I'm a diesel mechanic by trade so I can deal with an engine change.
A rebuild dosen't bug me that much.
A rebuild dosen't bug me that much.
Looking to buy Diesel turck what kind???
- Thread starter oil pan 4
- Start date
- Status
If your interested in a diesel van, I suggest you look at the Sprinters. Lot's of good deals on eBay. Sprinters come in three different lengths, and two different roof heights. Just one engine in all of them, a 2.7 CDI, straight 5 cylinder turbo diesel. I hear starting in 07, the engine will be an all aluminum V6, so I'd get the cast iron 5 cylinder while you still can.
I've got the 158" cargo van, but you can also get the passenger model with full windows and seats. If I went 55 on the highway, I probably could get 30 MPG. I get 27-28 now doing 68 MPH. J.D. Powers has just given the Sprinter a top rating of 5 in all categories. Sprinter owners rate the van very highly. I rate my Sprinter a 10.
Take one out for a spin. You'll be amazed at the power, handling, visability, and interior room.
I've got the 158" cargo van, but you can also get the passenger model with full windows and seats. If I went 55 on the highway, I probably could get 30 MPG. I get 27-28 now doing 68 MPH. J.D. Powers has just given the Sprinter a top rating of 5 in all categories. Sprinter owners rate the van very highly. I rate my Sprinter a 10.
Take one out for a spin. You'll be amazed at the power, handling, visability, and interior room.
One site commented that the older GM diesels resulted in the recommendation to stay out of the hills with those trucks. The last time that I looked the 5.9L Cummins and the Ford 6.0L were offered by makers in vehicles up to class 8, while GM switched to a larger 8L inline 6 above class 5.
I'm agreeing with savvy on this one! A co-worker uses this vehicle for door to door and b2b deliveries and averages 25 mpg. 21st century diesel for sure.MB makes the powertrain and your local dodge, MB, or freightliner dealer can do routine maint./repairs.when you go for a test drive be sure and ask the salesman to fill up the tank;you PLAN to be gone for a while!
We have all three a work. Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. Rarely ever see the Chevy or Dodge diesel pick ups in for anything but, routine maintenance. The Ford diesels on the other hand have been nothing but, problems. I'm not a Ford hater, just stating facts. Ford diesel also has the least amount of get up and go of all three also. Should call the Power Strokes Power Junk. Not worth the money.
The Sprinters are great, but Oil Pan is looking to spend about $10K. I woulld think one would have to rolled over 1/2 dozen times before it is worth that!
RT: The popular term for a 6.0 Ford is Power Joke :
Except I guess if you own one, in which case it is no joke!
RT: The popular term for a 6.0 Ford is Power Joke :
I noticed that some used car dealers specialize in diesel Suburban's.The clean low mileage ones command a HIGH price! Some can be found on E/bay.One dealer does certified diesel Suburban's and ships them nationwide.
cak446 is correct in the history of the 5.7L GM diesel and the later 6.2/6.5 GM diesels.
It seems that many are talking about newer vehicles, whereas the desire is "less expensive" and "reliable". GM did build some non-turbo 6.5L Suburbans, but they generally did not sell well.
The main issue of the GM 5.7L diesels was not specifically their parentage, but probably more quality control issues and "user problems". Remember, too, at that time the public considered all diesels to be "the same" -- the "light duty", "medium duty", and "heavy duty" orientations were totally unknown to the general public (who suspicioned all diesels to be "heavy duty", i.e., OTR truck "heavy duty"). There should have been a warning flag to these people when GM put a "no tow" statement on the first year's 5.7L diesel pickups (1/2 tons only, too!), but it didn't get noticed. Oil field fleets in West Texas bought them and used them as "heavy duty" . . . and were putting short blocks in them at 15K miles.
Elderly ladies also broke crankshafts on the way to church on Sunday too.
