I have had two Dodge Cummins RAM's a 1993 and the Current 2001.5. I would like a new truck, but each has it issues. Dodge did not put DEF system on the pickups (yet) and gets poor fuel mileage, and crack case oil gets diesel in it from regens, causing the need for early oil changes. Chevy's have dated interiors and the new PowerStroke is not yet provide over the long haul.
Dodge could put DEF on the engine and improve mileage, and use the Aisin tranny from the chassis cab trucks if the 68RFE inhouse tranny is not strong enough.
Will a I6 ever win a drag race against a V8? That is a difficult one.
On the postive side, Dodge has the best brakes and the best Exhaust brake, and the longest lasting engine between overhauls.
I have towed my trailer up the Davis Dam hill a couple times and it is a fun pull for those that want to flex their muscles a bit. But to base the purchase of a new truck on which one can get to the top a few seconds faster towing a trailer is a bit silly! Which one came down the best? That would be the Dodge. For every hill you go up there is one to come down.
I do not think one wants to own anyone of these three new offerings without a good warranty in hand, as there is little you can do under the hood yourself anymore. Will I take that back a bit, a good backyard mechanic can still change injectors in a Cummins diesel.
Someone please find me a good used 05 to 07 (5.9 Cummins) with a 6 speed manual, 4x4, long bed and low miles in any color but black. And I will be right over to get it.
I have towed my trailer up the Davis Dam hill a couple times and it is a fun pull for those that want to flex their muscles a bit. But to base the purchase of a new truck on which one can get to the top a few seconds faster towing a trailer is a bit silly! Which one came down the best? That would be the Dodge. For every hill you go up there is one to come down.
Chris
Ya, I see Ford and GM's piled up at the bottom of hills with their brakes on fire all the time.
Quote: Dodge came in a far 3rd.
I'm a Dodge owner, and well, that disappointed me.
Motortrend badmouthed the Cummins engine, saying it had to work harder towing their 12,000 pound trailer than the GM or Ford diesel.
It has 800 ft/lbs of torque. Why is this happening?
Also the mileage comparisons were quite distinct. The 1 ton ram was about 2-3 mpg lower than the Ford and GM diesels in their testing analysis.
IMHO Dodge ruined the flat as a table top torque curve engine by trying to play keep-up.
Look at the perfect torque curve of the old engine and then look at the new sucky H.O. one.
One thing to look forward to is when Cummins goes urea. I think you will see a BIG change in the torque curve (think flat again) when they do. It's really hard to keep the Cummins clean without urea. At least as clean as the tree huggers want. That will all change when they start using urea (in pickups).
Same way with the mileage. It will all change for the better when Cummins goes to urea.
Why are you apposed to having the torque rise as the engine slows down? Seems like a plus to me. If the engine torque rises as the truck starts climbing a hill the truck will be able to better manage the hill.
2011 F350 SRW short box 4x4 CC 6.7 PS King Ranch
B&W TurnoverBall and Companion
2003 Citation Supreme 34 RLTS
Quote: Dodge came in a far 3rd.
I'm a Dodge owner, and well, that disappointed me.
Motortrend badmouthed the Cummins engine, saying it had to work harder towing their 12,000 pound trailer than the GM or Ford diesel.
It has 800 ft/lbs of torque. Why is this happening?
Also the mileage comparisons were quite distinct. The 1 ton ram was about 2-3 mpg lower than the Ford and GM diesels in their testing analysis.
IMHO Dodge ruined the flat as a table top torque curve engine by trying to play keep-up.
Look at the perfect torque curve of the old engine and then look at the new sucky H.O. one.
One thing to look forward to is when Cummins goes urea. I think you will see a BIG change in the torque curve (think flat again) when they do. It's really hard to keep the Cummins clean without urea. At least as clean as the tree huggers want. That will all change when they start using urea (in pickups).
Same way with the mileage. It will all change for the better when Cummins goes to urea.
Why are you apposed to having the torque rise as the engine slows down? Seems like a plus to me. If the engine torque rises as the truck starts climbing a hill the truck will be able to better manage the hill.
When I pull hills with my Cummins it sure the hell isn't running at 1600 RPM try 2300-3000. Any lower RPM and the thing is a turd and drops speed fast. How is a torque curve that peaks at 1600 then drops better than one that peaks at 1600 and is flat till it defuels?
After reading the article and comparing the test score cards that link to on the left side, it was really close. Lets face it, the cummins pulled a 12,000 lb trailer of rock in 17 sec, Ford in 16.1, and Chevy in 15. I can personally care less about how fast it goes 0-60, especially when pulling 12,000lbs because that is not how I'm going to use my truck anyway. I looked at braking (probably most important), comfort of cab, and ride quality. Dodge scored mid-pack in braking (Chevy 196ft, Dodge 200ft, Ford 242ft) although really close to the chevy, outscored the other two in vehicle design, although they felt the steering was a little slow. They also stated the Chevy was the only truck to have bucking movement when towing downhill (feeling the inertia of the trailer). They also didn't like the exhuast braking in the ford as much as the chevy or dodge. At the end of the day, it is all up to what the consumer is comfortable with. I feel a test like this puts way too much emphasis on criteria that don't matter too much: like towing from 0-60. Maybe for a sports car but for a truck designed for towing, who really cares if there is a 2 second difference. I really want to stop the dang thing and enjoy my ride!
