610 ft lb rating

[DPelletier]

Well, now I know why the new Dodge trucks are coming with the 610 ft lb rating. I just recieved my GMC Truck Owner Network magazine from GM (yes, I will admit to owning a GMC diesel pick-up), The article on the "improved Duramax" states in part:



" In GM's continuing quest for product leadership, the Duramax 6600 has now been improved. When mated with the Allison 1000 Series automatic transmission, the new engine produces 310 horsepower at 3000 rpm. Even more dramatic is the improvement in its pulling power - torque has increased by 85 to a class-leading 605 lb. -ft at 1600 rpm. At the same time, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emmissions, which contribute to ozone and smog problems, have been cut almost in half. "





Reading between the lines, the 85 ft lb improvement is over the older (or manual transmission equipped) LB-7 trucks. The hp is the same as the LLY that was introduced this past January with a 310/590 rating. As you will note the hp hasn't changed on either the Dodge or the DM, so I'm suspecting that the increases in the torque ratings are simple marketing one-upmanship.



Anyway, thought you might be interested. Oh, and I will apologize, in advance, to all the people who will respond that this is old news!



Cheers,

Dave

 

[johncameron]

class leading... ... in what, fuel consumption!

Sorry, I had to.

JC

 

[DPelletier]

I forgot to say;



So whether its 600 vs. 590 or 610 vs. 605, the Cummins remains at the top of the heap, at least with automatic equipped trucks. For manual transmission equipped trucks we retain a 80 - 90 ft lb torque advantage.



I also found it interesting that they are switching back to rear drum brakes on thier 1500's! They cite "... . the new design is less costly to manufacture and to maintain". Seems odd that they are taking a step back to 1998 on this one.



Dave

 

[rashwor]

I heard that they were shredding rear rotors, so the went back to drum.

 

[MBergman]

Dodge also went back to rear drums on the 2005 Dakota, also citing cost and complexity as the reason.



Marc

 

[DPelletier]

Dodge also went back to rear drums on the 2005 Dakota, also citing cost and complexity as the reason.



Marc

... so I guess they've reduced the selling price accordingly, then?!

I dunno, when I spend $50,000. 00 on a new truck, I want the best and latest stuff. I believe them when they say drum brakes cost less. As far as complexity goes,... ... ... . never mind, I'm not going to comment on that!



Dave

 

[Yo Hoot]

The New Wastegate Turbocharger.



The new Cummins-powered Dodge Ram Heavy Duty 610 relies on a new Holset turbocharger to help deliver its industry-leading performance. The 5. 9-liter Cummins 610 is fitted with the Holset HE351 turbocharger which allows the engine to deliver more power and more torq#ad

 

[tschwab]

Yo Hoot,



Nice info, where did you get it? I have an early build '05 (window sticker said 600 lbs torque) also fit in the dates for the reflash, does my '05 have this or is it just the 610's?

 

[KD7GYJ]

I read that aritcle too and went out to look at my turbo. It looks exactly like the one in the drawing. My build date is the middle of May. It could be the older turbo. The exhaust ports look different than the ones on my '02. They look like they have been designed better.

 

[EMD Diesel Power]

cost and complexity are one of the reasons that they're going back to rear drum brakes. . Another reason is that ppl have been complaining about small bits of gravel (go figure... its the rear axle) getting kicked up into the brakes and jamming between the pads and rotor--- dont take much to score it when this happens. Just some observations and incidents I've heard about over the years. This isnt much of a problem with front disc brakes unless you're tailgating a dump truck.



Also seeing as its Chevy doing away with it, are they getting rid of the Quadrasteer too? POS setup IMHO. I could still get trailers around tighter corners without it..... its just a matter of how you drive!



and I drive Aerialscope fire trucks down NY-like alleyways at work.



:-laf :-laf :-laf and I try not to hit anything. Oo. Oo. Oo.



and yes... . the last two FDNY trucks have Cummins engines... . ISM 450s



Jeff

 

[nickleinonen]

just recieved my GMC Truck Owner Network magazine from GM

i get this too... it has gotten me free autoshow tickets for 3 years now and is free

Nice info, where did you get it?

i got that same article emailed to me by cummins newsletter [link here]



if you like, you can subscribe to the cummins newsletter here

 

[DPelletier]

cost and complexity are one of the reasons that they're going back to rear drum brakes. . Another reason is that ppl have been complaining about small bits of gravel (go figure... its the rear axle) getting kicked up into the brakes and jamming between the pads and rotor--- dont take much to score it when this happens. Just some observations and incidents I've heard about over the years. This isnt much of a problem with front disc brakes unless you're tailgating a dump truck.



Also seeing as its Chevy doing away with it, are they getting rid of the Quadrasteer too? POS setup IMHO. I could still get trailers around tighter corners without it..... its just a matter of how you drive!



and I drive Aerialscope fire trucks down NY-like alleyways at work.



:-laf :-laf :-laf and I try not to hit anything. Oo. Oo. Oo.



and yes... . the last two FDNY trucks have Cummins engines... . ISM 450s



Jeff

Jeff,

I have no doubt that what you say is true, but all my dirtbikes have rear disk brakes and you can't imagine what they go through! It would be very cheap to manufacture a metal shield to keep out gravel, etc. from being able to directly contact the rotor or pads. As far as I'm concerned, they're just cheaping out, plain and simple. I don't recall hearing of widespread problems on our Dodges from 2001. 5 and up with regards to their rear disk brakes.



On the quadrasteer (POS, I totally agree, you want to talk about added complexity, sheesh ), they will still be using rear disks as will every 6. 0 litre gas engine equipped truck.



Dave

 

[EMD Diesel Power]

Dave,



You are right on the shields... ... but do they put em on? nah. too much money in some bean-counters eyes. Yet you and I know that it would solve 95 percent of the problems and still retain the *wow!* factor for the yuppie drivers.



My memory is being hazy, but I seem to recall seeing shields on the early model trucks with the rear discs... . then they disappeared.



Sorry if I offended anybody with the *yuppie* part... . its just marketing hype doesnt drive my decisions. Real world info, observations, operation, and wrenching on it does. Like 5 or 10 lbs/ft more of torque is going to be felt by a yuppie behind (or anyone's for that matter)..... and they probably wont know what the torque was when it hit em there.



anyways enough on it! :-laf



Jeff

 

[tgrfan2]

DP, did your mag mention that torque is limited to 520# in first and fifth gear on the new D/A. Check out the Allison web site to see the specs on the vaunted Allison 1000. Even my stock 47re with 145K will hold more torque than that although I will admit I can slip it pulling my 13K fiver up big hills in OD with my #6 plate.

Sam Memolo just had a show on the auto transmission problems of the big three with high torque diesels. None of them are very pretty when they slip. Being the D/A owner he is now he admitted Allison had a problem with fifth gear. I guess that is why every D/A I have towed with drops to fourth at the first hint of a hill.

 

[DPelletier]

DP, did your mag mention that torque is limited to 520# in first and fifth gear on the new D/A. .

Nope, strangely enough, they failed to mention that!



Dave