Mr. B, My word usage is from experience, and knowledge, while yours seems to be gained from taking things out of context. To wit:
"losing weight in the engine block will hardly gain mpg"
When what I said was continued with:
"without the loss of something more important than the MPG. "
Thus, while I admit that losing weight CAN improve MPG due to a significant weight loss, the other factors compromised are (IMO) NOT worth the extra MPG. Further, why do they feel they need to get better MPG? Maybe because if the Dmax had iron heads it would actually suck 30% (or so) more fuel to do the same job as the Cummins? Please, if you are going to refute my statements, use them in context and bring facts.
Next, you say:
"So your telling me if I reduce the overall weight of a truck then I won't reduce my MPG? "
Um, well no, ya WON'T reduce your MPG, it SHOULD go up. I guess you were just so intent on flaming me, you screwed up the whole sentence?
Then:
"in a race motor the loss of heat is not a problem"
When what I continued with was:
"since the combustion temps can be kept relatively stable. "
Which is exactly right. As you state, not keeping the temps stable means loss or gain of power. In an SI engine, keeping the temps stable is not only easily done, but HELPS the engine. In a CI engine, the temps are INTENTIONALLY raised for more power. Using an aluminum head defeats this action, since its heat conductivity is greater than iron. Thus the head allows the heat of the combustion chamber to be conducted away from the chamber more quickly, resulting in a loss of efficiency. Clearly, GM figured to counter this with the common rail injection system. I do not know specifics on this, but the CRI has drawbacks on a diesel that are just lately being erradicated. I do not know if the CRI is a good idea yet, but it certainly IS the wave of the future in diesels.
You then claim to race a "four link [etc]" dragster. If we are to go by the words used, its clear you are blowing smoke, since a "four link" is suspension, and this is about diesels, not suspension. I am not impressed, nor should anyone else be.
Then you say:
"well, if it's not possible why isn't my CTD melted down and what does the turbo do, just look pretty under the hood?"
Its not possible because if you DID keep combustion temps stable, you would NOT make more power, because you would have to keep the fuel flow at the same A/F ratio. In doing so, the reason for a CI engine is made moot. In a CI engine, heat equals power. More heat is made by more fuel. None of this has anything to do with the turbo, except that the turbo allows MORE fuel to be burned because you have added more air. Also, it improves high altitude performance and likely has some gains in emissions. Again, you prove your ignorance by bringing up items that have little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Next:
"Finally, you tell me to get my facts and show them to you. "
Yup, and I await your enlightening words.
Further:
"Well, I want to see all your Duramax "proven facts" that you have stashed away with all those "proven head gasket failures and dropped valve seats" that you keep talking about. "
I have never once said that the Duramax had a record of failure. I have said that the design had inherent flaws, as proven by previous designs. The Duramax does NOT seem to deviate significantly from these designs. I have asked for any facts proving otherwise. None have been forthcoming.
And on to:
"I bet they would even change the name on the side of the trucks to "Max340 Diesel", then you would be the grand puba of isuzu and chevy. "
(sarcastic mode on)
If anyone EVER tacks my name to the side of a Chevy and I find out about it, I will sue for defamation of character. I would never allow my name on the side of such an inferior machine.
(sarcastic mode off)
You say:
"The designers know this to, and they compensate for it. "
Ok, HOW did they compensate for the difference in the expansion rates of iron and aluminum? So far no one has been able to do this to a level of perfection that means minimal head gasket failure. IF they did it, please, tell us about it.
"I No, I am not to keen on the aluminum head idea myself, but you never know if you don't try. "
Its been tried, its failed, and tried again, and failed again. Putting it under more intense stress doesn't seem to be a way to avoid problems.
You have yet to refute my info point by point with facts. In fact, you seem to have avoided doing exactly that. I have invited factual info that contradicts mine. I would like to see it. So far, you don't have it.
Bob, To be honest, the only thing I would like out of Cummins is more power, and thats easily attainable. I agree competition is a good thing. I just don't see how what appears to be a disposable engine is going to improve the overall class. It certainly won't make Cummins do anything but twist up the fuel on the ISB. Ford is already looking to replace the current PSD. What does that say?
In the real world, there are certain engines that are "benchmark" designs. The 225 and 318 Mopars, 350 Chevy, 302 Ford are in that class. The Cummins B and ISB are also in there. So far, I would be hard pressed to say that either the T444E or the Duramax had the overall reputation to join that elite class. Until they do, the Cummins will be my choice.
------------------
Y2K 2500 QC Sport 4x4 LWB
72 Dart 340
89 LeBaron GTC 2. 2 TI
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