Quote: Dodge came in a far 3rd.
I'm a Dodge owner, and well, that disappointed me.
Motortrend badmouthed the Cummins engine, saying it had to work harder towing their 12,000 pound trailer than the GM or Ford diesel.
It has 800 ft/lbs of torque. Why is this happening?
Also the mileage comparisons were quite distinct. The 1 ton ram was about 2-3 mpg lower than the Ford and GM diesels in their testing analysis.
IMHO Dodge ruined the flat as a table top torque curve engine by trying to play keep-up.
Look at the perfect torque curve of the old engine and then look at the new sucky H.O. one.
One thing to look forward to is when Cummins goes urea. I think you will see a BIG change in the torque curve (think flat again) when they do. It's really hard to keep the Cummins clean without urea. At least as clean as the tree huggers want. That will all change when they start using urea (in pickups).
Same way with the mileage. It will all change for the better when Cummins goes to urea.
Why are you apposed to having the torque rise as the engine slows down? Seems like a plus to me. If the engine torque rises as the truck starts climbing a hill the truck will be able to better manage the hill.
Because then you have an engine where the HP drops off when torque builds. Or you have an engine where torque drops off when HP builds. That is not a good thing either way.
The best is having a dead flat torque curve while the HP builds. Cummins has always had that and they set the benchmark.......until the HO came out.
It's not so much the new HO torque curve is that bad, it's just the old non HO was just so good.
I think you will see the flat as a table torque curve come back as soon as they go urea. You can have a way better tune if you have urea to get the emissions in check.
Anybody have a Dodge CC torque curve to see if urea flattened things out for them?
~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~
"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"
I always take those articles with a grain of salt. These are the same magazines that gave the Chevy Volt the car of the year award. How is that working out? I remember reading an article a few years back that was giving the 1 year old owner's report on a $90K BMW. They had to take it into the shop 4 or 5 times to fix whatever - nothing major - but the end of the report was an excellent overall grade. Really? I drop that much on a car and I have to make multiple trips to the dealer to get it fixed. They don't live in Realityville...where that would make the average Joe not pleased.
Anyway, I won't dispute their results or methods, but their subjectivity can certainly be questioned. The Ford gets rave reviews for its display screen on the dash. It's cool, but I could care less. The backseat in the Chevy is smaller and not comfortable supposedly. Big deal to me as I have 3 kids. Ford and Chevy loaded are several thousand more than a Laramie. That is a lot of extra diesel in the tank to make up for the poorer fuel economy. Comfortable seats and a heated steering wheel in the laramie - now that is pimp! Traveling downhill in the Rockies with a stout exhaust brake and warm hands - that is good living. $1K for a delete, programmer and egt display and I am back in the performance neighborhood of the other 2 brands.
Amdavis76 wrote: After reading the article and comparing the test score cards that link to on the left side, it was really close. Lets face it, the cummins pulled a 12,000 lb trailer of rock in 17 sec, Ford in 16.1, and Chevy in 15. I can personally care less about how fast it goes 0-60, especially when pulling 12,000lbs because that is not how I'm going to use my truck anyway. I looked at braking (probably most important), comfort of cab, and ride quality. Dodge scored mid-pack in braking (Chevy 196ft, Dodge 200ft, Ford 242ft) although really close to the chevy, outscored the other two in vehicle design, although they felt the steering was a little slow. They also stated the Chevy was the only truck to have bucking movement when towing downhill (feeling the inertia of the trailer). They also didn't like the exhuast braking in the ford as much as the chevy or dodge. At the end of the day, it is all up to what the consumer is comfortable with. I feel a test like this puts way too much emphasis on criteria that don't matter too much: like towing from 0-60. Maybe for a sports car but for a truck designed for towing, who really cares if there is a 2 second difference. I really want to stop the dang thing and enjoy my ride!
I find more value in getting a load moving fast. I pull heavy with both of my current D/A which have been lightly modded with remapped computers and other improvements. The improvements in the trucks ability to spool up quick and get a load moving is the best feature, performance on hills is the second after the mods were done. Crossing traffic with a heavy trailer is one example and merging with traffic is another of when having a quick truck off the line is important. I think it comes down to how you use you pickup, but I dont think its correct in saying that a pickups ability to get a load moving quickly doesnt have value. If you have ever been stopped at a stop sign and found yourself trying to cross busy traffic with a heavy trailer, two seconds is eternity as your trying to build speed across the intersection. That senerio is common in in rural areas where life is controlled by stop signs.
2006 GMC 3500 CC 4X4 D/A
2013 Fuzion 342
2011 RZR Desert Tan
2012 Sea Doo GTX 155
2005 GMC 5500 CC 4X4 D/A
2012 Chevy 2500HD 4X4 6.0 3.73
Offline
