According to George, the weight difference is only 33 lbs. Considering the extra beef in a Cummins, I think the inline in this application has more efficent packaging than a V motor.
No flames ,
Looking to buy Diesel turck what kind???
- Thread starter oil pan 4
- Start date
- Status
No flames ,
Agreed best diesel and chrysler does not get the credit it should for making it work,because the lenght did make it hard to get the cooling shroud/fan to work.A engineer who worked on it described some of the details on the dieselstop last year.I will also say that this is the most civilized forum I have been a part of.Last time I saw those pictures the Powerstroke and Duramax boys went ape**** called it crude/blacksmith tech etc etc,but you cant argue with their results,no leaks,injector probs or any running issues Iam aware of.
Another picture for comparison -
The Cummins displacement per cylinder is very close to that of the 7.3l Powerstroke, 5.9 x 8 / 6 works out to 7.8l. The designers had different priorities for the different engines. Reliability and longevity were a much higher priority in the Cummins engine than in the other two. The downside is of course the added size, weight and cost. The Cummins does not rev like the Duramax because of the heavier components. The International DT466 engine mentioned above is another good engine with very beefy components but the engine dry weight 1425lbs vs 836lbs for the Duramax, 928lbs for the Powerstroke and 961lbs for the Cummins. By light duty diesel engine standards the DT466 is simply huge and that is why it is not used in LD vehicles.
That was a very informative post, thanks! I thought I knew alot about the 6.2's (having two of them) but you added a lot of knowledge as well!!
I dont know who's cummins dually is getting 23mpg unloaded. Im not saying its not possible, im just saying, that its for the most part, not probable. (Not to mention, there is no testing labs/EPA certifications for its mileage).
the cummins is a great motor- longevity, design, etc. Too bad as the sayin goes, the truck falls apart before the motor does. (the other saying is, too bad its in a dodge).
the 7.3 is the workhorse engine- Its definatly seen its share of work (partially because of very good commercial dealer incentives)- worked hard, idled for 24/7 days in ambulances, fire vehicles, etc.
the 6.0 seems good, but I dont hear as much of a good record- seems to be getting better.
the Duramax- Seems like a great engine, but GM couldnt put it in enough vehicles- like, the suburban. Or, the Express. Or, nevermind, you get the picture.
the 6.2 and 6.5's are light duty diesels- Designed with fuel economy in mind, they acutally are rated by the EPA to produce in the neighborhood of 22-25mpg, depending on configuration (such as 308 gears, half ton 2wd pickup). Rumor has it that they did have a 2wd blazer with the 6.2 with 2.42 gears or something rediculous like that).
They are hard working light duties, that return good mileage- I have 262k on one and 283k on the other. They will not have the power of anything modern, but they still haul plenty well.
The testiment to the 6.2 and 6.5's are the number of old ambulances, suburbans, H1's (and Humvees), and old school buses.
I dont know who's cummins dually is getting 23mpg unloaded. Im not saying its not possible, im just saying, that its for the most part, not probable. (Not to mention, there is no testing labs/EPA certifications for its mileage).
the cummins is a great motor- longevity, design, etc. Too bad as the sayin goes, the truck falls apart before the motor does. (the other saying is, too bad its in a dodge).
the 7.3 is the workhorse engine- Its definatly seen its share of work (partially because of very good commercial dealer incentives)- worked hard, idled for 24/7 days in ambulances, fire vehicles, etc.
the 6.0 seems good, but I dont hear as much of a good record- seems to be getting better.
the Duramax- Seems like a great engine, but GM couldnt put it in enough vehicles- like, the suburban. Or, the Express. Or, nevermind, you get the picture.
the 6.2 and 6.5's are light duty diesels- Designed with fuel economy in mind, they acutally are rated by the EPA to produce in the neighborhood of 22-25mpg, depending on configuration (such as 308 gears, half ton 2wd pickup). Rumor has it that they did have a 2wd blazer with the 6.2 with 2.42 gears or something rediculous like that).
They are hard working light duties, that return good mileage- I have 262k on one and 283k on the other. They will not have the power of anything modern, but they still haul plenty well.
The testiment to the 6.2 and 6.5's are the number of old ambulances, suburbans, H1's (and Humvees), and old school buses.
