Ford did it without the bailout because they were in a little better financial shape than the other two before it all came crashing down and were able to eek by on their own through the tough time, so far. Who knows what the future holds.
The only one I would want right now, as well as in the recent past or near future, is the Dodge with the Cummins diesel. That's the only one I like or trust.
Now that Daimler is not with Chrysler, Ford should just buy diesels from Detroit Diesel for their trucks.
BradW wrote: Dodge got it right with the Cummins, there is no reason Ford can't do the same. Ford needs CAT POWER!!!
Brad
Brad, I agree. I make my living from CAT engines. But rest assured, you are NOT going to see CAT power in any new pick-up trucks. CAT is so uninterested in on-highway engines its not even funny. You do realize that CAT has officially announced it's "exit" from the on-highway truck engine business, right?
SoCalDesertRider wrote: Ford did it without the bailout because they were in a little better financial shape than the other two before it all came crashing down and were able to eek by on their own through the tough time, so far. Who knows what the future holds.
Actually, Ford did it without the bailout because Mulally had the foresight to mortgage everything the company had - including the logo - for a line of credit that Ford could tap if the *$(% hit the fan - which of course it ended up doing. A bailout wouldn've been cheaper for them but the attached strings were probably significantly greater. They had an option - the others didn't.
Near Casper, Wyoming
2004 Arctic Fox 860 on a stock '07 Silverado dually
2005 BMW R1200GS and miscellaneous horses
2004 Winnebago Adventurer 35U
1990 Jeep YJ toad
alkar wrote: It's a motor with near endless potential...
I could say that about any engine.
You want us to believe that this year's CTD can't be improved upon? That's funny considering even the people on this site who have CTDs would rather not have one of the current CTDs compared to the older ones.
The EPA requirements are making the CTD obsolete. We can wish that we could all use the old model CTDs that predate the more recent EPA requirements. However, that's just not reality.
'06 F350 Lariat Supercab SRW, 6.0 PSD 4x4 Long Bed, Intake Elbow, Walker Big Truck Muffler. '06 Host Rainer 950 Double Slide, Fastguns. Firestone Air Bags, Rancho 9000s, Vision 19.5s with Hankook DH-01 245s, Energy Suspension bump stops.
I would not go with ANY of the big 3 diesels due to the up front costs. This new Ford diesel is almost $10,000 more over a gasser. That my friends is a lot of unleaded. Add in the untested aspect and the resale will drop like a lead balloon. I am sooo happy I have what I have now. IMO it is the last best Ford or for that matter anyone's body style and the MPG's are better than the 6.4L. The 6.8L will be even worse after you add in the urea costs.
But the same goes for new TC's as well. Man a year after we bought ours the costs just jumped by thousands. Even in this awful economy new TC's are crazy pricey. The new trucks are just as bad.
I will watch this engine as I do with most things and GM and Dodge will need to change some things too. I feel for folks who are now looking at a fresh start. It is a lot bleaker than it was in 2005 when we bought our truck and TC combo. I could not be happier about our costs versus today's.
Oh and that $10,000 buy in for the diesel will go a long way on campin costs too. Ford's V10 is a screaming deal next to the 6.4L or the new 6.8L diesel.
It never hurts to look at all of your options.
Sure it sucks to get less mpgs and having to stop more often but man these diesels are priced out of this world. My guess is they don't want you to buy one hence the high price to play.
Allen
2005 Ford F-350 CC Dually 6.0L Diesel 4x4 King Ranch loaded, Supersprings, Coolant filter, Oilguard bypass filter.
AllenF wrote: Wow a lot of wind found blowing here.
Absolutely! Thanks for contributing to it!
AllenF wrote: I would not go with ANY of the big 3 diesels due to the up front costs. This new Ford diesel is almost $10,000 more over a gasser. That my friends is a lot of unleaded. Add in the untested aspect and the resale will drop like a lead balloon. I am sooo happy I have what I have now. IMO it is the last best Ford or for that matter anyone's body style and the MPG's are better than the 6.4L. The 6.8L will be even worse after you add in the urea costs.
But the same goes for new TC's as well. Man a year after we bought ours the costs just jumped by thousands. Even in this awful economy new TC's are crazy pricey. The new trucks are just as bad.
Boy, I hear you. We bought our 1998 11' Lane with every option available including generator for $18,500, and that included purchase and installation of the Titan hitch. We paid only $27,200 for our loaded diesel F-350 Lariat the same year. On the other hand, our house has more than doubled in value too, as have the prices of almost everything from ammunition to milk. Say..... do you think we're experiencing inflation?
AllenF wrote:
I will watch this engine as I do with most things and GM and Dodge will need to change some things too. I feel for folks who are now looking at a fresh start. It is a lot bleaker than it was in 2005 when we bought our truck and TC combo. I could not be happier about our costs versus today's.
