Titan Cummins Diesel option axed for 2020

Cummins12V98 wrote:
SOOOOO, where will the Cummins land???

Cummins just picked up a new customer for the 6.7 that will probably buy more than replace the loss from the Nissan. I doubt that they were making money on the 5.0 anyway with the low volumes that it had.

The old tractor engine just keeps going

My 16 has been problem free for 3 years now and I have no complaints. I bought it to work so it’s almost always hauling or towing something and it’s not a daily commuter. The reason I bought it is because it was cheap, 6k less than a big three gasser comparably equipped. The 21 mpg highway empty makes me more likely to drive it.

FishOnOne wrote:
Not surprised that the "C" badge on the fender couldn't save this truck... And the Ram Ecodiesel better get their act together or they'll be next.

Link

A lot of mistakes were made both by Nissan and Cummins. Toyota was initially interested in this same motor. They ended that conversation rather quickly after the Nissan release. As others have said, and many forecasted including me that the mileage and capability don't pencil out. If you want to get 16 mpg you can get that in an HD/SD of the big three and have twice the power and capability. No question that is one ugly pickup. The roll out was not exactly problem free on the Cummins side of the equation.

When they first announced it, I thought it would be about perfect to tow my 8000 lb TT. Then when it came out, it was ugly, expensive, reports of poor gas mileage. Novel idea, but poor execution.

Not surprised that the "C" badge on the fender couldn't save this truck... And the Ram Ecodiesel better get their act together or they'll be next.

Link

rjstractor wrote:

thomasmnile wrote:
Cummins may even have an uphill fight in the medium duty arena. I recall reading a fire apparatus manufacturer, was either Pierce or E ONE, is offering the Ford 6.7 L diesel in a custom pumper as an alternative to the Cummins engine options offered. Is the Ford engine less complex or less trouble prone from an emissions standpoint. Cost savings over a comparable displacement Cummins inline 6?

It's Pierce that is using the 6.7 PSD, and it did catch me by surprise a little. The ISB Cummins hasn't been really been used much in fire apparatus in recent years (at least not by Pierce) and time will tell if the 6.7 PSD works out. It may work out well for departments that want a lower cost apparatus in an area where they don't have a lot of hills. To be honest, one of these motors in a municipal fire pumper is a little like putting a Chrysler Pentastar V6 in a Ram 2500. Good power on paper, but way down on torque compared with more conventional offerings.

As far as cost, while I haven't talked to a Pierce engineer in a couple of years, I imagine the Ford package comes "pre-engineered" in terms of transmission (supplied by Ford), and emission systems. Rousch also has a big part of the engineering for that engine application. For any given engine application in fire apparatus, the apparatus manufacturer must do all the applicable engineering to use that motor, which is time consuming and expensive, especially with modern emission systems. Having the package ready to drop in probably saves them a lot of money compared with sourcing the 6.7 ISB from Cummins, mating it to an Allison transmission and engineering an emission system. Again, this is mostly conjecture on my part. Sorry for getting a "little in the weeds". :)

No sweat, 32 years of my life was spent in the fire service. Great job and good times. :B

thomasmnile wrote:
Cummins may even have an uphill fight in the medium duty arena. I recall reading a fire apparatus manufacturer, was either Pierce or E ONE, is offering the Ford 6.7 L diesel in a custom pumper as an alternative to the Cummins engine options offered. Is the Ford engine less complex or less trouble prone from an emissions standpoint. Cost savings over a comparable displacement Cummins inline 6?

It's Pierce that is using the 6.7 PSD, and it did catch me by surprise a little. The ISB Cummins hasn't been really been used much in fire apparatus in recent years (at least not by Pierce) and time will tell if the 6.7 PSD works out. It may work out well for departments that want a lower cost apparatus in an area where they don't have a lot of hills. To be honest, one of these motors in a municipal fire pumper is a little like putting a Chrysler Pentastar V6 in a Ram 2500. Good power on paper, but way down on torque compared with more conventional offerings.

As far as cost, while I haven't talked to a Pierce engineer in a couple of years, I imagine the Ford package comes "pre-engineered" in terms of transmission (supplied by Ford), and emission systems. Rousch also has a big part of the engineering for that engine application. For any given engine application in fire apparatus, the apparatus manufacturer must do all the applicable engineering to use that motor, which is time consuming and expensive, especially with modern emission systems. Having the package ready to drop in probably saves them a lot of money compared with sourcing the 6.7 ISB from Cummins, mating it to an Allison transmission and engineering an emission system. Again, this is mostly conjecture on my part. Sorry for getting a "little in the weeds". :)

Wow that didnt last long. Wonder what it will mean for resale for current owners.

I still to this day dont get the sub-3/4 ton diesel market. It will always be a niche market

Shiner, I looked up the application on Pierce's website. The 6.7/Torq-Shift power train combo is apparently available on the Saber chassis which is an entry level custom chassis. The engine is rated for 330 HP, 725 lb/ft of torque. The adaptation was engineered for Pierce by Ford and Roush. What I wonder is the truck is spec'd with a 1500 gpm pump. Wonder how the engine will do running it, believe the pump is single stage.

Most automotive manufacturers do something to increase sales. Apparently Nissan isn’t one of them.