5.9 cummins or 7.3 powerstroke
#22
It may be a beast, but Ford has been playing hell with them with warranty work. If you have one under warranty and dont mind the down time I guess you will be ok for now. If they have to replace the injectors then the cab has to get pulled off. I would not want to flip that bill. One of the reasons Ford is going to the new 6.7 is because the 6.4 and 6.0 had too much trouble.
#24
LOL.... Thats true on the turbo.Thats good for your dad and your friend. Nothing sucks more then a truck that is gonna dime you to death. I am glad to hear that some people have had good luck with the 6.0. IMHO with the people that I know that have owned them had lots of trouble, none of them were kids so its not that they were out hot rod the things. Who knows it may just be the area we live in plays hell on them ( Alaska ) Winter time the 6.0 plugged in have a hell of a time starting and their always in the shop. 6.4 are worse. Duramax and Cummins do good here. Dont take it as me being a Ford hater....Im not, I think Ford builds a hell of a truck and the crew cabs kick azz..... Im just not a big fan of the Powerstroke engines. Im not this way because of "word of mouth" This is what I have seen with my own eyes. And yes I do own a Ford.
#25
^ drinks KC Tea
Thread Starter
yea i bet up there itd suck for the powerstroke. i know my dads does have a bit of trouble turnin over in the winter here so i cant imagine alaska
as for the 6.4 i dont hear about it too often since no one i know owns one but i love the look of the truck it sits in tho lol
as for the 6.4 i dont hear about it too often since no one i know owns one but i love the look of the truck it sits in tho lol
#26
Senior Member
ive driven the 7.3 , 6.0 , and 6.4, cant find nothing with any of them, my grandpa has the 6.0 with 95,000 miles and no problem, drove it earlier today lol, and the 6.4 is awesome the turbo spools really fast ha, like i said nuttin wrong with any of them, but i have to say the cummins are great engines, the one thing dodge did do right ha
#27
ive driven the 7.3 , 6.0 , and 6.4, cant find nothing with any of them, my grandpa has the 6.0 with 95,000 miles and no problem, drove it earlier today lol, and the 6.4 is awesome the turbo spools really fast ha, like i said nuttin wrong with any of them, but i have to say the cummins are great engines, the one thing dodge did do right ha
#28
Retired Aerospace
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edgewater, Florida
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Two Varieties of Apples:
Take your pick; either engine is top-drawer.
I really like diesels, but the idea that a diesel is a super-power-super-torquer compared to a gasoline engine is a fairy-tale. If you're looking for gobs of torque and lots of horsepower the gas engine will knock the a*s off any diesel of similar displacement**.
Now, if you want economy and durability, then most diesels outperform the gasoline offerings. (Ford's Powerstroke diesel originated from a modified T444 gasoline truck engine back in the early days of the engine series. The earlier diesels based on that block had a bad habit of ultrasonic drilling of holes in the lower cylinder walls that let coolant leak through and into the crankcase.)
**For example, Gale Banks has a couple of powerplants, one a gasoline, the other diesel. The gasser was a Chev big-block at 483ci, twin turbo, cammed, carbed for 1650hp@7800rpm. The other a Cummins B5.9 tricked up for 700hp at about 4400rpm. The gasser pushed a streetable F-bodied Camaro to 270mph on the Salt Flats and the Cummins worked a modified Dakota PU to 220mph on the Flats. (The street version of the Banks diesel Dakota is good for only 160mph.)
The Banks diesel is hot at 118hp/litre; the Banks Chev 483 gives 208hp/litre; the Subaru Boxer engine in racing form gets 200hp/litre.
The streetable F-body with the boost cut down to 10psi gave about 11mpg....the diesel Dakota returned 20+mpg.
BTW: When Cummins went to the 4-valve head in the B5.9 the roller lifters were abandoned in favor of ordinary flat tappets....definitely a reduction in engine longevity compared to the earlier 2-valve version.
I really like diesels, but the idea that a diesel is a super-power-super-torquer compared to a gasoline engine is a fairy-tale. If you're looking for gobs of torque and lots of horsepower the gas engine will knock the a*s off any diesel of similar displacement**.
Now, if you want economy and durability, then most diesels outperform the gasoline offerings. (Ford's Powerstroke diesel originated from a modified T444 gasoline truck engine back in the early days of the engine series. The earlier diesels based on that block had a bad habit of ultrasonic drilling of holes in the lower cylinder walls that let coolant leak through and into the crankcase.)
**For example, Gale Banks has a couple of powerplants, one a gasoline, the other diesel. The gasser was a Chev big-block at 483ci, twin turbo, cammed, carbed for 1650hp@7800rpm. The other a Cummins B5.9 tricked up for 700hp at about 4400rpm. The gasser pushed a streetable F-bodied Camaro to 270mph on the Salt Flats and the Cummins worked a modified Dakota PU to 220mph on the Flats. (The street version of the Banks diesel Dakota is good for only 160mph.)
The Banks diesel is hot at 118hp/litre; the Banks Chev 483 gives 208hp/litre; the Subaru Boxer engine in racing form gets 200hp/litre.
The streetable F-body with the boost cut down to 10psi gave about 11mpg....the diesel Dakota returned 20+mpg.
BTW: When Cummins went to the 4-valve head in the B5.9 the roller lifters were abandoned in favor of ordinary flat tappets....definitely a reduction in engine longevity compared to the earlier 2-valve version.
Last edited by Kattumaram; 01-02-2010 at 09:34 PM.
#29
^ drinks KC Tea
Thread Starter
true but it seems that it takes less mods to make a diesel produce more power. as in a programmer can give like 80-100 horse? and yes i love the fuel economy of diesels and i also LOVE the black smoke they produce! i saw a 6.6 duramax twin turbo in an old chevelle. wanna know the ratings? 1200 horse and i believe a little over 2000 FT lbs of torque! but it is true each engine design has somethin better than the other and vise versa
#30
Senior Member
Diesel and gas are apples and oranges.
If you must compare, do it under equal circumstances, dont compare a V8 454ci gasser to a straight 6 360ci diesel, dont compare a turbo diesel to a naturally aspirated gasser, ect.
If you must compare, do it under equal circumstances, dont compare a V8 454ci gasser to a straight 6 360ci diesel, dont compare a turbo diesel to a naturally aspirated gasser, ect.