Dodge,Ford,Chevy------who wins?

RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
edited March 2014 in Dodge
I've been yelled at for fighting against brands in
their own sites. Now I want a site devoted to
thoughts for or against full-size, American trucks.
I want facts and myths to support your F-150 or
Silverado. Hate 'em both? Worship Dodge? Fine by
I own 11 trucks for my roofing company. I have
products from all three but I always feel like I
lose everytime I have bought a Chevy. Ford is on my
mind this model year. Any thoughts?


  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    I began this site out of frustration of whiners telling me to leave after I was told that I'm a big bully on the new Chevy. How can any Chevy fan feel attached to this offering of re-hased styling? It seems to me that Dodge has kick-started this race and Ford has caught up.
  • MotormouthMotormouth Member Posts: 99
    You want folks to give their opinions? Isn't that what they are doing in the other topics?

    It just might be that they disagree with you on the issue of Chevy trucks. Not everyone will agree on any given topic.

    But it will be interesting to see how people respond if, in fact, they do.
  • marvbmarvb Member Posts: 9

    I've owned Ford and GM trucks, and will, as of 11:00 AM today, be the owner of a new RAM 3500 diesel 4WD. I beat the old Ford to death hauling trees down out of the mountains to build a cabin. It finally died on main street and I bought a 1984 GMC 4WD with the 454 engine and auto transmission. After a couple of years, the paint was 50% gone. My wife got it stuck one day and sheared off the power steering unit. It was literally hanging from the hoses! I did'nt like the automatic transmission, and I did'nt like the gas mileage (8-10 mpg). The new Dodge has a 5-speed in it, and appears to be well built. I will let you all know how it performs.

    How about your Dodge trucks? Any complaints? How did they compare with the Fords and Chevys?
  • danz28danz28 Member Posts: 19
    Rocles, Ford is third in power when compared to Chevy and Dodge.

    As for style, I like the comtemporary look and I am glad GM didnt try to copy Ford or Dodge.

    my 2 cents....
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    I have only two Dodge trucks to judge against the other nine but I feel like I can pontificate a little. Actually they have both performed well without any major problems. One,(both are 95's)has about 50k miles on it and general maintenance has kept the engine running fine. I've had some other complaints.
    Both trucks,which were bought at the same time,have problems with front wheel bearings slipping up and needing pack-jobs every year. The one Ram has also had the tranny looked at for it was slipping in some gears through acceleration.
    I was hesitant at first to buy a Dodge but my partner was been a big fan of the redesign and forced my wallet open. My oldest trucks however, are the two original '87 Fords that we started with. One has close to 175k miles and is beaten but yet still runs like a champ. For a roofing truck, that is more anyone can ask for!
    My complaint about Dodge is that they didn't spend enough time designing the functional aspect of the truck. That might have changed by now but I'll wait to see some results first.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    I have driven older GMs (pre-1988 design) and older Dodges (mid 80s), and have owned Fords (90 and 93), and currently have a Dodge (96).

    The older GM was a damn good truck. Plenty of heavy duty parts. The older Dodge seemed like it wouldn't die. The mid-80s Dodge I drove at my dad's job occasionally was a brick - looked like a brick, rode like a brick, but was as tough as a brick. My 90 Ford was ok, but the trans dissolved at about 45K miles. Service department had no clue - fluid was full and red, but the gears were shot. Rebuilt under warranty, and ran fine until I traded it on the 93. Now here was a piece of garbage. Literally had more brake jobs than oil changes. Bent the tie rod and broke the drag link going over a set of railroad tracks. My Ram has been terrific. Only one repair - fuel gauge module went south at 25K, but that was/is a somewhat frequent occurrence on 94-96s.

    Here's how I fell about what's out there/what's coming:


    Don't like the F150/250. Too round, too "carlike" for my tastes. I do like the Super Duty trucks. Strong components bring back thoughts of the late 70s trucks. One thing I truly can't stand about Fords, though: why do they feel I'm too stupid to read the auxiliary gauges? Having a gauge that says "NORMAL" all the way to redline is as useless as an idiot light. Until it hits the red zone, you're being told everything is ok, when it may not be.


    Not a fan of the 88-98 model. I'm leery of the IFS on the 4x4s - torsion bars are ok for small trucks, but if I can put 4000 pounds static on the front end with a diesel engine, I want a solid axle and honest-to-God springs up under there. Unfair of me to comment on the new 99's performance until it's here, but the exterior still looks like the current truck, just more rounded - not appealing to me.


    Love the big-rig nose. Roomy interior, well-organized dashboard, and the Cummins is unstoppable. Lack of a crew cab is a problem, and the factory shocks suck.

