Dodge and Cummins No More????

[QRTRHRS]

I don't think making a guy retire a perfectly good 8 yr old LB-115 that doesen't meet CARB standards is going to make one bit of difference when the Chinese & the Indians are polluting the world on the scale that they are right now.

I think enviromentalists are doing more to ruin our country than the pollution ever did.

This is all driven by forces that really have little to do with saving the enviroment and more to do with diverting money to other groups for their benefit.

LOL! Have you not heard? Going green is the current buzzword for a multitude of sales pitches.

Anyway, I have not read up on CAT lately but the last I heard, they were pulling out of the truck market. Having put a 100k or so on an 07' C15, I guess I just don't understand how an engine that can barely make 5mpg while limited at 65mph on a good day is some kind of improvement over the old N14 that I had previously. I have to believe that the decision to pull out was related to the warrenty claims.

That old N14 had 600k and would make 6.5mpg or so running at 70mph. And it would do it all day, every day. No hiccups, no going in to have the computer telling the mechanic that there was no problem.

 

[dgl24087]

From a Diesel Power magazine article (prior to the bankrupcies by GM and Chrysler) on 1/2 ton diesels:
Dodge Ram 1500
Engine: 5.0L Cummins 90-degree V-8
*At least 320 hp and 500 lb-ft
*Aluminum heads and an iron block
*Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*Cummins-built variable geometry turbo located in the engine valley
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Engine weight 710 pounds
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Chain-driven single overhead camshafts
*Six-speed automatic 655RFE transmission
*10 1/2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating AAM rear axle
MPG: (Diesel Power December 2006 issue titled, "New Cummins V-6 and V-8") A Department of Energy test found the 1/2-ton Ram delivered 24.6 mpg

Ford F-150
Engine: 4.4L 60-Degree V-8
*310 hp and 516 lb-ft
*Acceleration similar to a 5.4L gas engine
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Twin turbo arrangement
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Compacted graphite iron engine block
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Belt-driven camshafts
*Six-speed ZF automatic transmission
*9 3/4-inch ring gear and seven-lug wheels similar to the semi-floating rear axle of 7700 series F-250
*According to a poster secretly filmed at a closed viewing, the diesel engine is said to have 20% better fuel mileage compared to the 5.4L gas engine.

GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Engine: 4.5L LMK Duramax 72-degree V-8
*At least 310 hp and 520 lb-ft
*Aluminum heads and compacted graphite iron engine block
*Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*Compression ratio: 16:1
*Variable geometry turbo located in the engine valley
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Chain-driven dual overhead camshafts
*Six-speed automatic 6L90E transmission
*9 /2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating rear axle
MPG: According to Diesel Power's October 2008 interview with GM's Executive Director of Diesel Engineering, Charlie Freese, the 4.5L Duramax is projected to have at least 25% better fuel efficiency than a similar gas truck under light load conditions. However, under work situations, this diesel engine is said to be 40-70% more fuel efficient compared to a similar gasoline-powered truck.

 

[Builder]

From a Diesel Power magazine article (prior to the bankrupcies by GM and Chrysler) on 1/2 ton diesels:
Dodge Ram 1500
Engine: 5.0L Cummins 90-degree V-8
*At least 320 hp and 500 lb-ft
*Aluminum heads and an iron block
*Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*Cummins-built variable geometry turbo located in the engine valley
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Engine weight 710 pounds
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Chain-driven single overhead camshafts
*Six-speed automatic 655RFE transmission
*10 1/2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating AAM rear axle
MPG: (Diesel Power December 2006 issue titled, "New Cummins V-6 and V-8") A Department of Energy test found the 1/2-ton Ram delivered 24.6 mpg

Ford F-150
Engine: 4.4L 60-Degree V-8
*310 hp and 516 lb-ft
*Acceleration similar to a 5.4L gas engine
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Twin turbo arrangement
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Compacted graphite iron engine block
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Belt-driven camshafts
*Six-speed ZF automatic transmission
*9 3/4-inch ring gear and seven-lug wheels similar to the semi-floating rear axle of 7700 series F-250
*According to a poster secretly filmed at a closed viewing, the diesel engine is said to have 20% better fuel mileage compared to the 5.4L gas engine.

GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Engine: 4.5L LMK Duramax 72-degree V-8
*At least 310 hp and 520 lb-ft
*Aluminum heads and compacted graphite iron engine block
*Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*Compression ratio: 16:1
*Variable geometry turbo located in the engine valley
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Chain-driven dual overhead camshafts
*Six-speed automatic 6L90E transmission
*9 /2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating rear axle
MPG: According to Diesel Power's October 2008 interview with GM's Executive Director of Diesel Engineering, Charlie Freese, the 4.5L Duramax is projected to have at least 25% better fuel efficiency than a similar gas truck under light load conditions. However, under work situations, this diesel engine is said to be 40-70% more fuel efficient compared to a similar gasoline-powered truck.

All those diesel 1/2 ton plans are on hold, fo some unexplicable reason.

 

[Builder]

LOL! Have you not heard? Going green is the current buzzword for a multitude of sales pitches.

Of course I have.

Going green sales pitches have very little to do with actually saving the enviroment. Since political discussion is not allowed, I can't say any more.

 

[Dmace]

Dodge Ram 1500
Engine: 5.0L Cummins 90-degree V-8
*At least 320 hp and 500 lb-ft
*Six-speed automatic 655RFE transmission
*10 1/2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating AAM rear axle
MPG: (Diesel Power December 2006 issue titled, "New Cummins V-6 and V-8") A Department of Energy test found the 1/2-ton Ram delivered 24.6 mpg

Sounds like my perfect truck right there, especially if it has a 10k tow rating and 1600lb+ payload. Put a chip on it and you will probably get 30 mpg unloaded and then push a button and you get 600lb.ft+ and still around 20mpg.
I was hoping to see an inline 4 cylinder though...

 

[Builder]

Sounds like my perfect truck right there, especially if it has a 10k tow rating and 1600lb+ payload. Put a chip on it and you will probably get 30 mpg unloaded and then push a button and you get 600lb.ft+ and still around 20mpg.
I was hoping to see an inline 4 cylinder though...

Probably get your warranty voided, too.

I'd love to have a 1/2 ton 4x4 crewcab diesel shortbed, too, but it'll probably cost as much if not more than a comparably equipped 1-ton because it'll get great MPG and it's a "new" kind of vehicle.

The only reason I could see buying one is if you drive a LOT of miles/yr.

That being said, I have no idea what the big 3 are waiting for. These trucks should have been on the raod 10 + years ago.

 

[WilliamBos]

From a Diesel Power magazine article (prior to the bankrupcies by GM and Chrysler) on 1/2 ton diesels:


GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Engine: 4.5L LMK Duramax 72-degree V-8
*At least 310 hp and 520 lb-ft
*Aluminum heads and compacted graphite iron engine block
*Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*Compression ratio: 16:1
*Variable geometry turbo located in the engine valley
*Catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
*Common-rail fueling with piezo injectors
*Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) through the use of liquid urea
*Chain-driven dual overhead camshafts
*Six-speed automatic 6L90E transmission
*9 /2-inch ring gear diameter in the semi floating rear axle
MPG: According to Diesel Power's October 2008 interview with GM's Executive Director of Diesel Engineering, Charlie Freese, the 4.5L Duramax is projected to have at least 25% better fuel efficiency than a similar gas truck under light load conditions. However, under work situations, this diesel engine is said to be 40-70% more fuel efficient compared to a similar gasoline-powered truck.

Oh please Build it!! I would gladly work 2 jobs just to pay for it.

 

[Reg]

I don't think making a guy retire a perfectly good 8 yr old LB-115 that doesen't meet CARB standards is going to make one bit of difference when the Chinese & the Indians are polluting the world on the scale that they are right now.

I think enviromentalists are doing more to ruin our country than the pollution ever did.

This is all driven by forces that really have little to do with saving the enviroment and more to do with diverting money to other groups for their benefit.

It isn't about ONE guy with ONE 8 year old piece of equipment that is in compliance with the standards that were in effect at the time it was put into service.
Clearly just shutting him down doesn't do anything towards the problem.
Multiplying it out probably yields some staggering numbers, I don't have those numbers.
Neither is it about what China and India are doing, it is that "we all" are doing it AS WELL AS them, not INSTEAD OF.

