Galen Houk
Member
I have a Ford 7.3 that I love but am thinking of getting a Ram dually with the Cummins. I know Ford engines but what year Ram Cummins should I avoid? I have heard that there were some Cummins issues too.
- Thread starter Galen Houk
- Start date
LeonardWD45
Member
Watch out for the W-53 blocks. They are noted for thin water jackets and developing cracks. These engines are hit and miss on good and bad ones. Just a suggestion from a second owner of a 99 Dodge with a 5.9 cummins turbo diesel my sweet spot for mileage is 67mph. I travel from my house in Tacoma Wa to my farm just north of Spokane Wa and use 3/8 tank of fuel, at 70 I use almost 3/4 tank of fuel. My engine is backed by an automatic transmission and I run on cruse control.
Leonard
Ps: attached is the info on the W-53 block.
Untitled URL Link
Leonard
Ps: attached is the info on the W-53 block.
Untitled URL Link
I've had diesel pickups since GM's pathetic attempt to put an Olds 350 "diesel" in them in 1978, but my next pickup will be a gasser.
Unless you are planning to tow with it 5 days a week as a paying proposition, and can own a new enough one to have warranty or can afford $2000 to $15,000 repair bills every time it sneezes, I suggest you consider a gasser, as well.
I welcome comments on that reality.
Unless you are planning to tow with it 5 days a week as a paying proposition, and can own a new enough one to have warranty or can afford $2000 to $15,000 repair bills every time it sneezes, I suggest you consider a gasser, as well.
I welcome comments on that reality.
Brother has an 01 24 valve with the VP44 inj pump.
He put over 400 k km on it without a single issue other than 2 LP's.
Neigbor has a 93 with a 12 valve, i think he is close to a million km. I replaced the IP once and that was all that was ever done to that engine in the 20 years he owns it,....it doesn't even use oil yet.
Other neighbor has a 98 with the 24 valve and the VP44.
I replaced the IP for the third time in 2 years.
The cummins 6.9 12 valve with the inline inj pump is IMO the best one of all of them.
They are also easy to bump to 400 hp with little changes.
Be aware of the [b:6457bbda29]killer dowel[/b:6457bbda29] in all these cummins 6.9's
He put over 400 k km on it without a single issue other than 2 LP's.
Neigbor has a 93 with a 12 valve, i think he is close to a million km. I replaced the IP once and that was all that was ever done to that engine in the 20 years he owns it,....it doesn't even use oil yet.
Other neighbor has a 98 with the 24 valve and the VP44.
I replaced the IP for the third time in 2 years.
The cummins 6.9 12 valve with the inline inj pump is IMO the best one of all of them.
They are also easy to bump to 400 hp with little changes.
Be aware of the [b:6457bbda29]killer dowel[/b:6457bbda29] in all these cummins 6.9's
have owned GM diesel trucks since 96, I rebuild 1 of them, costed only 2 grand.
I bought one with a blown engine,..i rebuild that one as well,about 2500 on that one.
Other than that they had few issues.(it helps if one can do the fixing and maintenance himself.
I own 5 of them today(all of them combined for less than 20 grand)
You can keep the gassers,..i take the diesels anyday.
I've had diesel pickups since 1990. First one was a Ford 6.9, then a straight 7.3, then 2 Power Stroke 7.3. A 2006 Dodge with a 5.9, and now a 2012 with a 6.7. This last one will probably be my last diesel. Gets the poorest mileage, and has no more power then the 5.9 did. If I was to do it over again, I would have never have gotten rid of the 06. It had nearly 180,000 miles on it, and felt like it had an injector going.
The ranch has a 91 Dodge, and it doesn't have enough power to pull itself, let alone a trailer.
I know back in 98, I still had my old straight 7.3, and I could out pull any stock Cummins, and still get 19.9 MPG.
The ranch has a 91 Dodge, and it doesn't have enough power to pull itself, let alone a trailer.
I know back in 98, I still had my old straight 7.3, and I could out pull any stock Cummins, and still get 19.9 MPG.
