http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/d/147278-4/X11CT_SH002.jpg

With Ford announcing its F-Series Super Duty power, payload and towing capabilities just a few weeks ago, GM has responded with some big numbers for the all-new 2011 Chevy Silverado HD. The new 6.6-liter Duramax V8 is rated at 397-hp at 3000 rpm and 765 ft-lbs of torque at 1600 rpm. This tops the F-Series Super Duty that's rated at 390-hp at 2800 rpm and 735 ft-lbs of torque at 1600 rpm. The increase for Chevy is a total of 32-h and 105 ft-lbs over the previous Duramax.

Those numbers don't tell the whole story, however, as the new truck still follows behind the Ford in payload and towing capability. The new Duramax Silverado HD can tow up to 20,000 lbs and has a payload rating of 6,335 lbs. The F-Series Super Duty is rated at 21,600 lbs and a payload rating of 6,520 lbs.

GM is proud to boast that fuel economy with the new engine has been increased by 11 percent (although not mpg numbers are available), with a total driving distance of 680 miles on a tank.

As for the new base Vortec 6.0L V8, it gets 360-hp at 5400 rpm and 380 ft-lbs of torque at 4200 rpm.

More: Chevy Silverado HD Tops Ford F-Series Super Duty With Power, But Not Capability (http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/03/chevy-silverado-hd-tops-ford-f-series-super-duty-with-power-but-not-capability.html) on AutoGuide.com

I'll take the more horsepower and torque over the "greater capabilities." Not to mention the better looking truck itself.

Assuming they still have a 34gal fuel tank those claims translate to 20mpg :D. Not bad compared to Ford's 6.4 :eek:.

WOW 765lb ft awesome!

all hds will have a 36 galloon tank so its really 18.8 mpg

all hds will have a 36 galloon tank so its really 18.8 mpg


that is still good. GM is probably driving unloaded, down a hill and at 55mph though...

that is still good. GM is probably driving unloaded, down a hill and at 55mph though...
They say they have seen as high as 30 mpg at 55mph on a track.

397 HP? Why on earth didn't they make it an even 400?

397 HP? Why on earth didn't they make it an even 400?

Ha, I thought the same thing. 3bhp means nothing but it's just easier when someone asks at the fuel station to say 400 even if it was 403 or something. 397 means I'll feel like I'm lying:D

As regards payload, the GMs are the LEADER per class as the Super Duty lineup includes the F450.

Ford is moving up to a 6.7 in 2011. It isnt the 6.4 anymore. I wouldn't mind trying one out. With the new torqshift 6 speed in them, they are supposed to be as good as the allison. I wouldn't mind trying one on for size.

Ha, I thought the same thing. 3bhp means nothing but it's just easier when someone asks at the fuel station to say 400 even if it was 403 or something. 397 means I'll feel like I'm lying:D

As regards payload, the GMs are the LEADER per class as the Super Duty lineup includes the F450.

The F-450 can tow 24,000 pounds and the F-350 can tow 21,600. I think ford is the leader per Class. Their one ton can haul and tow more then the GM one ton.

F-350 max tow 21,600
3500 max tow 20,000
Difference of 1,600 pounds.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. One has more hp/trq the other more tow rating/payload.

When you're hauling 20,000 lbs, 1600 extra lbs is like being unloaded and putting an extra person in the cab.

so the only difference in the 6.0L is that they changed the cam to make more torque at 2000 rpms and under.

In the shot of the center console there is a 4th button to the right of the traction control button, do you know what that is?

http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/?g2_view=largephotos.Largephotos&g2_itemId=147284

I wonder if they kept it under 400HP for "insurance" reasons? OR so next year they can UP it to 400HP :rolleyes:

The F-450 can tow 24,000 pounds and the F-350 can tow 21,600. I think ford is the leader per Class. Their one ton can haul and tow more then the GM one ton.

F-350 max tow 21,600
3500 max tow 20,000
Difference of 1,600 pounds.

This is not what I said. I was talking about payload. The GM 3500 has a higher max payload than the F350. Considering these are pickups not OTR trucks, that's a good thing.

Worth noting are towing and payload are close enough as to make no difference, and the F450 is a 1.5ton.

In the shot of the center console there is a 4th button to the right of the traction control button, do you know what that is?

http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/?g2_view=largephotos.Largephotos&g2_itemId=147284

exhaust brake switch perhaps.

Sure the ford can tow 21600 pounds, but you have to think to yourself, how many times out of ten is the ford gonna finish hauling that 21600lb load? I'd much rather have a GM that rides 12x as nice, has more power, could tow 21,600 anyway just not legally, and will make it home 10/10 times. To each his own though.

That new bumper looks way better! So the performance potential should be even greater than all the others, correct?

all hds will have a 36 galloon tank so its really 18.8 mpg

Just out of curiosity, when GM gave the tank range, I wonder if they meant running it dry, or before that. 18.8 would be 36, and there is no question it would be 36. But at 18.8, to get the range mentioned, you would have to run it dry. :confused:

I like how Ford upped their towing capacities but didn't touch the brakes. The 2010 and 2011 F250 and F350 both use F-13.66" R-13.39" rotors.

I can't wait until 2013 when the SAE J-2807 towing standards have to be used. Then we will see if Fords towing numbers are BS or not.

