Ford or Dodge Diesel and why?
#16
09-02-2004, 11:08 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gray's Creek, NC
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know much about the Diesel Dodges or Diesel Fords... but it seems to me Ford as with GM is trying to adavnce their product as far as technology goes. Dodge just sits back and watches Ford and GM dual, and Dodge just ups the power and torque occasionally... not really focusing on bringing in newer technology, maybe I'm wrong about all this, I'm just going on my knowledge... , but it might come back to bite Dodge in the long run if they try to rest on their reputation for quality diesel trucks.. because pretty soon the Power Stroke/Duramax is going to find something alot better.
#17
09-03-2004, 12:16 AM
#18
09-03-2004, 12:39 AM
bolgone. I dont think the 6.0L is better then the old 7.3L. Faster? Yes of course but I thought the 7.3L towed easier, the 6.0L is constantyl revving way up, which is fine but not the ideal towing engine. For a few grand I can mod my 7.3L enough to easily outrun a 6.0L. No reason to buy a new truck with an engine thats failing all the time when I can have more torqe down low where I need it.The 7.3L is a low revving torqe beast and moves loads with ease. The 6.0L is a high revving hp engine and it does town okay but not as nice as the 7.3L. The 6.0L is what consumers want because 90% use it to commute to work in and go for a picnic. Its fast and thats what people want in a truck now. The trend is moving away from hard working utilty vehciles into 50k luxury trucks.
#19
09-03-2004, 03:01 AM
I thought the new dodge trucks came with a new 70k mile warranty. I dont know if its bumper to bumper or just powertrain after 36. At least it would cover the transmission.
As for dodge bringing in new technology. They redesigned in 03. That seems pretty new. The cummins was also redesigned so thats new too. Ford just redesigned and now it has coils like the dodge. So even though its new. Its old. Ford did put in larger brakes. The front rotors are as big as the dodges. New but after the fact. The rear brakes on the dodge are larger than the new fords rear brakes. So as far as brakes and coils. Dodge seems to be leading the way. If you noticed on the previous post. The dodge stops faster. I think that is a first. LOL. Dodge, bad brakes and even worse transmissions are synonimous. You cant have one without the OTHER.
Ford has the market cornered on v8 diesels with a great auto. Performance wise. I think in reality the TS is much more reliable than the Allison ever was but allison is a good name in transmissions and the TS is new. The PSD will win any race due to its rpms.
As for dodge vs ford diesels. They are both good at what they do. Im not sure dodges quality is up high enough yet. Although they did win a recent award for highest initial quality. Seems absurd to me too but they did. I have read that the 7.3 PSD had twice as many issues in the first 4 years of ownership than the Cummins. Mostly electical like glow plugs and stuff. The 6.0 had a rough launch but seems to be back on track. Many PSD dyno much higher than they are rated for right out of the factory. Like the 03 cobras. Some bang over 340hp off the production line.
I can tell you with all certainty. Whatever you decide. You will absolutely love it.
As for dodge bringing in new technology. They redesigned in 03. That seems pretty new. The cummins was also redesigned so thats new too. Ford just redesigned and now it has coils like the dodge. So even though its new. Its old. Ford did put in larger brakes. The front rotors are as big as the dodges. New but after the fact. The rear brakes on the dodge are larger than the new fords rear brakes. So as far as brakes and coils. Dodge seems to be leading the way. If you noticed on the previous post. The dodge stops faster. I think that is a first. LOL. Dodge, bad brakes and even worse transmissions are synonimous. You cant have one without the OTHER.
Ford has the market cornered on v8 diesels with a great auto. Performance wise. I think in reality the TS is much more reliable than the Allison ever was but allison is a good name in transmissions and the TS is new. The PSD will win any race due to its rpms.
As for dodge vs ford diesels. They are both good at what they do. Im not sure dodges quality is up high enough yet. Although they did win a recent award for highest initial quality. Seems absurd to me too but they did. I have read that the 7.3 PSD had twice as many issues in the first 4 years of ownership than the Cummins. Mostly electical like glow plugs and stuff. The 6.0 had a rough launch but seems to be back on track. Many PSD dyno much higher than they are rated for right out of the factory. Like the 03 cobras. Some bang over 340hp off the production line.
I can tell you with all certainty. Whatever you decide. You will absolutely love it.
Last edited by Logical Heritic; 09-03-2004 at 03:10 AM.
