New Dodge Cummins with 800 ft. pounds of torque

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:44 pm

Gesh, I remember when 650ft/lb of torque was considered impressive. And now we're looking at 800ft/lb of torque and possibly an 8 speed automatic. :shock:

NotPicky · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:03 am

Dodge and Cummins has to come up with something to get back in the race with Ford and Chevy. Where did you find this info?

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:50 am

NotPicky wrote:

Dodge and Cummins has to come up with something to get back in the race with Ford and Chevy. Where did you find this info?

Dodge has already made the announcement. You can go to the dealer and order one starting in March. Check out the Dodge website:
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/chi_autoshow/

flman · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:46 am

That amount of torque in such a light truck will be burning the rubber off the tires in no time :frankie:

I am glad to see Cummins put the wanna-be V diesels back in their place.

Inlines rule the trucking world with LOW END Torque. :rockon:

My old ISB could pull at 500 RPM, I would like to see a V diesel do that without choking?

LibertyCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:38 am

Everybody knew this was going to happen. Ford has been at 800 lb./ft. all year long. The interesting thing is...the GM with 765 lb./ft. or whatever is WHIPPING the Ford in every real world test the magazines are doing. I mean, just destroying the Ford.

The reason Dodge and Cummins went with the 6.7 in the first place is because they KNEW this was going to happen. They knew the war was going to keep raging. And now, all Cummins has to do is change a couple of programming values and BAM...they are ahead again. The 6.7 is good for so much more power than the Ford or GM that it's not even funny. The V8 engineers keep investing millions to make their stuff hold together at these power levels. Cummins just turns their engine up a little and then sit back and watch. :mrgreen:

europachris · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:44 am

LibertyCRD wrote:

Everybody knew this was going to happen. Ford has been at 800 lb./ft. all year long. The interesting thing is...the GM with 765 lb./ft. or whatever is WHIPPING the Ford in every real world test the magazines are doing. I mean, just destroying the Ford.

How much torque can a "pickup truck" possibly need? Shoot, Class 8 trucks got along on less, although I am just old enough to remember the days of Detroit 8V71 "318" powered cabovers crawling up hills at 20mph....

The current crop of HD pickups are friggin' HUGE!! Pretty soon the "normal" HD truck will indeed be as big as those medium duty based "pickup" trucks of a few years ago.

I wonder how these HD trucks get around the laws that many states have stating trailers over 10,000 lbs. and/or GCVW over 26,000 lbs. require a CDL? The HD trucks are all advertising towing capacities well over 15,000 lbs. Obviously it's not being enforced and I don't know that it should be considering how much more capable the trucks have become compared to when the laws were written.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:04 pm

europachris wrote:

LibertyCRD wrote:

Everybody knew this was going to happen. Ford has been at 800 lb./ft. all year long. The interesting thing is...the GM with 765 lb./ft. or whatever is WHIPPING the Ford in every real world test the magazines are doing. I mean, just destroying the Ford.

How much torque can a "pickup truck" possibly need? Shoot, Class 8 trucks got along on less, although I am just old enough to remember the days of Detroit 8V71 "318" powered cabovers crawling up hills at 20mph....

The current crop of HD pickups are friggin' HUGE!! Pretty soon the "normal" HD truck will indeed be as big as those medium duty based "pickup" trucks of a few years ago.

I wonder how these HD trucks get around the laws that many states have stating trailers over 10,000 lbs. and/or GCVW over 26,000 lbs. require a CDL? The HD trucks are all advertising towing capacities well over 15,000 lbs. Obviously it's not being enforced and I don't know that it should be considering how much more capable the trucks have become compared to when the laws were written.

Bet ya Ron Wolverton of SunCoast will be buying a Dodge/Cummins and coming up with a TC and trans that can handle 1,000 Ft-Lb or more of torque. People who buy these trucks are not on a tight budget to say the least.
After all, he bought the new Ford PU last year for ~$60K just to develop a stronger TC and trans.

Of course, the EPA/CARB would whine if someone made a DPF that could turn the recovered soot into diamonds that would make anyone's Lady very very happy.
Besides, EPA/CARB would classify the diamonds as hazardous waste :ROTFL:

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:17 pm

flman wrote:

I am glad to see Cummins put the wanna-be V diesels back in their place.

