Most Reliable Engine

[hattaresguy]

Anything GM is pretty good lately, if you don't care about power and want 2wd get the 4.3.

Some of the people with 5.3's complain about a bit of oil consumption, but it doesn't seem to hurt them, or be that wide spread. I have only read about it online, and I know a ton of people running 5.3's around with no issues.

If its a Ford you want I'd stick to the base V6, puts out a lot of power for what it is.

 

[morris]

i was going to say slant six, but you limited me to a new engine. however my newer dodge V-6 seams to be a good engine.

 

[ls1mike]

I have a 6.0 GM truck and get about 15 to 16 mpg unloaded on the highway. I get about 13 in city. 4.10 gears 4 door long bed.
I put maybe 3000 miles on it a year. Use it to my 32 foot travel trailer.

Pretty much anything from the Big 3 and Toyota will fit the bill. I guess the Nissan would be fine too. Just as far as 1/2 tons go, RV boards don't really sign the praises of the Titan, but it you are not towing heavy who cares.

 

[SteveSRT8]

In a larger GM truck there is no appreciable difference between the 4.8, 5.3, or 6.0/6.2 as far as gas mileage goes. The smaller engine works so hard to haul the load that it suffers accordingly.

I wouldn't hesitate to go for a Newer Ram, as the 5.7 will surprise you with really good economy if you keep your foot out of those 390 horses!

 

[cptbarkey]

for reliablity, i'd also have to thrown in the GM 6.0, i've seen quite a few examples on craigslist in excess of 300k miles. My dad has a 1999 which has 118k miles and is very strong and has been very reliable.

I still think you should buy a sedan though, or take the avalon from the wife and get her something new.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I have a 6.0 GM truck and get about 15 to 16 mpg unloaded on the highway. I get about 13 in city. 4.10 gears 4 door long bed.
Does the 6.0 only come with a 4.10? My buddy had one 2500HD crew cab short bed and it DRANK fuel. 10MPG city.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Ford's powertranes are certainly newer than GMs.

I haven't been in a pickup manufactured this decade, but I've been in a few 08-09 GMs and Fords and the quality of Ford's interiors just seems much nicer.

Other than that, ford and GM both build solid trucks IMO. If it was a 3/4 ton pickup, I'd have to pick the Ford for the real truck front suspension.

GM can get better mileage without having to put a turbocharged v6 in it.


Originally Posted By: Alamogunr

Even though I said that I was prejudiced against Dodge, I might have to change my mind. They seem to be relatively cheap around here. I'm still not convinced that they are more reliable(my main concern).


The dodge trucks are cheap for a reason - Chrysler still can't build a reliable vehicle.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Two kinds of baloney served there^^^

There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of the GM trucks front suspensions. Prove your comment please. My work vans have FORGED lower control arms that are the strongest part you've never seen!

No one would deny Ford their beautiful interior, but their trucks have around 500 pounds more road hugging weight than a comparable GM product which costs you money every mile.

And your comment about Chrysler is more baloney. Prove it or be relegated to the dust bin. This is 2012 by the way.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
I have a 6.0 GM truck and get about 15 to 16 mpg unloaded on the highway. I get about 13 in city. 4.10 gears 4 door long bed.
Does the 6.0 only come with a 4.10? My buddy had one 2500HD crew cab short bed and it DRANK fuel. 10MPG city.


3.73 is the normal gear. But the trans OD is huge on a 4L80E.

Must have had something wrong with it. I have an 04 3500 Savana with a 6.0 with 400k miles on it and it'll get 16 in the city at 9200 pounds. Note that is not typical of all our fleet trucks, but they all bust the mid teens with a nice driver.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Chris Meutsch
Tundra appears to be very reliable if you're up for foreign makes.


Not being anti-foreign (the Tundra is built 80 miles from my house, after all) but frankly I don't think its in Ford/Ram/Chevy territory in reliability yet, a least not for trucks a few years old.

Of course as the OP has pointed out, that doesn't stop the Toyota name on the tailgate from jacking up the price of used ones... which were probably sold because they had minor problems! If the question were about buying *new* 2012 trucks, then I'd probably put the Tundra on the list. But used? No way.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

And your comment about Chrysler is more baloney. Prove it or be relegated to the dust bin. This is 2012 by the way.



Even if it were 2005, it would still be (mostly) baloney. During the Daimler years, the Jeep/Truck engineering part of Chrysler was mercifully spared a lot of the bull that went on in the car engineering departments. There were some *bad* car components in that era. There were a few glitches with trucks (early Gen II Ram heater cores, for example), but not nearly as many as with the cars. The whole "Chrysler transmissions suck" broad-brush nonsense came from problems with front-drive transmissions, after all.

By 2011 (if not earlier), you couldn't slide a human hair through any sort of quality gap between Ram, Ford, and GM. My Ram's an 08, and the ony If anything, I'd be a little more concerned with Ford right now since so many of their engines are either outright new or heavily updated in recent years. Not saying that they ARE less reliable, just not proven yet.

 

[Alamogunr]

I've bookmarked this thread. Experience is a much better recommendation than a salesman's spiel any day.

About the only thing I'm ignoring is the recommendation to buy a car.

