dieselroller

Howdy.
I am new to the forum and a little new to the diesel world. I have decided to get a cummins as I have been wanting one for a while now.

My situation is figuring out if I should settle with a 2nd gen or splurge for a 3rd gen. I am in college studying construction management and as I go further into construction I will need a truck for equipment and the occasional towing. I do have a job and work enough to have a car payment and still live comfortable. In this area I can get a 24v 2nd gen for around 10-14k. This means lower payments and a shorter loan length. A 3rd gen in this area runs at 20-25k. Higher payments for a longer amount of time. I really like both but of course there are perks to each such as more power and the fact of being newer if I go with a 3rd gen. 2nd gens are simpler and cost less to work on(in some cases). I drive mostly freeway right now but this will change.

I currently drive a 2003 Liberty and while it is a great little car, it is to small since I am 6'2" and about 250lbs. Long drives are cramped and uncomfortable. Please don't tell me to wait until I graduate cuz I have already made up my mind on buying a cummins before then.

So, what do yall recommend? Also what are the pros and cons of each?

Thanks for the help

dieselroller

I did find a 2004 with 210k for 17k thats in really good shape. Is that to much of a risk or would you buy? How many miles is to high to buy?

John_P

Dieselroller:

First of all,.....Welcome to DTR!! Glad to have you here as a member.

On your question about "2nd vs 3rd Gen" as far as which one to buy, there are alot of issues to consider. I can tell you that I have owned all three generations of the Dodge CTD Ram Pickups. In my opinion, I think the 1994-1998.5 Dodge CTD 12 VALVE TRUCKS are the best of all of them as far as the engines are concerned. As you mentioned, the early 1994-1998 12 valve Dodge CTD Pickups are simpler and cost less to work on. Their parts (such as injectors) are also much cheaper. The 2nd Gen 24 valve trucks are NOT a good choice in my opinion. WHY? Because the VP-44 fuel pumps on them are NOT reliable and I had ALOT of trouble with my 2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve. I know there are members that have had good luck with the 24 valve VP-44 trucks but there are many more that have problems.

As far as the 3rd Gen Trucks I think overall they are pretty reliable with the exception of the injectors. On my 2006 I had to have all six (6) injectors replaced at about 94,000 miles. The Bosch CR Injectors are not cheap to replace either. Depending on where you buy them and if they are remans or new ones, you are still looking at anywhere from $300.00 to $400.00 per injector plus parts that go with them.

Anyway, those are some issues I suggest you look at. I hope this helps you some.

Good luck and again,.....Welcome Aboard Sir!

--------
John_P

dieselroller

Thanks for the info John_P. And I'm glad you informed me about the 24v 2nd gens having issues. I was unaware and almost bought a 2002. Glad I didn't.
I will look into those issues mentioned but so far I think I am leaning towards the 3rd gen. Any input on 210k mile 3rd gen? When are the miles to high?

SOhappy

First, don't be afraid of the 24v 2nd gens. Ya, the VP44 needs replaced every 80k miles or so. They're $900, so what? Just keep it in mind and you'll be fine. Lots of 24v 2nd gen fans on here. Plus you're not likely to find a 12v with the quad cab (rear doors). I think those only existed for 1/2 a model year.

A 2004 with 210k isn't bad, but if it has the original 48RE auto trans then it could be close to needed replacement. Just depends on how it was used and what maintenance was done. That's the main things with these trucks. I'll pay more/buy one with more miles with verifiable regular maintenance. By in large you're better served with a manual 6-speed trans if you can find one.

Be careful with 2003 & early 2004 3rd gens. The autos had the SO (Standard Output) engine, with only 250hp stock and the weaker 47RE trans. On the other hand, in 2004.5 they started doing emissions stuff (cats and extra injection events) so the fuel mileage took a hit. Of course, if the truck has a chip or aftermarket programming and is emissions "deleted" then that stuff doesn't matter. Also make sure it drives straight, doesn't wander or have "death wobble". 3rd gens are notorious for chewing up ball joints (~$400 if you do it yourself) and steering boxes ($250) and death wobble from loose steering components or suspension mods.

