Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Dodge has just fired the latest — and cleanest — shot in the big-pickup diesel wars.
A new 6.7-liter Cummins diesel engine is now available in the Ram heavy-duty full-size pickups — the 2500 and 3500 models — and is being touted by Chrysler Group as the cleanest diesel available in a truck in the U.S. market.
In fact, the new inline six-cylinder turbodiesel engine also is the first to meet EPA 2010 diesel emissions standards in all 50 states, the automaker says.
"This is the cleanest mass-produced diesel engine available in the pickup market," Bob Hegbloom, Dodge's truck marketing manager, said during a recent media preview of the new diesel-powered trucks in Austin.
The engine, which replaces the 5.9-liter Cummins diesel that was introduced in 2003, has a 90 percent or more reduction in pollutants over the engine it replaces, Hegbloom said.
The reductions were made possible by not only the introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel in the United States beginning last fall, but also through the use of new technology.
That technology includes a filter that Chrysler says virtually eliminates emissions of particulate matter — the major component of the infamous black smoke often seen coming out of the tailpipes of diesel-powered vehicles.
Other technology includes a so-called adsorber catalyst, designed to remove 90 percent of the nitrous oxide, or NOx, emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel. NOx has been one of the most troublesome pollutants in diesel exhaust.
While I applaud Chrysler’s introduction of another diesel option, it seems to be going in the wrong direction, i.e., more HP, more fuel consumption. Chrysler already has the reputation of having the most fuel guzzlers of the big three.
Should we not be putting smaller diesel engines in passenger cars?
Now if they would just put one of those into a 1500, they might improve their mpg and get a few sales...
If these diesels do come to fruition, they will have significant low end torque and pulling power that will poop on Chevrolet/GMC's, Ford's and Toyota's parade big time. Big towing power with good FE to boot.
Ditto. I've been talking about it ever since the MB 2.7l diesel showed up, but whatever I say, I guarantee you the big three will do the exact opposite. Apparently, I am not the voice of their target audience. :P
Oh, but the 6.7l is a six cylinder. Maybe that's what Chrysler understands by "smaller" - a fewer number of cylinders while the displacement rises to the level of a small locomotive. :confuse:
Rams with the Cummins diesel are above the 8500-pound GVWR rating that governs whether or not a vehicle must be EPA rated for CAFE purposes. The competition for diesels in this class are high-horse large displacement gasoline V8s and V10s that don't come close to the fuel economy of the diesel, or the torque for that matter... the available engines for my 2005 Ram 3500 were:
- 5.7L Hemi - 330 hp/375 lb-ft
- 5.9L Cummins - 325 hp/610 lb-ft
More grunt and less fuel used... kind of a no-brainer.
As for the upcoming smaller diesels, Cummins has developed two light duty diesels to be used in the Ram 1500, Durango, and Dakota, a 5.6L V8 and a 4.2L V6. They opted for the V-block layout because there's less hood space in the Durango/Dakota chassis. These engines, along with the current 6.7L inline six, all meet 2010 emissions in all 50 states.
kcram - Pickups Host
European versions could have a diesel engine, Burns says. And the South American Volt could have an internal combustion engine fueled by pure ethanol.
So, GM is as usual asleep at the switch. The concept of diesel engines in the US hasn't crossed their mind yet. I can't even get sarcastic here. I wouldn't really expect anything else.
Stay tuned.
Compare and contrast this with how "regulators" want to solve this. NEW EPA mileage estimates are up to 20% lower than so called "old" EPA estimates. There is real talk of 4 per gal unleaded regular. Getting a new unleaded regular refinery is literally a political impossibility. Even if one were granted, it would be tied up for literally years and litigation/s preceeding this could cost millions, if not billions. To force NEW regulations will cost literally BILLIONS in new investments for those mythical cars that get 30-42 mpg!!!!!!! ????
Yes, it does not seem to make sense. I have a diesel in my Jeep Liberty. It displaces 2.8L and is a four cylinder, a rather large one at that but still gets very good FE and will pull 5000 pounds and still get better than 20 MPG. I get close to or exceed 30 MPG on long trips. My Jeep is no fly weight at over 4300 pounds and has the aerodynamics of a cinder block.
I have no problem with that logic. I just wish Dodge gave an untapped market an option of a small (~3.0l), ultra-efficient diesel in a 1500 for those who only need it for around-the-house duties and occasional weekend trips.