I, personally, put over 70K miles on one in my daily job back then. All it took was the "normal" pump replacement at approx 50K and oil changes and other normal maintenance items. We DID put a Racor water separater/fuel filter on it too, as a matter of course.
In that first year, the oil spec was a "CD" oil, which included (at that time) Exxon XD-3 and other OTR truck oils. In later years, the oil spec was "softened" to include normal API-spec oils that would be used, generally, in gas motors.
In that first truck, it had the Turbo400 automatic. I figured out where the governed rpm was vs. road speed in each gear and manually-shifted it every time I got onto the freeway, shifting just before it bumped the governor. As with some other Turbo400s, it would not downshift to "1" at WOT unless the vehicle speed was under 10mph, so I manually shifted it with not problems.
In highway cruising, it was neat to drive. Had a really nice note out of the dual exhaust on the highway. Much more restful to drive as there was NO way it would cut and dart in and out of traffic--you planned your moves and lane changes in advance rather than 10 seconds in advance.
In the similar highway cruising, it felt torquey with small throttle inputs, but weak if you used larger throttle inputs (as you might with a gas motor). If you throttled into it in "N", the 5.7L would rap up real quick too, which was neat.
The second 5.7L diesel I had, I put 35K miles on it. It had the Turbo350 in it and was more responsive to kickdown downshifts. It was resold to a farmer that, basically, "bought the farm" with that truck. It was reliable in the use I put it through, but it was in the shop more than any other one we had back then, after he bought it. I kind of felt sorry for him. Never did find out why he was having so many problems with it . . . possibly that he hadn't heard that they were "light duty" diesels?
The 5.7Ls were replaced with a 6.2L diesel. As stated, the 5.7L GM diesel was built from the Olds V-8s of the time, which were known to have the strongest bottom end of any GM gas motor at that time. The crankshaft was based on the strongest gas 455 musclecar engine of that time too.
Something that many people miss is that throughout the time that GM sold 5.7L diesel V-8s, they were always changing piston and combustion chamber/pre-chamber designs (even from carline to carline!), glow plugs, and control electrics, with each model year. By the later '80s when they were discontinued, those engines sounded more like a gas engine with a loud air pump than a diesel. Even then, still something of a novelty in the general marketplace (especially in the warmer parts of the country).
Where those diesels "shined" was in cold weather driveability. At "zero" degrees F, I'd let the glow plugs cycle once and try to fire the engine. It would fire and then stop (cold air "put out the fire"). Another cycle and start and it would run reliably with no problems. None of the things that a gas engine of that time did! Plus it was easier to drive on "ice" too. Very easy throttle modulation.
The 6.2L was designed by DDA, after Roger Penske bought a controlling interest. Afterall, THOSE engines were in his rental fleet trucks. Easy to fix and work on . . . using caulking gun silicone for all crankcase gaskets other than one lip seal for the oil pan and one gasket for the inj pump mount. Easy and straightforward to fix.
Early 6.2s were not "turbo rated", but they put some extra stengthening ribs on the block so they would take a "mild turbo" (6.5 lbs of boost) for several years prior to the appearance of the 6.5L TurboDiesel. I happened across a DDA/GM rep at the Dallas New Car Show one year that had a 3" binder full of satisfied owner testimonials (in the C/K chassis models). He's the one that commented on the turbo-ready upgrades.
The 6.2L diesel didn't feel as responsive to throttle input as the 5.7L diesel did. More weight "slinging around in the crankcase". It also weighed another 100 pounds MORE than the 5.7L diesel (which weighed the same as a 454 Chevy gas motor, which was 100 pounds MORE than a 350 Chevy gas motor). That added weight on the front end also added understeer to the handling mix too.
The only failures we saw on 6.2L diesels were from "hot shot" haulers that had added a turbo and had the boost cranked up past the 6.5 psi range. One kept "eating" a/c compressors for some reason. It was kind of a given that if they didn't want a Ford, they bought a Chevy/GMC and planned on a new short block every 150K miles or so.
The advantage the GM diesels had over the Ford/IH motors was another 1000 rpm of engine speed. That meant that a GM diesel could outrun the Ford on flat ground, easily, as you either geared the Ford to "pull" with the 3.7 gear or "for speed" with the 3.00 gear. You could get 2.76, 3.08, 3.40, and probably a 3.73 with the 5.7L GM diesel pickups, in comparison.
The main thing I noticed and came to understand about diesels is that you drive them to get "white pipes" and no smoke. If you "floored" it from a dead stop, it would "smother" the engine, but a 1/2 throttle punch and then WOT would get near-gas motor results. Same with highway cruising. So, driving style could play a big part on owner enjoyment.
The other main issue was the torque curve. The GM 5.7 and 6.2/6.5 diesel families had "gas motor" torque curves (starting low, building, and then falling off). By comparison, the Ford/IH motor had a "heavy duty diesel" torque curve (highest at idle and then falling off linearly with rpm). It was this high off-idle torque that endeared that motor to the haulers and such that had to, for example, back a loaded 40' trailer of horses uphill to the unloading dock at an arena, or drive out of a downhill loading dock with a load. Getting the loaded vehicle untracked is just as important as being able to pull a hill with a load--but few of these issues would concern a user that wanted diesel advantages in day-to-day commuter use, for example.
I also noticed that when a 6.2L diesel owner had a problem and was "Going to buy a Ford next time!", when I got around some Ford diesel owners, they had the same or highly similar service issues too. I found that amusing.
Other than injection pump issues or glow plug controllers, it was starters getting loose and breaking the block and/or the starter bolts. Ford or GM, didn't matter.
The problem with those earlier diesels and the modern ones too, is that it's not cost effective to drive them if you don't need them. On the GM 5.7L diesel car, it took about 100K miles to break even from increased fuel economy, just on oil change maintenance. But, remember too, this was in the same time that gas motors were being strangled with emissions controls and didn't have the torque for pulling and towing that a diesel did.
Also, if the added CAFE numbers from the 5.7L GM diesels hadn't been in the mix, GM could not have sold 454 pickups either. Chrysler/Dodge only had their 360 V-8 to counter, so they were out of that market too.
Vehicle recommendation for a light duty diesel fleet of passenger vehicles? Some of those late '80s Suburbans with the non-turbo 6.5L diesel in the C-10 range or the 6.5L Turbo with a C-20 HD (8600GVW) model. I suspect that if you can find "a good one", it'll be reasonably inexpensive and still in pretty good shape.
They might not be as new as the Ford Club Wagon diesels, but they didn't have any of the handling issues that the Fords have tended to have.
Key thing is that there's a "price of admission" to drive any diesel. Cost of the diesel option on the window sticker, larger quantities of oil at each oil change, more expensive (generally) oil filters, and they cost more when they might break. Kind of funny to see some of the new Dodge Cummins pickups traded in at (basically) the first oil change, or soon thereafter. The added up-front cost can be returned at trade-in time, but that's a long time to have $4K+ of your money tied up in a vehicle that might be "kool" to have, but more expensive to maintain over a similar gas rig (fuel economy included).
So far, the main issue with the Duramax has been fuel injectors. Check with your dealer for warranty coverages that might apply. Many changed part numbers, availability issues, and year-model-specific issues.
The Duramax was designed in partnership with Isuzu, but has Bosch injection on it.
One came into the shop that had nosed off into a lake. The water did not injest too well. Another one came in after the owner used some starting fluid to get it fired off after running it out of fuel (there is an approved restart procedure in the owner's manual). The engine was inspected for internal damage as it suddenly went to max rpm and scared the owner (and his buddies) as they couldn't get it to shut down. I suspect their eyes got real big and they were looking for a place to run. No damage was found and Tech Assistance advised how high they had had the rpm (during development) in such instances . . . with no problems or failures later on. As great as the Cummins might be, or the Ford/IH PSD might be (even with its new transmission), but the Duramax put GM back into the light/medium duty diesel business. As with many engines, the basic design is great, it's the "dress" items that cause the problems.
In the Duramax's case, "dress" would mean injectors, a/c systems, and a few other things. It's really been a pretty good engine.
One other item . . . a 5 lbs/ft torque advantage might result in advertising bragging rights ("Most Torque in its class!"), but it's not going to amount to a hill of pebbles in the real world of use, by observation.
Sorry for the length,
CBODY67
It seems that many are talking about newer vehicles, whereas the desire is "less expensive" and "reliable". GM did build some non-turbo 6.5L Suburbans, but they generally did not sell well.
The main issue of the GM 5.7L diesels was not specifically their parentage, but probably more quality control issues and "user problems". Remember, too, at that time the public considered all diesels to be "the same" -- the "light duty", "medium duty", and "heavy duty" orientations were totally unknown to the general public (who suspicioned all diesels to be "heavy duty", i.e., OTR truck "heavy duty"). There should have been a warning flag to these people when GM put a "no tow" statement on the first year's 5.7L diesel pickups (1/2 tons only, too!), but it didn't get noticed. Oil field fleets in West Texas bought them and used them as "heavy duty" . . . and were putting short blocks in them at 15K miles.
Elderly ladies also broke crankshafts on the way to church on Sunday too.
I, personally, put over 70K miles on one in my daily job back then. All it took was the "normal" pump replacement at approx 50K and oil changes and other normal maintenance items. We DID put a Racor water separater/fuel filter on it too, as a matter of course.
In that first year, the oil spec was a "CD" oil, which included (at that time) Exxon XD-3 and other OTR truck oils. In later years, the oil spec was "softened" to include normal API-spec oils that would be used, generally, in gas motors.
In that first truck, it had the Turbo400 automatic. I figured out where the governed rpm was vs. road speed in each gear and manually-shifted it every time I got onto the freeway, shifting just before it bumped the governor. As with some other Turbo400s, it would not downshift to "1" at WOT unless the vehicle speed was under 10mph, so I manually shifted it with not problems.
In highway cruising, it was neat to drive. Had a really nice note out of the dual exhaust on the highway. Much more restful to drive as there was NO way it would cut and dart in and out of traffic--you planned your moves and lane changes in advance rather than 10 seconds in advance.
In the similar highway cruising, it felt torquey with small throttle inputs, but weak if you used larger throttle inputs (as you might with a gas motor). If you throttled into it in "N", the 5.7L would rap up real quick too, which was neat.
The second 5.7L diesel I had, I put 35K miles on it. It had the Turbo350 in it and was more responsive to kickdown downshifts. It was resold to a farmer that, basically, "bought the farm" with that truck. It was reliable in the use I put it through, but it was in the shop more than any other one we had back then, after he bought it. I kind of felt sorry for him. Never did find out why he was having so many problems with it . . . possibly that he hadn't heard that they were "light duty" diesels?
The 5.7Ls were replaced with a 6.2L diesel. As stated, the 5.7L GM diesel was built from the Olds V-8s of the time, which were known to have the strongest bottom end of any GM gas motor at that time. The crankshaft was based on the strongest gas 455 musclecar engine of that time too.
Something that many people miss is that throughout the time that GM sold 5.7L diesel V-8s, they were always changing piston and combustion chamber/pre-chamber designs (even from carline to carline!), glow plugs, and control electrics, with each model year. By the later '80s when they were discontinued, those engines sounded more like a gas engine with a loud air pump than a diesel. Even then, still something of a novelty in the general marketplace (especially in the warmer parts of the country).
Where those diesels "shined" was in cold weather driveability. At "zero" degrees F, I'd let the glow plugs cycle once and try to fire the engine. It would fire and then stop (cold air "put out the fire"). Another cycle and start and it would run reliably with no problems. None of the things that a gas engine of that time did! Plus it was easier to drive on "ice" too. Very easy throttle modulation.