My experience is with a 1999 Ford F-350, 7.3L, 8 cylinder, turbo diesel, 4x4. It hauls around 13 cattle (6.5 tons) in the Texas heat and has been nothing but reliable. The engine has never given any problems. 15 qts. of Rotella and a Motorcraft FL-1995 filter have been changed every 5,000 miles. It has 122,000 miles on it and when I dropped the pan this week, changed the filter, and drained the torque converter, I couldn't believe what little crud was in the pan. It had 1/10th the crud of my 2000 Taurus' transmission at 29,000 miles. Hopefully, I've breathed new life into the transmission by switching to Mobil 1 ATF. I consider it a pretty easy truck to service and am sold on its toughness and reliability. Texans love their trucks and more of them drive Fords than anything else. There must be a good reason for this.
I've ground up with at least 2 diesls in our yard at all times, and as many as three at others. One class 8 with a Cummins or Detroit and VW's or Dodges to make up the difference. I currently have a 1990 D250 CTD with little over 400k on the clock. The fathers company know refuses to buy anything but a Dodge for a small*under 10L) diesel, their mechanic was replacing at least 1 6.2L every year for the past decade, the 6.5's held up a little better, they haven't had a Duramax yet. The 6.9L & 7.3L were nearly as durable as the Cummins but thirstier and don't have the torque, the 6.0L's were disasters and quickly given away*2 pumps & 3 set of injectors under warranty was enough on one}. Dodge's are rough around the edges, don't have the fit & finish of the other 2 but are workhorses. Oh and for the record Dodge hasn't offered a commercial chassis since 1999, their getting back in next year with a 6.7L CTD.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Sure 250k isn't much for a diesel in terms of overhaul/junk longevity ...but I would bet a dime to a dollar that anyone hauling heavy loads for 500k surely had some issues along the way. That's what kills it for many non-frequent flyers. Someone making a living on it accepts putting in a $1200 anything every once and a while as the cost of doing business ...but one private owner ..it's not looked at quite the same way. 250k is 2.5 years and lots of revenue for some ..others it's 10-15 years ...during which other things in terms of "issues" come to bear.
My buddy bought a suburban with one of the less favored diesels. He researched the mpg/vs whatever and found that the trans/engine combo effected the mpg the most. He got the one that yielded about 16 ..but that was still miles ahead of any gasoline offering (bought used) ..except by the (cough-cough) 19 mpg fulltime 4wd ac @ 70 mph crowd. They've always got the edge on fuel economy
He's looking used. If I had his energy, I'd find an old bread truck with a Perkins and manage to fit it in something else and bypass all the crap needed in today's diesels.
I swore that I'd never buy a new vehicle ever again ..but if we feel the need for newer transportation with payments ..that Sprinter will get a good once over ..maybe twice over. That's what's needed in this market ...a REAL diesel in a practical vehicle (or even wasteful vehicle
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Help me out with the "sidewinder" effect here? What happens? Does it stretch one bolt over the other?
I've never seen this on any gas inline
...
I think by "sidewinder" effect you are talking about the angle of the cap on the Cummins rod? That design is used on many small displacement engines as it gives a lot of strength to the cap. The catch is you can't use it on a larger displacement bore because the "high" side of the cap will hit the bore when the crank comes around.
The either 7.3 PSD rods are not an issue. By early I mean the 94-oct 2000 (engine build date), Navistar used forged rods and switch to powdered metal in oct of 2000 (the 6.0 is also using PMR's and they are living just fine). The older rods seem to hold up fine to about 500 hp at the tires (which is double what the highest HP 7.3 was EVER rated at). I'm not knocking the B model as it is a great engine. I've run both personally and professionally. I do not like the VT365 (6.0 PSD) as well as the 7.3. I also do not like the dodge truck. In one of the industries I've worked in we have literally broken dodge trucks in HALF. With the same equipment and same use we never had a chassis related problem with the F-Super Duties, or the later SuperDuties. We don't buy Duramax's because they are not an "industrial" diesel. In any town there will be an HD truck store that can get Navistar or Cummins parts, not so with the Isuzu built Duramax.
I also don't buy the inline is better than a V. Ever hear of a 903? That was a Cummins V8 of 903 cubic inches. We ran several in some trucks and they worked well. The local county transit agency ran hundreds of 903’s in buses one of the most sever duty applications for an engine and they held up as well as any. CAT also has built V8's and most of them were very BIG high HP engines, and they have built some smaller V8’s as well. The 3208 was a V8 that went into many F-700’s and motorhomes. If the design is good a V8 is very capable. I have seen T444E with 500K miles before a rebuild if serviced well. I've seen B model's with 50K that were trashed. A lot of an engines life depends on how the owner treats it.
