tippers

???<br>I am going to be towing a 8000lb 5th wheel and was wondering about how the 2500 high performance diesel would pull this. I know it has the power, how about personal experiences on reliability etc.<br>Is this a nice truck or would you reconsider a gm or ford.<br>please help me out. I will buy in a few weeks.

wick

The towing capacity is well above 8000 lbs. I have a 03 2500 series SO Cummins. <br>I only tow a open car carrier with a race car, but it also holds all my tools. I have had it up to 6800lbs and it tows it like its not even there. Even if there is a head wind. The cummins cuts through like a knife. <br><br>With the new Fords u will be a guniea pig. 6.0L first year is not doing so well.- <br><br>Chevy or GMC's are good, just pray that the injectors fail under Diesel warranty and get the updated injector since it is about $900 in parts alone.. <br><br>I took the Dodge, plus it looks the best, with the Ford in a close 2nd place. The 2500 GMC looks boring and over done.

routerguy99

;D Well I think that you have came to the right place to start with. I had a 1999 GM product, I have found since I have traded it in on Dodge Cummins, all my Trailer pulling worries have gone. I want to note that the HO Cummins is the best thing, way better then the Duramax, Sorry but have not owned a Ford since 86', but all I have to tell you is that the Dodge has pulled better and more stable then the other 2 trucks, I just would like you to know that I pull a 10k trailer. and this is the best place to get straight ansewers, not alot of bull, just alot of Hoss, (he makes this great here.)

gadgets

tippers:<br><br>You won't have to worry about the Cummins pulling the trailer; you need to see about the LOAD on the truck!<br><br>Do the math - check the pin weight of the fiver; add that to the weight you may put in the truck, &amp; then compare to the ratings from the Dodge site - they have a 'Dodge Towing Guide' on their homepage that lists the numbers.<br><br>I ended up with a 3500 just because of the stuff I wanted to take with me in the truck!!<br><br>Rene

Luke S

Ther is only a couple hundred bucks in price difference between the 2500 and the 3500 single rear wheel trucks. Go with the 3500 single rear wheel, because then you'll have the factory over load springs which the 2500 will not have. You'll have virtually the same ride unloaded, but when you load it down the 3500 with it's standard over loads will handle the weight better than the 2500 with out them.

doug

well, as for reliabililty, you'll find that Dodge owners are pretty mindful of the mighty Cummins. Engine reliability for a Diesel is top priority to me because they are expensive to repair. So in that category you have to realize that the Cummins:<br><br>1. is build upon a design that is 20 years old. proven reliable in commercial and higher powered applications.<br><br>2. is a medium-duty engine, as upposed to a light duty engine. thats why its average life between rebuilds is 350,000 miles and thats a published, statistically valid reliability figure, not an anectotal story. both Ford and Chevy have light duty engines.<br><br>3. contains 40% fewer parts than a V8, owing to the elegant 6-cylinder design. no matter how you slice it, you can put the same quality into both engines, and the V6 will out-live the V8, simply because of the sheer probability of part failure is lower. Cummins owners like to muse about other diesels that have two many cylinders, too many injectors, two many parts, etc., to acheive the same power levels at inferior reliability levels. <br><br>you're right: peak horsepower isn't the issue, as all three of the major diesels are about the same in that regard. But I have to say that I'm impressed with the 2003s. Dodge just completed a very major introduction of a new truck design (the 2003 RAM), and the thing is like 80% new, bumper to bumper. there have been a few axle quality issues early on, but those are gone now. and no major engine issues, even though it's mostly new as well (pretty much all new except for the block and the overall 6 cylinder design). all in all, the 2003 Dodge intro has wiped the socks off of lesser intros from Ford and Chevy, regarding quality.<br><br>In comparison, look at Fords latest intro -- their new 6.0L Diesel on the superduty. Only the engine changed and (for the most part) the truck around it is close to the same. But this intro is a disaster as far as early severe and major engine failures are concerned. Same goes for the Chevy when they first introduced the Duramax, although not as bad as the ford. I mean, major, significant and severe engine troubles at first intro.<br><br>So I think with the exception of the early 2003 axles, and perhaps the fact that the new auto transmission is only a year old now (so reliability has not yet been established), Dodge did well with the 2003 3rd gen trucks for quality and reliability. <br><br>These comments are all personal preference of course. I have the Doug rating scale of 0-10 (and all the hazards thereunto appertaining). in my mind, the 2003 4WD quad cab trucks stack up like this:<br><br>1. Ford: avoid until the 6.0 has some more history, and the warranty situation calms down. Other than the engine, the 250 and 350 trucks are good and solid, with straight solid axles front and rear (very durable). The cab is huge and very attractive if you need that kind of room, but you pay for it in wheel base. The F350 short bed is nearly as long as the Dodge 3500 long bed. Current engine problems aside (so assume that there are no current engine problems...) Ford gets a 7 for the Engine (my Cummins bias showing cause I don't think this engine will ever match the reliability and durabilty of the Cummins because there are too many parts... We don't know now this engine behaves with 300,000 miles on it). Highway comfort gets a 9 (solid axles so it won't steer quite as good as an IFS) and offroad it gets a 9 instead of a 10, only because it is a looooong truck. (The solid axles and suspension system are good for offroad). I don't comment on interior stuff because thats all up to personal preferences <br><br>2. Chev: king of the soft highway ride, with the independant front suspension. However I would never drive one of these hard off road because the front end is too complex and they just cannot compare to the durability of a solid axle. Most of the reliability issues with the engine are calming down, but once in a while you see one drinking engine coolant or dumping fuel into the crankcase. For Engine, chev gets an 8 just because I don't think the engine is quite the reliable workhorse that Cummins is, even though it has been around for a few years and established a decent reputation better than the Ford has right now. highway comfort gets a 10 (IFS) and offroad gets an 8 because of the IFS.<br><br>3. dodge: king of engine durability and overall robustness, nobody beats the towing capacity, offroad duty and hauling capability of this workhorse. Engine is incomparably superior in durability. Front end design may not be quite as tough as a superduty leaf spring suspension, but the new 2003s look very good and don't drive at all like the older ones, which get a bit loose up front :-). for Engine, Dodge gets a 10, highway comfort gets a 9 (solid front axle), and offroad gets a 10, due to solid axles and short wheelbase. Dodge wins the turning radius contest too, I might add.

