Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
2000 Ford Superduty with Cummins?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Happy Traveling!
Oh yeah, back to the topic. I'm pretty sure that Ford does offer a Cummins in the F-600. It's bigger than the Cummins in the Ram. I think the also offer a Cat diesel as an option and the standard PSD, which is the least powerful of the three options.
Try to get leases during incentives, that way the money factor is usually lower . Every lease I've ever had I've added many things, tires, lift kits, stereos, etc. You either swap the stuff back at the end of the lease or turn it in at a loss to you. I will admit it took almost 15 hours to pull my Rancho 4" lift kit off my F-150. With no car lift it was a bear. But the lift kit is what's paying for the Bronco's fabrication work. I did get lucky that Discount tires had 4 chrome spokers with almost new 33" tires for $160. That way I was able to keep my Weld rims and newer tires. Had to move the front bumper to get the 33's to fit without the lift. Looked into the lease on a new Super Duty today and the money factor was 12(about a 19% interest rate) so for now I'm back to buying one.
See ya
I just bought 8 new injectors and a fuel injection pump for my 1989 7.3L non-turbo engine and it only cost $800.00 for all.
I was just saying that if someone's considering resale as a reason to get a diesel (which is certainly not the primary reason for me), then it is after it has had a LOT of miles that it starts to count. HIGH miles is when the gas engine's values take a serious nose dive, and diesels retain a far greater percentage of value.
We'll see if you still think gas is best when the diesels get new transmitions that can handle their massive torque so they (Cummins, Powerstroke & Duramax) can stop detuning them and start putting out well over 500 lbs torque and over 300 HP, while still getting around 20 mpg. All in the most dependable and longest living rigs. Best powerplant? - yes. Can you afford to buy one? - maybe not. Kinda like asking what's better, a Mustang or a Lamborghini. Both sporty, but one is vastly superior - and you pay for it.
I don't know what diesel you have driven, but the '97 cummins I drive can jerk you at the line if you want to drive it that way, and it has plenty of passing power. It's not a Viper, but that's not why you are buying a heavy duty truck.
The bottom line is if you want or need a diesel, you should get one. If you don't need it, and aren't particularly sure you want one, you shouldn't get it based on financial calculations. On the other hand, if you do need it or if you really want a diesel, and you can afford the extra it will cost on the monthly payment, you shouldn't buy a gasser based on financial calculations.
Modern turbo-diesels have very responsive accelleration (more than adequate) in normal city traffic and highway passing, have the most torque, work the easiest under a load (I really value this), have the greatest range, and have the greatest longevity. I am most familiar with the Ram/Cummins, and find it plenty refined for every day driving. The noise is bad outside, but not a problem inside.
Now what I consider real pickup use is mostly normal driving (i.e. to and from work), occasional-to-frequent light towing or hauling, and rare-to-infrequent heavy hauling/towing. The diesel is slightly inferior to the gas in the first category, but superior in the second two. Since the second two categories stress the engine most, I want the best engine under those stresses. Since I think the diesel is more than competent for normal driving, I believe it is the best choice.
Now, if you really think gas is even reasonably comparable to diesels for moderate-to-heavy use, why are diesels in all new small delivery trucks, tow trucks, buses, semis, RVs, military vehicles such as the Humvee, and a high percentage of construction pickups.
Further, diesels are better for "normal" driving conditions than they get credit for in the U.S.. I think this is partially to do with the disaster of the diesel Rabbits, Oldsmobile and other GM diesels that clogged the roads in the '70s and '80s. Diesels are common and popular in light duty cars (such as Mercedes) and boats around the world. When turbo charged, they perform more than adequately. Diesels aren't in sports cars, but I don't believe that type of driving should be a primary consideration when buying a pickup. In normal pickup driving, you should be able to pass with power, get off the line at the stoplight, and get up to speed when entering the highway. I've never complained about any of these when driving the '97 Ram/Cummins.
Now, you tell me where the gas engine is better for pickup use, and why that is the primary consideration for calling it the better pickup engine.
1) Gas better than diesel for accelleration
2) Gas better than diesel for short trips (??)
3) You say that gas is nearly as good as the diesel for towing (??)
4) Gas is in most Class C RVs.
5) More costly to maintain.
