Diesel owners - ULSD raising problems?

Message

BuzZz · #21 Unread post by **BuzZz** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:56 pm

I got rid of my last oil-burner about 9 months ago when I switched jobs. In negotiations with the bank right now over buying another and going out on my own again. Anyways..

The last one I had was an '02 3500 Ram 4x4 QC longbox, set up with a tool box and weighing about 12,000lb. I liked the 5.9 Cummins and the only trouble I had with the truck was the tranny (all diesels have junk auto's IMHO) and it ate brakes up like cookies.

Before that I had a succession of PowerStrokes in the same basic chassis set-up, 3/4 or 1 ton, 4x4, longboxes with the same basic toolbox and weighing about the same. I liked the 7.3, and probably would have stayed with Ford for the last truck, but I like the 2nd Gen. Dodge chassis and figured I'd try something different. I still have my '01 1500 gas-job and it's still my favorite driving truck. Wish it got better mileage, though....

Now I'm looking at used Fords because I can't swing the $70 grand for a new SuperDuty 6.4 and refuse to run a 6.0L. Ford really dropped the ball with that lump, it's junk.

The Duramax is probably a decent enough engine, but the rest of the truck won't take the punishment of working in the Patch, so I'll find a used 7.3 and wait to see how the 6.4 pans out.

I used Stanadyne in the Fords for years as well as Howes additive and never had any fuel system trouble with any truck.

#22 Unread post by **Wrider** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:29 pm

BuzZz wrote:I got rid of my last oil-burner about 9 months ago when I switched jobs. In negotiations with the bank right now over buying another and going out on my own again. Anyways..

The last one I had was an '02 3500 Ram 4x4 QC longbox, set up with a tool box and weighing about 12,000lb. I liked the 5.9 Cummins and the only trouble I had with the truck was the tranny (all diesels have junk auto's IMHO) and it ate brakes up like cookies.

Before that I had a succession of PowerStrokes in the same basic chassis set-up, 3/4 or 1 ton, 4x4, longboxes with the same basic toolbox and weighing about the same. I liked the 7.3, and probably would have stayed with Ford for the last truck, but I like the 2nd Gen. Dodge chassis and figured I'd try something different. I still have my '01 1500 gas-job and it's still my favorite driving truck. Wish it got better mileage, though....

Now I'm looking at used Fords because I can't swing the $70 grand for a new SuperDuty 6.4 and refuse to run a 6.0L. Ford really dropped the ball with that lump, it's junk.

The Duramax is probably a decent enough engine, but the rest of the truck won't take the punishment of working in the Patch, so I'll find a used 7.3 and wait to see how the 6.4 pans out.

I used Stanadyne in the Fords for years as well as Howes additive and never had any fuel system trouble with any truck.

When hasn't Ford dropped the ball since 1992? Lol Anyway, I learned to drive on my uncle's Dodge Ram 3500 manual. My uncle (on his farm) has always used low-sulfur diesel and it hasn't hurt any of his trucks... His Fords have never been good to him though (no, not just a bias, a factually recorded statement...). Maybe it's something with the TX gas...

Shorts · #23 Unread post by **Shorts** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:17 pm

Dad mentioned something about Ford going to a Cummins engine soon. Not sure if that's just the usual diesel-mill speculation or if it holds water.

The '08 (maybe late 07s too?) Dodge diesels should be running at 6.7l. They went ahead and built a slightly better engine to accomodate this new diesel forced upon the nation. It's suppose to burn the diesel more complete than what the 5.9l is able to do on it. I don't know exactly what or how, but all I heard was "added chambers"...to thecylinders?? I don't know - I have not researched more to follow up on the water cooler talk.

Dodge auto trannys have always been the weak link. GM did better by using the Allisons, and the Duramax is nice...overall, I think GMs have the best interiors (I loved mine). But what I despise about GMs is they run IFS, unlikeDodge and Ford that run solid axles up front. For anything off the pavement, I prefer SFA.

#24 Unread post by **Wrider** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:29 am

Shorts wrote:Dad mentioned something about Ford going to a Cummins engine soon. Not sure if that's just the usual diesel-mill speculation or if it holds water.

The '08 (maybe late 07s too?) Dodge diesels should be running at 6.7l. They went ahead and built a slightly better engine to accomodate this new diesel forced upon the nation. It's suppose to burn the diesel more complete than what the 5.9l is able to do on it. I don't know exactly what or how, but all I heard was "added chambers"...to thecylinders?? I don't know - I have not researched more to follow up on the water cooler talk.

Dodge auto trannys have always been the weak link. GM did better by using the Allisons, and the Duramax is nice...overall, I think GMs have the best interiors (I loved mine). But what I despise about GMs is they run IFS, unlike Dodge and Ford that run solid axles up front. For anything off the pavement, I prefer SFA.

I've heard that same speculation about the Fords going to Cummins. But I've heard some about Dodge going to Powerstroke, which I highly doubt! GMs definitely have the best interiors, and the best ride, but aren't really engineered to haul anything large for a good portion of their lives. They're more creature comfort trucks for those who want a big truck but never want to do anything except haul lumber for their weekend projects in my opinion... Those 6.7 L engines are going to be powerful, but hopefully they won't be all the more fuel-guzzling...
Wrider

Shorts · #25 Unread post by **Shorts** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:58 am

Wrider wrote: I've heard that same speculation about the Fords going to Cummins. But I've heard some about Dodge going to Powerstroke, which I highly doubt! GMs definitely have the best interiors, and the best ride, but aren't really engineered to haul anything large for a good portion of their lives. They're more creature comfort trucks for those who want a big truck but never want to do anything except haul lumber for their weekend projects in my opinion... Those 6.7 L engines are going to be powerful, but hopefully they won't be all the more fuel-guzzling...
Wrider

The salesmen I spoke to said they'd actually be as efficient, if not better than current 5.9l. Which if true, GIMME! He had a cab and chassis on the lot with the 6.7l already in it. It looked S-W-E-E-T sweet, and very very similar to the 5.9l.