    Dream truck:

    - Ford Super Duty chassis, suspension, and transmission
    - Dodge body
    - Cummins engine
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Does Ford make their own diesel or is it possible to get someone else? I've heard all bad words about the GM(Detroit?)diesels and great things about the Cummins. I haven't heard too much about Ford's.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    The Ford diesel is made by Navistar. Like the Cummins, it is a medium duty engine. Check any of the diesel boards in this conference for more info.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Ford may be third in power but first in overall quality and value. I agree with you on GMC's grille yet the silverado looks like a bloated S-10.
    I found two cents.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    hot damn it, i wanna get in on this. i am a chevy fan, but i agree with kcram on the 88-98 4x4's. i've heard of a lot of people tearing those things up, and if i were a serious off roader, i would want a solid axle underneath me. The IFS makes for a much better ride, i just don't think it is as tough.

    I have trouble with Dodge's. before they redesigned in '94, they were the Yugo's of trucks. somebody may have had a good one, but i now of 10 or 12 pieces of crap around where i live over the years. those trucks were aweful. when they came out with the cummins, ('92?), did you know they had to redesign the manual transmissions because they couldn't handle the torque, and they had to beef up the frames because they were literally pulling apart. thats why dodge advertises "The new Dodge", because they want everyone to forget what they had before.

    they did make a hell of an improvement in '94, but i know lots of people who love the new look and have bought them, and haven't been totally satisfied. it's usually nothing major on them, it's little stuff,like seals constantly leaking, wheel bearings going out. Dodge makes the most unreliable automatic transmission on the market. (with Ford a close second).

    The new fords and dodges were very radical designs. chevy didn't go that way with their new '99 because they did an extensive survey (probably of mostly chevy owners) and the survey said that the consumer did not want chevrolet to make some radical design. so they sculpted the sheet metal just a hair, but made a truck with the most cab space, more functional controls with the most simplified electrical system (5 wiring splices in the 99 chevy's compared to 118 in the 98 fords!), most powerful engines, most advanced traction and brake system on the market. why would you totally make a new look and piss off 600,000 people a year who buy chevy's and the 300,000 people a year who buy GMC's.

    if you don't like the current C/K, i don't blame you for not liking this new truck because it doesn't look much different. its what's inside this truck that chevy's counting selling. when ford redesigned in '97, it was love it or hate, very radical design. but after the "shock" period was over, people who didn't like it at first were starting to test drive them, and realized, hey, this is one hell of truck here. i think the same thing will happen to the chevy's. they won't pull anybody out of their fords and dodges until a few get on the market, and word gets out about performance and reliability.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    Well cdean, now that you brought it up. The reason Chevy, and GMC can't get a real diesel to put in their trucks is no one will sell them one unless they beef their trucks up. (ie. Catapiller,& Isusu) So far they havn't done so, and so their still stuck with that Barbie & Ken diesel.
    Also if you check the reliability reports from J.D. Powers & Assoc. you will see that GM has the the least reliable transmission of the big three, and the worst breaks to boot. (mushy mushy mushy) You can kiss the 350 and the 454 good-bye also their history.
    I must add though, that I do like some of the ideas they are coming out with in their new transmission. Such as the drain plug in the pan,(I never understood why no one ever did that) and the normal, and tow mode switch.
    Otherwise you are right on...
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516

    Regarding the Dodge/Cummmins:

    First year was 1989, and yes you're right, the only trans that can stand up to the damn thing is/was the old 727 automatic. I talked to the Cummins engineer who was at the Dodge Ram display at the NY Auto Show last month - he said Cummins _can't_wait_ for Chrysler to make a better set of trannies - they would love to ship Dodge the 250hp/520lb-ft engine - it's one of their standard medium-duty ratings, and would save them from having to have a special "Chrysler" edition of the 5.9 liter engine.

    As for GM trucks, I had a great deal of respect for the 73-86 C/K (and 87-91 R/V) series. In fact, my all-time favorite truck (for appearance and strength) is still the 1980 GMC Indy Pace Truck in 4x4 crew cab form. The Burt Reynolds flick "Cannonball Run" has one of these featured in it. I probably would have gotten a 1990 GMC V3500 Crew Cab instead of the Ford F150 I bought that year if I had a little more $$$ at the time, then would have gotten the dealer to order the parts and paint to match the 1980 Pace Truck. In fact, it was a pic of a brand new 79 GMC K3500 dually that turned me into a truck guy back in the fall of 78 - I was 13 going on 14 at the time, and have been a "truck guy" ever since.

    If the heavy-duty version of the new GM trucks has what it takes (solid axle, the rumored Isuzu medium-duty diesel, beefed up trans, etc.), then I will certainly give them a fair lookover when I'm ready to replace my Ram.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    I'd like to set you straight, mharde2, on Chevy diesel situation. The reason Chevy has always had the diesel they have now is because that GM also owns a little company called Detroit Diesel. Detroit Diesel builds more motors that Caterpillar, Cummins, International, you name it. If you like, I will list all the different applications Detroit Diesels are used in.
    If you grow tomatos in your garden in the back yard, do you go and buy tomatos at the grocery store?

    GM has a full blown diesel division within the company. Ford and Dodge do not, therefore, they HAVE to get someone else to build their diesels. I'm not saying that the Detroit Diesels that GM builds are the best out there. In fact, I'll tell you quite the opposite. My father has been a diesel mechanic servicing large diesels on oilfield, marine applications, etc. I have helped him some, and in his 40 years experience he would pick Caterpillar as the best diesel, Cummins second, and if he had to choose Detroit Diesel, he would rather have a seat with some pedals...

