Ford or GMC Diesel??? which is better and why??

LBZ

Active VIP Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
3,068
Reaction score
3,649
Location
Central Alberta
If the OEMs put "heavy duty" transmissions in their heavy duty trucks we would have never heard of de-fueling. Its not required, just saves their cute trannys from abuse it should have been designed for.
The reason they don't use heavier trans is fuel economy. Heavier parts = more fuel required to spin more mass.
 

LBZ

Active VIP Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
3,068
Reaction score
3,649
Location
Central Alberta
For engines I would give the Powerstoke a slight edge. The duramax is known for having top end issues.
For ease of working on, the Duramax has a huge edge. Ford cab has to come of for basically anything.
Transmissions are about equal in my opinion.
Chevs have independent front suspension, which is complete trash, they do not hold up.

Sober up bud. The Dodge solid axle is a much bigger POS than the Chevy IFS. I know way more people that are replacing front end parts in their Dodges more frequently than any other truck out there. I put over 200 000km on my lifted Chev on 35's and still have the stock balljoints in it and they are still good. On the second set of Fabtech tie rods, and replaced one wheel bearing at 150 000km. I beat this truck down probably 100 000km of gravel over the years and through the mud up to the doors. Still solid. Same with the company 6 liter GMC 2500HD I had. 170 000km and stock front end.

Not saying the Ford's don't hold up as well but to call the front end complete trash is an un-educated opinion to say the least.

Also what top end issues are you talking about? Injector problems went away 10 years ago, there were a few '05's that had headgasket issues but since the LBZ in '06 for the most part in stock form these engines have been solid. More than I can say for the 6 liter and 6.4 liter Fords. About 8 years of fail there. The new engine seems much stronger and much better. Be interesting to see how they last with the bigger turbo - hopefully they hold up better!

End of the day they all break down and only last as long as their maintenance and operation allows!
 

ABMax24

Active VIP Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
4,649
Reaction score
13,431
Location
Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada
If the OEMs put "heavy duty" transmissions in their heavy duty trucks we would have never heard of de-fueling. Its not required, just saves their cute trannys from abuse it should have been designed for.

And then people would b!tch because they shift hard, you just simply can't have a transmission release a gear then select the next higher gear all the while putting 800ft/lbs of torque though it and expect it to live or even work, during this the transmission actually goes through neutral where the engine isn't transferring power to the wheels and continuing to run at full power will increase rpm which must be decreased when the shift completes which will have to be absorbed by the clutch pack, shafts, crankshaft, and driveline, which significantly expedites wear. Not to mention the fact that shifting gears significantly reduces the volume of air entering the engine, and the defuel allows the turbo to spool down and avoid a surge condition. Now some in the Duramax world have tried to get around this using EFILive, they have tried to shorten the shift times and reduce defuel, but some went too far and had the transmission select the next gear while the previous was still engaged, causing the transmission to lock up solid and lock the rear wheels at highway speed with the engine a full power, obviously not a good result.

While there are race transmissions that can shift without defuel, they are built with only the strongest and most expensive parts, and still live very short lives when compared to their street driven counterparts. But they are built to shed hundredths of seconds, something irrelevant in street driven machines.
 

somethingnuw

Active VIP Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,036
Reaction score
1,075
Location
High Prairie
For engines I would give the Powerstoke a slight edge. The duramax is known for having top end issues.
For ease of working on, the Duramax has a huge edge. Ford cab has to come of for basically anything.
Transmissions are about equal in my opinion.
Chevs have independent front suspension, which is complete trash, they do not hold up.

still? I thought they fixed that issue?
 

C of Red

Active VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
501
Reaction score
918
Location
Calgary, AB
Love my '13 Super Duty (F350). Super comfortable on long trips and decent fuel milage. I recently got 12.7L/100km on a round trip from CGY to EDM for work. Must of had a tail wind both ways... usually get about 14.5L/100km at about 120km/hr. Pulls like a freight train. Last year on our way back from the annual Cooke City sled trip we towed a 21 ft steel trailer on **** roads in 4x4 and hardly knew the trailer was there. Same with the deck, its very stable with two sleds up there. Can't say enough good about the truck. Stock fuel tank sucks REAL bad tho. 98L, WTF! All I've done to it is a 2 1/2" RediLift level kit in the front with the additional 1" in the back and 35" toyo Mts.

My cousin bought a new dodge 3500 at the same time, had to put a $3500 delete kit on it to get his milage even close to mine (16 hwy). He was at 19L/100km hwy empty before he did. Them dodges sure look purdy when lifted!

GM, not a fan bit that's just personal preference. Don't know much about them other than the tranny is supposed to be real good.
 
Last edited:

goodngrubby

Active VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
3,452
Reaction score
4,827
Location
Nanaimo
Can't speak for the Chev, but I did all the deletes and exhaust on my 6.7 Ford (dually with 3.73 gears) I wheeled up to Kearl Lake yesterday with the cruise set at 118 on the four lane, and 106ish everywhere else, H&S Mini Max set on Street mode.....pulled into the pumps in Ft Mac, and figured it out at 19.08 mpg. I have 70k on it, the truck is awesome, pulls like a freight train, but the front end appears to be less than stellar...3 wheel bearings and ball joints already. I doubt I've put on 1000km of gravel.
 
Last edited:

sirkdev

Active VIP Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
4,970
Location
Stony Plain
Can't speak for the Chev, but I did all the deletes and exhaust on my 6.7 Ford (dually with 3.73 gears) I wheeled up to Kearl Lake yesterday with the cruise set at 118 on the four lane, and 106ish everywhere else, H&S Mini Max set on Street mode.....pulled into the pumps in Ft Mac, and figured it out at 19.08 mpg. I have 70k on it, the truck is awesome, pulls like a freight train, but the front end appears to be less than stellar...3 wheel bearings and ball joints already. I doubt I've put on 1000km of gravel.

sounds awesome, except for the wheel bearings and ball joints... I've had over 10 superduties since 99 and have only done front end work to one of my 2003's with 180000 of all and I mean all off road oilfield km's. Something funky going on with yours I'd say.
 

sweld

Active VIP Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
1,591
Location
Redwater
I had to do my front end on my. 2011 at 70000. No wheel bearings though. My 06 had 250000km and never touched it. Even just by looking you can see that the components are not as beefy as earlier models
 

ippielb

Active VIP Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
1,912
Reaction score
3,278
Location
SE Saskatchewan
Website
www.youtube.com
Duramax for life. The ride is amazing, get a thicker sway bar up front and a rear sway bar and it handles like a sports car, the Allison is by far the best transmission out there. Don't put huge HP to it and I will last for ever, fast smooth shifts. Mileage on the dmax, well my 06 get 26mpg on highway. Don't know about how the new ones do. Efi live is another big thing. I don't know if ford ha a program that can tune the truck as well as efi live can change the dmax.

I will give ford it has the better front end, cab room, height, fender shape for bigger tires, and locking hubs. But for me a gmc/chev is the way to go.
 
Top Bottom