#20
09-03-2004, 03:09 AM
Sshhh. Don't say ANYTHING bad about Dodge on this forum. You will have your keyboard removed for being naughty. I own a Dodge Cummins and a Ford PSD. Sshh. (the PSD is much nicer, I highly recommend it).
You wont hear me comparing late 80s subaru gls to a late 90s subaru legacy. There is no comparison.
You pay a lot more for a 6.0 than that old dodge. Consumers expect a lot more nowadays and they have the money to pay for it. If you told someone 10 years ago that a light duty diesel would cost em 50 grand they would die laughing. Backup sensors. Heated leather. Variable turbos. Not to mention the tranny or the emissions technology.
If you told someone 10 years ago that they could get a 5 speed auto with a 325hp diesel in a light duty truck they would laugh in your face. Things have changed. Except for the auto in the dodge. LOL. Still the same one.
#21
09-03-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally Posted by lectricman
Actually, I think the Cummins has a lot less crap under the hood than a PSD in a superduty. My boss has two superdutys with PSD's and I personally find it hard to service much of anything under the hood. The Dodge with the cummins has much more room under the hood, in my opinion. I have also read on this very website how much easier it is to change injectors on a cummins as compared to a PSD. Just my $.02.
#22
09-03-2004, 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by lectricman
Actually, I think the Cummins has a lot less crap under the hood than a PSD in a superduty. My boss has two superdutys with PSD's and I personally find it hard to service much of anything under the hood. The Dodge with the cummins has much more room under the hood, in my opinion. I have also read on this very website how much easier it is to change injectors on a cummins as compared to a PSD. Just my $.02.
Have you ever even looked at the 7.3L PSD? It doesn't sound like it. Even the 6-liter is pretty easy to maintain--much more so than the Cummins.
#23
09-03-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by The Ironman
Whistle Man:
Sshhh. Don't say ANYTHING bad about Dodge on this forum. You will have your keyboard removed for being naughty. I own a Dodge Cummins and a Ford PSD. Sshh. (the PSD is much nicer, I highly recommend it).
Okay, your real choice is between the Ford/PSD and the next-best performing diesel and transmission on the market: The GM/Chevy with a Duramax and Allison transmission. The Ford is better, though, here's why:
PSD/TS vs DURAMAX/ALLISON
A Ford PSD/Auto-TS and a GM Duramax/Allison are driving across the salt-flats. They each have an empty trailer into which we are going to add weights until someone must downshift to maintain speed. They both must also maintain the same speed. The first forced to slow down loses the race. We will start with the most ideal speed for the GM, which is 1600 engine rpm (max torque of 590 ft-lbs). Each has a 3.73 rear axle, the best for towing and 31inch diameters tires on a 16-inch wheel. Therefore the speed they are running at is: (1600 rpm x 3.14 x 31 inches) / (0.71 x 3.73 x 1056) = 55.7 mph, which is a nice comfortable highway speed.
My assumptions for this analysis include the following:
FORD:
I’m using the published PSD torque/HP curve from the PSD brochure, adjusted upward 10 ft-lbs for their new 570 ft-lb 2005 PSD, with the exception that I smooth that back into no extra torque gain at the 325HP point. For the Duramax, I am using their published max Torque/HP as shown below, and I assume a drop-off distance of 450 rpm after peak HP, which is identical to the curve shape for the PSD. In review:
PSD:
2100 rpm = 570 ft-lb
3300 rpm = 325 HP (518 ft-lb)
3750 rpm = drop off to zero
1st: 3.09
2nd: 2.20
3rd: 1.538
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.712
Duramax 6.6L
1600 rpm = 590 ft-lb
3100 rpm = 310 HP (525 ft-lb)
3550 rpm = drop off to zero (assumed based on peak horsepower at 200 rpm less than PSD)
slope of the torque line is y = 655 – 0.040625
Allison
1st: 3.10
2nd: 1.81
3rd: 1.41
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.71
(1) DROP IN THE FIRST LOAD (874 ft-lb-rev/min): Ford must downshift to 4th
GM/Chevy work potential is 590 ft-lb x 1600rpm = 944K ft-lb-rev/min, transmission axle rpm = 1600 / .71 = 2253 rpm.
Ford must go transmission axle of 2253 rpm, so engine turns 2253 * .712 (5th gear) = 1604 rpm, Torque @ 1604 rpm = 545 ft-lbs, work potential of the Ford = 545 ft-lb x 1604rpm = 874K ft-lbs-rev/min).