    GM and Caterpillar developed a diesel engine last year. They had several prototype trucks with the Caterpillar engine. Chevy loved it and was ready to cut a deal. Caterpillar backed out of the deal, because they couldn't justify building a factory that would only build maybe 250,000 a year, best case scenario. They couldn't make it economically viable to produce that size engine without charging an outrageous price for it. Remember, the Powerstroke is an International engine used in many school busses and 2 ton applications. The 5.9 Cummins is widely used in marine applications as well as 2 ton trucks. These engines are not something totally new, like the proposed Caterpillar would be.

    Nobody, including myself, really likes the 6.5 GM diesel. I think it was good motor up until '94, when they computerized the whole damn thing. A reliable motor literally just went to crap. It's not selling well. This is why GM went to Caterpillar. When that didn't work out, they went to Isuzu, whom GM has worked with in the past. Fuel Injection servicemen, who go to tech conferences every couple of months, have told me they are already learning about the fuel pumps that are going into the new Chevy/Isuzu Diesels. (They will be Bosch, instead of the popular Stanidyne, if you're curious.)

    In conclusion, mharde2, diesel companys are not scared of Chevy. Don't let the fact that you don't like them cloud any facts. Here is a fact I challenge you to look up. Do you know what the best selling truck in the WORLD was in 1996? It was the 2 ton medium duty Chevrolet Kodiak, powered by a 4 cylinder Caterpillar. They sold over 2 million of those trucks in one year, world wide.

    Some real pieces of crap aren't they…

    As far as the transmissions, I don't know where you got your numbers. If you could please, point me to them, I'll be happy to look. But I've helped friends in Fords replace or fix more transmissions than I can count with my fingers and toes. Every Ford dealer and mechanic I know tells me that Ford is years behind in that department. Intellichoice and consumer reports report GM trannies as the most reliable. Also, go have look at the Drive Train Homepage (not sure address, you should find it easily) .
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    You kind of made my point on the diesel subject cdean. I don't usually jump on anyone like that but I get tired of Chevy people attacking Ford and Dodge all the time. It seems like Chevy people are the only ones that have derogatory comments about someone elses trucks. I never used the term piece of crap..I believe that was you.
    I think Ford, Dodge, and Chevy all make good trucks, some are stronger or weaker in certain areas than others, but over all it boils down to personal preference. this is the url to that reliability report on Car Point.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    cdean, click on Car Point Raises the Bar on Reliability when the page comes up.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    I have to state that mharde was correct in his findings. I found the same conflicting stories from mechanics versus publications about the tranny of Chevy. Every mechanic that I have known claim GM outperforms in reliability than Ford yet, JD power and truckworld state the opposite.
    So what's the deal? I have never expierenced any problem from either brand that we have. The biggest pain-in-the-[non-permissible content removed] truck is that one Dodge with its seals and bearings.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    mharde, i apologize for making it seem like i made derrogatory comments. i not once said anything bad about dodges or fords, not once, only about my personal experience with their unreliability, and the reports i read in the 3 different sites confirming that. you took the term "some real pieces of crap" out of context. i wrote that immediately after i pointed out a successful heavy duty line from GM as sarcasm toward your comments that GMs needed to beef up they trucks so they could have more than "Barbie and Ken diesels." I should have plainly stated that i disagree with your statement that GMs cannot get a good diesel because they are not beefed up enough. My point is that GM never has wanted any other diesel because they have felt that their own was adequate. I am very sorry if I in someway was like those Chevy people who are "the only ones that have derogatory comments about someone elses trucks." Please quote me wherever i did this.

    Yes, those mushy breaks will gone off the new Silverados, thank goodness. That is one thing that made me wonder if GM ever took their own product out for a test drive.

    The 350 and the 454 will NOT be gone, though. Both engines will appear in the heavy duty line, 3/4 ton and up. Both engines, I'm sure will be phased out eventually, as GM goes to the LS1 engine platform. Has anyone heard about their future heavy duty platform? They've been keeping pretty mum on that whole subject. A dealer friend of mine that went to the national dealer convention said that there was word floating around of a 8.0 liter V8 to replace the 454, with torque in the 550 ftlb range, coming in year 2000 or shortly after.

    I find it very odd about the conflicting reliabilities on the transmissions. Who's right? Why should we trust any of these places if there is no consistency? any other input?
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Mharde, I found a fault in your report. I looked a little deeper into the Carpoint report on the reliability of the Chevy Transmissions. I welcome you to check it out.

    You will notice that the heading says "Transmission and Driveline"

    If you look at the key, the symbol for the chevy transmissions and drivetrains is "moderate problems"

    Click on that little symbol for any year. It gives you the specific problem on that model. It is the same problem on all the models. As a matter of fact, it is not actually the transmission that it talks about. It reads:

    "An occasional problem on this vehicle is failure of the Front Axle Acutator on models with Four Wheel Drive.