The 6.2L was designed by DDA, after Roger Penske bought a controlling interest. Afterall, THOSE engines were in his rental fleet trucks. Easy to fix and work on . . . using caulking gun silicone for all crankcase gaskets other than one lip seal for the oil pan and one gasket for the inj pump mount. Easy and straightforward to fix.
Early 6.2s were not "turbo rated", but they put some extra stengthening ribs on the block so they would take a "mild turbo" (6.5 lbs of boost) for several years prior to the appearance of the 6.5L TurboDiesel. I happened across a DDA/GM rep at the Dallas New Car Show one year that had a 3" binder full of satisfied owner testimonials (in the C/K chassis models). He's the one that commented on the turbo-ready upgrades.
The 6.2L diesel didn't feel as responsive to throttle input as the 5.7L diesel did. More weight "slinging around in the crankcase". It also weighed another 100 pounds MORE than the 5.7L diesel (which weighed the same as a 454 Chevy gas motor, which was 100 pounds MORE than a 350 Chevy gas motor). That added weight on the front end also added understeer to the handling mix too.
The only failures we saw on 6.2L diesels were from "hot shot" haulers that had added a turbo and had the boost cranked up past the 6.5 psi range. One kept "eating" a/c compressors for some reason. It was kind of a given that if they didn't want a Ford, they bought a Chevy/GMC and planned on a new short block every 150K miles or so.
The advantage the GM diesels had over the Ford/IH motors was another 1000 rpm of engine speed. That meant that a GM diesel could outrun the Ford on flat ground, easily, as you either geared the Ford to "pull" with the 3.7 gear or "for speed" with the 3.00 gear. You could get 2.76, 3.08, 3.40, and probably a 3.73 with the 5.7L GM diesel pickups, in comparison.
The main thing I noticed and came to understand about diesels is that you drive them to get "white pipes" and no smoke. If you "floored" it from a dead stop, it would "smother" the engine, but a 1/2 throttle punch and then WOT would get near-gas motor results. Same with highway cruising. So, driving style could play a big part on owner enjoyment.
The other main issue was the torque curve. The GM 5.7 and 6.2/6.5 diesel families had "gas motor" torque curves (starting low, building, and then falling off). By comparison, the Ford/IH motor had a "heavy duty diesel" torque curve (highest at idle and then falling off linearly with rpm). It was this high off-idle torque that endeared that motor to the haulers and such that had to, for example, back a loaded 40' trailer of horses uphill to the unloading dock at an arena, or drive out of a downhill loading dock with a load. Getting the loaded vehicle untracked is just as important as being able to pull a hill with a load--but few of these issues would concern a user that wanted diesel advantages in day-to-day commuter use, for example.
I also noticed that when a 6.2L diesel owner had a problem and was "Going to buy a Ford next time!", when I got around some Ford diesel owners, they had the same or highly similar service issues too. I found that amusing.
Other than injection pump issues or glow plug controllers, it was starters getting loose and breaking the block and/or the starter bolts. Ford or GM, didn't matter.
The problem with those earlier diesels and the modern ones too, is that it's not cost effective to drive them if you don't need them. On the GM 5.7L diesel car, it took about 100K miles to break even from increased fuel economy, just on oil change maintenance. But, remember too, this was in the same time that gas motors were being strangled with emissions controls and didn't have the torque for pulling and towing that a diesel did.
Also, if the added CAFE numbers from the 5.7L GM diesels hadn't been in the mix, GM could not have sold 454 pickups either. Chrysler/Dodge only had their 360 V-8 to counter, so they were out of that market too.
