The early Duramax have one major issue that was resolved in later years and that is they were sensitive to fuel issues, that is, the fuel filter arrangement wasn't pulling the contamination/suspended water out of the fuel stream and the pumps were having issues. The Duramax is a Japanese (Isuzu) design and the early engines were all Japanese built. They still build intrinsic components BTW.
No Tier 3-4 compliant diesel gets decent fuel mileage today unless you do some electronic fiddling via aftermarket tuners but the most reliable/simplest design is still the I-6 cummins, even with electronic injection. GM is second in reliability with the Duramax and Ford is last. Ford used to be tops with the 7.3 IDI engine but decided to get more power from less displacement and sophisticated engine management and that backfired plus, Navistar knew how to build a diesel, Ford don't. Barring the marriage of ford components with Navistar engine management, the 7.3 was a 250,000 mile before bearing roll in engine.
The problem with the Dodge isn't the engine or the transmission, it's all the rest of the components. Chrysler has little QC, buys the cheapest everything so expect issues down the road plus they rust out faster than a Ford's wheel wells. Ride wise (and ride is important, especially if you take the wife and kids along, GM is tops, Ford is second and Dodge-Fiat last.
My first choice would be a GM/Duramax, as much as I despise Obamamotors, second a Dodge/Cummins because of the component issues and dead last a Ford
even though we are a Ford employee family.
Car wise it's the total opposite, Ford is first, GM second and Dodge-Fiat dead last.
Far as having a Dodge-Cummins puke with low mileage, anyone can have an issue. After all, it's complex piece of machinery thats assembled by humans. Poop happens to all of them. I'm seen them **** the bed before they are sold.
You know guns, I know diesels. What I do for a living.
The hypertech was well worth the $300.00 I paid for it.