    The cost to repair the Front Axle Acutator is estimated at $72.36 for parts and $32.50 for labor."

    The reliability report on "Chevrolet Transmission and Drivetrains" states that the actuator that locks the truck in four wheel drive has had moderated failures and it costs $104.86 to get it fixed. It says nothing about the transmissions. hopefully this link will get you there.|K_1500?Topic=Reliability

    Say what you want about the truck, but GM builds a bullet proof transmission.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Try this link if want a transmission report from a transmission guy. when you get there scroll down to section 3 where he discusses the Big 3 pickups.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    All excuses aside, the Chevy diesel offers the lowest horsepower and, by far, the lowest torque. What might be in the future is irrelevant to the person who needs to tow a heavy today. By the time Chevy catches up, Dodge and Ford will also have advanced beyond where they are at now. No excuses. Chevy is behind.

    The 515 lb-ft torque is nice to think about, but Ford and Dodge can already make an engine that will do that. It's the total package that need refined. Your tranny has to be able that kind of torque. When Chevy puts out an engine that will produce that kind of torque, then they can jump into the debate about the total package that Ford and Dodge have been waging for the past few years. No excuses. Chevy is behind.

    Of course, Chevy will replace the 350 and the 454. The 454 will be replaced by a V-10, which I believe will be introduced by GMC in the year 2000 model. The 350 is already being replaced by a more efficient engine. The 350 has been an awesome engine for Chevy. At the same time, the Model-T use to be an awesome car for Ford, but they wouldn't think about selling them today. Technology has changed. The more efficient V-10 has replaced the big V-8 engines and significantly superior V-8 engines have replaced engines like the 350 and the 351. Chevy/GMC are making the changes. No excuses. Chevy is behind.

    The knock isn't against the historical quality of Chevy/GMC products. Fact is that they got lazy. Even Ford got temporarily lazy. Ford woke up, and, in my opinion, has more than answered the call (44 possible chassis/cab designs on the new Superduty models). Only time will tell if Chevy has heeded the call. They better hear it soon. No excuses. Chevy is behind.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516

    One tiny correction from post #13. GM sold Detroit Diesel years ago. It's owned by Roger Penske. Only Allison Transmission remains under the GM umbrella from that division (DDA). The 6.5 diesel is currently identified as a GM diesel, not a Detroit - GM kept the engine when they sold Detroit to Penske.

    Outside of that, I agree that Detroit normally makes a damn good engine. But the history of the 6.2/6.5 mdiesel has nothing to do with Detroit. The 1982 6.2 diesel was originally a *Chevy* engine, not a Detroit. Th engine was transferred to Detroit during the GM reorganization in the mid 80s. With products like the Series 60 out there, do you think for a second Detroit Diesel would keep offering a lame engine like the 6.5 when they know saleswise the Ford/Navistar and Dodge/Cummins are kicking their butt? They could make a 7.4 liter Series 50 right now that would match the other two.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    cdean, I apologize also. I think I was PMSing....
    Actually the winner is the person who drives a truck he loves. It was an interesting discussion though. You are right about the details on that report, and thanks for the URL on the transmission guy. I'll check that out.
    I only feel sorry for those who still just drive cars. They don't know what they are missing.
    OOPS..I hope I don,t get flamed by car lovers..:)
  • dkgdkg Member Posts: 11

    Thanks for the comments. I wrote a long winded reply for cdean yesterday and when I finished the server lost it for me. So there is a reliability issue there too.

    Anyway, on the way home today I was thinking that it really comes down to what each of us decides as to which truck meets our needs. I grew up in a GM family and have owned both Ford and GM trucks. I also drove a few Dodge trucks on summer jobs (strange how they were the choice a number of years ago). I ordered a Dodge after much research. I think it will more than meet my needs and I am happy with the choice.

    If we wanted to start another war of words we could post a site on exterior and interior colors. What works for you is what you should choose, just as I will for what works for me.

    I really enjoy the comments and pages on this web site. To all keep up the good work.

  • sleeprsleepr Member Posts: 16

    If you're driving a pickup and not using it for work, STOP POLLUTING MY AIR! ;)

    I would like to swap this new pickup for an old one and have a decent car myself. Better mileage, handling and ride would be mine and I could still haul some scrap metal for fun!

  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    Sure, why not. There was a guy on the Happy Camper BBS awhile back, said he towed a 14000 lb trailer with a 89 Honda Civic.
    I tow a 5th wheel, Thats my excuse...
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110

    I agree with just about everything you said. I think GM is behind in the way they sell trucks. As far as the trucks go, I feel GM's interior cabs are smaller than Dodge and Fords, and they production capabliities, (model configurations and production time) are behind. Obviously there diesel is behind. They may catch up or jump ahead when the isuzu diesel hits the market, but you're right, that doesn't help anybody right now.
    The truck design is over 10 years old (they were probably designed in '85 or '86). Dodge's is only 5 years old, and Ford's is brand new. Technology and engineering tools is 1000 times more powerful today than in the 80's. Chevy does need to wake up and get going.