6) Smelly diesels
Rebuttal
1) As I've said now, who knows how many times, the diesel has plenty of power to take off at the line and pass. Now unless you like driving like a teenager or a mid-life crisis hot-rodder, jerking your head back and not caring a lick about your passenger's or your own comfort, the diesel has the accelleration necessary for normal pickup driving. If your primary consideration for choosing a pickup is off the line accelleration, then sure, the gas does have more snap. But I've driven both gas and diesel plenty (not just test drives), and I do not feel lacking with the Cummins when passing or starting from a stop. It is a different feeling, however, and that might make you think it can't get the job done. It's kind of like the accelleration in a Porsche 911 Turbo versus an old muscle car. The 911 doesn't have the initial snap as the muscle car, but it spools up and ends up blowing the big beast away at the end of 0-60, 1/4-mile, or passing speeds. The diesel has a similar lag, but you learn how to minimize it, and can acheive pretty good snap. I'm not saying the diesel will end up blowing gas away, just saying they do get up and go. The diesel will blow by the gas towing a big load up a hill, however. To clarify things, I am relatively young and appreciate accelleration more then the common Joe, so don't think I am some old fuddy duddy that doesn't care when I get places.
*Teenage accelleration - advantage gas.
2) I've heard the short driving thing a lot, but I've posed the question a lot in these forums to what specifically goes wrong (consistently) or if anyone has actually had a diesel die at a much shorter longevity due to lots of short trip - style driving. I understand the logic behind why the short trips would be hard on diesels. But lots of diesels are used for construction work, which usually involves short trips. I've yet to hear any consistent problems related to this. I'm sure the short trips aren't as good for the engine, but that type of driving isn't good for gas engines' longevity either. This was partly my point for bringing up diesel cars in my last post. I've not heard any problems related to short-range driving of diesel cars. I've heard that the diesel Mercedes commonly last over 500K miles.
*Longevity and dependability - advantage diesel.
3) Although some of the gas engines are rated as high or nearly as high for towing, it does not mean that they are as good at it. The diesels work much less hard at those high levels than the gas engines, get better range (especially loaded down), and will last longer in heavy use. No matter what, you pretty much admitted that the diesel is better in this realm anyway.
*Towing & hauling - advantage diesel.
4) Diesel pushers are becoming increasingly popular in smaller RVs. This is a new market that is growing rapidly. Many of these RVs are built here in Oregon, and I am very familiar with them through my work. They are generally recognized as the best engines in this market, but do cost more. *Range & power/torque - advantage diesel.
5) Diesels use more oil and more expensive filters. But as time goes by, the diesel (particularly the Cummins) will be less costly. Normal maintenance costs (non-repair work) are one facet I will give you.
*Maintenance cost - advantage gas (although I don't care about the $20-$30 annual difference when changing my own oil. Besides, this difference is made up by the better efficiency).
6) Unless you are spending lots of time at the gas station (which you will spend less time there with a diesel), driving around with a 65-mph tail wind, or have the exhaust plumbed into your cab, I don't think the smell will be a problem to the driver or passengers in the diesel pickup.
*Mute point
Now if you can afford to have two pickups, I guess you could say a gas pickup would be better for the light use, knowing you can use the diesel for the heavy use. But if you are like me, and will only have one truck, having driven both alot, I know which is the best choice. I know the diesel is best when push comes to shove (towing & hauling). I know it is civilized enough for everyday driving. I know it has the best range. I know it will last the longest (whether I keep it forever or not, it gives me more confidence).
Regardless, on an extended 6% grade, both trucks drove side-by-side to the top. The V-10 was in a lower gear pulling more rpms obviously. The mpg for the V-10 was around 7.5 towing and just over 12 empty and the PSD was around 10.5 towing and just over 18 empty. They calculated maintenance costs related to routine service over 100,000 miles and the amounts were quite a bit higher than what has been quoted. The V-10 holds 7 quarts of oil compared to 15 for the PSD. They also mentioned the extra cost of the oil filters and the cost of 1-2 fuel filters that the diesel requires during the first 100,000 miles.
Their break-even analysis came up to exactly what most of us have debated on this site. Depending on the price of guel, the amount of towing (where the mpg variance is less), the amount of empty driving, etc., the break-even point was somewhere between 88,000 and 188,000.
The mpg figures seem realistic to me. I've got a 99 F-350 dually 4x4 with V-10 and 4.30. I get close to 12 running empty and about 8.5-9 with my camper. Towing 7,000+ pounds, I could see 7.5-8. As for the PSD, the empty mpg would probably drop 1-2mpg with the 4.10 running empty. I'm not sure I would expect to see much of a difference in the towing mpg. My folks have a 97 F-350 dually 2x4 PSD with 4.10 and tow an 11,000+ pound 35 foot 5th wheel. They average 16 empty and about 10 towing. I'd say the difference in mpg between the V-10 and PSD with 4.30 and 4.10 axle ratios is about 3mpg towing and 5 empty.
