Pre-Emission Full-sized Trucks

[Dalko43]

Just gonna leave this right here. cumminsengines.com/repower-survey

Thanks for posting that! I submitted a survey. Everyone else on here should too. It seems like Cummins is considering selling crate engines (similar to what Chevy does).

That would be a total blast to buy something like their 5.0 V8 or 2.8L I4 and put it into a project vehicle!

 

[poriggity]

I'm biased but I am a cummins fan. I own an 04 with the 5.9 and an nv5600 transmission. I've owned it since new, and I absolutely love it for exploring.. thurn/carli for suspension and steering upgrsdes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[locrwln]

Before I bought my current Chevy, I looked at and drove several 5.9's. Couldn't find one that gave my that warm and fuzzy. I drove my Chevy (it was last on my list because of the perceived IFS weakness). Both my wife and I fell in love with the Chevy (07 LBZ, build in the signature). I have put over 70k trouble free miles on it since I have it and it's getting ready to hit 148k. The steering is a weak point, but easily fixed. The only other issue is the IFS works great on the highway and smooth to washboard dirt, but suffers from a lack of compression travel on the hard hits. Otherwise, it has taken me everywhere a truck this size has a right to and pulled and hauled without complaint.

Jack

 

[Dalko43]

Before I bought my current Chevy, I looked at and drove several 5.9's. Couldn't find one that gave my that warm and fuzzy. I drove my Chevy (it was last on my list because of the perceived IFS weakness). Both my wife and I fell in love with the Chevy (07 LBZ, build in the signature). I have put over 70k trouble free miles on it since I have it and it's getting ready to hit 148k. The steering is a weak point, but easily fixed. The only other issue is the IFS works great on the highway and smooth to washboard dirt, but suffers from a lack of compression travel on the hard hits. Otherwise, it has taken me everywhere a truck this size has a right to and pulled and hauled without complaint.

Thanks for the feedback. And your rig looks good (and I'm sure it handles well as well). I really like a lot of what I've heard about the pre-emissions duramax, and the Chevy platform in general. Perhaps my reluctance about going with IFS is based heavily on perception and internet gossip. I know that most of the places I've gone, my IFS 4runner has gotten the job done; a solid axle may have gotten the job done more easily, but I guess at a certain point that's fretting over little stuff.

 

[p nut]

I think that also goes for a lot of other "must haves". SFA is probably the biggest one---some think it's an absolute necessity. Meanwhile, Land Rovers with IFS *and* IRS have proven to be quite capable off-road. And certainly enough for the Overland crowd. I'd lump diesels in there as well. Modern gas engines can hit high mileage without issues. Gas is more abundantly available, and in my truck, I'm getting 500-750 mile range (depending on terrain), which is more than enough for me. Unless you tow a heavy load ALL the time, I don't see a need.
_
I'd say just buy the best condition truck within the budget and have fun. I've said it before, but if I were to turn back the clock several months, I'd look into an F250 with the 6.2L for the same amount I paid for this F150. That extra payload would've surely come in handy.

 

[Trophycummins]

Ifs has its place and is great at certain things. Hell, I live in the desert and would prefer ifs. But building ifs to be "offroad worth anywhere the truck will fit" cost a lot more to do to ifs than to build a sfa setup


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dalko43]

I think that also goes for a lot of other "must haves". SFA is probably the biggest one---some think it's an absolute necessity. Meanwhile, Land Rovers with IFS *and* IRS have proven to be quite capable off-road. And certainly enough for the Overland crowd. I'd lump diesels in there as well. Modern gas engines can hit high mileage without issues. Gas is more abundantly available, and in my truck, I'm getting 500-750 mile range (depending on terrain), which is more than enough for me. Unless you tow a heavy load ALL the time, I don't see a need.
_
I'd say just buy the best condition truck within the budget and have fun. I've said it before, but if I were to turn back the clock several months, I'd look into an F250 with the 6.2L for the same amount I paid for this F150. That extra payload would've surely come in handy.

