Here is a discussin for everybody:

I have heard of people putting down the Cummins and saying the PSD can smoke it and the Duramax,
Well the truth is the Cummins is a Inline 6 cylinder diesel that is just over 350cubic inches that is used in medium duty truck with GVWR's of over 33,000lbs and witht he right gearing pulls just fine, it is one of the best diesel engines ever built in term of reliability and power producing potential, and the inline setup is the most economical and reliable engine set-up there is, that is why all the over the road semis HAVE inline set-ups there sin't a semi with a V-type engine.
Also the PSD is a great motor with great power but it can't get HEAVY loads moving like the cummings can, because the cummins has more power off-idle than any other light truck diesel has,
hence I said off-idle as in 800rpm, but the PSD does have the horsepower in the upper rpm range to keep the load flying up hills,BUT I can make the cummins in just a light duty truck have well over 1,000lb ft of torque for not much money compared to what you woud have to spend on a PSD to get.

Also the Duramax is nothing but a joke,
The engine has aluminum heads on it and that is a NO-NO with ANY working engine(hard work) escpecially a diesel that produces high compression just to run. And the Duramax is not a Medium duty engine in any way, also the Allison in the new GM's is not the heavy duty tranny made out to be, the insides are not as stout as to be believed.

The cummins is th eonly true diesel in pickups today but that too is becoming a thing of the past with the new ISB's computer controlled 24valved engines,
Everything is going computer controlled and tht isn't always better.
I can make more power in the 12valve cummins and 6.9 and 7.3l fords than can be made in the new 24valve and PSD diesels without having to sell the house to pay for.



thanks for listening and happy discussing and "cussin"
this is a discussion forum you know

Joel Thomas
Ferndale,AR
Diesel Tech graduate

 

Is there something that I missed? The cummins has decent power, but like you said it could be so much more powerfull, but chrysler decided no to manufacutre the engine to it's full potential. While, I myself believe the displacement is not big enough to get 1000+torque, I dought that block can handle that kind of power.

The duramax is pretty fun hu? What I find funny is that fact that 6.6L can be made equal to or better than 7.3L. Are you affraid of technology? A lot of engines are already made with aluminum parts, I think aluminum is a pretty good choice.

You want to know what I think is going on? I'll agree that in some ways the PSD sucks(other ways it is pretty godd, but some ways it really sucks). The cummins is a nice engine, but increasing the displacement could make it the best. GM is not going to sale away their company just yet, that Duramax is part ISUZU diesel, and ISUZU deisel is a pretty good name. Untill you see a Duaramx break down, I won't agree with that the Duramax sucks.

Logan

 

I have numerous Duramax's break down that is why GM just put new ones in for the first year when they had any engine trouble,
you obviously dont know that much about diesels.
because displacement is NOT the factor in torque when pulling the factor is when the torque comes in and on the inline engine it comes in sooner in the rpm,

aluminum is NOT a good product for diesel engines have you ever seen aluminum that has gotten hot and warped and do you know the
compression that most diesels run.
very high compare 9 to 20 when comparing gasoline to diesel.
compression is very rough and CAST IRON is the only thing a truck motor should have on it NO aluminum look at the big truck engine and if you EVER see a motor in the semis comparable to the PSD or Duramax please tell me because that truck just won't last like the cummins,detroit, and CAT's do.


thanks

 

Oh and you said you doubt the cummins can handle 1,000ft lbs of tourque, thats crazy.
that engine comes in marine versions stock with 750ft lbs of tourque is made more tougher than any other engine ever built for a light truck including all the big block 4 bolt main engines made for racing this block is STRONG.


thanks

 

I take it that you are a die hard cummins fan. I agree with some of your thoughts, but the fact is that everything including your bed pillow will become computerized some day. Don't fear the electronics, because there is nothing we can do to get rid of them. That is why I am keeping my 6.9L IDI. Because I can actuly work on it.



1986 F-250 6.9 diesel,4x4,XLT Lariat,Ex Cab, 8'bed,etc...

 

The Diesel Dudel: I used to have a Sony Beta-Max VCR hooked up to run through a VHS system. I'd go to the video rental place, rent a movie in VHS format, copy it into Beta format and get a better copy than the original was. But the VHS guys were out selling the Beta guys about 10 to 1 and eventually the Beta format went by the wayside, even though it was clearly a better system. The point is this: Chrysler builds about 60,000 Dodge trucks into diesels per year whereas, on average we have built 215,500 diesels per year from 1994 to 2001 inclusive. For the 2001 model year we built 345,000 units. We live in a world that necessitates building what the customer wants in order to stay in business -- its a simple fact of life. Cummins has a VERY GOOD reputation in the industry (better than ours, in fact). You could be absolutly right about the Cummins diesel being a better diesel than anyone else's but, if you are, then the customers are morons because the vast majority are buying Power Strokes. So, it could be that the reason Dodge doesn't sell as many diesel powered units per year is because the Cummins engine is just too good -- of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (Beware of people who attempt to validate their words by telling you that they've been to school, I'm not impressed.)

 

Ford trucks are less expensive than a dodge, plus I have noticed that more people prefer a ford truck over a dodge. Most people who buy a diesel truck, buy it becasue they think the PSD's are more powerful because they are bigger, also the diesel option is cheaper on the fords.




