You obviously didn't read the posts, it is based per 1000 vehicles so reguardless of how it is split, it is still a reliable test. also since the gmc and the chevy are the same truck, i bet they had the same exact ratio of problems of the same origin. I will lay money on that.

Look at that SD frame, but if you have buy a vehicle based on the look of the vehcle, you might as well have picked one based on what color of paint it had on it. It is the overall package that makes a vehicle. It is only as strong as it's weakest link. A door handle or a transmission, the only difference if the severity of the problem, and both can be imbarrassing. I mean your taking a chevy guy out for lunch in a ford and your door handle comes out in his hand, hmmmmmmmm. If he takes you out in his chevy and you don't make it because the transmission fails, hmmmmmmmmmm. Neither of you are going to be impressed by the other ones quality.

The thing that does matter is generalizations. Any of these sources are as reliable as the rest, and yes it does matter. Intelligent people know that if the average non-mechanically inclined person thinks a paticular way, then that ought to say something.

You enthusiasts will always have a biased opinion 1 way or the other. I don't believe for a minute that any of these surveys are rigged.

Next time something gives out on any vehicle you have and you are left on the side of the road, and you look underneith it, thank God that the frame is still holding up.

 

Say what? They divided up Chevrolet and GMC in JD Powers, and the results are incidents/1000 vehicles, so that shouldn't have any direct bearing on those findings. re: Fords being built stouter- that could well be true, but look at the number of pickup owners (including SD/HD models) that only use their trucks as trucks on rare occasions. This goes back to the solid axle discussion on Ford SD's- it is a superior design in extreme off-road use, but the fact remains that the benefits will only be enjoyed by a small minority of the customer base.

 

On further thought, the question really isn't whether GM builds a more reliable truck than Ford, the question is what needs to be corrected. It's a pretty short list:

1. Put the makers of Continental on immediate notice that if they can't figure out how to produce a consistently round tire (this is obvious, isn't it?), they need to supply rubber to someone else. Continental is becoming to Ford what Lucas was to Jaguar. Until this is resolved, Ford needs to be sure to offer industry standard (as in, readily available) wheel and tire sizes.

2. The 1/2 ton differentials, especially the limited slip variety, need to be redesigned, bought from GM, or not offered at all. Noise and chatter may have been OK twenty years ago, but is totally unacceptable to buyers of modern vehicles- especially modern vehicles that cost as much as premium luxury cars.

3. Find the software engineers that did the R&D work for the 6.0 engine controls and send them back to Microsoft. Computer crashes on a PC are annoying- on a vehicle it's a headache at best, downright dangerous at worst. I'm particularily concerned that this group doesn't get hold of the next generation of PSD's.

4. Start an investigation to find out if the engineers that decided putting aluminum heads on a cast iron engine block were getting kickbacks from Alcoa. GM would do well to do this too.

Rant over.

 

Good one polarbear...very cool!

 

If you recall, the differentials were redesigned and that is the problem. The 9" Ford rear was great. It had a removeable 3rd member and the entire gear assembly could be swapped out in about 30 minutes with removal of 24 bolts (and it would fit in a bushel basket). You could swap gear ratios quicker than you could eat lunch. It was and is the standard for racing and hot rods. Ford changed the differential to the present one that assembles and looks like the GM and they have had problems ever since.

 

Yep, yet another example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

actually, i have not heard of any problems with GM's aluminum heads on the cast block. I am thinking that the engineers finally figured out how to use the 2 together. The heads are a lot better than the injectors right now.

 

Yet. If there will be problems, it will take time for them to show up. And if they do, you'll have a group of GM owners that will be a LOT more angry than the 2003 6.0 owners. At least most of those problems were solved with a re-flash; how does one "re-flash" a head? As for the 6.0 problems, it's my understanding that Ford marketing forced the engine to market too soon, over the objections of the programming engineers. They (the engineers) wanted 6 more months to work out the bugs, but the "powers-that-be" over-rode them and said, "build it." They'd risked problems vs 6 months of no diesel production. And they lost.

 

What do you mean yet. I will lay money that the heads on the dmax will long outlast the majority of the 6.0PSD's that ever hit the market.

On edit: at 500,000 miles if I have to put new head gaskets on a dmax, that will be the least of the worries when compared to the V6 fords with head gasket problems.

 

duramaximizer- There were a few problems initially with the whiz-bang, high tech head gaskets that went along with the Duramax. They are multi-layered, teflon-coated (so they can move as the heads/block expand and contract) and there was a problem with a supplier not producing to spec. Problem was found fairly quickly and resolved- but it was the aluminum head on iron block design that made that gasket necessary in the first place. To my jaudiced eye, it was a complicated solution to a simple problem. I have not heard or seen any head problems per se on the duramax. Actually, I've seen darned few problems in general with that motor (knock on wood).

1956MarkII- Jeff, you've got one thing right. This was GM's third...and probably last chance to get a truck diesel right. So far, so good- we've seen quite a few hit triple-digits on the odo with a minimum of problems. The big problem with a duramax, if you're a Chevy service manager, is that they're so easy to mod and get serious horsepower out of. You hope the rest of the drivetrain will hold up to that extra 100-200HP a good percentage of the owner group is running.

 

...and thank GOD we have duramaximizer here at FTE to remind us of all of Ford's mistakes. Yes, using a cheap head gasket in the 3.8 V6 was one of the DUMBEST things Ford ever did. Almost as dumb as comparing a truck diesel to a passenger-car gas engine. (Does GM build a V6 that can go 500,000 miles on one set of head gaskets?) I get the impression you're always right on the edge of trying to start a flame war here. Should I now list all of GM's incredibly stupid mistakes over the years? No, because: 1) I'm not taking your bait, and 2) I don't have the time and FTE doesn't have the bandwidth.

 

It WASN'T bait anyway it was just proof that gas engines had trouble with it, let alone a diesel with more stress. It was just proving how far the technology has come. It was nothing personal against Ford on the head gaskets, I just used it as a common knowlege reference.

To my knowledge IDK anyone that can build a V6 to go 500k. IDK what your point was in that???????

FYI my grandpa and grandma had an Olds 3.8 make it to 400k (trips to Texas) before they traded it in on the new Buick. (the motor had never had a tune-up of any kind)

 

If you guys want a site that will give you actual experiences with trucks any model or make. Check out edmunds.com. I would go more by this site then JD Powers. People there will give you real life experiences with every make and model off truck. GM is far from foolproof as youwill soon read. Ford and Dodge have there problems as well

 

I get tired of hearing the aluminum head on iron block non-problem or even the imagined aluminum head on aluminum block. Almost all engine from any of the manufactures are now running this config. We are no longer in the days of the Vega. Can they screw it up, yes but we don't see it much anymore.

 

I likewise haven't heard of any problems with the aluminium heads, and I think they are a great idea - weight reduction.
However, being aluminium, and not ferous based, they won't have an infinite fatigue limit, like your conventional cast iron heads.
When they start fatiguing will be the big question, but given that there are people running 200hp+ out of these engines, and they have done more than a few miles I would imagine the heads will outlast other components on the vehicle.