The older trucks around 1996 had a poorly designed oil pump connection to the timing chain cover. It ate them up. I have one, and it has been through a couple of oil pumps, until we found a good cover. It seems to be a common problem with these trucks, but Dodge corrected it later, then tanked the engine all together. It's NOT a hemi.

 

I havent driven a Dodge V10, but considering how popular and indestructible the Cummins has been, i think it was just overshadowed......When i moved several months ago, i had a couple Uhaul rental trucks, both Ford E350 or E450's( cant remember which) powered by 6.8 V10's........Both were low mile trucks, but they were full 20' vans, and i had them fairly well loaded. Maybe Uhaul detunes them to discourage speeding, but these were gutless wonders. Not much torque at all, every single upgrade required a throttle forced downshift, which still didnt generate much acceleration. For comparison, a number of my trips were pulling either a 16' Tandem axle flatbed trailer loaded up pretty well, or a 2 horse, slant load w/tack room bumper pull, heavily loaded as well with my Dodge Cummins. The 6.8 Ford felt like less than half the Cummins engine power wise

 

Well. One makes peak torque (610) at 1600rpm and is turbo charged. The other is NA and makes peak torque (420) at 3250rpm.(assuming it is a PI 6.8l) Not to mention the shallow gears that usually end up being put behind the 6.8l trucks from factory. Not too hard to figure out that there is going to be a difference especially if you expect it operate in the same rpm range as the diesel. A NA engine is also going to lose more power as the altitude rises vs a forced induction engine.

 

dkf, i fully expected a difference.......i know the basic torque numbers of both engines. the drive didnt require a ton of elevation changes...Sea level to Max of about 4500 ft. Years back i owned a 69 F350 chassis cab with a 390 2bbl, C6, 10' ft utility bed and a 12' Alaskan pop up camper....Okay loaded it weighed less than the Uhaul, and with the camper down had less wind resistance, but it also had less horsepower and less torque and i drove it up into the Sierra's several times to probably 6000 ft elevation....That old 390 powered truck did remarkably well, and the 6.8 was unimpressive to say the least. Ive also driven a mid 60's f350 with a 390 that weighed 11, maybe 12 thousand lbs, First Gen Dodge Cummins w/160 hp/400 ft lbs tq, Dodges w 318's, IH trucks with 304's and 345's, Ford 6.9's and 460's and frankly the Uhaul 6.8 v10 was a pig.....

 

My 99 Dodge 2500 QC 4x4 V10 is 300 HP/450 ft/lb@2400 RPM. My Dodge pulls pretty much right with a stock 5.9 Cummins of the same generation.
I don't lack power even with 10,000# behind it.

 

iggybob44, that sounds like the typical performance from a non-PI head V10 - in the E-series from 1997 through 1999. And even in the PI-head version, the E-series is still slightly downrated from the F-series.

On a side note, most of the Dodge Cummins I see around here are driven by guys who just left Starbucks, holding the coffee in one hand, and trying to either shift or do something else with the other hand. Saw one today, with the typical stack sticking through the bed floor, "Cummins" emblazoned on the rear quarter panel with a big decal, going around an on-ramp and rode up the curb because he wasn't paying attention.

I have yet to see one responsible Dodge owner driving a Cummins on the road

OK, rant over

 

The Uhaul 6.8 V10's were both practically new.......as in 2011's or newer....Like most big city drivers, i suspect that MANY NYC drivers are in a big hurry, inattentive and self absorbed, regardless of what they drive......
Not a rant, just a surprise.......And as i said before, maybe uhaul specs these engines in a detuned form in an effort to avoid speeders, since statistically many people who would rent a uhaul likely dont have much experience driving a truck this large

 

It must be detuned in the ECU. because I have a 1999 E350 with the "gutless" 2v V10. And it's a workhorse with 313,000 miles on it. It gets the same fuel mileage towing as empty though. But it has plenty of power when she needs it.

 

Just so I can put my .02 in. I've only had one experience driving a 6.8 and that was in a uhaul when I moved from Texas to San Diego. The uhaul was loaded down with all my shop tools, some furniture and we were towing a car hauler with an Explorer on it. And of course the 6.8 wanted to spin faster with a load on it, after all its a gas engine. But when it down shifted and got up in the power range it didn't have the slightest problem moving any of that weight, even going through the mountains. So yea I was impressed.

 

The first V-10 engines produced had head issues, friend of mine who pulls wrenches for Chrysler did 3 sets on his truck then sold it. I drove a Challenger SRT8 Yellow jacket, was not impressed at all. Maybe the Hellcat will but have not seen one in real time yet. I know I could rape the Yellow Jacket out to the 1/8 mile with my truck but he would coming at the end of the 1/4. Depends on how experienced the Challenger owner would be at the track to catch me.

 

LOL. An auto 392 Challenger will run a mid 12 second quarter. Unless you're putting down well over 500 HP at the wheels with your 6.0, the only thing your truck will be "raping" is headgaskets and EGR coolers.

 

Not a allot of replies to the original question but it was mostly the MPG's the Dodge v10 didn't have, the the truck engines exploding at hi rpm's didn't help. If they had updated there v10 anything near to what Ford had done to their 3v v10 it would have been a monster. 6.8 3v v10 362hp 457tq and lots of lowe end torque but will rev all day long and 14+mpg hwy.

 

Studded and no cooler, 1.6 60ft out of the hole. Doubt if you find an average owner to bring the Challenger to a full potential at the track in stock form. As mentioned, I wasn't impressed, the Hellcat on the other hand might. Hotrod magazine ran a 1970 LS5 Chevelle SS in stock form to a 10.5 1/4 mile but an everyday owner never saw those numbers.

 

I'll have to go with the Dodge V-10 being overshadowed by the 5.9L CTD also. Same thing today with folks that opted for the Super Duties with the 6.2L, absolutely nothing wrong with it IMHO, but in my circle of friends, the guys with oil burners are always giving the gas burners chit. The same thing with the new RAM.......

I think that's where alot of that negative hype generates from.

 

That sled also weighs 4300lbs!