Throw Away Diesels.... THANK YOU CUMMINS!

[Yo Hoot]

Throw Away Diesels.... THANK YOU DODGE AND CUMMINS!

Cummins has really stepped up to the plate. After reading the latest article in TDR Issue 53 page 34, I am convinced at least one truck/diesel manufacturer knows what we truly want. A true reliable grunt diesel that is rated like one, power and longevity.



The new 6. 7 liter Cummins is still a massive cast iron 6 banger beast, now larger than the Duramax and the PowerStroke and slated to get one to three more miles per gallon than it's competition.



Speaking of competition, this is the part that really sets Cummins so far above the Dmax and PSD...



"The emphasis with a commercial truck like the Chassis Cab is not the horsepower race but cost of ownership. Therefore the engine is rated for a combination of power and economy of operation. 305hp@2900 and 610tq@1600. "



It will have a VV turbo with built in 245 ft-lb of exhaust braking versus 185 typical for an aftermarket EB.



"Cummins has retained the design and construction features that give it the "million mile" legacy. It is still THE ONLY PICKUP/CHASSISCAB ENGINE THAT IS MEDIUM DUTY with a 300,000 mile overhaul interval, versus 100,000 mile for the competition. "



The Duramax has truly proven it is a 100,000 mile throwaway BIC lighter design. Sure it can do dam good these days sled pulling and drag racing. But in the real world it is a durability disaster. GM has struck again with a car rated diesel that suffers inscessant fuel system failures and when taken to extremes it self destructs.



The 6. 0 liter Navistar has also failed the test miserably. It isn't even a contender anymore.



Both the Dmax and the 6. 0 liter PSD suffer from the "most hp" design syndrome that created these disposable engines.



Again... . thank you Dodge and Cummins for building us REAL Diesel pickup trucks!

 

[Missouri Mule]

I'll second the thanks to Cummins and Dodge.

 

[Bob Wagner]

Good Post.

 

[Dieselnut59]

I will chime in with a "third" here! I love the Cummins and the Dodge truck. The best combination for a "pickup" in my opinion! I am glad even with the added new emission laws the Cummins is still going to be an IRON engine, an INLINE style and still have the 300,000 mile rating. I am also happy about the introduction of the chassis/cab style again. IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! NOW, we just need a 4500 and 5500 version!! (with a 7 speed manual trans!)

 

[blacksheepdiesel]

300,000 mile rating, HA! Over 500,000 now and nowhere CLOSE to needing overhauled!



Trent

 

[Signal73]

Finally a engine/car manufacturer that is brave enough to take a hit in the HP wars to jump a step ahead in fuel mileage and durability. Nice to see the torque still there also, down nice and low, unlike the competition. Its well about time for that.

 

[Grey Wolf]

There may be some HP ratings coming per the SAE new test.....

http://news.hspn.com/articles/194/1/New-Horsepower-Measuring-Rules-May-Lower-Ratings/print/194

 

[CHolman]

My kind of neighbor was in the market for a Newer 04 to 06 Power Stroke and or Diesel to haul is motor cycles around with and he was asking about mine. A test drive later he was amazed with the low end grunt and the over all power. He's changed his mind and is looking for a good 04 or newer Cummins... I said anytime you start to change your mind you better save yourself the head aches of a 6 liter and come back and drive mine.

 

[nickleinonen]

now how long until someone gets the smarts to make that VGT charger off the 6. 7 work on a 5. 9...

 

[FATCAT]

... NOW, we just need a 4500 and 5500 version!! (with a 7 speed manual trans!)

I'll 2nd, 3rd, and 4th that ... but give it a 8. 3L, not the 6. 7L.

 

[WDaniels]

Sorry guys, I have issues with Cummins claims.

No doubt it'll be a good engine but increasing the engine size by 1. 8 liters without getting any power increase, I seriously doubt it'll get better mileage than ours. Or yours. (My best is just over 22 per gallon with an average of 21 to 21. 5 during the summer. ) Bigger engines require more fuel and there is no getting around that. And with a recirculating EGR reducing cool oxygen to the engine makes me doubt the mileage claimes. But who knows, it may be a surprise, but don't be shocked by reduced milage when it comes out.

WD

 

[RGardner]

I think it is only . 8 liters larger.

