I know alot of you guys talk about how the new 6. 7 engine is going to suck. So I'm just curious how many would buy one. While I won't be able to financially, I would say I might possibly buy one. While no doubt more emmisions equipment sucks, I'm sure Cummins has done alot of testing to make sure they get it right. We all know about how the 6. 0 Powerstroke is, and how bad it has been for everyone involved. I'm sure Cummins would not want something like that on their reputation.
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Would you buy a 6.7 truck?
- Thread starter TWilkening
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
- Status
Yes! I want the service bed with ladder rack for my new HVAC co. and can't wait to purchase one, if business is good. The new emissions don,t scare me for I trust Cummins and their research. However, it will not be the auto trans from Japan and I will have to go with the G56 trans even though I would rather have the NV5600 instead.
I'll buy a 6. 7 chassis cab in a few years. I have a 2005 Dually with 28,000 miles so no hurry. By the time I buy the 6. 7 will have been out a few years and should have all the issues (if any) sorted out. If I needed a truck in the next year I would have no problem getting a new truck with a warranty. I would leave it stock until the warranty ran out though.
Funny, This all sounds like what was said when Cummins came out with the 98. 5 24v engine. Only difference was between then and now, was that Ford had not had the huge engine troubles they had with there 6. 0L. That little incident seems to have really struck a nerve in not only Ford owners but all diesel owners. Why?? Ford owners seem more willing to give Ford another chance with the better?? 6. 0L and proposed 6. 4L then Cummins owners are with the 6. 7L. Whats up with that???? Cummins has never had the problems like Ford has had. The only lasting problem I see with the Cummins engines is the LIFT PUMP, and that isn't even a Cummins issue. So why the gloom and dispair when Cummins says they are releasing a new engine??? You should be jumping up and down singing there praises, they have always produced quality products. Matter of fact..... that is the number one consideration you as Dodge/Cummins owners site as the reason you bought your Dodge Truck with a Cummins in it. I know it is for me, and in all my time with my truck, I have yet to have a single engine related problem, try that with any other ten (10) year old truck.
So, why the negativity????? Did anyone get let down when the 24V engine came out? How about the 555 engine???? the 600 engine???? From what I am seeing in the forums, most problems stem from the drivetrain which was caused when Dodge dropped DANA Corp for American Axle, all to save a few dollars per vehicle. I wonder how that paned out... I bet that guy or gal isn't working for Dodge any more? To the extent of it, thats it, very few engine issues, and those few ones are usually computer related. Yes I have seen some engine replacements because of catastrafic failure, but they are very few, and they were quickly taken care of. Really the biggest issue lately is that of warranty. What is and is not covered if you modify your truck with programmers, turbos, wheels ect. It should be obvious that if you change the engine so it makes more HP or Torque, the drive line for the most part is now yours to warrant. Beyond that it gets pretty complicated and is on a truck by truck basis, which depends on the modification, the service manager, and customer, and the situation.
I personally would have know problem buying a new Dodge truck with a New6. 7L Cummins engine in it. I regularly see the Cummins test trucks running the highway pulling there high wind resistant trailer, up and down the road. I know how they test there engines, I have seen where and how they build there engines and I have all the faith in the world that what ever type engine they release for use to the public, including the new smaller diesel engines they are building for an un-known auto builder ( I say Dodge) , well work and work in fine Cummins fashion. Cummins is the BEST diesel engine manufacturer in the world, they got there thought hard work and by designing and building high quality, long lasting diesel engines that start day after day and run till you shut them down. They know what made them Number one (1), and I don't think they are willing to risk that standard for anythig or any manufacturer. We are not talking about Ford, and we are most certainly not talking about International. We are talking about the manufacturer that got this whole diesel truck thing started, and the diesel engine manufacturer that was there at the time with a great engine willing to give it a go. Yes back when Trucks were truck, no leather this and that, they ran straight axles up front for strength and transfer cases with levers that stuck thru the floor. Yes Dodge started it all, and Cummins was right there behind them, the beginning of a new revolution, the modern truck.
So, why the negativity????? Did anyone get let down when the 24V engine came out? How about the 555 engine???? the 600 engine???? From what I am seeing in the forums, most problems stem from the drivetrain which was caused when Dodge dropped DANA Corp for American Axle, all to save a few dollars per vehicle. I wonder how that paned out... I bet that guy or gal isn't working for Dodge any more? To the extent of it, thats it, very few engine issues, and those few ones are usually computer related. Yes I have seen some engine replacements because of catastrafic failure, but they are very few, and they were quickly taken care of. Really the biggest issue lately is that of warranty. What is and is not covered if you modify your truck with programmers, turbos, wheels ect. It should be obvious that if you change the engine so it makes more HP or Torque, the drive line for the most part is now yours to warrant. Beyond that it gets pretty complicated and is on a truck by truck basis, which depends on the modification, the service manager, and customer, and the situation.
