Pros/Cons Chevy vs. Ford 1 Ton Diesel 4x4

blofgren wrote:
Well one thing is for sure; replacing the head gasket on the Cummins would be a breeze compared to the Powerstroke. My 2003 had the cab removed and Ford paid 24 hours of labor for the job!

As I have said they will all three get you to 100K under warranty. With the exception of Ford denying some CP4 claims. It's the cost of ownership that should help those buying for the long haul to consider all these issues.

FishOnOne wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:

blofgren wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Emissions issues and CP4 are the downfall on both Ford and GM trucks. The GM front end is going to be lower maintenance and ride much nicer than the Ford.

Lots of guys seem to be having decent luck with the 6.7 Fords after the rash of engine failures for 2011 model year.

As far as the guys who keep pushing to look at the Ram, The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

The only people who are having HG issues with the 6.7L Cummins are those who have large tunes on the truck. They are NOT notorious for that issue. Although I don't have the 68RFE trans, they have been out for almost 10 years now and have been pretty good for the most part. Some have had issues with them but there are no real common issues.

The Dodge tranny is still not up to par with the Ford 5r or the Allison. And yes, stock trucks are puking HG on 6.7 Dodges. The Siamese bore and minimal HG material between cylinders couple with the VGT/high cylinder pressure is just a bad combo. I've just done my first one, the machine shop I use says they see alot of them, and they seem to have valve guide issues as well.

I agree... the 5.9 rarely would blow a head gasket but these 6.7 cummins have issues especially when pulling a heavy load. Install a tuner and its' almost guaranteed to blow that head gasket.

I'm not aware of the valve guide issue... Is it because of the regen process?

Ask your Cousin.

blofgren wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:

blofgren wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Emissions issues and CP4 are the downfall on both Ford and GM trucks. The GM front end is going to be lower maintenance and ride much nicer than the Ford.

Lots of guys seem to be having decent luck with the 6.7 Fords after the rash of engine failures for 2011 model year.

As far as the guys who keep pushing to look at the Ram, The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

The only people who are having HG issues with the 6.7L Cummins are those who have large tunes on the truck. They are NOT notorious for that issue. Although I don't have the 68RFE trans, they have been out for almost 10 years now and have been pretty good for the most part. Some have had issues with them but there are no real common issues.

The Dodge tranny is still not up to par with the Ford 5r or the Allison. And yes, stock trucks are puking HG on 6.7 Dodges. The Siamese bore and minimal HG material between cylinders couple with the VGT/high cylinder pressure is just a bad combo. I've just done my first one, the machine shop I use says they see alot of them, and they seem to have valve guide issues as well.

Have you forgotten that the Aisin transmission is also available in the Ram? It is every bit as good as the Ford or GM offerings, if not better.

I'm not in the least bit worried about the head gasket issue....:)

Allison is at the end of it's power design. The Ford is a very good trans, the 68RFE held up quite nicely for my towing 29K combined. The Aisin is the best of the 3 for sure. True Medium Duty trans with the True Medium Duty Cummins is the best of the best.

Cummins is right now working on the 2019 6.7 for RAM, so for the doubters it lives on.

Grit dog wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
The Ford owners manual gives an indication as to the number of miles you can expect to go before adding DEF and says you can go much further between fill ups with the 3.31 gear ratios than with the 3.55. (I wonder if they don't program the 3.31 for better milage and the 3.55 more for towing because the bigger tires that come with the 3.55 almost offset the gear ratio) The DEF usage parallels fuel usage. From talking to many Ford owners it appears the 3.31 gears do, for whatever reason, provide much better fuel economy. The Platinum trim level only has the 3.55 gears available. I get about 15.5 mpg highway with my Platinum. Had I known the fuel economy was going to be this much worse than my 2011 I certainly wouldn't have bought 3.55 gears.

That's because, in general, highway gears are easier on fuel, and now the diesels have so much power (thank you, thank you mfgs for resurrecting muscle cars and trucks!) and transmissions with enough gears to make up for lower axle gearing off the line, that tjey can pull higher rear gears.
Same with half tons now. 6-8 speed trans with 10spped on the horizon and big hp allow for much higher rear gears.
The one place you don't see this yet is the HD gasser segment, since the mfgs are stretching the capabilities of gas engines to get bigger towing numbers than the half tons with the same power and no 8-10 speeds yet in the HDs.
Plus, I'm pretty sure your '15 makes more power than the '11, in the same package, same technology. So power = fuel in this case.