The new ford 6.7 has seen 26+ MPG, huge factor in my decision for my next truck.

I'm looking to order a new 2011 f250 with the 6.7l, where did you get the 26mpg stat?

The new ford 6.7 has seen 26+ MPG, huge factor in my decision for my next truck.


where you get this info, find that very hard to believe.

GM planning to increase towing/hauling ratings

Also says the Duramax appears to be at the high end of its power output while Ford's new 6.7L can easily go higher.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/gm-planning-to-increase-heavy-duty-towing-and-hauling-ratings.html

By the way, at what point in these tow/haul ratings will they top out because sooner or later, people will need a CDL license to haul with one?

Ha, I thought the same thing. 3bhp means nothing but it's just easier when someone asks at the fuel station to say 400 even if it was 403 or something. 397 means I'll feel like I'm lying:D

As regards payload, the GMs are the LEADER per class as the Super Duty lineup includes the F450.

The F450 is rated to tow 24,400lbs. So the info provided is either incorrect, or excludes the F450.

The F450 is rated to tow 24,400lbs. So the info provided is either incorrect, or excludes the F450.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills:D

Okay, I NEVER mentioned towing capacity I was talking about payload. Yes, I know the F450 is rated to tow 24k, a friend has one and it's been that way since they released the pickups in 2007. I was saying that the 3500 does not compete with the F450 but the F350.

My point is that the PAYLOAD is higher on the GM in the same way the towing is a higher on the F-series. Both are by such a relatively small amount it's not worth bragging about. Same goes for power. The only ones not competitive now as regards power and weight is Dodge, they need to step it up.

If this message came across "shouty," it wasn't meant to be-- just trying to get my point across.:)

The new ford 6.7 has seen 26+ MPG, huge factor in my decision for my next truck.

Find that very hard to believe, being that Ford is reporting that the new 6.7 offers ~ 15% better economy than the outgoing 6.4L.
By all accounts the LMM's were getting much better mileagae than the Ford 6.4L, so if GM is reporting ~11% improvement on the LML, I will be amazed if the Ford provides better economy unless you opt for the 3.30:1 gearing option. But then you're trade off is lower towing capacity.
Still seems Chevy has the best overall package, in a proven powerplant design.
I would NOT trust the new Ford motor until its proven itself. The 6.4 proved to be BAD, I'm unwilling to trust the new motor without evidence.
I feel the same about the LML to some degree, there are enough changes that I would wait til at least 2012, I am less skeptical of it due to a proven overall design that has been tweaked vs. Ford's all new design and unproven recent track record.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33

This is probably hypermilled, but there have been reports of 18-20 for the florida power and light trucks with service bodies and tools in them.

I'm looking to order a new 2011 f250 with the 6.7l, where did you get the 26mpg stat?

Not sure where the 26mpg fig came from but it sounds right. Pickuotruck.com did a test and on a 70mi run mixed driving with 1000lbs of concreat in the bed ave 22mpg with the 6.7l

ford is saying the 6.7l is the class leader in mpg. :D

I read the article it was in Left Lane News and it was hypermiled. If you didn't read it, they more or less kept the speed real low, and coasted a lot. It was an 80 mile loop however. I think that it is funny that GM Claims an 11% increase in mileage over the previous model, yet I don't remember when I bought my truck them stating that we should expect an 20% decrease over the previous models. I figure the new LML will be will be about 8-10% less efficient than those who have the 2007 Classics. I always buy the truck that I feel is most appropriate for my needs at the time. I have no brand loyalty (do have an USA made loyalty:) to an extent). I'll be getting a new truck next year, I'm a member of this forum, and I'll troll the Ford forums to help make my decision.

Here is the article from Left Lane.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-series-super-duty-first-drive-review.html

All three of the new trucks are really nice. Dodge decided to stick with the 09 engine ratings for some reason but mine is the 07 and I'm not going to buy new for a long time. These new trucks are going to cost way to much IMO. I like the GM but the back seats do not have enough room for long RV trips. That is why I have the Megacab great for family and towing. I've had lots of GM's and Fords and still do but I have to say the Dodge has been a great truck.

Either way, when I hypermilled during $5 diesel the best I was able to was around 24 mpg.

I can embrace emissions that offer better mpg than before, no need to get rid of the exhaust system and run a tune.

Time will tell, and I will continue to watch PSN, TDS, Powerstroke.org to see whats going on with the engine.

Im sure ford will bump up the numbers before release, 400hp is what I think is printed in some parts catalogs.

that is still good. GM is probably driving unloaded, down a hill and at 55mph though...


while drafting and with a rear wind!!! LOL hahaha

who actually tows over 20,000lbs anyway? Seriously? To get 26mpg you have to do a long trip. How are the ergonomics of the ford to the gm and how does the ford ride to the gm? I like something that is comfortable and doesnt jar my a$$ bone when I hit a pot hole.

I read the article it was in Left Lane News and it was hypermiled. If you didn't read it, they more or less kept the speed real low, and coasted a lot. It was an 80 mile loop however. I think that it is funny that GM Claims an 11% increase in mileage over the previous model, yet I don't remember when I bought my truck them stating that we should expect an 20% decrease over the previous models. I figure the new LML will be will be about 8-10% less efficient than those who have the 2007 Classics. I always buy the truck that I feel is most appropriate for my needs at the time. I have no brand loyalty (do have an USA made loyalty:) to an extent). I'll be getting a new truck next year, I'm a member of this forum, and I'll troll the Ford forums to help make my decision.

