OK here are the stats on both engines: (as read in Diesel Power)

Common: 90* iron block, aluminum (4v/cyl [?]) heads, single overhead cam, new EGR system, single VGT, common-rail piezo injected fuel delivery, and a DPF...

V-6: 270hp/425tq and 663# torque comes in around 1700 and holds good till about 3200 as viewed on the dyno charts

V-8 325hp/500tq and 788# torque doesn't really come on till about 1800 starts to drop right away but doesn't plummet till about 4000 as viewed on the dyno charts

Durango performance:
-0-60: 9.6s
-20.3mpg city/25mpg Hwy (vs 13.7/17.9 on a 4.7 magnum)

Ram 1500:
-0-60: 9.62@6000# and 8.84@6200# (Hemi came in at 8.60@6000)
-100' time: 4.54@6000# and 4.17@6200# (Hemi came in at 3.97@6000#)
-50-70: 6.00s (vs 5.33 Hemi)
-19.8mpg city/ 24.6 Hwy (vs 13.1/17.1 on a non MDS Hemi)

Now, as for why not put the 4BT in, it's an inline four; most American consumers equate I4 with being gutless. Not saying that it would be, it would be a great option especially since it would be completely economical. Now it more than likely wouldn't be a 3.9 anymore anyways because the ISB 6BT is now 6.7... So common sense would say that it's gonna be bigger. The old proven design is gone as far as automotive goes. Now you may see it for awhile yet in the Ag/Industrial/Construction market for quite some time, but the emissions there are much less stringent.

As far as building a V6 diesel; I don't see the big deal. There are more than one way to combat harmonics in a harmonically unbalanced engine design. Ever been into pretty much any I4 diesel? They have balancer shafts opposite the crank shaft that help to cancel out a large part of the harmonic stress that would be placed on the block. Not saying they aren't a PITA to time and add to cost (not to mention a few more bearings to worry about). That coupled with a good fluid dampener or even a decent rubber dampener should take care of those nasty little harmonics.

Now, for the verdict; I say build 'em! I would seriously consider one of those V-6 Durango's for my wife for when we finally start a family. Maybe by then I will have pretty much devoted my ol' 94 completely to towing. In which case I would want a lighter daily driver; voilą a 1500 with a V-8 diesel or better yet (if they come out with it) a Dakota with a V-6 diesel.

 

absolutely same here. Ive always hated having to by a 3/4 ton truck just because I prefer the diesel engines. IMO one of the big 3 US auto makers releasing a diesel half ton truck is WAY overdue. Which reminds me. I once test drove a 1993 Chevy 1500 Z71 and it was a 6.5 L turbo diesel. All auto value guides say they dont exist but I swear to god it was a half ton and the vin also annotated diesel so it wasnt a custom after market change

 

Actually, in best MPG configurations a diesel will have high NOx, and will smoke much more easily--- the optimum timing for mpg is too advanced for good smoke control.

jh

 

True, between a balance shaft and staggering the rod journals the harmonics from a 90 degree v6 can be nearly eliminated. Look at the 3.7v6, just a 4.7 minus two cylinders and it runs about as smooth as it's big brother. The old 3.9l v6 based on the 5.2/5.9 v8's however were not very smooth. They also suffered stretched timing chains and worn distributor bushings due to the odd-fire design. I am guessing they will run into the same issue with timing chain stretch in the long run.

 

Fine, build the V-6.

BUT GET US 30 PLUS MPG WITH IT!

Sorry to shout, but this MPG they are getting is flat ridiculous. There is no reason on earth it should be south of 30 MPG.

 

i would love to get the 1500 in a diesel....sweet!

 

exactly...especially in the durango...

 

Yes, Chevy did make 1500's with the 6.5...they also made older 1500's with the 6.2, and they made good mileage

 

Yes Chevy/GMC previously made half-tons with diesels. The half tons with 6.2's were rare but half tons with the not so reliable 5.7 diesel were common. My dad had a few when I was a kid and had a set of headers and custom exhaust under them. They always had people scratching their heads cause they couldn't figure out what was under the hood! Deep diesel rumble with the 350 crack and snappy throttle; just not much in the guts department.







Though they were good for about 25mpg.....

Now as far as the new engines making poor mileage; it's already been established that to meet emissions they have to inject more fuel than is needed to make said amount of power and they have to retard the injection events which also doesn't help. Also, as previously stated, ideal timing for mileage/power makes for an engine that smokes easily and for diesels to be readily accepted as replacements for gassers they MUST be clean. It would be easy for them to get tons of mileage out of these engines if they didn't have to put up with emissions BS.....

 

Then we should be able to mod the current 5.9 to get over 28 if we just adjust the fueling.

 

Of course one would have to make some aerodynamic changes, go with narrow tires, a rear gear something like a 3.23, lighten up the truck a bit, and what not. But if someone can get 26 out of an old 7.3 (article on said truck in Diesel Power); then sure it's possible to get 28 out of a 5.9.

But that said, the truck would more than likely not meet emissions; emissions controls and standards are what is killing mileage. We all need to realize this and accept it. They are designing these engines to the best of their ability to meet all standards of expected power and performance, stringent emissions, and optimum economy under both previous standards.