2012 Changes

[rscurtis]

The in-line six doesn't need any more tweaking. My signature truck already gets mileage that even the new Ford and Chevy can only dream about.



It's time to roll back the EPA standards and concentrate on fuel economy, something the Europeans have been doing for years.



The current obsession with 400+ HP and 800 ft. /lb. of torque will quickly fade once we see $5-6/gallon fuel again.

 

[HBarlow]

Harvey, I think it's mentioned somewhere in the Mayan calander
:-laf

Can I get a copy from the local coop farm store?

 

[HBarlow]

The Ford and GM Diesels are getting about 20% better MPG than the current Cummins does, they are both more modern designed engines, I don't know if Cummins can tweak the inline six any more, its the best of all 3 without question, but trying to get more power and MPG may be a challenge. I remember when Chevy came out with the gas LS1 5. 3 to replace the old 350 small block, the small block has always been a winner, but technology and emissions requirements took over, I think this will be the same with the inline 6, but Cummins is a big smart company, they have something under wraps for sure, they are also growing, a new hire of over 700 Engineers so I understand, something good is on the way.

I guess I don't have as much faith and trust in Furd and GM's advertising claims as you do. A Furd or GM has to spin faster in a lower gear to produce equivalent torque to pull an identical load over the same grade as a Dodge Ram.

I simply do not accept the claims that Furd and GM engines produce better fuel economy.

Besides, from what I read from fellow TDR members Furd and GM trucks are priced several thousand dollars higher than Dodge Rams on dealer lots.

NO Thanks! No Furds or GMs will be parked in my barn.

 

[RonD]

Harvey, your not completely current on the competition, both Ford and GM have there max torque at about 1500-1600 RPM's very simular to the Dodge Cummins. As for price, Ford is the highest, GM very close behind, and Dodge the lowest. From what I can see, Ford has more equipment than the others, more stuff is standard, where Dodge some is optional, or not available, example Dual Alternators, built in 5th wheel hitch, there just different animals, better or worse that isn't my call, my current 2005 Ram does everything I want it to do, but it's going on 7 years I would like a change, a 2WD, a DRW, less noise, vented seats, a GPS that does more, I like the Cummins, I know how to work on them, I never have had an engine related problem, I just hoping for a few changes in MY 2012.

 

[JRS]

My company owns a 2011 F-250, an F-250 with a 6. 0 litre and a F-250 with a 6. 4 litre. They are all outfitted the same; similar tool box weights, same tire sizes and same differential ratios. My sr. tech has driven all three a good amount and reports the following: the 2011 is significantly more powerful than the 6. 0 and 6. 4 litre, as well as being a quieter engine. The 6. 0 is the lowest on the mpg, averaging between 9-11 mpg, and also the least powerful. The 6. 4 has decent power and decent mileage, but reliability problems. (cracked heads, egr, etc. , etc. ) Interestingly enough, the 2011 does not get significantly more mpg than the 6. 4 engine. At the most maybe 1 more mpg, and that may be due to the six speed transmission in the 2011 vs. the 5 speed in the 6. 4 So far the 2011 has been reliable.

 

[HBarlow]

Harvey, your not completely current on the competition, both Ford and GM have there max torque at about 1500-1600 RPM's very simular to the Dodge Cummins. As for price, Ford is the highest, GM very close behind, and Dodge the lowest. From what I can see, Ford has more equipment than the others, more stuff is standard, where Dodge some is optional, or not available, example Dual Alternators, built in 5th wheel hitch, there just different animals, better or worse that isn't my call, my current 2005 Ram does everything I want it to do, but it's going on 7 years I would like a change, a 2WD, a DRW, less noise, vented seats, a GPS that does more, I like the Cummins, I know how to work on them, I never have had an engine related problem, I just hoping for a few changes in MY 2012.

Ron,

I have heard from other sources that Furd and GM, as you wrote above, are claiming their engines now produce peak torque at 1500 or 1600 rpm like our Cummins in-line six cylinders do. I have no scientific evidence which would allow me to dispute their claims, but I refuse to believe them. Just because they claim it does not make it a fact.

Anyone who knows even the basics of how engines work knows that in-line engines with long strokes naturally produce their peak torque at a very low rpm. OTR tractor engines made by Cummins, Caterpillar, Navistar, Mercedes, etc. are good examples. By comparison, V8 engines are generally restricted to shorter strokes because of the need for the crankshaft throws to clear the bottom of the block castings. V8 engines naturally produce their peak torque at higher rpm.

I have not driven a Furd V8 diesel since late 2002 when I test drove a Sick. Ohh with manual six speed transmission. I don't know what Furd claimed for peak torque rpm on that engine but that pos couldn't move an empty truck in first gear without revving it to 2500 rpm. It was as weak as a 5. 3 liter GM gas V8.

I have not driven an Isuzu V8 diesel since about 2002 or 2003 but I have pulled trailers across I-80 with another transport driver driving a GM-Isuzu V8. That big 6. 6 liter V8 diesel could not pull grades with my then 300,000 mile '01 Ram 3500 HO/six speed with 3. 54 gears until it downshifted from fifth to third gear and revved to the middle 2000 rpm range. V8 diesels do not naturally make peak torque down low where the Cummins in-line six does.

I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to discredit your opinion, I'm simply saying I don't care what Furd and GM claim, I don't believe it.

 

[WMoroni]

The use of urea will not give any MPG benefit over a 5. 9 engine. Its benefit applies to the earlier 6. 7 engines with the NOX adsorber catalyst.



Earlier C&C trucks did not use the adsorber system or the EGR cooler bypass, hence their few problems with the emission control system compared to the PU.



The current PU engine would benefit from the use of urea, IMO. Right now, there is no apple to apple comparison for FE, unless you count the improved FE that Ford and GM claim in their newer trucks.

I had a 07. 5 6. 7 mega the same time I had my 07 5. 9 quadcab. I traded the 6. 7 a couple years ago because the mileage was worse than the 5. 9 plus the never ending turbo replacements full dpf etc. etc. . My 2011 gets worse mileage than the 07. 5 did. The mileage gain isn't there. The reduced egr and oil dillution seems to be the only benefit of the DEF.