I will agree that the SFA issue is often times over-emphasized by some (though I do also acknowledge there is a legitimate need for it by some in this community). I know that I want a SFA, I'm still trying to figure out if I truly "need" one though.

The gas vs diesel is often debated (lol, I think you and I may have even sparred over that in a previous thread). With the new emissions stuff, the diesel's mpg advantage isn't nearly as definitive as it was in years past. That said, I've seen what the more modern gasoline V8's return in terms of mpg, and I've no doubt that a well-sorted, pre-emissions I6 or V8 diesel will easily outperform it in terms of towing/hauling and fuel economy. Knowing the amount of miles I'll likely be driving on future trips, I just can't justify going with the a gasoline V8 and having to spend all that extra $ on feeding it fuel.

Ifs has its place and is great at certain things. Hell, I live in the desert and would prefer ifs. But building ifs to be "offroad worth anywhere the truck will fit" cost a lot more to do than to build a sfa setup

I can see how that would be true for areas out west, where you have some really technical terrain and trails open to the public. Here in the east, "drive anywhere it can fit" means mostly gravel/dirt logging roads and some older hunting or class 4 roads that aren't maintained. I know you can find very technical trails in the east if you know where to look, but by and large, I just haven't encountered anything in my explorations where I absolutely needed a SFA instead of an IFS.

Honestly, my real motivation in favoring a SFA over a IFS is that I do intend to carry a lot of weight up front (bigger tires, metal bumper, a 15k winch). I'd feel a lot more comfortable putting that kind of stress on a SFA versus an IFS. I know plenty of people put similar loads on IFS Tacomas, 4runners and newer Landcruisers, and (as demonstrated in this very thread) Chevy 2500's, but I, personally, prefer a SFA instead of an IFS for such duties...again I don't know if I'm falling victim to internet gossip or if there is some legitimacy to my concerns...someone feel free to chime in.

 

[p nut]

I will agree that the SFA issue is often times over-emphasized by some (though I do also acknowledge there is a legitimate need for it by some in this community). I know that I want a SFA, I'm still trying to figure out if I truly "need" one though.

The gas vs diesel is often debated (lol, I think you and I may have even sparred over that in a previous thread). With the new emissions stuff, the diesel's mpg advantage isn't nearly as definitive as it was in years past. That said, I've seen what the more modern gasoline V8's return in terms of mpg, and I've no doubt that a well-sorted, pre-emissions I6 or V8 diesel will easily outperform it in terms of towing/hauling and fuel economy. Knowing the amount of miles I'll likely be driving on future trips, I just can't justify going with the a gasoline V8 and having to spend all that extra $ on feeding it fuel.

I've wandered the west on IFS, and so have many others. I just don't see any downsides to it. Plenty of folks running SFA have busted their diffs (so have IFS). Look at the LC crowd. 80 vs 100/200 - granted early 100's had weaker diffs, there hasn't been too many failures, which is impressive especially considering where they take those rigs (more rock crawling than overlanding). You'll see a similar amount of busted diff accounts with the 80 crowd. In the end, it probably won't matter, as both set ups will do just fine.
_
Same goes for the diesel. Well cared for gas or diesel will get you where you're going. I just prefer gas, as I've got enough range and don't tow a whole lot. Plus, the premium of a diesel engine was a big factor, as well as the added maintenance costs. If they can get the initial costs and maintenance $ down, and increase the efficiency, I would definitely consider a diesel in the future. Just doesn't make sense for me at this point.
_
If you want an SFA/Diesel, just get it. There will always be a demand for those trucks from delusional internet nerds who think they need all that stuff D), so worst case scenario, just sell it if it doesn't work out. At least you'll have scratched that itch.

 

[locrwln]

Yep. Gotta have SFA for that technical stuff.
Mengal Pass in Death Valley:

Fordyce trail in the Sierras:

Sorry, my camera struggled with the lighting.