The 2006-2007 5.9 (but not 2007.5 with the 6.7l) is generally believed to be the best of the 3rd gens, but they're all great trucks really. Each year has its pluses and minuses. You can't go wrong with any of them as long as the truck was treated right.

Oh, and don't worry about injectors too much. You can get remans with a 1-year or 2-year warranty for $250/ea and they're easy to replace yourself. Did one in the parking lot at work in well under an hour. Plus there's "only" six of them, not eight like the other truck brands. There's a wide body of information on this forum and others to help you make your decision.

dieselroller

Thanks for the info SOhappy.
Replacing a part for $900 every 80k miles or so is not bad at all. I only drive about 8k a year. I kind of regret not getting that 24v now cuz it had a 5speed and it was in great shape. Oh well I guess, there's plenty more out there.

There is a really nice 2005 2500 with a 6speed for 19k but it's a little out of my price range and it's got a flat bed. Would you recommend?
I didn't know that the engines were weaker 2003-2004.5, definitely something to consider.

Since I drive a lot of freeway, how do the 24vs do at say 70ish? Do they pass people ok? I drive a little aggressive.
Im driven a buddy's 3rd gen with a 6speed and I really liked it for power wise but never a 2nd gen.

I know I'm not supposed to say this but are there any other diesels that y'all would recommend for my situation? I really like cummins and I've always been a fan but I'm open to suggestions.

KATOOM

Anyone who doesnt like the VP either had a bad experience with incompetent re-manufactures, or they didnt follow the proper method of upgrading the fuel pump supply so that the VP is fed a constant fuel pressure and volume.

VP's can last just as long as any other injection pump.....as long as they're quality rebuilt and always receive enough fuel pressure. I dont think I've ever heard of people commonly replacing re-man VP's with such low miles.

But in comparing the 2nd and 3rd gen trucks, they all have their pitfalls as Dodge/Cummins didnt solve any problems which weren't pushed aside for new ones. Want to complain about having to replace a $1000 VP.....? How about spending $3000 on a set of injectors.

Of all the Dodge Cummins trucks, the one main issues everyone can complain about is the automatic transmission. They're just horrible and barely hold stock power. If you want to tow heavy and/or add some reasonable HP, plan on dealing with auto transmission problems. Although getting a custom built auto for around $3k-$5k (depending on level of custom), will be an end to transmission problems.

There's a reason 2nd gen trucks are far and few and in high demand. Find a clean low to moderate mileage 2nd gen that hasn't been heavily modified and you found something rare. Find that in a manual transmission and you'll probably be looking at something pricey.

John_P

----------------------------------------
Katoom:

I wanted to follow-up on your reply regarding the VP-44 pumps. Let me say that I have owned five (5) Dodge CTD Pickups and do alot of my own work on them. I still have my 1996 which, in my opinion, are still the best Dodge CTD Trucks that were produced as I told the OP.

In your reply you said,.."Anyone who doesnt like the VP either had a bad experience with incompetent re-manufactures, or they didnt follow the proper method of upgrading the fuel pump supply so that the VP is fed a constant fuel pressure and volume." Let me address your statements:

1.) Yes, your right, I DID have "bad experiences" with the VP-44 Pumps! For your information, the first one failed at 28,000 miles in spite of the fact that I had additional pumps on the system to avoid that. I also run gauges on ALL my trucks as it is the FIRST thing I always do when I buy a new diesel pickup and I had fuel pressure gauges in two places on my 2002 to watch those pressures. I had heard all the "horror stories" about the 1998.5-2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve trucks and in spite of that I bought a new one anyway.
I am not, nor was I then a "rookie" in dealing with the Dodge CTD Pickups.