I perfectly understand why my friend who does landscaping would need a large engine with significant torque (or those who tow), but I strongly believe there is a significant market of those who never perform any such demanding tasks, yet would love the utility of a full-size pickup.
I also believe that like me, many of those people will not buy a gas-guzzling current 1500 not because we are looney tree huggers, but because any unecessary waste of resources (any resources) is repulsive to our nature.
In that list of resources I include my hard earned money and if I can go from an 18mpg gasser to 30mpg light diesel (hypothetical figure at this time) then I save that hard earned recourse.
Perhaps I meant “resource”.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=R320CDI
Unfortunately that will not come to pass. I grant you that a 3.0L turbodiesel makes wonderful torque (nearly 400 lb-ft for the MB version) but Dodge/Chrysler is of the opinion that a larger displacement engine that the host, Kcram, mentioned will serve it better. First of all the larger displacement engine will be more stoutly built than the MB offering and will be easier to maintain and service. Another issue is that most Americans beat the living daylights out of their pickups and the MB engine as good as it is would not hold up to that type of abuse/pounding. Thirdly, the engine is being produced domestically by Cummins which has a very good reputation in the larger Dodge trucks, thus that same reputation will carry over to the smaller diesels. Four, Cummins has developed a good emissions system for their engines, so why re-invent the wheel?
MB does have a 4.0L V-8 turbodiesel that puts out over 300 HP and over 500 lb-ft of torque. I believe that engine will appear in the GL class.
Cummins Press Release Oct 11 2006
The USDOE pdf file regarding the development:
Cummins Work Toward Successful Introduction of Light-Duty Clean Diesels
kcram - Pickups Host
You have some good contacts.
I wonder how fast they can be to market?
Biodiesel Jetta uses less fossil fuel than Prius
Diesel Particulate Filters
The above articles may be of interest.
I would love to have a Dakota with the 3.0L diesel.
The local fuel station sells unleaded regular 3.39 and #2 ULSD 3.05 per gal.
The 2003 VW Jetta EPA''s are 24/31, 24/31, 42/49 mpg 2.0/1.8T/1.9 TDI. So the cost per mile driven figures are: $.113/.113/.061. #2 ULSD is .052 cents or 46% cheaper, per mile driven.
An apples to oranges comparo with a Civic with the same commute being common are: 38/50 mpg, (3.39/38=.0892105)(3.05/50=.061) or 31.62% cheaper.
But then again in Venuezula the price of gas at the pump is .12 cents!
"What does gasoline cost in other countries?"
By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
link title
So why buy spark ignition powered cars?
The emphasis is on diesel (but you knew/know that). Your intent is the sound of one hand clapping. One might wish to ignore the fact the passenger vehicle fleet is upwards of 97% gasser for (a) simple but yet at the same time complex reason/s. So if you are ok paying more (46% more) to achieve the same goal, (miles driven), then so am I. Harder to do it cheaper (like model for like, or even a quasi; apples to oranges) when there has been literally no choice for a very long time, in the matter. The post mentions at least one advantage to diesel. It is also probably apparent which is more consumptive of resources, which would be another advantage to diesel.
On the contrary, when I go to the tractor store to look for fuel additives, I am buying the jugs that add sulfur. And I do not feel bad about it either. The older engines were designed that way. I figure the 3600 trees I farm remove enough "bad" air that someone should actually send me an air pollution credit reimbursement. Hey, if you are paying to pollute, someone should get paid to clean up also
John
I can request and pay for additional additives, but nothing that will make it out of spec. I prefer to add my own.
John
These two statements do not work together.
These two statements do not work together.
By removing a few words from the original post you change its meaning to suit your purpose. Very clever.
The original post said, "The process of removing sulfur reduces lubricity", not "Removing sulfur reduces lubricity". Try to carefully analyze the two statements. They are not equivalent.
So yes, they work together just fine, unless you change them.
That was what I was trying to convey to hypnosis.
In the process of creating ULSD, this compound is destroyed to get the elemental sulfur out of the fuel, thus the reduction in lubricity. Refiners have been adding some lubricity compounds/chemicals to replace this destroyed compound. As mentioned by some in other posts, two percent biodiesel (B2) returns all of the lubricity to ULSD.