If you don't mind an older truck and are looking for reliability and simplicity, go with a 91.5-93 Dodge with a 12 valve. I prefer the 3/4 tons just because the 1 tons I drove seemed geared way too low for any sort of highway commute. They are by no means race cars...so don't expect to go drag racing all of the highschool kids unless you wanna dump some cash in her!
Ken Macfarlane
Well-known Member
Early cummins 6.7's were trouble. My uncle has a 2012 6.7 cummins that has all the deletes and programmer, mileage back up to a 5.9, about 19-22 mpg when I've borrowed it.
fixerupper
Well-known Member
I nickname my late 98 5.9 one ton dually 'money pit'. The engine itself is solid as a rock. The rest of the vehicle? Welllllllll! I've done the IP and upgraded lift pump and about everything else too.
buickandeere
Member
given the price of fuel, current diesel emission specs and now that DI gas engines are on the market. The diesel which used to rule the pickup truck market from 1989 to 2006 has been demoted.
Clodbuster
Member
Oh yes they did!!! The excellent engineers at Dodge converted the Slant Six, the legendary Leaning Tower of Power, into a great diesel engine with plenty of main bearings and that nice forged crankshaft. Great torque and economy.
They had it ready to go but unfortunately GM released that horrible 350 diesel engine that soured the whole market for non big truck diesels. Market research showed that customers would not buy a diesel at that time so the Slant project was shelved.
Such a shame......
Using the Cummins later was wonderful too.
They had it ready to go but unfortunately GM released that horrible 350 diesel engine that soured the whole market for non big truck diesels. Market research showed that customers would not buy a diesel at that time so the Slant project was shelved.
Such a shame......
Using the Cummins later was wonderful too.
Blackhole49
Well-known Member
- Location
- White Lake MI
Just my opinion, none.
Bison, you missed my point. I have an '82, a '94, and a '96 diesel, and still use them. But the newest is already 19 years old, and the bodies don't last forever in snow/salt country, so, eventually we have to move up. And by the time you get into the 2000 decade, only 4 or 5 years newer, you have to be prepared to drop a LOT of money when something craps out mechanically or electronically , related to the powertrain, even if you do the work yourself.
y newest truck is a 07 3500 SRW with a D-max.
I bought it last year for $4300, i spend a grand to fix the issues and dedicated the truck to just pull my trailers.
I can buy a lot of parts over a lot of years before i hit the 70 grand they want for a new one.
When a body rusts out i buy another one of the same year or a few years younger with a good body and use the rusted out one for parts or ranch use.
I am not on the road on a daily basis so it works for me.
Even though i can i could never justify buying a brand new truck.
Mike Aylward
Well-known Member
I've owned two Dodge diesel pickups. One was a '96 and the one I have now that I bought new, a 2008. Both trucks have shown to be dependable. I installed a tuner in the '08 and gained power and fuel economy. I would conservatively estimate an instant 4-5 mpg increase with the tuner over the stock settings. I have had zero problems with either basic engine. I do a lot of trailering with a 30' gooseneck trailer pulling my pulling tractor and hauling many other things, many times at the legal limit (or above, sometimes). I would not want anything but a diesel pickup for this. To obtain the needed torque for this application a gas engine would need to be "wound" pretty tight with fuel economy going south accordingly. The diesel purrs along at a very conservative engine speed and pulls and pulls. Also, I have noticed that the diesel engine option does not depreciate with the rest of the truck. If you paid, let's say, $8500 for the diesel option when the truck was new the truck will still likely be worth(at least) $8500 more than it's gas-engined counterpart. The price difference in fuel now in this area is only 30 cents rather than the $1-plus it was. The only gas engine truck I would own would be a light duty one for just errand running. Mike
ncdiesel48
Member
I have a had a 99, 02, 04 and now a 2014.....99 had a few small issues...02 was bulletproof and was an auto. Sold it at 275,000. 04 was the best for mileage. sold it with 265,000 on it...both were autos never had an issue. never even did the ball joints. The 2014 has 21000 on it right now and have had one reflash on the computer gets about 19-21mpg. The fuel filters (yes there are two) are expensive about 100 for both. and the DEF fluid....but it doesn't use that much uness you are towing heavy. Mine is a six speed manual with the exhaust brake. It is a horse...and really comfortable to drive.