2.) You mentioned "incompetent manafactures" of the VP-44 pumps. The first replacement VP-44 was a NEW FACTORY Bosch VP-44 fuel pump and that one failed at about 90,000 miles! The next was also a NEW FACTORY Bosch VP-44 and that one let go right before I sold the truck at about 150,000 miles!

Getting rid of my 2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve was one of the BEST decisions I made with regard to all their trucks I have owned. I wanted the OP here on DTR to know about the issues with those VP-44 trucks. Now, with that being said, I know there are members here and owners that have had good luck with them, but I know FAR more owners that have had numerous failures with them. And in my opinion, I feel there are "better choices" in the four generations of Dodge CTD trucks for the OP.

---------
Respectfully,

John_P

KATOOM

John I do respect your opinion and no I dont think you're a rookie either..... But lets just address your unfortunate situations as presented.

The VP was a weak and inferior product straight from Bosch back when it was introduced. Soft metals, weak electronics, etc... Your first pump failing at only 28k miles is a prime example of that, and you're not alone as plenty of people had similar issues. Having proper fuel pressure/volume supplied to the VP supposedly helped but sadly it seemed as if the pump was garbage from the get go then no matter how you treated it, it was doomed to be a problem.

That also touches on the "NEW FACTORY" Bosch VP you replaced it with. Again, the original VP's from Bosch were not worth their weight. Very unreliable and likely to fail simply because of the components it housed. If a VP lasted about 90k miles, that was about right as they regularly didnt last much longer than that. Not sure what Bosch was thinking when they built this pump but nonetheless, the dealerships typically only replaced the failed VP's with brand new off the shelf VP's. Yes, taking out a garbage Bosch pump and replacing it with another garbage Bosch pump, only new. Although there are many many cases of factory original VP's lasting for hundreds of thousands of miles too..... I guess they werent all terrible.

Aside from inferior components on the original VP's, obviously fuel delivery was a problem, but so was any other fuel related issue. Like poor quality fuel, contaminants in fuel, running out of fuel, etc... And to make matters worse, in 2007 LSD was replaced by ULSD which has lower lubricity properties. The powers at be try to say thats not true but there's too many HFRR lubrisity tests which prove this to be false information. This means you have trucks with fuel injection components which werent designed to be run with the fuel available today. Thus the reason why people (like me) use 2-stroke in the fuel.

So that said, the ONLY pumps which proved to be worth installing if the factory one failed were the ones which received ALL the component upgrades and were assembled by competent rebuilders. As I mentioned before, some rebuilders would cut corners and/or reuse old PSG's. There's people who have a lot of miles on remanufactured VP's, and not all of them are fed by quality aftermarket fuel pumps either.

Lastly, one of the things we're learned over the past say 5-8 year is the AC voltage and how it can be an issue on these trucks. By virtue of an alternator generating DC voltage, they create AC voltage as a byproduct. If things like diodes are bad or windings are not good then the alternator can generate excessive amounts of AC voltage. The problem then is the AC voltage affects all DC electronics and causes both phantom issues and real issues. The electronics most vulnerable to AC voltage interference are the ECM, PCM, PSG, and transmission solenoid. If AC levels get high enough over periods of time it will do damage. This is where you read of auto tranny gues dealing with the lock/unlock torque converter problem.....

Well I've typed enough, but just wanted to say my condolences to your situation and how you feel about the 2nd gen trucks. Hope everything has gone better for you in your newer model trucks.

BILTIT

Not all 03/04's had SO and 47re. You can find them with the HO and 48re trans too.

I find the 06/07's to be the worst 3rd gens out there but thats my opinion.

John_P

KATOOM:

Thanks for your reply Sir.

Like you, I am and was at the time aware of ALL the issues coming up with the VP-44 fuel pumps. I didn't mention that I buy my diesel fuel at the same stations locally and have for many years. When on the road, which I do alot, I try hard to stay with the major diesel truck stops such as "Flying J, Pilot, Loves etc." I also have used good diesel fuel additives such as "Stanadyne Performance Formula" in ALL my Dodge CTD Pickups, including the 2002 24 valve. AND,.....in doing ALL that coupled with everything else I told you, I still had three (3) VP-44 failures!! I also am aware of the "electronic issues" with the VP-44 pumps.

