Which one would you rather work on/modify?

http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/bulletins/20086.4LOverviewLight.ppt#344,47,Slide47

Check out this link for the new 6.4 Powerstroke if you want to see a cluster ****.

http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/previewpage?029901

http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/bulletins/20086.4LOverviewLight.ppt#344,47,Slide47 (6.4 Powerstroke)
http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/previewpage?029901 (LMM)

Can't get the images to show???? PM me if you can help.

i think i would rather work on the durumax the powerstroke just seems way to cluttered

What a plumbing nightmare.

Looks to be a pile just like the 6 peter. At least they made it bigger. Now they can replace 2 turbos instead of the one. Here comes Ford with another better idea.

What was interesting to me was the torque curve. The Ford starts at about 300 ft lbs @1000 rpm and doesn't reach it's 650 ft lb peak until about 2000 rpm.

The LMM Duramax starts at 375 ft lbs @1000 rpm and reaches it's peak of 660 ft lbs at 1600 rpm.

I'd conclude that even though the specs are nearly identical the Duramax would feel much more spirited in everyday driving conditions.

What was interesting to me was the torque curve. The Ford starts at about 300 ft lbs @1000 rpm and doesn't reach it's 650 ft lb peak until about 2000 rpm.

The LMM Duramax starts at 375 ft lbs @1000 rpm and reaches it's peak of 660 ft lbs at 1600 rpm.

I'd conclude that even though the specs are nearly identical the Duramax would feel much more spirited in everyday driving conditions.

I concur.......

Considering the new PSD is new, and the LMM isn't really any different than the current LBZ + some new emissions updates.... no way to make a fair comparison.

I'm sure the DMAX will be easier, but we've yet to have anyone touch the new PSD. Too much speculation just yet.... we need to sit back and actually get both of these on the road before we can actually answer these kinds of threads.

What a plumbing nightmare.

Is that an aluminum head on that Ford ?

so ford tightened the rubber band on their windup toy

Dual EGR coolers, Dual turbos, EGR oxidation catalyst, what a freakin nitemare for techs, glad I'm not a ferd tech.

What's the reasoning for a fuel cooler inside the engine bay? That's about the hottest place in the truck, must be water cooled. HEY MA... 200* FUEL

Should we start a pool on how much this engine will cost ferd? Closest w/o going over

ummmm I'll say 700k, because they won't sell as many 6.4 as they did 6.0, but the price of repairing them will double since all major repairs are now cab off, and they now have a ton more things to go wrong.

I delivered 14 new 6.4's to the truck plant in Louisville,Ky today, and yes it looks like a two year old put it together.

I honestly don't care what the engine looks like. I think it'll be a HUGE upgrade for me (02 F350 XLT CC 7.3L 250/525) since it produces 350HP/650TQ. I'd have to put my superchip on tow performance to basically equal that power.

I know GM has a bit higher specs out now, but I've always liked the ride of Ford more than I have GM. GM is just a bit too stiff for me. I know it produces more power cheaper, but I won't be going to the aftermarket with this truck anytime soon; not something I care to risk besides exhaust. ;) Also, I haven't had any problems with this truck, so I'm sorta leaning towards buying another Ford.

My brother in law has a 2002 2500HD CC LBZ and it's been flawless with him also. I wish he'd buy a chip and keep it on lowest setting becuase it seems a little sluggish at stock. He's thinking about trading it in for an 08 LMM, but he's not sure. He also wants a boat, so I'm trying to convince him to buy that, LOL! I think he'd be best keeping his truck that's been flawless and get another toy he could enjoy!

I honestly don't care what the engine looks like. I think it'll be a HUGE upgrade for me (02 F350 XLT CC 7.3L 250/525) since it produces 350HP/650TQ. I'd have to put my superchip on tow performance to basically equal that power.

I know GM has a bit higher specs out now, but I've always liked the ride of Ford more than I have GM. GM is just a bit too stiff for me. I know it produces more power cheaper, but I won't be going to the aftermarket with this truck anytime soon; not something I care to risk besides exhaust. ;) Also, I haven't had any problems with this truck, so I'm sorta leaning towards buying another Ford.

My brother in law has a 2002 2500HD CC LBZ and it's been flawless with him also. I wish he'd buy a chip and keep it on lowest setting becuase it seems a little sluggish at stock. He's thinking about trading it in for an 08 LMM, but he's not sure. He also wants a boat, so I'm trying to convince him to buy that, LOL! I think he'd be best keeping his truck that's been flawless and get another toy he could enjoy!

I'm thinking that the ride thing is very subjective. I've been in all three recently, the GM has the best ride of any of them and most CERTAINLY the best handling in curves, with and without a load. It's just physics, it's lower center of gravity. Don't get me wrong, I like the King Ranch interior, it's just that danged motor and tranny issue is NOT confidence inspiring. We're looking at new trucks right now, so this is decision time. Asides from all that, the local Ford service department stinks, the local GMC service department is outstanding.

I do not know about the ride on the new fords but I had a 99 SD and the ride sucked. it felt like I was attached to the road (felt every little bump) and launched me over speed bumps at really slow speeds, my 04 and now 06 HD soak up the bumps real nice

i would much rather a dmax to work on that ford is a night mare

A Ford rides better than GM. What! After you ride in a Ford you have to go to the dentist to get your teeth put back in!

I love my Dmax on the road, but it is way spongy across the pasture. The stiff ford took the bumps a little better to me.

The GM is certainly spongy, great description. The big difference I see on my LBZ and my old LB7 is the way the whole drivetrain works towing, the Ford wasn't even close. I'm sure the new Fords are better in that department. No question the GM handles better too, the ride I don't care about.

I had to go to the chiropractor after a test drive in a ford

ive driven my buddies 99 PSD and i hated it. you feel every bump in the road, it was really noisy, sluggish and had poor handeling. ive also driven many of the f-550 and f-450. those are the same but these are not designed for smooth rides. they are work horses. most of the government and private contractors wildland fire engine fleet is composed of f-550's and 450's. they IMO just do better off road. we had a new kodiak 5500 CC chevy 4x4, it did well off/on road in flat to moderate terrain. but with it loaded down with 410 gals of water and at its GVW it was way underpowered for a lot of the off road obsticals. looked cool but sat a little to high. i would rather of had a lower sitting f550 for off road gigs. i kinda got off subject but thats just my 2 cents.. now bring on the bashing!

I love my Dmax on the road, but it is way spongy across the pasture. The stiff ford took the bumps a little better to me.

Spongy can be cured with good new shocks (the factory shocks suck) but the Ford's buckboard ride can not be easily remedied and unless you lower the suckers, they'll NEVER handle the twisties as well as any GM!

what do you recommend, why and how much?

I think I would prefer the DMAX(suprise suprise) but there is actually a reason. I would imagine looking at the torque curves and such that the ford is tuned much closer to its maximum capability from the factory. This means that the tuners and such wont do as much good on a ford and the engines will not be nearly as reliable. Plus the DMAX still has more power without the headaches of a twin turbo.

Plus the DMAX still has more power without the headaches of a twin turbo.


The twin turbos on the Ford are not there as a power doubler, it is set up as a sequential system. (one turbo to help lag off idle and the other creates the boost later)

what do you recommend, why and how much?
it depends on what you want most :) i doubt that you'll get alot of guys recommend a stroker on a duramax site but personally i'd go with the dmax and allison tranny:grd:

common guys, we know the d-max is the best:ro) but without the powerstroke mechanics wouldn't have buisness. the powerstroke creats jobs for mechanics):h

Mute point... you don't have to work on a Duramax!

Mute point... you don't have to work on a Duramax!

well not unless you want to.

Um upgraded allison....bigger turbo, egr blocker, dual fuelers, traction bars, tierod sleeves and the list gets longer, A LOT LONGER if you want it to.):h

vs the powerstroke is worked on because it has to be. -:t

I've been debating between an 08 Duramax or Powerstroke. I am attracted to the Ford overall package and also the tuneability of the twins and the Piezo injectors. For the GM, I'm really into the 6 sp auto w/manual shift and the great durability. The warranty doesn't hurt either. The GMs would be perfect if only they came higher and with 18 or twens on like the Fords. ANyway, I'll decide after a few months/half a year on the market if the 6.4 will hold up to the 6.6.

I've been debating between an 08 Duramax or Powerstroke. I am attracted to the Ford overall package and also the tuneability of the twins and the Piezo injectors. For the GM, I'm really into the 6 sp auto w/manual shift and the great durability. The warranty doesn't hurt either. The GMs would be perfect if only they came higher and with 18 or twens on like the Fords. ANyway, I'll decide after a few months/half a year on the market if the 6.4 will hold up to the 6.6.go for the ford and be one of the first to tell us all about it:grd:

You want a test dummy do ya?!

ford using aluminum heads for i herd thy were no good):h

I honestly don't care what the engine looks like. I think it'll be a HUGE upgrade for me (02 F350 XLT CC 7.3L 250/525) since it produces 350HP/650TQ. I'd have to put my superchip on tow performance to basically equal that power.

I know GM has a bit higher specs out now, but I've always liked the ride of Ford more than I have GM. GM is just a bit too stiff for me. I know it produces more power cheaper, but I won't be going to the aftermarket with this truck anytime soon; not something I care to risk besides exhaust. ;) Also, I haven't had any problems with this truck, so I'm sorta leaning towards buying another Ford.

My brother in law has a 2002 2500HD CC LBZ and it's been flawless with him also. I wish he'd buy a chip and keep it on lowest setting becuase it seems a little sluggish at stock. He's thinking about trading it in for an 08 LMM, but he's not sure. He also wants a boat, so I'm trying to convince him to buy that, LOL! I think he'd be best keeping his truck that's been flawless and get another toy he could enjoy!

The LBZ came out in '06. Trust me when I say IT IS NOT sluggish stock......

The LBZ came out in '06. Trust me when I say IT IS NOT sluggish stock......


A small typo, but I'm sure you really know what I meant; 2002 2500HD CC LB7. I never said the LBZ's were sluggish, as I'm sure they aren't.

ford using aluminum heads for i herd thy were no good):h

There is nothing wrong with properly designed aluminum heads. Ford isn't using them in the 6.4 though. False rumor.

good, because I would hate for them to have improved the 6.0 too much. LOL aluminum heads would have been too much of an upgrade. LOL the cast iron ones are sooooo much more reliable. :rolleyes:

Maximum torque at 2000 RPM sounds great to me, considering this is probably between 70-75mph, which is a great cruising RPM while towing.

Chris

A small typo, but I'm sure you really know what I meant; 2002 2500HD CC LB7. I never said the LBZ's were sluggish, as I'm sure they aren't.


Point taken;)

with the power levels as close as they are now its personal preferance. i prefered the GMC from 03 till the new ones just came out, homerun Chevy!!!! still love the GMC front sheetmetal though

i prefered the GMC from 03 till the new ones just came out, homerun Chevy!!!!

I just puked. You can't be serious.

There is nothing wrong with properly designed aluminum heads. Ford isn't using them in the 6.4 though. False rumor.

Ummmm, I am pretty sure that navistar is going with their "new" aluminum alloy/iron sandwiched heads, they released numerous reports on their new annealing process for this, I dont know why they would scrap their new program??? Although the engine specs will just say cast iron block/heads.:confused:

Ummmm, I am pretty sure that navistar is going with their "new" aluminum alloy/iron sandwiched heads, they released numerous reports on their new annealing process for this, I dont know why they would scrap their new program??? Although the engine specs will just say cast iron block/heads.:confused:

I'm going by what a Ford tech/employee posted on a Ford site. He was sure of his statement. I guess time will tell. I doubt they would experiment. I think they probably went with a sure thing on this one.

GMC has sheet metal in the front ?:secret:

Furd thought they were sure on the sico joke but sure dont always cut it

What's the reasoning for a fuel cooler inside the engine bay? That's about the hottest place in the truck, must be water cooled. HEY MA... 200* FUEL


You misunderstand. The fuel cooler is more... theoretical... actually using it to cool fuel... now thats.... just not necesssary. As long as it HAS a fuel cooler. After all, anyone who wants to actually drive their truck doesnt buy a ford now, do they?

I didnt think so.

Maximum torque at 2000 RPM sounds great to me, considering this is probably between 70-75mph, which is a great cruising RPM while towing.

Chris

:blahblah: ya well 6th gear in the allison is prolly right around 1800 rpms at 70-75mph. That sounds like better fuel economy to me. :p:

I'm going by what a Ford tech/employee posted on a Ford site. He was sure of his statement. I guess time will tell. I doubt they would experiment. I think they probably went with a sure thing on this one.

I agree there gonna be cast iron.
As a previous owner of 2 6.0's I can only say I have much sympathy for the people that are going to be the beta testers for this motor.
I have witnessed Fords attempt to do everything possible to duck warranty claims on the 6.0.
I'm just gonna say "I told you so".

why would you need full torque at 70-75mph.. torque is to get you going then should fall off to Horse Power.. please correct this if i'm wrong..just what i've been told.

why would you need full torque at 70-75mph.. torque is to get you going then should fall off to Horse Power.. please correct this if i'm wrong..just what i've been told.
absuletly right!!!!!torque is what we use to break load into motion,or the lb per sqaure inch of force to break anything into motion.since going 70 mph on the hi-way is not all use only when taking off or begin fro stop to move.

BOY OH BOY--- talk of ride,hp, tork and who's better I think alot ofpeople made some good points here and dupending what your using the truck for and how long of a ride or what your going to be towing are all important things to consider. Someone made a very good point of do you really want to be first of testing out a new motor type? I waited a couple of years so I knew The DMAX was up to it. NO PROBLEM W/ POWER HERE... Good luck on your search ....

My brother in law has a 2002 2500HD CC LBZ

You sure thats an LBZ your bro's got there? Unless it was swapped in recently Im thinking its an older model D-Max.....Witch fail in comparrison to an LBZ....(If you ask me anyways)


Id take my LBZ :D ....But between the two I guess Ill take the new LMM -:t

All our PSD Tow trucks drive like tractors and just feal to cheap to me....Sorry Im gonna stick with my GM's

The next couple of years should be interesting. The new Ford has got to be better than the 6.0, that engine about broke Ford. The new 6.7 Cummins in the Dodge looks interesting as well. The big unknown is how the new emissions crap will effect the performance. I took my 02 CC to the max in performance mods and broke it acouple of times in the process. Very spendy hobby. Will build up my 02 reg cab for fun and wait until the new models come out and see what all the brands have to offer to see what I'll haul it to the races with. As far as ride goes, every Ford I have ever ridden in about broke my back, same with the Dodges. Hopefully the new ones are better. If I were going to haul a heavy camper I'd have a Ford first and Dodge second. Both would handle a heavy camper better, but both would be watching the GM's go by on the hills.):h

absuletly right!!!!!torque is what we use to break load into motion,or the lb per sqaure inch of force to break anything into motion.since going 70 mph on the hi-way is not all use only when taking off or begin fro stop to move.

