I have not shared your good fortune with VP44's. I still don't like them. :D

If I would have had to pay for a couple of VP44's I am sure I would be singing a different tune as well.
Stan

-----------------------------------
9812vram,.....I agree with you 100%! IMHO,.....the VP-44 fuel pumps on the 1998.5-2002 Dodge CTD 24 valve trucks are JUNK!![verymad] I owned a 2002Dodge CTD and I put THREE (3) of them on that truck![verymad] I sold that truck and bought the 2006 that I have now.

IMHO,.....there are two kinds of VP-44;s, "the ones that have failed and the ones that are going to!"[laugh]

--------
John_P

You DO realize that Cummins' big dog high HP industrial use motors are V-oriented motors, right? You know, the ones that are designed for heavy duty/high duty cycle applications? Just saying...there is absolutely ZERO credibility to the Vee motor reliability argument when the same company that makes your own bombproof I-6 12v turns to a Vee motor when reliability is paramount.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Yes I do realize they make some high hp v8's, although I don't think you can argue that it's because they are more durable. It's important to understand why they do this. Here's a couple excerpts taken from the Cummins Site, talking about their V8 engines:

"these engines are... more space efficient... and a higher power-to weight ratio than low-speed units."

"Cummins railcar engines, for instance, utilize low-profile designs for use under the car floor" (V8 desingn is much lower profile than the L6)

V8's are generally used where space and/or weight is an issue, or in situations where high HP is more valuable than high torque. V8's are generally hp engines while the L6's are torque engines.

I looked up the durability on the QSK60 (big V8) and here's what Cummins advertises:
"The QSK60 has a projected life-to-overhaul exceeding 1,000,000 gallons (3,785,411 liters) of fuel burned..."

Let's attempt to compare that life expectancy to the P-pumped 12valve for instance. 12v's are known to hit the 1 million mile mark without major repairs. At an average lifetime mpg of say 12mpg, this translates to burning 83,333gallons of fuel - in an L6 engine rated at about 220hp.
12v - 83,333 gallons + @ 220hp
QSK60 - 1,000,000 gallons + @ 2850hp.

Kinda hard to compare these cause they're so different. But here's my attempt:
So lets soup up this 12valve to the same rated hp as the QSK60 for example - more hp = more fuel burned. If the 12valve uses 83,333gallons per 220hp in it's life time and there are 12.95 220hp 12v's in a 2850hp QSK60, then the fuel used would also be times by that same 12.95. Here's what it comes out as:
12v @ 2850hp = 10,79,162 + gallons used per lifetime.
Compared to
QSK60 at 1,000,000 + gallons used per life time.

Looks like the I6 is slightly more durable. Keep in mind the 5.9L L6 is a medium duty engine as compared to the "Heavy Duty" QSK60 V8. Now I know it's not a real great comparison because there are too many variables, the numbers can go either way. So please don't come on here and bash my comparison, I already know it's not totally accurate. Numbers aside, the point I was attempting to make here is that they don't go to the V8 design for durability, but rather space/weight saving and high HP. A comparable L6 engine would be huge (mostly tall), clumsy and heavy.

For a better comparison, look at it this way: if you look on the Cummins site, they are producing ZERO on-road (unless the ISL G used in busses is a V8) , construction or agricultural V8 diesels. They are all L6 engines now. They used to make V8's for all these applications, but it seems they no longer do. Why is this? I'd guess it's not because the previous V8's have proven to be durable.
I'm not telling you to agree with me, just wanted to attempt to prove my point...

Valid points. In your comparison, though, you compared the HD motor's predicted overhaul interval to the cream of the crop 12v stories. MANY 12v engines will not make it to a million miles without an overhaul. There are those that have (same as the 7.3 IDI), but it cannot be expected. Cummins' expected overhaul interval on a 12v is FAR less than a million miles, so the comparison is more than slightly biased. You're comparing the standard expected life of one engine to the top-tier stories of heroism of another.

