Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Diesel > General Diesel Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


General Diesel Discussion SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2005, 07:53 PM
Fords_12345 Fords_12345 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
Fords_12345 is starting off with a positive reputation.
6.2 Chevrolet vs. 6.9 Ford vs. Early Cummins Dodge

What is the best of these three Diesels as far as. POWER and RELIABILITY.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2005, 09:15 PM
Frost13's Avatar
Frost13 Frost13 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Nowhere, SE OK
Posts: 1,209
Frost13 is starting off with a positive reputation.
cummins hands down. the 6.9 was a good engine but a bit down on power from the cummins. the 6.2 doesn't even compare to either of these. in the pre-psd era, the turbo'd, intercooled I-6 cummins had the advantage in power over the non-turbo V8 6.9. as far as reliability goes, they are about the same.

disclaimer: i do NOT like the cummins more than the psd. but this does not concern the psd.
__________________
I BLEED SOONER RED! GO SOONERS!


1994 F-150 S/C S/B 2wd XL, 300, 5-speed, 3.55, 183k
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2005, 09:22 PM
ford390gashog's Avatar
ford390gashog ford390gashog is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brentwood,CA
Posts: 14,762
ford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to allford390gashog is a name known to all
the 6.2 was a joke i would go with the cummins although the 6.9 was a very good engine.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 07:25 AM
BigF350 BigF350 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 18,288
BigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputationBigF350 has a superb reputation
adrian.erks.harris adrianerksharris
Just curious, does anyone know when each of the engines were available in thier respective vehicles?
I have a feeling the 6.9 was first offered in 84, but I am not sure..
__________________
Adrian | 2005 4x4 Diesel Courier CrewCab in Aus | 2012 4x4 CC/SB F250 6.7 in the US
2000 4x4 SC/LB F350 7.3 ZF-6 (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 11:17 AM
Flash Flash is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,914
Flash is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I had an 83 F-250 with the then new 6.9. It was a regular cab, auto with 3.54 gears. I pulled a 5er with it and it did a fabulous job. I had only once pushed it beyond its capability and had 32,000 pounds of load and trailer behind it. It wouldn't pull it over 50 mph but I also wasn't going far with the load. It got great fuel mileage empty, 26-28 hiway at the speeds of those times. I had injector pump troubles with it though and Ford pretty much said it was my problem. I found an old boy that built me a pump and it lasted for as long as I kept up with the truck. I sold it to a friend and the truck all but fell apart on him at 30,000 miles. The bottom pulley came off of the crank and went out thru the radiator and A/C and ripped the alternator and fan off of the engine. Ford split the bill with him which I thought was pretty decent of Ford. The engine block cracked at 100,000 miles and he had it drilled and welded. I also had a bud with the Cummins. Mine would out pull his in a heartbeat and get about the same fuel mileage. This was before the torque wars of today and the diesel engines got great fuel mileage. The Cummins was probably the most reliable. The 1985 series of 6.9 was the most reliable for Ford. There was a head gasket issue and injector pump issues that they worked out for the 85 year model. After their modifications to the head gaskets, power suffered as they reduced the compression ratio a bunch. My 83 was running 24:1 compression and it was reduced somewhere around 18:1. My 6.9 at the time would stay with a 454 SS Chevy from light to light. It was quick and most didn't believe a diesel would move like that. The 6.0 seems to be close to being as quick. I always thought the 7.3 was a slug as compared to the 6.9, reliable yes, but slow. Great memories of that truck.
As others have said the Chevy diesel was a joke. Reliabilty and that engine can't be said in the same sentence. The Cummins was the most reliable as far as the engine goes. Dodge has had and continues to have problems with the lift pump (fuel pump) but that is a Dodge problem, not a Cummins problem. The Cummins has had some injector problems along the way but that has been addressed and corrected. The easiest to service was the Cummins by far. Everything you need to get to is at your finger tips. Too bad Ford doesn't try that with their present day diesel engine.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 08:46 PM
Fords_12345 Fords_12345 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
Fords_12345 is starting off with a positive reputation.
How much power can you get out of these engines and still have reliability
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 08:53 PM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prince George, BC
Posts: 2,221
NickFordMan is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Flash, are you sure the 6.0L of today was slower then the 6.9 in '83? I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time believing that. Not to mention the 7.3 is in fact faster then the 6.9. Wasnt the compression 22:1?
__________________
Built Ford Tough
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 08:54 PM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prince George, BC
Posts: 2,221
NickFordMan is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
To answer the question, (edited - BigF350, language) the 6.9 and Cummins were very good reliable motors.
__________________
Built Ford Tough