The GM/Chevy has more torque reserve. We drop a load in each trailer equal to 874K ft-lbs-rev/min) of load.
The Ford must downshift. Ford downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253rpm, 4th gear is 1.0 so engine is going 2253rpm Torque @ 2253 rpm = 560 ft-lbs. Work = 2253 rpm x 560 ft-lb = 1,262K ft-lbs-rev/min.
(2) 2nd DROP OF MORE LOAD (944 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 4th
Now Ford has more torque reserve (1,262 to 944 ft-lbs-rev/min). We drop more load in the trailer and the load is upped to 944K ft-lbs-rev/min) and GM/Chevy must downshift.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 4th gear is 1.0, so engine is going 2253 rpm. Torque @ 2253 = 563 ft-lbs. Work capacity = 2253rpm x 563 ft-lb = 1,268K ft-lb-rev/min
(3) 3rd DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,262 ft-lb-rev/min): Ford must downshift to 3rd
Now GM/Chevy has more torque reserve (1,268 to 1,262 ft-lbs-rev/min) but the margin is almost zero, and from an engineering view, within error margin. However, we will press on. We once again add more weight and the load is upped to 1,262K ft-lb and Ford must downshift.
Ford downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 3rd gear is 1.538, so engine is going 2253 rpm x 1.538 = 3465 rpm. Torque @ 3465 = 500 ft-lbs. Work capacity = 3465 rpm x 500 ft-lb = 1,733K ft-lb-rev/min
(4) 4th DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,268 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 3rd
Now Ford has more torque reserve (1,733 to 1,268 ft-lbs-rev//min. We add more weight and the load upped to 1,268K ft-lb and GM/Chevy must downshift.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 3rd gear is 1.41, so engine is going 2253rpm x 1.41 = 3177 rpm. Torque @ 3177 is approx 520 ft-lb. Work capacity = 3177 rpm x 520 = 1,652K ft-lbs-rev/min.
(5) 5th DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,652 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 2nd
Ford STILL retains more torque reserve (1,733 to 1,652 ft-lbs-rev/min). The GM/Chevy is now in a position of never being able to catch up. The race is soon over. However, note at this point that the GM/Chevy and Ford were VERY CLOSE when Ford was in 4th Gear (1,262 ft-lb-rev/min) and when GM/Chevy was in 4th gear (1,268 ft-lb-rev/min). It’s technically and virtually a tie. But what has happened is that the ramp down of torque for Ford is flatter, going out to 518 ft-lbs at 3300 rpm, while the GM/Chevy’s ramp down is a bit steeper, going down to 520 … but 200 rpms earlier at 3100. This is THE WEAK point of the Duramax. It’s peak HP comes 200 rpm before the PSD, and the PSD will outlast.
Yet more weight is added again, and the load is upped to 1,652K and GM/Chevy must downshift again.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253rpm. 2nd gear is 1.81, so engine is going 2253 x 1.81 = 4077 rpm. REDLINE. Cannot maintain that engine rpm… the truck is forced to slow down to a slower transaxle speed, and go slower with the new load of 1,652 ft-lbs-rev/min in the trailer. So what should the GM/Chevy slow down too? Well, if the max RPM for the dodge is about 3550 rpm, then 1,652 ft-lb-rev/min divided by 3550 rpm means it would need a torque of 465 ft-lbs. Can a GM/Chevy produce that amount there? We’ll assume so. The new speed of the Dodge will now be:
Speed (mph) = (3550 RPM x 3.14 x 31 inch tires) / (1.81 x 3.73 x 1056) = 48.4 mph
Sshhh. Don't say ANYTHING bad about Dodge on this forum. You will have your keyboard removed for being naughty. I own a Dodge Cummins and a Ford PSD. Sshh. (the PSD is much nicer, I highly recommend it).
Okay, your real choice is between the Ford/PSD and the next-best performing diesel and transmission on the market: The GM/Chevy with a Duramax and Allison transmission. The Ford is better, though, here's why:
PSD/TS vs DURAMAX/ALLISON
A Ford PSD/Auto-TS and a GM Duramax/Allison are driving across the salt-flats. They each have an empty trailer into which we are going to add weights until someone must downshift to maintain speed. They both must also maintain the same speed. The first forced to slow down loses the race. We will start with the most ideal speed for the GM, which is 1600 engine rpm (max torque of 590 ft-lbs). Each has a 3.73 rear axle, the best for towing and 31inch diameters tires on a 16-inch wheel. Therefore the speed they are running at is: (1600 rpm x 3.14 x 31 inches) / (0.71 x 3.73 x 1056) = 55.7 mph, which is a nice comfortable highway speed.