I personally would have know problem buying a new Dodge truck with a New6. 7L Cummins engine in it. I regularly see the Cummins test trucks running the highway pulling there high wind resistant trailer, up and down the road. I know how they test there engines, I have seen where and how they build there engines and I have all the faith in the world that what ever type engine they release for use to the public, including the new smaller diesel engines they are building for an un-known auto builder ( I say Dodge) , well work and work in fine Cummins fashion. Cummins is the BEST diesel engine manufacturer in the world, they got there thought hard work and by designing and building high quality, long lasting diesel engines that start day after day and run till you shut them down. They know what made them Number one (1), and I don't think they are willing to risk that standard for anythig or any manufacturer. We are not talking about Ford, and we are most certainly not talking about International. We are talking about the manufacturer that got this whole diesel truck thing started, and the diesel engine manufacturer that was there at the time with a great engine willing to give it a go. Yes back when Trucks were truck, no leather this and that, they ran straight axles up front for strength and transfer cases with levers that stuck thru the floor. Yes Dodge started it all, and Cummins was right there behind them, the beginning of a new revolution, the modern truck.
Posted yes to the poll although I am completely satisfied with my new 5. 9 and won't have the money for a 6. 7 for years...
I have faith in Cummins that they've tested the 6. 7 and that it is ready for sale. Cummins doesn't want the troubles that have plagued Ford/IH.
If not for those troubles, I'd probably be driving a new Ford today (been driving Ford trucks for 10+ years. ) As it stands, I'm glad Dodge has the Cummins... it lured me to look at their truck, which seems better built than the current Fords, anyway.
I have faith in Cummins that they've tested the 6. 7 and that it is ready for sale. Cummins doesn't want the troubles that have plagued Ford/IH.
If not for those troubles, I'd probably be driving a new Ford today (been driving Ford trucks for 10+ years. ) As it stands, I'm glad Dodge has the Cummins... it lured me to look at their truck, which seems better built than the current Fords, anyway.
I voted no in the poll and here's why: I just bought a brand new 06 because I didn't want a 07 engine.
I was there in 2002 when all the heavy trucks had to go to the new EGR engines that were 20% used exhaust in the intake. The manufacturers all said there would be a slight penalty in fuel mileage, but probably not over 5%, and that there should be no mechanical problems to speak of. Wrong!! Caterpillars 3406-E, 2001 and earlier would get over 6mpg day in and day out. For todays similarly powered C-15 they are running ads bragging about getting 4. 79 mpg from Denver to San Antonio (1000 miles, virtually all down hill) and claiming that even at that they were better than the new ISX from Cummins on the same run by nearly half a mile per gallon! Personally, no big Cat owners I know of are getting even the 4. 79 from the new engines. 4. 5 or so if they are keeping up with traffic.
My 2000 model year Detroit 60 Series on the same run will deliver nearly 6. 5 mpg and run circles around either the new Cat or the new Cummins while it does it! And the current model Detroits aren't nearly what the older ones were either. Either for power or fuel economy or durability or reliability by any other measure other than 'cleaner exhaust".
The new 2007 heavy duty engines are gonna be worse, because they are now having to put 40% used exhaust into the intakes in order to meet the NOX requirements. The engine is having to burn the fuel it takes to compress this dead air from which it generates zero power!!! The efficiency is going to go down again, just from a pure physics standpoint, no matter what the marketing arms of the manufacturers are saying. That's why all the big fleets are pre-buying 06's because even though they aren't as good as the 01's and earlier, they're gonna be better than what's coming down the pike.
The only way the new 6. 7 is going to get equivalent fuel mileage to the 5. 9 is if it is geared back like a big truck to cruise at 75 mph at 1500 or so like my big rig does. Maybe 1750 as it's a lot smaller engine, but anyway at a much reduced rpm than the current generation of ISB's.
Its going to be 2010 before the ECM's can be programmed for efficiency again the way they used to be prior to 2002 and thats because the smog regs are going to be so tight then that the only way to meet them is going to be with urea injection into the exhaust stream. Coupled with the new ULSD fuel and the urea, it will do such a good job of cleaning up the emissions, that the ecms can actually be dirtier than they are now and still meet the requirements.
Also, I remember the problems that the engine makers (all of them) had w/ the 02 models. It took 'til 04 before they started to be even halfway reliable compared to the older models and like some others before me on this thread have stated, I don't want to be a guinea pig. I owned half a dozen big rigs powered by Cummins engines back in the late 80's when the latest and greatest was step timing on the injectors -- the primary purpose of which was just to reduce cold smoke on start-up - emissions. They were great until they started needing new injectors at about 300,000 miles and they were unavailable. Everybody was having the same problem I was and the new injectors couldn't be made fast enough. I had 3 trucks parked with injectors stripped out of them to keep the other 3 running. Not good.