Then explain to me why a 300 hp gasser downshifts so much trying to pull hills. It has as much horsepower as a duramax therefore it should pull the same down the highway by your theory.

Then explain to me why a 300 hp gasser downshifts so much trying to pull hills. It has as much horsepower as a duramax therefore it should pull the same down the highway by your theory.

Thats correct. :) Horsepower gets you there and torque keeps you there.

Then explain to me why a 300 hp gasser downshifts so much trying to pull hills. It has as much horsepower as a duramax therefore it should pull the same down the highway by your theory.

Torque is at a much higher RPM in a gasser. HP is also at a much higher RPM in a gasser. To accelerate you need to apply more torque. In a gasser more torque is not available at a low rpm hwy cruising speed in the hills. On a diesel at 1600 to 1800 RPM your at peak torque, so at cruising speed the torque is already there and you do not have to down shift to get it.

Torque is at a much higher RPM in a gasser. HP is also at a much higher RPM in a gasser. To accelerate you need to apply more torque. In a gasser more torque is not available at a low rpm hwy cruising speed in the hills. On a diesel at 1600 to 1800 RPM your at peak torque, so at cruising speed the torque is already there and you do not have to down shift to get it.

Well said. Now look at the rpm range of the max torque on the Ford and you'll see that it's more like a gasser, based on what I've read here.

why would you need full torque at 70-75mph.. torque is to get you going then should fall off to Horse Power.. please correct this if i'm wrong..just what i've been told.

This was the question I was trying to answer with my previous post. The more torque at cruising speeds is what keeps the trucks from down shifting like a gasser. More torque the better. Sorry if that was confusing.

Torque is at a much higher RPM in a gasser. HP is also at a much higher RPM in a gasser. To accelerate you need to apply more torque. In a gasser more torque is not available at a low rpm hwy cruising speed in the hills. On a diesel at 1600 to 1800 RPM your at peak torque, so at cruising speed the torque is already there and you do not have to down shift to get it.

However, the max HP of the duramax is not made anywhere near cruising speeds on the highway(more like 3000 or 3200) unless you cruise at 90 or so. My main point was that it is the excess torque of the diesel engine that keeps it from down shifting on the highway not the horsepower. Hence the peak torque of the new psd being at 2000 isnt necessarily a bad thing as far as the highway cruising is concerned but around town performance will probably be worse than the dmax especially when one or both of its turbos takes a crap.

My main point was that it is the excess torque of the diesel engine that keeps it from down shifting on the highway not the horsepower. Hence the peak torque of the new psd being at 2000 isnt necessarily a bad thing as far as the highway cruising is concerned

2000 rpm's = around 75 mph. I know I do not want to tow a 35' fiver at 75 mph up a big hill. I want my max torque down low. I did buy a diesel to tow didn't I ??? Wonder what the longevity difference is inbetween an engine that works it's best at 1600 rpm compared to 2000 rpm? I'll keep my lbz thank you.

I couldnt agree with you more. I was not saying that I would rather have a psd than my dmax(wouldn't trade it for the world). You couldnt get me to buy a ferd even if it was better.

:blahblah: ya well 6th gear in the allison is prolly right around 1800 rpms at 70-75mph. That sounds like better fuel economy to me. :p:


you guys keep forgetting that the 6 speed allison is going to take away any high rev torque advantage that the 6.4 stroker would have. the 6th gear is going to keep the duramax closer to it's peak torque than the 5 speed torqueshift.

once again :blahblah:

I have had both, your are right. The lbz pulls harder sooner.

What was interesting to me was the torque curve. The Ford starts at about 300 ft lbs @1000 rpm and doesn't reach it's 650 ft lb peak until about 2000 rpm.

The LMM Duramax starts at 375 ft lbs @1000 rpm and reaches it's peak of 660 ft lbs at 1600 rpm.

I'd conclude that even though the specs are nearly identical the Duramax would feel much more spirited in everyday driving conditions.

I'm sure Ford will soon copy the Allison six speed and anounce their bold move........
Ford is famous for sitting back while GM seeks and tests new technology then they jump on board after all is proven safe. Then marketing takes over and starts with the BOLD moves claim. An example would be the HPCR fuel system, rapid heat system(coolant through EGR cooler), grade breaking, tow/haul programming and anything else they could steal off of someone elses R&D. Then they advertise to the majority unknowing public as if Ford pioneered the idea and is leading the industry. I think GM is truely the BOLD manufacturer with Ford being no more than a follower. Besides quality issues this is one of the reasons I can't stand Ford.

no, but twin turbos was a bold move after ford 6.0 disaster.

no, but twin turbos was a bold move after ford 6.0 disaster.

The 6.4 will only be a bored out 6.0. The turbos will be in series and boost pressure will be no more than what it is now due to the same head stud (lack of) setup as the 6.0. IMO just more $$$ when they fail. The reason they are posponed untill the 08 MY is because of many and major issues including turbo and head gasket failure.

The 6.4 will only be a bored out 6.0. The turbos will be in series and boost pressure will be no more than what it is now due to the same head stud (lack of) setup as the 6.0. IMO just more $$$ when they fail. The reason they are posponed untill the 08 MY is because of many and major issues including turbo and head gasket failure.

The head studs are not the same as the 6.0 As a matter of fact late 2006 and 2007 model 6.0's don't have the same head studs as the earlier models, never mind 6.4 vs 6.0. GM and DC have also had major problems trying to meet Jan 2007 EPA regs. The twin turbos are designed to severely reduce turbo lag associated with diesel motors. The smaller, fast spooling turbo will give an initial boost from idle/low rpms. Initial reports are that it is working very well. The 6.4 is also extremely quiet, sounding more like a gas than a diesel motor according to those that have heard it running. I don't know, I've never heard one. We'll all know early next year. I'm not trying to stir a controversy here. My intent is to set the record straight. Also, the 6.4 has a huge hp/torque advantage over the 6.0

The head studs are not the same as the 6.0 As a matter of fact late 2006 and 2007 model 6.0's don't have the same head studs as the earlier models.

Wonder why? Although this economical approach may prolong things the ultimate solution would be to have ENOUGH studs.

never mind 6.4 vs 6.0. GM and DC have also had major problems trying to meet Jan 2007 EPA regs.

I dont know if I would call it problems. They knew what they had to do and got it done. Unless you call EGR tuning and the addition of a particulate filter major problems. Nothing postponed due to the lack of quality assurance like one of the competitors.

The twin turbos are designed to severely reduce turbo lag associated with diesel motors. The smaller, fast spooling turbo will give an initial boost from idle/low rpms. Initial reports are that it is working very well.

I assume you are speaking about the ones that are working. Problems with the twin turbo is one of the reasons stated by navistar for the full production delay.

The 6.4 is also extremely quiet, sounding more like a gas than a diesel motor according to those that have heard it running. I don't know, I've never heard one. We'll all know early next year.

Good then it will go along with the gasser like performance with peak torque in the higher RPM range. I'll take the diesel sound and performance.

I'm not trying to stir a controversy here. My intent is to set the record straight.

:confused:

Also, the 6.4 has a huge hp/torque advantage over the 6.0

And still playing 3rd fiddle :muahaha:
.

I'm sure Ford will soon copy the Allison six speed and anounce their bold move........
Ford is famous for sitting back while GM seeks and tests new technology then they jump on board after all is proven safe. Then marketing takes over and starts with the BOLD moves claim. An example would be the HPCR fuel system, rapid heat system(coolant through EGR cooler), grade breaking, tow/haul programming and anything else they could steal off of someone elses R&D. Then they advertise to the majority unknowing public as if Ford pioneered the idea and is leading the industry. I think GM is truely the BOLD manufacturer with Ford being no more than a follower. Besides quality issues this is one of the reasons I can't stand Ford.

Oh Man, don't get me started here. More stuff Ford tried to take credit for.. Ransom E Olds & The assembly line, The Ferguson System, Supersteer (Versatile), Bi Directional Tractor (Versatile), not to mention all the other less than half-assed crap they have produced over the years.

:rant: over........ for now!!

Like a bear said, its nothing but a bored-out 6.0L. The heads aren't changed at all. The turbo setup is frightening, because one of them is still VVT - a technology Ford still hasn't gotten right on '07 6.0L's. This is just one more in a series of hurry-up fixes being thrown at the 6.0L IMO

What was interesting to me was the torque curve. The Ford starts at about 300 ft lbs @1000 rpm and doesn't reach it's 650 ft lb peak until about 2000 rpm.

The LMM Duramax starts at 375 ft lbs @1000 rpm and reaches it's peak of 660 ft lbs at 1600 rpm.

I'd conclude that even though the specs are nearly identical the Duramax would feel much more spirited in everyday driving conditions.


Thats okay the Ford boys will just have to keep winding them up like they always do to get into there power. I always here those 6.0's winding up almost like a gas motor, sound like they are struggling

Like a bear said, its nothing but a bored-out 6.0L. The heads aren't changed at all. The turbo setup is frightening, because one of them is still VVT - a technology Ford still hasn't gotten right on '07 6.0L's. This is just one more in a series of hurry-up fixes being thrown at the 6.0L IMO

The VVT turbo has been dependable since model year 2005 and up. The heads ARE changed. The 2007 model 6.0 is the ONLY 6.0 that shares the commonized head with the 6.4.

Thats okay the Ford boys will just have to keep winding them up like they always do to get into there power. I always here those 6.0's winding up almost like a gas motor, sound like they are struggling

They aren't. I've got 325hp/570ftlbs torque completely stock. I carry 4,000lbs plus in the bed of the truck and it does it effortlessly. With torqueshift and 3.73 gears. I'm running 1900rpm at 73 mph in a 65 mph zone. Fast enough for me. I get 20-21 mpg on the highway if I'm empty and doing 65mph. (which I never do except when I wanted to see how good it could do.) More often I'm doing 80mph to go with traffic flow in the left lanes. The right lines are too annoying with grannys and merging vehicles.

Moldman you need to get a real load on that pedal truck. Our lightest straight deck trailer weighs 7500 lbs. and the other two are 10000. then we put any thing from farm tractors 13000 to large loader buckets 8000 to 14000 and some times some other smaller stuff from ROCKLAND MAN. and head to wherever we need to go. If we are only hauling 4000 lbs. we throw it in the bed of a half ton pickup and consider it a waste of time and money.

Oh by the way I have heard many of those ford windup toys tahe off in front of our place trying to pull trailers. They not only sound like they are stuggleing, they are struggling.

They aren't. I've got 325hp/570ftlbs torque completely stock. I carry 4,000lbs plus in the bed of the truck and it does it effortlessly. With torqueshift and 3.73 gears. I'm running 1900rpm at 73 mph in a 65 mph zone. Fast enough for me. I get 20-21 mpg on the highway if I'm empty and doing 65mph. (which I never do except when I wanted to see how good it could do.) More often I'm doing 80mph to go with traffic flow in the left lanes. The right lines are too annoying with grannys and merging vehicles.

I have had three powerstrokes 2 were 6.0's. the only problem I ever had was a cracked transmission case on my 2005. The LBZ and Allison is waaay stronger than the powerstrokes. The duramax makes its power at lower rpms and it really shows while towing.

My duramax is getting better mileage right off the bat too.

I was happy with my fords I switched bacause of fords social policys. I like my GM so I doubt if I'd switch back now.

boycottford.com

:exactly: GM took care of their customers with a 200K mile complete fuel system warranty while they addressed the earlier issues. Ford on the other hand with many times more problems were looking for reasons to deny warranty up to and including the install of larger tires.

With torqueshift and 3.73 gears. I'm running 1900rpm at 73 mph in a 65 mph zone.

No offense but this is BS. I have a few employees who drive the 6.0 PSD and they claim roughly 2000 @ 70. We do talk......BTW a 4K tow is light work for a 1/2 ton PU.

[quote=moldman7;1404849;]With torqueshift and 3.73 gears. I'm running 1900rpm at 73 mph in a 65 mph zone. quote]

No offense but this is BS. I have a few employees who drive the 6.0 PSD and they claim roughly 2000 @ 70. We do talk......BTW a 4K tow is light work for a 1/2 ton PU.

Ok, I'll check my facts on my way home. I'm at work. I'll write down exactly what I get. I can admit my memory is not the greatest. I'll let you know in a couple hours.

:exactly: GM took care of their customers with a 200K mile complete fuel system warranty while they addressed the earlier issues. Ford on the other hand with many times more problems were looking for reasons to deny warranty up to and including the install of larger tires.

This is very true. GM denies warranty claims for mods also though. So does DC.

Moldman you need to get a real load on that pedal truck. Our lightest straight deck trailer weighs 7500 lbs. and the other two are 10000. then we put any thing from farm tractors 13000 to large loader buckets 8000 to 14000 and some times some other smaller stuff from ROCKLAND MAN. and head to wherever we need to go. If we are only hauling 4000 lbs. we throw it in the bed of a half ton pickup and consider it a waste of time and money.

BS Anybody that puts 2 tons in the bed of a 1/2 ton pickup is not only breaking the law, They're also an idiot.
My in-laws are in the construction business. One of their customers had concrete forms in a 1/2 ton pick-up and got stopped by the CT state police. You don't even want to know the fine he paid for being overweight. It was in the THOUSANDS of dollars.

I don't remember but my 05 powerstroke was at 2000 right around 70.... at 75 my normal speed it was running about 2200 or so. The 6th gear in the allison is a second od so the gmc does spin slower.

Ok, at 74 mph it's turning 2000 rpm on the nose. 1800 = 69mph I'll post a picture if you want.

BS Anybody that puts 2 tons in the bed of a 1/2 ton pickup is not only breaking the law, They're also an idiot.
My in-laws are in the construction business. One of their customers had concrete forms in a 1/2 ton pick-up and got stopped by the CT state police. You don't even want to know the fine he paid for being overweight. It was in the THOUSANDS of dollars.


The CT State Police are on a warpath these days, every day on my way to work (5 miles on the highway) I see AT LEAST 2 people pulled over on EACH side...

If we are only hauling 4000 lbs. we throw it in the bed of a half ton pickup and consider it a waste of time and money.

I would just love to see a 1/2 ton truck with 4000 pounds in the bed. The tires on a 1/2 can't support that much weight. That truck would have it's springs 100% compressed, and the front end would be pointing towards the sky.