Hypermiled is an understatement.
Mirrors tucked back against the body, idling on a dirt road all the way to the freeway, not going faster than 54 MPH, and drafting behind semi's for 80 miles. The writer's of that review ought to be shot for posting their mileage results under those conditions.
If they are going to post a review with mileage info why not just drive it in a somewhat normal fashion for a full tank, refill it and then give the hand calc'd info instead of the DIC 'estimate of an 80 mile "test".
Probably knew the results would leave a LOT of dissappointed readers.

Ha, I thought the same thing. 3bhp means nothing but it's just easier when someone asks at the fuel station to say 400 even if it was 403 or something. 397 means I'll feel like I'm lying:D

As regards payload, the GMs are the LEADER per class as the Super Duty lineup includes the F450.

It would have been nice to have a HP for every cubic inch 6.6L= 403ci to=403hp:D

I'm also considering a new Ford. Dealer is supposed to get back to me today. The trans is the same from the F250 all the way up to the F750. The previous torqueshift trans was good for 12's in completely stock form. In all reality, the 6.4 with tall factory gears have been reported in the lower 20's for mpg running with the cruise on 70. That's not bad at all. I've read several reports of hypermiling 6.7 fords getting 29 mpg, but that really means nothing. I have seen low to mid 20's reported for normal driving. I also like how they've made the block stronger. It should be a really stout motor. Another rumor I was told is ford is going to offer a 200,000 mile engine warranty for an additional $1,500. If it's true, they must be pretty confident. I have my kodiak with the dmax, and also my camaro/dmax. I've owned dmax pickups in the past as well. With that being said, I've always prefered my old superduty for cabin room and how the truck fealt on the road. Anyway, I'm going to see how much of a price jump going from the 2010 they have on the lot to ordering a new 2011 will be today. If it's 5 grand or less, I'm probably just going to order the 11.. My daily driver is currently an H2. It's a nice vehicle, just gets horrible fuel mileage, and I'm a diesel addict. It just doesn't suit my style.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33

This is probably hypermilled, but there have been reports of 18-20 for the florida power and light trucks with service bodies and tools in them.

I would say thats pretty much proof in the pudding! No mater how I look at it my truck only gets 13.0mpg..Sux balls too

I would say thats pretty much proof in the pudding! No mater how I look at it my truck only gets 13.0mpg..Sux balls too

And guess what? They'd sure as hell wouldn't be doing 18mpg with a 9" lift and 36s on them.

Hypermiled is an understatement.
Mirrors tucked back against the body, idling on a dirt road all the way to the freeway, not going faster than 54 MPH, and drafting behind semi's for 80 miles. The writer's of that review ought to be shot for posting their mileage results under those conditions.
If they are going to post a review with mileage info why not just drive it in a somewhat normal fashion for a full tank, refill it and then give the hand calc'd info instead of the DIC 'estimate of an 80 mile "test".
Probably knew the results would leave a LOT of dissappointed readers.

In defense of the Left Lane writer's, it was a competition that Ford challenged them and the other writer's to. Left Lane is more car oriented. I'm sure if they let one of the Diesel Place mods in on the challenge, we would have a article that included, 0-60 4 wheel launches, 0-60 towing 20,000 load, maximum jump distance, and other simalar tests:D. I'm sure the mods wouldn't take the loss of the hypermileing competition too badly. :D

http://www.nationalpost.com/cars/story.html?id=2673130

6.7L average driving 10 litres per 100 kilometres =24MPG

I still like the idea of the 6.7 and a better tranny. I will see how they are doing in a few years. First years never have all the kinks worked out.

The new Duramax Silverado HD can tow up to 20,000 lbs and has a payload rating of 6,335 lbs. The F-Series Super Duty is rated at 21,600 lbs and a payload rating of 6,520 lbs.
I was talking about payload. The GM 3500 has a higher max payload than the F350.

My point is that the PAYLOAD is higher on the GM in the same way the towing is a higher on the F-series.

I'm seeing that the f350 has a slightly higher payload capacity. The numbers above are for the f350, not f450.

As for those who think that the new gm trucks will still ride better than the other HD trucks, I'm skeptical. I don't believe its possible to go from 4800 to 6000lb front gawr and not make the ride stiffer.

Im sure it will ride a good bit stiffer however, Im sure it will ride better than the new ferd

And guess what? They'd sure as hell wouldn't be doing 18mpg with a 9" lift and 36s on them.

No shit sherlock!!! If I didnt have a lift I still wouldnt be getting 26mpg..:beerchug:

I'm seeing that the f350 has a slightly higher payload capacity. The numbers above are for the f350, not f450.
.

You're correct, I was looking at the trucks when both equipped with the diesel as the GM has slightly higher payload then.

Still all seems rather curious to me. Guess it to the door stickers knowing how unreliable the published #s can be:)

I wonder if they kept it under 400HP for "insurance" reasons? OR so next year they can UP it to 400HP :rolleyes:
no,its so in 011.5 we can get 500hp trucks

Ford's Super Duty Diesel towing and payload capacities are pathetic.

