• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

New Cummins for Dodge

efb

Well-known member
Dodge just announced the new 6.7 L. version Cummins Turbo will replace the current 5.9 L starting in January '07. It will be available in the 2500 and 3500 and the new cab and chassis. Will deliver 350 hp and 650 lbs. torque with an optional 6 speed auto. Suppose to be quieter and more fuel effecient. Personaly I don't see the need for more power. Just hauled 15 yrling bulls on a 32 ft down the highway 70 mph with relative ease with '04 5.9L. Course, a couple of local hay haulers pulling 40 ft have their 5.9's chipped and are going and blowing. I guess now they can hook the big boys 53' trailers on and really haul something.

Cummins just shipped Dodge their 1.5 millionth 5.9L engine. They delivered their first one in 1988. It was 160 hp and 400 lbs. torque.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
efb said:
Will deliver 350 hp and 650 lbs. torque with an optional 6 speed auto.

Its buyer beware when you're shopping for one of the new trucks. The cab and chassis version, even with the new Aisin automatic, only get the the 305/610 version of the engine. Here are the specs on the new engines:

> 3500 Chassis-Cab:
> 305/610 - G56
> 305/610 - Aisin
>
> 2500-3500 pickup:
> 350/610 - G56
> 350/650 - 68RFE
> (not a typo, the G56 gets less peak torque, but it's dead flat from 1400
> to 3000)

And the reason for the additional displacement isn't really to simply make more HP, but rather to make the HP while meeting the new emissions standards. The old 5.9 could make unreal gobs of HP with what amounted to bolt on parts, but there was no way to get it to meet emissions while making the current levels of power required to keep Dodge in the HP war. The larger displacement engine makes building ponies easier, while maintaining the low RPMs you need to ensure reliability (remember, the 6.7L isn't just for Dodge who'd be perfectly content with a 150,000 mile motor like Chevy and Ford) and giving the volumetric efficiency required for low-emissions and fuel economy in this day of retarded timing injection shots.

Rod
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Mr. FH says they make them go faster but do nothing to slow them
down. He has an exhaust brake on his, and wouldn't be without it.

This is the second pickp he has had the exhaust brake installed.
 

efb

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Mr. FH says they make them go faster but do nothing to slow them
down. He has an exhaust brake on his, and wouldn't be without it.

This is the second pickp he has had the exhaust brake installed.


I think I read the new 6.7 comes with an internal exhaust brake.
In our area we usually run up on a Ford or Chev that slows us down :lol:
Just kidding. When Fords are running they run plenty fast.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Mr. FH says they make them go faster but do nothing to slow them down. He has an exhaust brake on his, and wouldn't be without it.

For serious tow guys, an exhaust brake is definitely a must. As efb mentioned, the new 6.7 comes from factory with an exhaust brake. I think Dodge has been the best for upgrading brakes over the years as each successive year brought about new changes and slightly better braking power. My 2005 was night and day difference between the 1988. It may also have something to do with the fact that pre-94 Dodge had the worst brakes in the industry and they had to do something :lol:

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I won't know until I get a chance to play with one, but I doubt it. I'm skeered of the variable geometry turbocharger. You walk into a heavy truck repair shop and say 'VGT', every mechanic in the place will light up with dollar signs in their eyes. And the 07s have all that new pollution control stuff on them that I'd want to watch. Cummins is a good engine company, and they do their research and development better than almost anyone, but there is alot of new 'crap' bolted onto the outside of this critter that I want to watch for a bit before I jumped into it.

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Also, Dodge is due for a redesign in 2009. I'd either trade for an 08, before the prices drop on the pre-09s, or hold out for an 09. With any luck, Dodge will take another risk in 09 and really change their look. Now that Ford, and to a lesser extent, Chevy, copied the 94, the look is getting a little stale and its time for something new....

Rod
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Also, Dodge is due for a redesign in 2009. I'd either trade for an 08, before the prices drop on the pre-09s, or hold out for an 09. With any luck, Dodge will take another risk in 09 and really change their look. Now that Ford, and to a lesser extent, Chevy, copied the 94, the look is getting a little stale and its time for something new....