Coyote Flats:

Jack

 

[frojoe]

Honestly, my real motivation in favoring a SFA over a IFS is that I do intend to carry a lot of weight up front (bigger tires, metal bumper, a 15k winch). I'd feel a lot more comfortable putting that kind of stress on a SFA versus an IFS. I know plenty of people put similar loads on IFS Tacomas, 4runners and newer Landcruisers, and (as demonstrated in this very thread) Chevy 2500's, but I, personally, prefer a SFA instead of an IFS for such duties...again I don't know if I'm falling victim to internet gossip or if there is some legitimacy to my concerns...someone feel free to chime in.

I totally agree with your weight carrying justification. One additional point for SFA over IFS is that generally it's quite a bit easier to add minor (up to 3") lift without adversely affecting the front end geometry. If you level/lift the front end correctly with <$400 new springs (for a 3rd gen Dodge I would recommend you look no further than Thuren 3" soft ride springs) the ride improves, you don't jack your camber adjustment range, you don't adversely affect your bump/droop ratio in the truck's total suspension range, and the caster can be gained back with a simple adjustment. Add longer control arms to recenter the front axle in the wheel wells ($500-1000) and gain articulation and strength. All this and you're increasing the axle down travel without having to buy multiple compensation shims or drop brackets, or have to worry about your balljoints or other parts being loaded at a different angle than stock or operating in an extended range that they weren't meant to operate in. For an SFA I especially like the idea that the tires are always perpendicular to the axle so when you're flexing over an obstacle such as a rock, the tire being lifted is contacting with more of the tire thread and less the tire sidewall.

My experience is limited to a 2nd gen Dodge Ram 24V 5.9, but it has Thuren soft springs, Thuren tuned Fox 2.0 shocks, and longer control arms and corrected steering linkage and some other goodies, and can say this truck drives/tracks/steers better than any 2500 diesel should. There's a lot of carryover in design, sizing, and actual interchangeability of some parts between 2nd gen and 3rd gen Dodge so I feel like I have a good grasp on how a 3rd gen Dodge could handle with just softer springs and proper steering linkage (upgrading to T-style steering linkage from the stock Y-style design is a MUST upgrade for any 3rd gen you would consider, if it hasn't already been converted). It's quite beautiful how simple the 5.9L is in all of its configurations.. 12V, 24V, common rail.. all are progressively more electronic yet dead nuts easy to work on offroad. I can kneel on the front bumper and reach down to the top of the oil pan on both sides of my 24V.. try that with a Powerstroke. Pretty cool how recently/long these engines held out for with practically no emissions crap (except DPF.. hah what a joke, so easy to remove) compared to their Chevy and Ford equivalents.

 

[Dalko43]

Yep. Gotta have SFA for that technical stuff.
Fordyce trail in the Sierras:

I'm impressed, and glad, that you are out there driving your truck in those kinds of places. I think far too many people discount the full-sized trucks as viable overlanding platforms due to size. The more and more I drive and explore, the more I think that full size trucks make far more sense than loading up a V6 Tacoma or Rubicon to near max capacity and then getting crappy mpg and mediocre engine performance.

And like I said, I'm not necessarily worried about the Chevy's IFS for getting through difficult terrain. I'm sure it will more than suffice for most of the terrain I'll realistically encounter. My bigger concern is adding weight to the IFS. It seems like your rig has handled itself just fine, so I'm sure my concerns are somewhat overstated. I will say though, if Chevy had put a solid axle on their 2500HD, I would choose it over the Ram 2500 without a doubt; between the 6.6L LBZ and 6 speed allison, there is a lot to like about Chevy's platform.