Also, you have to remember what the HD Cummins motors are subjected to. In an industrial gen-set application, the motor sits for months, then is required to fire up and assume full-load immediately. This is very taxing on an engine, which is why the life expectancy is lower than expected.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Ya, it's tough to compare two engines that are soooo different. I can't find the Cummins expected over haul time for the 12v. Comparing the Cummins rated life expectancy of the big V8 to the stories of the million mile 12v (of which there are plenty - agreed they won't all make this) was intended to squash this: "there is absolutely ZERO credibility to the Vee motor reliability argument when the same company that makes your own bombproof I-6 12v turns to a Vee motor when reliability is paramount" by showing that the "inferior" MEDIUM duty L6 can nicely outlast the HEAVY duty V8 that was intended to take much more abuse in most applications. That along with the fact that the V8's are not used because "reliability is paramount", but rather to save weight and space where very high HP is needed more over torque.
Although I agree to some degree that this abuse is a contributor to the shorter life expectancy, I am also of the strong persuasion that the "V" design wears the cylinder walls in a diesel much quicker due to combustion characteristics and all the other things that go along with it like harmonics.
Most guys that run V8 diesels (that think they love them) will tell you they are fine as long as you don't lug them. I'm a lugger:D

Good thoughts, but I still don't agree that the 12v has a longer service life than the Q-series Cummins. And yes, in the big gen-sets, reliability IS paramount. It is important in medium duty applications, for sure, but it is FAR more important in the HD Stationary market. My company just recently completed the Google Atlanta facility ( GC) with 2.1 billion ( with a B) in infrastructure backed up by Cummins Q-series stat. setups. The budget was unlimited, and there were no space requirements. It was, and still is, one of the most monetarily important scenarios on earth that relies on a mechanical engine. They use Cummins Vee motors. If you think any engine manufacturer would send a subpar platform (as you're implying the Vee motor is) into such an arena, you're mistaken. Cummins has plenty of faith in the Vee orientation for some reason...

IMO, Cummins wouldn't sacrifice their legendary name by widely implementing an inferior design solely based on space efficiency and weight management.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

As bad as I hate to admit it I think Cummins has lost it`s advantage. There was a time that dodge had much better fuel mileage, the same HP, & tough as nails. Now the other trucks have more power & better fuel mileage. As far as the engine it looks to me like the GM has less trouble than the others & has a service department that knows how to fix it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Banyon,.....I agree with you! I also think Cummins has slipped over the past three to four years. IMHO,.....the emissions issues have hurt them more than anything. As you said, the mileage of the new trucks is terrible, I see constant problems with the engines at my local Dodge Dealer and as you also said the new Dodge CTD CR 6.7's are dead LAST in ALL categories when they go up against the new Ford 6.7 and Duramax 6.6. The most recent
"shootout" between the new Dodge 6.7, Ford 6.7 and Chevy Duramax in "Diesel Power" proved that.:(

Like you, it pains me to have to say this as I have driven Cummins Powered Dodge Trucks since 1992. And I can honestly tell you that of the five that I have owned my 1996 Dodge CTD 12 valve is still the BEST of all of them that I have owned.

--------
John_P

i'm not sure what these v motors are being used for at gooole but it looks like from what you stated is that they are being used for generators or something along those lines which is a far cry from a engine thats used for a half a million miles of service hauling loads all over the country.there's no way these engines you spoke of are going to see the run time or heavy loads our trucks will see during their life time.

SMH. Stationary generators run all day, every day @ full load. They also have to do that without the benefit of increased airflow which comes from speed that vehicle engines enjoy. These engines log use in hours or fuel consumption, not miles, but if you do the math, the miles would be in the millions.

You're thinking of a backup generator, which is seldom used. Way different.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

There may be a whole different reason for using V8 configurations for generator plants, more power pulses per rotation. This can be a big benefit on the generator.