I watched a guy try to load 2000 pounds of brick in to his half ton. He had them take some back out as the truck was obviously overloaded.

I would just love to see a 1/2 ton truck with 4000 pounds in the bed. The tires on a 1/2 can't support that much weight. That truck would have it's springs 100% compressed, and the front end would be pointing towards the sky.


Yep.

BS Anybody that puts 2 tons in the bed of a 1/2 ton pickup is not only breaking the law, They're also an idiot.
My in-laws are in the construction business. One of their customers had concrete forms in a 1/2 ton pick-up and got stopped by the CT state police. You don't even want to know the fine he paid for being overweight. It was in the THOUSANDS of dollars.


I guess I would go to jail then if they caught me pulling my 35,000 pound dozer with my 3500:D .


Edited: I had a brain fart, put 2500 instead of 3500.

Totally off subject but have to share on overloading. Was at Lowes recently, I purchased 36 80lbs bags of concrete. The salesperson said I had to wait to be loaded as a customer was ahead of me. Now here is a Nissan Murano (cross over car sport utility) he has the seats folded down and is putting the same load 36 80lbs bags of concrete into the back of his little sport ute. I said to him you are terribly overloaded, and very dangerous, he responded, this is my third trip with the same load, no problems. He had his 8 yr old son sitting in the one rear seat not folded down, with concrete stacked all around him and he and his wife in the front. That was 2880 lbs ready to crush his little boy in an accident or emergency stop if he could stop.

I just cannot believe people, that had to bend somthing on that car.

call me crazy, but does this sound like, to anyone else, like the ford guys are ragging on themselves?

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/532735-why-buy-a-6-4-chipped-6-0-is-better.html

made me laugh!

I guess I would go to jail then if they caught me pulling my 35,000 pound dozer with my 2500HD:D .

You may think that's impressive but if you get in a wreck you will be criminally and civily liable for the accident, even if it's the other guys fault. GM and Ford and Dodge rate these trucks for a reason. The reason is handling and braking are unsafe at greater loads. An LBZ DMAX is capable of pulling huge loads safely, the 2500 pick-up is not.

Totally off subject but have to share on overloading. Was at Lowes recently, I purchased 36 80lbs bags of concrete. The salesperson said I had to wait to be loaded as a customer was ahead of me. Now here is a Nissan Murano (cross over car sport utility) he has the seats folded down and is putting the same load 36 80lbs bags of concrete into the back of his little sport ute. I said to him you are terribly overloaded, and very dangerous, he responded, this is my third trip with the same load, no problems. He had his 8 yr old son sitting in the one rear seat not folded down, with concrete stacked all around him and he and his wife in the front. That was 2880 lbs ready to crush his little boy in an accident or emergency stop if he could stop.

I just cannot believe people, that had to bend somthing on that car.

Sad. Hope the kid lives to adulthood with an idiot like that for a dad.

You may think that's impressive but if you get in a wreck you will be criminally and civily liable for the accident, even if it's the other guys fault. GM and Ford and Dodge rate these trucks for a reason. The reason is handling and braking are unsafe at greater loads. An LBZ DMAX is capable of pulling huge loads safely, the 2500 pick-up is not.

The GCVW for an LBZ is in excess of 42,000 lbs? No Light duty trucks have this weight rating...I agree with you about the liability...just not the GCVW.

Weight rating doesnt mean anything when you are properly licensed. I can gross out @ 34,000 pounds with my dually (3500) and not be in violation of any laws.

Totally off subject but have to share on overloading. Was at Lowes recently, I purchased 36 80lbs bags of concrete. The salesperson said I had to wait to be loaded as a customer was ahead of me. Now here is a Nissan Murano (cross over car sport utility) he has the seats folded down and is putting the same load 36 80lbs bags of concrete into the back of his little sport ute. I said to him you are terribly overloaded, and very dangerous, he responded, this is my third trip with the same load, no problems. He had his 8 yr old son sitting in the one rear seat not folded down, with concrete stacked all around him and he and his wife in the front. That was 2880 lbs ready to crush his little boy in an accident or emergency stop if he could stop.

I just cannot believe people, that had to bend somthing on that car.


The funny thing is that this guy (load) was prolly being safer than some/most of the women I see driving fast, talking on the phone, and putting on makeup all at the same time. Call me crazy but I would rather be in the overloaded SUV, than some/most of the people I have seen driving empty.

Weight rating doesnt mean anything when you are properly licensed. I can gross out @ 34,000 pounds with my dually (3500) and not be in violation of any laws.

He was talking a SRW 2500 towing a 35,000lb load.

The funny thing is that this guy (load) was prolly being safer than some/most of the women I see driving fast, talking on the phone, and putting on makeup all at the same time. Call me crazy but I would rather be in the overloaded SUV, than some/most of the people I have seen driving empty.

The old expression is "two wrongs don't make a right" It won't get you out of a ticket or an accident. If anything, it's all the more reason to be driving a safe vehicle to have a better shot at avoiding the idiots so common on the road today.

He was talking a SRW 2500 towing a 35,000lb load.

Your right I had a brain fart I meant to put 3500 there, sorry for the confusion.

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan it is NOT against the law to exceed the manufacturer's GVWR or the GCWR for the vehicle as long as the licensed weight, and the tires & per axle weight limits are not exceeded."Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
The gross vehicle weight rating is established by the manufacturer and not a lawmaking body. Exceeding the vehicle weight rating is not a violation of any regulations governing the industry." http://www.truckingsafety.org/PDF/gb2006.pdf (See Page 6)

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan it is NOT against the law to exceed the manufacturer's GVWR or the GCWR for the vehicle as long as the licensed weight, and the tires & per axle weight limits are not exceeded."Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
The gross vehicle weight rating is established by the manufacturer and not a lawmaking body. Exceeding the vehicle weight rating is not a violation of any regulations governing the industry." http://www.truckingsafety.org/PDF/gb2006.pdf (See Page 6)


Speaking of loads, does anyone know if there's a maximum length that a load can legally extend beyond the bed of a pickup? I always thought that it didn't matter as long as anything beyond 4' was flagged and the load was secure.

I was at Home Crapo and had a bunch of 16' and 12' 2X6's in my 3/4T truck with tailgate down. (they were tied together as one unit front and back and secured to the bed of the truck and properly flagged). However someone told me that he got a $160 ticket for the same thing.

I got curious and tried to see if any Oregon law applied to my situation. I did find one statute that seemed to indicate that a load cannot extend more then 3/4 the length of the weelbase beyond a single rear axle. However I found this in commercial trucking statutes.

I'm just curious.

I dont know about Oregon but here the law just establishes a maximum total length of 65' there is no problem with stuff sticking out the back of the bed as long as it is flagged

:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:

Weight rating doesnt mean anything when you are properly licensed. I can gross out @ 34,000 pounds with my dually (3500) and not be in violation of any laws.

That fact still doesn't mean that you are not an idiot for doing this. For safety's sake (for those around you, not yours), you should never exceed the GCW of the truck when pulling a trailer. You had better hope that you never get in an accident with me. Once my lawyer explains GCW to the jury of the Civil Suit, it is all over for you (financially).

And you better at least hope that you have a Class A CDL when pulling that kind of load (even with a pickup), as DOT laws do not distinguish between pickups and trucks when you are over 26,000lbs...

It is just wreckless lunacy that someone would pull that kind of load with a pickup (dually or not) on a Public Road...

:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:X2 - Back to the subject...
The VVT turbo has been dependable since model year 2005 and up. The heads ARE changed. The 2007 model 6.0 is the ONLY 6.0 that shares the commonized head with the 6.4.
No, they never were dependable & still aren't - the 6.0L itself is somewhat improved (at least Ford would have you believe that) but there are still plenty of those turbos going out 05-07. Ford dealers are stooping so low as to void warranty on turbo failures due to a K&N-style drop-in filter, claiming the increased air flow causes the turbo to over-spin itself - if not the filter they jump all over a 4" exhaust...

I'll admit on the heads I'm going off what I've heard not what I've seen, but I'm told if you order new heads for a 6.0L & get Ford's latest "revision" (brand new - dealer stock would have to be less than a month old) it says right on the box that its for 6.0L/6.4L

I can't speak for the 6.0's but I have a '94 F250 with a 7.3 Powerstroke and everything I've read on here say you have to constantly work on them. I have had nothing done on this truck except the replacement of one injector and a couple of new gaskets in 280k miles. 5-speed ZF tranny and 4.10 gears and when pulling my '85 Chevy with the 6.2 I just got home I got 22mpg running between 70-75mph, so I'm not going to say that the Powerstroke is crap and would take it over an Isuzu japanese made diesel any day.

I can't speak for the 6.0's but I have a '94 F250 with a 7.3 Powerstroke and everything I've read on here say you have to constantly work on them.

The title of the thread is for the 6.4 which is the upgrade from the 6.0 which is "crap". 7.3 was not the issue here.

so I'm not going to say that the Powerstroke is crap and
No one on here said all powerstrokes are crap. I had a 01 7.3 and loved it. Slow as a slug stock but worked the hell out of it for 200K mi. and could not kill it. If the 7.3 were still offered I would have had a hard decision to make 2 months ago.

Isuzu japanese made diesel any day.

I believe they are made in Ohio, not Japan.

I am not a "brand loyalist" I buy what I believe is the best to suit my needs at the given moment. I have owned dam near every make on the road and have had bad luck with 1 or 2 of almost all makes. Sometimes you just get a bad one. I bought a GMC because of the plauge of problems of the 6.0. One of my favorite P/U's was a 96 F150 with a 300 inline 6. Could not kill it.
Not into brand bashing just trying to get some insight of the new 6.4 compared to the LMM. Geez....I just love kool aide drinking brand loyalist.

I can't speak for the 6.0's but I have a '94 F250 with a 7.3 Powerstroke and everything I've read on here say you have to constantly work on them. I have had nothing done on this truck except the replacement of one injector and a couple of new gaskets in 280k miles. 5-speed ZF tranny and 4.10 gears and when pulling my '85 Chevy with the 6.2 I just got home I got 22mpg running between 70-75mph, so I'm not going to say that the Powerstroke is crap and would take it over an Isuzu japanese made diesel any day.

I've had all three 7.3 and two 6.0 fords and a duramax. They are talking about the 6.0 having problems FACT. The 7.3 was a great engine.

Neither is close to the power, smoothness and mileage of the duramax. Great engine and I don't see many complaining about problems. Go to thedieselstop.com to the 6.0 forum and spend a few minutes reading. It is full of complaints.

PS my jap diesel is made in ohio.

Ok correction, 4000 lbs on trailer behind half ton pickup. sorry for confusion.

I can't speak for the 6.0's but I have a '94 F250 with a 7.3 Powerstroke and everything I've read on here say you have to constantly work on them. I have had nothing done on this truck except the replacement of one injector and a couple of new gaskets in 280k miles. 5-speed ZF tranny and 4.10 gears and when pulling my '85 Chevy with the 6.2 I just got home I got 22mpg running between 70-75mph, so I'm not going to say that the Powerstroke is crap and would take it over an Isuzu japanese made diesel any day.
Speaking about later models is what this thread's about - comparing your 94 7.3L to a 6.0L is apples & oranges. Even a 2003 7.3L is totally different from a 2003 6.0L. Everybody was a fan of the 7.3L, and I know of very few 6.0L owners that don't regret trading their 7.3L in on a 6.0L.

I believe they are made in Ohio, not Japan.

I want to say the blocks are casted in Japan, and maybe some of the other casting to... So, Made In Japan is accurate...

I believe they are made in Ohio, not Japan.


Yeah thats like saying my girlfirends toyota is american, since in is built in Kentucky. The duramax is a Jap motor period. But I still think it is close to perfect.
As for the new 6.4 its just too early to tell. Those who say it is crap are just the type of people who don't care what ford rolls out even if it is the best Deisel made. We will just have to see if it lives up to the 7.3l status.

As for working on the new 6.4l, i don't see it as a big deal. An extra turbo here, and some more piping there, Big deal. If you think that makes its harder to work on, you shouldn't be even looking under a hood.

if you think that another turbo makes the motor easier to work on, then you shouldn't be looking under the hood. esp when ford says that pulling the cab will be require for major engine work.

ENJOY :P

Show me where ford says that

Lifting the cab is pretty standard for some of the Ford work. It is not a big deal, just have to make sure you have the correct equipment to do it. I wished they made PU cabs tip like the big trucks, that would be great when working on turbos and the engine in general. I for one am pretty excited about the new generation of diesels be they GM, Ford or Cummins. It will be more difficult to mod them but what difference does that make, that is half the challenge!! :ro) :ro)

Lifting the cab is pretty standard for some of the Ford work. It is not a big deal, just have to make sure you have the correct equipment to do it. I wished they made PU cabs tip like the big trucks, that would be great when working on turbos and the engine in general. I for one am pretty excited about the new generation of diesels be they GM, Ford or Cummins. It will be more difficult to mod them but what difference does that make, that is half the challenge!! :ro) :ro)

Yes. They all look really good. I think GM will have the least improvement, maybe none at all because the LBZ is such a good motor already. The LMM is almost the same engine, which is good, but it has more smog crap which from a breathing clean air point of view is good, but from a performance/reliability point of view it is probably bad. The Dodge gets way more displacement and finally a great auto tranny. (Well hopefully anyways). The 6.4 by early feedback from techs and people in the know is going to be a real performer. The dual turbos is a GREAT idea. Turbo lag is the Achilles heel of all of these motors. I think the Ford is going to go from 3rd place in the motor department to maybe a 3 way tie. Time will tell. The 6.4 is unbelievably quiet, that much is known for sure. HP/Torque way up. I won't need a truck for about 5 more years, by that time all of the new generation should be perfected. It would be awesome if fuel economy improved along with performance. We may be payinq a LOT more for fuel in the future. I won't miss the turbo lag if they manage to get rid of it with the new engines.

I can't speak for the 6.0's but I have a '94 F250 with a 7.3 Powerstroke and everything I've read on here say you have to constantly work on them.

...and I have a '95 with 160K on it that has eaten, two trannies, a computer, two high pressure oil pumps, three sets of glow plugs, two sets of valve cover gaskets with the wiring in them, and just recently I poured $2500 into it for injectors, injector o-rings, plus a pile of other misc. engine parts.

...bought and sold a '98 PSD within a year that had injector and turbo problems. Also blew a clutch at 24,000 miles (not opperator error).

...I'm a volunteer EMT and I lost interest in the 6.0 PSD when the turbo and intercooler blew up on our ambulance at less than 10,000 miles.