Mark - IN.
Well-known Member
900, 1000, Big Horn.
Mark
Mark
Galen Houk
Member
Thanks for all of the information. I had a 2006 Dodge 1500 and I loved the truck but it was a gas and wouldn't pull anything. For my heavy hauling I have the Ford 7.3 with full Banks performance upgrades. I love the power of the Ford but am not keen on a upgrade to a 6.0 and I want a dually. We haul very heavy and it will have to be a diesel. I would even like an F450 or F550 or comparable Dodge. I was hoping to get information by years manufactured because I don't know all of the engine details. It sounds like I want no older than 2002 and no newer than maybe a 2005? Thanks again for all of the help.
T in NE
Well-known Member
- Location
- Cambridge, Nebraska
I wouldn't go with a first gen for towing heavy. Unless you want to box the rear half of the frame, and replace a large portion of the factory wiring. Some pump tweaks will also be in order, but unless you get crazy with an aftermarket fuel pin, custom pump head, etc, tuning the ve44 nearly always results in better fuel mileage.
A custom radiator would also be a worthy upgrade. There's a cross-flow, dual-pass one available that is quite pricey but will dump as much heat as these ones could ever hope to make.
Parts availability is tight too. Be ready to get creative making some Frod and Chebby parts fit.
A factory service manual is a good investment. You can get them on CD/ DVD from Geno's Garage for not too bad a price.
Second-gen trucks tow ok, with a manual. But the nv4500 five speed has a known fifth gear issue and it's best not to tow in fifth. Dropping speed to 65 and running fourth gear even from 70 will likely net better fuel mileage. A governor spring kit is a worthwhile upgrade, and will allow that with the 12 valve.
The nv5600 six speed is getting near on impossible to find parts for. If you can find a heavier Ford medium-duty with a Cummins and 6 speed in a boneyard, swapping the zf6 over is pretty easy.
Beware shiny black replacement vp44 pumps for the 24 valve. They are rebuilt somewhere in the Balkans and not tested, parts are measured and ones not in spec are replaced. If the electronics aren't also replaced, you're peeing in the wind.
6.7s like their fuel. The boss did full deletes on one looking for better fuel mileage. He says at least it feels like it has the power to go with the fuel economy now.
A custom radiator would also be a worthy upgrade. There's a cross-flow, dual-pass one available that is quite pricey but will dump as much heat as these ones could ever hope to make.
Parts availability is tight too. Be ready to get creative making some Frod and Chebby parts fit.
A factory service manual is a good investment. You can get them on CD/ DVD from Geno's Garage for not too bad a price.
Second-gen trucks tow ok, with a manual. But the nv4500 five speed has a known fifth gear issue and it's best not to tow in fifth. Dropping speed to 65 and running fourth gear even from 70 will likely net better fuel mileage. A governor spring kit is a worthwhile upgrade, and will allow that with the 12 valve.
The nv5600 six speed is getting near on impossible to find parts for. If you can find a heavier Ford medium-duty with a Cummins and 6 speed in a boneyard, swapping the zf6 over is pretty easy.
Beware shiny black replacement vp44 pumps for the 24 valve. They are rebuilt somewhere in the Balkans and not tested, parts are measured and ones not in spec are replaced. If the electronics aren't also replaced, you're peeing in the wind.
6.7s like their fuel. The boss did full deletes on one looking for better fuel mileage. He says at least it feels like it has the power to go with the fuel economy now.
Clodbuster
Member
My memory was straight from an interview with the engineers that was printed in Mopar Action Magazine. They have some very interesting stories about the history of the company and things that went on inside the company. Often they have articles about the things done just for the war efforts.
Here are a couple of items that I quickly found on the net.
http://www.allpar.com/slant6.html
"•A420, 1975-80: Diesel version of 225 engine "
Here are a couple of items that I quickly found on the net.
http://www.allpar.com/slant6.html
"•A420, 1975-80: Diesel version of 225 engine "
(quoted from post at 17:58:31 04/20/15) My memory was straight from an interview with the engineers that was printed in Mopar Action Magazine. They have some very interesting stories about the history of the company and things that went on inside the company. Often they have articles about the things done just for the war efforts.