Why doesnt someone ask cummins why they use what they use?

I work on power generators but they use Nat. gas turbine engines, i do know the generator can be very finicky in how they are spun.

I hear what you are saying but note: One huge project with an unlimited budget is not enough to change how Cummins designs their engines. They look at the grand scale. If gensets is your thing, what about all the gensets sent up to Alaska or the Yukon, etc. They are all flown in. Space and weight is a huge issue. Look at the other applications the same engines are used - space, weight - still an issue in locomotives, ships, and most other applications they're used in. There are waaay more of these engines out there than what Cummins made for the Google project.

Full RPM, I don't think they run quite at full load. Can't see any engine lasting if it's at full load 100% of the time.
Lack of "increased airflow which comes from speed that vehicle engines enjoy" is offset by a larger cooling system. No increased airflow needed.
I did the rough math for ya - L6 came in up top of the V8. :D:poke:

Goes right along with what I said earlier about HP/TQ. We've learned from building our planes that it takes a lot of HP to turn a prop. Same deal as with the genset. The V8 generally has a higher rated RPM which is also beneficial for a Genset - you don't need a gearbox to speed up the generator's input shaft. The L6 engines of comparable HP to the huge V8's used in the Gensets are usually lower RPM engines. You've also hit it on the head - anything electrical likes a smooth pull. L6 power pulses are much more agressive than a size compareable V8 pulses because the pistons are bigger and hit less often per rotation.

That's pretty much what happened with the Cummins 555... The 904 was better but they didn't make it very long either. Same goes for the International V's, Powerstroke's, and GM's attempt at a V diesel, and lots and lots of other V diesels. It's not that the V8 Diesel can't be reliable. To some degree, they can be. But due to the physics of the design - the L6 has always been a longer lasting more reliable engine than the V8 Diesel, especially where lugging is needed. If you look into any industry using diesels you'll find that the ones with the "million mile" or "indestructible" or "crazy reliable" reputation are of the inline variety. (and mechanically injected - but that's another rabbit to chase...[roll])

By the way, not all the Q-series Cummins are V configurations.

We have let the automakers enslave us? The automakers have nothing to do with it man, no wonder this has happened. No one even realizes it is the government mandating new emissions, safety, fuel mileage, and all other sorts of regulations that have caused this.

:agree: Yep. That right there is a fact.

DING!DING!DING!


That being said, I really wouldn't want to go back to the "bad old days" of zero emission controls...

Who else remembers choking on the black smoke and diesel fumes eminating from a three/five ton cube van in front of them in rush hour traffic? Or choking with watering eyes on the vapors from several poorly tuned carburated V8 gas engines on a hot summer day?

Yup, emissions control pisses me off, but only when it comes to the vehicles I own. Everyone else needs it... Does that make me a hypocryte?

Every one has up and downs, i choose the Cummins,i hope IMHO.In bread delivery business i agree 100% as i logged 800,000KM(500,000Miles) with two Ford 7.3 but both trucks/motors were pretty much shot by then,both leaking /using oil,unreliable .Good thing about the ones i drove was that both motors were never opened up for any major repairs (IE---original turbo/injectors/oil pump)On the down side below-5, sitting all night,a no start if not plugged in,down to -25C and they might start,cross your fingers.We just had the night guys fire them up ever 4 hours to keep everything warm or leave them running.Underpowered when the cube box loaded down with 27 stacks of bread,poor mileage,glow plugs replaced every 1-2 years/major electrical issues/gremlins/weak front ends---maybe 8-10PMG in the city.I could not get more than 100Km out of a Ford tranny,water pumps,alternator/starter.This is the reason why i have 2 Cummins in the garage at home,better fuel mileage/easier to work on and just a better engine IMHO and driving experience.PS-----07 GM gasser 6.0(325HP) is what i drive now and it had been very reliable,70,000KM a year(one ECM/tune up,water pump,alternator,2 rads,starter and a couple switches/belts,3rd set of brakes/tires---original front end but work will be need soon).25 oil changes later/done every 10,000KM(Mobil 5w/30) in 250,000KM(155,000 miles) of heavy city driving+tons of idle time though out the colder days,original tranny never touched except for fluid changes(last year the dealer said the motor was at 6000+ hours)most times i just let it run 10-12 hour a day for heat.Not bad and has plenty of power to spare when loaded---gives me 13MPG average,hoping to get 400,000 out of it.---My 2 cents,CHEERS DW

