Diesel Power Curve Comparison! 2011 Power Stroke V-8 vs 2011 Duramax V-8

Diesel Power Curve Comparison! 2011 Power Stroke V-8 vs 2011 Duramax V-8
We already know that Ford’s all-new 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel is rated at 390 horsepower (at 2,800 rpm) and 735 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm) and GM’s updated 6.6 Duramax V-8 diesel is rated at 397 hp (at 3,000 rpm) and 765 pounds-feet, but those numbers don’t tell the whole story.

The true measure of diesel performance is how well its muscle is managed over the engine’s power band. How soon is peak torque available and for how long? The broader the torque curve is and the sooner peak torque hits, the better.

For the first time, we’re presenting the horsepower and torque curves for both the 2011 Power Stroke and 2011 Duramax engines. The data is courtesy of Ford and General Motors with the disclaimer that both power curves were delivered as rendered image files and not as tabular data, which would have allowed us to recreate the graphics independently.

The individual curves are presented first but we’ve taken both graphs and combined them into a single chart, so you can see where the differences are across engine speeds.

6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 Power Curves

2011 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 Power Curves (courtesy of Ford)

6.6-liter Duramax LML vs LMM V-8 Power Curves

2011 6.6-liter LML Duramax V-8 vs. 2010 6.6-liter LMM Duramax V-8 Power Curves (courtesy of GM)

Power Stroke vs Duramax Power Curves
The Comparison: 2011 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 vs. 2011 6.6-liter Duramax V-8

Here’s what we think is interesting:

  • Torque: The Power Stroke puts out more torque than the Duramax until about 1,350 rpm, at which point the Duramax rapidly spikes towards its best-in-class peak torque at 1,600 rpm. After that point, the two motors appear to even up again around 2,450 rpm before the PSD drops below 700 lbs-ft around 2,700 rpm. The Duramax maintains a wider torque band that remains north of the PSD until 3,000 rpm, at which point rapidly tails off and both engines overlap again around 3,300 rpm. In general, the Duramax has a taller, broader torque band than the PSD.
  • Horsepower: The Power Stroke appears to maintain higher horsepower than the Duramax throughout most of the rpm range but the Duramax is able to keep the power coming a bit longer and outguns the PSD at about 2,900 rpm before it rapidly tails off and again falls below the PSD around 3,300 rpm.

    Part of Ford's apparent horsepower advantage may be the rendering of Ford's power curve. When we calculate horsepower using the formula HP = (rpm x torque)/5252 we come up with a rating of 223 hp for the Power Stroke and 233 hp for the Duramax at 1,600 rpm -- the claimed peak torque point for both motors. The graph overlay should show the Duramax slightly higher than the PSD at this point but it doesn't.

    It will be interesting to see how horsepower differences impact acceleration times when the trucks are empty and pulling heavy trailers during our upcoming HD Shootout.

One thing the comparison chart can’t tell us -- until we put the trucks head-to-head -- is how well their power is managed by their six-speed automatic transmissions. With ratings as close as these, transmission logic is going to be critical for differentiating which rig performs better. The chart also doesn’t account for weight differences. The Ford Super has traditionally been the heaviest pickup in the segment. We also wonder how much of a role controlling emissions is playing in changing some of the inflection points of the curves. 

We’re looking forward to testing both new engines on a chassis dyno ourselves, so we can see the power and torque curves calculated outside of Ford’s and GM’s powertrain labs.


Bob - your back.
You must be wishing on stars,
sticking pins into your Ford Power Stroke voodoo doll,
and running around naked with your tiny bow-tie hanging out on a full moon chanting anti-Ford prayers.
Your bow-tie crystal ball must have giving you some inside information.
I would not make a public statement saying one truck will be the definate winner.
May the best truck win!