    I would like to start another little debate on a subject you brought up, on the engines. I don't feel that the V10 is really the way to go myself. V10's require balancer shafts and other little tweaks because they are more complicated than the the V8's which naturally run smoother. Ford has replace the 351 and the 302 with apparently better engines, although i did hear the 5.4 had lots of problems in the first year. I think Ford was faced with a situation where they HAD to make a new engine. While they ran good, and were popular motors, they were getting stomped in the mileage department. The Chevy's and Dodge motors always got better mileage with the same power, and were (debatable) more dependable, much simpler, and less expensive to fix. Ford went to multiport in the mid '80s which was the most sophisticated induction system at the time. They Chevrolets relatively simple throttle body got better mileage.

    Now Ford has these high tech overhead cam modular engines. They run very smooth, and have good horsepower to displacement ratios. But are they better? They still don't have the horsepower or torque that either the Chevy or the Dodge, though they are close. Chevrolet's current Vortecs use the technology that the multiport Fords where using. They have a bit different air path, which is supposed to be where the advantage is. On the 350, they went from 210 hp and 330 ftlbs to 255 hp and 340 ftlbs (not sure exactly on the torque). and with improved mileage. The dodges have about 345 ft lbs and 245 hp. the dodges get pretty bad gas mileage though. my point is that ford has these very high tech engines that aren't performing any better than the lower cost simpler ones. what's going to happen when you have to fix something. hopefully you won't, but i looked under the hood of a new f150 and the only thing i recognized was the radiator and the dipstick.

    i personally think chevy is leading in the powerplant department, excluding the diesels. Chevrolet underrates their towing numbers for liability purposes. (they don't want some dumbass pulling large weights at 70 mph then sueing them after the wreck.)

    My argument is for the gas motors of course. i think we've talked about the diesels enough. go ahead, give me hell, kids...
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    There is an article in the April edition of Truck Trend that discusses the differences in the Dodge and Ford V-10. I won't go into the details about the comparison, except to say that they liked both engines, despite the fact that the two engines could hardly be more dissimilar. At the end of the article, there is a discussion on why the V-10 has emerged as the ultimate gas engine for pickups. He credits three things: power and performance, fuel economy, emissions ability.

    A Ford exec says nothing has the power of a large displacement engine, especially for people with heavy loads to tote. No amount of supercharging or multi-valve technology is going to substitute for cubic inches. However, the big inch V-8s were horribly inefficient and would be difficult to certify undre more stringent emissions and fuel economy regulations.

    Now for the technical part. He says that contrary to popular opinion, the air/fuel mixture in a reciprocating engine doesnt't really explode, but burns and expands very rapidly. There is a definite "flame front" that starts when the spark plug ignites and continues across the conmbustion chamber. The larger the bore of an engine, the larger the area that flame front must cross to complete combustion. That in turn limits the efficiency of the engine and can leave unburned fuel in the cylinder to be expelled through the exhaust as hydrocarbons. The small bore is the key for emissionability and there's a further advantage to being an undersquare engine (longer stroke) for emissions.

    Another reason that Ford went with the V-10 was a manufacturing strategy. They took three engine plants and consolidated down to one. The Ford V-10 is machined on the same line as the 5.4L V-8 and shares 65% of the parts. The old Ford 7.5L V-8 shared almost no parts in common with the other Ford V-8s and needed its own assembly line. That probably explains why the V-10 option in the new Superduty only adds $285 to the dealer invoice price, whereas the 460 option use to add a lot more. Dodge tried using their 5.8L as a base but found that the block and heads wouldn't fit in the same tooling, so they ended up doing unique tooling.

    As a final comment, the article does say that adding two more cylinders to an engine does entail added mechanical drag, but that has been compensated for somewhat in both engines through the incorporation of the latest anti-friction technologies.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    awesome post, brutus. i didn't know that about the efficiency of the smaller cylinders. i always thought if you wanted torque, you wanted as big a bore as possible. If what you say is true, than i guess my rumor about the 8.0 v8 from chevy is wrong. you said earlier about a v10 from chevy, did you hear that, or were you just predicting.

    $ 285 for a v10 makes it hard not to bite. hell, chevy wants $1100 for a 350, and $2000 for the 454. of course, ford may have a lot of their cost already worked into the truck and we'll never know. what is dodge's engine options cost? i know the 360 is fairly reasonable, from when my friend was pricing trucks. anybody out there with some mileage reports on the dodge v10. I've heard from a friend of a friend of a friend you can't go far on one tank. don't know anybody with one, personally.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I wish I were smart enough to make that post, but much of it was verbatim from the magazine.

    Some of the engine price is factored into the truck since the standard Superduty engine is the 5.4L. In other words, you're only upgrading one engine size. It's not like the standard engine is the V-6 and you're upgrading through two V-8s before you get to the V-10. The extra cost of the V-8s is already in the base price of the Superduty. Still, I think the 460 option was $600-$800.

