Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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



  • danz28danz28 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 NJPosts: 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 NJPosts: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 NJPosts: 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 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 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 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 NJPosts: 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 Posts: 985
    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!!!!!!
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    Hey! what of my earlier questions? Tell me about quality differences of the big three. thanks
  • jeff84jeff84 Posts: 13
    built a radio station transmitter site at 10,000' been running it on john deer diesels for 10 years. used up 2 fords 3/4 4x4. still have the 94. they burn oil like a champ. ( thats where I put all my waste oil) just kidding. the gauges all fail on both trucks but I never got stuck 20 miles up in the mud and snow. been using a 96 blazer for the last 2 years. 50,000 miles off road in 2 years. no problems. just bought a new 3/4 4x4 chev for the smooth ride on the 20 mile dirt road. the open axle is great in the mud. don't let people give you that bull about a solid axle is better off the road. I was a dealership mechanic for 10 years befor getting this station. you havent been scared till you slide off the side of a road you cant see because of the snow covering the mud.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    jeff84, Do you prefer open or a solid axle? It wasn't quite clear. I presume the Fords had this axle also? I'm curious-thanks.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    NEVER buy a manual if you plan on a considerable amount of towing. Automatics can tow twice as much pounds without any stress to the tranny. Manuals are fine for other jobs---just not towing.I would seriously re-think your decision to consider manuals.
    Most people would agree with my two cents.
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110

    I disagree with your two cents. Automatics have a torque converter that allows for slippage between the motor and the rest of the driveline, which means you don't get about 15% of your engine's power. Most new auto's have a lock up torque converter which means once your up to highway speed, the torque converter locks solid with the drive gear, just like a manual clutch would. Manual transimissions are usually built a little heavier duty than automatics. If you pull with automatics, you have to be careful because all the stress caused by pulling will make your transmission fluid become much hotter than normal, reducing its viscosity, and reducing its protection. that is why many trucks have posts on them telling you not to pull in overdrive, but in 3rd gear. this mainly gives the engine and transmission more rpms so more transmission fluid is circulated.

    automatics are not built for pulling. if you are a serious load puller, and plan to put lots of miles pulling, i would go with a manual. it will last much longer, and you will enjoy 100% of your engines output, instead of 85%, which also translates into better fuel economy.
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    if there are any dodge owners out there reading, i'd like to know about all around workmanship and quality on their trucks, honest truth please. I've heard a few sad stories about seals, bearings, acessory trouble--stuff that keeps you in touch a little too much with your local serviceman. then i also hear some totally satisfied people at the same time. anyone out there with input?
  • 00610061 Posts: 6
    I posted message 55 and I read your response.I
    have to disagree with - not that I know much about
    it, but I use to be an eighteen wheeler truck
    driver before I went to Medicine (and during as well). I also pulled a travel trailer all over Europe(and believe u me, there are up to 16% grades and hairpin curves that u will not believe! In terms of power, control, efficiency and most of all - I'm used to it. Cdean put it in
    a professional lingo, I "speak from my heart"
    .At any rate, what about the rest Of my previous post, any comments?
    Isaac(from Israel).
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    I was aware of slippage and yes, a manual would actually hold up longer if one was pulling 1000lbs. My point is that automatics are far easier to drive when pulling without concerns of the clutch. Lets face it, not many people check out the weight they are pulling and most have half-tons to begin with.
    Take for instance: two identical 98 F-150's
    Both of these trucks have the 4.6l V-8 triton motor. Both have have 3.55 rears and both are super-cab, 4x2 short-beds. Every thing is identical with the exception being the transmission. Now let me share the statistics from Ford themselves on maximum trailer weights for limits:
    The automatic: 11,500 max and 7,000 reg
    The manual: 7,800 max and 3,300 reg

    I agree that the manual would last longer but I go by actual expierences. My conclusion is that for John Doe,who only needs a half-ton, generally tows maybe five times a year with his two kids and wife. He shouldn't have to worry about the weight or jerking his trailer back and forth as Johnny Jr. is pulling his sister's hair.
    Not everybody in this world buys Superdutys. We can banter all day long about the virtues of the stick and I do agree with you on those numbers that you thoughtfully put up. I'm curious how many of you out there have an auto and pull regularly. Please let me know. I might be alone in my thinking.
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    I am kinda surprised by the numbers from Ford, I thought it would be the other way around. I totally agree with what you said about the occasional puller. I pull about 10-15 times a year with an automatic, and i feel i have no need for a manual. But there are some people who haul 30 ft cattle trailers every week or maybe their business involves pulling around a heavy utility trailer. those are the folks i recommend getting manuals. If you are an RV puller, it's kinda up to you. Automatics make vehicle ownership so much nicer, and their almost worth the money everyone charges for them. Chevy charged me $800 something for mine. what does dodge and Ford autos cost?
  • BrutusBrutus Posts: 1,113
    The auto trans option for the Superduty is $824 dealer invoice and $970 MSRP. One thing to keep in mind is that replacing a clutch in a heavy duty 4x4 isn't cheap. It will cost you about $900 if you have it done at the dealer.
This discussion has been closed.