Finally I just threw my hands up in the air and bought a Duramax. If it gives me problems like the late model Fords I have experience with I will switch brands again.

On a side note, while not very powerful, I have had nothing but good luck and relatively cheap repairs with my manually injected 6.9 '86 Ford and my '93 6.5 Turbo Chevy 3500. Too bad they are so slow and weak :rolleyes:

Lifting the cab is pretty standard for some of the Ford work. It is not a big deal, just have to make sure you have the correct equipment to do it. I wished they made PU cabs tip like the big trucks, that would be great when working on turbos and the engine in general. I for one am pretty excited about the new generation of diesels be they GM, Ford or Cummins. It will be more difficult to mod them but what difference does that make, that is half the challenge!! :ro) :ro):exactly:

but from a performance/reliability point of view it is probably bad.

Why is higher performance (LMM vs. LBZ torque and HP) a bad thing???

Yes. They all look really good. I think GM will have the least improvement, maybe none at all because the LBZ is such a good motor already. The LMM is almost the same engine, which is good, but it has more smog crap which from a breathing clean air point of view is good, but from a performance/reliability point of view it is probably bad. The Dodge gets way more displacement and finally a great auto tranny. (Well hopefully anyways). The 6.4 by early feedback from techs and people in the know is going to be a real performer. The dual turbos is a GREAT idea. Turbo lag is the Achilles heel of all of these motors. I think the Ford is going to go from 3rd place in the motor department to maybe a 3 way tie. Time will tell. The 6.4 is unbelievably quiet, that much is known for sure. HP/Torque way up. I won't need a truck for about 5 more years, by that time all of the new generation should be perfected. It would be awesome if fuel economy improved along with performance. We may be payinq a LOT more for fuel in the future. I won't miss the turbo lag if they manage to get rid of it with the new engines.

I agree, it will be fun to watch and see how the new models work out. I will be in the market for a new truck this spring. I have to swap engines in my two 02 GMC's, my CC will be back to stock and the single cab will have a very hot engine rebuild using my orginal CC engine. Although street legal, climbing around rollbars and stopping every 50 miles or so to refill the fuel cell makes the single cab a trailer queen. I'll need a tow rig. I have never owned anything but a GM diesel. I loved the 7.3 when it first came out and always thought the Cummins was really well thought out and tough. I have never liked either the Ford or Dodge for cab comfort. They were always too loud and uncomfortable. The have the noise problem cured but both of them are way too hard in the seat for me and I can't get comfortable driving them. I may keep the crewcab another year till all the new models are out. I know I'll hate driving it with stock power compared to what it use to be, but you can only drive a sleeper and blow away Corvettes and Cayennes for so long before it becomes boring.:D

Why is higher performance (LMM vs. LBZ torque and HP) a bad thing???

The additional pollution control items are a bad thing from a performance/reliability standpoint. MAYBE, then again, maybe not. We'll see.

The additional pollution control items are a bad thing from a performance/reliability standpoint. MAYBE, then again, maybe not. We'll see.

Hey,

Hopefully not a 1970's flashback, with The Big 3 forced to sell gutless wonders, saddled with air/smog pumps. Judging by the numbers, they learnt alot from the 1970's and the gutless wonder era won't repeat itself!!

The additional pollution control items are a bad thing from a performance/reliability standpoint. MAYBE, then again, maybe not. We'll see.

LMM has higher output then LBZ per the specs from GM.

Show me where ford says that


http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/bulletins/20086.4LOverviewLight.ppt#330,39,FCSD Pre-Launch Initiatives

Believe me it's true. Ask moldman7 or dieseldan. They are both big ford guys...... ;)

That under the valve cover fuel plumbing is an accident waiting to happen....

The whole point of the VVT turbo in the first place was to reduce lag & provide top-end... That didn't really work out - I think Ford would be best off if they stopped trying to reinvent the wheel & took smaller, progressive steps on design improvement.

Believe me it's true.

That doesn't tell you what type of service requires you to remove the cab from the truck. I'm talking about real world mods that you and I would be doing to our trucks. So i don't see anyones reasoning behind the claim that the new 6.4l will be much harder to work on than any other V8 diesel. Unless you are really tearing into it. No one has one yet, so those claims are just baseless and pure speculation. I say give Ford or any manufacturer a chance before you make a statement like that.

After reading that powerpoint presentation on the new 6.4l i'm even more impressed with the engineering that went into it. But only real world expereince with it is the test.

I don't know how you can look at the same pictures I am and be impressed. Even alot of the ford guys called the motor a cluster. Just a reminder that the motor doesn't have anything on it. Alternator... powersteering pump, air conditioner or any of that jaz let alone twin fuelers or other BS. Stuff that under the hood, and enjoy modding.

Put it this way, if you need any internal motor work, plan on paying a lot of money to have the cab pulled before you even get to touch the inside of the motor. Forget the "do it yourself." That motor gives a whole new meaning to the term "shade tree mechanic."

Look on the internet and see the pictures of the motor under the hood.


Let me tell you, it isn't a duramax, and it sure as heck isn't a cummins for under the hood space.

Look at slide number 23 and pretend that that is under the hood. Now put an air intake, a fan and shroud, 2 batteries, and a dozen different holding tanks for antifreeze, brake fluid, windshield washer fluid, powersteering fluid, etc etc, and tell me where you plan on puting twing CP3's? or any other mod that would have to be belt driven or anything bigger than stock as far as turbos let alone changing the injectors or a cam shaft. Sorry but if this doesn't make and hold huge hp 700+ with a tune alone, it is going to be an expensive pain in the rear to modify.

It will be in the same boat as the 6.0 motor...... all or nothing..... go big or go home. Atleast with the duramax and the cummins, you can do little things. But if the rods or heads are in the same hp capacity as the 6.0, by the time you take the cab off and get to the head or injectors, you might as well build the entire motor.

If you just do a tune, then anything under the hood isn't necessary....unless you get an air intake and exhaust...... how about a bigger down pipe....LOL

The thing that interests me most will be how they cool once you get 2 turbos and all of that egr stuff hot. No wonder they have side vents.

JMO

The thing that interests me most will be how they cool once you get 2 turbos and all of that egr stuff hot. No wonder they have side vents.

JMO

Thats why fords come with the handy little built in feature of frequent break downs on the side of the road!:D

I thought ford would have learned with the 6.0 that complicated isnt in fact better. Dont get me wrong the duramax is baddass and I love mine and I wouldnt drive anything else. But what can be considered the best diesel engine(notice the word engine, not truck, trans, or anything else) is the simplest. I'm talking about the Cummins. I really hope this 6.4 is really nice, but theres just way too much craziness going on in that engine. Why the twins...at leats it'll cost twice as much. I know the 7.3 didnt pass emmissions, but ford shouldve got back to that concept. The 7.3 was awesome. Not the fastest, but damn reliable and thats what a diesel is about IMO.

i hate to say this, but we are in AMERICA and in america we judge by the cover and not the insides.there will be alot of people buying it and don't even open the hood until they are stranded somewhere in the middle of nowhere. thats also why people don't buy dodge, and if you do i'ts because you opened the hood before you bought it (cummins).

I have a feeling that when GM builds a twin turbo diesel, a lot of you guys will be like "wow thats the best thing ever. Those japaneese can build anything. what an awesome motor". but if Ford does it you bash it by saying its "too complicated".
What drives me even more crazy is that none of you have even driven one, or have any clue about its reliability, this includes myself. Don't you think there is even a small chance that this could be the 7.3l killer in terms of reliability?

I have a feeling that when GM builds a twin turbo diesel, a lot of you guys will be like "wow thats the best thing ever. Those japaneese can build anything. what an awesome motor". but if Ford does it you bash it by saying its "too complicated".
What drives me even more crazy is that none of you have even driven one, or have any clue about its reliability, this includes myself. Don't you think there is even a small chance that this could be the 7.3l killer in terms of reliability?
No.

the 7.3 is not ecxactly a role model for reliability

So for all the folks who complain about the complexity what have you done to your diesels that you couldn't do to a 6.0 or 6.4? You have to remember that 99.9% of the folks that buy these trucks buy them for work and not play and they don't care what under the hood looks like. That's why these trucks have warranties!

So for all the folks who complain about the complexity what have you done to your diesels that you couldn't do to a 6.0 or 6.4?

drive the piss outta it every day and still have it crank and go in the morning:D :ro)

Anybody who would buy a Ford with the 6.4 would have to not care what it looks like under the hood.

So for all the folks who complain about the complexity what have you done to your diesels that you couldn't do to a 6.0 or 6.4? You have to remember that 99.9% of the folks that buy these trucks buy them for work and not play and they don't care what under the hood looks like. That's why these trucks have warranties!

#1. What have we done to our duramaxes that you couldn’t do to a 6.0 or a 6.4? Build reliable power of them for starters, I personally don’t like the sight of coolant spewing out from under my truck. Also what custom tuning software is there available for a ford 6.0? Also, why would I want one, when they have to recall 25,000 6.0's and when, not if, WHEN something breaks I want my manufacturer to stand behind me, not cut and run like fomoco has been doing.

#2. If you buy a diesel for "work, or play" you will eventually go under the hood to replace something, or upgrade something. Turbo, cp3, air intake, etc. so if the average guy tries to do something himself and see that wad of crap Navistar has supplied them, he will be immediately turned off.

#3. Warranty????? Are you kidding me, Ford motor company has the worst track record of honoring warranties of anyone! Look at the numerous people that have been screwed over on their trucks, especially turbo's. You may say, "Where are you getting this so-called info?" Simple, look on any ford forum, or any other forum, or check the internet news site, and do a search for "Ford 6.0L Diesel" and you will find that I am actually somewhat right! ):h

Of course we dont care what under the hood looks like. And I dont mean to bash ford by any reason. But when a new vehicle is leaving you stranded on vacation..Who gives a ***** about warranty at that point. Yeah it'll pay for the costs, but it wont pay for the headaches. In the past I've lemoned three vehicles. Its such a headache do deal with a problemsome new vehicle. Basically this is my opinion, I think Ford made a mistake with the 6.0. Yeah theres some good ones out there, but I dont think it makes up for the problems that theyre having. Also the 6.0 is far behind the cummins and dmax in hp and torque. I think this engine is going along the same lines as the 6.0, thats why I think its bad...not because its made by ford.

I brought up the 7.3, not because its the best engine, but its a damn good engine. I think that will be fords last good engine for another while. I think anything based of the 6.0 is a disaster waiting to happen.

The 6.0 is not "left behind in hp and torque by cummins and Dmax. Where does this crap come from? Reality check ALL THREE MANUFACTUERS VOID WARRANTIES ON ENGINE MODDED TRUCKS. Ford cannot void warranties on stock trucks. They would be sued into submission in short order. Maybe some of you could get an education by reading other posts on THIS SITE. "Is my warranty voided", "truck in limp mode", "head gaskets blown now what?", "latest overheating fix from gm", etc, etc. The twin turbos is a great idea unless you are just so addicted to turbo lag you can't picture driving a diesel without it. Personnally, I wouldn't miss it one bit. I don't see what is so simple and uncomplicated about the new LMM Dmax either. Looks a whole lot more complicated than a 5.9 Cummins to me, but that's just me. The 7.3 powerstroke is like a god of reliability in comparison to it's gm competiton of the era.

Reality check ALL THREE MANUFACTUERS VOID WARRANTIES ON ENGINE MODDED TRUCKS.

Wrong, the Magnuson-Moss act protects you from manufactures voiding your warranty, UNLESS, they conclude that the damage caused was a "DIRECT RESULT" of that said product that was modified. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

Hey hey hey you can relax. We own all three. Cummins, dmax, and 6.0 and 7.3 powerstroke. I'm not saying that the 6.o is junk. I'm giving my opinion based on our experience with all three. I'm only comparing engines. The ford trucks have a lot of things dodge and gm dont , but like I said I'm talking engines. Look at the numbers stock for the torque of the powerstroke...it is less than the dmax and cummins. Our 6.0 has also been the least fuel efficient averaging about 12-13 mpg and has been somewhat most troublesome. That is why I feel a more complicated engine based off the 6.0 is a bad idea. I love the look of the fords, but IN MY OPINION its the last one I'd drive. Like I said OPINION. I really hope the 6.4 turns out to be a great engine, I really do. So we'll see. Only time will tell. We all have our opinions.

The 6.0 is not "left behind in hp and torque by cummins and Dmax. Where does this crap come from? Reality check ALL THREE MANUFACTUERS VOID WARRANTIES ON ENGINE MODDED TRUCKS. Ford cannot void warranties on stock trucks. They would be sued into submission in short order. Maybe some of you could get an education by reading other posts on THIS SITE. "Is my warranty voided", "truck in limp mode", "head gaskets blown now what?", "latest overheating fix from gm", etc, etc. The twin turbos is a great idea unless you are just so addicted to turbo lag you can't picture driving a diesel without it. Personnally, I wouldn't miss it one bit. I don't see what is so simple and uncomplicated about the new LMM Dmax either. Looks a whole lot more complicated than a 5.9 Cummins to me, but that's just me. The 7.3 powerstroke is like a god of reliability in comparison to it's gm competiton of the era.

I call BS on that one. I spent years on the thedieselstop.com site. I've had 3 powerstrokes 2 were 6.0's. The people complaining on this site are no were near what the 6.0 forum is.

Every time I go back to tds site I notice the number of people complaining about the 6.0.

I like the ford superduty a lot! The Duramax/allison combo so much better. More power, smoother, quietier, much better fuel mileage, makes its power a a much lower rpm.

Anybody who would buy a Ford with the 6.4 would have to not care what it looks like under the hood.
my point well said,i second this!!!!!!!

Hey hey hey you can relax. We own all three. Cummins, dmax, and 6.0 and 7.3 powerstroke. I'm not saying that the 6.o is junk. I'm giving my opinion based on our experience with all three. I'm only comparing engines. The ford trucks have a lot of things dodge and gm dont , but like I said I'm talking engines. Look at the numbers stock for the torque of the powerstroke...it is less than the dmax and cummins. Our 6.0 has also been the least fuel efficient averaging about 12-13 mpg and has been somewhat most troublesome. That is why I feel a more complicated engine based off the 6.0 is a bad idea. I love the look of the fords, but IN MY OPINION its the last one I'd drive. Like I said OPINION. I really hope the 6.4 turns out to be a great engine, I really do. So we'll see. Only time will tell. We all have our opinions.
i hear you,,,we get pretty rev-up when it comes to anything that's not gm built because we are in a gm chat site,its like going to a black man party and expect to listen to michael bolton music.

