6.7 any good?

[Wyomingcowboy]

Hey guys. Sorry to spring this question but my friend is considering an 08 with the 6. 7 and wants to know a little about them. I'll admit that I am lazy and don't want to read much so I thought I'd post this instead! :-laf Any comments would be much appreciated!

(what kinda mileage do you get, how does it pull compared to the 5. 9, etc. )



Thanks!!

 

[Simplysmn]

one word AWESOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Garlic]

Can't compair pulling to a 5. 9 personally, but several friends have late model 5. 9's and the 6. 7 out runs them. (They are all in stock trim). The mileage however is a different matter. Mine I get 15 in town consistently, 19 to 20 highway empty, 10 to 13 with the 5'er at high elevations (Northern NM and southern Co. ) It is a lot quieter than the 06 5. 9 and off the line much snappier. I love mine. And NO Smoke!

 

[CToney]

It is kinda funny every time that a change is made to a Dodge trucks it is now time for fear mongering from the FXXD and Chxxy owners. Its always, they can't keep them on the road, they're always in the shop. The injectors always give trouble. They here of one guy having a problem and pretty soon every truck is affected. I know that the milage out of ALL of the new trucks probably is not as good as before. I believe powertrain wise I don't think they can compete. I might be a little shy to work on a 6. 7L but I definitly wouldn't touch a Navistar or duramax. The shop time to fix simple things has to be terrrible. I buy my trucks with over 100,000 miles. I don't know too many guys that do that with the other brands. I don't know where the off warranty trucks go. I'm trying to sell my '97 right now and you can by equivalent ford for ~half price. Too expensive to fix and you will have to fix the boat anchor under the hood. I can't afford a ford too hard on fuel and too much to rebuild motor (can't find a running motor at wrecker)

Needed to Vent

 

[2Rowdy]

Love mine. Pulls great, I haven't had it as loaded yet as my 5. 9 6-speed. MPG leaves a little to be desired but all the new trucks with the super duper, earth saving, fuel burnin, drillin for more, seem to be down on mpg's. Just a side note I make big portion of my living from the oil field. I would still rather have better mpg's.

 

[RGrizzle]

i love mine . i had a 04 5. 9 and the 6. 7 will out pull it . as far as fuel mileage goes , i am actually getting about the same or maybe a little better with the new one . i think a lot of people complaining about mileage have went from a much older truck up to a new one . i had a 96 model that got 23 mpg on the road empty . my 6. 7 won't touch that but the 96 had 185 hp and the 6. 7 has 350 hp . that's like wanting a mack truck to get as good of fuel mileage as a toyota corrola .

 

[jimnance]

My '05 Dually CTD gets about the same mileage as my '07 6. 7 CTD SRW. So, I'd say the new engine is about 1. 5 MPG less efficient than a comparable (non-DRW) '05. My earlier trucks do get much better. The '99 runs 18 MPG or so, and the '93 gets 19-20 MPG.



The 6. 7 engine is very powerful, quiet, and smooth. I haven't had any problems, but some have had emissions related problems mostly involving the DPF.

 

[gsbrockman]

Lexi * Approved.

#ad




I came from a 1st year HPCR (2003 RAM 2500 Quad Cab) 305/555 & NV5600. It was a great truck; Love the MegaCab and the 68RFE. At 9,500 miles, fuel economy is creeping upwards, even with winter blend #2.



My daughter, Lexi, gives the Blue Bus two thumbs up.



Greg

 

[catoiler]

Great truck if you don't mind getting bad milage! The thing pulls great and the ebrake is awsom! just wished the milage was better!!

 

[dpuckett]

..... i had a 96 model that got 23 mpg on the road empty . my 6. 7 won't touch that but the 96 had 185 hp and the 6. 7 has 350 hp . that's like wanting a mack truck to get as good of fuel mileage as a toyota corrola .

If a Mack truck only pulled as much weight as a Toyota Corolla, it's probably get the same MPGs or better. Point is, theoretically, one shouldnt use more fuel if the extra power isnt used. The only reason I can think of for the extremely bad MPGs (anything under 20 is bad, IMO) is govt intervention in private enterprise (EPA regs).



If the idiots in Washington were TRULY interested in cleaning up the environment, they'd force people to get rid of or fix their 20 year old smoke wagons. Heck, give them an incentive or tax break; something.



If they were TRULY interested in lessening our dependence on foreign oil, they'd let us drill our own ground, and rein in the Egotistical Pinhead Administration's power. Rolling back emission requirements to 1994 levels would give us 30mpg pickups, and 75mpg cars. But, the govt wouldnt get the tax revenue from the fuel sales to the tune of about 50cents on the gallon. But, creative geniuses they are, I'm sure they'd find a way to recoup the loss.



