Ford vs. Dodge vs. Chevy Trucks for work

[Leon]

Being pretty new to North American made vehicles and Canada in general, I find the competition between the different truck brands pretty funny when the arguments get heated. Being a European, I'm impartial. When working in the mines in Ft. McMurray, I had a company F-250SD which I gotta say held together pretty decently in some of the awful driving conditions up there.

Although I would quite like a Dodge Ram 1500/2500/3500 for a personal truck, I personally think and have been told by numerous mechanics at my last company (large mining contractor) that the Fords are much better for those kinds of off-road conditions in the long run. Don't really have much experience with Chevy's.

If I had my way I'd probably drive a proper Toyota Hilux though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

Any thoughts on what the best work truck out there is? For planting purposes of course.

[Rainman]

F-350.

There's a reason why every logging camp I have been to is almost exclusively filled with Fords, durability. In fact, almost every large fleet of crewcabs I have ever seen is Fords.

[Scooter]

I personally prefer Chevy if you're just doing highway driving. But the minute you take it off-road, I'd go with a Ford. I've owned both, and driven both at work too.

I'm not a Dodge fan at all.

[Leon]

Seems the consensus so far is Ford. Are their diesels any good? We seem to have a lot more diesels in Europe in general, midsize trucks with 2.4-4L engines that do pretty well. Any reason people dislike the diesels over here?

[Scooter]

Diesels are generally preferred, I think, although sometimes it's hard to find enough at the leasing outlets. I guess that only matters for planting companies that do more leasing than outright purchases.

[Leon]

Diesels are generally preferred, I think, although sometimes it's hard to find enough at the leasing outlets. I guess that only matters for planting companies that do more leasing than outright purchases.

That's a first, haven't heard many here say that the prefer diesels. Yeah correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that leasing is the way to go. The conglomerates in Fort McCrack definitely seem to prefer it to outright purchasing because even after a year the vehicles are destroyed.

[Scooter]

Repairs are more expensive on diesels, but fuel economy is a lot better. I think the diesels are slightly less powerful, but when a company spends a quarter million dollars a year on fuel, the fuel economy tends to be an important consideration. I doubt that many companies in Fort Mac care as much about fuel economy as planting companies do. It's sort of like a planting company caring about wasting paper.

[newforest]

Ford Super Duty. the end.

With those you have to pick your spots with the diesels. The '99 - '03 7.3L is one of the most popular engines of all time. The 6.0L and 6.4L versions that replaced them are not. For the '11 model year, Ford and International finally parted ways, though it will be years before all the lawsuits are resolved. Ford teamed up with Volvo I think, Swedish engineering for sure, for a new 6.7L engine. Good reviews so far I think. This should work out OK for me. About the time I can actually afford a used crew-cab with that new engine, should be just about the time my 7.3L finally wears out. My tire shop in my home town tells me they have a customer with 750,000 miles on that engine. I only have almost 300,000 right now, it's just nicely broken-in. Y'all will have to convert to km on your own.

Dodge puts good Cummins engines in their trucks, but they have always been too cheap on their paint and the bodies just don't last. Imo.

[Casper]

1 207 000 km ?!?!? Wow, never heard of an engine lasting that long.

[Tnalp]

diesels are way more powerfull.. built around torque. pulling and hauling. The benefits in fuel economy really shows up then. Mind you my New model Toyota Tundra is the best ruck i've ever owned.. Pricey but worth it! Somewhat of an apples oranges comparison unless were talking half ton versus half ton.

[Nate]

Agree with the Tundra, though it's not really practical for the heavy duty bush work.

GMC/Chevy can't take the beating from what I've seen. Don't know about Dodges, but would go with Ford's every time for treeplanting applications.

[jodysimm]

F-350 diesel.

The best engine? Dodge. But the truck is crap. And the cab is too small.... no full sized crew cab/long box option. And the 7.3 Ford isn't THAT bad, nothing like the Cummins though.

The best cab? Ford or Chevy. Dodge is no good, too small

The best tranny? Chevy. But Ford is not far behind and their engines are a lot better than chevy. The 7.3, and maybe the new 6.7. but the 6.0 and the 6.4 should be avoided like the plague. Look on craigslist Vancouver. ALL of the F-350s for sale almost are the 6.0 and the 6.4. Virtually NO 99-03 7.3s for sale. Nobody sells those ones, you drive and repair them until the block busts.

The best chassis? The Ford Superduty. Without a doubt. Dodge isn't bad, Chevy is crap.

It's true pretty much all tree planters use F-350 diesels, we all try to get a 7.3L engine, and we're all waiting to see if these 6.7s can make it to a million km before we'll buy one.

[sgbotsford]

I've yet to wear out an engine on anything. The tranny goes, the clutch goes, the wheel bearings go, but the engines generally are amazing.

Ford had a period with it's diesels that they got WORSE mileage than their gas engines, due to difficulties with meeting the emissions stuff.

I have friend with dodge 1 ton diesel. He's always fixing *something* on it. And it has noisy cab.

Currently I'm driving a Silverado 3/4 ton on gasoline. But 95% of my miles are highways delivering trees, pulling a 12 foot box trailer when needed. But if it was an off road job, I'd look to the fords.