1986 F-250 6.9 diesel,4x4,XLT Lariat,Ex Cab, 8'bed,etc...

 

The reason more are buying Fords is the popular factor Dodges are not as popular because of their coachwork
yes thats right I have been saying the cummins is the best but not the truck it is in,Ford has always had the BEST coachwork(the little things)but dodge has the best engines.
here is a site for you.

www.fordcummins.com

putting a cummins engine intot he ford would make a very reliable and stout truck that has great biuldwork. like the little things that rattle

 

Treefort needs to hang up his text books and spec manuals and go get a dose of the real world,where engines are not on stands and are not cold but very hot because they just came off the road grossing 80,000 lbs.and skipping or knocking and some driver or owner raising cane because he needs his truck back on the road and not sitting in the shop with some so called "deadbeat" mechanic looking at it,and maybe the owner looking over his shoulder and asking every 5 min."When will it be ready"?!Just remember Diesel Tech Graduate is the first thing you put on a Resume'and after you list about 10 to 20 years experience in all phases of the business then and only then will anybody be even slightly impressed!Oh, I guess You're an ASE certified great test taker also.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-Jul-01 AT 01:37 AM (EST)[/font][p]Yep, this being a Ford site and all, I suppose you should expect that.
I'd sure like to see the look on your face the first time you pop the hood on a 3408, or better yet, a 3412.

So what kind of warranty are you offering on this fire breathing monster?
True Diesel? Uh, you lost me there. I figured the only real test for this would be what type of fuel is burned.

Milage is up, reliability is up and emissions are down. What's the downside?


Alan Scott
Grand Junction, CO
Unedyoukated typical low life truck driver who bows before the superiority of yet another "Tech"



[link:ford-trucks.com/users/alanscott/|http://www.ford-trucks.net/users/alanscott/clubftesml.jpg]...Click!

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-Jul-01 AT 01:57 AM (EST)[/font][p]As far as Duramaxa breaking down I have seen quite a few all running stron on the stock engine.

You really wnat to put 1000+ torque in 360 cubic inches? Thats pretty high compression. I'll let you drive down the road in that, besides the cummins sound abesolutley horrible. Have fun breathing on your OVER THE ROAD VERSION.

Computers are good, they can help you find out there might be a problem before you see your pistons on the ground.

What temperature does a duramax run at? Do you know those aluminum heads are going to melt?

Do you really think an auto maker as big as GM is going to release that poor of an engine? Do you actually believe that GM is going to waste money putting out an engine that they will have to replace for free within the first year? If they are willing to replace that engine that kinda, just sorta says that they have some(just a little) faith that their engine will last.

Another question, are you affraid of technology?

Logan

 

V8 engines fit into a shorter engine bay than in line 6 engines do. The size of the engine bay of an over the road truck is not much of a factor but the cost of the engine is (6 cylinder engines are cheaper to build than 8 cylinder engines). If an inline 6 cylinder engine were the perfect choice, why didn't GM save some money by utilizing a 6 Duramax instead of an 8 duramax (after all, they started with a clean sheet of paper)? When Ford Motor Company fuel injected their gasoline engines and advanced to the EEC4 computer, the Power Stroke's electronically controlled injection system fit into their engine management system perfectly. I guess The Diesel Dudel is too young to remember the GMC 8-71 engines, which were V8's and the 12-71 engines, which were V12's.

 

In reference to Logan's question of wheather GM is afraid of releasing inferior products on an unsuspecting public, GM is probably the only company, world wide, that could get away with doing just that. Look at their track record. The only good thing about their 6.2L and 6.5L engines is the price. The 5.7L diesel was a complete fiasco, then to add insult to injury they built some of those vehicles with GM 200 automatic transmissions (the same air cooled transmission used in the Vegas and Chevettes) then put the whole package into a full sized Delta 88. And don't forget the Pontiacs built with Chevrolet engines. Then there was the Vega, touted as a throw away car (which is precisely what they should have done with it). And don't forget the Corvair which turned into a half way decent car once they put double jointed half shafts in the rear. The Corvair may have survived if GM hadn't gotten caught putting a "hit" on Ralph Nader! GM's sheer size allows them to get away with doing just whatever they damn well please! When they first unveiled the Duramax, they were going to build 100,000 units the first year -- what happened? Aluminum heads? They must be having some trouble or they would have cut deeply into our market and that hasn't happened (yet). Why do you think they widely circulated the fact that Isuzu was called in to design the Duramax? Ford doesn't make a big production out of Navistar designing and building the Power Stroke. The answer is obvious!

 

Why do you think for made a pinto? What about over-ordering Firestone tires? About older GM Diesels, The only complaint I have ever had about any of them(excpet the original 350 diesel) is that they were not as powerfull as other engines over the road. I know lots of people who consider the 6.2L diesel the best ever made. Also the 350 was the first diesel out of the big 3, I'm quite sure all first models have production problems.

Chevrolet engiens in pontiacs? Chevrolet is only a brand name made by GM, just the same with Pontiac.

Logan

 

Well, Logan everyone is entitled to their own opinion. GM paid a ton of money to Pontiac owners who got Chevrolet engines in their Pontiacs back in the early eighties. Not that there is anything wrong with Chevrolet engines but the people who bought Pontiacs expected to get them with Pontiac engines in them. And the Pinto was actually a good car as long as someone did'n run into the rear of it (unlike the Vega which rusted out before it was paid for and whose engine smoked like a freight train at 40,000 miles). This latest Firestone fiasco not withstanding, I've never had a set of Firestone tires that were any good. I took the ones off my Ranger at 11,000 miles because they picked up everything in the road (among other things a headlight aiming screw). Apparently Ford was getting a break on the price on those Firestone tires which only goes to prove that you get what you pay for. All of which is to say nothing about how GM treats their employees. The UAW has 10 times as much trouble with GM as they do with Ford. (Ford's upper management treats the UAW people like team members and GM only talks about it.) They get by with doing what they do because of their vast size.