Oly is short for a brand of beer, Olympia Beer thats made in Washington State IIRC they use to say, its the water and a lot more!

 

One of these with a CTD would be rockin'! No more having to make them yourself. If these take to the aftermarket like teh Dmax and 5.9, would make for one wicked play toy.

 

HOHN,

Where did they put the turbo? Does it have one up in the valley or one on each manifold? Packaging is such an issue with the V engines.

 

I think that's the building where they do the chrysler development and piloting. Not to be confused with CMEP where the B and C series are built-- at least that's how it was explained to me.

Getting oriented at Cummins is going to take awhile-- I'm drinking from a firehose for sure....

jh

 

you are thinking of the new 4.5 V8 duramax.

310hp / 520 ft lbs torque.

 

Which makes me wonder why Dodge would even bring a light duty Cummins to the market with way less power compared to a GMC/Chevy.

The Ford is 460+ right?

 

any idea on the displacement?? 5.6L was what has been 'rumored' but I've recently heard some chatter about it only being 5.0L.

 

Hohn,

Can you tell us if it has SCR and/or Urea injection?

If it is urea, how much does it use, and what does it cost?

 

I'm pretty sure it is, in fact 5.6L.

I don't know if it has SCR. In general, expect to see SCR in lighter duty duty diesels while HDD might be able to avoid urea-based SCR. When a diesel engine is under heavier loads, it generates less NOx (which SCR targets), so a HDD would use proportionately less urea than a light duty diesel. Thus, it become possible to maybe look at other ways to cut NOx and you don't HAVE to do SCR.

There's nothing wrong with SCR-- but *I* would prefer to avoid the extra weight and complexity if another option was available.

IIRC, urea costs about the same as fuel, so it's not too bad. I think I read that something like 15% urea/fuel ratio for a typical SCR setup. That means your urea tank will be about 1/6th the size of your fuel tank if those proportions are true.

Keep in mind this is all just very vague generalities, and the specifics are going to vary considerably based on engine design and ESPECIALLY on usage profile. A grocery getter is going to have a very different aftertreatment approach than a HDD will.

I got to sit in a demo truck yesterday and listen to a development heavy duty engine while some guys tweaked the software.

I love my new job.

 

The Dodge guys should be used to it by now! Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I thought the target for the 5.6L V8 is around 325hp and 550tq??

MikeyB

 

[QUOTE=Digital Bullet;2130466]Which makes me wonder why Dodge would even bring a light duty Cummins to the market with way less power compared to a GMC/Chevy.

Because, apparantly, it's not going to be competing with the Duramax. It's a light duty truck and not in the same HP wars as the big three HD trucks. Just as my VW TDI is a light duty diesel and is not intended to compete in the HP wars. I wish they'd put the Sprinter 5 cyl in the Dakota.

 

Interesting... I was kind of hoping an SCR truck might not need the cooled exhaust recirculation, particulate filter, and regen cycle, and that maybe the urea use would be minimal.

Anyway, I'm glad to see Dodge coming out with something closer to a crew cab, and the storage built onto the top of the bed looks handy, too. When the HD version comes out I may have to go look at one.

 

DPFs address soot or "particulates" and remove the smoke from the exhaust.

If you have a DPF, you'll have regen cycles. ALL diesels will have these-- it has been decreed from on high

Cooled EGR and SCR are both strategies to reduce NOx emissions. SCR reduces them in the tailpipe by spraying in urea ahead of a special kind of catalyst, and this reaction splits the NOx into separate N2 and O2.

Cooled EGR tries to keep the NOx from getting into the exhaust from the get-go by addressing the combustion conditions that lead to its formation. The problem is the NOx forms when combustion temps are high and there's lots of surplus oxygen-- the same conditions that general give you best fuel economy

The "emissions" diesels WILL get poorer fuel economy, no doubt about it. But the EPA thinks that a 15% reduction in mpg is acceptable for a 95%+ reduction in soot, NOx and other pollutants.

The higher pressure injection systems on newer diesels go a LONG way towards minimizing the mpg penalty of the emissions equipment. If you put all the emissions stuff (DPF, cat converter, EGR, etc) on an old 12V, that thing would get terribly mileage, I bet.

On the other hand, if the new technology could be employed unfettered by emissions and only had power and mpg as considerations, every CTD built would crack 20mpg empty.

jmo

 

I still think that these light duty diesels are a joke. The only thing they're going to do is consume fuel what is already too high due to supply/demand and drive the prices higher.

Once the pricers go higher, who's gonna wanna drive a truck that gets better mileage on fuel thats 30-40 percent more?