GM Announces Best-In-Class Power Figures for 2011 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel

GM Announces Best-In-Class Power Figures for 2011 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel

Just last month, Ford announced that its all-new 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel would pound out an incredible 390 horsepower and 735 pounds-feet of torque, giving the F-Series Super Duty best-in-class power ratings for heavy-duty pickups. Now, that short reign is over, according to General Motors.

GM announced that the updated 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 diesel for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra HD pickups will make 397 hp (at 3,000 rpm) and a mind-blowing 765 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm). That’s 105 more pounds-feet of twist than the 2010 Duramax V-8. We just warped our keyboard writing that.

The Duramax V-8, dubbed “LML" internally, is the latest generation of GM's HD diesel since it was introduced in 2001. Sixty percent of its parts are new, and Duramax chief engineer Gary Arvan said it will be 11 percent more fuel efficient than the previous LMM Duramax.

Duramax 6.6-liter LML Diesel

A different dyno-rated version of the 6.6-liter Duramax is offered in GM’s HD chassis cab and box-delete models. It’s based on the same new architecture and includes most of the same features as the pickup version, but it is engineered to meet federal certification standards for incomplete vehicles, including the incorporation of a different exhaust-gas recirculation system. It’s rated at 335 hp (at 3,100 rpm) and 685 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm).

There are no changes in final power ratings for GM’s 6.0-liter V-8, which continues at 360 hp (at 5,400 rpm) and 380 pounds-feet of torque (at 4,200 rpm).

HD Pickup Truck Comparison Chart

Comments

im not a fan of either chevy or ford BUT im not gonna sit here and bash either of them. you all act like children. mind you im 17 and im acting more mature than you.

Frank,
You say that GM waited to release their power and torque numbers just so they could beat Ford. Would you say that Ford waited to release their payload and towing figures just to beat GM? It goes both ways, even though you don't want to hear it.
Secondly, Ford guys are saying that GM only beats the Ford by 4% in power, well guess what Ford only beats GM payload by 3% (and that's only 1 configuration - GM beats for in 2 others). In towing Ford only has an 8% advantage. The small numbers game goes both ways. I'd like to see what the other configurations can tow since Ford only wins in payload in one config, they might only win in one config with towing as well.

As for fuel economy, no one knows exactly what each truck will get, so lets leave that out of it until there is independant testing. The old PSD's were pretty bad, but this is a new engine, so lets see how it actually compares before we comment.

As for frame strength, GM completely re-did their frame, so to base ASSumptions on their old frame is stupid. Again, wait until independant testing is done.

As for reliability, no one knows yet which will be better. The old PSD's weren't great, but again the 6.7L is a new motor, so lets give it time.

Looks are subjective, so lets leave that out as well.

As for GM copying the new Taurus grill, you relize that the grills design has probably been set since before the Tuarus came out, so GM didn't copy anything. And the Denali line has been using silver grills with holes in them for a long time.

In closing, using FACTS that are currently known:
GM has more power
GM has more torque
Ford has a higher payload in ONE configuration (GM win's 2)
Ford has a higher towing in at least one configuration. (I'd like to see towing specs for both trucks in different configs).
See my post third from top on this page for payload FACTS.

Mark Yes couple of shocks and a add a leaf boosts towing rating 3400 lbs.

Sint you are right, since current SD's get 11 mpg

Frank thats not the only difference, sync don't offer near as much as Onstar, wow sync comes free for 3 years BIG DEAL.

@ Tim,

Go on over and read the GMC Heavy Duty Article. The article states,

"Like Ford's Power Stroke, the Duramax will use selective catalytic reduction, or SCR, and a new high-capacity two-stage exhaust gas recirculation system to scrub nitrogen oxide emissions down to no more than 0.2 grams per horsepower/hour. It's a new EPA requirement as of Jan. 1.

The SCR system uses diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF. The urea-based solution (32.5 percent industrial urea and 67.5 percent deionized water) is held in a 5.3-gallon storage tank and injected as a fine mist into the Duramax’s hot exhaust gases. The heat turns the urea into ammonia that, when combined with a special catalytic converter, breaks down the nitrogen oxide emissions into harmless nitrogen gas and water vapor.

The DEF refill point for the Sierra HD is mounted under the hood of the engine instead of next to the diesel refueling cap on the side of the cargo box, as it is on the 2011 Super Duty"

Does everything have to be like the Ford Super Duty. This is all I was referring too. It does not take a genius to figure this out only an open mind.

