2007!!

[mlewis73]

Looks like Cummins is going to a 6. 7L inline 6 next year. Has anyone heard anything on what engine Dodge will put in the Ram next year?



From what I understand, the 5. 9L is being dropped completely.



Sorry if this has already been posted here--I had a transmission failure in my 2001 Chevy Impala (at 40,000 miles), so any thoughts I'd had with regards to purchasing a new 2006 Ram have been dashed... going to wait until 2008-2009 now to give Dodge a chance to work out the bugs with the next engines next year.



Here's a link to Cummins' article: http://everytime.cummins.com/every/news/release73.jsp



Mike

 

[johncameron]

Only 325 / 750??? VGT YES!

 

[Spooled-up]

If you look at the TDR home page, there's an article about the Chicago auto show. Seems everyone there was pretty tight lipped about the '07's and what's going to be available. I think the 6. 7 is coming for sure from what I've read on here.

 

[Diesel Power]

not what i was hoping for but it is better than 600ftlbs---750!!, more injection events and more memory means more power,oh yea the vg turbo!! not to shabby!! :-laf

 

[mlewis73]

I can't imagine what 750 ft-lbs would be like. Gawd. I'm driving something with just about 500 ON A GOOD DAY, heheheh. But it *is* paid for...

 

[Diesel Power]

I can't imagine what 750 ft-lbs would be like. Gawd. I'm driving something with just about 500 ON A GOOD DAY, heheheh. But it *is* paid for...

to answer your question, its pretty nice!!!!! :-laf

 

[qzilla]

The one thing I am not sure of is whether or not these "mid range" engines are what they are going to put into the light duty trucks. There are emissions for light, medium, and heavy duty trucks and engines. Although we use the 5. 9L now I am still not sure that it will be the same as the medium duty engines? Typically the medium duty engines make a lot of torque, but they are rev limited around 2600-2800 rpm's. They use a lot of fuel down low to build the torque.



I am also unsure of the particulate filter trap. The EPA states that these particulate traps are required on medium and heavy duty trucks, but I am yet to be able to dig something up on a light duty truck. I cannot imagine having to add something in the $5K-$8K range on one of these light duty vehicles. That is just for the particulate trap!



Lets look at it this way.



GM just brought out the LBZ with the 2nd Gen Bosch Common Rail on it. It has been out since late fall. I cannot imagine that they would waste the time and money if they had to do a totally differnent engine next year. I would have thought if they had to add a particulate filter and other things to meet the 07 specs they would have brought it with the latest motor. It seems crazy to think that now they have to change it again.



We will see what happens, but I have a notion to think that it will be different than the light duty trucks that we are all looking at. They say the average cost to comply with the 07 emissions is around $12k. This is just in additional equipment. I cannot imagine our trucks going up that amount and them selling that many of them.



Just my $. 02





Quad

 

[DMcPherson]

the only b series engine calibration from cummins that has a higher governor limit than 2700 is chrysler calibrations. the isb in any other aplication has a peak of 2700. nothing over. the 6. 7 has been out for a while in cummins land. well see if it makes it to a dodge. Im sure tha cal's will be different as well, as chrysler allready used torque management n isb's reducing them from a factory 605-660ftlbs they would come in to a measly 460. Im looking at fleet calibrations for an isb in an industrial aplication and they go up to 325 900ftlbs.

 

[PHeadings]

Makes you wonder what transmission they will put behind it with 750 fpt. Heard they will be going back to the nv5600 for the manual and a new 6 speed for the auto. Makes you wonder what's instore for the g56. Out the door?

 

[michaelRitz]

325hp 750 ftlb, you wonder what that like? Just ride in one of the 5. 9s with a average box or chip in it. Emission regulations cause trouble, just ask Ford (6. 0), CAT (ACERT),etc. Some of these engines are better than when they first come out but I know a lot of disappointed owners. Some guys I know in the trucking industry refuse to buy anything newer than 2004 because of emission regs for class 8 trucks. Warranty is great, but cannot make money when the truck is in the shop. It will be exciting to watch the new motors and trans come out for the Rams but I wouldnt give up my 2005 5. 9 w/NV5600. This truck is capable of putting more power to the ground than i will ever need, just waiting for some more funds. $$$$=Horsepower/Torque All depends on what you want and what you wanna spend. JUST MY . 02

 

[BSwope]

Diesel Power, not to be a pest but how is the testing goin wit the modded cp3's? Sorry if way off subject!!

 

[WyattEarp]

no way could i imagine either those kind of numbers and in a pickup truck they are just not warranted IMO, my 2000 has the 215hp engine, plenty of giddyup and go there and the 92 i believe is rated 180hp with plenty of grunt power there. Now on the other hand if you were buying one for race purposes i could see it, i would hate to see the 5. 9 disappear as its a great engine of course they will be around for a long time with the average miles being got out of those 5. 9's... .

 

[pwr2tow]

no way could i imagine either those kind of numbers and in a pickup truck they are just not warranted IMO, my 2000 has the 215hp engine, plenty of giddyup and go there... .

Maybe your 4:10's are way better than the 3:54's I had in my 215 Hp dodge, A pig running through mud up to it's tits could go faster than my 215 Hp dodge pulling a 8,000 lb load.



Not trying to start anything Just stating my 99 was a gutless pig.

 

[NIsaacs]

Pigs ain't gutless, if they got babies. They will chase you up a tree in a heart beat





"NICK"

 

[CATCRACKER]

looks for real-"The ISB for 2007 will see displacement increase from 5. 9 L to 6. 7 L, providing more horsepower, more torque and, more importantly, more performance for customers. Enhanced electronic engine controls will increase the number of injection events per combustion cycle, so the ISB will continue its position as the fuel economy leader with the lowest total cost of ownership in its class. "



They made this swap in tractors 3 years ago!

 

[WyattEarp]

actually with around 9000lbs mine did fine and didn't feel sluggish at all, i have even had over 2700lbs in the bed and with little ease of the pedal she would take off and mine is stock but of course mine does have 4. 10's so maybe that is a bigger factor than some would think... .

 

[Diesel Power]

Diesel Power, not to be a pest but how is the testing goin wit the modded cp3's? Sorry if way off subject!!

so far ever thing is on course,and going well,the disscussion of the cp3's is in the research & design section of tdr!!! just in case you did not know

 

[KSHall]

You know it's too bad for everyone that the FED's have to choke to death a good thing. Don't get me wrong , I'm all for clean air , I LIKE IT !!!!, but they could use a dose of common sense. If the price of diesel fuel stays way up, which it will, and the new scrubbers of what ever kind the manufactures go with add 5-12 thousand dollars over the price of the diesel option of almost 6000 dollars to the price of a new truck and the fuel milage goes down then why bother with the whole mess? Just buy a truck with a big gas motor and save the money. I know gas is expensive but you would just about have to drive forever to break even at that rate. Just my . 02.

 

[ThomasLawrence]

I can't imagine what 750 ft-lbs would be like.

to answer your question, its pretty nice!!!!!

I would have said, "A little over half throttle"



-Tom

 

[chazj]

I wonder if it would make any sense to have base EPA Smog Requirements on a "pollution per mile" basis?? Make the engines more efficient (eliminate unnecessary smog controls), increase mileage and reduce the amount of tailpipe emissions PER Mile???