I'll stick with my mechanical engine a while longer. When parts are no longer available, I'll "upgrade". Maybe Hydrogen will be a reality by then.



Daniel

 

[CUMMINZ]

Best engine & transmission DC/Cummins ever put together. :-laf

 

[rmz450]

I just picked one up less than a week ago. 315 miles so far and looking forward to more! I've lurked here for awhile reading posts on the 6. 7 and pestered the local service manager with endless questions before buying. It seems they have made alot of progress on fixing the early 2007. 5 problems. I thought of waiting another year, but after my conversations with the service manager I am confident they can and will take care of any problems I may encounter. I loved my 02, but this one is head and shoulders above it in terms of power, comfort and ride. 10. 8 mpg on the first fillup would be my only complaint so far. Except that it may be a tad to quiet, kinda miss the noise.

 

[AHarris]

So far so good

Only 535 miles on mine but it's the 2nd time I've ever bought a vehicle that didn't have one or two little bugs in it that had to go back to the dealer. The first one was the 2003 GC--5 years and 46K miles and zero problems except an occaisional CEL when the gas cap isn't on tight enough. So far this engine passes my test with flying colors.



Consumer Reports said the Jeep GC was a POS but mine has been perfect. Lots of people (including me before a good deal forced me to get one) poo poo'd the 6. 7 but out of the box I have no complaints with mine, except that the fuel mileage could be better--it's thirsty at 14-15 city and 18 hwy mpg according to the computer (I'm thinking even a little less "hand calculated," based on what I've read from other TDR posts about the notorious "lie-o-meter").



If you get a good deal, I say give the 6. 7 a chance--you'll be glad you did. I'd feel a lot more like a gambler spending $50 Grand on a Ford 6. 4 flame thrower. Of course this is coming from a guy who's only got 500+ miles on the ODO and is a first time owner of a diesel--so FWIW.

 

[GSolomon]

Took delivery of the one in my sig. on Jan. 07 with 22 miles. Now has 1097miles on the clock. What a monster! (did l mention I love monsters... ) Had the B&W put in two days ago and pulled a 6000# gn horsetrailer about 100 miles. LOVE the e-brake. Without the trailer, on a trip of about 300 miles at speeds ranging from 70-85mph (oh, that's rite... ain't supposed to do that) and filling the tank to the brim all times to check mpg, I've gotten 13. 77 for a hi (first tank) and 13. 13 for the lo. Don't know what it'll get at 60-65 'cause it don't much matter. :-laf With the trailer in tow, at 75, the overhead said 10. 9 but haven't refilled it yet to 'officially' check it. This truck appears to be precisely the tow-vehicle l've waited for... a 6-spd transmission behind a monster Cummins. I think the mileage will improve slightly as we get some miles on... It has on all my previous Cummins/Dodges. If it does, l'll consider it a bonus 'cause l'm gonna drive 'er anyway!



'08 6. 7L Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl, 3500 DRW QC 4X4 Laramie Big Horn, B&W, Prodigy, Speediliner, i350c. (BLKHOSS) Soon to come-Edge Juice W/A and some sort of clean exhaust and intake system.



2005 'Gun Metal' Gray 2500 5. 9L QC SWB Auto - sold - 89k miles

1998 Black 2500 5. 9L 24v QC LWB Auto - sold - 127k miles

1995 Black 2500 5. 9L Std Cab LWB Auto - sold 149k miles

1990 Red 2500 5. 9L Std Cab LWB 4-sp stick - sold 101k miles

2001 Blue Neon (hers) 89k

2007 Cimarron Norstar 3H GN w/8½ LQ

15yr-old 16h Black Standardbred

5yr-old 15. 3h Black TWH

 

[Wolfy]

If a Mack truck only pulled as much weight as a Toyota Corolla, it's probably get the same MPGs or better. Point is, theoretically, one shouldnt use more fuel if the extra power isnt used. The only reason I can think of for the extremely bad MPGs (anything under 20 is bad, IMO) is govt intervention in private enterprise (EPA regs).

Daniel

Extra power IS being used. Just what weight of Mack truck do you have in mind?



Here's something that's not theoretical:



My ram 3500 weighs twice as much as my Toyota Tacoma 4WD pickup.



Driving both empty at the same speeds, the ram gets BETTER than half the mpg, while doing twice the work.



Does that mean the nasty govt. interveneers deserve a round of applause?

("Theoretically", I mean. )



IMO, my 6. 7 is definitely "any good". Hopefully, the on-the-road user feedback willl help Cummins/Dodge make it even better.



Love the truck!

 

[PaulBarker]

Here's something that's not theoretical:



My ram 3500 weighs twice as much as my Toyota Tacoma 4WD pickup.



Driving both empty at the same speeds, the ram gets BETTER than half the mpg, while doing twice the work.

As i see it the truck is doing the same work, (hauling one person) and getting half the mpg.



my 04. 5 3500 4x4 dually got better mpg than my 96 toyota t100, 18mpg vs 15mpg



running empty they both did the same work, haul me around.



now my mega gets 12mpg, the over head says 14-15ish,



the only bad thing i have to say is the mpg, i love my truck, the 68RFE is a great transmission

 

[Wolfy]

As i see it the truck is doing the same work, (hauling one person) and getting half the mpg.



my 04. 5 3500 4x4 dually got better mpg than my 96 toyota t100, 18mpg vs 15mpg



running empty they both did the same work, haul me around.



now my mega gets 12mpg, the over head says 14-15ish,



the only bad thing i have to say is the mpg, i love my truck, the 68RFE is a great transmission

So you are only giving credit for moving your bodyweight?



To each his own form of logic,... but to me it seems a little cavalier to ignore 4000 extra pounds of truck.



If all we need to move is our butt, and we aren't willing to pedal, a mo-ped might be the ticket!



Using the "haul one person" standard, it would make your 04. 5 look really bad.

 

[jimnance]

I don't understand the huge variance in mileage between similar trucks. I'm 15-16. 3 MPG and you are 12? Are you doing lots of stop and go in town or heavy on the pedal?



It does seem that a few trucks do get really poor mileage. I wonder what is wrong with them?



I agree that the 6. 7 and 68RFE are a great combo. I see no need for more power at all. Mileage is less than I would like, but seems reasonable given all the emissions stuff they've added to the engine. Pretty soon I'd like to disconnect much of the stuff. I want to wait until the 3/36 warrantee is up and they figure out how to fool the ECM so it doesn't throw codes. I'll bet I could pick up 1. 5 to 2. 0 MPG if I can do that.

 

[dpuckett]

Wolfy- You repeated what I was getting at, just in different terms. If a Mack truck only weighed 2500#, (Or the Corolla engine had to pull the weight of the Mack truck), the Mack would use WAY less fuel. I get 21mpg in my 6000# 1stGen. If a truck weighing in at 60K gets 7mpg, it is far more efficient on a per pound basis than my pickup.



My response was to the poster who commented on his new truck getting worse MPG than his 96, but it had twice the power, so he seemed to me to be excusing it. If you are moving 2 similar sized rigs, the one getting 12MPG isnt using any (appreciably) more power than the one getting 23. It still only takes x- hp to move down the road empty, whether you have 180 or 1800hp available.



Paul Barker- the "work" here is moving the entire assembly down the road- truck, driver, etc, not just the driver. See my comparison of the truck and the pickup. 10x the weight, but only 3x the fuel used.



DP

 

[RGrizzle]

here in the real world

Wolfy- You repeated what I was getting at, just in different terms. If a Mack truck only weighed 2500#, (Or the Corolla engine had to pull the weight of the Mack truck), the Mack would use WAY less fuel. I get 21mpg in my 6000# 1stGen. If a truck weighing in at 60K gets 7mpg, it is far more efficient on a per pound basis than my pickup.



My response was to the poster who commented on his new truck getting worse MPG than his 96, but it had twice the power, so he seemed to me to be excusing it. If you are moving 2 similar sized rigs, the one getting 12MPG isnt using any (appreciably) more power than the one getting 23. It still only takes x- hp to move down the road empty, whether you have 180 or 1800hp available.



Paul Barker- the "work" here is moving the entire assembly down the road- truck, driver, etc, not just the driver. See my comparison of the truck and the pickup. 10x the weight, but only 3x the fuel used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------dpucket , you or no one else is going to have power available and not use it . you act like that if two trucks are pulling the same load then only the horsepower needed to pull it is all that is going to be used . torque is the power of the engine and horsepower is the speed in which the engine can apply the tourque . if you are starting at a red light or pulling a load there is no one alive that will just ease around and make sure that you don't use the extra hp . if you use the extra hp you will use more energy . i would like to see you take a 180 hp and a 1800 hp engine and put them side by side and just idle them and use the same amount of fuel . you can't do it . you need to take a dose of reality and get into the real world . what you say sounds good on paper , but doesn't work in real life . you must be an engineer . i have to deal with them every day on the job and they are always coming up with big ideas on paper that just don't work in real life .