I think it comes down to apples to apples. I read on here one guy saying his friend had a 7.3 and had 600hp and lasted two weeks. Sounds like he was playing and ended up paying. It's not a Ford or International issue if I take their engine and put on a huge turbo, garden hose injectors and then end up spitting a rod out the side of the block. I abused my rear differential, killed it and it has cost me over $2000 so far, am I ticked off at Dodge, nope, it's my fault, now, talk to me about the dash that is falling apart and I'll give ya an earfull!

My buddy is a Ford tech, says 90% of the Ford 6.0's he sees with head gasket issues, injectors are the one's where the guy has thrown a chip on it. Other than that he tells me that they are just common egr problems and things, kinda like the fuel system fiasco I have dealt with on my Cummins. We had an F550 and it had some oil leaks but that was about it. It got drove hard for 50k with my butt in the seat and just some oil leaks. Another fella said the new 6.7 Fords are having oil pan gasket issues? Wow, mine on my '02 Dodge was leaking when bought it, had it fixed under warranty and was leaking a year later. I have a contractor friend who has an '01 Ford F250, 7.3. Has done nothing to it except maintenance. He did all 8 injectors and it was paid for by the gas station that sold the dirty fuel. Other than that he has done nothing else. Over 300k on the ticker.

I'm not stickin' up for Ford but like I said, apples to apples. Don't throw thousands of dollars of power adding junk to your engine and then blame the manufacturer when it breaks. Man up and accept the fact that your gonna have to reach deep into your pockets.

As far as the big three. I don't know much about the new Dodge, with all the fuel pump issues on mine, dash problems, clutch, tranny, on and on(before I added any power) I'm going to jump ship personally. I know, I know, everybody has their issues, guess I'm gonna revert back to what I grew up on.

I've heard rave reviews for the new Ford engine. If I was willing to spend $50k plus on a cab and chassis I might give it a whirl but the case of the $50k is what gets me. The current 6.0 Powerstroke incident reminds me of GM many years ago when they decided to put a diesel in a car and it ended up turning into a giant mess. A blurb on GM's history, something which they have obviously overcome with the Duramax. Same thing happened to Ford for whatever reason they've now got this blip on their record.

As far as the Isuzu engine, don't get caught up in your little world. Isuzu is very large in Japan and has big engines as well, up to 15.7L engines, Marine and industrial applications. http://www.isuzuengines.com/series_f...p?series=C_IDI What you see over here is just a fraction as they are not big in our market with the CAT, Cummins and Detroits populating most heavy trucks. Go to Japan and you'll see Nissan, Isuzu and others dominating the highways.

What's the best? In my opinion(which is like a bunghole, everybody has one) there is no single best. It's all opinion. You can't build and test in indentical conditions to prove it in any way. It's all opinion, this guy buys into the herd mentality and buys brand "W" diesel, this guy was raised on brand "Y" and that's what he calls the best. We have all seen it and read it right here when somebody say's, "I'm done with Dodge" and the usual first response is, "sorry to hear that bud, but your gonna find everybody has their own issues". Every driver drives, maintains his vehicle in different ways. This one has fuel issues, that one has egr issues, etc., etc.