I really don't care who makes what, if the underside of the new GM T900 looked like the powerstroke I would puke. I don't care about sequential turbos, I think it is a good idea, but after seeing how ford put it together, I can't help but be turned off.

I am really wondering about the turbo lag arguement, because if that was a true arguement, then the dyno graph for the 6.4 would look a lot better down low than the single turboed duramax. But the duramax has more hp down low, which means the duramax has less turbo lag than the 6.4. Not to mention the fact that the 6.4's setup acts like a single turbo until the wastegate is kicked in and the overflow spools up the second turbo.

Say what you want, but the numbers show.

BTW the navistar version of the 6.4 only has 1 turbo, not 2 like ford's version.

Wrong, the Magnuson-Moss act protects you from manufactures voiding your warranty, UNLESS, they conclude that the damage caused was a "DIRECT RESULT" of that said product that was modified. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

What do you mean "wrong". I just love these pronouncements. I stand by my statement and it's not "wrong". Warrantys get voided by all three manufacturers. That is a FACT. And it's not "wrong". Yes they have to meet the requirements of the law, but they do it and they void warranties when it is justified.

YES, but what I said is contradictory to what you stated. You stated that if you plug in a power adder, they will void your warranty, it is simply untrue. The vehicle manufacturer HAS TO prove that the power adder caused the problem. Just because you put a tuner in your truck does not mean they can void your warranty!

What do you mean "wrong". I just love these pronouncements. I stand by my statement and it's not "wrong". Warrantys get voided by all three manufacturers. That is a FACT. And it's not "wrong". Yes they have to meet the requirements of the law, but they do it and they void warranties when it is justified.

Where the difference comes in is that Ford will void your warranty for something as simple as an after market air filter, larger tires, larger exhaust, etc. etc. And yes this is WRONG. GM has never stooped so low as to look for excuses to stick customers with repair bills that the manufacturer should have covered. While GM is more customer orientated Ford is only concerned about their bottom line and the beating they are taking on the 6.0. They have proven this time and time again. GM on the other hand extended the warranty of the earlier year models while they worked out any issues. Thats what I call customer support. Unheard of by Ford so don't even try to place Ford on the same playing field as GM. GM's customer support is the reason I left Dodge. Having the best overall power train package is just icing on the cake.

OH, BTW that 6.4 will be a nightmare to work on and guess who will cover labor hours.....It is what it is........

#1. What have we done to our duramaxes that you couldn’t do to a 6.0 or a 6.4? Build reliable power of them for starters, I personally don’t like the sight of coolant spewing out from under my truck. Also what custom tuning software is there available for a ford 6.0? Also, why would I want one, when they have to recall 25,000 6.0's and when, not if, WHEN something breaks I want my manufacturer to stand behind me, not cut and run like fomoco has been doing.

#2. If you buy a diesel for "work, or play" you will eventually go under the hood to replace something, or upgrade something. Turbo, cp3, air intake, etc. so if the average guy tries to do something himself and see that wad of crap Navistar has supplied them, he will be immediately turned off.

#3. Warranty????? Are you kidding me, Ford motor company has the worst track record of honoring warranties of anyone! Look at the numerous people that have been screwed over on their trucks, especially turbo's. You may say, "Where are you getting this so-called info?" Simple, look on any ford forum, or any other forum, or check the internet news site, and do a search for "Ford 6.0L Diesel" and you will find that I am actually somewhat right! ):h

1. SCT comes to mind? There are folks doing some great things with the 6.0. Gene with the stroked lightening truck and Tadd with his 700HP 6.0! And that's on just #2 diesel. Sounds pretty dang good to me!

2. So your saying I can't do that with my 6.0? I own an old 6.9 and I always find it funny when people complain about having to work on the "newer" trucks. Well, let me tell ya the old one's ain't any better. Try R&R'in a set of heads on the 6.9 and tell me how easy it is! And shoot there ain't even a turbo charger on that old dog!

3. I doubt Ford has any problem warranting a truck that hasn't been modified. And I highly doubt it's any different with the other two brands. Mod the heck out of your truck, blow it up and try to get gm to pay for it.

3. I doubt Ford has any problem warranting a truck that hasn't been modified. And I highly doubt it's any different with the other two brands. Mod the heck out of your truck, blow it up and try to get gm to pay for it.

Heck there was a tech bulletin from GM on THIS SITE posted by someone who spelling out that very thing. Here is the condensed version. Customer come in, truck broke. Truck modded. GM doesn't warranty it. Pretty plain and simple to me. The tales of Ford voiding warranties for unrelated mods are just that - tales. It isn't even allowed under the law. Give me a break. You think maybe some pissed of modders neglect to mention a few of their mods when they post their bitches on the internet? Oh, my motor blew up and all I had was bigger tires and Ford voided my warranty. Yeah, right. It's total BS, not because Ford is a magnamous company, but because they can't get away with that. It's just that simple.

So where's the extended warranty Ford offered while the 6.0 engines were taking a dive from all the factory defects??? While GM may void warranty for extensive mods Ford will void their warranty for basically anything that could create a decent excuse to the unknowing public. What about the their known warranty denial for an aftermarket intake claiming it overspeeds the turbo and causes failure. This is BS.........Fords track record in regards to taking care of their customers and standing behind no fault failures is no where near to that of GM. Not even close.....The record speaks for itself.

So where's the extended warranty Ford offered while the 6.0 engines were taking a dive from all the factory defects??? While GM may void warranty for extensive mods Ford will void their warranty for basically anything that could create a decent excuse to the unknowing public. What about the their known warranty denial for an aftermarket intake claiming it overspeeds the turbo and causes failure. This is BS.........Fords track record in regards to taking care of their customers and standing behind no fault failures is no where near to that of GM. Not even close.....The record speaks for itself.

What record? Your record of how things are? Have you ever even owned a Ford? I've owned plenty of GM vehicles and the wonderful company you admire doesn't fit my memory of how I was treated, nor did the products I bought come without their share of issues. When is GM going to address their Dmax overheating issues? I'll answer that for you. NEVER.

What record? Your record of how things are? Have you ever even owned a Ford?

The records are public knowledge and even admitted by the Ford crowd. At least those who care to admit it. I blame Ford for this. They were the ones who rolled out an inferior product then chose to blame the end user whenever possible to help absorb the associated cost of their failure. The negativity in the public eye is exactly what they deserve. I can't imagine the feeling that floats about in ones head when/if they roll past the 100K warranty in a 6.0 PS diesel.

Hopefully the 6.4 will be better for those who refuse to step down from their pedistal. No one can say right now how reliable it will be but one thing that can be concluded is working on it will be labor intensive which will be at the sole cost of the owner after warranty expiration. Just another area where the advantage goes to the competetion.

I didn't know you had to be on a pedistal to own a Ford. I'd like to see a statistic of number of units sold "diesel" for each auto maker vs. number of warranty claims per unit. I'm sure Ford would lead the pack since it sells more diesels than dodge and gm combined! :eek:

I didn't know you had to be on a pedistal to own a Ford. I'd like to see a statistic of number of units sold "diesel" for each auto maker vs. number of warranty claims per unit. I'm sure Ford would lead the pack since it sells more diesels than dodge and gm combined! :eek:

Problem with that is it's obsolete information. We're no longer in the 80's. Unless you care to provide a current link.....

What record? Your record of how things are?

Here's one for ya..........Shortened up a little. By comparison the Cummins didn't have any TSB's but it was developed quite a few years before Ford or GM.

Ford's diesel drama drags on

Power Stroke woes anger buyers, drive up warranty costs
By Richard Truett
Automotive News / December 12, 2005

Since the engine debuted three years ago, Ford has issued at least 77 technical service bulletins. That is far above average, even for a new engine. These bulletins tell mechanics how to diagnose and fix various problems.

By comparison, there have been eight service bulletins for GM's Duramax diesel V-8 and none for the diesel engine in the Dodge Ram truck. Both engines debuted at about the same time as the Power Stroke.

After just a year on the market, International almost completely redesigned the Power Stroke's fuel system, replacing or redesigning nearly 500 parts. That helped reduce the number of problems, but did not cure the engine of all its ills. Ford has voluntarily recalled the engine at least twice to fix various problems.

The troubles have caused a rift in relations between Ford and International.

The engine can be repaired and made reliable, says International spokesman Bob Carso. Engineers from Ford and International have fixed the problems that plagued the early versions of the engine, he said.

But Carso says the engine is extremely complex and requires "outstanding diagnostic capabilities" to properly identify and repair the faulty parts.

Less help from Ford?

When the Power Stroke's troubles surfaced, Ford tried hard to keep customers happy. In the summer of 2003, Ford took the unusual step of buying back 500 trucks, mostly because of fuel system problems.

But two diesel technicians say Ford has changed the way it deals with the engine problems.

"When they first started out with the 6.0-liter, Ford had a team that was looking over every bit of it and just doing whatever it took to get them fixed," says Mark Ward, a master diesel technician at Landers McLarty Ford in Bentonville, Ark. "And then that just shut off like a light when Ford found out how much losses they were having."

Ward contends Ford is trying to shift more repair costs onto consumers.

"We used to replace turbochargers left and right if the fins had any damage to them," he says. "Now they (Ford) won't accept a turbo back with any fin damage. They are saying if there is any (turbocharger) fin damage whatsoever, it has to be from a dirty air filter. You have to inform the customer that Ford won't pay for that. It's $700, plus the labor."

The fin is the part of the turbocharger that is driven by engine's exhaust system.

"When the 6.0 is running properly, it has much better performance than the 7.3 did," says Charles Ledger, a Ford master technician from Oroville, Calif. "Unfortunately, the 6.0 is plagued with sensor problems." Ledger dispenses advice on his Dieselmann Web site (intellidog.com/dieselmann/home.html).

Have you read the TSB's? You'd be suprised! ;)

How about we all agree that Ford makes the best looking truck in America.

By the way I own a Chevy, and a pretty mean looking one IMHO:D

When is GM going to address their Dmax overheating issues? I'll answer that for you. NEVER.

There are several ways GM is addressing this. They have several TSBs of things to do to try to fix the problem. That was also only with the LLY version 04.5 and 05 trucks.

They have also bought many back. I know, my 05 is now GM's 05 and I now have a 06.

Have you read the TSB's? You'd be suprised! ;)

Until April of this year I worked in an Auto parts plant. I had seveal of the trade magazines for inside the business as we were a supplier for Ford, Dodge, GM, Toyota and Honda.

The woes that Ford and international had with the 6.0 are well known with in the industry. All the magazines had articles about the 6.0 and the money it was costing Ford. There were also a lot of lawsuites between International and Ford. International claimed the problems were fords engine managment and the fuel system. The 6.0 has cost Ford more in warenty work than all its other engines combine.

I know of several people with the 6.0 that regret the day they traded their 7.3. They have had nothing but troubles out of the 6.0.

If you do not believe the 6.0 is a problem engine for Ford then you have your head in the sand.

And yes the LLY has caused GM troubles with its overheating. However that engine was short lived, 1.5 model years.

Until April of this year I worked in an Auto parts plant. I had seveal of the trade magazines for inside the business as we were a supplier for Ford, Dodge, GM, Toyota and Honda.

The woes that Ford and international had with the 6.0 are well known with in the industry. All the magazines had articles about the 6.0 and the money it was costing Ford. There were also a lot of lawsuites between International and Ford. International claimed the problems were fords engine managment and the fuel system. The 6.0 has cost Ford more in warenty work than all its other engines combine.

I know of several people with the 6.0 that regret the day they traded their 7.3. They have had nothing but troubles out of the 6.0.

If you do not believe the 6.0 is a problem engine for Ford then you have your head in the sand.

And yes the LLY has caused GM troubles with its overheating. However that engine was short lived, 1.5 model years.

If you think the 6.0 problems continued in any frequency past the early 2004 models, you have been misinformed. The 2003 release of the 6.0 was a disaster, there is no question about that. It was addressed and the consensus from people that ACTUALLY OWN ONE is the 2005 - 2007 6.0 is a great motor. 99 % of us ACTUAL 6.0 OWNERS KNOW they are great. GM guys hate them. The actual fact of the matter is GM trumped the 6.0 with the LBZ. Models previous to that were no better, and some inferior to the 2005 and up 6.0 Deny it all you want but those are the facts. If you have an LBZ you have a great motor, I won't deny that, nor do I begrudge that. It is a simple fact. I think what pisses us off is the ridiculous claims that an LB7 or an LLY are superior to late 6.0 They are NOT. I test drove an LLY and the turbo lag on those trucks is RIDICULOUS. HP and Torque are about the same as a 6.0 The overheating issue is as serious a problem, actually more serious in terms of what it would actually cost to fix the issue, than any problem even early 6.0's had. A former employee of mine has a 2003 6.0 2 wheel drive with 6 speed and 60k miles. He has done absolutely nothing to the truck. Changes oil and filters, that's it. A former competitor/friend had a 2003 4hl drive auto with 120k miles when he went out of business. Replaced one egr valve. The reality of even the early 6.0 does not match the internet hype. Obviously, these two guys got lucky as there were a large number of POS 6.0's in 2003. But I know from personal experience that there were a lot of good ones also. Buyers of 2003 and 2004 6.0 trucks are always advised by techs to get an OASIS on the truck. There were very good ones and very bad ones. Luck of the draw. Overheating was not a hit or miss. All LLYs will do it towing heavy in hot weather. Oh yes it has to be up a grade. Guys that only haul in Kansas don't have to worry about it.

Moldman7
So how many of the current model 6.0 PS engines have the required high miles needed to claim victory in terms of long term reliability? Although improved I would think claiming victory at this point is a bit premature. Just how would you rank the current big three engines in terms of reliability and performance???

If you think the 6.0 problems continued in any frequency past the early 2004 models, you have been misinformed. The 2003 release of the 6.0 was a disaster, there is no question about that. It was addressed and the consensus from people that ACTUALLY OWN ONE is the 2005 - 2007 6.0 is a great motor. 99 % of us ACTUAL 6.0 OWNERS KNOW they are great. So all the trade magazines are wrong about the 2005 6.0? Auto news digest, Insdustry news weekly and such? That's why my buddies 05 had to have the trubo and heads replaced?