Frank,
You realize that the DEf system in GM trucks has been under development for about 3 years right. Just like Ford's. No one copied each other. GM didn't see Ford's system 3 weeks ago, and say, "oh crap, we need to do that too" and develop a whole system in a few weeks. There are only so many technologies/systems out there to do a specific task, and the chemical reations are going to be the same. I'd be willing to bet that GM and Ford use the same supplier on some of the parts as well. But again, it's not copiying, it's just there are only so many ways to do a certain task. You could say Ford copied GM by having 4 wheels on their trucks, yet everyone knows you need 4 wheels. Or that GM copied Ford by having a steering wheel and not a joy-stick, yet with common sense you can figure out that no one actually copied each other.

Plus you know if GM had come out first, the article would probably say "Ford uses an SCR system with DEF just like the GM trucks"

The refill of the DEF is different on the two trucks, if you are referring that they are the same. GM's is under the hood, and Fords is next to the fuel fill.

Hasn't the D-Max been the most powerful for the past few years?

I really was thinking that GM would be turning out 400+ HP since Ford didnt but I will bet that both the Ford and the GM engines will both get more HP/ TQ as time goes on. But now RAM has a tough road ahead of them. I see a new Cummins in the near future. With all the HP & TQ from Ford and GM we will easily be able to stop and tow back all the run away Toyotas!

@ Tim,

Point taken. I will not argue with you their.

However, have you read this article.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/02/2011-chevrolet-silverado-heavy-duty-first-look-part-2.html

It states,

"There's also a revised 6.6-liter Duramax clean diesel that provides a significant bump in horsepower and torque. Unfortunately, GM won't say how much that bump is, as it plays a game of chicken with Ford to see which truck-maker will reveal its power figures for its new diesel engine first. Ford hasn't said what the output of its new 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 will be, even though it was revealed last September".


That there is Fact #1 supporting my arguement.
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Unlike Ford's all-new 6R140 heavy-duty six-speed automatic, the Allison won't add a similar "Live Drive" power takeoff functionality that can power auxiliary equipment (such as a salt spreader) even if the truck is completely stopped and the torque converter is disconnected to keep the engine from stalling".

Ok, I agree. They don't copy them in everything.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/02/2011-chevrolet-silverado-heavy-duty-first-look-part-1.html

"While some 2011 Silverado HD buyers may be disappointed that GM has kept its trademark torsion bar independent front suspension instead of switching to a solid front axle — which offers better articulation and ground clearance for off-road applications — it's visibly beefier than before because of its larger diameter. It has a canceled Ford F-450 1.5-ton fighter to thank for that strength".

I wonder what truck caused the change. Fact #2


You chevy guys keep saying how the durashit has been the most powerful diesel in recent years, they only can claim that title because they have been doing exactly what they did here. When Ford or Dodge came out with new power numbers that met or exceeded the dmax, GM came right back out weeks later with an article that the engine magically made 5 or 10 more hp/ft.lbs of torque. It's GM's game, because that the only way they can attract truck buyers due to them not putting the effort into their consumer base as Ford does to get feedback from the people that matter-the people that buy the trucks.
Even with the dmax claiming they're more powerful over the years, which heavy duty truck controls more than half the market? oh yeah, that's Ford.
Basically, these trucks are evenly capable both power and hauling capabilities. But i'll take Ford's reliability and reputation as well as the endless options they offer over the all brawns-no brains chevy. And that is how the average non-biased consumer thinks.

Frank,
Alright we're getting somewhere.

I agree that GM did probably wait to see what Ford's HP and TQ numbers would be, but I also think Ford waited to see what GM's payload and towing would be. That's just playing it smart on both sides. It is a great marketing tool to say "best in class..."

I'm not sure what you mean by your third point. GM has had the torsion bar setup for a while. I think they made it beefier because, that's just the normal progession of things, and it was a big draw-back to not allow a large snow plow to be fitted to the diesel GM trucks. If GM really wanted to go after the F-450, they could, but they chose not to, and rather just keep the 3500 and beef it up so it would be close to the F-450 in capability. Even Ford backed off their payload ratings of the F-450 (which is interesting in itself).

We could argue forever and not gain any ground. I will admit that Ford has some nice features, but so does GM. I just hate when people are so one sided, and can't give credit where credit is due. At least we're having a civil conversation : )

@ Tim,

My understanding from fact #3 was that the changes were made due to the 1.5 Ton Fighter F-450.