Is Cummins the best? In my opinion no. Good engine, yeah it has done what I needed it to do. Reliable, yeah, most issues I've had have been dodge induced.....or the most recent induced by me! As far as the best, I honestly can't say anything is the best. The best in my opinion would be one that you can climb into day in and day out and know for a fact that you will get home that night, a vehicle that would put the wrecker business and mechanics out of business. But, as humans with everything made by humans that is as likely as traveling at the speed of light.

If I built 600hp into my 5.9l :Cummins: and it lasts 3 years and my buddy builds 600hp into his 7.3l Powerstroke and it lasts a couple weeks, how is that not apples to apples? They are both the manufactures chosen engine, they both do the same job, see the same abuse, they both have "garden hose injectors" and big turbos etc etc etc.You want to talk apples to apples? The Cummins is a small inline 6 cyl against the bigger V8 7.3l. And yet still, the smaller engine is making more HP/Litre (in this specific case) and lasting longer. The Cummins longevity is not just in this scenario. The Cummins as an average outlasts any of the Powerstrokes on an average. Especially when power is added. This includes towers, daily drivers, abusers etc. Apples to apples. Makes Cummins better in my books.

Yes, and who is buying a 6.0l or 7.3l and not upping the power? That's the likely reason you hear of some lasting and some not. Lasting = OEM Power Levels - Not Lasting = Upped Power Levels. Compare that to Cummins. OEM Power Levels = Lasting - Upped Power Levels = Lasting. Apples to Apples and the Cummins comes out as the better motor again. Why? Because they're built stronger. Add power and they still keep on chuggin.

Opinion is a huge part of it but a guy needs to remember that opinion is based on experience and experience says the Cummins lasts. That's why it's rep is "The Legendary Cummins" (at least in our automotive field). 20+ years of making a VERY reliable long lasting engine. Why so long of a run? Because they've designed an engine that guys like and guys buy what they like. I know the electronics have screwed that up to a degree, but blame the EPA for that. How long did Ford make the 7.3l? The ONE engine that was actually good.
Also, the identical testing facility is out there - it's called the real world. A world where there are millions of each engine all sharing the same conditions and the Cummins is just known to outlast the competition - added power or not.

Hmmm.....

Sounds like you've found what you are looking for![coffee]

The legendary Cummins,, more like the legendary Cummapart. I been wrenching these pigs for a long time and the only "legendary" Cummins is the N14. Search the forums here, plenty of "stock" Cummins melting down pistons wiping out head gaskets etc, you'll have months of reading pleasure. Also, 800#ft of torque is 800#ft of torque no matter what the configuration of the power plant.

We have an 2001 Sterling Acctera with a 5.9l in it set to 250hp 470#ft of torque. I have done 2 headgaskets, a head, 4 injectors, a cam shaft, 2 water pumps a VP44 and an ecm. We also have a 2002 F350 wrecker, (only small truck we have), that we have had since new, 360k on the clock. I just put 8 remand injectors, 8 glow plugs, 1 gcm, 2 valve cover gaskets in the motor. Its on its second tranny. This truck has been HAMMERED from day one and the only real issue we have had with it is very cold weather starting when not plugged in.

Can you provide the specs for you friends 600hp 7.3. I an very interested to know how he achieved that much power.

Thanks

For those that have not seen this thread there is some good documentation from long time owners of cummins trucks with several hundred thousand miles and repair history:


https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...e-t296829.html

:2cents: For what its wroth, I'v driven a ford 6.9 7.3 and a chevy 6.5 along with an 06 6.6 duramax along with a non turbo 5.9 in a case, now I havent even been around as long as Heavytruck, however i feel that the cummins 5.9 in a first gen was[Im not bias its what i own and know,the 2ed,3ed an 4th gen guys probly feel the same way i do] the best choice for what is out there to put in a pickup,however that dose not mean there is a better engine out there or being desighned .....I hope its a cummins but we will have to what and see....:cool:

dodgeguy71:

Good post Sir! I agree with alot of what you said.

--------
John_P

I agree Sir.

The key is simple,= duty cycles. nuff said

----------------------
Tim:

You know I respect your opinion Sir and you work on the Cummins Engines all the time so you see alot of the bad I am sure. I think you are right about the N-14 being a darn good engine, however, I disagree with your statement on the reference to "Cumapart!" It is my feeling the later 5.9 and newer 6.7 engines with the CR technology are not as good as the older Cummins 5.9 12 valve engines. You can look at my signature to see that my 1996 Dodge CTD 12 valve is putting down over 800 H.P. and it is a daily driver. The engine was upgraded about a year ago with better pistons. But before that, I had stock 215 pistons in the lower end (same H.P.and TQ) and that engine was in my truck for 60,000 miles during a three year period! I regularly drove my truck on long trips to attend diesel events and drag races all over the U.S. going as far as Denver, Colorado from my home in eastern N.C. So, as dodgeguy71 pointed out, ALL of the brands can have problems or failure, but built right the Cummins engines can last and be reliable with added power.

---------
John_P

Thanks John, I should have clarified myself, shame on me. My opinions and experience with Cummins and my statement in regards to Cummapart refers Strictly to class6- 8 engines. I have nearly 0 experience with the 12 valve like you do John, my apologize Sir. With that said, I shall refrain from generalizing all Cummins engines as I had so implied.

Respectfully..

edited by me, class 6-8 trucks

------------------------
No problem Tim!;)

Ho boy, that's a good question. That engine was done up by himself and a buddy of his who is a diesel mechanic for CPR. I don't know a whole lot about how he did the build but I do know he did injectors and oil pump, eagle pistons and rods, fire ringed and ported the heads, head studs, some kind of monster turbo (it was supposedly matched specifically to his engine as per mods), water meth, intake, exhaust stack with fancy manifolds, and some kind of programmable fuel management system. The hp ratings came from a "bad" dyno run.
I know what you're thinking - "oh well that's the problem, they installed the rods or pistons wrong". These guys built a sled puller that's making well over 1000 hp and are very respectable competition. They're big phord guys and know how to build engines the right way. It's not their fault the 7.3 doesn't stand up.
Anyhow, that's about all I know about that one. He parted out the 7.3l and was starting to build a 12v out of a bus for his super duty, but the other day he showed up with a 2010 phord. Parts are on order. Guess we'll see if the new engine can hold up.

I'm a diesel mechanic for John Deere. That's like me saying "John Deere's are terrible. That's all I fix. They're always broken."

The reason I ask is I know the limit of the HEUI system, they are extremely difficult to get to 600hp let alone anything over that. Cudos to those builders.

Bottom line with me is I do not subscribe to a single camp, all the manufactures make good and flawed engines. Some that you would think will last don't and some that you would think are junk last. My specialty has been in International power plants, then on bigger Cummins, mostly the older 855's,(where Cummapart comes from), up to the N14's, my overall favorite engine.

Tim has some valid points. First rule of being a non-dealership mechanic.

It's ALL junk when it breaks.

Next, cummins have their flaws, even in the "legendary" 12 valve engine, but, so do all other makes. Up until the CR units came out though, the cummins was easier to work on than most.

Heck, I still like the 6.5 GM. for what it was, it still works, just not as fast as everyone else.

Now, HEUI engines.... Bad idea, bad follow through, good on those guys that get big numbers out of them. I know firsthand what you have to go through to get a 444e to throw down big numbers. The old hotrodder's math inches cubed + dollars cubed = big power. I have seen some well worked, long lived engines in fords, I've never had the pleasure of owning one... they all broke. But that is just my experience.

Back to the fact, I think that the best engine for any application, or the best piece of gear in general, is the one that works for what the owner wants it to do. Doesn't matter what name is on the product, they are all examples of planned obsolescence anyway.

