[quote author=Diesel Tech link=board=8;threadid=7357;start=60#86881 date=1041404717]<br>International ,cummins ,and Isuzu diesels suck compared to CAT diesels.Cummins doesnt make 600HP and 2100 ft/lbs torque[/quote]<br><br>Actually, with some minor mods, the little Cummins ISB 5.9 can come pretty close, and even go beyond that. I'd say that's pretty impressive.<br><br><br><br>ooooooooooo big deal. Cat doesn't make an engine that will work in a pickup, so what's your point? Not only that, but Cat isn't everything you make them out to be. I'd take a Cummins any day over Cat or IH etc.

 

[quote author=Diesel Tech link=board=8;threadid=7357;start=60#86881 date=1041404717]<br>argue. International ,cummins ,and Isuzu diesels suck compared to CAT diesels.Cummins doesnt make 600HP and 2100 ft/lbs torque,nor does International or Isuzu,but CAT does.[/quote]<br><br>Oh what the heck, I'm feeling chippy today, so I'll jump in. All of the big truck three (CAT, Cummins, and Detroit) have offered 600 HP versions of their heavy engines in the past. Cummins recently dropped theirs due to EPA, don't know about Detroit's offering. And while I like Cat, I don't like how much they cost, especially since the Detroit 60 series is a superior engine with regards to longevity.<br><br>Detroit 40 series for the Dodge Heavy Duty line? Heck yeah! ;D<br><br>Rod

 

[quote author=Jack Thorpe link=board=8;threadid=7357;start=75#88218 date=1041692836]<br>[quote author=Diesel Tech link=board=8;threadid=7357;start=60#86881 date=1041404717]<br>International ,cummins ,and Isuzu diesels suck compared to CAT diesels.Cummins doesnt make 600HP and 2100 ft/lbs torque[/quote]<br><br>Not only that, but Cat isn't everything you make them out to be. I'd take a Cummins any day over Cat or IH etc.<br>[/quote]<br><br>I agree.<br><br>Diesel Tech, I understand you work for International, so you will be pretty biased when comparing the 6.0 with any other equivelant motor. So, dont you think you are jumping the gun here? Lets get some years on that engine before you go calling it the top dog. As far as HEUI injection goes, only a rich man could afford to buy those high priced parts. <br><br>Diesel Tech, I also do not get your point about the Cummins not making a diesel that makes over 600hp and 2100 ft lbs. ??? Are you referring to an OTR engine or any Cummins engine? We all know that the little B5.9 is very capable of producing this kind of HP. Do you remember the Signature 600? This engine was very capable of producing those kind of numbers. Unfortunately, emissions halted the production of this engine so the biggest you can get now is the ISX. I wont even go into the construction side of the Cummins line. I will just let you look for yourself on what kind of ratings these beasts have. <br><br>http://www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/p...tion/qsk19.cfm<br><br>http://www.cummins.com/na/pages/en/p...tion/qst30.cfm<br><br> Good Day!<br> Monty<br><br>

 

There is prototype activity at Detroit for DC now.
Cold climate testing will be done in Canada.


Six inline runnin' all the time with my 5.9. ;D
Cranked right up on level number 9! Shes so fine.


The six-oh stroke, she ain't no joke.
Better hope it don't croak cuz we'll give you more pokes.
Watch the p-stroke owner cower when he goes to up the power. $$$$$

Why do you think that all the diesel manufacturers for the pick-up market are upping the rpm limits?
Two reasons...they want to generate more HP and give gasser like response.
Plus they want to wear out the engines nearly as fast as the trucks now. Maybe theres three reasons...the third being a higher revving diesel might be able to pass the stricter EPA rules easier.

 

I believe the biggest offering in the Series 60 is 575 @ 2100. This engine is badged as the Series 60 1850 on the valve cover. Quite a few changes have been made to this new 60 series. One right off the top of my head is the much needed added support to the top of the gear housing to alleviate vibration. This motor in itself is very capable of numbers over 600 hp. Hook it to a ProLink or Magic Key, change the intake sensor to a GM Corvette sensor (the cheapest way to go compared to DC's prices) and you have a 600+ engine way out of warranty specs

 

<br><br>Your guess is as good as mine (gross combined weight rear ?), there own math did not work out in my book!<br><br>KC

 

KC are you asking about Fords Gross Combined Weight Rating? If so I believe it is 20k :

 

[quote author=Luke S link=board=8;threadid=7357;start=75#88268 date=1041699778]<br>KC are you asking about Fords Gross Combined Weight Rating? If so I believe it is 20k :<br>[/quote]<br><br>Luke I would have to look back at the ad, I just know there advertised towing was the lowest in its class!<br><br>KC

 

Here is a thought for everyone. Have you ever noticed that Fords diesels are often smoking badly at highway speeds. Never seen a CTD doing that. Chevy, I've had two chevy diesels and neither was worth beans. Just plain junk . Thats why they scrapped the 6.2 and now they have the Duramax. The jury will be out for several years on the Duramax. But, were I too bet, I'm sure the old General has produced another junker. Fords diesel is basically a throw away. It is very similar to YanMar Marine diesels. High revs, short life. Cummins on the other hand, is a proven winner. Been around for many years. Used widely in boats, motor homes, generators, the military has a million of them, fire trucks and of course the Ram. Why, becasue it's a **** good motor. Has anyone seen the ford or GM motors used by any of these? Fords are used by fire and rescue. BUt GM, no way. To unreliable.<br><br>It would seem to me that if Ford and GM were smart they would team up with, cummins or cat or Perkins and use their time proven engines. But then again, I aint no millionaire and Ford and Gm have yet to call seeking my humble opinion. <br><br>But, ya gotta admit, the ole CTD is a good old girl and Ihope it's around for a good long while. ;D<br><br>My 2 cents

 

Well I don't like the motor and would not buy one, but the 6.5 chev diesel is in thousands of vehicles in the military. Humvee for one...

 

<br> which is why even though i love the h1 so much i will probably never own one with that engine <br><br>but what i really dont understand is why ford and especialy gm dont go with an engine that has been around awhile and has a good reputation instead of tryin to invent something new with all of those bugs that have to be worked out like maybe a chevy with an engine built by john deere or a ford with a detroit i think they would not be able to keep them in stock

 

I know that the military has a sh-tload of vehicles with the 6.2 piece of crap. I drive them.

 

From what I heard Jon, John Deere had an engine lined up to go into the GM when they where looking for potential candidates before the DMax. Chevy told them that they would not use it because it weighed so much. :

 

As far as being a good light-duty diesel, my ol' 6.2L with the heavy duty emmissions package in my CUCV Blazer has logged over 150k and I have never had a major problem out of her except the injection pump. It's a great powerplant in the Blazer sized vehicles. With my 3.73s and 35&quot; tires it puts the torque to the ground and will run upside down . I've toyed with the idea of putting a Banks turbo on it ;D. There are guys on the dieselpage.com that have a Banks on theirs and over 250k miles. The ol' 6.2 has gotten a really bad rap over the years because most people think it's the same engine as the POS olds 350 diesel , that really sucked. The 6.2L was designed by Detroit. I will keep on flogging it until it craters and then I will rebuild it and flog it some more. By the way, I don't know if this has been mentioned, but before GM came up with the Duramax idea, they were going to put a Cat in their HD line. <br>Sincerely,<br>Chris

 

All I know is that the 6.2 cucv would take at least 20 seconds to get to 60. It may even be slower than that. The 6.2 had no power. The trucks we had always were having problems with glow plugs and head problems. I wasnt a mechanic, but the **** thing would take forever to get started. If I had a choice between a gasser or the 6.2, I would opt for the gasser anyday. At least the gasser would start.