My assumptions for this analysis include the following:
FORD:
I’m using the published PSD torque/HP curve from the PSD brochure, adjusted upward 10 ft-lbs for their new 570 ft-lb 2005 PSD, with the exception that I smooth that back into no extra torque gain at the 325HP point. For the Duramax, I am using their published max Torque/HP as shown below, and I assume a drop-off distance of 450 rpm after peak HP, which is identical to the curve shape for the PSD. In review:
PSD:
2100 rpm = 570 ft-lb
3300 rpm = 325 HP (518 ft-lb)
3750 rpm = drop off to zero
1st: 3.09
2nd: 2.20
3rd: 1.538
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.712
Duramax 6.6L
1600 rpm = 590 ft-lb
3100 rpm = 310 HP (525 ft-lb)
3550 rpm = drop off to zero (assumed based on peak horsepower at 200 rpm less than PSD)
slope of the torque line is y = 655 – 0.040625
Allison
1st: 3.10
2nd: 1.81
3rd: 1.41
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.71
(1) DROP IN THE FIRST LOAD (874 ft-lb-rev/min): Ford must downshift to 4th
GM/Chevy work potential is 590 ft-lb x 1600rpm = 944K ft-lb-rev/min, transmission axle rpm = 1600 / .71 = 2253 rpm.
Ford must go transmission axle of 2253 rpm, so engine turns 2253 * .712 (5th gear) = 1604 rpm, Torque @ 1604 rpm = 545 ft-lbs, work potential of the Ford = 545 ft-lb x 1604rpm = 874K ft-lbs-rev/min).
The GM/Chevy has more torque reserve. We drop a load in each trailer equal to 874K ft-lbs-rev/min) of load.
The Ford must downshift. Ford downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253rpm, 4th gear is 1.0 so engine is going 2253rpm Torque @ 2253 rpm = 560 ft-lbs. Work = 2253 rpm x 560 ft-lb = 1,262K ft-lbs-rev/min.
(2) 2nd DROP OF MORE LOAD (944 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 4th
Now Ford has more torque reserve (1,262 to 944 ft-lbs-rev/min). We drop more load in the trailer and the load is upped to 944K ft-lbs-rev/min) and GM/Chevy must downshift.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 4th gear is 1.0, so engine is going 2253 rpm. Torque @ 2253 = 563 ft-lbs. Work capacity = 2253rpm x 563 ft-lb = 1,268K ft-lb-rev/min
(3) 3rd DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,262 ft-lb-rev/min): Ford must downshift to 3rd
Now GM/Chevy has more torque reserve (1,268 to 1,262 ft-lbs-rev/min) but the margin is almost zero, and from an engineering view, within error margin. However, we will press on. We once again add more weight and the load is upped to 1,262K ft-lb and Ford must downshift.
Ford downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 3rd gear is 1.538, so engine is going 2253 rpm x 1.538 = 3465 rpm. Torque @ 3465 = 500 ft-lbs. Work capacity = 3465 rpm x 500 ft-lb = 1,733K ft-lb-rev/min
(4) 4th DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,268 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 3rd
Now Ford has more torque reserve (1,733 to 1,268 ft-lbs-rev//min. We add more weight and the load upped to 1,268K ft-lb and GM/Chevy must downshift.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253 rpm. 3rd gear is 1.41, so engine is going 2253rpm x 1.41 = 3177 rpm. Torque @ 3177 is approx 520 ft-lb. Work capacity = 3177 rpm x 520 = 1,652K ft-lbs-rev/min.
(5) 5th DROP OF MORE LOAD (1,652 ft-lb-rev/min): GM/Chevy must downshift to 2nd
Ford STILL retains more torque reserve (1,733 to 1,652 ft-lbs-rev/min). The GM/Chevy is now in a position of never being able to catch up. The race is soon over. However, note at this point that the GM/Chevy and Ford were VERY CLOSE when Ford was in 4th Gear (1,262 ft-lb-rev/min) and when GM/Chevy was in 4th gear (1,268 ft-lb-rev/min). It’s technically and virtually a tie. But what has happened is that the ramp down of torque for Ford is flatter, going out to 518 ft-lbs at 3300 rpm, while the GM/Chevy’s ramp down is a bit steeper, going down to 520 … but 200 rpms earlier at 3100. This is THE WEAK point of the Duramax. It’s peak HP comes 200 rpm before the PSD, and the PSD will outlast.
