You haven't specified where you live, but in my experience it is not uncommon to find trucks in wrecking yards with chassis that are still in good servicable condition and worn out drivetrains. I'd rather have an overengineered drive train than a marginal one.

 

Just look at what you started!

 

Have you ever seen the reciprocating assembly of a Cummins? The rods, for instance, aren't just ~ 25% larger than the Dmax (which would be enough to account for the extra HP load as you identified it), but more like 2-300% larger... at first glance, the Cummins is obviously a more robust design than ANY other light-duty vehicle application engine.

IMO, the DuraMax can do the job, but it's a no-brainer to realize that the Cummins will last longer under the same operating conditions... the laws of physics aren't subject to any of our opinions.

When a significant number of DuraMax's tow and haul for a living and turns 4-500,000 - thus fullfilling it's obligation - then it won't matter if it's called light-duty or not, will it?

 

Maybe if a Ford or Chevy held up better they would put something besides a light duty engine in them . I never really thought much abbot it but it does make sense , it only goes to reason that you would put a better motor in the better truck . My 91 Dodge has a little rust by the rear wheel well and it has been driven in Ohio salt it's whole life . So if you want to see a medium duty engine in a Chevy they are just going to need to design a better truck to put it in , one that will last long enough to justify that kind of quality . You need to look hard to find a Chevy diesel running that is over 10 years old but I can find quit a few old Ford 6.9's and 7.3's still kicking .

 

LOL, I sure as hell didn't buy a Dodge because Chrysler itself is reknown for superior engineering, quality, and longevity. I bought a Cummins/New Venture/Dana drivetrain that happens to be surrounded by a Dodge truck. I would say that at best the chassis itself is about par with a GM or Ford of similar vintage.

 

Ya I got to agree with you but like Hoss I just had to throw a little gas on the fire . I worked for Ford and retired from the Lorain plant a few years back so I get a nice discount but the Cummins made it a no brainer for me . I can also receive a discount on a Chevy through family but they did more to damage the diesel name then any other company in the world and I can not forgive them for that yet . On a Dodge I get to pay full price but in the long run for me they have cost less .

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the Waukesha's up here running compressors. 1500 + hp V configurations. I think as others have said it's not the V that automatically makes it a light duty engine.

 

Wow, this looks like fun!! I have to get in on this debate. First of all, rigs having mostly inline sixes is not because the inline six is better, its because they are easier to work on resulting in less downtime. With more miles being put on these trucks, the ability to resleeve the cylinders with the engine still in the chassis is very cost effective.

I agree that inline engines generally are more durable, better performing engines in truck and equipment applications for many of the aforementioned reasons. Also inline engines generate better torque than V engines simply because having a single bank of cylinders on a crank allows for a longer stroke. HOWEVER, to say that inline engines are better period and are used for more stationary and genset applications is totally wrong.

The cummins b series is the toughest diesel in a light pickup, that's not even worth debating, but to say then, that any V engine is inferior is ignorant. The key factor is price. Ford and GM could have V engines that are built to the same standard as a cummins b series or even greater but what would be the point? The machining involved is very expensive. The cost of these engines is very high and would send the cost of the truck into orbit. I guess what I'm trying to say is that inline engines aren't automatically better, it's just easier to make them really good with less expense. Sorry for the length of this.

 

Johnny5.9, I agree totally with you about why inline engines are used primarily where they are, especially the part about the ease of designing in a long stroke. Imagine the stroke they could put in if they tilted the engines for hood clearance like the /6 was done!

Anyway, I can only think of two things off the top of my head that would tend to make a straight 6 more durable than a v8. The first is the number of main bearings vs how many cylinders there are (and the fact that each rod journal only has one connecting rod acting on it). The other is the fact that straight 6's can be essentially perfectly balanced, whereas v8's cannot. I don't know the math behind that, but as far as I know it's an accepted fact. HOWEVER, with current harmonic damper technology, it may not really matter in real life.

 

I don't know why bringing up chevy's past diesel problems would have anything to do with this debate. The duramax is a totally different engine that isn't even made by chevy, but by isuzu, which makes all kinds of diesel engines for all differnet kinds of applications. None of the big 3 make their own diesels.

I have had lots of chevy trucks and all of them have been great trucks with very few problems and those were very minor. They are easy to work on and easy to find parts for.

Back to the original question of is there any reason not to buy a d-max, my answer would be no. I agree that the cummins is the better engine but that doesn't mean that the d-max is junk. I have drivin and worked alot of different dmax's hard and they have performed very well with no problems. I would say go for it. You will love that truck. You will like the engine/ tranny and the rest of the truck. They drive awesome, ride good, look good, very comfortable and all round a good truck. I know this is a dodge/cummins website and I own one and love it, but I really like the chevy with a duramax/allison. Go for it, you will like it.

 

Ya'll are missing the point! The WIFE has a say so in this truck!. Most women want a truck the rides good, drives ike a car, has a really nice interior, low to the ground and shifts itself.

The GMC fits the bill

Hoss just wants to still be able to drive somthing that looks like a truck and is a diesel

 

deere nut, you are not an ignorant nut, instead you are right on the money. Truer words were never spoken. Most women do not think factually and logically about practical mechanical situations. Many females do not realize that a VW's suspension could not physically hold up a couple ton of tongue weight, let alone pull it. They may get the idea something is amiss in that a VW is extremely small in size compared to a large trailer. Just because our GMC half ton pickup is almost as large as our Dodge, my spouse thinks the GMC is able to do the same work while having such a smoother ride when never hauling something compared to the Dodge once in a while being empty. Most women can't see the big picture. They can multi-task at most mind aborbing duties better than men, but they just can't instantly realize the need for more air pressure in the tires; stiffer E or G rated tires; more leaves in the spring pile with auxilary overload springs; solid front differential for pounding through the rough back country; stronger sprung clutch and manual transmission; how that little narrow I-6 has more power than those wide husky looking V8s; how the resulting noise from a pulling engine on a grade being more agressive than from the engine in the GMC going to church with two people in the cab and nothing in the box; why diesel fuel is so stinky compared to gasoline; and why the exaust gets somewhat blacker when lugging up a long 6% grade compared to the GMC with no load on the same grade. There are women experienced in hauling heavy loads, who honestly comprehend the need for a working HD pickup truck, but the average female does not have a clue and lumps cars with a box as being the same as a pickup truck that can pull 12 to 20 tons.

 

the cummins is a good motor... but i want a gmc.. and i work on the big 3 all day long.

lol all i can say is i'm gonna stay so far away from a ford 6L diesel its not even funny. (althought they pay my bills thanks to there problems)

 

Are ya'll still talking about this?

 

[QUOTE=01smoker;1175772]I don't know why bringing up chevy's past diesel problems would have anything to do with this debate. The duramax is a totally different engine that isn't even made by chevy, but by isuzu, which makes all kinds of diesel engines for all differnet kinds of applications. None of the big 3 make their own diesels.


The first duramax's Isuzu had a big problem with over heating and many that I know who drove them traded them in because the dealer could not fix them . The last few years have been a lot better but Chevy and diesels have a proven track record for boat anchors and history has a way of repeating . Even Fords track record is way better , just to much of a gamble in my book . The way I look at it the track record of the Cummins is very close to perfect , not perfect but close , why chance it .