GM guys hate them. The actual fact of the matter is GM trumped the 6.0 with the LBZ. Models previous to that were no better, and some inferior to the 2005 and up 6.0 Deny it all you want but those are the facts.
I have owned a 01 LB7, an 05 LLY and now the LBZ. The LB7 was a great engine and I would put it up against an 03 or 04 6.0 Ford any day. It would out pull my LLY any day.
If you have an LBZ you have a great motor, I won't deny that, nor do I begrudge that. It is a simple fact. I think what pisses us off is the ridiculous claims that an LB7 or an LLY are superior to late 6.0 They are NOT. I test drove an LLY and the turbo lag on those trucks is RIDICULOUS.
In my opinion from owning both an LB7 and LLY your correct, more lag on the LLY compaired to the LB7 or LBZ.
HP and Torque are about the same as a 6.0 The overheating issue is as serious a problem, actually more serious in terms of what it would actually cost to fix the issue, than any problem even early 6.0's had. A former employee of mine has a 2003 6.0 2 wheel drive with 6 speed and 60k miles. He has done absolutely nothing to the truck. Changes oil and filters, that's it. A former competitor/friend had a 2003 4hl drive auto with 120k miles when he went out of business. Replaced one egr valve. The reality of even the early 6.0 does not match the internet hype. Obviously, these two guys got lucky as there were a large number of POS 6.0's in 2003. But I know from personal experience that there were a lot of good ones also. Buyers of 2003 and 2004 6.0 trucks are always advised by techs to get an OASIS on the truck. There were very good ones and very bad ones. Luck of the draw. Overheating was not a hit or miss. All LLYs will do it towing heavy in hot weather. Does not have to be hot, overheated mine in 72 degree weather grossing 22,000 pounds on a 7% grade. Oh yes it has to be up a grade. Guys that only haul in Kansas don't have to worry about it. Not true either. Overheat mine in Kansas pulling a three place motorcycle trailer, just under 4000 pounds, it was 98 degrees out.

I have owned a 3500 Crew Cab Dually of each Duramax engine. All three trucks equiped the same, fully loaded SLT 4x4 packages.

The 01 was a towing machine. Over 130,000 trouble free miles. The 05 was a lemon, 24,000 miles, with one glaring problem. It could not tow with out loosing it's cool.

The 06 had 16,000 trouble free miles on it so far.

I know many loyal Ford fans that would not have a 6.0. I know two people who bought 2004 6.0's. Both of these guys traded 7.3's to get them. Both of these gusy are now driving 2002 7.3's. They would not leave Ford, after owning a 6.0, they will not own another.

Not much different from me. I was ready to unload my LLY to get a early 04 LB7 until I started hearing good things about the LBZ.

If you read the trade magazines you will see the 6.0 PSD has cost Ford a lot more money than the LLY cost GM.

If you read the trade magazines you will see the 6.0 PSD has cost Ford a lot more money than the LLY cost GM.

Some of that is because GM refuses to address the overheating issue. Am I right? You owned one. The engine needed to be taken out, cooling channels opened up, bigger radiator installed. Did they do that for you?

Moldman7
So how many of the current model 6.0 PS engines have the required high miles needed to claim victory in terms of long term reliability? Although improved I would think claiming victory at this point is a bit premature. Just how would you rank the current big three engines in terms of reliability and performance???

#1 Cummins #2 LBZ DMAX #3 Powerstroke, I already stated that I think........... The LLY was NOT a better motor. The later 6.0's are fine. 120k with no issues is a lot better than a lot of guys DMax experience. Also, this was brought up on another site. Do a Google search for Allison problems, now do one for Torqueshift problems. Now you know why Ford guys KNOW the Torqueshift is the #1 in reliability in Heavy duty pick-up autos. Is it a scientific study? No, but it is a pretty good indication of what is going on out there. I heard the Torqueshift had half the warranty repairs of Alison, I bet it is less than that.

#1 Cummins #2 LBZ DMAX #3 Powerstroke, I already stated that I think........... The LLY was NOT a better motor. The later 6.0's are fine. 120k with no issues is a lot better than a lot of guys DMax experience. Also, this was brought up on another site. Do a Google search for Allison problems, now do one for Torqueshift problems. Now you know why Ford guys KNOW the Torqueshift is the #1 in reliability in Heavy duty pick-up autos. Is it a scientific study? No, but it is a pretty good indication of what is going on out there. I heard the Torqueshift had half the warranty repairs of Alison, I bet it is less than that.

And I heard that the tooth fairy was abducted and raped by Santa Claus and all of his elves, but that does not make it true!! Give us some hard facts please. The Allison has been around alot longer than the Torqeushift, and has many more miles on its design than the Torqueshift. i think Allison has a little more experience than Ford.

Some of that is because GM refuses to address the overheating issue. Am I right? You owned one. The engine needed to be taken out, cooling channels opened up, bigger radiator installed. Did they do that for you?

I have never heard of the engine being removed. I have heard of bigger radiator, the 06 intake conversion and now changing to the 06 water pump. No they did not do those for me.

For me they took the 05, and replaced it with an 06.

For me they took the 05, and replaced it with an 06.

Ford does that too. Best solution for you for sure.

And I heard that the tooth fairy was abducted and raped by Santa Claus and all of his elves, but that does not make it true!! Give us some hard facts please. The Allison has been around alot longer than the Torqeushift, and has many more miles on its design than the Torqueshift. i think Allison has a little more experience than Ford.

Will I understand your point but you have to admit the number of hits for Allison problems is huge. Torqueshift has next to none. That has to make you wonder. Ford has been making auto transmissions for a long long time. It would be great if anyone could go online an access warranty repair stats and buy back info for all manufacturers but none of them want us to have that info.

For starters GM has much more HP and Torque (both rated and across the RPM band) reaching the Allison...... Not that the Torque Shift tranny is bad but one of the reasons it faired OK is because the Ford is last in stock HP and Torque and there are many more modded DMax engines than the PS 6.0. Many fear modding a 6.0 simply because of it's reputation and fear of Fords lame excuse warranty denials. I work with 3 individuals that fear modding their grocery getter 6.0's for these exact reasons and discuss this often. One of which has a late model 6.0 with some of the same issues as the 2003 and 2004's.
GM on the other hand has many more reliably modded engines and the majority of this group runs added power on their stock tranny and decide to complete tranny mods at a later date.
A stock Allison coupled to a stock engine is basically bullet proof and a modded Allison coupled to a modded engine is basically the same. Apples to apples the Allison is far superior to the Torque Shift. This is why it is the only transmission of the big three to be considered medium duty. Just look at the mass of the Allison in comparison to the Torque Shift. I think even Ford likes the Allison since they copied many of its features. The Torque Shift basically wouldn't exist in it's current form without the Allison. Sound familiar.......Sorry but if you are looking for something that Ford does better than GM the powertrain is not a good starting point. Maybe we can revisit when the 6.4 is on the road.

Look at the bright side. By Ford being a new technology follower I'm sure the Ford crowd will soon enjoy a 6 speed tranny. With the BOLD moves statement attached of course.

For starters GM has much more HP and Torque (both rated and across the RPM band) reaching the Allison...... Not that the Torque Shift tranny is bad but one of the reasons it faired OK is because the Ford is last in stock HP and Torque and there are many more modded DMax engines than the PS 6.0. Many fear modding a 6.0 simply because of it's reputation and fear of Fords lame excuse warranty denials. I work with 3 individuals that fear modding their grocery getter 6.0's for these exact reasons and discuss this often. One of which has a late model 6.0 with some of the same issues as the 2003 and 2004's.
GM on the other hand has many more reliably modded engines and the majority of this group runs added power on their stock tranny and decide to complete tranny mods at a later date.
A stock Allison coupled to a stock engine is basically bullet proof and a modded Allison coupled to a modded engine is basically the same. Apples to apples the Allison is far superior to the Torque Shift. This is why it is the only transmission of the big three to be considered medium duty. Just look at the mass of the Allison in comparison to the Torque Shift. I think even Ford likes the Allison since they copied many of its features. The Torque Shift basically wouldn't exist in it's current form without the Allison. Sound familiar.......Sorry but if you are looking for something that Ford does better than GM the powertrain is not a good starting point. Maybe we can revisit when the 6.4 is on the road.

Look at the bright side. By Ford being a new technology follower I'm sure the Ford crowd will soon enjoy a 6 speed tranny. With the BOLD moves statement attached of course.

Ford will producing just about as much power as the Duramax in 2008. The LMM will have a 10HP/15TQ advantage over the Powerstroke, but that isn't much to brag about.

Even if Ford has 'copied' the Allison, it's vice cersa also with Chevy copying Ford at other points in the truck. That's how we have competition.

Allison on left, Torqueshift in middle. Scarry..... For the Ford boys that is.;)

It would be great if anyone could go online an access warranty repair stats and buy back info for all manufacturers but none of them want us to have that info.

I agree 100%. Why doesn't the general public have access to this information? I would love to see it. I would really love to see import stats, especially Toyota.

Ford will producing just about as much power as the Duramax in 2008. The LMM will have a 10HP/15TQ advantage over the Powerstroke, but that isn't much to brag about.

Even if Ford has 'copied' the Allison, it's vice cersa also with Chevy copying Ford at other points in the truck. That's how we have competition.

It is alot to brag about. After all, the 6.4 has alot to prove after the nightmare the 6.0 was. It cost Ford tons in buy backs & waranty repairs, and crapped on the solid reputation the 7.3 left behind. The DMAX is in the drivers seat, and Ford gets to play catch up.

It is alot to brag about. After all, the 6.4 has alot to prove after the nightmare the 6.0 was. It cost Ford tons in buy backs & waranty repairs, and crapped on the solid reputation the 7.3 left behind. The DMAX is in the drivers seat, and Ford gets to play catch up.

Hey, it took the LBZ before GM got the Dmax right. I think Ford is going to more than catch up. Watch the 6.7 Cummins too. Mated to the new six speed, it should be quite a monster.

Allison on left, Torqueshift in middle. Scarry..... For the Ford boys that is.;)

Uh, that' s one component in a chevy ad. I'd like a print and spec sheet on both of them to make a fair comparison, wouldn't you?

I agree 100%. Why doesn't the general public have access to this information? I would love to see it. I would really love to see import stats, especially Toyota.

Well at least we agree on SOMETHING!:D

Uh, that' s one component in a chevy ad. I'd like a print and spec sheet on both of them to make a fair comparison, wouldn't you?

Hey the whole Allison weighs near 500 lbs and holds about 5 gals of fluid. Like mentioned earlier it's the only one classified as medium duty. ;) Don't see many Torqueshifts behind commercial engines.....

For starters GM has much more HP and Torque (both rated and across the RPM band) reaching the Allison...... Not that the Torque Shift tranny is bad but one of the reasons it faired OK is because the Ford is last in stock HP and Torque and there are many more modded DMax engines than the PS 6.0. Many fear modding a 6.0 simply because of it's reputation and fear of Fords lame excuse warranty denials. I work with 3 individuals that fear modding their grocery getter 6.0's for these exact reasons and discuss this often. One of which has a late model 6.0 with some of the same issues as the 2003 and 2004's.
GM on the other hand has many more reliably modded engines and the majority of this group runs added power on their stock tranny and decide to complete tranny mods at a later date.
A stock Allison coupled to a stock engine is basically bullet proof and a modded Allison coupled to a modded engine is basically the same. Apples to apples the Allison is far superior to the Torque Shift. This is why it is the only transmission of the big three to be considered medium duty. Just look at the mass of the Allison in comparison to the Torque Shift. I think even Ford likes the Allison since they copied many of its features. The Torque Shift basically wouldn't exist in it's current form without the Allison. Sound familiar.......Sorry but if you are looking for something that Ford does better than GM the powertrain is not a good starting point. Maybe we can revisit when the 6.4 is on the road.

Look at the bright side. By Ford being a new technology follower I'm sure the Ford crowd will soon enjoy a 6 speed tranny. With the BOLD moves statement attached of course.

Ok, how many modded Dmax compared to 6.0? I don't have that number, do you? Does GM already have dual turbos? I must have missed that release. How about the front end on the new GMC. Looks almost like a mirror image of my superduty except for the giant GMC logo. They all copy each other. How can you say the Alison is bulletproof mated to a stock truck without warranty and repair stats. It's all guesswork on your part. The 6.0 is not as mod friendly as LBZ, but there are a LOT of guys that do it anyway. It costs a lot more money but it can be done.

Hey the whole Allison weighs near 500 lbs and holds about 5 gals of fluid. Like mentioned earlier it's the only one classified as medium duty. ;) Don't see many Torqueshifts behind commercial engines.....


Back in the 70's we pulled an auto tranny out of my buddies 1970 Corvette. We didn't have a transmission stand so one of our friends held it and lifted it out. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. I also saw him lift the front end of a 60's Mercury wagon with a 400 plus cubic inch motor? still in it. He lifted it about a foot off the ground. Believe it or not.

I agree 100%. Why doesn't the general public have access to this information? I would love to see it. I would really love to see import stats, especially Toyota.Dream on! --Those are some of the most heavily guarded secrets in the industry. There is NO WAY any manufacturer is going to allow the competition or the general public to have access to that data. They will fight it tooth and nail with every ounce of resource they have. Only the IRS might be able to get total dollars expense information grouped together with all other costs for the fiscal year. But a breakdown by model or option content available to the general public? - NO WAY!

I also saw him lift the front end of a 60's Mercury wagon with a 400 plus cubic inch motor? still in it. He lifted it about a foot off the ground. Believe it or not. Just take some good steroid and you too you will become a real guy able of doing things like that... moldman7:)

Just take some good steroid and you too you will become a real guy able of doing things like that... moldman7:)

A huge hulk bodybuilder from Rhode Island just died, partially attributable to "growth hormone" He was the ripe old age of 46. He could bench well over 500lbs however.

Hey, it took the LBZ before GM got the Dmax right. I think Ford is going to more than catch up. Watch the 6.7 Cummins too. Mated to the new six speed, it should be quite a monster.

Nope, the LB7 was great. I had the first year LB7. 130,000 plus trouble free miles, 25 percent or more towing 12,500 pounds of RV. Yep some did have injector problems so GM extended the warrenty to 200,000 miles.

Ford sure did not have that good a start with a first year engine in the 6.0

Uh, that' s one component in a chevy ad. I'd like a print and spec sheet on both of them to make a fair comparison, wouldn't you?

How many motorhomes have the Ford torqueshift trans in them? My dads motor home has an allison 1000 coupled to a 5.9 cummins. Many 34 to 38 foot motorhomes have the allison 1000, even more have the allison 2000.

How many school bus have the ford torqueshift? There are lots of them with the allison 1000.

This list goes on.

The allison is a much beefier trans than the Ford torqueshift.

Most allison failures I have heard of have been due to chipped trucks. A few due to electronics.

My 01 had the Edge Hot juice box on it for 110,000 miles. That was adding 250 foot pounds of torque and 120 hp. Never a glitch with the trans.

Like said earlier though, everyone copies each others ideas, but even so, ford wouldn't pay to put an allison in their HD trucks if they thought that the torqueshift would do the same job.

The 6.0 PSD was a bold move also, it doesn't mean it is going to pay off. I think if ford would be better off if they went back to tough and not to bold.

I'd Buy The Ford

I'd Buy The Ford

Me too! That's right, I did!

Did you Ford boys see the Diesel Power Challenge results? The Fords were once again at the bottom of the list with only one Dodge behind them. :bawl: :nutkick:

Of course GM won.:beerchug:

Buy the Duramax......

Did you Ford boys see the Diesel Power Challenge results? The Fords were once again at the bottom of the list with only one Dodge behind them. :bawl: :nutkick:

Of course GM won.:beerchug:

Buy the Duramax......

Quite impressive. I'd still buy the Ford as mine is a work truck not a dragster. If I want a racecar, I'll buy one.

Quite impressive. I'd still buy the Ford as mine is a work truck not a dragster. If I want a racecar, I'll buy one.

A sled pull is not considered work....:confuzeld

Even the 06 DMax is making more HP and Torque than the 6.4. And at only 1600 RPM. The 6.4 will need an extra 450 RPM to make 10 HP less than the DMax. Bottom line is the 6.4 is still playing catch up. ):h
In case you didn't know HP and Torque is a measurement of an engines ability to do WORK.

Originally Posted by F250WHEELS http://dieselplace.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1463437#post1463437)
I'd Buy The Ford

Me too! That's right, I did!
I am sorry:p: .


Originally Posted by moldman7 http://dieselplace.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1463645#post1463645)
Quite impressive. I'd still buy the Ford as mine is a work truck not a dragster. If I want a racecar, I'll buy one.


That's why I bought a GMC, I needed a truck for work. Torque equals ability to work. GM has more than Ford, so that equals more work.:p:

I am sorry:p: .



That's why I bought a GMC, I needed a truck for work. Torque equals ability to work. GM has more than Ford, so that equals more work.:p:

I say I can put more in the bed of my truck than you can and GM agrees with me.:D

I say I can put more in the bed of my truck than you can and GM agrees with me. But the only problem is that your not able to carry this load without broking something on your truck...:)

I say I can put more in the bed of my truck than you can and GM agrees with me.:D

Not so fast Moldman. :rolleyes: Read em and weep......

Payload and Tow capacities straight from Fords site. ;)
Even the warranty comparison is interesting.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/compare/details/?vehicles=19415|19242|18388|19656

Once again the only thing Ford leads in is breakdowns. :idiot:

I say I can put more in the bed of my truck than you can and GM agrees with me.:D

If you have a F-250, you sure can not put more in the bed of your truck than me, Mines a 3500 DRW. You also can not put more in the bed of a F-250 than you can a HD2500 according to Fords web site, the F-250 is also not rated to tow as much as the HD-250. This information is from Fords web site, not gm's.

Funny on the site above, it will not let you compair 1 tons drw's with a diesel. It only lets you compair the 6.8 V-10 to the 6.0 V-8 chevy. I guess that's so ford can show more torque, more HP and 5 speed auto instead of chevys 4 speed auto.

If you look at spec's the 6.6 Duramax had more torque and more HP than the 6.0 Powerstroke. It also has a six speed auto with the duramax vice the five speed with the Powerstroke.

Fords tow ratings are even less with the 6.0 Diesel option. Gm's ratings go up slightly with the 6.6 diesel. Now what was that you said about work......

But the only problem is that your not able to carry this load without broking something on your truck...:)

I haven't broking something on my truck yet.

My GVW is 13,000lbs what is the 3500? 11,400? Also I'm pretty sure the Fords GCVW is 23,500 and 26,000 if it's the tow boss.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/compare/details/?vehicles=19736|17970|18388|19656

My GVW is 13,000lbs what is the 3500? 11,400? Also I'm pretty sure the Fords GCVW is 23,500 and 26,000 if it's the tow boss.

First off GVWR has nothing to do with Payload and Tow Capacity which is the amount of work the vehicle is rated for and the reason we purchase them. Bottom line is if the vehicle is a slug it carries and tows less weight.
BTW isn't the GCVW of 26,000 for the F-450?? Official numbers for comparison below. GM has the edge in each class.

Ford Ranger Tow Cap 3400, Payload 1260
GMC Canyon Tow Cap 4000, Payload 1523

Ford F-150 Tow Cap 9500, Payload 1710
GMC 1500 Tow Cap 10300, Payload 2160

Ford F-250 Tow Cap 13200, Payload 2900
GMC 2500HD Tow Cap 15300, Payload 3317

Ford F-350 Tow Cap 15000, Payload 5200
GMC 3500HD Tow Cap 15,800 Payload 5307

Ford F-450 (????)
GM C-4500 (Medium duty)

First off GVWR has nothing to do with Payload and Tow Capacity which is the amount of work the vehicle is rated for and the reason we purchase them. Bottom line is if the vehicle is a slug it carries and tows less weight.
BTW isn't the GCVW of 26,000 for the F-450?? Official numbers for comparison below. GM has the edge in each class.

Ford Ranger Tow Cap 3400, Payload 1260
GMC Canyon Tow Cap 4000, Payload 1523

Ford F-150 Tow Cap 9500, Payload 1710
GMC 1500 Tow Cap 10300, Payload 2160

Ford F-250 Tow Cap 13200, Payload 2900
GMC 2500HD Tow Cap 15300, Payload 3317

Ford F-350 Tow Cap 15000, Payload 5200
GMC 3500HD Tow Cap 15,800 Payload 5307

Ford F-450 (????)
GM C-4500 (Medium duty)

Question. Why did the Edmunds editors add almost 2,000lbs of extra ballast to the Ford vs GM in their tow-off? Dodge towed the least, then GM, then Ford. Ford had to pull about one and a half tons more than Dodge. I assume they went by the Mfg max tow rating. Your numbers would indicate Ford should have towed less, not more weight.

Question. Why did the Edmunds editors add almost 2,000lbs of extra ballast to the Ford vs GM in their tow-off? Dodge towed the least, then GM, then Ford. Ford had to pull about one and a half tons more than Dodge. I assume they went by the Mfg max tow rating. Your numbers would indicate Ford should have towed less, not more weight.

For one thing Ford once again showed up with a truck that had 4.3 gears (Giving it a different tow rating) which also would have given them an unfair advantage. ;)

Anyway proof already has it that the DMax will outpull the Ford in either stock or modded form. A rating is only as good as the power supplying the effort......

Don't shoot the messenger. The numbers came straight from Ford Motor Co.

Gross Combined Vehicle Weight/ GCVW = What the truck and trailer are allowed to weigh! Ford Tow Boss F350=26,000lbs not an F-450!

My truck is 23,500lbs GCVW meaning that my truck with trailer in tow can weigh no more than 23,500lbs.

Gross Vehicle Weight = What the Vehicle is allowed to weigh.

My truck is 13,000lbs which means my truck can weigh 13,000lbs when it is on the scale.

GM's number is 11,400lbs which means it can weigh ONLY 11,400 fully loaded!

HP has nothing to do with these ratings!!!!!!!!! Brakes and Frame strength is what matters!!!!!!!!!!

Medium duty trucks rated much higher than what we tow or haul don't have 300+HP. Granted the torque is much higher but they are also governed at a lower RPM.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/compare/details/?vehicles=19736|17970|18388|19656 (http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/compare/details/?vehicles=19736%7C17970%7C18388%7C19656)


They compared the V10 Triton to diesel engines. :confused:

They compared the V10 Triton to diesel engines. :confused:

No, they compaired the V-10 6.8L to the GM V-8 6.0L gas, not the 6.6 duramax. It was done like that so Ford could show they had more torque and more HP and 1 more gear in the auto.

Had they compaired diesel to diesel, gm would have showed more torque and more Hp and 1 more gear in the auto than the Ford.

Read the like carefully.:p:

I didn't understand the V-10/diesel comparison either.

No, they compaired the V-10 6.8L to the GM V-8 6.0L gas, not the 6.6 duramax. It was done like that so Ford could show they had more torque and more HP and 1 more gear in the auto.

Had they compaired diesel to diesel, gm would have showed more torque and more Hp and 1 more gear in the auto than the Ford.

Read the like carefully.:p:


Are we looking at the same comparison or am I still confused? I looked a the engines and the Ford's is a V10 while the other 3 are all diesels.



Horsepower @ RPM
Ford 6.8 V10 362@4750
Chevy 6.6 360@3200
Dodge 5.9 325@2900
GMC 6.6 360@3200

Torque @ RPM
Ford 6.8 V10 457@3250
Chevy 6.6 650@1600
Dodge 610@1600
GMC 650@1600

Sure looks like they compared their (Ford) gasser to diesel engines. :confused:

Gross Combined Vehicle Weight/ GCVW = What the truck and trailer are allowed to weigh! Ford Tow Boss F350=26,000lbs not an F-450!

My truck is 23,500lbs GCVW meaning that my truck with trailer in tow can weigh no more than 23,500lbs.

Gross Vehicle Weight = What the Vehicle is allowed to weigh.

My truck is 13,000lbs which means my truck can weigh 13,000lbs when it is on the scale.

GM's number is 11,400lbs which means it can weigh ONLY 11,400 fully loaded!

HP has nothing to do with these ratings!!!!!!!!! Brakes and Frame strength is what matters!!!!!!!!!!

Medium duty trucks rated much higher than what we tow or haul don't have 300+HP. Granted the torque is much higher but they are also governed at a lower RPM.

That was the way I had always read the ratings, but by the time you took into account how much heavier the ford's curb weight was compared to the gm, that difference is smaller. But ford always had the edge from what I ever read.

Gross Combined Vehicle Weight/ GCVW = What the truck and trailer are allowed to weigh! Ford Tow Boss F350=26,000lbs not an F-450!

My truck is 23,500lbs GCVW meaning that my truck with trailer in tow can weigh no more than 23,500lbs.

Gross Vehicle Weight = What the Vehicle is allowed to weigh.

My truck is 13,000lbs which means my truck can weigh 13,000lbs when it is on the scale.

GM's number is 11,400lbs which means it can weigh ONLY 11,400 fully loaded!

HP has nothing to do with these ratings!!!!!!!!! Brakes and Frame strength is what matters!!!!!!!!!!

Medium duty trucks rated much higher than what we tow or haul don't have 300+HP. Granted the torque is much higher but they are also governed at a lower RPM.

Let me try this one last time.....BTW I got ya on the F350/26,000. With a 4.3 rear the driver better not be bashful about opening up that wallet......

If your truck is 23500 GCVW (would have to be a 4.10 rear) and the GM is 22000 it doesn't mean you can tow 1500 Lbs more weight. This is wrong in relation to tow capacity because this is a measure of Gross Combined vehicle weight. You first need to subtract the weight of the truck. What is left of the GCVW is what you can tow. By Ford having a heavier truck this equates to less tow capacity.

Like wise if your GVWR is 13,000 (4.10 gears) verses the GM 1 ton at 12,000 (3.73 gears btw) the weight of the truck needs to be removed to determine the additional weight the truck can handle fully loaded. So again by the Ford being heavier it throws the cargo carrying advantage to the 3500. It is my understanding that the Ford weighs about 1500 more than the GM but this may be wrong.....

BTW, The engine equiped and gear ratio DOES make a difference in the GCVW rating. Not just brakes and frame!!!!!!!

Here is the data from the first link posted, I thought it was the same link as the second one posted.
First linK

6.8-Liter Triton®, 90-Degree V10, 30-Valve, SOHC, EFI Engine; Front/Longitudinal Mounted With Horsepower Of 362@4750, Torque Of 457@3250, Iron Block and Alloy Heads (Standard)

6.0-Liter Vortec, V8, 16-Valve, OHV, SEFI Engine; Front/Longitudinal Mounted With Horsepower Of 300@4400, Torque Of 360@4000, Cast Iron Block and Alloy Cylinder Heads (Standard)



Sorry, I did not read close enough on the second link. Ford site has it wrong though which is why I made the mistake. You can not get a 4-speed electronic controlled auto with the Duramax. It is a 6 speed Allison with both fifth and sixth being overdrives.
2nd link

TorqShift® 5-Speed Automatic Transmission With Overdrive and Tow/Haul Mode (Optional)
6.8-Liter Triton®, 90-Degree V10, 30-Valve, SOHC, EFI Engine; Front/Longitudinal Mounted With Horsepower Of 362@4750, Torque Of 457@3250, Iron Block and Alloy Heads (Standard)

4-Speed Electronically Controlled Automatic Transmission With Overdrive and Tow/Haul Mode (Standard)
Turbocharged Diesel 6.6-Liter V8, 32-Valve, OHV, EFI Engine; Front/Longitudinal Mounted With Horsepower Of 360@3200, Torque Of 650@1600, Cast Iron Block and Alloy Cylinder Heads (Optional)


Ford is mixing and maching also on the comparisons, almost looks like they do not want to do apples to apples. Optional trans on the ford, Standard engine on the Ford. Wrong trans on the GM, optional engine on the GM.

Also the GCRW of the 3500 GM is 23500 pounds, that is with a 3.73 gear not a 4.10 like the ford. That said, I agree the Ford can be optioned to a GVWR of 13,000, and GM is limited to 11,400. Does not tell the whole story though. The Ford with a V-10 and manual in crew cab dually tips the scales at 7300 pounds. Actuall weight ticket for my crew cab dually with tool box in bed and driver in truck was 7450. I weigh 187 pounds. So the GM is lighter than the ford. Add a diesel and the auto and the ford will weigh even more than 7300.

Anyone know why the Fords weigh more? There's a nice late model F250 4wd at work w/ 6" lift - I was surprised looking at the frame through the rear wheel well, it doesn't look nearly as big as a late model 2500HD/3500. But then, I don't know how thick the steel is. But what I can't figure out, is if they do have heavier frames like some say, wouldn't that give them much greater payload capacity to match, instead of less? Usually when a truck has less capacity, isn't it due to stuff being added to the frame/suspension and using up it's potiential capacity?

Here is the data from the first link posted, I thought it was the same link as the second one posted.
First linK



Sorry, I did not read close enough on the second link. Ford site has it wrong though which is why I made the mistake. You can not get a 4-speed electronic controlled auto with the Duramax. It is a 6 speed Allison with both fifth and sixth being overdrives.
2nd link


Ford is mixing and maching also on the comparisons, almost looks like they do not want to do apples to apples. Optional trans on the ford, Standard engine on the Ford. Wrong trans on the GM, optional engine on the GM.

Also the GCRW of the 3500 GM is 23500 pounds, that is with a 3.73 gear not a 4.10 like the ford. That said, I agree the Ford can be optioned to a GVWR of 13,000, and GM is limited to 11,400. Does not tell the whole story though. The Ford with a V-10 and manual in crew cab dually tips the scales at 7300 pounds. Actuall weight ticket for my crew cab dually with tool box in bed and driver in truck was 7450. I weigh 187 pounds. So the GM is lighter than the ford. Add a diesel and the auto and the ford will weigh even more than 7300.

Anyone know why the Fords weigh more? There's a nice late model F250 4wd at work w/ 6" lift - I was surprised looking at the frame through the rear wheel well, it doesn't look nearly as big as a late model 2500HD/3500. But then, I don't know how thick the steel is. But what I can't figure out, is if they do have heavier frames like some say, wouldn't that give them much greater payload capacity to match, instead of less? Usually when a truck has less capacity, isn't it due to stuff being added to the frame/suspension and using up it's potiential capacity?

Roadshark,

Do you have a Macaw? I just got a blue and gold, he's already trained and a very cool pet. Sorry for the off-topic, I'm getting a little bored with this. All these trucks do the job well, that's why I had a hard time picking one out. I think the SFA of the Ford adds to the weight. The heavy duty frame adds more. I THINK the sheetmetal may be thicker as the bed of my buddies 2005 GMC dents really easy. Not meant as a bash, lighter has advantages for a lot of applications. Faster and better potential fuel economy. Also, I hate how all these manufacturers mix and match stats to make themselves look better. I think Ford is the biggest offender on that score.

Anyone know why the Fords weigh more? There's a nice late model F250 4wd at work w/ 6" lift - I was surprised looking at the frame through the rear wheel well, it doesn't look nearly as big as a late model 2500HD/3500. But then, I don't know how thick the steel is. But what I can't figure out, is if they do have heavier frames like some say, wouldn't that give them much greater payload capacity to match, instead of less? Usually when a truck has less capacity, isn't it due to stuff being added to the frame/suspension and using up it's potiential capacity?

At one time Ford had heavier frames. That all changed in 2001 and yes you can see the difference through the fender wells. The Ford frame is much narrower. Also the rear suspension leafs are thinner. Thats one of the reasons the Ford sags more when loaded. At this point in the game it appears frame strength is close but upon visual inspection if I had to pick one in regards to strength the edge goes to GM. Apples to apples that is. Also if you place a Ford next to a GM it's easy to see why it's heavier. The truck in general has a larger and taller profile and a heavier engine. This however has nothing to do with strength, capacity and ability.

At one time Ford had heavier frames. That all changed in 2001 and yes you can see the difference through the fender wells. The Ford frame is much narrower. Also the rear suspension leafs are thinner. Thats one of the reasons the Ford sags more when loaded. At this point in the game it appears frame strength is close but upon visual inspection if I had to pick one in regards to strength the edge goes to GM. Apples to apples that is. Also if you place a Ford next to a GM it's easy to see why it's heavier. The truck in general has a larger and taller profile and a heavier engine. This however has nothing to do with strength, capacity and ability.

I totally disagree here. This just does not hold up. I looked at all three and the Ford has a heavier frame. Let's not get hysterical here. GM has an advantage in a lot of areas, frame and heavy duty suspension is not one of them. I have an F350 SRW and can easily carry 2 tons in the bed with almost no sag. (I do have the camper package which is awesome)

I totally disagree here. This just does not hold up. I looked at all three and the Ford has a heavier frame. Let's not get hysterical here. GM has an advantage in a lot of areas, frame and heavy duty suspension is not one of them. I have an F350 SRW and can easily carry 2 tons in the bed with almost no sag. (I do have the camper package which is awesome)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Next time you visit a parking lot just try to park along a 2500HD or 3500 and have a look for yourself. And don't forget to look at the leafs. The Ford is much thinner with 1 less leaf supporting the truck than GM (to help with ride quality I'm sure) and there is an upper spring that only comes in contact as the bed bottoms with this spring. FWIW I live about 1 mile from the largest volume RV dealer in the state of Louisiana. This dealer is a personal friend of mine and uses all three brands for PU and delivery of double and tripple axle RV's. Funny how he notes the same thing. Once this overload spring comes in contact progressive sag is less but the first 3 or 4 inches of sag comes on earlier than the GM trucks. Like I said have a look for yourself and pay attention to trucks towing RV's.

I'm not trying to belittle Ford Trucks in any way as the truck itself is nice. Just trying to keep the Ford boys honest and up to date. This isn't the late 90's.......

Lets play wait and see. The ford has alot to prove afer the 6.0, and the GM can only get better. So lets wait.

Hey Mods, where is the " beating a horse to death " smiley? And how about a " sitting in a lazyboy with a Heineken and popcorn " smiley?

In light of the previous posts and data from GM and Ford I guess we can now conclude the Payload and tow capacity of the 2500HD exceeds the F250 by a significant margin. It appears the 2500HD rating is closer to the 3500 while the F250 is not as close to the F350. In all fairness though the F350 and 3500 are close with a slight edge going to the F350 only if it weighs within 1000# more than the 3500. However, the reported GM and Ford numbers shows a slight edge leaning toward the 3500. In the end I think these two are close. :cool:

Lets play wait and see. The ford has alot to prove afer the 6.0, and the GM can only get better. So lets wait.

Hey Mods, where is the " beating a horse to death " smiley? And how about a " sitting in a lazyboy with a Heineken and popcorn " smiley?

:exactly: I hear ya will....

Here is the data from the first link posted, I thought it was the same link as the second one posted.
First linK



Sorry, I did not read close enough on the second link. Ford site has it wrong though which is why I made the mistake. You can not get a 4-speed electronic controlled auto with the Duramax. It is a 6 speed Allison with both fifth and sixth being overdrives.
2nd link


Ford is mixing and maching also on the comparisons, almost looks like they do not want to do apples to apples. Optional trans on the ford, Standard engine on the Ford. Wrong trans on the GM, optional engine on the GM.

Also the GCRW of the 3500 GM is 23500 pounds, that is with a 3.73 gear not a 4.10 like the ford. That said, I agree the Ford can be optioned to a GVWR of 13,000, and GM is limited to 11,400. Does not tell the whole story though. The Ford with a V-10 and manual in crew cab dually tips the scales at 7300 pounds. Actuall weight ticket for my crew cab dually with tool box in bed and driver in truck was 7450. I weigh 187 pounds. So the GM is lighter than the ford. Add a diesel and the auto and the ford will weigh even more than 7300.


No, they compaired the V-10 6.8L to the GM V-8 6.0L gas, not the 6.6 duramax. It was done like that so Ford could show they had more torque and more HP and 1 more gear in the auto.

Had they compaired diesel to diesel, gm would have showed more torque and more Hp and 1 more gear in the auto than the Ford.

Read the like carefully.:p:

;) :p:

I have to say I am very impressed with the level of satisfaction here. Glad to see an American company satisfying it's customers. I don't want to see an all Toyota/Honda world.

hey moldman, how do you like the GM turf? LOL





Side note: I am a PITA on his site. LOL All in good fun.

hey moldman, how do you like the GM turf? LOL





Side note: I am a PITA on his site. LOL All in good fun.

I also enjoy :stirthepo once in a while. It is all in good humour. I love seeing the Ford/Dodge gang get all cranked up. I wonder how much of a pounding their keyboards take? :p: And if you really want to know how many engineers post on this site, all you have to do is log into the place while working on something.....not that I have ever done that!!!!:)

hey moldman, how do you like the GM turf? LOL





Side note: I am a PITA on his site. LOL All in good fun.

What's up buddy.:D

Roadshark,

Do you have a Macaw? I just got a blue and gold, he's already trained and a very cool pet. Sorry for the off-topic, I'm getting a little bored with this. All these trucks do the job well, that's why I had a hard time picking one out. I think the SFA of the Ford adds to the weight. The heavy duty frame adds more. I THINK the sheetmetal may be thicker as the bed of my buddies 2005 GMC dents really easy. Not meant as a bash, lighter has advantages for a lot of applications. Faster and better potential fuel economy. Also, I hate how all these manufacturers mix and match stats to make themselves look better. I think Ford is the biggest offender on that score.

Hey Moldman, glad to hear that! I love birds, especially the hook bills. But actually no, I don't have one right now, but I've always been into birds & used to raise them, since I was a kid and up until about 10 years ago. But I'm moving in a few months and plan to get back into it a bit.

Anyway, getting back OT, I've always owned Chevys, but have always liked Fords as well, especially the ones from the last 10 years. My older brother has only bought diesel Ford trucks since his '86 F250 diesel (he had a '72 Chev K/20 he bought new before that). So I agree, no need to get too serious w/ bashing, lets save that for the imported wanna be HD's :) BTW, anyone think the imports can break into the HD market? I think no matter how hard they try, it won't happen because they'll still be lacking a certain 'x' factor they can't acquire, unless they acquire one of the big three - like Daimler did ;)

Hey Moldman, glad to hear that! I love birds, especially the hook bills. But actually no, I don't have one right now, but I've always been into birds & used to raise them, since I was a kid and up until about 10 years ago. But I'm moving in a few months and plan to get back into it a bit.

Anyway, getting back OT, I've always owned Chevys, but have always liked Fords as well, especially the ones from the last 10 years. My older brother has only bought diesel Ford trucks since his '86 F250 diesel (he had a '72 Chev K/20 he bought new before that). So I agree, no need to get too serious w/ bashing, lets save that for the imported wanna be HD's :) BTW, anyone think the imports can break into the HD market? I think no matter how hard they try, it won't happen because they'll still be lacking a certain 'x' factor they can't acquire, unless they acquire one of the big three - like Daimler did ;)

I think Toyota may break in. Look at Honda's first pick-up venture and it's hard to imagine them being ready for decades.:D Look at the new models of all three HD pick-ups. It looks like they are all making huge leaps in the right direction. The only pitfall I see is fuel mileage. Hopefully the 2008's will get better mileage or as good as their predicessors. Fuel could double in price in a short period of time if world events change dramatically. I am curious about the new 6.7 Cummins. The 5.9 is a bear. Imagine a 6.7 liter version with a good 6 speed auto. That could be the sleeper in the group. BTW my Macaw is trying to train me as I try to train him. I can't believe how smart these birds are. I found his weakness though - pizza. :)

I think Toyota may break in. Look at Honda's first pick-up venture and it's hard to imagine them being ready for decades.:D Look at the new models of all three HD pick-ups. It looks like they are all making huge leaps in the right direction. The only pitfall I see is fuel mileage. Hopefully the 2008's will get better mileage or as good as their predicessors. Fuel could double in price in a short period of time if world events change dramatically. I am curious about the new 6.7 Cummins. The 5.9 is a bear. Imagine a 6.7 liter version with a good 6 speed auto. That could be the sleeper in the group. BTW my Macaw is trying to train me as I try to train him. I can't believe how smart these birds are. I found his weakness though - pizza. :)

I think the changes made to the Cummins were for emissions reasons. No power changes with the 6.7. Now they really need to work on the rest of the truck. ( no offense Dodge folks. ) I would not touch a Honda with a 10' pole. Over hyped is all they are. If Toyota does jump into the HD line, I really think they will use their own diesel. They have the know-how, and the expereience, so why use another diesel in their trucks. Some other company runs a Japanese designed diesel in their HD line, and they have flourished!! :)

Cummins did go to the larger displacement for the new emissions regs. Easier to keep EGT's down, especially with all the extra crap in the exhaust. Given all the power coming out of the 5.9L it'll be interesting to see what can be done w/ the extra displacement

Ok, at 74 mph it's turning 2000 rpm on the nose. 1800 = 69mph I'll post a picture if you want.

I was noticing this the other day, when my truck was taching 2000 rpm at 70, but just a small increase in pedal only moved the rpm needle a smidgeon, still looked like it was taching 2000rpm, but I was able to increase my speed another 5mph.

I was reading the new diesel power 42psi of boost and 10 head bolts per side should be a great recipie

for the new ford or the new GM?

I was talking about the new power stroke

42 psi of boost for the 2 turbo together or 42 each one like 84 lbs of total boost?

Websters Definition of Ford:
The Best Never Rest.... so they are adding Twin Turbos to an already flawed design in the hopes that marketing will make up for warranty losses encountered on the previous 6.0L Diesel Engine.
Interesting is the fact they are going piezieo electric injectors. That will solve solenoid problems on the gen 1 HPCR systems, except when it comes to fuel filtration where they will have the same suceptability to contamination.

Good luck, hopefully this new Blue Oval Special doesn't turn out to be another basket case in the blue easter egg hunt.

84 lbs of total boost?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

"Where is my kaboom, there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom"

Twins would be nice on a Dmax from factory...............

Twins would be nice on a Dmax from factory...............


I know this guy in Idaho that can help with that..........


Rumour has it he also has a bigger setup for those who want 900 RWHP on fuel only.:eek:

Twins would be nice on a Dmax from factory...............




:agreed: That would be very nice!

That would be very nice! It will happen. Probably in the 2009 D-Max.

I hate the fact that Ford came out with one..(twin turbo). but they need something to try to catch up. Too bad their 6.0 didn't do better.. I hate that everyone has their problems but its what you do after you have one. GM had their problem with injectors(bosch actually) LLY had overheat(1.5 yr duration), I didn't hear of any problems with LBZ??
6.0 .. well I have known 10 or 15 ford guys. Almost every one of them is wanting a d-max now. A couple will try the 6.4.. but 6 of these guys have had problems. Two have theirs modded.. and were very impressed with my truck.
Dodge.. I don't know too many people with dodges now. and honestly a few are worried about the cummins changing.. mostly questions of why change something good. But we will see.

Also to throw some things out there Moldman.. weight
I have thrown 4000lbs in the back of a half ton 305 89 chevy. Feed for cattle.. mind you the thing nearly touches the ground in the back.. but it carries... had 1750 lbs in the back of a 2001 S-10. I don't really buy the fact that their weight rating stands.. You can load anything down... to the point of breaking the axle.. or blowing tires..(1ton 77 chevy blocked suspension and 4 ricks of wood)

Well that Ford data sheet explains alot. They have the GMC Duramax with more displacement listed than the Chevy. That's why the GMC's are faster! :D

Well that Ford data sheet explains alot. They have the GMC Duramax with more displacement listed than the Chevy. That's why the GMC's are faster! :D


:exactly: