GM seems to brag about several features that the Duramax has, and I really think some of them are also found on other diesels. But one thing I like is the way they induction harden the cylinder walls. Ford and Dodge don't say a word about this, so I'm assuming they don't have it. I know that the Duramax, Powerstroke, and Cummins are not sleeved engines, so it seems like hardening the cylinder walls would be a good way to help reduce cylinder wear. Is there some reason why other diesel makers don't do this? Maybe some techs on here know all about this. Does this alone give the Duramax a big advantage? People say an inline six will often outlast a v8. But will having the hardened cylinders make that different for the Duramax? Will it last significantly longer than than the competing engines?

I sincerely doubt it...engine life is based on the weakest link..not the strongest one. Who cares if the empire state building is made from superior materials if the bedrock is screwed.

yes your right on with there thinking.its quiter also from the small blok casting its self and the deep skirt design along with the aluminum (sp) heads.

I can't believe that people here, who are mostly Duramax owners, don't seem to know or maybe just don't care about this. I think that if I decide to get a Duramax, the hardened cylinders will be one thing that sways me to it over the Cummins or Powerstroke diesels. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it just seems to me like it would make a huge difference. From the features that GM publishes about the Duramax, that is the one thing that really sticks out, to me. I thought that the cylinder and ring wear was basically what determined an engine's life, as long as you don't blow it up, which I definitely wouldn't do. I was hoping somebody on here could really tell me about this. Is having the hardened cylinders is enough of a big deal to make one engine last a lot longer, even consdering the differences in design of the v8's and inline 6's? Or am I just making a big deal out of something that's not really that huge?

Yep! Later! Frank

I think it's a pretty even tradeoff. I believe the Ford and Cummins motors have replaceable cylinder liners, just like the big rigs. The benefit there is being able to replace liners and pistons and continue the use of an engine block for mega miles (much more important to an OTR rig than a light-duty pickup). The disadvantage is the mechanical interface between the liner and the block - which has caused coolant cavitation and metal erosion in earlier Ford engines. The Duramax has simplified the design of the block with the elimimation of liners and has subsequently induction hardened the bores to make up for the loss of replacibility.http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Geek.gif

I work on air & oil cooled engines and I can attest to longer engine life in the engines with hardened cylinders versus those that do not. Especially those engines which see a more diffucult application, lack of maintenance, dirt ingestion, and continuos operation. The Japanese and Germans have used hardening technology for years, one of the leading cylinder manufactureres is Mahle from Germany. So I vote yes it is a big difference and I feel the same about the aluminum cylinder heads advantages.


Corsair

As I understand,only the top (most important part) is hardened.





Look at a Chevrolet small or big block as compared to a Buick, or aftermarket block and you will see the difference. Chev production castings make dust when cut...http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Ermm.gif

NONE of the 3, powerstroke, cummins or duramax use replaceable cylinder liners. One of our injectors will stick open and blowtorch a piston LONG before the hardened cylinder walls give up the ghost. *shrugs* They built our engine with a pretty decent rotating assembly, but again, that is not the weak link, and the item that IS the weak link when it goes bad can wreak holy hell on the rest of the engine.

No, the pickup truck engines don't use liners. I believe liners, in engines where they are used, are also hardened. They can make a liner out of a lot better material than they can a whole block. I also heard that the walls were only hardened at the top. I heard that is because the top is where most of the wear occurs. I'm just surprised that Cummins and International don't use this technology.

Because whatever they use in the cummins lets them last for a million miles when taken care of, at least in the mechanical versions, lets see how long thier common rail engines run.

Wickedsprint is right.

The weakest link is most important. If, with secondary filtration, the injectors go 150k and you want to see 500k with the engine (which is what I want) it will cost you 18,000 dollars for complete injector replacement and pump (3x 6,000).

I have ho delusions about keeping this truck for that long, I'll keep it and run the crap out of it and trade it in likely before 100K, luckily a diesel still holds its value ina trade in, even if problematic down the road.

Problemchild,


I got my truck in LB at Beach Motors. Where were you having problems with the service?

Mines a GMC not chevy and it was Cerritos GMC that F*&ked me over.

I can't believe that people here, who are mostly Duramax owners, don't seem to know or maybe just don't care about this. I think that if I decide to get a Duramax, the hardened cylinders will be one thing that sways me to it over the Cummins or Powerstroke diesels. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it just seems to me like it would make a huge difference. From the features that GM publishes about the Duramax, that is the one thing that really sticks out, to me. I thought that the cylinder and ring wear was basically what determined an engine's life, as long as you don't blow it up, which I definitely wouldn't do. I was hoping somebody on here could really tell me about this. Is having the hardened cylinders is enough of a big deal to make one engine last a lot longer, even consdering the differences in design of the v8's and inline 6's? Or am I just making a big deal out of something that's not really that huge?

Yes, it isn't a HUGE issue - in my mind. It is a detail, there are MANY details that I won't concern myself with. Some of them are design or production related, may represent a trade-off, may or may not become a "feature" that the ad people think they can capitalize on.
As a kid I was VERY impressed by a Rover ad that claimed the rear axle gears were finely polished (lapped, I guess) with oat husks. Well, BFD (-:
This isn't the sort of thing that will sway my buying decision, it is right DOWN THERE on the list. So far down that I won't get to it.

\R

This reminds of the soup commercial making a big thing that the can soup doesn't require addition of water like the cambell condensed soup does. It may be important to some ~ makes them feel better about paying for the water I guess.


Could look at it the other way tho ~ heat treating has been used in other manuafacturing process over the yrs to allow use of a cheaper grade of mat'l ~