New Cab & Chassis

[Spooled-up]

Notcie that the G56 is standard for both engines

I've been hearing that the NV5600 would show up on the 45/5500's.

Are all the 3500's now going to have the same frame or is this completely different? Can you mount a pickup bed on this frame? Seems like it would simplify the assembly line if they used the same frame for all 3500's

 

[FASTERTHANU]

Much ado about nothing! Same horsepower/torque out of a larger engine = less mileage. No increase in GCVWR? I guess everyone waits for the 4500/5500. You'd think they could at least make more power with the bigger displacement and why not kick the GCVWR up to 26000 where it should be? Way to go EPA#@$%!

 

[robert4570]

The 6. 7 sounds good , lets face it how much more do we expect to be squezzed out of the a 5. 9 an be reliable ? There is no replacement for increased displacement and the benefit will be lower egt's and reduced stress as was mentioned earlier.

The HP wars are going to continue and with emissions regs it only gets tougher to keep up.

I'm all for the new motor as long as its not a stroked and bored 5. 9 , which i dont see how the'll get an 800cc increase but anything is possible .



If 6 spds are better than 5's then a 7 would better than 6 .

 

[Spooled-up]

I'm all for the new motor as long as its not a stroked and bored 5. 9 ,

I read on this forum that it's going to be just a stroked 5. 9, not bored, with other changes of course.



I think the reason for the "low" horsepower and torque rating is that they need room for uprating in the future as the horsepower wars continue. Our 5. 9's started at 185 horsepower and now it's at 325. If we follow that trend with the new motor, it should be rated for about 600 hp 10 years from now! Oo.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

The article is up. I've been working all day on it and it's been a looooong day. All your answers should be in there.

 

[robert4570]

I read on this forum that it's going to be just a stroked 5. 9, not bored, with other changes of course.



I think the reason for the "low" horsepower and torque rating is that they need room for uprating in the future as the horsepower wars continue. Our 5. 9's started at 185 horsepower and now it's at 325. If we follow that trend with the new motor, it should be rated for about 600 hp 10 years from now! Oo.

I hope we have diesel fuel 10 years from now . If the greenies have there way they'll legislate all vehicles except hybrids and electric weenie mobiles. :{





Thanks for the article Steve.

 

[Spooled-up]

Nice job on the article Steve. Very informative. I thought my engine was complicated. That thing doesn't even look like a Cummins!

 

[MHorne]

well i think we can finally safely say that cummins will be sticking around for awhile and mercedes is out of the picture. No more mercedes rumors, now thats good to say and hear.



Not that mercedes is bad or anything but the cummins is just a wonderful motor, wouldn't you all agree. Cummins all the way.

 

[jgillott]

Thanks for a great report Steve. As others have said, I'm happy that we can put away some of the rumors and look forward to our next generation of Cummins powered Rams.

 

[vegasredneck]

They didn't say much about the Aisen 6sp which I am more interested in. What are ea gear ratio's, is it an auto only or can be maintain a gear manually, is it like the fords with braking capablities. I know it has an EB on the engine. I do believe the smoke screen is up on final HP/TQ numbers until full production.

 

[hammersley]

Way way to complicated of an engine for me.....

That sure brings back 1973 when Detroit was trying to get the emisssions thing straightened out. It wasn't long before everybody realized that those engines were really hampered by emissions. This looks worse than that..... a particulate trap - that means from day 1 it starts to fill and IMO performance will also start to suffer... . NOBODY is saying anything about the lost efficiency that these engines will probably have due to these emissions..... I mean decrease in mileage... ...

 

[jlasich]

Here's the gear ratios for the Aisin 6-speed transmission -



https://www.turbodieselregister.com/06ntea/Ram3500_Specs_EN.pdf



along with other specs about the truck and engine. This info is also available on Steve's front-page report about the truck.



It definitely looks upfitter-friendly, and the fuel capacity is huge.



While it's not a bad start, DC should've included the MC into the lineup as well as 84" cab to axle with the QC and subsequent MC. Oh well, perhaps if they sell enough of them, there will be a better business model to justify the added expense of creating more variations.

 

[rjohnson916]

I’m so glad I bought a 2005 when I did, now I know how precious it will be to keep it for a long, long time. I’m sorry, but I don’t like the idea of all the movable pars in the VGT, also an ECM that now has over 10,000 parameters, the added sensors. Look at the picture of the all the equipment that is now part of the exhaust system, misc sensors that plug into the catalyst system etc... The only thing I like about the 2007 models are the new door badges, and I’m just warming up to those.



#ad




#ad




#ad

 

[PHeadings]

To bad my frame rails were not 34" apart, I would find another place for my spare for that 52 gallon aux tank.

 

[diesel DOG]

Great another truck made in Mexico with a Japanese transmission

 

[NIsaacs]

I see they consider the chassis/cab, heavy duty with SAE net power ratings. I think light duty, or regular type pickups are rated "gross" power. Pound for pound, the power is probably there.





"NICK"

 

[KCJackson]

I see they consider the chassis/cab, heavy duty with SAE net power ratings. I think light duty, or regular type pickups are rated "gross" power. Pound for pound, the power is probably there.

SAE gross hasn't been used since the 60s. SAE net was revised a couple of years ago... this is why you see a lot more automakers with engine ratings that don't end in zero or 5 any longer. As far as why the 6. 7L is only 305/610, compared to the current 5. 9L's 325/610... that's torque management as well as emissions. The 5. 9 loses very little torque over the rev band... just 3% from torque peak to hp peak. The 6. 7 operates a lot more like a true medium-duty, losing 12. 5% over the same rev range. That is by the command of the ECM - in order to meet emissions, Cummins has likely determined that they can't leave the torque as level as previous 5. 9s.



It is entirely possible that Cummins and Dodge will offer the 6. 7 in the 2500/3500 pickups at a higher rating than they will in the 3500/4500/5500 chassis-cabs to keep consumers from trying to change ECMs to the "more powerful" engine. We won't know that for a while - it will depend on how many 5. 9s are still available and when Dodge wants to use the 6. 7, either right from the beginning oif 07 production in July, or wait until January.

 

[Scrappy]

They have to use the 6. 7, Cummins is not building the 5. 9 anymore.

 

[Task125]

Glad I ordered an 06 Oo.

 

[j-miller]

Don't look too spectacular to me. Don't see why D/C cut out the crap and quit teasing us and bring out a 4500/5500 cab and chassis. Big whoop about a 3500 cab and chassis, I already have one of those, after you take off the stock bed and put on a nice aluminum flatbed..... what are they thinking. Just my 2 cents.





John