I do give credit to GM for the improvements.

That said, yes we can argue for ever. Thank you for stating you're facts.

Also, Thank you for having a civil conversation.


-Frank

What's the problem with y ou Frank, are you scared that GM's heavy duty is more powerful than your Ford?!!! The only thing that's idiotic is your bs "facts" about GM. Chevy and GM are the most powerful and Ford is the least powerful! How do you like that Frank?

Hey Bob, did you knoww the D-Max never out performed the 6.0 Powerstroke. I googled "HD truck shootout", found Deisel power magazines 2004 hd shootout. Ford had 325 hp, 460 tq. Gmc had 310 hp, 490 tq. The Ford out accelerated Gmc unloaded by couple hundredths, very close. Loaded with a 5000 lbs trailer, Ford beat Gmc by over 3 seconds 0-60, and 7 mph faster top speed. Look it up. D-Max didn't beat Powerstroke untill 2008 model year. That was probably due to the tranny diferrence (5 sp vs 6 sp) not the engines, but we will never know that one. Sounds like the 5 sp torqeshift put more power to the ground than the Allison 5 sp in this shootout.

@ jim,

Yeah, I remember that article.

Here it is:

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0411dpm_2004_diesel_hauler_shootout/index.html

All I'm saying is that to me it looks like you can do more with a Ford with a factory setup vs a GM/Chevy. No solid front axle, no live drive PTO, (assuming) better fuel mileage, and better towing numbers will all benefit Ford more esp in Fleet sales to businesses. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a Chevy HD... if a dealer was going to give me a great deal on one vs a Ford then I would have to think about it since all I pull is a 8500lbs camper but all in all just knowing that you could do more with a lot less worry in a Ford means the world to me and the other people who would consider a truck purchase.

As far as DEF goes this is a blessing in disguise not a curse that many think it is. Both companies have been working on this for a few years now so I'm sure no one copied no one.

Lastly I don't think Ford copied anything off of the canceled Diesel motor from GM. How could they? I think both companies have come a long way with the know how and technology and both realized what an advantage a motor with that configuration would have on emissions.

Why do Ford fanboys always say things without doing research?

Jim, In 2006 GM HD's recieved new version (at the time) Duramax LBZ It was rated at 360 HP and 650 TQ which was the most powerful diesel, New version LMM came to market in 2007 rated at 365 HP and 660 TQ and kept the most powerful diesel engine crown til this. In a month Ford will bring their 2011 SD's to market, so for a month or 2 it will be most powerful HD until GM HD's goes on early this summer.

You ford guru's need to chill. It shouldn't be ford vs chevy vs dodge. It should be the BIG 3 vs Toyota. And get off the gov motors b.s. What about the millions of trucks/cars on the road prior to the bailout? Should all of these people sell their cars? Give me a break and quit whining. Im in no way a liberal and didnt vote for your president, but I didnt want GM to go away either. Like somebody already said, GM is already paying it back, as is Dodge, so get over it. This will be one hell of a HD shootout this year. Im not so sure about the cummins reliability either, wasnt there something with cranks breaking due to high RPMs? Makes you wonder what their response will be...

Okay enough of the brand bashing , Ford and Chevy both have exceptional motors, both making in the territory of about 400 horsepower and 700+ foot pounds. Remember 10 years ago where 500 was earth-shattering, and we dreamed of having over 700 ? Yeah look where we are now ! The big competition now is NOT who can have 7 more or less horsepower, it is who can put all that power and torque most efficiently through the driveline to the WHEELS! It's battle of the transmissions ... Remember most trucks lose about 50-70 horsepower (really depends on the truck) to the rear wheels on the dyno. So really, now we need tested Dyno numbers, not crank numbers. In due time we will see, most likely from this site, true power numbers, not manufacturer crank numbers. Argue on as most of you will, just save your breath until the REAL stats come out ! Thats all for now from me.

@ Tyler,

You are correct. There is a 15% difference to the rear wheels. I would say that is still significantly high.

Pickuptrucks.com just needs to get a 2011 Ford, GM, and Ram do the shootout for all our entertainment. Get on it boys!

Frank,

your so stupid it makes my head hurt...

No one forced Ford to release their power numbers earlier then GM...Thats their own damn fault, if they were so worried about GM out-doing them again with power they should have waited...

and besides, how do you know the Duramax wasn't more powerful to begin with ? I know it kills you that the Duramax has more power then the Powerstroke (again) but silly excuses like this just make you look like a bigger retard then you already are...