Its funny how quickly the past is forgoten. Given the problems with the 6.0l and 6.4l PSD I can't believe ford has any market share at all. And the original duramax had to get injectors replaced as often as the fuel filter. It was so bad GM extended the warrenty on the injectors to 300,000kms just to keep people from dumping them after the power train warrenty was up. I've worked in dealerships of the detriot three so I know this from experience. Dodges have had a few problems (the engine mounted lift pump was a retarded idea), but they have been a good choice for a long time. I just don't under stand the brand loyalty. Anyone who buys a vehicle because of the brand and not for what the vehicle offers is an idiot. The funniest thing if heard from a brand loyal GM coworker was "GM is the best, I don't know why anyone wouold drive anythiing else. I've only driven GM's my whole life". To which I responded, How do you know GM's the best if you've never driven anything else? All the fanboys out there should consider that (especialy Bob, Gm is a brand not a religion).

Lou is funny
People keep saying the 6.4 has had "problems". The ONLY specific problem i've heard with the 6.4 is bad fuel economy. THe only person i know who has a 6.4 says he gets as good fuel economy as he did with his old 7.3. I believe he did take off the emissions crap on his truck so maybe that made a difference. BUT what problems has the 6.4 had other than bad fuel economy?

I seen a 2003 F-350 Lariat 4x4 crew cab with 385,000 kms original.

Bob gets owned by Lou again. LMFAO...........

we should wait till ford updates the power numbers which is said to be coming very soon

Im not much on racing trucks or concerned with how much it weighs. Back in the 80s and 90s the 6.2 6.5 6.9 7.3 5.9 not what u call a power house but it got the job done and we didnt know any different at the time but most of them are still running so i want to see the real test which will still be running in 5?,10?,20? years and if the truck around that motor and trans holding up or rattled appart?

I love the IFS VS SFA argument.

It really makes no difference.

FYI-Ford considers $1,200 worth of front suspension components every 80k miles normal wear.

The GM design does handle significantly better over rough roads and is especially noticeable on the highway.

We will see what the future for the front end of my 08' Chevy 2500 holds but with 75k miles it is still tight. I can't say that for either one of my last two trucks which were a 02' F350 and a 05' F250.

As long as the stuff that breaks out front on my Chevy in the next 5-10k miles is equal to or less that the ball joint, tie rod Ford "wear items" I'll break even.

Regarding the fuel economy claims, am I the only one that was fooled with the Ford 6.0 after they claimed a 20% mileage improvement over the 7.3?

Don't believe GM or Fords efficiency claims because it's the same story every time. Big promises, small results.

JK, people are quoting the several media outlets that have driven the new Ford, and given their own mpg observations. I suppose we should disbelieve them too? Including this one?

Some of the ford girls keep commenting of the Allisons failing but a google search on tranny failures on HD's brings up a lot ford HD's complete failure requiring replacement but the worst for the Allison might be a leak. Why are ford girls so jealous? Don't forget ford girls, even though you can barely speak english if it was not for Allison/GM you's be speaking German. P-38, P-39. P40, P-51 ground attack and these below, get over it girls, GM out did and out does ford!
General Motors converted all of its production to the Allied war effort and delivered more than $12 billion worth of goods, ranging from airplanes to tanks, marine diesel engines, trucks, machine guns, and shells. No other manufacturer delivered as much material to the Allied forces.

Here is a list of the WWII General Motors War Material Production 1940-45:

198,000 Diesel engines for tanks & landing craft

206,000 Airplane engines

13,000 Complete bombers and fighter planes

97,000 Aircraft propellors

301,000 Aircraft gyroscopes

38,000 Tanks, tank destroyers and armored vehicles

854,000 Trucks, including amhibious DUKWs

190,000 Cannons

1,900,000 Machine guns and submachine guns

3,142,000 Carbines

3,826,000 Electric motors

11,111,000 Fuses

360,000,000 Ball and roller bearings

119,562,000 Shells

39,181,000 Cartridge cases

540,619,000 Grand Total

To say that becuase something has more moving parts it will be less reliable is stupid. A Boeing 747 has a ton more parts than a diesel truck, and they are much more reliable. The Space Shuttle has 10's of thousands of moving parts, and it's fairly reliable too. The number of parts doesn't mean anything. It's how well they are designed, and how well they are maintained. So if GM's IFS is well built and maintained it'll be just as reliable as a SFA. The same of the V8 vs I6 arguement. I could make an I6 with the worst design ever, and it would be pretty unreliable. Oh, and with the Cummins, how are you blown turbo's, cracked DPF's and fowled EGR valve working? Usually it's not the engine itself that breaks. It's all the other crap.

and Beebe,
I don't know a ton about the 6.4 PSD, but the fuel economy did suck, was slow as balls, and very unrefined.

The fuel economy numbers on the new PSD really can't be trusted. I could get about 40 MPG in a Dmax going down hill with a tail wind, yet that is not representative of the real world. I'm pretty sure the number quoted here on PUT.com, was driving into Pheonix which is in a valley remember. A larger sample size is needed. But to think they are going to get high 20's unloaded is a joke.

I want to clear the air that no matter what your retoric or childish GM bashing on a daily baisis, the Duramax and the Allison transmission will beat the Ford powerjoke and the Dodge cummings at the shootout.

Yes, you got me, I prefer the GM trucks over Ford and Dodge. People have preferences and this is the USA. People are constantly trying to tear down the competition and stating false information to make themselves feel better about their brand of choice.

Competition is good for the consumer because it has the benefit of the manufactures constantly improving their product. So buy what you want and stop the constant GM bashing and grow up.


Shut up! LMFAO!

@ Tim

" Usually it's not the engine itself that breaks. It's all the other crap."

My thoughts exactly 40% more moving parts. When you compare something with more moving parts to something, that does the same job, the item with the more moving parts will always break down more.

"Oh, and with the Cummins, how are you blown turbo's, cracked DPF's and fowled EGR valve working?"

I never said the Cummins was perfect, but fact is fact it breaks less then the PS and D-max, both of which suffer from blown turbos, cracked DPFs, and fowled EGR valves.

Your argument about the jets and shuttle is moot when you are comparing them to trucks. If their was a jet or shuttle with 40% less moving parts, it would be more reliable then the existing models.

That is not true. More parts does not automatically mean more failures. Cars today have way more parts than cars in the 70's 60's 50's etc. And yet quality is at an all time high. I stand by my argument: Reliability has more to do with engineering and maintinance than the number of parts. Think of the old 350 Olds diesel GM put out in the 70's (or 80's can't remember). That was a POS, and it had less parts than the modern ones. Now why would it be less reliable than a new diesel engine? Probably because it wasn't engineered well. Not because it has more parts.


tj - what does your rant about WW2 have to do with pickup trucks? It's not as if they made all that stuff for free and donated it to the USA.
Quote"Don't forget ford girls, even though you can barely speak english if it was not for Allison/GM you's be speaking German."
You seem to be making the arrogant assumption that only US soldiers fought and died in WW2. What about British, Canadian,and even Russian soldiers?
If I followed your logic - I should praise Toyota for supporting their country during WW2.

Bob - quote" People are constantly trying to tear down the competition and stating false information to make themselves feel better about their brand of choice"
Don't you read the crap you write? Practice what you preach!
You break your own rules on a daily basis.

If you don't like it , grap your purse and little dangling bow-tie and go home!

I'm a Dodge guy. I prefer my Ram, I prefer the Cummins and the transmission issues are fixed (Finally).. Even as a Dodge guy I can admit our tranny's were garbage for many many years. That said, between the Ford and GM trucks I'd rather combine the 2 if I HAD to drive one. I'd feel much more confident in the GM drivetrain. I'm sorry, I have no faith in Ford in this department. However, the interior quality, sheet metal quality, durability AND design of the Ford trucks are superior in every way to the junk GM tacks together.

