all emissions. The Cummins is rated as "Medium" heavy because it can't meet the "light" restrictions. So, unless you know somebody who is closer to the testing than my father, please let me know.

 

How about a 700+ hp diesel pickup?!!

http://www.dieseldynamics.com/videos...1041-keith.mpg

Not even his fastest run either. 10.21 is the fastest I know about.


On top of this, the Cummins holds the record run at Bonneville
The Banks Sidewinder smashed the world 159.647-mph record with an average speed of 217.314 mph, making Sidewinder the World's Fastest Diesel Pickup! Amazing Overall Top Speed: 222.139 mph
Just another example of the performance capablity of the Cummins.

Are there any other diesels with this type of performance capability?

 

Yes, as a matter of fact there are but most people who drive Mercede's would find that Dodge trucks wouldn't suit them, because they like chassis/bodies that last.

Are you here to troll and are any of your discussions going to contain anything except how good Dodge is?

 

I am not singleing you out here, and I am glad that you are happy with your 3.4, but the 3.4 DOHC and quad 4 4 cylinder engine were some of the least reliable engiens GM ever produced, they are fun to drive when operating properly. Both can be very expensive to replace.

I'm not sure if the 3.8 you are refering to is the GM 3.8 or not, but the 3.4 share nothing with the 3.8. The 3.4 is a variant of the 2.8 V6, 3.1/current 3.4 family of 60 degree V6's, where the GM 3.0, 3.3, 3.8 arevariants on the same 90 V6 platform. IMO GM makes a very good V6 engine. I mean you no disrespect, I just thought I'd post my $.02.

 

I meant that the 3.1 could be around after the 3.8 goes away next year, but mayhaps the 3.1 will go out with it also, a new ohc engine family coming I believe, the 60 degree v-6 has lived a long and good life, the 231 buick 3.8 has been around since the early 60's

I have seen alot of quad4's/3.4's/northstars make quite long lasting reliable drivers, no they arent the easiet to work on and not the cheapest, but gm did no wrong by using these motors and were and still are ahead of the curve IMHO

 

No but you did say the 5.9 cummins was a medium duty engine while the PSD's were light duty automotive engines. MW95F250 was simply trying to correct your ignorance of the facts by stating that the 6.0 and 7.3 for that matter were used in medium duty applications by international prior to being introduced in the F series trucks. So you see, i guess its acceptable to consider the powerstrokes as medium duty engines! Just the facts Ma'am!!

The bottom line is all the proud dodge owners(and i don't say that sacrcastically because the cummins is a great engine) relish in the idea that they have a medium duty diesel engine in their light duty trucks, guess what, its still a light duty truck which means you have cummins light duty version of the 5.9. Same with the fords the T-444E and T-365 are medium duty engines but thier twin brothers in the F-series applications are considered light duty.

I will make my point like this, It is possible to get a t-365 in a F-650. It will generate 620ft/lbs of tourque where the F-series counterpart powerstroke (6.0) will generate 560. The difference lies completely on Ford Motor company computer and electronics.

A cummins in the same F-650 will generate up to 660ft/lbs of torque, where the Ram series trucks will only get the 555 rating, of course up and until the 5.9 600 is out.

I think my point makes itself clear. None of us have a medium duty engine in our light duty trucks or we would all be pushing 620 to 650 lbs of torque. What we do have are detuned light duty versions of the medium duty engines whether International or Cummins. Lets get real Fellas!!

torque specs were taken straight from International and Cummins websites for the medium duty applications.

 

The curious thing is that even in the medium duty trucks. The t444e is still rated as light duty by the epa.

I think the poster with the epa contracting father was correct. Not that the cummins wont meet light duty but that its not its primary intended purpose. There are over 2 million ISBs on the road and less than half of that is in the dodge pickup. To be more accurate there are now over 1 million cummins powered dodges but I think you see the point.

International sold a little more than 1.7million 7.3 Powerstroke diesels to ford before ford switched over to the 6.0.

It really depends on what you expect from a truck. If you want it to be fast. v8 all the way. I-6s tow really well but arent that fast due to having less rpm available because of the extra recipricating mass. The flip side is that they tend to have very long lives. Much more bearing surface available in an I-6. There are a few with over a milliion miles without lifting the head. Id say that is the first time in history for a light duty truck. So for reliability it is the longest lived engine ever built.

Dodge hasnt figured autos out yet. Maybe this redesigned tranny will fair better but like the poster said its still not a 5 speed. It is now rated to accept an exhaust brake though. On the other hand dodge has the best 6 speed on the market.

