Work truck advice/recommendations

[jimmy87]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'd avoid the Ford 6.0 at all costs, and cast a very wary eye on the 6.4 PSD's. So for your budget that pretty much rules out Ford diesels because a newer Scorpion-powered diesel will break the bank. In fact, to afford *any* diesel (especially a Ram/Cummins or a GM/Duramax which old value better than the 6.0 and 6.4 Fords for very good reason) you'll have to get a pretty old truck. Diesels other than the Ford 6.0 hold their value far, far better than gasoline trucks. To me the jury is still out on who has worked around the whole DPF/EGR/Urea emissions control situation best, but I think on the limited knowledge I have (and relative like of complaints on the interweb) that maybe the Dmax is in the lead by a hair.



For your budget I'd look at gasoline, and take your pick based on the best deal you can get. When it comes to gasoline power, you could cover the differences in reliability between Dodge, GM, and Ford with one of those little round band-aids, they're all so close. Ford 4.6 (now 5.0), GM 5.3, and Dodge 4.7 are all superb entry-sized v8s. The 5.3 is actually one step up from GM's entry v8, but the entry is a tiny 4.5 that honestly competes more with the other guys' v6 engines. The up-size engines are all very solid too, though for work trucks that get beat on I'd probably avoid a Ford Ecoboost as just too experimental still. I'd probably give a slight nod to Ford in the chassis department, at least up until 2011. Then it might have to go to Dodge in the 1/2 ton size for the nice new rear suspension the brought out- I was skeptical, but they do ride far better and haven't lost a step in load carrying.


Gmc's "entry" v8 is a 4.8/293 not a 4.5, get it right!

 

[cptbarkey]

the cummings 6.7L DPF system is terrible, avoid it unless its deleted. once deleted the engine is rock solid, i briefly owned a 2008 6.7L former tow truck with 198K on it and w/ the exhaust delete and it ran incredibly well.

 

[07Wolfie]

Man, I love those Quigley vans, but they're rarer than hen's teeth!

I sure appreciate the advice and suggestions, guys, thank you.

 

[hattaresguy]

Why buy used? I don't think you can write it off.

Go to a Chevy, Ford, and Dodge, dealer and bid them off against each other for base 1 ton trucks like every other company does.

 

[SteveSRT8]

We run a fleet of vans. First I would suggest buying new as you can depreciate the entire cost. No reason not to!

Second, if you are looking at one ton chassis you must work the Internet. Sometimes authorized upfitters have excessive stock and you can get a deal. But one ton vans are rare and as such you won't usually find them discounted much.

FWIW, we use GMC. Work well for us, we have one with 400k miles working daily! All 3500 extended Savanas with 6.0 gas motors.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Our local police department patrols with 1 ton GMC vans with ladders on the roof.

Luckily, I found out when it pulled someone else over. Phew.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Remember when you could get a 3/4 or 1 ton with a 6 cylinder?

Chevy/GMC with a 292 or later a 4.3, Ford with a 300, or Dodge with a 225 slant six.



Heck, the slant-6 came in dump trucks that would have nothing less than an ISB these days. And in WWII, GMC built the 2-ton DUKW amphibious truck with a 94 HP 269 straight six. Keeping up with traffic is a valid reason for more power than trucks had when the roads were less crowded.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
the cummings 6.7L DPF system is terrible, avoid it unless its deleted. once deleted the engine is rock solid, i briefly owned a 2008 6.7L former tow truck with 198K on it and w/ the exhaust delete and it ran incredibly well.


Cummings? He was a poet. (sorry, seeing a "g" in Cummins bugs me as much as seeing a "t" in the middle of Dexron). ;-)

Kidding about spelling aside, I have a question. Isn't the bigger issue with the Cummins the EGR system? The DPF is a pain, but its almost always deleted with the EGR at the same time and my understanding has always been that the reliability improves more with the EGR delete. Certainly soot in the oil goes way down. DPF regeneration burns a ton of fuel, true, but I don't think the Cummins fills its crankcase with diesel during regen like the 6.0 Ford/Navistar did.

 

[roadrunner1]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
the cummings 6.7L DPF system is terrible, avoid it unless its deleted. once deleted the engine is rock solid, i briefly owned a 2008 6.7L former tow truck with 198K on it and w/ the exhaust delete and it ran incredibly well.


Cummings? He was a poet. (sorry, seeing a "g" in Cummins bugs me as much as seeing a "t" in the middle of Dexron). ;-)

Kidding about spelling aside, I have a question. Isn't the bigger issue with the Cummins the EGR system? The DPF is a pain, but its almost always deleted with the EGR at the same time and my understanding has always been that the reliability improves more with the EGR delete. Certainly soot in the oil goes way down. DPF regeneration burns a ton of fuel, true, but I don't think the Cummins fills its crankcase with diesel during regen like the 6.0 Ford/Navistar did.



the 6.0 doesn't regen, only an egr system with a cat. Everyone I know with the Cummins 6.7 has had severe fuel dilution and DPF issues. I'm sure with the emissions system deleted it is a fine engine, but in violation of EPA regulations.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1


the 6.0 doesn't regen, only an egr system with a cat. Everyone I know with the Cummins 6.7 has had severe fuel dilution and DPF issues. I'm sure with the emissions system deleted it is a fine engine, but in violation of EPA regulations.