Here are a couple of items that I quickly found on the net.
http://www.allpar.com/slant6.html
"•A420, 1975-80: Diesel version of 225 engine "
Interesting. I see what appears to be a 225 with a PS and AC pump mounted and an alternator. It also appears to have a turbo on it (you can turbo a gasser) but I don't see any injectors, injecotor lines or a pump. So until I see those items and the older car in the shop is explained, and an experimental engine that close to an open door I'm not buying off on those pictures being a diesel. Both IH and Dodge were offering a Nisson inline turbo diesel. With the money trouble they were heading into at the time, vehicle sales tanking I just don,t see them wasting the money.
Rick
Eldon (WA)
Well-known Member
Looks like you have it figured out. I have a 04.5 dually and have had great luck with it. At 60,000 I put an Edge programmer on it and it gave it the guts that it needed in the mountains. I've watch Youtube vids on the injector issues, and may swap mine out and add an extra fuel filter just because this will probably be the last diesel I own. Mine pulls a 14k trailer loaded 90% of its life...gets right around 13 mpg with 22,000 gross. Programmer makes the factory mileage computer lie about the fuel economy, FYI....
Clodbuster
Member
The photo is supposedly of one that an engineer squirreled away at the end of the development program. I have no proof one way or another. I'm sorry I couldn't find more photos of it.
The engines did exist, but never made it out of the testing phase and you are correct that budgetary cuts and looming bankruptcy killed that program as well as others.
Dodge did offer the Mitsubishi non turbo diesel around 1978 in the half ton pickup, and they are pretty rare to find one now. My friend owns a red one, and its photo is actually on the Allpar website! The Mitsu was a dog and not a powerhouse at all.
Did you ever drive a tank with the Dodge engine made up of several inline sixes (not slants) arranged in a radial pattern? That was another very interesting story! Maybe you are not that old?
Chrysler A57 multibank
The engines did exist, but never made it out of the testing phase and you are correct that budgetary cuts and looming bankruptcy killed that program as well as others.
Dodge did offer the Mitsubishi non turbo diesel around 1978 in the half ton pickup, and they are pretty rare to find one now. My friend owns a red one, and its photo is actually on the Allpar website! The Mitsu was a dog and not a powerhouse at all.
Did you ever drive a tank with the Dodge engine made up of several inline sixes (not slants) arranged in a radial pattern? That was another very interesting story! Maybe you are not that old?
Chrysler A57 multibank
Not that old and spent most of my time on tanks in the gunners chair and the commanders hatch. What time I did spend in the drivers hole was on the M60A1/3 variants. Those had the continental 1970 CI V12 air cooled engine.
I still have trouble with that picture. Doesn't really look like a factory building, more like a more modern shop. Engine is angled so you can't even see the actual plenum . For all I know that could have a plate to mount a carb. Not a stab at you but that picture really looks like something someone did to mess with with people.
I could have sworn that I read, back in the 70's mine you, that both IH for the Scout and Chrysler were using the same Nission turbo diesel.
Rick
Clodbuster
Member
The photo is from someone's garage, I think, where they claim to have a slant that someone took home, not a photo from the factory days.
Another story had a guy that was trying to buy 5 of them from an older man that rescued them from a scrap iron business that was supposed to destroy them. I personally know of a similar event on some other engines close to my home, but I don't have any of them either.... dangit.
I have seen, in person, some of the Nissan engines in some later Jeeps that were sold on Gov't surplus auctions. They sold very well and I never had the cash at the time for one. They may have been playing with the Nissans in the pickups too at one point, I can't remember that.
All of the tanks are very cool and much respect given to you and all of the others that were in and around them!
Another story had a guy that was trying to buy 5 of them from an older man that rescued them from a scrap iron business that was supposed to destroy them. I personally know of a similar event on some other engines close to my home, but I don't have any of them either.... dangit.
