Best NEW Diesel Truck on the Market?

timzim

Observer
I know it's like asking "blond or brunette," but what's the most dependable new diesel truck in the market today? The big three I'm thinking of are the Ford, Chevy Duramax and Dodge Cummins -- all 3/4 ton or larger.

Related question -- is the old Ford 7.3L a better engine than anything that's new, especially by buying one that has really low miles? Uses include daily driver, camping, expo in the future.

Thanks everyone!
 

Revco

Adventurer
12-Valve Cummins dominates all. Next is the 7.3 Powerstroke. I wouldn't waste money on a new truck, even if I had 50k to spend on one, but that's just me.
 

Ponyracer

Adventurer
New trucks all are under the emissions axe.

Buy a new truck, do full deletes and get rid of the smog stuff. Voids your engine warranty in most cases. Have an engine that will now PROBABLY go up to 500K.

OR

Buy a new truck, don't do anything but add fuel, get horrible mileage, but keep that all important warranty for 100K miles.

Problem is, with the EGR and the smog equip recycling crap into your engine you will be lucky to see past 120K.

Most of this is based on the cummins because thats what I'm looking to buy, trying to decide between a '12 longbed dually to pull a fiver or get a truck thats similar to what I have just in a long bed dually. Now to every rule there is an exception of course, and some people are seeing ok mileage out of the new trucks and seeing 2-300K miles and counting. My suggestion is to join a forum for each brand and do LOTS of reading.

My vote is dodge, (of course) solid front axle, 6 speed manual offered, cheapest BY FAR, the '10 up has very nice interiors compaired to my '07. Oh yea and its got a cummins.
 

darien

Observer
I wouldn't buy new either. Unless you're legitimately wealthy, the $30,000 depreciation is a financial hit that noone needs to take.

I just finished driving everything withing a 50 mile radius and wound up getting a used truck. From what I learned in person and teased out of a few reputable online comments, it seems that:

-the Chevy Duramax is an engine that everyone acknowledges is a real beast. It tends to dominate at racing and pulling events. The problem is that Chevy trucks don't have a solid front axle and seem to have a reputation for not being anywhere near as tough as the engine. The Allison transmission is acknowledged to be superb.

-the new Cummins is not without its problems. It has not been an unqualified success and the old 5.9 liter is still the acknowledged "best engine ever" that people remember with a tear in their eye. Dodge has the poorest reputation for build quality and coach work, although I've owned Dodge trucks and they were fine. But then I owned them from before the time when truck interiors were nicer than our living rooms.

-with Ford, things get complicated. The new Power Stroke is acknowledged to be a success - many years in development and testing, it seems like they "got it right". And the Ford body/build quality is thought to be the best out there. But there is weirdness like the exhuast fluid (urea, basically) that has to be added along side the diesel fill, to keep emissions clean. That's more stuff to carry if you're really travelling. I've been told that economy is nowhere near what is advertised and winds up being basically no better than gas, and with the cost of diesel, you're actually going in reverse.

-used Ford: the 7.3 is a bulletproof engine, and there are a zillion trucks out there with it. I don't know of any designed-in flaws. The problem is that many earlier Ford trucks had other design issues that make them problematic, such as the weird front axle, or a flawed transmission (I put several transmissions in 90's era F150's), so it gets to be a sleuthing game of "which year", and you wind up looking for a very specific model year which can be a hassle. I soon gave up as there didn't seem to be one good year that I could look for. Also, they're going to have leaf springs up front which means larger tires are more likely to rub, requiring lift and spacer issues that a coil spring truck doesn't usually have. Not a big issue, but it's there. If you're running stock or stock-ish size tires, no big deal. Which are of course fine for genuine expedition type travel.

I bought a 2005 6.0 liter. The 6.0 liter engine is bullet proof in thousands of school buses all across the fruited plain, but when Ford put it in a passenger vehicle, they had to pass emissions, which meant a very weak, buggy EGR cooler system which (if over loaded and over heated, or sometimes just for no reason at all) will fail and allow coolant to get into your cylinders. The thing is, this is a very isolated, very well known problem, and there are any number of companies with solid fixes for it. Check out bulletproofdiesel.com for more info. Also, the stock oil cooler is a possible failure point. Replace with aftermarket, and you have (in my mind) the best of all worlds.

If you watch ebay, you can find (usually about once or twice a month) a really clean "first Generation" Cummins 5.9 liter with a manual transmission. If you have the cash on hand and are comfortable with an older truck with a lot of miles (sometimes not a lot, if you're ready to pay up) then that would probably be acknowledged to be the best American diesel pickup. But make sure you get a manual - the automatic from the period seems to be problematic. My original first gen Cummins I bought in 1992 was just awesomely solid. If it had been 4wd, it would never have left my cold dead fingers.