Also, how has GM copied Ford ??? Give me one shred of proof...

@ Jake,

By the sound of you're rant. I refuse to have a conversation with you as it will be pointless. Perhaps you can ask Tim to reiterate you're question and he and I can have a civil conversation. Read the whole damn post.

Ryan, I stand corrected. My research was limitted to hd shootouts. I guess there was never another shootout till 08. My point was to Bob. He said The D-Max was ALWAYS top of the line in power, I think I proved that to be not true till 05 apparently.

"your so stupid it makes my head hurt..." - Jake

That's you're brain trying think. Give it time, or better yet reboot it.

Calling people sure shows you immaturity. I however don't need to resort to name calling. Pathetic!!!

Jim
The link that Frank provided looked more like a comparison then a shootout, 2008 shootout by pickuptrucks.com was awesome. besides 2004 seems to be a little outdated.

you said "D-Max didn't beat Powerstroke untill 2008 model year." and now you are admitting that Duramax beat the Powerstroke in 2005, Good your learning now.

If GM copied Ford, then Ford copied GMC on the Idea of building a first truck, since GMC is the first American truck!

Well boys, all I have to say is wait for the Shootout!!! I will always be a Ford Truck Man!......

This is pretty rediculous. These Ford guys just can't stand that Chevy has out done them and they're on here trying their little hearts out to downplay it.
- as for Chevy copying Ford; not a chance, in fact Ford's new deisel design is copied from Chevy's 4.5 Dmax design.
- as for the whole HP/TQ and Towing/Payload crap. Yes GM waited for Ford's HP/TQ numbers to come out so they could make sure they were on top, but the same could be said about Ford and their payload numbers over GM. Ford's Frame and springs went unchanged, yet somehow their payload/towing numbers increase... Magic??? and theres not a chance in hell that new emissions motor is lighter than the previous POS. Also, if you look at the charts, if you have any other cab configuration other than the reg cab GM will beat it.
And another thing about Ford, I cant believe they have these ungodly towing numbers, but no type of manual exhaust or jake brake. Its flat retarded. I know they claim it is their, you just cant hear or control it... I'm calling BS on that one, just like the case of the 'twin turbo' they claimed they had. What a pathetic claim that turned out to be. Also, that new front end is really ugly,lol it looks retarded mounted with that ancient cab and bed 1999 styling.
I just cant believe how these Ford dumbasses get on here and spew crap out of their mouths without having STUDIED the data, not just blindly went with one number. GM has done an excellent job with this new truck, it will truely be a Ford slayer in every aspect, except for maybe interior design. Personally I like the Ram interior the best, but I'm still buying a Chevy Dmax/Allison, hands down. The HP/TQ is straight up INSANE, im glad i'm coming into the market of buying a new truck later this year!

GM has all this power and torque but still can't out tow Ford this is the same crap that they did with the last one. If you want a truck that gets the work done get the Ford its the only real truck here GM trucks are more about show then work, oh and before everyone start bashing Ford lets remember that Ford had the balls to make there own in house diesel unlike GM. Plus Ford leads this segment both in commerial and pickuptruck sales Until GM beats Ford Superduty in sales they have no reason to brag Ford has the only real truck and thats a fact so my vote well be the one and only Ford. Ford#1

Interesting numbers by GM in comparison to Ford.

Breaking it down further we see that at the torque peaks of the two motors the new Powerstroke makes 735lb-ft @ 1600 RPM for an output of 224hp, and the Duramax making 765lb-ft @ 1600 RPM is good for 233hp at that engine speed. So when looking at actual power output at peak torque these two are a wash.

When comparing peak horsepower the Powerstroke makes 390hp at 2800 RPM so the engine is making 731lb-ft of torque at that engine speed. The Duramax making 397hp at 3000 RPM is only mustering 695lb-ft by that point.

Good thing for GM that they have another 200 RPM's to play with to pad the hp numbers. The torque curve of the Duramax is more peaky, and it is losing 1lb-ft for every increase of 20 RPM. The Powerstroke on the other hand is making peak torque basically from 1600 RPM all the way to 2800 RPM, and that is a much more useful power curve if you are working the truck. In fact given the extremely flat torque curve of the Ford, I think it is safe to say that the new Powerstroke breathes much better and the new turbo design is very effective. Given another 200 RPM, and maintaining anywhere close to that torque output the Powerstroke would be well over 400hp. For example if the Powerstroke could maintain 725lb-ft at 3000 RPM (I have no doubt that it could given the power curve) you would be looking at 414hp. Note to Ford: increase engine speed and boost map of new Powerstroke an additional 200 RPM.

On paper it appears the Powerstroke is the more flexible motor, but we'll have to wait and see how they perform in the real world.

I am happy to see the ante raised, I have a Super Duty and I am very disappointed with the "new" Super Duty styling. It should be called the Joan Rivers Edition because all they keep doing is give it a face lift.

Ryan, I did some research this time. It wasn't untill 2006 when GM updated D-Max at 360 hp-650 tq, not 05. I admitted I was wrong, why can't you learn an admit it? Yes that was a comparison test, but it still proves my point.

I am glad to see the ante raised, I have a Super Duty and I am very disappointed in the "new" Super Duty styling. It should be called the Joan Rivers Edition because all they do is keep giving it a face lift.

Way to go GM. Duramax is a great engine and has great reliability for years now. Ford Power Stroke fuel mileage and reliability is still all speculation. It will be at least a year to find out how the new Power Stroke fairs. Not to interested in how fast a heavy duty truck can go or if one can beat the other to the top of a hill by mere seconds, Reliability is what counts. This is where the Cummins shines, all the power you ever need to tow and great reliability. Cummins will be better on fuel than the Ford and on par with the Duramax. Fuel economy will be better than the 6.4L it replaces but anything over 12 MPG is better, so we will have to see what kind of fuel economy they get, 25% better than 12 MPG is still only 15 mpg. I'm happy to see Duramax is at the top for power and torque as usuall,also has the best transmission. Hope cummins leaves the power where it is for reliability and no exhaust fluid to add and maintain. Cummins is in the process of building the next gen Cummins engine to run clean with very little emissions useing an almost perfect combustion process and still no Urea fluid. Yay for diesel engines and work trucks.

I have to say despite the "MASSIVE" 7 hp gain and astonishing 30 lb ft of torque i will guarentee the ford will win the shootout. I have to say though ford and chevy are doing great things.

Jonathan
So how exactly can you guarentee that? did you test these trucks secretly in you back yard? I alway get a kick out of Ford fan boys.

"I just cant believe how these Ford dumbasses get on here and spew crap out of their mouths without having STUDIED the data"

Ford fans have been doing the for decades. It really isn't that hard to understand. Most of them are brainless.

So Frank, im still waiting on the Proof that GM copied Ford, you got anything to pull out your ass yet ? or are you done making stupid comments ?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Ford transmission is rated for 860 lb-ft, for what that is worth.

It would not altogether surprise me if, for marketing reasons, the 400 hp+ versions of any of the Big 3 diesel engines were options.

In the larger marketing context right now, especially for a company in their position, breaking the 400 hp barrier on volume (supposed) 'working' trucks isn't necessarily smart, with for example Ford having sold a 7.3L Powerstroke less than a decade ago with 250 hp that was regarded as more than competent. Those outside the truck market will likely regard it as ludicrous...better to pump up the torque like they did.

it still will have a weak IFS front end, dinky little tires and a frame that hangs a foot below the body as it always has...no thanks

What are you gm and ford guys going to do when you are out working on a job or driving down the highway and run out of urea?
Cummins doesn't need it.
Check out the cost of urea per gallon also. So your Ford and Chevy's now how new epa emissions that Dodge has already installed and worked thru any bugs and yours have new untried completely new engines that get less mpg and now need urea to add to the extra cost.
RAM, always the most reliable.

Blake, DEF is about $2.50 per gallon, which is cheaper than diesel. It also adds about 5mpg+ on diesel consumption. I think I will take the DEF system. What am I going to do when the DEF runs out? The same thing I will do when the diesel runs out.
And Ryan... grow up! I'm sick of reading your pathetic posts.