As for the truck. It lives up to its reputation. Its possible to get to 100k without trouble but after that the repairs add up quick. Id say that the 5.9 with the 6speed and the dana axles with the hd np tcase could probably be one of the most reliable combos on the market. For hard work I would stick to the leaf sprung front axles. Coils need more maintanence.

Id say most of the 5.9s hype comes from its extreme bombability in stock form. They are a tough little engine.

As for them belonging in a cornbinder. They dont make as many rpm as the 6.0 or the 6.6 but they have the widest torque curve of the 3. So it will have very good drivebility. Especially with peak torque so low in the rpm band.

 

The 600 is out.
You dont need 600+ lb ft to do medium duty work. My preference would be 600 minimum but they underspec a lot of trucks to prevent the dimwits working for the company from destroying the truck.

The limiting factor on light duty pickups is the transmissions. Otherwise we could just use the 620lb ft and 660 lb ft engines. Leaps and bounds have been made in automatic transmission technology lately. Maybe in the next few years we will see 620 or 660 lb ft engines in a pickup but you must understand that with peak torque so low in the rpm it is very hard to build a tranny to hold it. The 6.0 has a distinct advantage as it reaches peak torque later in the rpm band. Releaving some of the stress of torque multiplication from the torque converter.

I consider us very fortunate to have the choice of a 560,590 and 600 lb ft diesel engine with an automatic transmission.

 

Good post heretic, I see where you are coming from, but the fact remains that in our light duty trucks for whatever limiting factor, we do have detuned versions of the medium duty engines whether ford or dodge. Granted they are the identical engines with the exception of the electronics.

The international T-444E and T-365 may be rated light duty by the EPA, (I don't know), but i do know they are used in medium duty applications by international.

I know the 600 cummins is in production, but i thought you couldn't get one yet?? A coworker tried to order one and was told he could not order one until May.. Maybe thats only if your going to order one?? So are they actually on the dodge lots for sale now?

Last but not least, you are very correct in stating the cummins stands up to aftermarked mods better, they are indestructable in that sense.. But i still like my PSD better

 

There are already people complaining about them. So I figure they are on the lots.

As for the may thing. They are lying to sell their current inventory. Not saying a salesman would ever use deceptive tactics because that would be wrong.

They are only detuned, in torque, if you buy the highest power ratings. They are supertuned if you buy the lowest power rating. Many, many of these engines sold for medium duty work have lower power ratings than our lowly light duty trucks. The engines for light duty make more hp.

I think your detuned medium statement is incorrect. We always have more horsepower and most of the time more torque than those mediums with these engines. I read a medium article years ago that said 215hp and 600lb ft will move any load that a 750 chassis can tote. Now that were hitting 560,590, and 600. I say were are playing with the big boys for towing ability. I think Ford will push the 6.0 to its limits and put out a 620lb ft model. They have said that they will not be second again. Now both the Duramax and the Cummins make more torque. At this power level we are talking about split seconds in a quarter but numbers sell a truck.

I just looked at the cummins website and out of 12 power ratings. 2 were for 660 lb ft. Not one of them made anywhere close to 325hp. All of em were governed at 2600 rpm or less. hp is a reflection of rpm.

Not everyone doing medium duty work will buy the highest power rated engine. In fact very few do otherwise you would see many more ht466 out there. Most I see are dt. The ones with the ht cant say enough about em. I say buy the biggest you can get your hands on.

The hemi has increased dodges sales drastically and Im not all that impressed. 345hp sounds nice on paper. I am eager to see the 6.1 hemis entry. It will replace the aging v10. A little birdy told me that they have tested the 6.1s at 500hp and they have held up quite well. He said the new hemis production numbers will be over 400hp. It was originally slated for release in aug of 04. If so we only have to wait a few more months.

Another birdy told me that dana is in court right now, at least a few of its employees are, for some r and d going from fords axle division to danas. It seems four employees forgot about the contract they signed on the way out the door.

 

Again, I can't disagree with any of your statements, but when I use the term "detuned" I personally am referring to just the torque specs as thats all i'm interested in. You are correct that our light duty trucks with the diesels have higher horsepower ratings that the medium duty engines..

Has anyone heard about the supposed "PowerWagon" from Dodge?? Estimated 600 hp and over 1000ft/lbs. with the Cummins??? I don't believe it myself, but co-worker swears by it!!