My truck has superb performance, and what's more, I have a Dana 60 front axle and coil springs up front, so I can run much bigger tires (if desired) without having to lift the truck up like Bigfoot. In 2005, they changed to the Dana 60 with coils. It's a long bed, 4 door cab, with loads of interior room, and the coils enable me to go up several tire sizes without a lift to get that long wheelbase up off the dirt. I'll drop about $2500 into it for a bullet proof EGR and oil cooler and I'll have a truck I can drive for decades.

Hope this helps. I'm not trying to sound like a knowitall, I just finished going through the whole process and it's all in the front of my mind.

Many here will disagree, or have their own perspectives, borne from far greater experience than mine.
 

timzim

Observer
Wow, lots of great info so far -- thank you. I agree about not wanting to lay out the money for a new full-size, it's just hard to know which models/engine/transmission combo to look for in the used market.

I will add to the mix -- what is everyone's opinions of the 6.2L (up to 91) or 6.5L (92-99) Suburbans? What is their track record as far as dependability, etc?

I have four kids to take camping with me, so six people plus gear is sort of tight in a Land Cruiser or other smaller vehicle.
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
I'm going to vote for the Ford. Then Dodge, then Chevy.

2011 is over and done with and the 6.7's seem to holding up fine. So Ford has the 6.0 monkey off thier back. And International is long gone. I prefer Fords Suspension and axles as well. Manual hubs, Manual transfer case, nice brakes. I like urea injection better than Regen. Sure you have to buy urea, but with regen you still have to buy the fuel that regens. And the last regen Dodge I drove stayed in regen getting a nice 7mpg.

I'd imagine that Dodge has started using "real" steel and rust treatments to thier trucks by now. Thier new trucks look great, and thier engines still arrive sealed up from Cummins. I'll wait and see. Hopefully they are urea injection, or can at least survive some city driving without wetstacking as bad as the ones I've driven. Why no manual hubs?

The Chevy has a great engine. But I've had problems with the transmission. And GM's quality lacks behind the Ford. There also is no hiding the IFS which I despise. The new IFS rides stiffer. The advantages of IFS appear to be long gone on the 2500. GM deosn't seem to get it. The Urea tank is in a very dangerous spot, especially considering how useless the truck is in "limp home" mode.

I prefer the base work truck models of each. But we're still talking $44-48k!
 

SLO_F-250

Explorer
I am somewhat biased, but because of the ridiculous prices on new trucks, I would say go for a 99-2003 7.3L ford. Tons of them out there on the road, and tons for sale with low miles. Just gotta be patient. Mines a 99' 7.L with almost 210k on it. No major problems at all yet.

Second vote would be for an early 2000's Dodge with the cummins. Solid Truck, but I am not too knowledgeable in that dept so others will have more input on the Dodges.

New trucks are just stupid expensive and not worth it IMO. You can get an early 2000's diesel for $15,000 (+/-) with under 100k. Put another 5k into building/customizing it to your wants, and then drive it for years with no worries.

Good luck with the search!
Paul
 

shellb

Adventurer
I'm going to vote for the Ford. Then Dodge, then Chevy.

2011 is over and done with and the 6.7's seem to holding up fine. So Ford has the 6.0 monkey off thier back. And International is long gone. I prefer Fords Suspension and axles as well. Manual hubs, Manual transfer case, nice brakes. I like urea injection better than Regen. Sure you have to buy urea, but with regen you still have to buy the fuel that regens. And the last regen Dodge I drove stayed in regen getting a nice 7mpg.

I'd imagine that Dodge has started using "real" steel and rust treatments to thier trucks by now. Thier new trucks look great, and thier engines still arrive sealed up from Cummins. I'll wait and see. Hopefully they are urea injection, or can at least survive some city driving without wetstacking as bad as the ones I've driven. Why no manual hubs?

The Chevy has a great engine. But I've had problems with the transmission. And GM's quality lacks behind the Ford. There also is no hiding the IFS which I despise. The new IFS rides stiffer. The advantages of IFS appear to be long gone on the 2500. GM deosn't seem to get it. The Urea tank is in a very dangerous spot, especially considering how useless the truck is in "limp home" mode.

I prefer the base work truck models of each. But we're still talking $44-48k!

I'm loving my 2011 F250. I picked it up right at the end of the year and negotiated well I think...walked out the door for $42k for a limited option (rear locker only option) Lariat. Sure it is a lot of money but it is a lot of truck and light years ahead of a 7.3 or 12v both good (and bad). For my specific purpose it is great...its only money, you only live once, buy what you want and enjoy the heck out of it...I am.
 

poriggity

Explorer
I'm still very much enamored with my 04.5 5.9 Cummins... I don't get to drive it as often as I'd like, but You can bet your butt, if I was looking to purchase a new truck (espcially if it was here in CA), I'd be looking used, at a truck that was built before they started putting all this BS emissions crap on these trucks.
 

oldestof11

Observer
Wow, lots of great info so far -- thank you. I agree about not wanting to lay out the money for a new full-size, it's just hard to know which models/engine/transmission combo to look for in the used market.