I really could care less about 7hp or 30lbft. I have always bought the Ford because it was the most capable. I bought my first PSD in 96 and have traded off every 3 years. Have an 09 now. The Ford has always had the highest tow ratings. I have compared all three trucks everytime and have always gone with the Ford. It has always had a solid axle front end with a higher axle rating. It has always had a true crew cab configuration. The GVW on my F350 SRW 4X4 is 11,500lbs compared to the GMC's 9900. The MegaCAB Dodge is either 9.2 or 9.9. It has a short bed which I have no use for. I drive 60K miles a year and have had very little repairs over the years. Never had a valve cover off. I have rode and drove the competition and have never cared for them. The Dodge reminds me of a tractor and rides horribly. The GMC rides nice, but has an inferior front end. I don't like their interiors. I cannot stand the way they sit. They don't look like 4X4's aside from a sticker on the bed. Ford must be doing something right..they have more than 50% of the HD market. The reason the fleets buy them is because they are tough. They are certainly not any cheaper. My trucks have always been 3-4K more than the comparable competition. The 09 stickered for 59K and it is only a Lariat. Buy what you want. I buy the toughest one out there. I pass a ton of hot shot rigs everday. I can't remeber the last time I saw a GMC being used as one. All Fords and Dodges.

The old super duty numbers surpassed these new GM hauling numbers. And from the test driving of the new super duty articles as well as GM's 11% gain in fuel economy, it appears that Ford will have better fuel economy. And Ford has always and will always have the biggest and best frame. I'd MUCH MUCH rather tow with a ford than any chevy, any and every day. Like I said before, all GM cares about is power numbers. - Jeepguy.

I guess I don't understand this logic; Ford has the biggest and best frame. A C channel frame that flexes during off-roading does not sound like the best to me. If you read the review right here on pickuptrucks.com of the new SD you will come accross this. Chevy offers a fully boxed frame made of high strength steel in conjunction with best in class HP/TQ. Ford only offer's the C channel on the SD models and for some reason has made the fully boxed frame exclusive to the 1/2 ton market. Chevy's new frame for 11' is one of the, if not the, strongest in the industry. Dodge also offers a fully boxed frame. Just pointing out the falsehood.

I can't wait for the shootout.
The Ford and GM's have similar HP/Torque numbers but Ford's flat torque curve may prove to be more significant than peak HP/Torque.
I do not see any disadvantage to Ford running the same transmission for the diesel and gas engines. Computer reprogramming would make the transmissions perform differently based on apllication.
None of the posted HP/Torque numbers, towing specs or what have you are going to change the opinions of the "loyal" fans. I bet when the shoot out results are out the loosing camp will cry foul, or cry unfair, or cry favorites.
I agree that the current truck wars are great for the consumer.
I don't need a HD, but I'd probably choose a Dodge. The Cummins is the oldest, most proven design. Ford's diesel is all knew, and GM's is 60% new.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but, in my opinion Dodge Ram is the best looking, GM Sierra #2, Ford with the color matched grill #3(move it straight to last with the all chromed grill), Chev Silverado last.
There have been some great posts from all sides. I love it. Informative and entertaining.

So why is it, then, that the Super Duty is rated to tow 4400 pounds more than the Chevrolet/GMC?

gm looks as if they got somthin good, but ford is very concervative with their numbers and knowing gm would do this i bet they were even more concervative as to make them think they can out do Ford.

even with more power & torque Ford still has the best all together put package. also the mpg on this duramax is going to max around 13-15mpg. did you guys read the previous articles on the new super duty? 22mpg with 1,000 pounds in the bed and empty at 28mpg! that is unbeliebably insane man! lets see gm follow up to that.

After reading all these comments it gives me an impresion that most of Ford fans think and blather through their a$$es.

@Greg - GM fanboys have perfected the rectal ventriloquist act. B "0" B is a perfect example.
Bobby1971 has perfected whining like a little girl - you guys are ruining this post with your GM brand bashing. LMFAO.

I don't mean to add fuel to the fire. But this prooves my point on the DEF/Urea.

READ IT:
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33

This ought to stroke the Ford Ego's!
But for thoughs whom may be buying the new DEF Duramax, that motor should be able to do the same!
So, go ahead and stroke yourself too!

Both companies make great trucks. When towing something really heavy do you think the extra 30 horses will help? If so explain the difference in payload capacity and towing capacity between the two. What about the the independent front suspension? 34 years is a long time to be America's #1 selling truck. I'm not bashing G.M. I think all three companies gives the consumer great choices to choose from. I do look forward to driving a Chevy and a Ford. Also G.M. doesn't make the Duramax-Izuzu does. That is why for dropped Navistar and built their own motor in house. Only time will tell if they knew what they were doing. As for reliability, I'm a ford man; but dodge with the cummins built motor win hands down until we see what the other two's track record will be. Only time will tell in real world use.

From the looks of that engine, I'd hate to have to take it in for work.



The comments to this entry are closed.