One advantage of the diesel that wasn't mentioned in the article is driving in altitudes. A gas engine loses something like 10% power for every 1000 feet in altitude. A diesel doesn't start losing power until you hit about 10,000 feet. If you're towing in the mountains, this could be a big factor.
The gap has narrowed in all areas where one or the other was superior. But most importantly, gas and diesel engines have both advanced to the point where 400+ pounds torque and 250+ horsepower are possible in both engine types. I'm glad you mentioned the GM 6.0L, that is one great engine that I might actually end up with. That much power and the ability to get over 15 mpg is pretty darn good.
I think the best engine is the toughest most powerful one, especially when it has better mileage/range and presents no serious drawbacks (IMO). [if you drove the Cummins for any period of time like I have, I think you would back off your accelleration pitch, its pretty darn good]. I prefer overkill in most things. I've never regretted having more power than needed or a large safety margin. I greatly appreciate the highest quality in all things. That's why I love the Cummins. But I agree that the gas engines are excellent engines, especially the GM 6.0L, that are far better than adequate. Just not the best (initial purchase price aside).
It will be interesting in coming years to see how much power they squeeze out of these engines when they couple them with trannys that can handle more power. Sounds like Cummins/Powerstroke/Duramax are all capable of over 500 lbs torque and over 300 hp, while still getting over 20 mpg. No gas engine, current or proposed, is capable of those figures.
Take it easy guys.
Yeah, on paper I know the Powerstroke is supposed to outperform the Cummins, but it seems that the Cummins has a more dedicated market. I don't know what the power-to-weight ratio is on the two. I know the Cummins is considered to be a truer diesel configuration and probably more durable. Sounds like the PS has that injector problem.
Dodge has definitely pulled a GM by not offering the Crew Cab, handing over that market share without challenge to Ford.
Brutus, my 15 mpg estimate is coming from the reports on the post set up for 6.0L mileage. Sounds like over 15 is very capable with highway driving (maybe up to 17, even).
Just my two pennies offered on this one.......
The tranny problems reported were not with the automatic, there were problems with the standard transmission though.
I just took delivery of a Y2K 3500 Ram Quadcab with the Cummins/Automatic and absolutly love it. I traded a Ram 2500 4x4 w/automatic Quadcab and the 5.9L gas. A real nice truck but not enough power for my 5th wheel. This truck is beautiful.
I tride a friends Ford 350 PS and didnt like the ride or handling. It has plenty of power but I can't tell the difference between them in that catagorie. I just figure the Cummins is a proven motor and the Dodge looks great.
Why else is every other truck maker trying to copy the look.
Muzzyd
I ordered a 2000 F-250 SD Crew Cab 4x4 w/PSD and long bed. I will get it in the next few weeks. Cost was not an issue with the diesel, so my choice came down to longevity, mileage (which translates to better range), and after test-driving both gas and diesel, I liked the diesel better.
My first question is: How cold does it need to get before the diesel will not start w/o the engine heater? Is there an easy way to start the engine in the cold without using the heater? What happens if you're parked in a place w/o access to plug it in (in the mountains elk hunting and it's -20F)?
What type of oil does this engine take, and is it better to use synthetic or a blend?
As for the regular maintenance and such I have no qualms with taking care of these things myself. With a 100,000 mile warranty for the engine one would feel somewhat safe in that regards as to any costs up to that point, but I put a higher cost on being stranded/broken down than the cost to repair. I have heard a lot of negative things with the Ford trucks in general to make me a little uncomfortable heading off into the wilderness with this truck. I have been a Toyota owner for the last 12 years, and even though they don't have the work capabilities or interior room of the larger trucks, the one thing they DO have is reliability. And I put a pretty high price on that.
When I said F-250, I meant the Superduty F-250 not the F-250LD. The F-250 Superduty looks just like the F-350 Superduty. But for the point of discussion, if you put a 99 F-350 Superduty next to a 92 F-350 and a 99 1 ton Dodge, there is no doubt which two trucks are related.
The only real similarity between the Dodge and the Superduty is the raised hood. However, the Dodge design gets to the rise in a much more dramatic way, which I'm not saying is better or worse, only different. If you did one of those morph commercials, it would be a lot easier to morph a 92 Ford into a 99 Ford than to morph a 99 Ford into a 99 Dodge. Like I said, the only real similarity is the raised hood. Look at the headlights and grill, etc.