Most people don't use these trucks as trucks anyway. The majority of people buy them as status symbols and grocery getters (this might be redundant, sorry). With any one of these trucks you could get a good one or a lemon. Buy what you like best and enjoy it. If it's mechanical you will HAVE to work on it at some point, and if it's not broken I'll fix it 'till it is
The either 7.3 PSD rods are not an issue. By early I mean the 94-oct 2000 (engine build date), Navistar used forged rods and switch to powdered metal in oct of 2000 (the 6.0 is also using PMR's and they are living just fine). The older rods seem to hold up fine to about 500 hp at the tires (which is double what the highest HP 7.3 was EVER rated at). I'm not knocking the B model as it is a great engine. I've run both personally and professionally. I do not like the VT365 (6.0 PSD) as well as the 7.3. I also do not like the dodge truck. In one of the industries I've worked in we have literally broken dodge trucks in HALF. With the same equipment and same use we never had a chassis related problem with the F-Super Duties, or the later SuperDuties. We don't buy Duramax's because they are not an "industrial" diesel. In any town there will be an HD truck store that can get Navistar or Cummins parts, not so with the Isuzu built Duramax.
I also don't buy the inline is better than a V. Ever hear of a 903? That was a Cummins V8 of 903 cubic inches. We ran several in some trucks and they worked well. The local county transit agency ran hundreds of 903’s in buses one of the most sever duty applications for an engine and they held up as well as any. CAT also has built V8's and most of them were very BIG high HP engines, and they have built some smaller V8’s as well. The 3208 was a V8 that went into many F-700’s and motorhomes. If the design is good a V8 is very capable. I have seen T444E with 500K miles before a rebuild if serviced well. I've seen B model's with 50K that were trashed. A lot of an engines life depends on how the owner treats it.
Most people don't use these trucks as trucks anyway. The majority of people buy them as status symbols and grocery getters (this might be redundant, sorry). With any one of these trucks you could get a good one or a lemon. Buy what you like best and enjoy it. If it's mechanical you will HAVE to work on it at some point, and if it's not broken I'll fix it 'till it is
CAT 3208 aren't exactly a stellar example of longetivity in a diesel, father's company had 2 neither broke 600k before using as oil as fuel and needed to be torn. Whereas average service life of a Cummins, Detroit, Cat I6's is in the 800k to 1M mile range.
CAT made more than the 3208 in a V8, most of them were in Marine applications. The 3208 was built, IMO, for a very specific application/duty cycle and when used as designed they work well. I'm not sure what Detroit’s you are talking about getting 800k+ out of but the 53,71,92,50 series engines mostly don't get anywhere near that mileage! I think you must be talking about the 60 as it’s the only thing Detroit made that would get that much mileage, which is mostly a JD design, and not Detroit. Although there are a few things I do like about the 60, they are under powered for anything other than a over the road truck. As a side note, I see that DD claims they will have the 60 certified for 2007 EPA standards. Last year I was told by several people at DD that they were discontinuing the Series 60 because it wouldn’t pass 2007 standards. Interesting that the only DD engines left are the 50 and 60, all the other engines that DD sells look like relabeled Mercedes engines (at least the ones I’ve seen so far).
Average service life of a Cummins C model L6 isn't anywhere close to 800k. The bottom end will last that long, but you'll do 3 or 4 top ends since they used a non-roller valve train. The 150 of the ISC’s in buses here, most of them need cams, followers, rockers, bridges, etc about every 150K!
At any rate, I used the 3208 as one of several examples to make my point. Forget the 3208, how about the 3508 and 3508B? They are rated up to a maximum of 1115 HP I think. I know of several of these engines that are run very hard and have no problem. A friend has a boat with two 3508B @ 1064HP-continuous with 21K hours. They remain untouched except for regular maintenance and few minor repairs for leaks and such. Seen several in a couple of tugs that were also very high time and that company seemed pleased with them.
The 903 V8 Cummins was a good engine for the most part. The real point was to show that V8 diesels are not inherently weaker as many surmise. I hear that quite often, and it is just not true. Both in-lines and Vee’s have their good and bad points. If the package is designed well then have confidence in it.
Average service life of a Cummins C model L6 isn't anywhere close to 800k. The bottom end will last that long, but you'll do 3 or 4 top ends since they used a non-roller valve train. The 150 of the ISC’s in buses here, most of them need cams, followers, rockers, bridges, etc about every 150K!
At any rate, I used the 3208 as one of several examples to make my point. Forget the 3208, how about the 3508 and 3508B? They are rated up to a maximum of 1115 HP I think. I know of several of these engines that are run very hard and have no problem. A friend has a boat with two 3508B @ 1064HP-continuous with 21K hours. They remain untouched except for regular maintenance and few minor repairs for leaks and such. Seen several in a couple of tugs that were also very high time and that company seemed pleased with them.