You guys think Dodge trucks were bad look at ANY GMT-800 Chevy/GMC truck on the road. From 1999-2007, Nothing but cheap plastic interior parts, trim pieces, door handles etc. All of the rockers are rotting away on these things and the beds have holes over the wheels. Cheap paper thin sheet metal and I've never seen one where the tailgate handle trimpiece hadn't fallen off. Not exactly the quality trucks GM built 20-30 years ago. These GMT-900's aren't much better. I guess we'll see if these things rot away in a few years too.

And if we're talking about suspension, GM's torsion bars always have been and always will be a Joke in real truck circles. Get a Real Axle GM. Quit being so cheap... Every time I see some hotshot GM guy driving his HD the only thing I can think is 'Nice Frame'. New trucks with that saggy low slung eyesore already rusting away for the world to see. Look at a Ford SD or Ram.. Their frames are tucked up nice and clean under the truck providing better ground clearance and you don't have to repaint them black after every winter. Until GM gets a real frame and a SFA they'll never dominate the HD truck category again like they once did many years ago.

Mike Levine,

Thanks for the nice summary and comments. Are the first 2 images those that were provided to you by Ford and GM and then the 3rd (comparative overlay) was produced by you or your people ? Just trying to understand the discrepancy in torque and power "who's on top where" that others have duly pointed out. Good information, but just trying to figure out what's most reliable and undistorted in the information provided

Lets not forget that GM does not know how to build a good diesel engine or trans they have to out source.

That pos from Ford has not even seen the pavement yet and you guys are throwing out numbers, lets see the thing with miles on it , then goe over the numbers. Hopefully there not warranty cost numbers, if you put those down ,Ford would win the warranty race also.

For anyone interested in actually learning more accurate information about the power curve of the new 6.7L Ford diesel go here:


Open the PDF on the 6.7L diesel.

You'll notice in this instance that the power curve actually mathematically correlates to the given power ratings from the factory. Namely that once peak torque is achieved at 1,600RPM's this torque output is basically maintained until 2,800RPM's where it still makes 731.5lb-ft in order to make 390hp. So from 1,600RPM's to 2,800RPM's the torque curve is basically flat giving perfectly linear power buildup. If the two power curves are compared between the accurate plot in my link, and the GM supplied plot I think you will find the PSD stronger in the 2,200-2,800 RPM range.


@ Tim

My Arguement still stands. Compair cars from today with other cars from today. The cars with the fewer moving parts are more reliable.

Ahh Tim you can get 40mpg while coasting. Good for you. I know everyone gets 1mpg while accelerating from zero (for about two seconds) and when the engine is in compression going down hill, uses absolutely no fuel at all. Yes you would use more fuel if the car was idling in neutral. But do you seriously believe the several media outlets that tested these trucks based their AVERAGE mpg for 5 seconds while coasting down hill? Come on! Only a fanboy of another brand would suggest such a conspiracy theory.

Nice L1tech, we can't yet assume how good the new Ford will be, bur you can already call it a POS. Interesting.

I think the really interesting thing is, the only good thing about the Dodge, is the diesel engine. Which is outsourced.
The only good thing about the GM, is the Allison. Which is outsourced. Yet it appears so far, the new Powerstroke and TorqShift might be better than both those. And Ford does not outsource its engines or transmissions. It won't take too many months for customers to prove the reliability of the new Fords. If they prove unreliable, then you can comment all you want about them being unreliable. But you have to remember they are building them internally so they have more quality control.

Until they build a 3/4 & 1 ton truck with a Cummins motor, Allison transmission, and Ford suspension it is all up to brand loyalty. I know I like to dream because it can't and will never happen.

