question

[HELLRAIZER]

im in the market for a diesel right now. i need the torque to pull a toy hauler and a race truck every weekend. right now i found a couple good deals on a '94 7.3 IDI f-350 and a '95 f-350 PSD dually crewcab 2wd. which is better for torque? best for good MPG? which motor has a better rep? least amount of problems? easiest maintenance? more reliable? best aftermarket selection? what are some other options for a cheap diesel truck? whats the diff between IDI and powerstroke? etc...

any input is appreciated.

 

[RLDSL]

im in the market for a diesel right now. i need the torque to pull a toy hauler and a race truck every weekend. right now i found a couple good deals on a '94 7.3 idi f-350 and a '88 chevy CUCV 6.2L. which is better for torque? best for good MPG? which motor has a better rep? least amount of problems? easiest maintenance? more reliable? best aftermarket selection? what are some other options for a cheap diesel truck? whats the diff between IDI and powerstroke? etc...

any input is appreciated.

If you like flowers and butterflies, you;d LOVE that Chevy, cause the speed those things go up a hill , youll have plenty of time to watch them

 

[LCAM-01XA]

Let's put in this way - the IDI engine in the Ford truck is the same engine that Internation installed in their medium-duty trucks, while the 6.2 Detroit Diesel in the CUCV could rarely be seen moving something larger than a 1-ton truck. Don't take me wrong, for a daily driver I'd take the 6.2 over the 7.3 cause the 6.2 is capable of fuel economy the 7.3 can never touch, but for any serious hauling the 7.3 would be my weapon of choice.

The difference between IDI and a PSD - the IDI is mechanically-injected engine, the PSD is all computer-control, the PSD is capable of more power with better fuel economy but the IDI is way simpler to repair when needed. If I were looking for a new truck and I had the spare cash laying around for it I'd be in the market for a 4x4 crew cab dually with a turbocharged IDI, as having a turbo really wakes up the IDI. There were some trucks in '94 that had a turbo system from the factory, and many others have aftermarket turbos installed by the owners, either way it's a good setup.

 

[HELLRAIZER]

thank you guys very much. anybody else have some words?

 

[Silver Burner]

As long as the Chevy has good head studs, it's a good motor. For a long time I had people telling me that the Chev diesels were crap because they were originally gasser 350's, but that's very much untrue. I have driven them though and I can tell you from experience, RLDSL is definitely right, the Chev diesels are so stupid slow. My non-turbo 6.9l would run circles around it, and I think it does 0-60 in about 20 seconds...

 

[Alex S]

ditto If your for MPG get the chevy but it looks like your towing so get the Ford The 6.2 is a good engine but not much to write home about for power but my brothers fully loaded 4x4 sububan get 25 MPG and it weighs as much as the moon!

 

[LCAM-01XA]

For a long time I had people telling me that the Chev diesels were crap because they were originally gasser 350's, but that's very much untrue.

I've heard that very same bull too, ain't it funny how people just love to blow wind in the rumor mill instead of doing even a little research and educating themselves

 

[dave186]

The 5.7 diesel does exist!

 

[plywood]

Hmmm, I have never laid my eyes on one so I couldn't say for sure but it's not the 6.2 that is supposed to be a 350 gasser made into a diesel, it's the 5.7 liter (350ci) diesel they put in some of the Cadillacs and a couple other cars.

There was also a V6 diesel in I think the Oldsmobiles that was a 4.3l, sound familiar.

In any case it got a bad rep because they used a timing chain instead of a timing gear that was not precise enough after about 40k miles and then the IP timing was off and the engine smoked really bad.

The old Blazers with the 6.2 and 700r4 were a neat rig for just driving around in comfort with something like 25mpg.

 

[HELLRAIZER]

ok so it sounds like for towing id be better off with the 7.3 IDI. how does the mpg and torque of the IDI compare to that of the powerstroke and the other motors these days?

 

[Devilish]

The Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel made from 78 to 85 was the crappy engine. They were used in 78-80 trucks. They used 10 torque to yield bolts per head in the same pattern as their gas siblings. The head bolts and gaskets couldn't handle the cylinder pressures and would often fail. Also it was very common for the heads to crack.

 

[LCAM-01XA]

how does the mpg and torque of the IDI compare to that of the powerstroke and the other motors these days?

MPG would be fairly close due to all the emissions crap new engines have that hinders their performance - I never quite understood that logic, let's have less emissions per gallon of fuel nevermind it results in burning more fuel than the power output really requires In the torque department however the IDI falls quite behind, but after all it is built on about 30 years old technology. Then again its repair costs are much lower too.

 

[snicklas]

In the last week or so someone posted a link to an early 80's Cadillac with the 350 Diesel in it. It was a running and fairly good looking car. I just don't know what, if any issues there was/is with that one car. But, in general the 5.7lL GM diesel had a great deal of issues......

 

[OLDBULL8]

im in the market for a diesel right now. i need the torque to pull a toy hauler and a race truck every weekend. right now i found a couple good deals on a '94 7.3 idi f-350 and a '88 chevy CUCV 6.2L. which is better for torque? best for good MPG? which motor has a better rep? least amount of problems? easiest maintenance? more reliable? best aftermarket selection? what are some other options for a cheap diesel truck? whats the diff between IDI and powerstroke? etc...

any input is appreciated.

That 94 would prolly meet your requirements, torque, maintenance, reliability, ease of repair and so on, that is depending on how many miles are already on it, and is it turbo'ed. But as far as MPG towing, around 11 MPG, no tow around 16 MPG, duallies knock the MPG down about 3 MPG as compared to to a SRW. It's already been explained the difference between an IDI and a PSD, all PSD's are turbo'ed and you can chip them for performance. My 99 PSD, I put a cheap ($100) chip on it and get 40 more HP tow and 80 HP kick her A$$ smoking. The chip would be like turning up the IP fuel on a turbo'ed IDI. I've only been at this diesel stuff for 3 yrs. now, just my thought's. MPG's shouldn't be an issue towing, your gonna suck up the fuel.

If you want to know the history of the IDI and PSD, go to the 6.9L IH & 7.3L IDI Diesels forum
Sub-Forums: IDI Tech Articles and scroll down to the last article.

 

[SparkandFire]

I would tend to believe that on this forum you will find a strong leaning towards the Ford/IH IDI by default.

The other day I pulled a 4000 lb car on a 2000 lb trailer with another 750 or so lbs. in the bed with NO problem whatsoever. I was actually very impressed how well the truck pulled up and over some pretty steep hills out here.

I've driven 6.2 and 6.5 turbo stock chevys and I would personally agree 100% with RLDSL that you really have to have an apprication for nice, slow motion driving to be happy with one of those!

FWIW the 95 (IIRC) 3500 Turbo 6.5 flatbead I drove right out of high school (in oilfield construction) got about 13 MPG on a good day.