Are you SURE about the 6.0? I thought that for at least a few model years it was like the 6.4 and pulsed the injectors during the exhaust stroke to regenerate the DPF, which resulted in lots of fuel washing down the cylinder walls and diluting the oil. The real fix is a downstream (exhaust pipe) fuel injector like the Ford Scorpion uses. Still kills economy, but at least it doesn't dilute the fuel. And as awful as EGR is, I think I prefer it to urea injection. At least it doesn't require another fluid tank to fill.

Like I said earlier, the Duramax seems to have the best handle on emissions right now. I just don't read as many complaints about it as I do the Cummins and especially the 6.0/6.4 Navistars. The new Ford may be up there with the Dmax... time will tell, and I'm sure Cummins will get theirs reliable also. The biggest problem with the Cummins is that the average Ram driver rarely really works it hard enough. If its loaded a lot, like the same ISB engine say in a dump truck, fire truck, etc., the DPF heats up enough to stay clean without (or with fewer) active regen cycles. Ram drivers who never un-hitch their cattle and equipment trailers don't have the same problems as the guy who commutes to work unloaded in it every day and then tows a rig every few months.

 

[afoulk]

The 6.0's never had a dpf behind them in the pickups, hence the reason they don't regen. This only started with the 6.4's. I still think urea injection is the way to go to meet the lower nox requirements. It takes massive amounts of egr to meet the new nox requirements. Cummins originally tried using "massive" egr on their big rig engines, but the amount of egr they were trying to cool down with the egr cooler was super heating the coolant and blowing head gaskets and egr coolers. Even they have gone to urea injection on their bigger engines. By using the urea injection and a scr catalyst, the manufacturers are actually able to reduce the amount of egr needed to the amounts they were using before the 2004 emissions requirements, atleast in some engines. I think its the way to go until they come up with a different technology. Now that the government requires them to run a closed crank case breathing system, it makes a horrible mess inside the intake manifold and charge air coolers when the vapors mix with the egr gas, looks a lot like what you see in some direct injected gas engines.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1


the 6.0 doesn't regen, only an egr system with a cat. Everyone I know with the Cummins 6.7 has had severe fuel dilution and DPF issues. I'm sure with the emissions system deleted it is a fine engine, but in violation of EPA regulations.


Are you SURE about the 6.0? I thought that for at least a few model years it was like the 6.4 and pulsed the injectors during the exhaust stroke to regenerate the DPF, which resulted in lots of fuel washing down the cylinder walls and diluting the oil. The real fix is a downstream (exhaust pipe) fuel injector like the Ford Scorpion uses. Still kills economy, but at least it doesn't dilute the fuel. And as awful as EGR is, I think I prefer it to urea injection. At least it doesn't require another fluid tank to fill.

Like I said earlier, the Duramax seems to have the best handle on emissions right now. I just don't read as many complaints about it as I do the Cummins and especially the 6.0/6.4 Navistars. The new Ford may be up there with the Dmax... time will tell, and I'm sure Cummins will get theirs reliable also. The biggest problem with the Cummins is that the average Ram driver rarely really works it hard enough. If its loaded a lot, like the same ISB engine say in a dump truck, fire truck, etc., the DPF heats up enough to stay clean without (or with fewer) active regen cycles. Ram drivers who never un-hitch their cattle and equipment trailers don't have the same problems as the guy who commutes to work unloaded in it every day and then tows a rig every few months.


What are you going to do as Ram and Cummins are going the urea route?

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: dave1251


What are you going to do as Ram and Cummins are going the urea route?


Hope for a better technology in a few years. Urea may indeed be the way to go, but... sheesh. People used to buy diesels because they were simple, reliable, had tons of torque, burned fuel cheaper than gasoline, and got better mileage than gasoline. ALL of that is gone thanks to the emission regulations. Except the torque... power and tq ratings have never been better. But they're not simple, not as reliable as they used to be, get terrible mileage, and the fuel is on a par or MORE expensive than premium gasoline. [censored], I mean seriously, [censored]?!?!?

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: dave1251


What are you going to do as Ram and Cummins are going the urea route?


Hope for a better technology in a few years. Urea may indeed be the way to go, but... sheesh. People used to buy diesels because they were simple, reliable, had tons of torque, burned fuel cheaper than gasoline, and got better mileage than gasoline. ALL of that is gone thanks to the emission regulations. Except the torque... power and tq ratings have never been better. But they're not simple, not as reliable as they used to be, get terrible mileage, and the fuel is on a par or MORE expensive than premium gasoline. [censored], I mean seriously, [censored]?!?!?



Don't forget the initial cost is much greater for a diesel.