Have a good one people

[rant]

I think some guys (me included) are missing the point to the original question. The question is not "does Cummins break"? or "does Cummins have any issues or flaws"?
The question is "is Cummins still the best"? It implies that Cummins at some point has had the edge on the others. Agreed.
Yes Cummins breaks. Yes they have flaws. Yes some guys have had a bad 5.9. But at the end of the day as compared to the others, they are simpler, more reliable, start better, they are cheaper to fix, generally easier to fix, seem to last forever in general and in a lot of cases are better on fuel. That DOES NOT automatically make all the other stuff junk people! It also DOES NOT mean Cummins never breaks, nobody's ever had a bad one and they all last a million miles.
Sure it's all junk when it breaks. The question is which breaks more? Who's easier/cheaper to fix? The general reputation of 20+ years of 5.9's is not that they break. Guys that know nothing about diesel engines will tell you that because that IS the reputation that's out there. Everybody's heard it somewhere.
The OP's question was "Is Cummins still the best"? Quit being offended because you have a soft spot for duramax or powerstroke. Nobody's saying they're complete junk. Just that Cummins has had/does have an edge.
And that competes my rant for tody:D
Carry on....

Well that's no fun. Can we all at least agree that 6.0L Ford trucks were all completely garbage? Perhaps this is as close to an over generalized sweeping statement we can make. We need a statement like this to rally around and create a good bond for us all.
[laugh]

Nice! Agreed! :hehe:

I really think anyone who works on the 6.0 will agree they are very very problematic, my cousin has been a ford tech for 23 years, at the moment he does all the work on a fleet of 6.0's, 19 in all ( they belong to a pollbarn company) right at this moment he has 3 in for injector problems and one with the cab off for head work.

all bone stock trucks.

now you should ask him what he thinks about a 6.0, he will say there great because it's putting his kids through college.

Dar

9812vram,

I understand what your saying but your apples to apples is still skewed in my opinion. 600 hp Cummins and 600 hp 7.3 is not apples to apples. Things that kill that theory, how you maintain your apple -vs- how mr.7.3 maintains his apple. How you drive your apple -vs- how mr.7.3 drives his apple. What type of seeds were used to make said Cummins apple 600 hp -vs- the type used on the 7.3 apple. You have deeper pockets to buy top of the line apple seeds and fertilizer and have top of the line apple farmers where mr. 7.3 uses lesser grade seeds and less educated farmers to plant the crop so to speak. All the conditions, driving conditions, maybe you stay on the highway all day long, pull your toys on the weekends and it sits for friday night runs on the strip whereas the other guy runs in a mine all day long, down a dusty right of way somewhere or hauls gear all day long. Same 600hp totally different situations. What type of oil is used, filters, etc., etc. To many variables.

Just because you have a fuji and a granny smith don't mean it's a good comparison, still apples but still different. You say that they have identical testing facilities. Well, how about this, are all the parts made by the exact company? Person? Facility? Machines? Even two Cummins engines are going to be different. Rods could have been cast on a different day, block or some type of thing. Little bit different recipe and one is not as good as the other. One guy has 600hp and lasts years, other guy pops a rod, cracks a block. Only difference, Joe at the factory was hung over as heck from the big Nascar party at his place on Sunday where the week before or after it was just another Wednesday. Ever heard of Chao's theory?

I have not decided, still a good engine once you spend a few grand replacing things like fuel pumps, ball joints, dash boards. Actually saw a '99 the other day for sale. Dually, Cummins, Auto, 4x4 and it had about 150k on the clock. What went thru my mind? Buy truck, replace fuel pump, $600, replace injection pump, $1500, get gauges, $350, repair dowel pin problem, $300-400 maybe, ahh, good no 5th gear nut problem....ohhh, Automatic transmission replacement, $2000? $3000? Dash board and bezel, $300 plus my time total $500-600....needless to say, that apple was thrown out of the basket quickly.

My thoughts. Cummins makes a great engine, but so do other companies. Everything is mechanical. Stuff breaks. Engineers are far from perfect and most will never admit it.

Well said [coffee]