I have seen, in person, some of the Nissan engines in some later Jeeps that were sold on Gov't surplus auctions. They sold very well and I never had the cash at the time for one. They may have been playing with the Nissans in the pickups too at one point, I can't remember that.
All of the tanks are very cool and much respect given to you and all of the others that were in and around them!
I know there a lot of owners that complained that the diesel powered Scouts were underpowered. Never heard too my about the 70's Dodge diesels.
As far as a diesel slant? I'm guessing urban myth. Why do people do it? Maybe to try to spark interest. Most cause they sit in mom's basement thinking they are funny!
What's really tripping me is as a long time gear head, with many friends with gear head tendencies, with a gear head Chrysler nut BIL is this is the first time ever I've been told that Chrysler "tried to build a slant diesel". If you think about the alleged timing it doesn't make sense. GM had already failed with the 350D. At the time people were jumping to foreign made cars because of what domestic cars had become. Just how was Chrysler going to convince the buying public that thier gasser conversion was any better than the GM one? Heck they couldn't get people to buy what they were already making.
Rick
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
More info. You'll have to scroll down quite a bit to see the slant six info.
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/bios/weertman.html
I'm still skeptical. Just because it's on the net doesn't make it true. Timing is all wrong for Chrysler to be spending money like that unless you want me to believe that Chrysler management was either stupid or sucidial. Chyrsler at the alleged time was building the K car and mini van. They had less than 7% of the full size truck market at the time. Ford was selling the 6.9 NAVSTAR and GM was selling the 6.2. There really was no market share for anyone else to intro a diesel. Markets were down, Chrysler had to get bail out and steal the Ford CEO to survive.
Now they may have talked about it. But I really doubt they did much more than that.
Rick
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
You can believe whatever you want.
Judging by your last comment, I don't believe you fully read the link I provided. Allpar is a well known and respected Mopar site and if you had read the article you would see and know that Chrysler determined that the project was not feasible at the time and subsequently dropped any further development.
Here is a direct qoute from the article.
[b:d31e672699]"That program died when the interest in diesel engines in the U.S. died following the unsuccessful launching of General Motors diesel version of an automotive engine. That gave the diesels a bad reputation in the field and the market dried up and with that we quit our diesel program. That cessation of our own diesel Slant Six program was a decision by Lee Iaccoca. He figured the market wasn’t there and we shouldn’t be spending any money in that direction and he was right and we just stopped working".
[/b:d31e672699]
Clodbuster
Member
Thanks for the extra information and link HotWrench.
Oldtanker, it is good to be skeptical of things, but it was built and that is verified by multiple sources. One thing you may have wrong is the timing as I think the slant diesel was prior to the K car and minivan programs with the four cylinder engines.
If you like reading, there are some books that follow the engineers and their stories at Chrysler from back in the day. I have only read the excerpts printed in Mopar Action, as well as the first hand interviews that they have done. Some follow the racing programs and have insider details that are very interesting to look back on.
Oldtanker, it is good to be skeptical of things, but it was built and that is verified by multiple sources. One thing you may have wrong is the timing as I think the slant diesel was prior to the K car and minivan programs with the four cylinder engines.
If you like reading, there are some books that follow the engineers and their stories at Chrysler from back in the day. I have only read the excerpts printed in Mopar Action, as well as the first hand interviews that they have done. Some follow the racing programs and have insider details that are very interesting to look back on.
Clodbuster
Member
An eye witness!!!
I really have no clue what the value would be, but it would be interesting to see one at auction one day.
Like the song says, some things are classic, some things are just old. ha ha
Two nearly identical old JD tractors can be worth tens of thousands difference from each other just due to some minor detail, but the buyers have deep pockets. There are also Mopar collectors with deep pockets, so who knows?
I really have no clue what the value would be, but it would be interesting to see one at auction one day.
Like the song says, some things are classic, some things are just old. ha ha
Two nearly identical old JD tractors can be worth tens of thousands difference from each other just due to some minor detail, but the buyers have deep pockets. There are also Mopar collectors with deep pockets, so who knows?