Inlines rule the trucking world with LOW END Torque. :rockon:

My old ISB could pull at 500 RPM, I would like to see a V diesel do that without choking?

Dodge never had a V diesel planned for the Ram 2500/3500 truck. They do have a V8 Cummins that's going into the Ram 1500 Truck. It's suppose to average 23 mpg hwy and is as quiet as a gasoline engine.

flman · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:23 pm

dieselenthusiast wrote:

They do have a V8 Cummins that's going into the Ram 1500 Truck. It's suppose to average 23 mpg hwy and is as quiet as a gasoline engine.

Really? Where did you hear this?

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:45 pm

flman wrote:

dieselenthusiast wrote:

They do have a V8 Cummins that's going into the Ram 1500 Truck. It's suppose to average 23 mpg hwy and is as quiet as a gasoline engine.

Really? Where did you hear this?

There are several websites and magazines that have done write-ups about it. Dodge has spoke about it on several occasions. Here's a quote, "The V8 diesel should get around 18 mpg city, 23 mpg highway in the Ram 1500, producing over 250 horsepower and around 440 lb-ft of torque at relatively low (compared with gas engines) rpm. It redlines at over 5,000 rpm, is quiet as a gasoline engine, and should appear around 2013-2014."

LibertyCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:35 pm

dieselenthusiast wrote:

flman wrote:

dieselenthusiast wrote:

They do have a V8 Cummins that's going into the Ram 1500 Truck. It's suppose to average 23 mpg hwy and is as quiet as a gasoline engine.

Really? Where did you hear this?

There are several websites and magazines that have done write-ups about it. Dodge has spoke about it on several occasions. Here's a quote, "The V8 diesel should get around 18 mpg city, 23 mpg highway in the Ram 1500, producing over 250 horsepower and around 440 lb-ft of torque at relatively low (compared with gas engines) rpm. It redlines at over 5,000 rpm, is quiet as a gasoline engine, and should appear around 2013-2014."

There are actually two versions. There's a V8 and a V6 Cummins diesel. They were developed several years ago and have actually been ready to drop into Rams/Jeeps/Durangos for a few years now. The economic crisis, bankruptcy, etc. basically put the project on the shelf and now the new owners are looking into it again. But yeh...the V-diesels from Cummins are ready to go.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the I-4 and I-6 configuations. They make under the hood work easier if you have to get in there for some reason, require fewer parts, and they last forever.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:59 pm

V8 engines are cheaper to produce than inline engines.
With a crank that costs little more than for a four cylinder and less than a six cylinder and a cam shaft that costs a little more than the inline six, the V8 has a head start. Add to that a block that takes less material, one intake manifold and two exhaust manifolds that are cheaper to make than a six, the V8 has another cost advantage.
Most inline four cylinder (including diesels) over ~2L need balance shafts or the balance box assembly our CRDs have to keep from bouncing up and down unless they use very soft mounts like MB used on theirs. V8 and sixes don't need them.
V8 engines were and still are a Bean Counter in Heaven dream come true.
Engineers like them because they can cram more cubes in a smaller package and fit it under the hood, even if you can't work on it.

Like any engine, a V8 can be well built and run great, history has proven that.

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:23 pm

LibertyCRD wrote:

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the I-4 and I-6 configuations. They make under the hood work easier if you have to get in there for some reason, require fewer parts, and they last forever.

I have to agree. The longer stroke not only provides more torque, but it also provides optimum torque in the lower rpm range. And like you said, 20% fewer parts in the inline vs. the V motors. Even my Cherokee 4.0L inline 6 gasser is such a fun vehicle to drive. I’ve towed 15,000 - 17,000 lbs with my Dodge Cummins and it didn’t seem like it was working very hard. :mrgreen:

OldSkull · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:31 pm

What about a nice Lycoming swap guys?

Joke a side if Cumming ever produce a V8 or a V6 Diesel for DC I want to see that ASAP, never mind any gasser with 800pds of torque doing 8 MPG...

New Dodge Cummins with 800 ft. pounds of torque

Who is online