I still disagree. Number of parts doesn't always correlate to reliability. Why do we have to compare current engines to current engines? It still goes back to engineering. And obviously the 350 diesel GM put out in the 70's wasn't engineered as well as one today, which is why it isn't as reliable. Also, why doesn't the Ford gas 5.4L 4v engine have twice the valve train problems the 2v does? Same engine, more parts = less reliable according to you. Or why didn't GM's 4.3L only have 3/4's the problems the 5.7L had since it's basically the same engine with 2 cylinders chopped off?

Well, when a media outlet such as pickuptrucks.com puts out a power graph they KNOW is wrong (showing the engine that makes more torque at 1600 RPM somehow making less power, which is physically impossible) it makes me wonder how they are doing their other tests. And I wasn't bragging about getting good mileage, but I was only showing that the numbers can be skewed easily on a short test, not to mention that regen frequency and efficiency plays a big part, which their test didn't take into account. So yeah, I would call BS on their number as of right now. If they prove to be true, cool. But to see people latch on to these preliminary numbers like gospel is crazy.

Well if Ford was the one claiming the mpgs, or if one media outlet reported it, take it with a grain of salt. When 6-10 report their testing as 24mpg, with hardly any variation and not one out there is claiming anything significantly different. Just the usual doubters. People can choose not to believe it, but some people choose to believe the earth is flat, and others believe 9/11 never really happened. All the proof in the world won't convince them. Also 24mpg is hardly a magical number for a diesel engine, that's about what they should get in a full size.

I just read an article from Motor Trend comparing the new Super Duty 6.7L against the 2010 Dodge Ram. They got 16.6 MPG unloaded (16.4 in the Ram) and 18.0 (17.9 in the Ram) with 2000lbs in the bed. So that's strange they are nearly 8MPG short of what other's have come up with. Interesting. Obviously their loop wasn't too bad since the Ram got numbers I would expect, and they drove the same loop with PSD.

Wow all this bickering over a couple horse power but i don't see anyone talking about how much of americans u.s. dollars gm and crysler took to stay above water and survive by putting factory chips in a duramax when ford is still way ahead of the game they always have and always will first to come last to go and on top of it they did not take a cent of tax payers money to stay in business. If i where the government i would have let gm and crysler both fold hows that one for you.

Yeah that is interesting Tim, I am interested to see other tests of both. I know people who have avoided the 6.7 Cummins and bought the older 5.9 to get much better mileage.

What does low end torque (torque at 1300 rpms) have to do with the price of eggs in Brazil? I have never towed a trailer at anything under 1600 rpms. Even when I was grossing 27000 with an LMM on the Penn Pike, I cared more about overrev (3250rpm in 4th at 70-72MPH) then trying to lug (1600rpm)up the mountain. Your turbo charger does nothing at 1300 rpms so that means nothing at turbo doesn't really do anything until you have boost. Boost comes from air flow....ala RPM.

BTW, anyone ever watch EGT's "lugging" they go sky high. If you want a cool motor, downshift and rev it up. It will cool EGT's off 200-300* I guarantee it. From 1400 to about 1200.

Anyone that tows anything know that low end torque (1300)is not where it's at unless your a big rig with 18 speeds.

LOL at the IFS comment when a 100,000 mile dmax drives better then a 60,000 mile ford or dodge and they need $1000.00 in front end repairs not to mention U joints or wheel bearings.

Oh, and my personal favorite, (Me) yeah we're stuck......(Dodge/Ford Guy) Nope I just have to get out and lock in my hubs. ROL. Vrrrrrm. (Me) Yep were stuck. LOL

Not to mention the new Max has a 6000 pound front gawr.

Dodge better go back to the drawing board.

Duramax forever!! Maybe they can't upgrade it much more now, but it still beats ford and dodge and just wait until isuzu redesigns it. Ford sucks, powerstrokes have always been gas guzzling pieces of crap with numerous problems from injectors to heads to you name it. Cummins has always been good but take the motor out and put it in a pickup that rides semi good, has decent interior and doesn't fall apart around it. If gm priced their hd's as cheaply as dodge there would only be duramax's on the highway.

My dad is an idiot. He likes Obama Motors, Isuzu built Duramax diesels with Allison transmissions. Government Motors can't even build their own trucks. They put together parts from other companies and slap a Bowtie on front. Smart thinking Garbage Motors! Ford never asked for taxpayer money AND builds their own motors and transmissions. The choice is simple, Isuzu diesel that builds their motors with Chinese hands, or good old American, red, white and blue FORD.

The fact remains wether it is a diesel or gas ford out sells gm in the ford out sells gm and dodge in the truck market
and have been dooing so for more then thirty years.
lets let the numbers do the talking

eventually these two configs may get it right. for the time being, nothing is in the class with cummins and dodge.

I have owned both chevy and FORD pickups. Oh i forgot to mention that after having the chevy / gmc same thing both are junk and overated. I bought my FORD 4x4 and loved it. I would never even consider another gm truck. I also would never buy a car from a goverment owned company and that goes for the dodge boys who are also run by the idiot in the white house don't kid yourself.

The Duramax is at the end of its rope...you just cannot safely pull more power out of it, whereas the 6.7L Ford is just beginning. The aftermarket is going to LOVE the new 6.7! Compare diesel to diesel, from the block strength to the head strength and what each diesel is really capable of, and the Ford is FAR superior to the duramax AND the Cummins. Get over it. Besides, everyone who buys a Government Motors (Obama Motors) product costs me money and supports socialism.

Chris, can you tell me what diesel GM has had that was worth a DAM! before the Duramax? None. Asian technology made it possible. Just like Government Motors spent TAXPAYER dollars building the largest manufacturing plant in CHINA. GM's exec's have admitted that they lose money in North America, but are quite profitable in communist China. Anyone who purchases a GM product should be ashamed. Henry Ford's great granddaughter said that Ford never accepted government assistance because it would hurt the taxpayer. Hmm...now Ford is the only viable US auto manufacturer building vehicles superior in reliability to Honda and Toyota, while GM is still counting on the Malibu (LOL) to keep them afloat. They should have died the first time.

fiat, i mean ramm i mean Dodge.... is being trampled by general moters and Ford to the bottom of the thank, first a little history that very few of you dodge fans care to know, please check it out, in 1984 case farm tractors help cummins develope your pickup engine yes your noisy clanky engine is a farm tractor engine you can cheaply dump a bushel basket of deisle fuel in it and it will probably will not blow up but it goes right back to the fact that its just a noisy farm tractor engine it was also put into chase combines. Ford has the money and technology to build thier own engine kudos to them. GM has the technology to design and build thier own engines in the US, Yes they own and develope the Duramax themselves Gm and Ford can also build thier own transmitions Chrysler has to beg and borrow from everyone when is that ever going to make YOU people sick and Lets Give GM some credit the New Silverado and Sierras are built in the US the engines too, flint Michigan has one of the plants, Cummins is a good American company aisen is a good transmition Fiat/Ram builds the Chassis in Mexico it ends up being a hodge podge crap pile. Sorry boys your 50 HP behind and 125 behind in tourque purely because your have to wait for cummins to feel like helping you out, that really sucks doesn't it

my 2004 dodge ram 3500 with 6 speed manual transmission
and cummins diesel get 24 miles per gal highwy and
21-22 miles city this truck has over 60000 miles and
has never had any engine,tranny or rear axle work.
it just keeps on running,
my secret is to change the fuel and air filters.
this is a stock form the factory truck

The first poster in this thread is correct. Technically there is an error in the HP curves because higher torque at any given point of the rpm curve also dictates higher hp. So if the torque curves are correct the hp curves are incorrect or inverted.

this article is biased, and the data is old, the psd has about 405 hp and 800 ft lbs torque

7.3 Powerstroke period

I just thought i would put my 2 cents in , i am a person who ownes the best trucks , i shop for # 1 the best deal #2 the most reliable on the market at the time ,#3 the best truck for my current needs. then i choose the one i like , right now if im looking for pulling huge loads up big mountians the Chevy GMC is the way to go , as the latest tests the 2011 Gmc beat the 2011 ford by a huge margin , so even thought the power ratings are close the ford was over 4 min. behind GM by the top of the hill! Now my needs are for a truck that can take the abuse of very cold weather on long trips on very bumpy roads that wont fall apart. now i would choose a 2011 ford (over a dodge even though a cummings is a fantastic proven engine but the truck body tends to fall a part quicker in time) in this case a solid axel will last me longer, i have had all makes and have allways chosen a truck that suits my needs . At one point we had GMC 's but after a lot of abuse the drivers doors tended to fall off (very rough road and severe cold and drivers who dont care about the trucks) the hinge glue would let go! and the ifs front ends would wear out very quickly, also one cold morning the transfer case imput shaft on a 05 GMC sheared off completely. It seems the farther north you go the more Fords you see! we never purchased any of fords 6.0 or 6.4 diesels (as all our trucks exceed warranty in the first few years and the thought of removing the cab to service the turbo/engines scares me), so after 03 we had only dodges and GMC's and now we will consider a ford again! as we still have some old 2001 7.3 &2003 7.3 crew cab 4x4's that wont quit! So i think consumers should buy for there current needs , if its a Chev/GMC that suits then so be it , if its a Dodge , or Ford ( dont just shop one brand , buy the best product , and that will teach the manufactures to compete) and as comsumers all we want is the best product that is produced!!

True the "Duramax" is clearly the faster engine. I've driven a 2011 cummins, Duramax, and Powerstroke, and while the Duramax paired with the Allison tranny is superior in speed. Neither of the two have the pull like the Powerstroke. No "smack talk" but the Ford handles the load better than Duramax, and Cummins. 2011 belongs to Ford.

I own a Hot Shot buisness and run several HD trucks. When my truck starts it is almost always pulling a 24'-36' trailer loaded to the hilt with pipe or oilfield supplies of some sort. I make short hauls and have made long hauls, through mountains etc. Most of the people on here likely sit in a office and own a HD truck to pull a small camper a couple times a year. Other than that drive a little 4 cylinder car. So I speak from years of experience. Dirty Max are not cut out for leaving the pavement they just dont stand up over the long haul and are heavy on the fuel. Power Strokes are tough trucks but also a little heavy on the fuel. Cummins are the ONLY trucks that I see with excesive miles. I am talking about the 1 000 000km mark and thats from pulling not driving around in a big truck to fell like a man. Dirty Max is ok if you dont need to rely on your truck to make your living. Ford screwed up when they walked away from the 7.3, but the 6.7 sounds promissing. But I would rather be Cummin than Stroken. Ever notice when Isuzu puts their motor in a big piece of iron like a Hitachi track hoe the closest it comes to the 6.6 is in the form of an inline six. 40% less parts is indeed more reliable when you are putting on thousands of hours, and far cheaper when it comes time to overhaul. Bottom line is if ya wanna tow ya need six in a row !!!!

Powerstroke all the way.
Id rather be strokin than cummin cuz once your cummin your done.

Best truck:

1) F-Series
2) Ram
3) Sierra/Silverado

Best motor:

1) Cummins (albeit underpowered)
2) Power Stroke
3) Duramax

Best transmission:

1) Allison 1000
2) 6R140 Torqshift
3) 68RFE Orion

Too bad we can not mix-and-match these components to make our own trucks.

So the GM D-Max has used pretty much the same engine a little over a decade. The Ford is on its 4th or 5th and still cant keep up with the D-Max. It might take a little while but when Chevy does build its next D-Max, it will BLOW the PS off the road in every aspect.

The comments to this entry are closed.