    The Ford V-10 is suppose to do a little better mpg wise than the Dodge. I've seen quotes from other topic areas about the V-10 in the Ford van getting 15+, but I doubt the pickup will get that kind of mileage. My 5.8L averages just over 14mpg on the highway. I guess I'd consider anything over 12mpg a bonus.

    Obviously, some of the potential Ford V-10 mpg advantage is because the Dodge engine is an 8.0L compared to 6.8L for the Ford, and the Dodge cranks out 25 more hp and 40 lb-ft more of torque. On the other hand, the Ford V-10 gets 40.4 hp per liter compared to 37.5 hp per liter for the Dodge. That's the efficiency factor. I've also heard that the reason the Ford engine is a little smoother has something to do with some even-firing technology they are using.

    As far as the $285 additional charge for V-10, you're right about some of the cost being built into the base price of the truck. The standard engine on the Superduty is the 5.4L, so you're only upgrading one engine size. The F-150 standard engine is the V-6. It would cost more to jump from the V-6 to the 5.4L in the F-150 than it would to jump from the 5.4L to the V-10 in the Superduty. That makes sense because the 5.4L and the V-10 are now built on the same line. Ford says they consolidated three lines down to one, so they may also produce the smaller V-8 (4.6L?) on the same line.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Sorry about the duplication in that last post. I thought I had deleted the second paragraph after I wrote the last one. It must be getting late.
  • danz28danz28 Member Posts: 19
    Speaking of Ford Engines, since Ford builds the 4.6L V8, 5.4L V8, 4.0L SOHC V6 and 8.0L V10 on the same line, why are they bothering with a 4.2L and 4.0L OHV engines in their truck line. It would seem more logical for Ford to kill the 4.0L OHV V6 and 3.0L OHV and replace both with the 4.0L SOHC. The same goes with the Explorer, drop the 4.0L OHV and make the 4.0L SOHC the base engine. Now as for the 4.2L OHV in the F-series, isnt it the same engine that is in the Mustang and Windstar. Wouldnt it also make sense to replace all three powerplants with the aformentioned 4.0L SOHC? Basically what I am trying to say is Ford should consolidate ALL of it large engine production into one line with the 4.0L V6, 4.6L V8, 5.4L V8 and 8.0L V10.

    Maybe since the Mustang is a car it should get the 3.0L DOHC Duratec for its base motor instead.

    My .02
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    Some corrections, danz28 (not maliciously pointed out):

    The Ford V10 is 6.8 liters (5.4 with 2 identical cylinders added to it) - 8.0L is Dodge's V10 size. The OHC 4.0L V6 is not part of the modular family - it is a rework of the German OHV 4.0L V6 (which dates back to the 2.*L V6 from the German Mercury Capri of the early and mid 70s). Ford Europe doesn't have the production capacity to meet all the needs you suggest for that engine in the US, thus its use only in Rangers/Explorers/Mountaineers.

    You are correct that the 4.2 OHV V6 is a stroked 3.8, and I agree it's a waste.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    The fun part of the Big Three Engine Wars will begin this fall. The first of Chrysler's new OHC engines will debut in the Grand Cherokee (4.7L V8 replacing the 318). It will be used in MY2000 for the Dodge trucks (a 3.7L V6 and 5.5L V8 replacing the 3.9 and 360 respectively - the 8.0L V10 will remain unchanged). Preliminary testing say this thing takes Ford's good points, and makes up for Ford's mistakes (torque peak in the Chryslers will be lower in the rpm range). If the Chrysler engines are successful, GM will be left in the dust with modified Vette engines for the next 10 years.

    The driveway diagnosis days are gone, folks...
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Someone in another post that the Dodge V-10 will increase to 325 hp and there will also be added torque next year. I haven't heard any confirmation of that yet.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    GM is not putting Vette engines in they're trucks. The truck engines will be cast iron blocks with aluminum heads, with an induction system based on the successful ones in the 'vette. they will also feature friction reduction techniques used on the 350's that are in the 'Vettes, but the truck motors are new engines designed from the ground up. the 5.3 will put out 275 hp and 330 ft lb, and the 6.0 will put out 310(?)hp and 350 ftlb. The torque curves on these motors are supposed to peak at or around 2000 rpms, but i heard the 4.8 v8 has peak torque at 4000, for "maximum power passing", was the given reason (kinda skeptical on that one). if dodgde motors can leave those numbers in the dust, they took a huge leap...

    i am very anxious to see those new dodge motors. i heard they got delayed a while because of a plant strike or something. once dodge gets in it, all big 3 will have more horsepower out of smaller displacements. i guess that makes us the winners.
  • danz28danz28 Member Posts: 19
    Thanks for the info kram.