In contrast to the previous administration, who seemed to say "We won't curb pollution until they do." there are now some forces in CA (& Washington DC) that are saying "We probably can't get them to do anything until we can show that "We" have at least started to do something".

Yes, I expect that 8 year usable life to be cut to 7, then to 6, then to 5.
There are sufficient reasons to NOT "Grandfather" exemptions for equipment
Mere "Smog Pumps" on cars and trucks in the early 70s were a pain and didn't do enough, over time the technology and acceptance has improved, though we're still not "there" yet.

 

[ultrarunner]

It isn't about ONE guy with ONE 8 year old piece of equipment that is in compliance with the standards that were in effect at the time it was put into service.
Clearly just shutting him down doesn't do anything towards the problem.
Multiplying it out probably yields some staggering numbers, I don't have those numbers.
Neither is it about what China and India are doing, it is that "we all" are doing it AS WELL AS them, not INSTEAD OF.

In contrast to the previous administration, who seemed to say "We won't curb pollution until they do." there are now some forces in CA (& Washington DC) that are saying "We probably can't get them to do anything until we can show that "We" have at least started to do something".

Yes, I expect that 8 year usable life to be cut to 7, then to 6, then to 5.
There are sufficient reasons to NOT "Grandfather" exemptions for equipment
Mere "Smog Pumps" on cars and trucks in the early 70s were a pain and didn't do enough, over time the technology and acceptance has improved, though we're still not "there" yet.

I completely disagree...

We are a nation of laws and as such, we have or had protection from expost facto laws... without this protection, no one could reasonable expect to have even a modicum of security in their daily lives because everything would be subject to change.

California has already done this in other areas of particulate emmisions. People that bought EPA certified and permitted Catalyst Wood Burning Stoves are no longer allowed to use them on many cold winter nights... even though the Air District admitted these stoves are not the problem... the problem cited is the difficulty of enforcement for field officers in determining if a particular stove is compliant or not when responding to a complaint... so ease of enforcement is the driving factor for the ban and people that abide by all applicable laws and up-graded at significant cost... too bad for them...

Same thing on Diesel Equipment... As an Engineer by training... there is a vast difference between a unit operated a few hours a years vs a pump or refrigerated trailer that runs 24/7 365 days a year...

The standard cites enforcement issues and therefore makes a blanket ruling not on produced emmisions but on potential to produce emmisions. A Diesel Generator on Standby is not producing emmisions and may be rarely called into service and only in an Emergency... just think of the cost to send compliance inspectors to verify every installed Diesel Generator?

Same thing with the CA 2-stoke outboard ban... In Europe, 2-stroke motors are required to use an environmentally friendly vegetable oil formulation at a cost 7 to 8 times that of petroleum... West Marine was even stocking it... Perfect solution... use the Biodegradable Oil at a higher cost and continue to enjoy your out board a couple of times each season...

Again, citing enforcement issues... all 2-strokes were banned even though the simple solution exists...

Same thing for Natural Gas Fired Steam Boilers... that were considered Green Technology because of clean burning Natural Gas... well they are also coming under fire...

With each regulation comes the burden of compliance and the cost of compliance and the cost of forced obsolescence

Actions have consequences... am I going to go out and buy a piece of equipment, store it in the barn keep it meticulous maintained and use it only a few hours a year and run the risk of having to scrap it because of an administrative decision by a some regulatory agency... I don't thing so.

 

[Reg]

It isn't about anything as petty as "Laws" and "Nations", or even a "Constitution" and "Rights", it is an issue of Global survival.
Yes, I do believe in the Al Gore message.
Yes, it is doom and gloom, which is WHY these things have to be done.
No, they won't catch everybody and shut them all down.
Sure, there will be inconsistencies and apparent contradictions, one size won't fit all.
Of course there will be costs, even economic "pain".

Just like "one more cigarette" or "one more drink", we can never say which one killed him, but all of them together did.
ONE outboard 2-stroke engine won't kill ALL the fish, but enough of them will seriously impact fish populations and their health, etc.

Not that I want CA or the US to pollute less so that other States or Countries can pollute more.

As an "Engineer by training" I would have hoped that you would know a year to be 24x365 (approx) and NOT 24x7x365 - - I do.