You can also see one of the reasons that Ford raised the hood. They shortened the length of the front end, which necessitated the increased height. I've got a 99 F-350 Superduty dually with the V-10. There is absolutely no empty space in the engine compartment. That engine barely fits. At the same time, no doubt, some of the raised hood is style related.
As far as comparing a 92 F-150 or F-250 with a 99 F-150 or F-250LD, there is no comparison. I can't see any real resemblence between the F-150 design that came out in 1997 and the older trucks, although I can see the similarities between the Superduty and the 92-97 heavy duty trucks. Just my opinion.....
Good information. I'm not into slammin' someone else's choice I think both are good trucks. Actually I prefer the style of the new Chevy, but I just dont think there as much of a work house as they would like you to believe. As for the motor I prefer the Cummins as proven reliable and low maintenance engine.
I've been in the Fire Service for over thirty years and have seen Cat's, Detroit's and Cummins in service. The Cummins always win out here in longevity. Going back to the original topic "looks", it's a matter of preferance.
I've owned good&bad Chevy's,Fords and Chrysler products but this latest Dodge is my third and I can say I've only had one problem with any of the Dodges and that was a rear main seal on the 94'Ram
As you say..it's only my opinon, but I like the Dodge.
On the other hand, I also expect to see some changes with the gas engines. The advantages of the diesels have always been torque, longevity, and mpg. The gas engines are lasting longer, getting stronger, and getting better mpg. The diesels appear to have caught up in the hp race, and they also appear to be widening the gap in the torque. Although the diesels still have longevity on their side, it's not out of the question for gas engines to give you 200,000 before a major overhaul. The gas engines have also closed the gap a little in the mpg area. The difference is about 5-6 mpg empty and around 3 mpg towing. I'm not sure how much more the gassers can improve in any of these areas. My guess is that 12 cylinders will be available in a few more years. A higher number of smaller cylinders looks like it might be some of the reason for the better efficiency (more power, better mpg, longer lasting).
One of my biggest concerns about diesels is cold weather starting and too many start and stops without adequate warm-up time for the diesel. I live in Alaska and there are a lot of diesels up here. As long as you can plug it in, you're fine, but I plan to do some winter camping and suspect that I would have to be starting the truck up periodically throughout the night if the temps dropped down around zero or below. We hit 10 below last night. Neither the neighbor or I plugged our trucks in. I had to give him a jump. I have the V-10. He has a diesel (6.5L Chevy).
Thanks.....
Any info out there would be appreciated.
The tallest axle ratio you can get (lowest number) is something like a 4.56. There is no 4.30 or 3.73 available. The lower axle ratio (higher number) will cost you some mpg. The difference between 3.73 and 4.30 appears to be 1-2 mpg.
The F-450 comes with 19 inch tires, instead of 16 inch tires.
The GVWR, GCWR and tow rating are obviously higher. If you've got a heavy slide-in camper (4,000+ pounds) or a heavy fifth wheel (13,000+ pounds), the F-450 will be needed to stay below Ford's weight ratings.
The ride will be rougher. You can get an aftermarket air-ride suspension that will supposedly make the ride closer to the F-250/F-350. I've heard prices in the $4,000 range for that.
Last year, Trailer Life had a fully decked out F-550 with all the after-marekt stuff I described above except the leather interior (but including the bed, exterior style package, fifth wheel hitch, auxilliary fuel tank, air-ride suspension). It was also a diesel which added about $4,000. The total truck had a retail of around $55,000, which made it about $15,000 higher than an equally equiped F-350.
I'd like to see Ford start offering the F-450 with the same options as the F-350. I'd consider one on my next purchase. I currently have a 99 F-350 Superduty Supercab Lariat 4x4 dually V-10 auto trans. 4.30 axle ratio with all the options. I get 9.5ish in a 50/50 mix of city/hwy and 11.5-12 hwy. It sounds like the 2000 models are getting a little better mpg, even though they have 35 more hp and 15 more torque. Most of the people with the V-10 3.73 axle ratio single rear wheel are reporting 13.5-14.5 hwy.
I carry a 10'11" Bigfoot 3000 slide-in truck camper. With the camper on, loaded for a trip, including passengers, I exceed my 11,200 GVWR by about 500-700 pounds. The truck handles the load without any problems. I am still running stock, although I will probably swap out the shocks with adjustable Rancho 9000s next year when I get past 40,000 miles. I may consider air bags this summer, although I don't sag in the rear. With the camper on, I get 8.5-9. On level hwy, if I keep the speed at 55, I can get close to 10.
Well, on to a better truck with a V10 Gas. It will NOT be a FORD.
this topic is being "frozen." It will be archived or deleted in the next 10 days or so.
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host