The 903 V8 Cummins was a good engine for the most part. The real point was to show that V8 diesels are not inherently weaker as many surmise. I hear that quite often, and it is just not true. Both in-lines and Vee’s have their good and bad points. If the package is designed well then have confidence in it.
I have been doing some research on Diesel engines, and longevity, power, mileage. You might find some interest in seeing the test results about the 6.2, 6.5 Chev Diesel, and hill climb tests they do with Ford, Dodge and chev. Apparently, the Chev Diesel developed by Detroit was designed during the energy crisis to give great fuel economy. That was the objective. Yet these folks with an affinity for these engines have taken them to another level which makes it interesting to compare the old with the new.
The half diesel put in cars, is not the same engine as the 6.2, and 6.5. Take a look at www. dieselpage.com. Jim Bigley is a very helpful fellow.
The half diesel put in cars, is not the same engine as the 6.2, and 6.5. Take a look at www. dieselpage.com. Jim Bigley is a very helpful fellow.
My .02.I work at a fleet comprised of detroit mbe 900,cummins 5.9's,cat 3126 and c7's and dt466 and t444.The most durable medium duty I have ever seen is the 5,9 cummins.you can fix it with a brick and a scewdriver,only weakness is head gasket*as all inline engines}.T444 is very good engine as is 466.Cat has turned to complete oil leaking blowing up garbage*guess who designed fords 6.0?}Run from them.Detroits mbe 900 is very good engine,will find home in next gen dodge trucks*mercedes didnt buy freightliner/thomas and chrysler for kicks they needed trucks to put mercedes engines in america}The 350 diesel is total different animal than 6.2/6.5.Both were dogs,but so was the navistar 6.9.If you took care of them they would last,but dont expect them to go in a hurry,and 6.9 was a head gasket blower.as far as 300k hondas,not without a cam and head gasket and several belts.If you want a diesel truck,buy it now because egr is starting to appear,and if you saw the 6k$ catylytic converter on the new internationals it will scare you.Also cat is injecting diesel in their exhaust stream to heat up their converter to working temp.I am just waiting for the first explosion on that one.The engines arent going to be so simple by 010,so get your 5.9 now.Of course your mileage may vary.Happy motoring.
This is fuzzy info but a fellow I know replaces his commercial fishing boat Caterpillar every 2 or 3 years because they simply self-destruct. He claims all maint. is by the book. He will not change brands of engine, dunno why.
The ONLY time you would have to worry about the head gasket on the 5.9 Cummins is if you were pushing upwards of 60psi of boost.
Further to Babyhuey's post I will add some observations based on very limited experience. We have one MBE900 engine and we have one Cummins B, a 1999 model. The MBE900 seems to be a bulletproof engine. Very oiltight with not a hint of seepage anywhere, which brings me to the Cummins B. It is mechanically a solid engine but oiltightness is not one of its virtues. The front crank seal leaked and we replaced it. The fuel system on the 1999 model is junk with lift pumps amd injection pumps needing occasional replacement. The Cummins seems to deliver much better fuel mileage than the MBE900, the MBE being a 2004 model. Has anyone else experienced poor fuel mileage with the MBE900?
I have a hard time attributing "oiltightness" (or lack thereof) as a virtue of any engine. I believe in most cases it more attributable as a virtue of the assembly line worker on any given day. There have been runs of bad seals and things like that, but for the most part, every gasket or seal I have ever repaired held up well thereafter.
I have a 91 all-original 5.9 Dodge that does not leak a drop, and know several others with either 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd gen Dodge's that are tight as a drum. Most of the external oil I've ever seen showing up on these has been from either normal or excessive blowby deposits, often perceived by the casual observer as leaks. Just my observations.
I have a 91 all-original 5.9 Dodge that does not leak a drop, and know several others with either 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd gen Dodge's that are tight as a drum. Most of the external oil I've ever seen showing up on these has been from either normal or excessive blowby deposits, often perceived by the casual observer as leaks. Just my observations.
In the Seventies I was riding a BSA 650 twin and there was no way you could make that engine oiltight. You could use a valve cover gasket by itself or dress the gasket with gasket compound and use a torque wrench for the correct torque and the engine would still leak. Then I bought a VW bug and its valve cover was just held on by a large spring clip as opposed to the number of bolts on the BSA and the Bug cover was always oiltight. And, yes, the mating surfaces on the BSA was not rough and not warped.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