    Will the 4.3L OHV V6 in the 99 Silverado be based on the LS-1 like all of the new V8s?
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113

    The specs you got on the new Chevy engines is a little different than the ones I found:

    4.8L: 255hp @ 5200rpm; 285 lb-ft torque @ 4000rpm
    5.3L: 265hp @ 5000rpm; 320 lb-ft torque @ 2800rpm
    6.0L: 300hp @ 5000rpm; 350 lb-ft torque @ 3600rpm

    The 6.0 is the direct competitor of the Dodge and Ford V-10 engines since Dodge and Ford replaced their big V-8 engines with the V-10. Here are the numbers on the two V-10 engines:

    Dodge V-10: 300hp @ 4000rpm; 440 lb-ft @ 2800rpm
    Ford V-10: 275hp @ 4250rpm; 410 lb-ft @ 2750rpm

    The horses of the 6.0 are close, although they achieve them at about 20%+ more rpm. The torque isn't even in the ballpark and the rpm necessary to achieve it is significantly higher. The torque is the heavy duty towing figure. And I'll go out on a limb and say (without any evidence to back me up) that the 6.0 won't get any better gas mileage than the V-10 engines and might even do worse, especially than the Ford.

    Now the numbers on the 5.3L seem impressive. The 350 has always been their best engine. The torque is only 30 lb-ft less than the 6.0, but accomplishes it at a 800rpm less. The horses for the 5.3L are pretty impressive also. I think the figures above demonstrate Chevy's need to jump to the V-10. They didn't gain much going from the 5.3L to the 6.0L. They need to add a couple cylinders to jump to the next level in torque and get the performance at lower rpm.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    cdean, I forgot to mention that I have heard that the MY2000 GMC will be the vehicle that debuts the V-10. It may just be a rumor, but I don't think so. Moving to the V-10 is a little tougher than it seems. I know that Ford had to expand the engine compartment to make room for the bigger V-10. The V-10 is not an option in the F-150. I'm assuming it probably doesn't fit. I'm guessing Chevy is having the same problem. Actually, I heard that the Chevy 6.0 won't fit in the new Silverado, but that is just a rumor as far as I know.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110

    The 6.0 is not a direct competitor to the v10s.
    you were comparing the 6.0 to the V10's, and you're right, its not in the same ball park because it is not supposed to. The 6.0 is to replace the 350 HD, and the 5.3 replaces the 350 light duty, while the 4.8 replaces the 305. the 6.0 will get no worse gas mileage than the current 350's, should be better because of the improved technology. last time chevy improved an engine, horspower went up 30% and mileage (supposedly) increased 5%.

    the 6.0 is only going in the half tons, and will not be an option on the 3/4 tons and up. the numbers you found look correct to me, and those are all going to be optioned on the '99 silverado half ton. remember, only the half ton gets the redesign this fall. The heavier trucks will still have the 350 and 454 and the 6.5 diesel until they get redesigned (2000). I will go look up the issue i found this stuff in, i'm not sure which magazine or month right off the top of my head.

    that is why the numbers aren't that different between the 5.3 and the 6.0. they are both replacements for the 350, one for people who want "drive around town" power, and one for people who want "pull the boat power". I don't know if any of yall have had mechanic experience, but you can make an engine peak torque at whatever rpm you want it to. of course there are tradeoffs. but all you have to do is tweak the timing and cam shaft to do this. the 6.0 may have 350 ftlb at 3600 rpm, but it also should have about 320 at 1800 rpm, which is stump pulling for a half ton gas truck. (don't quote me on those numbers until i find my documentation.)

    Main point is the 6.0 is for utility minded half ton owners in '99, and will probably be the base engine in the redesigned 3/4 ton and 1 tons.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    check the chevy homepage and go to the silverado section and they talk about offering the 3 V8s in addition to the standard 4.3 v6.

    they claim they have the peak torques at high rpm for passing instances and towing, yet a very high torque at low rpms for that launch from a stop to full speed.
  • laurallaural Member Posts: 2
    Has anybody heard what kind of changes (if any) are happening for the '99 Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram 1500? Anything worth waiting for? We will not be towing anything - hubby just wants a truck (may possibly do some off-roading). (It was easier picking out a minivan!)
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I'm pretty sure the 99 F-150 will have a four door supercab. That's the only change I know about.


    My bad. I thought those numbers for the 6.0 looked low for a 454 replacement. Anybody know what the numbers are on the 454? That GMC V-10 I've been hearing about will likely be the replacement for the 454. Knowing Chevy, my guess is that it will rival the Dodge V-10 for hp and torque.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    The current Vortec 454 is 300 hp and 410 ftlb of torque. My old boss had a '96 crewcab 4x4 and got about 12 mpg with a 4.10 rear end.

    the throttle body injected 454's, (before 1996) where 235 hp and 390 ft lb.

    As far as changes on the 1999 Fords and Dodges, all i have hear is the 4 doors on the Fords.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The Benz connection might help Dodge get past the last hurdle of quality control in the overall package. Quality control is a strength with Benz. Benz has too much bureaucracy and their manufacturing processes aren't all that efficient. These are Chrysler strengths. Believe it or not, I've also heard that Benz also has to deal with a more demanding union than Chrysler. But I guess that is to be expected when you consider that most of Europe is semi-Socialist. It will be interesting to see how quickly we will see the impact of the merger on the auto output. Five years maybe?