Yet more weight is added again, and the load is upped to 1,652K and GM/Chevy must downshift again.
GM/Chevy downshifts, must maintain transmission axle rpm = 2253rpm. 2nd gear is 1.81, so engine is going 2253 x 1.81 = 4077 rpm. REDLINE. Cannot maintain that engine rpm… the truck is forced to slow down to a slower transaxle speed, and go slower with the new load of 1,652 ft-lbs-rev/min in the trailer. So what should the GM/Chevy slow down too? Well, if the max RPM for the dodge is about 3550 rpm, then 1,652 ft-lb-rev/min divided by 3550 rpm means it would need a torque of 465 ft-lbs. Can a GM/Chevy produce that amount there? We’ll assume so. The new speed of the Dodge will now be:
Speed (mph) = (3550 RPM x 3.14 x 31 inch tires) / (1.81 x 3.73 x 1056) = 48.4 mph
Your definition of 'better' is when the torque comes on later rather then sooner?
Also I beleive your numbers to be off. The publised new number's here say
605 ft/tq and 325hp. http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/
And I thought I read somewhere that the tq was read @1800 rpms. Also on the inside cover of my outdoor life mag (sept 2004) A GM advertisment claimed best in class towing at 16,800lbs for the 1 ton and a 9200 GVWR for the 3/4 ton. Aren't those both best in class - or did Ford catch up now with the '05 SD? Also I don't remember reading anywhere where GM had to purchase back trucks for injector problems ??????
Did I miss something ....
#24
09-03-2004, 12:46 PM
Here it is:
http://www.duramaxdiesel.com/
Old numbers but take torque from 1800 RPMS - I guess that could'a changed
http://www.duramaxdiesel.com/
Old numbers but take torque from 1800 RPMS - I guess that could'a changed
#26
09-03-2004, 01:10 PM
Either way I think youll be happy. I would personally would never buy a Dodge. I am not too keen on the rest of the truck away from the motor. Ive seen past Dodges and there shoddy workmanship and would never have one. GMs duramax is definitly a truck that has a good warranty with it. I am really impressed with there injector warranty 200,000 miles definitly the best around. All in all I would be definitly buying the Ford. I just love the superdities roominess unmatched by anybody. If you ever sit in one you no what I mean. I just love the looks and the rest of the truck. Do whats best for you thats what counts. Numbers dont mean much to me with the diesel wars I want to like the truck Im buying.
#27
09-03-2004, 04:26 PM
#28
09-03-2004, 05:01 PM
Freshman User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigF350
ChevmaninaFord nailed it, but soon Dodge won't have a choise, they won't be able to keep up with the ever increasing emission requirements with the current technology you use, so I am sure they will up the technology game soon, unless they want to stop selling Diesel trucks...
The cummins 600 meets emission requirements without the use of EGR, unlike the Duramax or the Powerstroke. It is also reliably using three injection events per cycle. I think it's safe to say that Cummins is leading the way in the technology department.
Matt
#29
09-03-2004, 05:02 PM
#30
09-03-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by DMAX-HD
Great looking analysis. Couple ?'s though.
Your definition of 'better' is when the torque comes on later rather then sooner?
Also I beleive your numbers to be off. The publised new number's here say
605 ft/tq and 325hp. http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/
And I thought I read somewhere that the tq was read @1800 rpms. Also on the inside cover of my outdoor life mag (sept 2004) A GM advertisment claimed best in class towing at 16,800lbs for the 1 ton and a 9200 GVWR for the 3/4 ton. Aren't those both best in class - or did Ford catch up now with the '05 SD? Also I don't remember reading anywhere where GM had to purchase back trucks for injector problems ??????
Did I miss something ....
Your definition of 'better' is when the torque comes on later rather then sooner?
Also I beleive your numbers to be off. The publised new number's here say
605 ft/tq and 325hp. http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/
And I thought I read somewhere that the tq was read @1800 rpms. Also on the inside cover of my outdoor life mag (sept 2004) A GM advertisment claimed best in class towing at 16,800lbs for the 1 ton and a 9200 GVWR for the 3/4 ton. Aren't those both best in class - or did Ford catch up now with the '05 SD? Also I don't remember reading anywhere where GM had to purchase back trucks for injector problems ??????
Did I miss something ....