I will add to the mix -- what is everyone's opinions of the 6.2L (up to 91) or 6.5L (92-99) Suburbans? What is their track record as far as dependability, etc?

I have four kids to take camping with me, so six people plus gear is sort of tight in a Land Cruiser or other smaller vehicle.

My brothers in-laws have a few Suburbans with diesels. I will tell you what he told me.

The 6.2L he love a lot more than the 6.5L. However, neither start worth a crap in the cold windy IL winters without being plugged in.

The 6.5L has problems with the PMD (something like that) for the injection pump. A relocate is advised. Also, they overheat very quickly.

The 6.2L is just slow but gets you there.

New trucks: Cummins mileage is behind because of the amount of use of the regen. They say they are bringing Urea to the new ones in 2013 to help up the mileage.

Duramax is a great engine, an ok trans, and then there is IFS. Uses urea to help get mileage in the upper teens, low 20's

Powerstroke is all new, not too many problems yet, and a serious contender to be reckoned with. However, drop a ratchet under the hood and never hear it hit the ground.

The 7.3L Superduty's are IMHO, one of the best when it comes to power, reliability, options, ride, roominess, durability, serviceability. My brother had one and loved it. Sold it and got a 6.0L. More power, better ride, but had to buy an EGR delete kit for peace of mind.

Then the 1st Gen Cummins comes next. The only weaknesses I see is the steering gear box, roominess, the rough suspension, and the extra stuff you need to do to either trans to get it to hold up. Positives are the king-pin front axle, the ability to abuse it occasionally with dirty fuel, long oil changes, and the appreciating value they are getting for being a classic.

The 2nd Gen 12v has balljoint front ends and the autos suck.

The Dmaxes I have no direct advice as I have never worked on one nor do I know anyone really well who has one.
 

Ponyracer

Adventurer
I own a 3/4 ton 4x4 6.2 suburban, GREAT truck, tougher than a bag of hammers. 6.2 is a detroit diesel NOT a converted 350 as some will claim, however they did convert 350's to diesel or use the basic engine design and put them in the fullsize GM cars of the early '80's IIRC. The 5.7 diesel was crap, the 6.2 is not. It has 136 HP so it isn't exactly what I'd call speedy in a 7K lb sub. Mine will run 70+ all day long, and pull down 19mpg while doing it.

It's for sale in the for sale section btw, lol.

On the new fords, I drove a new 6.4? twin turbo version from fl to wisconsin and back, think it was a '11 model. It was a base model, manual windows and rubber mats and was MILES ahead of my 07 dodge in seating comfort and interior qualiy. Leaving say a toll booth on the interstate it would go from a standing stop to 100 mph fast enough to impress a guy who grew up driving 5.0 mustangs. In a drag race it would KILL my 5.9 however my 5.9 felt as if it had alot more tourqe than the ford. Seems like a similar compairison to the 6.0 vs the 5.9, ford is high strung and peaky and the cummins just puts the power down on the low end and stays there. Prob alot to do with the engine design of v8 vs straight 6. Also the manual in my truck I think has alot to do with the "feel". The urea wasn't a big deal on the ford, think I filled it up once on that trip, and the truck pulled down a hand calculated 19.2 mpg at 80-90 mph the whole way.

Would I buy a new ford? Oh hell no, just like I wouldn't buy a 07.5 6.7 cummins, hence why I bought the last of the 5.9's. I would in a few yrs however once they've proven themselves.
 

JUNAC

Observer
I am currently waiting for the arrival of my 2012 Dodge Megacab with the 6.7L Cummins and a manual tranny. I custom ordered it and yes it is expensive. I hope to install some sort of truck vault storage box in the bed, a bedslide on top of the drawers, and a cap to keep everything watertight. A heavy duty roof rack is also in the plans. Not sure what I will do for my sleeping quarters. Tent, sleep in the back, or modify my military trailer into the ultimate offroad camper? I plan to keep this vehicle for the next 15 to 20 years. We'll see how that goes.
 

bfdiesel

Explorer
Urea does nothing for mileage and does not eliminate the DPF regen. Urea injection is a separate additional system for NOX. The CAT is for NOX and SO2. The DPF is for opacity. ULSD is to reduce SO2. EGR is to reduce NOX. Anything with a DPF will suck on mileage compared to the ol' 12 valve.
Both ford and gmc run EGR, CAT, urea injection, and DPF. They also only come with an automatic transmission.
Dodge doesn't have urea yet on their 3/4 tons and still have a manual transmission option.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
189,063
Messages
2,912,550
Members
231,682
Latest member
YaRiteZ71
Top