Cummins might have to switch to Urea-Injection system to remain as a viable light duty engine supplier and increase their cumbustion efficiency (rate of fuel consumed per horsepower) . At present the current fuel milage is unacceptable. Not only is diesel prices rising but so is the rate that fuel is being consumed per mile. Unless this situation changes gas engines will make a major comeback. The higher initial investment and now the decrease in milage is rapidly making the diesel engine obsolete i.e. cost per milage advantage is now negative. If this means lowering horsepower, then it might have to be considered. What I want to know how are the auto manufactuers going to make 35 mpg AND still make a useful truck. Perhaps we have an end of an era, kinda like the camaros and challengers of yesteryear. In a couple of years from now, maybe the only way we can get a useful vehicle will be to order a medium duty truck (4500-5500). It might be cheaper to only buy used truckfor those that can still afford what has to be done as they may no longer be built trucks as we know it today (gone are the mega profits to the auto manufacturers due to the loss of their bread and butter trucks). We might all be forced into buying a disposale car...like a hundai....keep it for 3 years and scrap it.

You might want to read the attached article about what MB is up to!

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/13/m...uvs-this-fall/

 

Dang those democrats! And ralph nader.

 

I'm sure Cummins engineers would love for you to show them how to meet the emission's and get 20+mpg at the same time and still make the power you need in a 3/4 + ton truck. For the most part I agree with how you feel. I thought really hard about a gas rig but, I need my truck to pull a 24ft gooseneck work trailer an average of a little over 1000 miles a week. At lest they hold resell a little better than a gas rig. I can remember when #2 was about $1+ cheaper than gas. Now that every one has gone to #2 they decided to hammer us too. I know several guys with new D-max and P-stroke trucks and they don't get quite as good as mine. None of them do any were near like my 92 use to do 21.8 on one trip.

Till enough Americans will stand up for whats right don't plan for things to change any time soon.

 

It's really not rocket science,more fuel into combustion chamber = more horsepower,less mpg,then add EPA emissions = end result of even less mpg. It's not Cummins fault,also the 6.7 is the same engine as the 5.9 just a longer stroke,so I really can't understand why people complain about the 6.7 engine. As far as how it operstes is all up to the program thats installed into the trucks computer,and evidently both Dodge,Cummins and the EPA control that. I have written an e-mail to Dodge telling them that they should consider putting lock-out hubs back on their trucks (that should be an extra couple mpg's more) and making no lock-out hubs an option along with the little 4wd electric switch that should still be a floor mounted shifter.
I have come out of my own little world (that I was in for the last 16 years) in January of this year and purchased a 2007.5 2500HD 6spd stick shift 6.7 Cummins 3.73 gears SLT package. I think the truck is awsome, compared to my 1991.5 Dodge W350, SRW, 5spd stick shift, 3.54 gears, Intercooled 5.9 Cummins, LE package, that has 345,000 miles on it and the engine is still all orignal (ie) injectors, injection pump, turbo. I get 22 mpg with it and if I put my fiberglass cap on it I get 24 mpg. As for the new truck I would expect to get fewer mpg's just because of the power it has over the old truck, then throw in the EPA emissions = less mpg. So along with expressing our opinions here we should also be expressing them to Dodge and tellimg them what the Dodge Truck owner's are expecting of their product along with suggestions of how to improve their trucks and be realistic about what you suggest to them.

 

I don't know if this applies here in this thread but in California lawmakers are forming a bill to retrofit emission equipment to diesel trucks that are built previous to Jan. 2007 builds. They want to add particulate traps and sensors and whatever else garbage that will reduce emission. Here is the link I read. http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fu...d/21134751.cfm

Do you remember when California wanted to secede from the Union a few years back? Well I say buy buy see you. This coming from someone who was born and raised in California. What the heck is going on in that state?

 

California has a history of requiring emission control retrofits. AFAIK, they were the first state to require any emission controls. I remember having to have positive crankcase ventilation retrofitted to a car I owned at the time.

 

Ahhh California, the only state where everything causes cancer. From what understood the new 6.7 had the best fuel milage of any newer diesel out there.

 

Actually, the problem is bureaucrats that haven't ever produced anything in their life, dictating standards for products they know nothing about to a public that really doesn't have a clue until its too late. Industry has to meet or exceed these mandated standards, whether the technology works well or not. A lot of us went down this road with gas engines that had so much smog equipment on them, they would barely run.
From what I read, its sounds like Cummins mileage is as good or better than the others. My 6.7 has such a power advantage over my 5.9, that I will just go with it.

 

Well, if CA would have thought for a second as they expanded, they wouldn't need all their counterproductive BS.

They build all this urban sprawl and spread everything out. Then they give in to the NIMBYs and restrict land use and construction. Thus, people can't afford to live anywhere near where they work and you have literally millions of vehicles on the road every day that simply don't need to be.

Why doesn't NYC have a massive smog problem? It's because they have a subway and useful mass transit. Even with all the cars in the city, they still are MUCH cleaner than CA was back in the day.

But, like typical CA lawmaker thinking, it was more expedient to treat the symptom (smog) than the cause (tons of useless mileage racked up).

If they would have had ANY kind of leadership and vision to build a light rail system years ago, they wouldn't have this problem. But they are married to a useless maze of rolling parking lots that force people to drive 100miles a day back and forth to work.

The thing that irritates me is that the pols have the gall to criticize people for driving too much (jacking up taxes as a disincentive to consume), yet it's their indiotic policies that have forced people to commute long distances. Now, no one is forcing people to drive huge guzzling SUVs, but CA doesn't seem to have as many of them on the road (per capita) as most other places I've seen. IL is far worse for the percentage of guzzlers I see on the road.

jmo

 

You understand the basics of the problem. Funny if there are crats crying over messes the liberals have created.

 

I've never been to CA but it all seems to make sense to me. Europe has thrived with effective mass transit systems for years. In Japan, Shinkansen, or bullet trains, travel at up to 300 km/hr. They also have an amazing subway network. Some people from CA (or all US)need to go on a field trip to see how it's supposed to be done. jmo

 

Guys, do not turn this into political discussion. That can be done at our sister site : www.all-politics.net .

 

jrs_dodge_diesel : thats site is pretty weak! Should be pulled - not worth the bandwidth!

 

Has the EPA approved urea injection? I remember reading they wouldn't approve it because the vehicle would still operate when the urea ran out. They were worried owners would ignore refilling it unless the engine was interlocked so it would shut down if the urea ran out. The engine companies could make interlocks that would indeed shut down the vehicle (several warnings given first) but they were worried over the liability and customer relations problems associated with vehicles that shut down on their own.

 

As far as I know the urea tank will be filled every oil change so if you get it done at a shop they are required to fill it (as far as I know). BTW Cummins thought about going with urea injection but with all the whining that happend they didn't and I'm happy. The Dlow (Dmax) is going to have urea injection in 2010 and so is Ford, unless something changes and you should hear the yelling about that! The C&C trucks are going to get urea injection also in 2010 time will tell what is best.