Thoughts on 12 valve cummins

[ak diesel driver]

you will probably need to go back to the ole 6.5

 

[treegump]

you will probably need to go back to the ole 6.5

Yea... my buddy thinks that's a bad idea. Haha.

Don't think I haven't already thought of it though. Haha

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[tanman_2006]

Its very tempting for me to go back to all 6.5 too.

source unknown

 

[treegump]

Pretty much my dream truck: http://indianapolis.craigslist.org/cto/4366210088.html (but over my loan amount, and no middle seat (which my girlfriend (and I) enjoy)

What's your take on 7.3's?
http://indianapolis.craigslist.org/ctd/4387167418.html - automatics are rated higher capacity haulers
http://tippecanoe.craigslist.org/cto/4390778242.html - might be the best deal? Just a freakin long truck. But lower miles than what I've been looking at and good base for a flatbed and 33" tires with no lift needed...

Just don't know about the dependability between the fords and dodges. Are ford's platforms stronger in respect?

 

[THEFERMANATOR]

I personally would pass on those 2 7.3's. They both appear to be IDI engines, not the 7.3L powerstroke. The 7.3L IDI's sufferred from block erosion from cavitation in the cooling system if the coolant wasn't kept up with religously. Plus they overheat if you push on them towing. I would take one over a 6.5L, but if you are venturing into one find one with a powerstroke in it.

 

[btfarm]

http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/showthread.php?42269-62k-GMC&p=475613#post475613
Look here Forest. Might want to take a ride up I94

 

[tanman_2006]

The 7.3's typically won't get higher than 15mpg. They are big slobbering engines w/ low hp.

source unknown

 

[treegump]

I personally would pass on those 2 7.3's. They both appear to be IDI engines, not the 7.3L powerstroke. The 7.3L IDI's sufferred from block erosion from cavitation in the cooling system if the coolant wasn't kept up with religously. Plus they overheat if you push on them towing. I would take one over a 6.5L, but if you are venturing into one find one with a powerstroke in it.

Yea, I passed. 2004.5 is the 7.3 powerstroke. before that it was the 7.3 idi, which had coolant issues.

 

[treegump]

http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/showthread.php?42269-62k-GMC&p=475613#post475613
Look here Forest. Might want to take a ride up I94

Just now saw this, but the vehicle is gone.

My coworker did offer to sell me her 2004 Avalanche 1500 Z71 for $7000 w/ 180k miles and rebuilt transmission, and though I thought I'd never consider it, I'm down these choices: Full size truck, cherokee classic 4L, or Ford Ranger Ext cab - all 4x4 and preferably all manual. Now if you combine the reasons I'm looking at all these specifically, you'll almost see the avalanche... Versatile, all-terrain, accessible, comfort, not terrible fuel mileage (comparable to what could be had), and still be able to fit my 4-wheeler or sheets of plywood in. Question is, if I am able, should I consider the Avalanche 2500 with the 8.1 in it? I don't haul often, don't pull often, and don't carry often - but when I do, I load it down...A LOT! I'm thinking I should go with the 8.1, simply because I might break something if I don't. Because why have a hitch or bed (no matter how small) if you can't haul with it?

But first, what are your opinions on the 5.3, and/or the Avalanche?

(Admin-could the title be renamed since we're talking more than the cummins - maybe "Takes on affordable vehicles?" haha - no idea. Anyhow, this comment can be deleted)

 

[tanman_2006]

The 5.3l is pretty bullet proof and Avalanche wasn't a complete failure.

Now throw a 8.1l in and we have a gas hog and you loose the benefit you were looking for. That would be a beast though!

Now I'm not sure how big the bed is, might be a tight fit for a sheet of plywood but idk. If it was mine I would consider converting it to propane, you even get to hide the tank under the shell.

source unknown

 

[treegump]

That (propane) is a nice option, but I would lose the functionality of the bed. It will hold a piece of plywood. Width is 50" and length is 97" (tailgate up). Plus a locking tailgate and bed side storage.

I do agree with the 8.1. Looks like I'll be able to haul small and mid size trailers, but not the 5 ton dump trailer. It should be nice enough till I pay off stuff, which was the original plan, while not restraining myself too much..

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[btfarm]

If 11 mpg on a GOOD day is ok for you then buy the 496 (8.1). I wouldn't recommend it though. I had one for 60k and used 10 gal/day of gas. That's when I bought the LLY and went to 6.5 gal/day of diesel. 5.3 is a very reliable and long lasting engine.

 

[treegump]

I think I'll stick with the 5.3 if I go this route.. I'll just have to be careful about what I take on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[THEFERMANATOR]

Yea, I passed. 2004.5 is the 7.3 powerstroke. before that it was the 7.3 idi, which had coolant issues.

Your off just a bit. 1994.5 was when the powerstroke started with the stick shift only I believe(autos were all IDI's), then in 95 they were all powerstroke's. The 7.3L powerstroke stopped in early 03 when emissions dictated the switch to the 6.DOH!

 

[Big T]

Were those 12 Valve Cummins IDI with precombustion chambers or direct injection?

 

[turbovanman]

All Cummins 5.9+ are direct injection.

 

[THEFERMANATOR]

All Cummins 5.9+ are direct injection.

Yep, but the 12 valves were wierd in that they used an offset bowl in the piston, and I believe an offset spray injector(sprayed to the side instead of straight out). Most direct injected engines used a centered combustion bowl in the piston top, but due to the design of the 12 valve head it used an offset bowl to one side. When they built it at 160HP, it wasn't an issue, but when they bumped it up to 230HP, it became an issue. Hence the change to the 24 valve with a centered combustion bowl in the piston top.

 

[FellowTraveler]

The noise does suck. I can hear a CUMMINS running over my DURAMAX with my windows up sitting at a redlight. The biggest reason many don't have a CUMMINS is because it comes wrapped in a DODGE wrapper. The CUMMINS is a great engine, not many will argue that. But the DODGE wrapper it comes in is subpar to say the least. And the 47RE in stock form leaves MUCH to be desired to say the least. And despite what many think, the 12 valve CUMMINS will never match a common rail engine for all out power WITH driveability. You can easily push a 12 valve up to the 400HP range with a fuel plate and injectors, but it will never be as smooth in power delivery as a common rail engine with a good tune. They do run for a long time, the biggest factor will come down to how good of shape is the DODGE it's housed in.

Mine is a 94 duly w/47H trans that has failed 3 times and the coachwork or lack thereof is bad.