Yes highway gears are a little easier on fuel but 3.31 with 18" rims vs 3.55 with 20's yields only a 4% difference in engine rpm when the two trucks are driving side by side down the road yet the fuel savings is 15 - 20%.

Yes the 2016 has another 40 hp but that doesn't mean it takes 40 more horsepower to cruise down the highway at 65 mph. The 2011 and 2016 should require exactly the same power to drive down the road. They both are equipped with 3.55 gears and 20" rims yet the 2011 got about 15% better fuel economy. From what i hear the 2o16's get ,much better fuel economy if they are equipped with 3.31 gears.

Well one thing is for sure; replacing the head gasket on the Cummins would be a breeze compared to the Powerstroke. My 2003 had the cab removed and Ford paid 24 hours of labor for the job!

6.6 Oilburner wrote:

blofgren wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Emissions issues and CP4 are the downfall on both Ford and GM trucks. The GM front end is going to be lower maintenance and ride much nicer than the Ford.

Lots of guys seem to be having decent luck with the 6.7 Fords after the rash of engine failures for 2011 model year.

As far as the guys who keep pushing to look at the Ram, The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

The only people who are having HG issues with the 6.7L Cummins are those who have large tunes on the truck. They are NOT notorious for that issue. Although I don't have the 68RFE trans, they have been out for almost 10 years now and have been pretty good for the most part. Some have had issues with them but there are no real common issues.

The Dodge tranny is still not up to par with the Ford 5r or the Allison. And yes, stock trucks are puking HG on 6.7 Dodges. The Siamese bore and minimal HG material between cylinders couple with the VGT/high cylinder pressure is just a bad combo. I've just done my first one, the machine shop I use says they see alot of them, and they seem to have valve guide issues as well.

I agree... the 5.9 rarely would blow a head gasket but these 6.7 cummins have issues especially when pulling a heavy load. Install a tuner and its' almost guaranteed to blow that head gasket.

I'm not aware of the valve guide issue... Is it because of the regen process?

Me Again wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

Notorious??? I am on the TDR site all the time and have not seen this as an issue that in common or notorious! All bets are off when I person adds a programmer or tune! Chris

Exactly. Those are the only cases I have heard of as well.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

Notorious??? I am on the TDR site all the time and have not seen this as an issue that in common or notorious! All bets are off when I person adds a programmer or tune! Chris

6.6 Oilburner wrote:

blofgren wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Emissions issues and CP4 are the downfall on both Ford and GM trucks. The GM front end is going to be lower maintenance and ride much nicer than the Ford.

Lots of guys seem to be having decent luck with the 6.7 Fords after the rash of engine failures for 2011 model year.

As far as the guys who keep pushing to look at the Ram, The 6.7 Cummins are slightly notorious for HG failure and the 68RFE is nothing to write home about.

The only people who are having HG issues with the 6.7L Cummins are those who have large tunes on the truck. They are NOT notorious for that issue. Although I don't have the 68RFE trans, they have been out for almost 10 years now and have been pretty good for the most part. Some have had issues with them but there are no real common issues.

The Dodge tranny is still not up to par with the Ford 5r or the Allison. And yes, stock trucks are puking HG on 6.7 Dodges. The Siamese bore and minimal HG material between cylinders couple with the VGT/high cylinder pressure is just a bad combo. I've just done my first one, the machine shop I use says they see alot of them, and they seem to have valve guide issues as well.

Have you forgotten that the Aisin transmission is also available in the Ram? It is every bit as good as the Ford or GM offerings, if not better.

I'm not in the least bit worried about the head gasket issue....:)

Ventura Dogman wrote:
I have read complaints about the def tank location on the Chevy and it did not mean much to me. A guy at work has a 2105 GMC 2500 diesel, so today I went and looked at it. It does not seem like a very smart design for taking a truck off-road. It is not like I do any serious four-wheeling with a camper on the back, but I do take my truck places that tank could be in serious jeopardy.

This thread is providing me with a lot of very useful info, and I really appreciate the feedback.

This is certainly true,malthough not a widespread problem since 8000lb diesels aren't rock crawlers. By the same token, I thought after 5 years now soon to be 6, GM could have been more creative than they have with the def tank placement. I mean, the other 2 found a way to hide it, in the same size truck....