2011 2500HD CCSB 4x4 SRW Duramax - 16700 5th wheel towing capacity
2011 F350 CCSB 4x4 SRW Powerstroke - 15800 5th wheel towing capacity



http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/02/behind-the-2011-ford-super-duty-payload-numbers.html#more

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_SD_Specs.pdf

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Feb/10chicago/0210_chevy_silveradoHD

on average how much lighter are the hd's compared to a ford. dually or non dually. is it enough to make up most of the 1600lb payload?

on average how much lighter are the hd's compared to a ford. dually or non dually. is it enough to make up most of the 1600lb payload?

What are you on about? 1600lbs payload?

unless the duramax can get over 30mpg, gm is screwed. the chevy has more horse and torque, WHOOOOO big deal. if you need that much horse and torque you must be compensating for something else.

heres the story about the 30mpg 6.7 powerstroke:
http://www.thefordstory.com/green/journalists-squeeze-2011-ford-super-duty®-for-impressive-fuel-economy/

Pipe dreams son. Aint gonna happen.

Pipe dreams son. Aint gonna happen.

What wont?

I would like to see some hypermilled STOCK LML numbers to compare.

20+ MPG with full emissions intact is a step in the right direction IMHO.

i said a ford could get 29 mpg on a different thread on here and i was told i am everything in the book. if they can do it thats great b/c that means if they can then that means a d-max can, or could, so i will say it again chevy had better step up to that plate.

Ford is moving up to a 6.7 in 2011. It isnt the 6.4 anymore. I wouldn't mind trying one out. With the new torqshift 6 speed in them, they are supposed to be as good as the allison. I wouldn't mind trying one on for size.


The 6.4 is gutless, did a trip to Oregon from So. California and wasn't impressed, my 07 Duramax would walk all over it, all we were towing was a Kubota small tractor. I work on a Navy base and they just bought 30 new Diesel Duramax Crewcab 4x4's and they are 90% offroad in severely rugged terrain and everyone loves them. I am sticking with what's good and not betting my money on a vehicle that is all show no go.

we need over 505hp,then it will have more hp then a z06 corvette

6.4's are fuel hogs. Guy i work with went on a trip with a friend from St. Joseph Mo. to Louisiana and they drove his 08 F350 dually crew cab with a 6.4 and got a whopping 12 mpg at its best and was below 10 at times. The guy had an older 7.3 truck in the same configuration and said on the same trip it always got around 17mpg. He was not a happy camper to say the least. The truck spends most of its time in the shed and the guy drives his girlfriends avalanche.

6.4's are fuel hogs. Guy i work with went on a trip with a friend from St. Joseph Mo. to Louisiana and they drove his 08 F350 dually crew cab with a 6.4 and got a whopping 12 mpg at its best and was below 10 at times. The guy had an older 7.3 truck in the same configuration and said on the same trip it always got around 17mpg. He was not a happy camper to say the least. The truck spends most of its time in the shed and the guy drives his girlfriends avalanche.

This is the point I have been trying to make, Ford has officially stated that the new 6.7 gets ~15% better economy than the outgoing 6.4. So if you are generous and said the 6.4 got 15 MPG, then the new truck would get 17.25 MPG in the same conditions.
Ford has not given any official estimates of mileageor fuel range on a tank. GM to their credit states you have a range of 680 miles on a 36 gal tank working out to > 18 MPG.
All these "tests" of the Ford's fuel economy I've read so far are HYPERMILED numbers.
Hell I hypermiled my LMM last week for 25 miles and the DIC showed 24.8 MPG, does that mean LMM's get 25MPG???????

All of this is specualtion for now. I think Ford wants it that way, I am beginning to get the impression that Ford is providing these trucks for a test drive with instructions on a "hypermiled test" since several mags have done one now. Never before did I see trucks doing "hypermiling tests" on HD diesels.

Soon enough we will get a TRUE comparison test with all 3 new trucks, that will hopefully include a REAL MPG comparison.
Until then if people are naive enough to believe they can get 29 MPG in a new Ford go ahead, just don't expect Ford to have any sympathy for ya when you are bitchin' about only getting 17 MPG empty.

Everybody Wins- when Ford engineers basically redesigned the V-8 by flopping heads, using composite materials, redesigning the turbo, incorporating fuel efficient injection (as also GM) and building a transmission to handle it, they required engineers from GM/Dodge/Navistar/Cat to think outside the box, introducing economical operation as important as payload, torque, and hp. The result from this competition will result in stronger more fuel efficient vehicles from all major brands. GM/Dodge are being challenged, the result is the result of free market capitalism, truck buyers win.
(From ChevyHDGert's link)

"What we’re not likely to see, though, is another giant increase in the horsepower and torque from the 6.6-liter Duramax V-8, says GM powertrain engineering manager Jim Minneker.

“We’ve stretched this rubber band pretty tight,” Minneker said. “It’s not going to happen in the short term.”

Even though 60 percent of the hardware for the 2011 Duramax diesel is new, the engine’s current architecture dates back to the 2001 GM Heavy Duty pickups.

Ford, however, appears to have plenty of performance headroom left in its clean sheet design 6.7-liter PSD V-8. We’re already hearing strong rumbles from sources that Ford is doing some planning of their own."

It seems that GM has the winning formula, they're still using the same basic design from 2001. Dodge is on their 3 or 4th design, Ford is on their 4th design. But now that technology is changed in the last 10 years, GM is still running on top, but the next iteration of the Duramax will probably have to be a new design to remain competitive unless they can still tweak some more ponies and mpg out of the current design and maintain reliability.

I don't think GM will have trouble cranking up the D-Max, one factory rep told me they had the current 2010 model up over 1000hp during testing. Their biggest problem is keeping the rest of the truck in one piece. They are on the right track by going with the new allison 1000, but a jump up to 500hp might mean new t-case, rear end, drive shaft, and could be a reason they went to the new boxed frame.

IMO Ferd is opening up sort of a "pandora's box" when it comes to MPG numbers. Qite a lot of folks will be at their dealers griping about 18 mpg because "Mags printed, in quasi-official mpg contests, over 25mpg".... GM has also done same caiming 680 miles per tank.... not a good move there guys

...
I would NOT trust the new Ford motor until its proven itself. The 6.4 proved to be BAD, I'm unwilling to trust the new motor without evidence.
I feel the same about the LML to some degree, there are enough changes that I would wait til at least 2012, I am less skeptical of it due to a proven overall design that has been tweaked vs. Ford's all new design and unproven recent track record.

Well there is a huge difference between the 6.4 and the 6.7. The 6.9IDI, 7.3IDI, 7.3PSD, 6.0PSD and 6.4PSD were all outsourced to International for design and building. This means Ford had very little to do with engine design and this is where the warren tee problems between Ford and Navstar came from.

The new 6.7PSD is completely designed and built by Ford, so to compare it in any way to the 6.4L is unfair. I can understand not trusting the first generation of an engine, but don't use any of the previous engines as indications of where the 6.7l is going to go.

It seems that GM has the winning formula, they're still using the same basic design from 2001. Dodge is on their 3 or 4th design, Ford is on their 4th design. But now that technology is changed in the last 10 years, GM is still running on top, but the next iteration of the Duramax will probably have to be a new design to remain competitive unless they can still tweak some more ponies and mpg out of the current design and maintain reliability.

Well actually Dodge has the winning combination. Dodge has been using the B-series Cummins turbo diesel since 1989 if I remember right... or was it '88?

The only "major" changes to the B-series was fueling and turbo, until 2007 when it got the jump to 6.7L, but it still is a B-series engine, with over 20 years of design and thought put into the automotive application.

Cummins, by far, is the best light duty diesel engine on the market, it's too bad that they are wrapped in a Dodge.

When Ford was looking for a diesel engine in the 80's they were negotiating with Cummins for the b-series but if I remember correctly Cummins refused to makes changes to the engine that Ford demanded. Now if Ford had been smart and used the Cummins, there wouldn't be any other HD truck on the market but the SuperDuty.

So both Ford and Chevy have a long ways to go before they get close to the design age of the B-series.

Well there is a huge difference between the 6.4 and the 6.7. The 6.9IDI, 7.3IDI, 7.3PSD, 6.0PSD and 6.4PSD were all outsourced to International for design and building. This means Ford had very little to do with engine design and this is where the warren tee problems between Ford and Navstar came from.

The new 6.7PSD is completely designed and built by Ford, so to compare it in any way to the 6.4L is unfair. I can understand not trusting the first generation of an engine, but don't use any of the previous engines as indications of where the 6.7l is going to go.



Well actually Dodge has the winning combination. Dodge has been using the B-series Cummins turbo diesel since 1989 if I remember right... or was it '88?

The only "major" changes to the B-series was fueling and turbo, until 2007 when it got the jump to 6.7L, but it still is a B-series engine, with over 20 years of design and thought put into the automotive application.

Cummins, by far, is the best light duty diesel engine on the market, it's too bad that they are wrapped in a Dodge.

When Ford was looking for a diesel engine in the 80's they were negotiating with Cummins for the b-series but if I remember correctly Cummins refused to makes changes to the engine that Ford demanded. Now if Ford had been smart and used the Cummins, there wouldn't be any other HD truck on the market but the SuperDuty.

So both Ford and Chevy have a long ways to go before they get close to the design age of the B-series.


:rolleyes:

All you gotta know is that the GMC/Chevy DuraMax will easily tow the cherry-picker from the rental yard to swap out the blown Ford 6.0, 6.4 or 6.7 engines. You can also use On-Star to call a tow for the Dodge broken down along the road, the one with a big transmission fluid trail leading up to it.

IMO Ferd is opening up sort of a "pandora's box" when it comes to MPG numbers. Qite a lot of folks will be at their dealers griping about 18 mpg because "Mags printed, in quasi-official mpg contests, over 25mpg".... GM has also done same caiming 680 miles per tank.... not a good move there guys

Yeah, but GM claimed 680 miles per tank, which on the 36 gallon tank ends up being 18mpg as figured already I think, and Im pretty sure they said thats the only size tank in the new trucks. I don't think claiming 18mpg is rediculous. 25 yes.