Last edited by BigF350; 05-30-2005 at 09:00 PM. Reason: the Chevy piece of shat was just that, and
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 09:55 PM
Flash Flash is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,914
Flash is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
NickFordMan, maybe it's not a fair comparison but the 04, 6.0 we have at work is a Crewcab and a 4x4 which I'm sure effects the performance overall but the 6.9 I had was a screamer. Like I said, afterwards they lowered the compression ratio by quite a bit. If you have experience with the 6.9, it will make a difference as to the year model. The early ones were were strong as new rope.

I just remebered that I have time slips on that thing somewhere around here. I run it thru the lights one nite when it was free to race. Don't go run to the bank with this but as I remember, it was in the mid 14's. IF I can find them, I'll post the slips or PM you with them.

Last edited by Flash; 05-30-2005 at 09:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 10:33 PM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prince George, BC
Posts: 2,221
NickFordMan is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
If you can find those slips then yes, I'm interested!
__________________
Built Ford Tough
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2005, 11:20 PM
DOHCmarauder's Avatar
DOHCmarauder DOHCmarauder is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,074
DOHCmarauder has a great reputation on FTE.DOHCmarauder has a great reputation on FTE.DOHCmarauder has a great reputation on FTE.DOHCmarauder has a great reputation on FTE.DOHCmarauder has a great reputation on FTE.
Nick, you are an incredibly diplomatic human being.

Those things had around 180 HP and 365(?) torque.

With all due respect, mid 14's..............in the 1/8 mile maybe.
__________________
If Ford, GM, Chrysler and even the U.S. government can buy foreign, why can't we???
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:00 AM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Prince George, BC
Posts: 2,221
NickFordMan is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I was trying to be positive, lol, I know its basically PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (without insane gear reduction) to get those kinds of times. Thats why I asked for the slips for his proof. (No offense Flash, I wasnt expecting very much)
__________________
Built Ford Tough
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:26 AM
Al Bundy Al Bundy is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 131
Al Bundy is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
I had an 84 with a 6.9 and it was reliable, but very very slow. It was turboed also. My new 6.0 blows that 6.9 away.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:52 AM
IB Tim's Avatar
IB Tim IB Tim is online now
Site Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 111,599
IB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputationIB Tim has a superb reputation
This is one of those things I do not understand....why the 6.9 gets beat so bad by the 6.0s
__________________
Administrator
tim.lamkin@internetbrands dot com
Life is not only time……paradoxically, it is the denial of time!
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

When you are down...look up...get up...and don't ever give up....
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2005, 07:35 AM
nogo73's Avatar
nogo73 nogo73 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 945
nogo73 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Its not really fare to compare a early cummins(89-93) to a 6.9(83-87) the 6.9 was gone before the cummins even came out.
plus Motor wise yeah the cummins is superior. but Everything else on that dodge chassis is junk. I'd buy the ford any day for that reason. If you want a cummins stick it in a ford.
as far as the 6.9 to 6.0 comparason I know I seen some pictures of a twin turbo IDI That would proably do 14s.
I don't know about that I test drove a 6.0 in 03 and my 92 7.3 IDI wasn't far off from it. the big difference between the trucks was it was an automatic and mine was a stick I had 4.10s it had 3.73s..... oh yeah it had a turbo I didn't.
__________________
2001 F-350 XL 5.4,4x4.
2009 Mustang GT
1989 Mustang GT
Iowa chapter Board Member
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 07:35 AM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Diesel > General Diesel Discussion

Tags
1985, 62, 62chevrolet, 69, chevy, cummins, diesel, engine, ford, prechambers, reliability, reliable, turbo, turbos, twin

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup