What Diesel Truck Would You Buy For $35k?

[Cowcatcher]

What was a worse motor than the 6.0 as far as reliability is concerned that was put in a Gm Dodge Ram or ford truck in the past couple of decades?

Hmmmm, I don't know about reliability but the 6.5 diesel that Chevy used before they got the Duramax wasn't too much cookie for doing things like towing. IMHO of the few I was around. Fords old 6.9 diesel seemed to be a very cold natured animal. That's all I've got. I'm really enjoying watching you two battle about this. Continue please!

 

[zghorner]

That’s why I said past 2 decades lol I know GMs pre duramax diesels weren’t exactly awe inspiring

 

[Okie4570]

maybe up to 2003ish I can agree with you they aren't so good. Done arguing though because I cant stand withholding my love for you any longer.

6.4 is 100% no way. 6.0 is 95% no way as of now.

Been looking up cummins swaps and it aint quite as simple as saaaaay doing an LS swap into a foxbody. I was expecting to find more aftermarket support and plug-and-play type options and there really isn't a lot out there.

So you're telling me there's a chance lol

 

[Okie4570]

Hmmmm, I don't know about reliability but the 6.5 diesel that Chevy used before they got the Duramax wasn't too much cookie for doing things like towing. IMHO of the few I was around. Fords old 6.9 diesel seemed to be a very cold natured animal. That's all I've got. I'm really enjoying watching you two battle about this. Continue please!

I had work trucks that were a 6.2l and a 6.5l, gutless, absolutely gutless. 6.9l just keep on ticking, but that's about the only thing they've got going for them.

 

[Cowcatcher]

That’s why I said past 2 decades lol I know GMs pre duramax diesels weren’t exactly awe inspiring

Well, the Duramax is just barely 2 decades old if memory serves. What was it 99 or 2000 when it hit the streets? Anyhow it don't matter. I just really wanted to participate in this thread. Lmao

 

[dennishoddy]

Y'all have just about convinced me to not buy a diesel truck for pulling the RV.
Think I'll stick with the Tundra for now. Been watching this thread with interest and trying to learn between the cheap shots.

 

[Okie4570]

Y'all have just about convinced me to not buy a diesel truck for pulling the RV.
Think I'll stick with the Tundra for now. Been watching this thread with interest and trying to learn between the cheap shots.

Buy a 15' or 16' 6.7l Powerstroke and don't look back. 17' was the first year of the aluminum bodies (also more hp and tq), which I've not heard any complaints about, but they also switched up filter styles and locations and they cost more than the 11'-16'.

15' and 16' will still give you 440hp and 860ft/lbs torque at 1600rpm as opposed to your Tundra of 400ft/lbs at 3600rpm.

 

[zghorner]

Buy a 15' or 16' 6.7l Powerstroke and don't look back. 17' was the first year of the aluminum bodies (also more hp and tq), which I've not heard any complaints about, but they also switched up filter styles and locations and they cost more than the 11'-16'.

15' and 16' will still give you 440hp and 860ft/lbs torque at 1600rpm as opposed to your Tundra of 400ft/lbs at 3600rpm.

The CP4 injection pump scares the crap out of me on the 6.7 powerstrokes...and the way ford refused to warranty out the $12,000+ repair job to so many people really soured me. Ford would claim that "their fuel had water in it" and not replace the fuel system whereas (from my understanding at least) GM was much more likely to cover the CP4 repairs on 2011+ duramaxes. I know those failures are not as common as they seem to be online but still that is a very costly repair for an already costly (albeit super nice) vehicle.

For whatever reason the 6.7 PSD doesn't hold its value like the cummins and IMO the powerstrokes are nicer trucks. You can dang near buy a used king ranch F350 for the cost of a tradesman base model Ram 3500.

 

[Okie4570]

The CP4 injection pump scares the crap out of me on the 6.7 powerstrokes...and the way ford refused to warranty out the $12,000+ repair job to so many people really soured me. Ford would claim that "their fuel had water in it" and not replace the fuel system whereas (from my understanding at least) GM was much more likely to cover the CP4 repairs on 2011+ duramaxes. I know those failures are not as common as they seem to be online but still that is a very costly repair for an already costly (albeit super nice) vehicle.

For whatever reason the 6.7 PSD doesn't hold its value like the cummins and IMO the powerstrokes are nicer trucks. You can dang near buy a used king ranch F350 for the cost of a tradesman base model Ram 3500.

First I've heard of the CP4 issue. I have heard of turbo and wire harness issues with the 11'.

 

[zghorner]

Ford and GM went to the bosch CP4 from the CP3 in 2011+ while Ram kept the CP3. They basically come apart by chewing themselves up internally and contaminate the entire fuel system with metal. so all injectors, lines, HPP, rail and everything has to be replaced.

Here is some info about a lawsuit filed against ford about it: https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/ford-67-cp4-fuel-pump-failures-lawsuit.shtml

This info is stolen from another forum:

"Cummins used the CP3 starting years ago and to current. The Duramax also used this pump up through the LMM engines, or ending in 2010. The CP3 is a very good pump and has the advantage of being able to deliver *a lot* of fuel volume thanks to three fuel pistons. In 2011, Ford and GM both moved to the next-gen Bosch pump known as the CP4 which is a higher pressure but lower volume twin-piston pump. Cummins continued with the CP3 (which like the CP4 has seen revisions along the way).

The CP4 pump fails when it doesn't get lubrication, and all of the pump's lube is from the fuel. Ultra low sulfur fuel doesn't have a lot of lubricity in it anyway, so any small amount of fuel contamination can cause the failure. Water in the fuel would be probably the biggest cause. There is a lot of speculation on the Internet that the CP3 didn't have this problem because it flows more volume, and more fuel must equal more lube. I don't buy that theory because the CP3 is a triple pumper while the CP4 is a double pumper, so the actual area needing lube is less in the CP4. Others say the CP4 in the Duramax fails more often because they don't use a lift pump (through the LML engine ending in 2016) but I doubt that as well. The CP3 never used a lift pump either.

Now, the Ford 6.7L used a modified CP4 starting in 2015 which employed a new coating on the pistons...designed to reduce friction and help the pump survive small amounts of water. There were more modifications to the CP4 on the Ford engine in 2017, but these were more likely to support the higher torque rating. Starting with the L5P Duramax in 2017, GM has moved away from Bosch and now uses Denso to supply the entire fuel system of the Duramax. Cummins continues with the CP3. This is very interesting, in my opinion. Cummins could choose to use the CP4, GM could have chosen to stick with the CP4, or Ford could have chosen to move away from the CP4. Yet none of them did those things. Ford did increase the water separator capacity for the 2017 Super Duty; but aside from that I think they are satisfied with the reliability of this fuel pump. And there are plenty of very high mileage early Ford 6.7L diesels with original pumps that are doing just fine. So as with any diesel, choose the best diesel you can - high volume fuel stations...and drain your water separator monthly if you can."