Yeah, but GM claimed 680 miles per tank, which on the 36 gallon tank ends up being 18mpg as figured already I think, and Im pretty sure they said thats the only size tank in the new trucks. I don't think claiming 18mpg is rediculous. 25 yes.

It's actually a tick less than 19mpg but I agree with the essence of your post which is that 25mpg just ain't happening in the real world.

I like how Ford upped their towing capacities but didn't touch the brakes. The 2010 and 2011 F250 and F350 both use F-13.66" R-13.39" rotors.

I can't wait until 2013 when the SAE J-2807 towing standards have to be used. Then we will see if Fords towing numbers are BS or not.


I got to say fords brakes out do chevys brakes any day :rolleyes:

08 ford 6.4L f250 vs 08 2500 chevy DMX

Ford

Brakes
13.66-inch rotor (front); 13.39-inch rotor (rear); four-wheel ABS, electronic traction/stability control
Braking (60-0 mph)
171.18 ft (without trailer)

------------------
Chevy

Brakes
Four-wheel disc: 12.8-inch rotor (front and rear), power-assisted, four-wheel ABS

Braking (60-0 mph)
261.52 ft (without trailer)

90 more feet of asphalt is a long ways when you need to get your rig stopped. It's about time Chevy increased there braking power.

I got to say fords brakes out do chevys brakes any day :rolleyes:

08 ford 6.4L f250 vs 08 2500 chevy DMX

Ford

Brakes
13.66-inch rotor (front); 13.39-inch rotor (rear); four-wheel ABS, electronic traction/stability control
Braking (60-0 mph)
171.18 ft (without trailer)

------------------
Chevy

Brakes
Four-wheel disc: 12.8-inch rotor (front and rear), power-assisted, four-wheel ABS

Braking (60-0 mph)
261.52 ft (without trailer)

90 more feet of asphalt is a long ways when you need to get your rig stopped. It's about time Chevy increased there braking power.

They did, look at the 2011s, 14 inch rotors. Andddd they also have an integrated brake controller, so no more of ford only having that.

Where did you get those 60-0 braking numbers?

2011 HD's hav 14" rotors

I got to say fords brakes out do chevys brakes any day :rolleyes:

08 ford 6.4L f250 vs 08 2500 chevy DMX

Ford

Brakes
13.66-inch rotor (front); 13.39-inch rotor (rear); four-wheel ABS, electronic traction/stability control
Braking (60-0 mph)
171.18 ft (without trailer)

------------------
Chevy

Brakes
Four-wheel disc: 12.8-inch rotor (front and rear), power-assisted, four-wheel ABS

Braking (60-0 mph)
261.52 ft (without trailer)

90 more feet of asphalt is a long ways when you need to get your rig stopped. It's about time Chevy increased there braking power.

I currently have a 03 Ford Lariat 6 liter 4x4 CC dually with only 55K miles truck hasn't been that bad "leather interior falling apart" & 1 turbo replaced but as far as mileage around 9-10 pulling 10,000 trailer, I have a Ford GT500 Mustang that we want to trade for a new truck, keeping the 03 also. Ford dealer is loaded with 2010's 6.4 diesels and almost convinced me to trade until the service writer told me to wait for the 2011 as it would be a lot better, well after the way Ford Factory Customer Service treated us " talk about passing the buck" with a problem on the Mustang I am thinking about the new 2011 GMC duramax, my brothers GMC definitely rides better than the Ford and gets better mileage I took the 2010 6.4 for a drive and it seemed to have less power than my 2003

I dont know if GM is any better in the customer service department, its pretty hit and miss like the other big two. I farmed with my dad for a number of years and we've owned a 7.3 PS one ton, a 6.0 f250, and a 6.4 f250. None of them save the 7.3 (which only had a glowplug issue) were very reliable. I realize im on a d-max forum and this is what you'd expect to hear, but it doesnt change the fact that unless that new Ford 6.7 is something spectacular im not even going to look at another ford. Owned my LMM for about a couple months and i wouldnt trade this thing for two 6.4's. Then again, opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. Take it for what its worth. :rolleyes:

Razor Your probably right
I realize it might not be much better but I kind of believe in this old saying - screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me.. LOL

One thing I have learned the hard way is "The thrill of buying is soon forgotten after a couple of trips to the dealer" concerning my next purchase, I hope my luck changes

Well there is a huge difference between the 6.4 and the 6.7. The 6.9IDI, 7.3IDI, 7.3PSD, 6.0PSD and 6.4PSD were all outsourced to International for design and building. This means Ford had very little to do with engine design and this is where the warren tee problems between Ford and Navstar came from.

The new 6.7PSD is completely designed and built by Ford, so to compare it in any way to the 6.4L is unfair. I can understand not trusting the first generation of an engine, but don't use any of the previous engines as indications of where the 6.7l is going to go.



Well actually Dodge has the winning combination. Dodge has been using the B-series Cummins turbo diesel since 1989 if I remember right... or was it '88?

The only "major" changes to the B-series was fueling and turbo, until 2007 when it got the jump to 6.7L, but it still is a B-series engine, with over 20 years of design and thought put into the automotive application.

Cummins, by far, is the best light duty diesel engine on the market, it's too bad that they are wrapped in a Dodge.

When Ford was looking for a diesel engine in the 80's they were negotiating with Cummins for the b-series but if I remember correctly Cummins refused to makes changes to the engine that Ford demanded. Now if Ford had been smart and used the Cummins, there wouldn't be any other HD truck on the market but the SuperDuty.

So both Ford and Chevy have a long ways to go before they get close to the design age of the B-series.

Man im tired of you people who piss your pants for the Cummins, The new 6.7 isn't anything special and has had its share of problems. I would take a Duramax in a second over a 6.7 Cummins...

Man im tired of you people who piss your pants for the Cummins, The new 6.7 isn't anything special and has had its share of problems. I would take a Duramax in a second over a 6.7 Cummins...


Cummins 6.7 is not new been around many years before put into a Ram pickup.

I will just be glad when the real numbers come out on MPG so everyone will stop whinning about it... For all you Furd haters it will be a smack in the face! For you Furd lovers you will get smack back! hehe Or just rub it in!

Cummins 6.7 is not new been around many years before put into a Ram pickup.

You sure about that?

As for the post immediately above mine:rolleyes:

Dont understand what you are trying to say Carl.

Dont understand what you are trying to say Carl.

I was checking that the 6.7 was not a new engine for MY07.5? I thought it was but you say it was used in MD trucks before and I was just seeking clarification. :)

Man im tired of you people who piss your pants for the Cummins, The new 6.7 isn't anything special and has had its share of problems. I would take a Duramax in a second over a 6.7 Cummins...

x2, 5.9's nice solid powerplant, the 6.7CTD, I don't know what all the hype about it is, maybe just cuz it says Cummins on it. Some still think Ford's best diesel was the 7.3, I think the 6.0 was a mistake in design, the 6.4 that I've driven and seen was a nice truck. IMO, 7.3 might be more reliable (to a point), but the 6.4 design is much improved for todays market. I was more impressed with it than the 6.7 my Brother in law has in his MC Dodge. Point is, things (usually) get better over time, interesting to see how Dodge did not up any power to the 6.7, knowing it is capable of it. Is this due to the 20+ year old "basic" design and trying to meet 2010+ EPA standards? It may be compliant without urea, but what if they need to bump up power #'s to meet the competition. No that I'm lost in my own train of thought I'm going to stop typing, cuz I can't type what I really think, it'll get deleted probably!:D I mean my brother in law's 6.7 had oil dripping out of it, from somewhere, all over my new driveway, took to dealer and they said, yeah, don't worry, it's normal. Still leaks, and he's so "blinded" by the Cummins on it, he doesn't act concerned either. :cool: Chris

Just wish GM would make a bigger cab :(

How can the Super Duty be more capable? GM has more power, stronger trans, and a full box frame where as ford still has a C-channel frame. GM's axle is also rated as the #1 HD axle on the market. Wheres ford getting this advantage? sounds like BS to me. more ford lies.

How can the Super Duty be more capable? GM has more power, stronger trans, and a full box frame where as ford still has a C-channel frame. GM's axle is also rated as the #1 HD axle on the market. Wheres ford getting this advantage? sounds like BS to me. more ford lies.

they're probably comparing the 2011 Super duty to the 2010 GM product...marketer's trick

i still can't believe the new GM 3500 has a tow rating of 21,700 to go with the new and improved D/A combo and the awesome new frame, brakes and EB...gonna be back in the fold within 18mos boys...:)

-Rob

they're probably comparing the 2011 Super duty to the 2010 GM product...marketer's trick

-Rob

Ford is doing the same comparing the 2011 Mustang to the 2010 Camaro.

The dodge 6.7 sux they have a lot of problems with that motor. My buddy has a fleet of them, I have driven three, and of the three only one ran real good the other two were lacking in power. He uses his personal truck with the lmm because he can't stand his dodge anymore. The 5.9 should have been improved, the ford nice power but no exhaust brake on the one i drove, and they are stupid expensive. I think Chevy is just a better rig all around!!!

Wow to strong can carry heavy trucks

The 6.4 Fords were far more problematic then the LMM and yet are still relatively new. They are also a nightmare to work on so I really can't give them a good nod.

Ford has always had great bodies, real nice leather seats, etc, etc, but do you spend money on maintaining those---no? You spend it on the drivetrain and that is why they don't get my money. IF I'm still pulling a 5th wheel in 2013 I will look at new trucks and see just how the 6.7 is holding up.

The 6.4 Fords were far more problematic then the LMM and yet are still relatively new. They are also a nightmare to work on so I really can't give them a good nod.

Ford has always had great bodies, real nice leather seats, etc, etc, but do you spend money on maintaining those---no? You spend it on the drivetrain and that is why they don't get my money. IF I'm still pulling a 5th wheel in 2013 I will look at new trucks and see just how the 6.7 is holding up.

Another good post...right i'll quit stalking ya now...:D

Man, I'm deciding hard between what rig to buy in MY12...a Chevy 3500 or an F450....I don't like how ford lightened it up....if I can get a way with it I'd love to run a GM 3500 SRW CCSB tbh...

-Rob

I'm still leaning to the GM myself but wait until late model year '12 then you see how everything is shaking out.

