Cummins V-8 and V-6

[y-knot]

Remember Cummins not long ago stating they would never build a V-block configured diesel engine? Well they did, and it's been tested in a Dodge 1500. Sound like a very nice piece, quiet and rev's to 5K. Want to know more, read the next issue of TDR.

 

[DieselMinded]

#ad




Thats cool



I wonder if they had the motor why they didnt put it in the liberty??



I hope Jonh Deere gets the ford f150 diesel contract .



dodge is bringing the charger back to compete with the new (old style) mustangs.







http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0404phr_dodge/







""Charging Ahead

PHR peers into the crystal ball to show you a glimpse of how an LX-based 2006 Dodge Charger could look""

 

[Cowboy832]

Remember Cummins not long ago stating they would never build a V-block configured diesel engine? Well they did, and it's been tested in a Dodge 1500. Sound like a very nice piece, quiet and rev's to 5K. Want to know more, read the next issue of TDR.

The generators that we use to power our barraks are cummins v-16's... I took a picture of one, but don't have anywhere to upload it to be able to post it.

 

[MichaelWright]

John Deere in a Ford? I have one of their riding mowers, JD not Ford. The quality on the riding mower is right up there with the 6. 0. I would never own another John Deere anything (other then one of their older antique tractors), same with a Ford. Darn things spent more time getting repaired then being used. It would have been cheaper to walk and buy a few sheep for the yard.



What is the big attraction with these V diesels? It is still a troublesome design, with no real proven track record like an in-line. I don't get it?



Mike

 

[RustyJC]

IIRC, Cummins has been working under government grants (e. g. , EPA) to develop clean, small V-6 and V-8 diesels. From what I read, they make pretty good power and are relatively clean. Now they're trying to find a market for them.



Rusty

 

[y-knot]

It may or may no be a trouble some design? But the fact is, the In-line design is to limiting, the engine compartment has to be way to long and high for it to be used in anything but a full size truck. Even the full size trucks are limited by the design, the V-8 and or V-6 configuration allows much more versatility. They allow for lower more sweeping hood lines, which makes for better aerodynamics and more modern design. There the I-6 cylinder Cummins is limited by height, length and weight, the Aluminum V configuration is not. The HP ratings are as high or higher then the ISB, along with similar torque rating.

As of right now, no manufacturer has signed on with Cummins to further develop and use these new engines, why?? not real sure. We know Ford has openly stated they want a V-6 diesel for the 150 series trucks and smaller SUV's. Chrysler has not expressed this concern, but has stated they will run a 4cyl diesel engine in the Liberty in early '05. Personally I think they would be completely insane not to actively pursue this new diesel technology and work to incorporate these engines into their existing line-up of trucks and SUV's. The debate over In-line Vs V-block design reminds me of the Jeepers and there "real jeeps have round headlights" campaign. The design of the round vs square headlights has nothing to do with the Jeeps ability to perform, rather it suggest that the old way of doing things was much better then the new. The same scenario is UN-folding with the new diesel technology, these newer, lighter and more powerful diesel engines will draw many criticisms. Truth is, Cummins completely change the standards to which they build these engines, the new V-8 diesel engines are built with much stricter tolerances and will run faster, stronger and make much less pollution then the current ISB. If you thought the Cummins was dependable, then these new versions will raise that bar significantly, higher build standards, closer tolerances and new manufacturing methods will all be in place to make sure these new versions of the Cummins diesel engines uphold the title as the worlds most trouble free engines. I look forward to the future, and wish who ever it is that signs with Cummins, the best of luck.

 

[DPelletier]

I agree that there is a market for smaller, lighter, higher revving diesel engines. The proliferation of such engines will allow thier use in vehicles other than full size pick-up trucks and that's a good thing.

I will disagree with the contention that these new higher revving, aluminum, V-6/8 diesels are likely to challenge the ISB in the longevity department. They won't. The fact is the ISB is way overbuilt for use in a pick-up truck. I personally like way overbuilt, but in the quest for lighter weight and better economy whilst upping power levels and rpm ranges, overbuilt is likely on its way out. I'm sure that Cummins will design a quality engine regardless of the design criteria. Quality control and good engineering and product development and testing will ensure that. Just don't expect it to be a 1,000,000 mile engine. In fact our 600's and 610's aren't likely capable of 1,000,000 miles either, unlike the 1st gen engines and 2nd gen 12valves (when stock) that had lower power ratings and redlines. I think the jeep analogy is more comparable to the whole 2nd gen vs. 3rd gen arguments that we get the dubious pleasure of participating in every so often.

My wish is that the V- engines are used in SUV's and 1/2 tons and that we get a new larger ISBe (6. 4?) with probably a VGT in the 400hp - 750 ft lb range. Lot's of you guys are making that much or more power now, but to have that stock with a full warranty etc. would be the cats azz!

I look forward to seeing what the future brings.



Dave

 

[mhenon]

I agree with the two posts above. If anybody can make a quality V6/V8 diesel, I would put my money on Cummins. It would certainly be built from the bottom up (not some gasser V8 with diesel heads).

Mike

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Plain, pure and simple, the ONLY real underlying excuse for a V-configuration diesel lies at the doorstep of the EPA! The actual motivation in that direction is NOT the length of the inline engines, or more specifically, their overall depth (ever hear of a slant 6?) - but rather, the fact that higher reving V-configuration engines are vastly easier to adjust for the emission levels the EPA wants to force upon the engine makers...



The REAL question is, can a V-configuration diesel deliver the broad range of power, economy and reliability as the inline design can?



Personally, I doubt it!

 

[ndurbin]

I'll chime in here about the the John Deere engines. First off a JD mower is awhole nother ball game. But John Deere's diesel engines well generally out last any other tractor manufacturers engine. They even outlast the Cummins motors in tractors most of the time. From what I have seen the average engine overhaul in a Cummins equiped Case IH tractor lies around 6-8,000 hours. Whereas a JD engine well last 10,000+ hrs before a rebuild is needed.



Now I may be a bit biased at times since my family has made a living selling green machines, but I have turned wrenches on most major brands of equipment. And John Deere is the cat's meow of that world IMO.



Nathan

 

[rbattelle]

the new V-8 diesel engines are built with much stricter tolerances. . . If you thought the Cummins was dependable, then these new versions will raise that bar significantly, higher build standards, closer tolerances and new manufacturing methods will all be in place to make sure these new versions of the Cummins diesel engines uphold the title as the worlds most trouble free engines.

I'm not so sure about the idea that tighter tolerancing will improve dependability and reliability. In fact, in my *opinion*, more "precisely" built tight-tolerance engines won't last near as long as a well-designed "loose" tolerance engine. A fancy engine with tight tolerances from the factory will loosen up and run like garbage in a short time. It will make the use of top-quality lubricants and maintenance intervals more important than ever before for those of us who want the vehicle to last 500k miles. Give me an old-timey clunker with loose fitting parts any day... precision parts are a headache to maintain. This is just my opinion.



As for the Vee vs. Inline argument, I prefer inline any day but I completely understand the need for shorter Vee configurations in order to fit into modern aerodynamic bodies. If I'm going to buy a Vee diesel, I'd want it to be a Cummins.



-Ryan

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"In fact, in my *opinion*, more "precisely" built tight-tolerance engines won't last near as long as a well-designed "loose" tolerance engine. "



It's been my understanding that Cummins uses low-tension piston rings for that very reason - better economy from reduced internal friction and drag, as well as extended ring and cylinder lifespan...

 

[yogibear]

ndurbin, I disagree with you on the JD's engine, they are good, but won't hold a candle to the 855 and N-14 Cummins. We have run Versatile tractors with the Cummins since 1980, and the only thing we have done to them is U-joint's and a clutch once and a while, and low end brgs. every 5 to 6,000 hrs, which Cummins reccomends. There are a lot of older Versatiles around here with over 20K hrs. , and still running. There are also a lot of the older Massey Ferguson 4WD around with the 903 V8 Cummins that have 15 to 20K hrs. , and still running. They have a lot more pulling power and better fuel consumption than the JD also. This is John Deer country also, but the older ones are all in the salvage yards. That green paint is nice, but the only green I'll ever have is the bills in my pocket! The farmers around here that run J Deers remind me of the ferd guys, if John Deer made an airplane that couldn't fly, they would all own a couple of them. Now don't get me wrong, JD has some good equipt. , but when it comes to the larger hp tractors, they won't hold a candle to the Cummins!



Larry

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Speaking of 1/2 Ton trucks why drop this Cummins marine engine? A little 4. 2 liter (254 cid) powerhouse: http://www.cmdmarine.com/pdfs/18280303.pdf

 

[ndurbin]

Yogi,



I agree there are several other good tractors out there and the 855/N14 is a good engine. I've also seen a fair number of high hour tractors in various colors. And opinions on tractors are about as wide as they are b/w Ford, Dodge, and Chevy. And yeah the green paint does add a few bucks to the price tag.



I don't run into alot of large 4wds, I mostly run into row-crop tractors. And in that range your going to be hard pressed IMHO to find a better row-crop tractor than the 20-60 series JDs. The 30 series Magnum Case IHs are also a good tractor in that size range. But you couldn't pay me enough money to run a 88,90,or 94 series CaseIH. I also like the 86 series IHs. Compairing engines between these series JD is the best. Personally I still like JD as an overall package, but I'm not a big fan of the quad range or the cabs. I'm sure there are others (and you too) will disagree with me.



I'm not brand loyal, there are tractors out there made by each manufacturer that are the "cats meow" and ones that are not. Alotta things can also factor in why one area or the other is Case or JD country. Dealerships play a big part in that. But if your going to make me pick, since on the internet people cant seem to be a fence sitter (must be something in the connection), I'll take a JD any day of the week and twice on sunday.



Nathan

 

[Big_Daddy_T]

Ford talked to cummins. I think they hit the same problem they had with the intl they were in line to receive. Cost of production. Little trucks have higher emissions standards. The cost to build the cleaner diesel with decent power. Prices them out. They are not affordable. Cummins proved it was possible to build it. Now chrysler needs to buy it.

Im not sure a sleeved aluminum engine has been proven to work.

 

[Bob4x4]

The V-8 (5. 6L) weighs in @766 lbs,cast iron block,aluminum heads. 350hp with a variable nozzle turbo. I have some installed engine pictures but my computer is too slow to upload them. The 1500 ram did not need any suspension mods to carry this engine. Very quiet,hydraulic lifters. Looks a little snug under the hood but no where near like the Powerstroke.



Bob

 

[Joe G.]

I'm not so sure about the idea that tighter tolerancing will improve dependability and reliability. In fact, in my *opinion*, more "precisely" built tight-tolerance engines won't last near as long as a well-designed "loose" tolerance engine.

Are you talking about clearances not tolerance? A loose engine has more clearance for bearings and whatever. I high tolerance engine has the manfactured size of the components closer to the specified sizes. I would certainly agree that an engine with all the parts closer to the specified sizes is going to last longer than one that is not that way.

 

[CATCRACKER]

cummins has been building v style diesels for a long time.



inline engines have alot more bearing area than v styles that is part of the reason they last longer. the i-6 is the better than i-4 and i-5 etc b/c of natural balancing.

 

[rbattelle]

Are you talking about clearances not tolerance? A loose engine has more clearance for bearings and whatever. I high tolerance engine has the manfactured size of the components closer to the specified sizes. I would certainly agree that an engine with all the parts closer to the specified sizes is going to last longer than one that is not that way.

To me, a "tolerance" is a specified deviation from a measurement. For example, it's impossible to make a shaft that is exactly 12 inches long, so it's specified to be 12 +/- 0. 10" (for example).



I usually think of parts with large tolerance bands to be very tolerant (no pun intended) to changes in geometry over time. If the engineer does his job, then every component in an engine can be built to the maximum or minimum geometry within tolerance limits and it will still run. That means that as the engine loosens up and clearances between parts gets larger, the engine still runs to specification. So a shaft built 12" +/- 0. 001" will no longer be a spec part once it wears down 0. 002" (assuming it was manufactured at 12. 001").



I just wanted to bring up the tolerancing thing because it seems like now adays everyone brags about how tight their tolerances are and it's not necessarily a good thing all the time. I'll never forget a Pontiac commercial I saw awhile back that touted the new Grand Am as having a frame "built to exact aerospace tolerances". Can anyone tell me just what the heck is an "exact aerospace tolerance"?



-Ryan