Another point to ponder is that the 06 5. 9's and earlier have been manufactured and certified with emissions credits from prior years. That's over. The reason for killing the 5. 9 is that it was going to be going from no EGR to 40% EGR in one move. Not enough displacement to compensate for the reduced efficiency. How would they sell new models that were back to making only 215 hp or so?
Finally, anybody who thinks that this new engine is gonna be bug-free right off the bat is being overly optimistic IMHO. It's never worked out that way before, for anybody, and I doubt it's going to happen this time either. There have been literally millions of miles of testing on all the new engines that have been brought out, by all of the manufacturers, probably even on Ford / IHC's 6. 0 liter. But problems arise because test miles and real miles put on by consumers are not necessarily equivalent.
I imagine the biggest difference is probably thermal shock, as most of the test engines are never shut off except to change the oil and they're off and running again, racking up those test miles. They just don't have the same thermal cycles as do consumer units and too, they are professionally driven or even put thru a supposedly representative duty cycle on a dyno for testing purposes.
Its kinda like epa mpgs, your's could and very likely will, be less.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think the last of the good ones for a long while might just be the 06's, which is why I put my $$$ where my mouth is and bought one! Just remember one thing and it'll all make sense.
All of the new changes by all of the manufacturers are being mandated by the government. It's not because Cummins or GM or IHC or Cat or Detroit or whoever wants to make overpriced and unreliable engines. They all know how to make good engines, but by the time the government gets done mucking things up, they're left with trying to make good engines that meet the requirements, which is a whole 'nuther thing altogether.
I was there in 2002 when all the heavy trucks had to go to the new EGR engines that were 20% used exhaust in the intake. The manufacturers all said there would be a slight penalty in fuel mileage, but probably not over 5%, and that there should be no mechanical problems to speak of. Wrong!! Caterpillars 3406-E, 2001 and earlier would get over 6mpg day in and day out. For todays similarly powered C-15 they are running ads bragging about getting 4. 79 mpg from Denver to San Antonio (1000 miles, virtually all down hill) and claiming that even at that they were better than the new ISX from Cummins on the same run by nearly half a mile per gallon! Personally, no big Cat owners I know of are getting even the 4. 79 from the new engines. 4. 5 or so if they are keeping up with traffic.
My 2000 model year Detroit 60 Series on the same run will deliver nearly 6. 5 mpg and run circles around either the new Cat or the new Cummins while it does it! And the current model Detroits aren't nearly what the older ones were either. Either for power or fuel economy or durability or reliability by any other measure other than 'cleaner exhaust".
The new 2007 heavy duty engines are gonna be worse, because they are now having to put 40% used exhaust into the intakes in order to meet the NOX requirements. The engine is having to burn the fuel it takes to compress this dead air from which it generates zero power!!! The efficiency is going to go down again, just from a pure physics standpoint, no matter what the marketing arms of the manufacturers are saying. That's why all the big fleets are pre-buying 06's because even though they aren't as good as the 01's and earlier, they're gonna be better than what's coming down the pike.
The only way the new 6. 7 is going to get equivalent fuel mileage to the 5. 9 is if it is geared back like a big truck to cruise at 75 mph at 1500 or so like my big rig does. Maybe 1750 as it's a lot smaller engine, but anyway at a much reduced rpm than the current generation of ISB's.
Its going to be 2010 before the ECM's can be programmed for efficiency again the way they used to be prior to 2002 and thats because the smog regs are going to be so tight then that the only way to meet them is going to be with urea injection into the exhaust stream. Coupled with the new ULSD fuel and the urea, it will do such a good job of cleaning up the emissions, that the ecms can actually be dirtier than they are now and still meet the requirements.
Also, I remember the problems that the engine makers (all of them) had w/ the 02 models. It took 'til 04 before they started to be even halfway reliable compared to the older models and like some others before me on this thread have stated, I don't want to be a guinea pig. I owned half a dozen big rigs powered by Cummins engines back in the late 80's when the latest and greatest was step timing on the injectors -- the primary purpose of which was just to reduce cold smoke on start-up - emissions. They were great until they started needing new injectors at about 300,000 miles and they were unavailable. Everybody was having the same problem I was and the new injectors couldn't be made fast enough. I had 3 trucks parked with injectors stripped out of them to keep the other 3 running. Not good.
Another point to ponder is that the 06 5. 9's and earlier have been manufactured and certified with emissions credits from prior years. That's over. The reason for killing the 5. 9 is that it was going to be going from no EGR to 40% EGR in one move. Not enough displacement to compensate for the reduced efficiency. How would they sell new models that were back to making only 215 hp or so?