I'm not sold at all on Ford with their lofty mileage claims and yet they are cheating with their axle ratios. Well guess what if you using that low of a ratio then the strain goes on the trans. Also poke around on the Ford Forum. They are getting better mileage then the 6.4 but they are only getting to the LMM mileage. Here is one more thing. So when you do a re-gen do you use more fuel with 8 injectors or 1 injector like the LML. The 6.4 had some oil pollution problems when using Bio. Hey I don't use Bio that often but the compaines may switch soon to an all B5 or B10 blend like they did for gas so it may be a factor down the road.

I'm a bit skeptical about the Delphi system versus Bosch if indeed that is what it is. Sound like the bean counters made that decision. Besides that though the Pickuptruck.com review gave the GM a lot of "class leading" attributes.

I'm still leaning to the GM myself but wait until late model year '12 then you see how everything is shaking out.

I'm not sold at all on Ford with their lofty mileage claims and yet they are cheating with their axle ratios. Well guess what if you using that low of a ratio then the strain goes on the trans. Also poke around on the Ford Forum. They are getting better mileage then the 6.4 but they are only getting to the LMM mileage. Here is one more thing. So when you do a re-gen do you use more fuel with 8 injectors or 1 injector like the LML. The 6.4 had some oil pollution problems when using Bio. Hey I don't use Bio that often but the compaines may switch soon to an all B5 or B10 blend like they did for gas so it may be a factor down the road.

I'm a bit skeptical about the Delphi system versus Bosch if indeed that is what it is. Sound like the bean counters made that decision. Besides that though the Pickuptruck.com review gave the GM a lot of "class leading" attributes.

I purchased a 2011 Ford, i only have around 1,500 miles on it and im averaging 14.5 mpg hand calculated with a light foot. I miss my LBZ, i was averaging 16.5 mpg driving it like i stole it.

Here is my opinion on the Ford so far. There are a few nice features on the Ford, like more cab room, more ground clearance, upfitter switches, tailgate step, the wheel packages, and i like having a solid front axle.

The things i dont like about the Ford, the a/c just plain sucks, the trans doesn't know what gear it wants to be in at times especially in parking lots, the ride is rougher, the seats aren't that comfortable , i dont like the marbled color of the leather but hate the look of the King Ranch more, the cooled seats just cool your butt and the heated seat just heats your back, and the truck likes to wander if you hit even the smallest imperfection in the road.

So far im not that impressed with the Ford, i don't hate it and am not in love with it, i think both trucks are overpriced, but this is only my opinion. I hope the new GM trucks are trouble free, i may just trade the Ford in on one.

ford changes motors like i change underwear, its 2010, get with the program already, they just cant quit get it together.....

ford changes motors like i change underwear, its 2010, get with the program already, they just cant quit get it together.....

Once every few years? Yuck:D

I purchased a 2011 Ford, i only have around 1,500 miles on it and im averaging 14.5 mpg hand calculated with a light foot. I miss my LBZ, i was averaging 16.5 mpg driving it like i stole it.

Here is my opinion on the Ford so far. There are a few nice features on the Ford, like more cab room, more ground clearance, upfitter switches, tailgate step, the wheel packages, and i like having a solid front axle.

The things i dont like about the Ford, the a/c just plain sucks, the trans doesn't know what gear it wants to be in at times especially in parking lots, the ride is rougher, the seats aren't that comfortable , i dont like the marbled color of the leather but hate the look of the King Ranch more, the cooled seats just cool your butt and the heated seat just heats your back, and the truck likes to wander if you hit even the smallest imperfection in the road.

So far im not that impressed with the Ford, i don't hate it and am not in love with it, i think both trucks are overpriced, but this is only my opinion. I hope the new GM trucks are trouble free, i may just trade the Ford in on one.

If the steering wanders now what will it be like when it has 60K miles on it? That is why I'm not sold on solid axle. Been there done that as I drove Ford wreckers and quite frankly the front ends on those were a wreck! Not cheap to fix either.

Your mileage should improve some so good luck with your truck.

I have a Ford 6.7, mileage depends on the weight of my right foot. I have gotten 18 mpg at 75, and 11-19 around town...hard to resist playing at times. I have over 10,000 in 7 weeks, mileage/power are improving. Not in love with it, but it IS the best tool I have worked out of. I think both the 2011 Duromax, and Powerstroke will be great vehicles to own, play and work out of.

If the steering wanders now what will it be like when it has 60K miles on it? That is why I'm not sold on solid axle. Been there done that as I drove Ford wreckers and quite frankly the front ends on those were a wreck! Not cheap to fix either.

Your mileage should improve some so good luck with your truck.

Im not really worried about the cost of repairing it. Ive been a Ford diesel tech for 23 years and i will make money repairing it, that is the main reason i bought the truck.

I got tired of dealing with GM's service departments, i almost always ended up doing the work and paying for the parts myself on all the GM's ive owned even when it was under there useless warranty.

Im not really worried about the cost of repairing it.
I got tired of dealing with GM's service departments, i almost always ended up doing the work and paying for the parts myself on all the GM's ive owned even when it was under there useless warranty.

Many of us have found them to be a shameful lot. When I had them replace the ISS they didn't change the bearing and it knocked twice as loud. Maybe the shop did that to get it back do the work on it again and make more money. Smooth move retarts, now I'll never bring it back again for anything.