I guess the bottom line is that "in my opinion" THEY ARE JUNK! I think they are the WORST designed pump EVER put on a Dodge CTD Pickup. No offense to anyone here that has the 1998.5-2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve trucks but I would NEVER have another one and want our newer members to be aware of the trouble they can give an owner.

I don't know if you are aware of this but the Cummins 8.3 Diesel Engines in about the same model year as the 1998.5-2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve trucks had a similar designed fuel pump referred to as the "CAPS Pump." FWIW,....they had ALOT of problems with those fuel pumps as well and to look at one you would swear it was a larger version of the VP-44!

Lastly,.....here is my motto on ALL VP-44 fuel pumped Dodge CTD 24 valve trucks:

"There are only two (2) kinds of VP-44 fuel pumps,.....the ones that HAVE FAILED and the ones that are GOING TO FAIL!"

I rest my case.............

-------
John_P

KATOOM

Well again.....you ONLY had brand new factory Bosch VP's on your truck, and those units were never going to be as good as the updated reman units available for the past 7-8 years.

And to make things worse, you used Stanadyne Performance Formula.

In case you didnt already know this, of the few things Bosch has spoke outwardly about is fuel lubricity. Bosch says fuel lubricity 400 HFRR is suggested.

To understand what that means, the baseline "untreated" ULSD #2 Diesel Fuel has an HFRR of 636. Crappy.....

Stanadyne Performance Formula is no good to use either because it increases the lubricity HFRR to a mere 603, a whopping 33 HFRR gain. No bueno..... And there's even other fuel "lubricity" additives which actually reduce lubricity.

Cheap old Walmart 2-stroke oil will reduce the HFRR to 474. Something to ponder.

John_P

KATOOM:

I will do some checking on those numbers you quoted but I disagree with you about the "Stanadyne" products so I will leave it at that. And as far as your "recommendation" to "Wal-Mart" 2-stroke oil I am not even going to argue with you about that issue! So,....as I said, the VP-44 fuel pumps are JUNK and as I told you above DON'T talk to me like a "rookie" KATOOM!!

These new members can decide for themselves if they want to go down the 24 valve CTD, VP-44 pump road.

KATOOM

John, believe me, I'm not talking to you as a rookie but merely sharing info with forum buddies.
I've been around these trucks for a couple decades, not even accounting for the lifetime of mechanics I've done, and I still learn new things all the time.....

John_P

For any of you DTR Members that are following or reading this thread and the debate between myself and MR. KATOOM here is an interesting study on lubricity testing of diesel fuel additives. I received this from a friend of mine on another popular diesel website.

While MR. KATOOM is fond of his "Wal-Mart" 2-stroke oil to use as an additive I would bring to your attention what this test says about that 2-stroke oil;
that being; NOT ULSD COMPLIANT, MAY DAMAGE LATER MODEL (2005+) OR NEWER FUEL SYSTEMS!

Also, while the "Stanadyne Performance Formula" may NOT be in the top ten (10) of this test and is above the HFRR "good range" I would note that the
"Stanadyne Lubricity Formula" (which I also use) is right below MR. KATOOM'S 2-stroke oil (Rated #8) and is also ULSD COMPATIBLE!

Here is the info I received on the TOP TEN diesel fuel additives according to this particular test:

__________________________________________________ _________
LUBRICITY STUDY ON DIESEL ADDITIVES:

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfur fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfur. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.

As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfur, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfur diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.

The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity.

The study was conducted in the following manner:

The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:

Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (NOT ULSD, COMPLIANT, MAY DAMAGE 2005 OR NEWER FUEL SYSTEMS)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank
__________________________________________________ ___________