If that means GM's front end doesn't launch your kidneys into the headliner every time you hit a huge bump, then I guess it's true. I have yet to see any documentation that GM's front end is, in fact, the inferior design onpavement.. It's no secret that GM's product offerings are not designed with off-road use as a high priority, but that's an engineering decision to bias the product design towards the most likely useage.

 

Both and neither. All I know is Dodge needs 1 to stay in the game.

 

The Dodge brakes are a little bigger, but in Motor Trend's test of 04s, the Ford stopped in a shorter distance both loaded and empty.

 

I really haven't seen, heard, nor read of anything that says that IFS fails under the same loads and pressures as a SFA. What your saying makes sense - just haven't seen it.

 

I still dont know why GM doesnt go to a solid axle. Fords new superduty rides better then GMs IFS in my opinion. Fords front axle has been beefed up quite a bit from last years model. Just take a look under the new superduties. Youll see what I mean. GMs IFS looks pretty weak to that. GM would gain market share with it. Thats the name off the game. I was noticing several GMdealers that have leftover 04 HDs wheras Ford ran out off 04s back in September and has been selling 05s ever since. I sense some new GM model trucks coming out quicker possibly with solid front axles. I noticed GMCs new HD trucks stole the looks off Fords superduty truck with there bulged hood.

 

Not gonna happen in the sub 14000 lb GVW class. If you drive the two back to back on a rough road (I do routinely) there is a significant difference in ride. That being said, the Ford holds advantages off-road. FWIW, I don't know what the inventory situation is in the rest of the country, but we were out of both Ford's and Chebbies '04 models by November of last year.

 

Thats weird. There was another test posted here not to long ago that showed exactly the opposite. I wonder which test was sandbagging. The 04 ford had even smaller brakes. The upgraded brakes became available in 05 model year. Really makes me scratch my head.

 

This strays slightly from the IFS durability issue, but is related wholly to the IFS subject:

Within the last two weeks, my dealership has removed and replaced NUMEROUS front differential assemblies that have had catastrophic failure in late '03-early '04 2500 and 2500HD trucks. Why? The quality control in the AAM assembly plant is a joke as are the monkeys that are putting them together. We got a bulletin about 3 weeks back from GM stating that we needed to get all of these trucks in and drain the mineral based oil from the front differentials and fill with synthetic gear oil. If you don't get to 'em soon enough, the front differential (pinion gear bearings) will seize and as soon as you put it in 4x4, the drivetrain stops moving. Kinda funny.....

Cody

 

The facts regarding the components used in every vehicle are available with enough searching. How they stack up is a matter of interpretation. I don't think there's anything wrong with GM's method of suspension on the front of their trucks.
As long as the suspension does not hinder the truck's ability to do what it is
designed to do, then it is only a matter of GM choosing a different path to the
same end.

Those CV joints, control arms, torsion bars, A arms, etc , are very beefy components.
We arent talking the front end of a Buick Regal here. The difference in terms of size and strength are like comparing a Dana 44 to a Dana 80. Of course for constant off road use a solid axle is simply a better design IMO.

As far as frames - all have bragging rights in a way. Dodge and Ford have both made mention of their improved frames in their literature, while GM dosent seem to harp on theirs too much, but according the data I've seen, if you compute all frame dimensions from the three trucks ie, thickness, depth of frame rails, c section, etc - GM's comes out with a higher section modulus and higher coresponding strength. Of course GM probably knows that all three have frames which are more than capably strong and so do not make a mountain of a moot issue. And of course section modulus only tells a portion of the story regarding frame strength - shape and curvature also play a major role.

I think the 48RE lives in a much more hostile environment behind the Cummins than do the other two auto's. This said the Torqueshift is a better transmission IMO - it's smarter for lack of a better word. I'm a manual guy myself, but if your going to give the transmission control over the truck - at least use one which has some intelligence built in to it. It definately has better ratios built into it. All three use torque management to survive and all of them suck up a load of engine power - though
the Torqueshift seems better than any other in that regard - of course it's gearing can be only giving me this perception.

I cannot wait to see this new Mercedes 6 speed going into the Dodge Ram. It's supposed to be an extremely heavy duty manual which is currently being used in the Freightliner Acterra trucks. 6.29 first gear - havent seen that kind of reduction since the T18 or NP435.

 

On relatively smooth roads, I feel they ride the same, having owned some of each. On rough roads, the IFS has a better ride and is easier to control. I was happy with both, though. But since I travel on rough roads a lot and don't do any extreme offroading, the IFS would be my first choice.
I don't agree. Most of the guys I know that drive GM trucks value the IFS.
As someone else said, that's regional. It's the opposite around here. Way more left over SD's than HD's.

 

Very subjective. I liked the Ally in my 01 HD2500 CC Dmax truck. It was busier than the 6.0PSD/TS setup in my 03 Excursion, though. It'd kick down a lot more while hauling on rolling hiways. But I'm not sure if that's the tranny or if it was the increased torque of the PSD. Whichever, I liked the PSD/TS combo better for hauling because of it.

 

Dodge is going to a different 6 speed? The one they have now is arguably the best tranny out there as far as dependability. Every person I talk to that has one abosutly loves it. Of course I havent talked to a thousand people.

 

I think as of this month dodge should be using their own in house 6 speed. Better known as the infamous GETRAG. The company NV sold out. Now they are called New process. That sounds familiar. Anyways for some reason DC doesnt want NP 6 speeds. Or maybe NP has refused to build them.

I do not see this wetrag being in the same ballpark for all out indestructability. The 5600 was the best thing they had going for them. I think this is a really bad idea. Maybe they know something I dont.

 

Thanx Jeb. DMAX-HD ;bout u

 

It is not a Getrag transmission LH. The Ram 1500 will recieve the Getrag 238 series six speed manual transmission. It previously recieved the NV3500 5 speed transmission (which is really a Getrag manufactured gearbox anyway).

The heavy duty Rams with 5.7 Hemi and 5.9 Cummins will both recieve the MBT (Mercedes Benz Transmission) G56. Here are a couple links.

Link

LINK

There are more, but information on this transmission is very hard to come by and I cannot find the other links as of right now. I have seen a link showing this transmission as also being used in the Freightliner Acterra trucks as well.

Daimler sold its interest in New Venture. I imagine it's simply cheaper for them to use one of their own transmissions in place of the NV5600. Even if it is a higher end transmission to begin with. Supposedly this transmission not only has a lower first gear, but also brings with it a smoother shifting quality with shorter throws as well. This is saying alot considering how short the throws are on an NV5600 in comparision to the Ford or GM ZF S6 650.

Also New Process isint manufacturing any transmissions as of right now to the best of my knowledge - they make transfer cases only. The transmission division of New Venture went back to GM - it's call Manual Transmissions of Muncie. GM still makes the NV4500 and 5600 gear boxes.