I totally agree with your weight carrying justification. One additional point for SFA over IFS is that generally it's quite a bit easier to add minor (up to 3") lift without adversely affecting the front end geometry. If you level/lift the front end correctly with <$400 new springs (for a 3rd gen Dodge I would recommend you look no further than Thuren 3" soft ride springs) the ride improves, you don't jack your camber adjustment range, you don't adversely affect your bump/droop ratio in the truck's total suspension range, and the caster can be gained back with a simple adjustment. Add longer control arms to recenter the front axle in the wheel wells ($500-1000) and gain articulation and strength. All this and you're increasing the axle down travel without having to buy multiple compensation shims or drop brackets, or have to worry about your balljoints or other parts being loaded at a different angle than stock or operating in an extended range that they weren't meant to operate in. For an SFA I especially like the idea that the tires are always perpendicular to the axle so when you're flexing over an obstacle such as a rock, the tire being lifted is contacting with more of the tire thread and less the tire sidewall.

My experience is limited to a 2nd gen Dodge Ram 24V 5.9, but it has Thuren soft springs, Thuren tuned Fox 2.0 shocks, and longer control arms and corrected steering linkage and some other goodies, and can say this truck drives/tracks/steers better than any 2500 diesel should. There's a lot of carryover in design, sizing, and actual interchangeability of some parts between 2nd gen and 3rd gen Dodge so I feel like I have a good grasp on how a 3rd gen Dodge could handle with just softer springs and proper steering linkage (upgrading to T-style steering linkage from the stock Y-style design is a MUST upgrade for any 3rd gen you would consider, if it hasn't already been converted). It's quite beautiful how simple the 5.9L is in all of its configurations.. 12V, 24V, common rail.. all are progressively more electronic yet dead nuts easy to work on offroad. I can kneel on the front bumper and reach down to the top of the oil pan on both sides of my 24V.. try that with a Powerstroke. Pretty cool how recently/long these engines held out for with practically no emissions crap (except DPF.. hah what a joke, so easy to remove) compared to their Chevy and Ford equivalents.

I've heard as well that SFA's are somewhat easier to lift and modify...the simplicity of that setup, as well as the added robustness (perceived or real) does appeal to me.

And to clarify, did the 5.9L cummins have a DPF? I thought it only had a EGR and that the 6.7L was the first iteration to include a DPF?

 

[Marine]

Don't quote me on this but I think it was 2007 and a half is when cummins started to put emmisions stuff on.

 

[frojoe]

I've heard as well that SFA's are somewhat easier to lift and modify...the simplicity of that setup, as well as the added robustness (perceived or real) does appeal to me.

And to clarify, did the 5.9L cummins have a DPF? I thought it only had a EGR and that the 6.7L was the first iteration to include a DPF?

I'm not 100% sure on 3rd gen Rams as I've never had much need to read into their intricacies, but I believe the 2007.5 6.7L was the first time the DPF made it's way onto a Cummins truck. Like I said, it's pretty impressive how raw the 5.9L engines were sold right off the dealership floor up until 2007.5! The intake grid heater might be the only part on these engines that is present but isn't vital to its basic function of running.

 

[Dalko43]

I'm not 100% sure on 3rd gen Rams as I've never had much need to read into their intricacies, but I believe the 2007.5 6.7L was the first time the DPF made it's way onto a Cummins truck. Like I said, it's pretty impressive how raw the 5.9L engines were sold right off the dealership floor up until 2007.5! The intake grid heater might be the only part on these engines that is present but isn't vital to its basic function of running.

Yeah, that's what I've seen and heard: the DPF was included when the engine transitioned from 5.9L to 6.7L.

Also, isn't the grid heater essential to cold starts with the 5.9L?

 

[Darwin]

They will start without the grid heater, a testament to how good an engine they are, but won't be happy about it. My advice, leave it on, they work great. Best part no glow plugs! Way better that way. Injectors are cheaper too since you are only buying 6 not 8, two less cylinders is great. Cummins is also much easier to work on yourself, pop the hood of either GM or Ford and compare to see the difference. There is a member on here selling a fully outfitted nice 5.9 megacab for 45k.