Forum Discussion
80 Replies
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Anyone that thinks that V-8 Cummins is going in to a 1500 might want to rethink that opinion. Think about it, with the weight of a V-8 cast iron block they will have less payload then the Ram! Then add the fact that it is rated at 300HP and 500-600 torque. That's a lot of engine for a 1500 truck.
There is a reason Ram went with the in house VM. One is well it's in house doh, two is it's an all aluminum V-6 engine. So it won't effect the payload unlike the V-8 Cummins. NOTE, I'm not dissing the Cummins, so don't even go there.
Nope I'll stand by my opinion, that both Nissan and Toyota are getting into the HD market, or at lest are coming out with a 2500 truck. They may not build a 3500 right out of the box but they are IMO going to do a 2500.
The Japanese are not known for their willingness to change, they do baby steps and test the water first. To bad they didn't fallow that trait on December 7, 1941.
Don
A little info on the Cummins 5.0L.
http://www.equipmentworld.com/2014-innovations-cummins/- I have a Toyota/BMW/Yanmar diesel engine in my jet boat. It has Toyota,BMW and Yanmar stickers on it and it says made in Germany.
It is a 4.46Liter, 32 valve V-8. Twin turbos and puts out 370HP, weighs about 950lbs.I don't know the toque #'s.
Would be a good engine for a truck.
- Anyone that thinks that V-8 Cummins is going in to a 1500 might want to rethink that opinion. Think about it, with the weight of a V-8 cast iron block they will have less payload then the Ram! Then add the fact that it is rated at 300HP and 500-600 torque. That's a lot of engine for a 1500 truck.
There is a reason Ram went with the in house VM. One is well it's in house doh, two is it's an all aluminum V-6 engine. So it won't effect the payload unlike the V-8 Cummins. NOTE, I'm not dissing the Cummins, so don't even go there.
Nope I'll stand by my opinion, that both Nissan and Toyota are getting into the HD market, or at lest are coming out with a 2500 truck. They may not build a 3500 right out of the box but they are IMO going to do a 2500.
The Japanese are not known for their willingness to change, they do baby steps and test the water first. To bad they didn't fallow that trait on December 7, 1941.
Don goducks10 wrote:
powderman426 wrote:
You guys are trying to finish this old man off aren't you? Putting a Cummin's in a foreign piece of******is sacrilegious.
That foreign piece of*******that tied with the Ford150 for the most U.S made content will now have a U.S made diesel. Looks like they're just keeping it U.S made.
What makes you think that Cummins is made in the US??? I know for a fact the timing gears for Cummins are made in India. Along with parts from other countries that can build it cheaper. That is all Cummins cares about. Make it cheaper.powderman426 wrote:
You guys are trying to finish this old man off aren't you? Putting a Cummin's in a foreign piece of******is sacrilegious.
HAHA!!! :B How's that Mexican pickup with a Cummins in it working for ya? :S
All improvements to diesels over the past twenty five years have been due to government regulations. The side benefit has been more power with less emissions all along.- My Grand Cherokee with the VM diesel is averaging between 26 and 27 MPG on our normal daily commute with city and highway (55 MPH) driving.
Our 2008 Grand Cherokee with the Mercedes diesel averaged around 22 MPG. Bionic Man wrote:
To me what will be most telling will be the difference in MPG and cost in Cummins vs VM. If the Cummins numbers are similar, Chrysler chose the wrong engine.
Ram went with the VM because it is smaller and should theoretically get better mileage. Also, I am sure there is a cost to each manufacturer to buy/produce the engine. In theory again, Ram should be able to have a higher profit margin (or provide for a lower cost) the VM which is "in house" as opposed to paying a premium for the Cummins and then trying to make a profit off that.
That being said... I am hopeful that Nissan and Toyota look to drastically increase payload (by 500+ lbs) with the larger V8 Cummins. A big V8 diesel, in and of itself, doesn't sound like the best answer to CAFE standards.- I've said it in the Dodge threads and I will say it here. I think this is a great idea to help improve CAFE numbers. The vast majority of 15 series truck buyers will NEVER pull a heavy trailer, but all of them are concerned about MPG.
To me what will be most telling will be the difference in MPG and cost in Cummins vs VM. If the Cummins numbers are similar, Chrysler chose the wrong engine. - I don't know what you people mean by "stunt" but I'm pretty sure no auto manufacture is in any financial position to be playing with stunts.
Now if you mean by stunt you mean they are gambling on diesel will be the norm or at the least a good investment for return on the dollar for the future of the 150/1500 series trucks, yes, they are pulling a stunt.
Good on them for their stunt. 2012Coleman wrote:
fla-gypsy wrote:
If they put it in the current 1/2 ton it will be uselessdshelley wrote:
We're not seeing new half ton trucks powered by Diesel engines to satisfy heavy duty wishes, rather it's meeting regulatory demands for fuel mileage. Demands that today's gas powered engines and steel body trucks cannot comply with. Government says better fuel economy, we customers say keep prices reasonable. Tall order, one which will be met only with existing technologies, like small Diesel engines and aluminum structures. It will, however, provide interesting comments from the yesterday worshippers who lack the ability to appreciate necessary change.
Yes, Yes AND YES!! I currently drive a 03 Tundra. Would buy a new one if it was in a 3/4 ton or better configuation, but it won't be. I need a TV with more payload, and diesel or not, this will never pull a 5th wheel - although I actually saw a Tundra doing just that on I95 heading north- with its nose in the air.
Just like the new Ram 1500 with the diesel, its a stunt to get a PU with th "best in class" mileage.
Or meet CAFE standards. Pretty expensive stunt.
