Hvytrkmech

Steve,

I had seen your update, no sweat with me sir, sorry if I came across loud definitely not intended to. I should have multi quoted several other posts instead I just threw it all in your quote.
I had never known that a Detriot series 40 was indeed a rebadged international dt466. Learned that right here on DTR. Search it up here, pretty cool stuff.

Have a great day.

Brian08Q35004x4

Someone will still need a program or box to run it as you will still have a ECM pelosi issue.

d22019

IMO the Cummins is still the best diesel of the big three. It has kept the same basic design since it came out in '88. Can't say the same for the other two. Now in bigger applications I can see where the name cumapart comes from. I have seen two 8.3's and an N-14 put holes in a block for no apparent reason. I also had a guy I know with a truck company say that the ISX's almost put him out of business with all the repair costs he had.

9812vram

I'd have to STRONGLY disagree with you there. Not trying to start a fight here, just know of waaaay to many guys with 7.3's.

They're a V8 for starters - so there goes long term longevity unless grandpa uses it to go to town for coffee.
I've got a buddy that's all about the 7.3. He dumped a lot of money into that thing and souped it up to 600hp (estimated) and it lasted less than 2 weeks before it threw a rod. What Cummins blows a rod at 600hp? So... Guess what he's building for his superduty now? You guessed it - 12V Cummins.
I work with two guys that both have 7.3's and both of them say right around 0*C they have to cycle the glow plugs a few times or they just won't start. Colder -ok. Warmer - ok. Just around that 0 mark. Never heard of a Cummins that won't start at 0* even if the grids are disconnected. They both have had chips and got rid of them. In one truck, it ran horrible with the chip. With the other - it turned up a few electrical gremlins - radio quit altogether, idiot lights came on randomly, and a few other weird things. This same guy is looking at trading his in for a Dodge now. He won't tell me what's wrong with it (diesel mechanic) - just says "it's doing things that tell me it's time to go...now."
There are two service trucks at work with 7.3's also. One had the injectors and head gaskets replaced at 220,000kms because of a missing issue and I cant remember if it was coolant or fuel in the oil. Mine, dad's and two of my neighbors Cummins - all tuned to some degree and all tow - all have over 300,000kms with stock head gaskets and injectors. The other fleet truck has had several oil leaks and the valve cover gaskets replaced a couple times because the electronic injector wires run through the rocker cover gasket. They must get brittle and break, I'm not too sure.
We have one old 12valver in the fleet. I asked the boss what we've all had to do on it (he's a big phord guy) and all he would say was "very little". It has 420000 on it and has been retired to a maintenance guy.
I could go on but I guess you get the point...

It's not that the Cummins never breaks and never has any problems, they surely do! But for me with my experience the Big C just doesn't paint anywhere near the same picture as the 7.3. Sorta leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I've never even owned one...

7.3l peestroke might have been phords most reliable diesel, but it just doesn't compare to any of the Cummins engines. Well, maybe the first 24valves, before the common rails... They leave a bad taste in my mouth too...

Hodge

My father had a 95 powerstroke, and 1) it made respectable power and torque in stock form, and 2) it was definitely stronger than my stock 94 12 valve- I hate to say it, but it is true. Of course, his 7.3 had a manual transmission, while I have an auto. Saying that, there is no comparison to how simple and cheap my 12 valve is to work on, compared to that 7.3. I have opened the hoods and scoured the bays of a new powerstroke and an earlier duramax, and you can hardly see daylight, much less work on them easy. My brothers 08 6.7 Dodge has a lot more stuff than my 12 valve, but you can still work on it. I am a firm believer in an inline 6, and being able to work on it myself. So, in my opinion, I would take the Cummins over the other two, regardless of their power differences.

JasonblkZ06

There is nothing wrong with the 24 valve engines. A fuel lift pump is not an engine - This blatant fact gives you no credibility to your argument.

Thundercraft

or even the IP for that matter. The basic engine was and is a sound design.

Now... the rest of the metal surrounding that beautiful piece of engineering.... well, that's another story.

9812vram

You're right! There's nothing wrong with the 24V Engine design. Works well on the common rails. But who said anything about a lift pump? So please explain how "This blatant fact gives you no credibility to your argument". Not sure where that came from.
It's the VP44 fuel systems on the 24v's that I don't like. The injection pumps don't seem to last very long (compared to the p-pump) and the fuel management is not very good either. I can't stand how the computer is always messing with the timing when towing - constantly changing the tone of the engine especially when cruise is on. Lots of them have a hickup/miss at idle (maybe I'm just fussy) and if your fuel filter starts to get restricted, the IP wrecks quite quickly. It's not that the VP44 doesn't work, it just isn't a very robust pump. It's not that it's total crap, it just isn't as good as what we've had. I mean, what's the average life expectancy? 150,000 miles? Compare that to a p-pump.
Hey - if you love the VP44, that's ok! I never said you can't and I'm sorry if I offended you.

Valv

I honestly can say I never had many issues from VP44 engines, if the lift pump issue was fixed in advance.

I bought and used 3 trucks from '99 to '01, all them had 150k approx, and I towed professionally until 240k/250k then re-sold the trucks. All were working excellent at purchase and resale. All I did is install a better fuel transfer system to the VP44 pump. In fact the '01 was the only 2wd I ever bought and with a NV5600 it was doing 23mpg hand calculated. All it has was a Blue Holley transfer pump, that's it. That was the best mileage truck I've ever had.

The '99 and '00 had the "bloated defect" block 53. Never lost a drop of water and never had any issue about it.

You have to understand the Cummins 5.9l engine was and still is probably THE MOST used diesel motor in any field. Look at delivery vans, generators, fire trucks, Case/IH tractors, airport equipment, military usage, mining, etc, the list goes on and on WORLDWIDE. The fact it was in a pickup truck in the US, was the "bling" of this engine, it then become everybody's talk and scrutiny, but beneath the surface it kept running, and running, and running, and running...and it still does.

SWC

Valv, very well stated.
My 01.5 has 487,000 kms which is over 300,000 miles. I have not had to do anything to the VP44. I had to put on 3 lift pumps. I put on Scotty's Max flow (remember that one) when I put on the third pump back in 2003.
This is the first time I have ever posted anything regarding my good luck with the VP44 and I hope it does not jinx me!
Stan

9812vram

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

SWC

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

John_P

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

--------
John_P

ARbowhunter7

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

9812vram

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...