    Ford changed trannys for the Superduty because the E40D couldn't handle the 500 torque that the Powerstroke is now producing. The new tranny is rated up to the 500 torque. My guess is that the transmissions are why we haven't seen even stronger engines from the Big 3, moreso than the inability to produce a stronger engine. Of course, any engine that cranks out over 400 lb-ft of torque could hardly be called weak.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    Keeping the driveline below the capabilities of the engine is also for product liability reasons. Most diesel people know there is a 275hp/660lb-ft version of the 5.9L Cummins. In a Dodge Ram, you could probably drag your house with you. But should you in a *pickup*? Of course not - that's irresponsible. But there are those who will try something dumb because they think the truck can handle it. Sometime soon, expect someone to test the limits of that 500lb-ft Powerstroke, wipe out a major $ worth of property and/or life, then sue Ford for making an unsafe truck.

    Personally, I have no problerm with my "downgraded" Cummins. The truck will do everything I ask of it, and that's all I need.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    Those are my same opinions on the Ford V-10 compared to the Dodge. It's plenty of engine for me, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it might do a tad better in mpg.

    Speaking of suing Ford, I noticed that nobody else responded to the post where the guy had his F-150 in park on a boat ramp. It slipped out of park and his truck sunk. He had to have been out of the vehicle or he could have hit the brakes. Am I alone in thinking that if you get out of the vehicle and you're on an inclined boat ramp with a boat and trailer behind you, you should have the emergency brake on? I have problems putting the blame for the action on the tranny. If I'm wrong, someone else might want to respond to his post.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    i think there is no telling what the chrysler/benz merger will do. I think dodge has a long way to go in the quality control department, but you can't automatically assume that by mixing two brands, you get the best of both. we may end up and get the worst of both. one thing will be interesting to follow, is how they handle the new size of their company. they now have the same problem as GM. GM has incredible inefficiencies and trouble with decision making just because they are so incredibly big. hopefulley they have good people in charge of this thing. it will basically be the consumers opinion whether to buy these affected vehicles or not. only time will tell.


    sure, cummins can make a hot rod cummins, but don't think you'll get near the miles (longevity) out of that thing. Detroit Diesel has done the same thing to their industrial engines. a popular v8 diesel was pumped up from normal 500hp to 1000hp. the result: great power, terrible fuel economy, and engine life reduced from 10,000 running hours to about 3000. i wouldn't want that 275 horse best.

    although i do agree with the liability issue you brought up. i think i mentioned earlier somewhere that GM trucks underrated pretty heavily their towing numbers for liability reasons. But i, personally think they build them not specifically for liability, but for a medium between 1)competitive consumer needs, and 2)realistic profit. you are right, though. nobody needs to tow 20,000 lbs with a pickup, but somebody out there is bound to try it.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The final terms of the Daimler-Benz/Chrysler deal were approved today. The deal is valued at just under $40 billion. Daimler will be purchasing Chrysler. It represents the largest takeover of a US company by a foreign company. The new company will be called Daimler-Chrysler. In 1997, the two companies had combined sales of $130 billion. This merger will make them the fifth largest auto maker behind GM, Ford, Toyota and VW. Daimler Chairman Schrempp and Chrysler Chairman Eaton will be co-chairman, but Eaton said he has agreed to step down in three years. 57% of the new companies stock will go Daimler shareholders and 43% will go to Chrysler shareholders. They expect to have both government's approvals and close the deal by the end of the year. Chrysler and Daimler say that the company will continue to make two distinct brands. I guess that doesn't exclude the possiblity of creative ads like "Dodge Ram: The Mercedes of Pickup Trucks".
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    The New Dodge
    a division of DaimlerChrysler AG

    somehow I won't get used to seeing that at the bottom of the Dodge Ram catalogs in the future...

    This seems like a paper deal more than anything else. The product lines are diverse - Chrysler stops at the $30K mark (relatively speaking), and that's where Benz starts. The only place you will see shared parts is where one company is far superior to the other - If the Benz transmissions are stronger, you'll see them in Chryslers. If Chrysler makes a more powerful AC unit, it'll show up in the Mercedes. But I seriously doubt you will see Plymouth Neons outside the local Benz dealer. If they're smart, D-C will be like Ford and Jaguar - some shared parts, but kept separate in terms of dealers and marketing.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    This merger is different than the purchase of Jaguar by Ford. That deal was literally Ford gobbling up a little company. With the news today,Chrysler is allowing itself to be under another company in a few years. Mergers are commonplace in the paper world but these two are manufactuers which changes everything.(no pun intended).
    After years of rumor that they were going to sell off Jeep--this comes as suprise. I agree that this will probably not be very advantageous to become too large. Mercedes has a very demanding labor union and heavy tax-burden under German rule. Combining this fat company with Chrysler, which has made considerable strides in the last few years, just doesn't make sense.
    I'm dissapointed, not upset, just dissapointed. My only solace is that my stock in Dodge is actually a good chunk of change now. I received 100 shares as graduation gift from an uncle who was a supervisor at the Newark, DE plant. That was a good 10 years ago.
    That is what it always seems to end up anymore---on paper baby!
    Hmmm--Ford and BMW .........NAH!!!!!!
This discussion has been closed.