bulabula

I wanted 4x4 in case I was on a slippery ramp pulling the boat out. I wanted a diesel, cuz I wanted a diesel.

I Like the Crew Cab Ford but was suspect of the Ford with the new 6.0 PS; and I think the GM 4x4's look stupid with their body lift kits where you can see the emergency brake cables flying in the wind at stoplights.

Imagine my surprise when Dodge released the new Quad Cab; even my 2 big teenagers fit ok in the back. Not so in the '02 QC we tried out.

I went to order a 3500 SRW, but my truck was already sitting there. One test drive with that 2500 6-shooter HO and the rest is history.

I pull a 8500 lb boat/trailer, at almost 17k GCW. If I did it over, I'd get everything the same, but get 3.73's rather than the 4.10's. But now I've got a good reason to put on some 35's to pull the revs down on the superslab.

Edit: Tippers, I'm not real sure on the pin weight percentages of a 5er are, but if you figure at least ~20%, your pin weight will exceed 1600 lbs. My new truck weighed 7080 with a full tank, and thats before I put on the lid, nerf bars, kids, gf - &amp; her kids, beer, pop, you get it..... You'll be bumping the stops on factory GVWR with a 2500 pretty quick. Will it be ok? I think so, but that statement has started flame wars before. Look at a 3500 too. The motor will pull anything you can throw at it easily. &quot;I&quot; think nothing tows better than a dooley, but don't EVER have a brain fart and try to drive through Mickey Dee's with one. Hence my desire for a SRW. I still smile every time I hop in the Beast!

doug

[quote author=bulabula link=board=20;threadid=17157;start=0#160848 date=1058407403]<br>...You'll be bumping the stops on factory GVWR with a 2500 pretty quick. Will it be ok? I think so, but that statement has started flame wars before. Look at a 3500 too. [/quote]<br><br>these are excellent points, and if you do your homework first, you might be in for a surprise. What my wife and I did was to pick out a &quot;test subject&quot; 5ver that we thought had more than enough room for what we need. then I started looking at hitch weights and truck GVWR and discovered a very important point: there is a category of medium sized 5vers (mainly those with slide outs in the front bedroom over the truck bed) with hitch weights in the 2000 lbs region. The 2500 is not rated for that much, unless you don't carry any passengers. The truck sits at ~ 7,000 lbs curb weight and the GVWR is 9,000. that means you're at the limit with a 2000 lb hitch. don't get me wrong, there are plenty of sub 30' 5vers without the front slide-out and smaller hitch weights. I'm just relating this to you because if you want to stay within published weight ratings (many Cummins owners don't, and none that I know of have encountered problems), you can't tow one of these trailers with the 2500. <br><br>Having said that, note that the only difference between the 3500 short box and the 2500 short box HOs is the rear springs. If the rear springs can't handle the load, then add helpers or air bags

Jonesey

[quote author=Cummins Luke link=board=20;threadid=17157;start=0#160767 date=1058396103]<br>Ther is only a couple hundred bucks in price difference between the 2500 and the 3500 single rear wheel trucks. Go with the 3500 single rear wheel, because then you'll have the factory over load springs which the 2500 will not have. You'll have virtually the same ride unloaded, but when you load it down the 3500 with it's standard over loads will handle the weight better than the 2500 with out them.<br>[/quote]<br><br>Just going from memory I think the difference is more like $500. Quite a bit for the overloads, cab marker lights and bragging rights. I think the overloads on my last truck were $80.00 and the cab marker lights are currently $80.00. I also get to pay $45.00 more per year for registration than I did on my previous 01.5 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 HO CTD.

converteddzlr

But you also get the heavier axle too.

Jonesey

[quote author=converteddzlr link=board=20;threadid=17157;start=0#161442 date=1058549281]<br>But you also get the heavier axle too.<br>[/quote]<br><br>You get the larger 11.5&quot; ring gear with the manual transmission regardless of model, 2500 or 3500.

Robert Venable

Are the brakes on all models indentical also?

doug

identical brakes, identical axles, transmission, and tansfer case, for the HO engines. As I understand it, only the rear springs. oh, and you get little orange toads on the cab!

Robert Venable

So, the cab clearance lights come standard on the 3500, but are only an option on the 2500. I wonder if there is any difference in the front springs? Anyone have access to part numbers?

doug

front springs are the same. the rear springs are different from the 2500 in that they have a reduced spring rate for the main leafs, and a stiffer auxiliary spring.