Finally, anybody who thinks that this new engine is gonna be bug-free right off the bat is being overly optimistic IMHO. It's never worked out that way before, for anybody, and I doubt it's going to happen this time either. There have been literally millions of miles of testing on all the new engines that have been brought out, by all of the manufacturers, probably even on Ford / IHC's 6. 0 liter. But problems arise because test miles and real miles put on by consumers are not necessarily equivalent.
I imagine the biggest difference is probably thermal shock, as most of the test engines are never shut off except to change the oil and they're off and running again, racking up those test miles. They just don't have the same thermal cycles as do consumer units and too, they are professionally driven or even put thru a supposedly representative duty cycle on a dyno for testing purposes.
Its kinda like epa mpgs, your's could and very likely will, be less.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think the last of the good ones for a long while might just be the 06's, which is why I put my $$$ where my mouth is and bought one! Just remember one thing and it'll all make sense.
All of the new changes by all of the manufacturers are being mandated by the government. It's not because Cummins or GM or IHC or Cat or Detroit or whoever wants to make overpriced and unreliable engines. They all know how to make good engines, but by the time the government gets done mucking things up, they're left with trying to make good engines that meet the requirements, which is a whole 'nuther thing altogether.
Being that Cummins engineers know more about what they are doing than all of us put together, and they most have assuredly learned from their shortcummins (couldnt help myself), and I will not have a choice in another year - yeah I'll buy one.
Take note - since Daimler has taken over, it's only gotten better.
Take note - since Daimler has taken over, it's only gotten better.
y-knot said:
I voted NO. Reason # 1. When the 24 valve came out, it was a dog. Didn't have the lower end I wanted... ... like my first gen had. My ole first gen truck had much more grunt to it than my first 24 valve.
Reason #2. Third gen trucks get very poor fuel mileage. I know of too many complaining about 10-14 mileage empty, and dealers not able to help them out. Cummins should be on top of the fuel mileage game, but have actually gone backwards in this department. I also know of a "600" owner that, if he had to buy it again, he probably wouldn't have, due to the mileage .
Reason # 3. The Cummins 6. 7 , from the numbers I hear of being de-tuned for the HP/TQ rating, makes no sense. They should be up there with the Duramax for HP rating, but for some reason are not. ( Fill me in if my numbers are incorrect) There should be no reason why Cummins cant be in the #1 spot for both HP/TQ and fuel mileage, but, I bet, as soon as they come out onto the market, you'll see them crying about performance.
No, I think I'll stick with the ole 12 valves. At least I know what I have.
Don't care about H. P. bring in the TORQUE! My 03 gets as good and towing BETTER mileage then my stock and then modded 93 did and pulls CIRCLES around it with ease. Yet my MODDED 93 felt FASTER in normal driving then my 03. My 93 had turbo housing/intercooler/injectors/torque convertor/exhaust/slightly tweeked pump etc. Both are/were 4. 10 geared.
Last edited:
Less Horsepower/Better Fuel Economy
At May Madness, this year, we were told by Mr. Dennis Hurst, the Executive Director of Engineering at Cummins that the 6. 7 will only be offered in the new Chassis/Cab vehicles.
The target group of purchasers for these vehicles is commercial users. This group, generally, is not influenced by "Horsepower Wars" but, is very interested in fuel economy. The 6. 7 gets its best economy at these programmed levels.
It was suggested that we would be pleased with the performance levels offered in the '07, 5. 9 in the pick-ups. He couldn't tell us what those levels would be because Dodge doesn't want that information to get out til the last moment, so that the competition doesn't have a chance to counteract with higher HP levels. So, it appears the '07, 5. 9 Cummins in the pick-ups will be competitive.
Joe F. (Buffalo)
At May Madness, this year, we were told by Mr. Dennis Hurst, the Executive Director of Engineering at Cummins that the 6. 7 will only be offered in the new Chassis/Cab vehicles.
The target group of purchasers for these vehicles is commercial users. This group, generally, is not influenced by "Horsepower Wars" but, is very interested in fuel economy. The 6. 7 gets its best economy at these programmed levels.
It was suggested that we would be pleased with the performance levels offered in the '07, 5. 9 in the pick-ups. He couldn't tell us what those levels would be because Dodge doesn't want that information to get out til the last moment, so that the competition doesn't have a chance to counteract with higher HP levels. So, it appears the '07, 5. 9 Cummins in the pick-ups will be competitive.
Joe F. (Buffalo)
B.G. Smith
TDR MEMBER
If Dodge makes it and Cummins shakes it I'll buy it. bg
bg
Bob Wagner
TDR MEMBER
should have seen the new 6. 7's running in the plant in Columbus
turbo and exhaust manifold glowing red
The new engine looks awesome
turbo and exhaust manifold glowing red
The new engine looks awesome
- Status
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
