I beg to differ. This is the 1st year Dodge has had to deal with any of this stuff, and it shows. While Ford is the only manufacturer that has done something about the known problem of soot build up with an egr system on a diesel, by putting a catalyst upstream of the egr cooler.

Read the other Ford forums and read the other Dodge forums, the 6.4 is getting way less complaints about Failures.

24Vford:
The 6.7 might be a mighty fine engine, but then again my '05 Dmax was a good one too (and GM then underdesigned the cooling system to give it and all the other LLY's their Achilles heel). So it really does come down to the whole package...

and from what I've read: the 6.7 uses a variable geometry turbo, not a variable vane one (the wheel slides on the shaft) -- and the soot build-up on the shaft is eating their lunch right now...

 

ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE K.I.S.S. PRINCIPLE!?!?!?!?!?
Sorry for hollering, but this is getting rediculous!

 

tell that the the darn EPA.

 

Even the auto makers are falling into that trap. Emissions aside.
What used to be a 20 minute clutch cable/slave cylinder repair has turned into a "pull the entire transmission" to replace the leaking clutch slave cylinder/throwout bearing assembly.
I took a job on Monday for a 2003 VR6 GTI that had a low clutch pedal. The owner thought it was the clutch master cylinder and after I lifted the car it was obvious it was the clutch slave cylinder because of all the brake fluid dripping off of the bell housing.
Transmission has to come out just to fix the leak because the slave cylinder and the throw out bearing are the same assembly.
And just to replace the clutch master cylinder the clutch pedal assembly has to come out. And to get at the bolts that hold that assembly in, the fuse panel, wiring harness, carpeting, insulation, possibly the whole dashboard has to be removed just to gain access to the top bolts.
I have no idea what the engineers, or the approval committees are thinking. This in no way can be saving money for anyone, including the factory that is assembling the vehicles in the first place. It's so complicated and requires 10x as many bolts, fasteners, etc. that I cannot believe they are doing anyone, including themselves or the stockholders any benefits.


And that's just the parts that have to do with clutch control !!!!!
I'm going to keep my old 1984 VW Rabbit Diesel and fix whatever is wrong until I cannot get parts for it anymore.

 

On the plus side Dan - you won't be out of a job anytime soon!!!

 

That's for sure!!!
We got that car done and back to the customer today.
I could go on but I don't want to further hijack this thread.

 

Cummins vs PSD
Inline Vee design
(Newer) 4 valve heads 2 valve heads

(Non common rail) quasi mechanical injection HEI (makes some ppl cringe)

Stock turbo pretty good for high boost stock turbo only really good in stock

A little cheaper to Modify Kinda expensive to mod.

Inline design provides more simplicity, better yet the six cylinders is more balanced than an 8 cylinder engine. The shorter stroke and light rotating mass (rod & piston per cylider) allows for a faster revving engine. Typically longer stroked motors are associated with more low end torque and lower HP #'s but when you throw in twins this goes out the window.

Obviously a 4 valve head would flow better than a 2 valve right? Not always, a slightly flowed 2 valve head can flow just as good as a stock 4 valve head. But there is more potential in the 4 valve theorietically.

Mechanical injection much simpler and injectors are much cheaper. However the injection pump is expensive when it fails. PSD has HEI yes! High pressure oil pumps and really expensive injectors. In my mind this was International/Cat trying to create an engine with precise computer control of injection without having external high pressure lines. Prelude to the common rail.

Stock for stock I prefer the Holset turbo, but when you start modding neither are very appropriate.


FORD Powerstroke diesel , servin America. Seriously where would the USA be if all of the work truck PSD didn't exist?

 

Chuckle, I've had that same thought many times. The best truck in the world and the best low end small truck diesel in the world mated together. I have no doubt the the psd would clean house on a cummins for top speed on the salt flats. Kinda like comparing an HO 5.0 against the HO 5.8. The %0 always cleans house at the top end over the 5.8 for the same reason the psd will over the cummings. Mate the 5.0 with a light car and it is a rocket ship with top end speed that will go as high as the driver is willing to go and then some. PSD would do the same if put in a light rig like one of the so called full size rice burners with beer can frames.
But you know, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the psd aint all that far behind and it seems to run for a coons age if left pretty much stock, longer if its worked hard. The psd is definately an engine that likes to work. There are lots out there with over 500,000 miles on them far more than there are cummins. Humm, wonder if there are any duramaxs out there with more than ecen 200k? Never met a guy with one yet and running the interstates I telk to lots of guys haulin mnaking a living with dodge and ford trucks. Never met one yet runnin GM

 

The emission rules and regulations are screwing diesel P/U trucks. I think the 6.0 Ford was the last of the easy engines to work on the 6.4 is a nightmare.

Its good that Cummins is having problems with the 6.7 its about time they complied with the emmissions rules.

The new vehicals now are throwaway run them for 4 years and buy a new one.

 

Right. Because Dodge was definitely able to sell trucks all these years while be illegal.

 

Now Dodge has to comply with the rules and its good it shows that Dodge is behind the times like they always are.

 

I was being sarcastic...

 

Hey, if you go back to the beginning of the cummings and dodge story they had lots of problems back then as well. the 5.9 got its reputation after the first few years of horror stories when cummins and dodge left the engine alone. Got the rep of being a bullet proof engine after that. Ford had problems as well but only the first two years and I am wondering about those years as I have several friends with that vintage 6.0's and they have never missed a lick. Of course all of them are bone stock but get a beating everyday in construction and logging.
And, I bought my 07 for exactly the reason you stated. The bugs in it were history and it is easy to work on if your a midget with very very long arms and fingers<smile>

 

Im not too sure about the newer cummins, but the older ones are well known to be high mileage engines.

 

only reason there are more fords with high mileage is because ford sold so many more diesels, plain and simple