Vehicle recommendation for a light duty diesel fleet of passenger vehicles? Some of those late '80s Suburbans with the non-turbo 6.5L diesel in the C-10 range or the 6.5L Turbo with a C-20 HD (8600GVW) model. I suspect that if you can find "a good one", it'll be reasonably inexpensive and still in pretty good shape.
They might not be as new as the Ford Club Wagon diesels, but they didn't have any of the handling issues that the Fords have tended to have.
Key thing is that there's a "price of admission" to drive any diesel. Cost of the diesel option on the window sticker, larger quantities of oil at each oil change, more expensive (generally) oil filters, and they cost more when they might break. Kind of funny to see some of the new Dodge Cummins pickups traded in at (basically) the first oil change, or soon thereafter. The added up-front cost can be returned at trade-in time, but that's a long time to have $4K+ of your money tied up in a vehicle that might be "kool" to have, but more expensive to maintain over a similar gas rig (fuel economy included).
So far, the main issue with the Duramax has been fuel injectors. Check with your dealer for warranty coverages that might apply. Many changed part numbers, availability issues, and year-model-specific issues.
The Duramax was designed in partnership with Isuzu, but has Bosch injection on it.
One came into the shop that had nosed off into a lake. The water did not injest too well. Another one came in after the owner used some starting fluid to get it fired off after running it out of fuel (there is an approved restart procedure in the owner's manual). The engine was inspected for internal damage as it suddenly went to max rpm and scared the owner (and his buddies) as they couldn't get it to shut down. I suspect their eyes got real big and they were looking for a place to run. No damage was found and Tech Assistance advised how high they had had the rpm (during development) in such instances . . . with no problems or failures later on. As great as the Cummins might be, or the Ford/IH PSD might be (even with its new transmission), but the Duramax put GM back into the light/medium duty diesel business. As with many engines, the basic design is great, it's the "dress" items that cause the problems.
In the Duramax's case, "dress" would mean injectors, a/c systems, and a few other things. It's really been a pretty good engine.
One other item . . . a 5 lbs/ft torque advantage might result in advertising bragging rights ("Most Torque in its class!"), but it's not going to amount to a hill of pebbles in the real world of use, by observation.
Sorry for the length,
CBODY67
CBODY67,
Thanks for your insights into GM's Diesels. We had a new 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, with the 5.7 Diesel Engine, Triple Black, not counting the Diesel Smoke.
It brought back good memories of the car, but was way underpowered with full load, 4 people and luggage, and the A/C operating. It returned a true 30mpg! It was reliable and I used Valvoline All-Fleet 30wt. monograde only. That's what Cadillac said to use. The AC-Delco oil filters, PH53, were the smallest I had ever seen on a car engine. I changed the oil every 3mos. 3000 miles.
The other engine choices for Cadillac, that year were a 252-4V V6, V8-6-4 V8 about 368 cid and the 350 cid Diesel. Chose the Diesel, wasn't much of a choice was it? This engine needed to be further developed and turbocharged. If they had, GM would still be building them.
I still have a C-body, my 1976 Buick Electra 225 LTD Coupe with a 455-V8, My mother's car bought new here in Ann Arbor, MI.
Thanks for your insights into GM's Diesels. We had a new 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, with the 5.7 Diesel Engine, Triple Black, not counting the Diesel Smoke.
It brought back good memories of the car, but was way underpowered with full load, 4 people and luggage, and the A/C operating. It returned a true 30mpg! It was reliable and I used Valvoline All-Fleet 30wt. monograde only. That's what Cadillac said to use. The AC-Delco oil filters, PH53, were the smallest I had ever seen on a car engine. I changed the oil every 3mos. 3000 miles.
The other engine choices for Cadillac, that year were a 252-4V V6, V8-6-4 V8 about 368 cid and the 350 cid Diesel. Chose the Diesel, wasn't much of a choice was it? This engine needed to be further developed and turbocharged. If they had, GM would still be building them.
I still have a C-body, my 1976 Buick Electra 225 LTD Coupe with a 455-V8, My mother's car bought new here in Ann Arbor, MI.
Great post, CBODY67! Really enjoyed reading it. You obviously know a lot about light duty diesels, so let me ask you a question. At work we are considering buying a new 2006 Chev Kodiak truck for pick up and delivery service and it comes with the 6.6l Duramax.The Cummins is a good engine, is the Duramax as good and reliable?
If you check the Chevy forums, a lot of people are not happy with the Dmax in the medium duty trucks. Fuel economy is a big issue, but they also have their problems apparently. One fellow ran his 307K in a pickup, but the repair bills to get it there were staggering.
Starting with Ford's F550 you can get a Cummins as an option. I'm sure it will be more than the GM to purchase, but be much more reliable and less expensive to run in the long term. Dodge/Cummins forums mention 500K ~ 600K easy, a million is not unheard of. At those miles just about everything else is falling apart, but the engine just keeps humming. Good luck with your decision!
Ruby,
Our Power Strokes at work are the 7.3 ones. Ours are used very hard. Thats the difference I'm seeing in folks when it comes to the Power Strokes. Individual owners not seeing many problems but, then you have the others - Work Use. Ours idle alot, pull heavy trailer loads and bed loads. I'm not talking Bass boats or lawn tractors with trailers but, things like Bobcats, Steel I-beams, Huge rocks, Steel Plates etc...
Cummins have been by far our best ones. Best get up and go of all the trucks. The others sound like they are straining to haul loads but, the Cummins just acts like nothing is barely there.
Our Power Strokes at work are the 7.3 ones. Ours are used very hard. Thats the difference I'm seeing in folks when it comes to the Power Strokes. Individual owners not seeing many problems but, then you have the others - Work Use. Ours idle alot, pull heavy trailer loads and bed loads. I'm not talking Bass boats or lawn tractors with trailers but, things like Bobcats, Steel I-beams, Huge rocks, Steel Plates etc...
Cummins have been by far our best ones. Best get up and go of all the trucks. The others sound like they are straining to haul loads but, the Cummins just acts like nothing is barely there.
Why in the heck doesn't Ford and GM just copy the Cummins design and be done with it?
And admit Dodge/Cummins has been right all along?
International has a much better design than the 6.0/7.3 V-8 that's on par with the Cummins, it's called the DT 466. Why Ford didn't use it I dunno
I'll paraphrase a thread on another forum. They were takling diesels, but somewhat applies to gas. Generally the best engine design for durability is inline. Most OTR 18 wheelers use inline engines. Ford's 300-6 truck engine and Chryslers Slant Six are two gas examples that come to mind. Maybe not the cheapest or most compact or have the most performance potential, but most durable if designed properly.
The difference has to do with bearing load and ability to size components. If you ever saw a picture of a Cummins, Powerstroke and Duramax piston/rod assembly side by side, you would be amazed at how much beefier the Cummins component is than the other two. Rod bearings share a crankshaft journal in a V engine, have their own individual journal on an inline. A V-8 has five main bearings to distribute the crankshaft load, an inline 6 has seven and an inline 8 has nine. I'm not an engineer, but you should get a basic idea why the Cummins and International DT-466 designs are superior to Powerstroke and Duramax.
Ask and Ye Shall Receive....
Thanks T L, I knew that picture was around somewhere.
I have also seen a picture with the DMax rod, which is closer in size to the PowerStroke than the old 6.2 in your picture. Still obviously, nowhere near a Cummins in pure beef.
Could it be that the cummins is 1/3 bigger because its a 6,that is to say more power per hole?Engineers dont make anything that much bulker with out good reason.This illustrates the down side of in line vs V engines,packaging and extra weight.Dont flame me cummins fans but it did start life a stationary power plant I think
No- I was thinking of the 6.0 vs 5.9 and power output of both around 300+, less holes- same hp/trq.Possible material differances in the rods(CGI vs casting?)
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