Rod



A CABOVER MAYBE? :wink: :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
:lol: Back to the days of the old VW trucks. :lol:

Seriously though, I don't know if anyone ever saw a picture of the PowerWagon concept from a few years ago, but I'd buy something like that in a heartbeat. I like that retro look, and someday, if I ever get the bucks, I'm going to build that concept power wagon.

Rod
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
:lol: Back to the days of the old VW trucks. :lol:

Seriously though, I don't know if anyone ever saw a picture of the PowerWagon concept from a few years ago, but I'd buy something like that in a heartbeat. I like that retro look, and someday, if I ever get the bucks, I'm going to build that concept power wagon.

Rod


Yea I saw that truck... In my dreams at night. :wink: :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I was wheeling and dealing on a 1942 (I think) Power Wagon, but before I could seal the deal, the oldtimer passed away and I could never find out what happened to it. I had visions of planting a Cummins in it, although the rear gears would probably have given me a top speed of 20 mph :lol:

For those who didn't see the Dodge Power Wagon concept, it looked very similar to those old beasts. Here's a link to it:

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/pwrwagon.html

Rod
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Well wouldnt the concept of bigger cubic inches and lower RPM torque be better?
Example look at big trucks. 2100rpm is max and most of the torque is well below that. The lower the rpm the longer the engine lasts and the better the fuel mileage.
Remember Macks old 237 inline 6. With a turbo it was called the 300. That was a great little engine. You could lug it down to 1100rpm<had to watch the pyrometer>. Been years since I drove one but I think most of the torgue was below 1500rpm.
GMC in 2008 is coming out with a light duty diesel for its half ton truck line. I guess its sapposed to be great on fuel. To me this makes more sense than these current high output Cummings/ Duramax that get 13mpg.
You know years ago I drove gravel trucks with 366/427 gas motors! I hauled all over the States with a 318 detroit! Haha I think the horsepower of these new diesel pick ups is starting to get a little silly.
I liked the first Dodge diesels that they came out with. The trucks were well built, got good fuel mileage, had good power and were affordable to buy.
Before I would spend $65,000 on a new dually diesel I would go out and buy a 5 year old Kenworth.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Well wouldnt the concept of bigger cubic inches and lower RPM torque be better?

This is why Cummins increased its cubic inches and lowered its peak torque on the new engines. Bear in mind that all diesel engine manufacturers are now hamstrung by current pollution regs. In Europe, NOx emissions are high on the list of priorities, with soot reduction taking a distant second place. This allows the diesel engine to operate with advanced timing, and really allows for high power and good fuel economy.

In typical North American fashion, we decided we knew better and soot reduction was top of the list for the EPA to pick on. What this amounts to is that diesel engines had to move to retarded timing on the primary injection event. Low soot, but now we're not using the full stored energy of each drop of diesel fuel. So we can still make power, even at low RPMs, but it takes alot more fuel to do it. Just another case of the greenies not having a clue whats truly important, and our politicians following blindly along.

Rod
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Well wouldnt the concept of bigger cubic inches and lower RPM torque be better?
Example look at big trucks. 2100rpm is max and most of the torque is well below that. The lower the rpm the longer the engine lasts and the better the fuel mileage.
Remember Macks old 237 inline 6. With a turbo it was called the 300. That was a great little engine. You could lug it down to 1100rpm<had to watch the pyrometer>. Been years since I drove one but I think most of the torgue was below 1500rpm.GMC in 2008 is coming out with a light duty diesel for its half ton truck line. I guess its sapposed to be great on fuel. To me this makes more sense than these current high output Cummings/ Duramax that get 13mpg.
You know years ago I drove gravel trucks with 366/427 gas motors! I hauled all over the States with a 318 detroit! Haha I think the horsepower of these new diesel pick ups is starting to get a little silly.
I liked the first Dodge diesels that they came out with. The trucks were well built, got good fuel mileage, had good power and were affordable to buy.
Before I would spend $65,000 on a new dually diesel I would go out and buy a 5 year old Kenworth.



Heck I was driving one today. That's what we have for hauling hay. I used to haul cattle when we ran yearling but my pot went to pot .
My son just can't believe how quick it starts . Ours is a 1980 WL Model which was an aluminum cab and frame cabover. Kinda rough on these goat trails we have to drive .
 
Top