The Dodge truck we just bought, a new 3500 4X4 diesel Laramie fully optioned with nav, sunroof, leather, etc, had a factory sticker over $58,000, but real money was under $42,000. Still spendy, but not so different from the prices of 20 years ago if you delete the cost of options that didn't exist then and adjust for inflation.
AllenF wrote:
Oh and that $10,000 buy in for the diesel will go a long way on campin costs too. Ford's V10 is a screaming deal next to the 6.4L or the new 6.8L diesel.
.
I strongly disagree. Sure, $10,000 buys a lot of fuel, but we spend about $250 per month on fuel. If we switched to gas our fuel economy would be cut in half and our fuel bill would double. That extra $250 per month more than pays the cost (debt service) of the additional $10,000, but that's only part of it. You get much of the money back on the resale of the diesel. And, while you own it, you've got the joy of all that power. It was a no-brainer for me.
* This post was
edited 09/04/09 03:44am by alkar *
"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."
Mark Twain
2007 Chevy 3500 LTZ Duramax 4X4 crew - loaded w/nav
2009 Dodge Ram 3500 Laramie 4x4 CTD, w/ leveling kit, 35" Toyos, Edge Juice "Race" and other goodies
FF1063 wrote: The Cummins 6.7 met the 2010 emission requirements in 2007, so your statement makes no sense, wouldn't that make them years ahead of Ford? Cummins does it without a urea injection system that Ford and GM will be using, urea is the cheaper $$ route.
My statement was completely correct. The 6.7 was the result of a clean designed CTD with a emission system on top with a little more displacement since Ford and GM were killing them with regard to performance. Again, you can't convince too many people that Cummins didn't degrade the engine by slapping emmissions equipment including a different exhaust.
Ford will be starting with an engine from scratch. I have to believe a clean slate that is designed with the emmision requirements in mind will yield a better result. You don't have to.
As I said, I may also go gasoline for my next engine, but time will tell.
FF1063 wrote: The Cummins 6.7 met the 2010 emission requirements in 2007, so your statement makes no sense, wouldn't that make them years ahead of Ford? Cummins does it without a urea injection system that Ford and GM will be using, urea is the cheaper $$ route.
My statement was completely correct. The 6.7 was the result of a clean designed CTD with a emission system on top with a little more displacement since Ford and GM were killing them with regard to performance. Again, you can't convince too many people that Cummins didn't degrade the engine by slapping emmissions equipment including a different exhaust.
Ford will be starting with an engine from scratch. I have to believe a clean slate that is designed with the emmision requirements in mind will yield a better result.
Why? I'm not arguing, but that's exactly what the 6.0 was supposed to be/do.
The Current Duramax is a 6.6 liter - about 402 cubic inches -- not so different from the Cummins 6.7 liter displacement. The big three have been trading the power/performance lead back and forth for at least ten years, increasing power almost every year. Ford's experiment with developing more power with a sharp reduction in displacement didn't work too well.
I don't think anybody disagrees with the idea that hanging a bunch of restrictive smog-equipment on a motor reduces performance and, generally, fuel economy. That's been true since they started making us run catalytic converters in the 1970s. Then, as now, the best way to improve power and economy is to remove that performance-killing crapola. (I realize many, particularly those in California, may not want to do this.)
I don't know what the correlation is between the visible pollution from diesels belching black smoke and the other types of exhaust pollution, but there are some equipment/tune combinations which produce very little smoke while delivering good performance and economy. The anti-pollution hardware forces people to burn 25% to 35% more fuel. It's hard to see how that would help our overall pollution profile, as we have to burn/refine/recover than much more oil. Seems like a bad plan, particularly when the 90% of the world's population living in Mexico, China, India, Africa, Central America, etc, etc refuses to play by the same rules...)
* This post was
edited 09/03/09 10:10pm by alkar *
alkar wrote: It's a motor with near endless potential...
I could say that about any engine.
.
Well, you could say it, but it wouldn't be true.
Both the Cummins and Duramax can be built to develop enormous power -- 850+ hp motors are common, and not terribly expensive to build, but it's extremely difficult to build a 750+ horsepower Powerstroke. Similarly, the Powerstrokes have never produced the fuel economy of the Cummins or the LLM Duramax.
I love the old 7.3 liter Fords anyway, because they did great work for me, but Ford's reliability record on the 6.0 was terrible, and the economy on the newer 6.4 is worst-in-class.
All motors are not created equal. Frankly, you're the first guy I can recall being critical of the Cummins powerplant.
Want an interesting exercise? Google the phrases "Ford diesel lemon" and "Cummins lemons" and see which generates more reading material
* This post was
edited 09/03/09 10:34pm by alkar *
Offline
Online
.jpg)