John
W.TN

 

[Spazdog]

The T-100 came in today.

267871 mi. Still looks good inside and out.

Not 300,000 yet but little doubt that it can.

 

[CBR.worm]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Chris Meutsch
Tundra appears to be very reliable if you're up for foreign makes.


Not being anti-foreign (the Tundra is built 80 miles from my house, after all) but frankly I don't think its in Ford/Ram/Chevy territory in reliability yet, a least not for trucks a few years old.

Of course as the OP has pointed out, that doesn't stop the Toyota name on the tailgate from jacking up the price of used ones... which were probably sold because they had minor problems! If the question were about buying *new* 2012 trucks, then I'd probably put the Tundra on the list. But used? No way.



This really surprises me. My two most reliable trucks ever were Tundra's. My first one was sold w/ 220K on it and in perfect condition. No visible wear, minimal repairs (a MAF, fan clutch and rear end LSD clutch pack), and frequently towed a trailer of equal weight. It was lifted and ran 12.5x33 AT tires. My previous late 90's ford F250 was also reliable but needed a LOT more work before I sold it with 180K, including A/C work, a transmission rebuild and electrical issues. I didn't consider it bad for the life it had, but the Tundra was in a whole different league reliability wise.

One thing I was certain of was that the V8 tundra could be driven with the gas pedal to the floor hour after hour with no concern.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Alamogunr

It serves as a second vehicle. Occasionally, we need to take things to our sons who live about 3 hours away. I haul leaves, trash, deliver meals for our senior citizens center(similar to Meals on Wheels). My F150 is not an extended cab and my wife hates to use it to go anywhere. We had our bags rained on once.


You seem to indicate that you are happy with what you have. There are solutions to keeping what you keep in your bed dry from the elements. I have a tonneau cover on mine and wouldn't own a truck without one. If you don't like the tonneau idea there are lots of lockable bed toolboxes out there (may get a great deal on one second hand). Thirdly, if you want to be cheap you can put your cargo in large plastic rubbermaid containers, I have a roll style tonneau and still use 2 large containers when going long distance, it makes the truck easier to load higher volume of smaller items.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
GM can get better mileage without having to put a turbocharged v6 in it.


Have seen the EPA figures for the Ford 5.0 and GM 5.3?
Equal. Unless you want to get a XFE Model for a extra 1 MPG Highway. You could get a Hybrid GM Truck to match Fords 3.7 V6 Highway economy. But the Hybrid would really take some names with 20MPG city.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
for reliablity, i'd also have to thrown in the GM 6.0, i've seen quite a few examples on craigslist in excess of 300k miles. My dad has a 1999 which has 118k miles and is very strong and has been very reliable.

I still think you should buy a sedan though, or take the avalon from the wife and get her something new.


I got the 6.0 in lt '06 GTO.

UOA came out fantastic.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^it routinely does on ours as well. The engine design of the 4.8/5.3/6.0/6.2 is very easy on oil and also does not care what kind!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: jfrog
Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.


The EcoBoost is more of a competitor vs the 6.2 than the 5.0. It flat outpowers and produces more torque than the 5.0 for about the same fuel economy.
If you are talking in terms of reliability?

Can't really say yet, but the safe money is probably on the 5.0 over the twin turbo V6

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Two kinds of baloney served there^^^

There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of the GM trucks front suspensions. Prove your comment please. My work vans have FORGED lower control arms that are the strongest part you've never seen!

No one would deny Ford their beautiful interior, but their trucks have around 500 pounds more road hugging weight than a comparable GM product which costs you money every mile.

And your comment about Chrysler is more baloney. Prove it or be relegated to the dust bin. This is 2012 by the way.


Maybe it's a northeast thing and the bushings in the front suspensions dry rot or something, but there's a lot of IFS trucks with some serious camber issues.


Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

And your comment about Chrysler is more baloney. Prove it or be relegated to the dust bin. This is 2012 by the way.



Even if it were 2005, it would still be (mostly) baloney. During the Daimler years, the Jeep/Truck engineering part of Chrysler was mercifully spared a lot of the bull that went on in the car engineering departments. There were some *bad* car components in that era. There were a few glitches with trucks (early Gen II Ram heater cores, for example), but not nearly as many as with the cars. The whole "Chrysler transmissions suck" broad-brush nonsense came from problems with front-drive transmissions, after all.

By 2011 (if not earlier), you couldn't slide a human hair through any sort of quality gap between Ram, Ford, and GM. My Ram's an 08, and the ony If anything, I'd be a little more concerned with Ford right now since so many of their engines are either outright new or heavily updated in recent years. Not saying that they ARE less reliable, just not proven yet.


You're kidding right? The quality of Jeep specifically continues to decline. For almost 20 years, the grand cherokees and wranglers were made with defective-from-the-factory transmissions. Then they put in the anemic, bearing spinning 3.8 now they have the penta-junk that knocks from the factory! Go Chrysler!

I don't see many Dodge trucks being worked hard that are 10+ years old. I still see many Ford and GM trucks on the road.

I know quite a few people who are having problems with modern Chrysler vehicles (as in the last 4 years) along with a few who have had transmission failure at
It's kind of sad, Chrysler made some nice products before Benz took over and really messed up.