You are right. I did stop reading for 2 reasons. 1. It's a moot point. The slant engine is long dead and I doubt that it will be resterected anytime soon. 2. It's Chrysler and they died over 6 years ago and are now, regardless of the badge a FIAT.
Given that and the market share Dodge had when they played with that engine it was a total waste of money. Even GM and Ford didn't really sell that many diesels before Dodge finally bought the Cummins. Then Dodge still only had about 7% of the full size truck market until the new body style in the 90's. Then they jumped to about 21% of the market overnight. They were running the full size lines 24/7 at that time. Had they retooled other lines that were not profitable they could have had more. That came out about the time MB took over.
Rick (sorry, just not a MOPAR fan)
Mark - IN.
Well-known Member
As I recall, a year or few before Chevrolet did.
Mark
Mark
OH and even if they were playing with it, it never reached production so you can't call it a good engine. In fact you can't even qualify it as an engine, it may have been an experiment but never a production unit. Kinda like the Wankle diesel that JD developed. Never reached production. So just an experiment.
Now would the 225 have been convertible to a powerful enough diesel engine strong enough to take the day to day abuse? Who knows? Never got that far. I doubt it because there is nothing besides a turbine that beats cubic inches.
I myself want to see the Dodge, Ford and GM diesels on an independent dyno being run within advertised engine specs before I believe any of the advertised HP/Torque ratings. I do know at one time Dodges advertised HP and Torque was achieved over the governed RPM's on a stock truck. I know this because I was researching a truck for a friend who was overseas at the time but returning to the states soon. Both Ford and GM at the time listed at what RPMs HP and Torque were achieved. Dodge only gave HP and Torque and was strangely quite about RPMS. I was on the Dodge web site on a one on one chat with a representative who finally gave the specs I was looking for. Now that's not saying it was a bad truck or the engine no good but at least they could have been honest. Heck they could be honest now and put a FIAT badge on everything.
Rick
Now would the 225 have been convertible to a powerful enough diesel engine strong enough to take the day to day abuse? Who knows? Never got that far. I doubt it because there is nothing besides a turbine that beats cubic inches.
I myself want to see the Dodge, Ford and GM diesels on an independent dyno being run within advertised engine specs before I believe any of the advertised HP/Torque ratings. I do know at one time Dodges advertised HP and Torque was achieved over the governed RPM's on a stock truck. I know this because I was researching a truck for a friend who was overseas at the time but returning to the states soon. Both Ford and GM at the time listed at what RPMs HP and Torque were achieved. Dodge only gave HP and Torque and was strangely quite about RPMS. I was on the Dodge web site on a one on one chat with a representative who finally gave the specs I was looking for. Now that's not saying it was a bad truck or the engine no good but at least they could have been honest. Heck they could be honest now and put a FIAT badge on everything.
Rick
I don't what year you say Dodge didn't advertise engine power specs correctly or without RPM's or within governed limits. I found a factory brochure for a 1st Gen and 2nd Gen Cummins and they advertised RPM clearly in both power specs.
1st Gen 160 HP @2500 RPM, 400 lb/ft @1700 RPM
2nd Gen 215 HP @2600 RPM, 440 lb/ft @1600 RPM
Im not listing all years and variants but I did not find one where the RPM was not listed or advertised above governor rating.
1st Gen 160 HP @2500 RPM, 400 lb/ft @1700 RPM
2nd Gen 215 HP @2600 RPM, 440 lb/ft @1600 RPM
Im not listing all years and variants but I did not find one where the RPM was not listed or advertised above governor rating.
The benefit to verifying Cummins power specs are that the engine is used in many medium and some heavy duty truck chassis, you can find the same power specs, some higher/lower than the specs in the Dodge trucks, just a little more info to prove their figures.
Keep in mind the same Cummins engine used for a Dodge 3/4 ton trucks were also put in Med duty Ford trucks (F-650+), the same trucks that ford considered too large for their own powerstroke.
Keep in mind the same Cummins engine used for a Dodge 3/4 ton trucks were also put in Med duty Ford trucks (F-650+), the same trucks that ford considered too large for their own powerstroke.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy