General Diesel Related Discussion for All General Diesel Topics , No Make or Year Specific Discussions , These Topic Should be General Diesel Related

Cummins vs. Powerstroke

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 30, 2009 | 07:29 AM
  #21  
SAR Pirate's Avatar
Diesel Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 134
Likes: 16
Default

Again, relatively new here and not that familiar with the diesels yet; however, I do have a 1989 Toyota FJ62 LANDCRUISER with an inline 6.

That sucker will pull your house off it's foundation with little to no effort!

Sucks down fuel like a wino in a distillery, and wont hit much over 90 mph, but it'll last forever with minimal maintenance (for a gasser).

There are tons of them out there with over 200k of heavy duty use (brush, outback, S. America, etc).

Lets just say that it will outlast the body of the truck!
 

Last edited by SAR Pirate; Oct 1, 2009 at 05:23 PM.
Reply
Old Sep 30, 2009 | 10:55 PM
  #22  
Mr. Miyagi's Avatar
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 285
From: Olympic Peninsula
Default

Some of you guys just crack me up....
 
Reply
Old Sep 30, 2009 | 11:54 PM
  #23  
Captain Call's Avatar
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 144
From: Utah
Default

X2
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 07:52 AM
  #24  
DieselDanBoy's Avatar
Diesel Wrench
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 574
Likes: 28
From: Torrington CT
Default

Ok, with the 5.9, obviously its smaller than a 7.3, 6.0 or 6.4. But it has two less cylinders, so what do they do? Make the existing six bigger to create as much power as a v8. plus its less moving parts in the 5.9. I always thought the 7.3 fords had alot more power personally though.
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 11:04 AM
  #25  
K50's Avatar
K50
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 68
From: Alberta
Default

Man that "less moving parts than a V8" argument is bs!! If I hear that one more time my head will explode....because by THAT logic, that a "6 cylinder has less moving parts than a v8" and is therefore subjected to less friction and more efficient and powerful etc etc, a ONE CYLINDER engine should be the most efficient of them ALL!!!
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 11:58 AM
  #26  
Wyatt Earp's Avatar
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 102
From: Nanaimo, BC Canada,
Default

Actually, it has more to do with the inline vs. V configuration. Inlines are more efficient in their delivery of power. This is why most, not all Class 5 and 8 OTR's are inlines as well as most earth movers and stationary power plants.
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 01:25 PM
  #27  
MotorOilMcCall's Avatar
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 58
From: Buffalo, NY
Default

K50, I think the less moving parts argument is more about reliability than power.
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 01:59 PM
  #28  
K50's Avatar
K50
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 68
From: Alberta
Default

That would make much more sense.
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 03:30 PM
  #29  
kazairl's Avatar
Diesel Bomber
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 126
From: Nebraska Panhandle
Default

That comparison picture is good for giving the cummins guy a warm fuzzy feeling but it is other wise bullchit.


Afterall a Cummins must support the same amount of horsepower as the V8s but minus 2 cylinders. OF COURSE THE RODS ARE GOING TO BE BIGGER!
 
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2009 | 04:49 PM
  #30  
86k5's Avatar
Diesel Fan
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 75
Likes: 1
From: north carolina
Default

i dont really know the reason why but a inline motor is just better period when it comes to how long it last and some can outrun v8s. (i know im gonna get crap but) look at all the older cars and trucks like the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. everybody i know runs chevys esp. the 250 inline. my buddy outrun a 318 in a jeep on day in his worn out 66 c10 long bed with a 3 speed that gets hung if you shift with any force at all. my uncle neer opened the hoo period on a 250 and hes still drives it all the time and it cranks right up. long story for a simple inlines are better period
 
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.