 

[Dieselnut59]

Not always the case... Bigger engines do not have to "work as hard" to get the same load up to the same speed and therefore can get better fuel economy. Also, fuel/air management makes a tremendous difference in fuel economy. As much as I am not for all the over computerization of our engines, it has allowed good fuel economy, tremendous power (especially torque) and low emissions all at the same time, while still having the rugged, dependable Cummins reputation. I trust Cummins to do this right. They have a great reputation and as far as I know, they are the ONLY company making engines that ONLY makes engines. I think they will get it right LONG before other companies figure it out. Heck, we have always been the only ones with a TRUE commercial diesel engine in the proper configuration!

People always talk "horsepower". While that is great on paper, in the real world you need TORQUE and need it at a lower RPM. The Cummins, with its inline configuration and the resulting long stroke provides that, along with durability of the inline design. Cummins will continue to be the best, so don't worry. Just look at the garbage the "competition" continues to offer!

 

[CHolman]

You can say that again

Heck, we have always been the only ones with a TRUE commercial diesel engine in the proper configuration!

People always talk "horsepower". While that is great on paper, in the real world you need TORQUE and need it at a lower RPM. The Cummins, with its inline configuration and the resulting long stroke provides that, along with durability of the inline design. Cummins will continue to be the best, so don't worry. Just look at the garbage the "competition" continues to offer! [/QUOTE]





Couldn't have said it better myself... . :-laf

 

[rob10858]

hello all, its been a while since ive posted, so forgive my typing. we have ctds and duramaxes in our work fleet and love both. we gave up on the powerstrokes after numerous disasters, so im not blindly brand loyal. briefly, our ctds are 3500 6 speed high output slightly bombed with injectors with 410 rear ends. the dmaxes are also 3500, allison autos with 373 rear ends. both trucks have given us good service with the usual amount of problems associated with constant heavy towing. the ctds have had exhaust manifold cracks (yes we have egt gauges) and transfer pump problems. the dmaxes have had brake and injector issues , so neither have been trouble free. i love my ctd and have driven one since 92, but i got to tell you guys that these duramaxes have really impressed me with their power and fuel mileage after 160000 miles each. can someone give me some links about the problems that ive read about in this thread? if these dmaxes are self destructing i need to know how and why.

 

[Signal73]

www.thedieselplace.com



Forums like this onebut for the dmax



seems like every post on the first LB7 page is some sort of problem, but dont take it to heart, thats why people look for these sites to sort out problems

 

[rbattelle]

Cummins is still going to be an IRON engine

Amen. There's entirely too much Aluminum going on in modern engines. Given the high loads a heavy pickup is expected to tolerate, overheating is a real concern sometimes. Iron engines can handle a lot of overheating. Aluminum engines... not so much.



I'm with the crowd that thinks the 6. 7 will get worse fuel economy than the 5. 9 got. I believe Tier III emissions will take care of that.



Ryan

 

[Alphacowboy]

I really like the coolent cooled turbo! I have always wondered why there isnt coolent lines to a turbo, just seems like it makes sense.

 

[Yo Hoot]

I'm with the crowd that thinks the 6. 7 will get worse fuel economy than the 5. 9 got. I believe Tier III emissions will take care of that.



Ryan

It may get the same. They say it will do a couple more mpg than the competition. A bit vague. The competitions current engines? Or 07 compliant engines. If that's the case, how do they even know? Be interesting to see what they do for industrial spying :-laf

 

[Cummins Pilot]

Not always the case... Bigger engines do not have to "work as hard" to get the same load up to the same speed and therefore can get better fuel economy. Also, fuel/air management makes a tremendous difference in fuel economy:

Think about this. Typically bigger engines use more fuel. If you take two engines of identical design but different displacement the bigger one will use more fuel. But if the bigger engine is designed more effeciently ie less restrictions, smoother ports, bearings, ect it can give you better economy.



Now regaurdless of what engine is in a truck it takes a certain number of HP to accelerate X number of pound to X speed. It takes a certain number to keep it moving. You may need 134hp(lets not get into how much it really takes, I'm just using a number) to keep your truck cruising down the interstate to over come all parasitic losses (wind, tires, ect). The more efficient engine can make better use of the potential energy in a gallon of fuel. "Work as hard", is relative. HP & torque are directly derived from pressure excerted on the piston to the crankshaft. Bigger engines don't "work as hard" IF the power required to move the truck remains the same because the pressure needed to push the piston is spread out over a bigger area.



Dieselnut59 and Warren are both correct in the right topic.