Wondering if anybody else has seen that Cummin's has a new 6.7L gas engine for medium duty Kenworth/Peterbuilt trucks? No emissions crap and apparently better mileage than a diesel. I think it said 15,000 mile oil change intervals. They also have a new 7.2L diesel but the gas engine was way more interesting.
here's a quote i seen a couple months ago on the gas 6.7
Yeah saw that. I have seen small support equipment, (in this case large commercial wood chipper) go to large gas engine, (gm 6.2?) Instead of diesel for total cost of ownership reasons. I like diesel but I also like simplicity so. . .
It's why a friend in the towing business is staying with older gas 4x4's. Lighter and gas is less, and cost to rebuild is about a 1/3.
I've always wondered why couldn't hotrodders never used diesel engine blocks to build STOUT gasoline race engines. Link to Cummins B6.7 Octane https://www.cummins.com/engines/octane
The Ford 300-6 was basically a diesel block/design and a big reason it's a legendary engine. The 2.7 Ecoboost uses a carbon graphite block that is normally reserved for diesels. The 3.5 Ecoboost performs like a diesel. People loved the early Dodge/Cummins engines for their fuel economy and ever since they've boosted power and added all the emissions crap the mileage went out the window and it was no longer economical to buy one unless you were pulling heavy trailers often. The price of diesel went sky high too which is crazy. It's kind of funny that gas engines could be making a comeback in medium duty trucks. I think a HD gas engine could be a good alternative to emissions loaded diesels.
You make a good point. The line between gas and diesel has become blurry with direct injection gasoline and low compression/high boost diesel. The Otto cycle and diesel cycle sort of blended together.
All the emissions stuff just adds to the cost and complexity of a diesel vehicle that could be run on gas. Diesel trucks are a status symbol for some but the majority never recoup the extra costs.
They did. Remember the old Oldsmobile 350 diesel, circa 1978? Not the worst engine GM ever produced, but its on the top 5 list. Quite a few of them were turned into gas race engines. Biggest thing that had to be done was shim the main bearing bores, about 1/4" smaller on the radius. Add steel main caps and Batten aluminum heads and away you go. ISTR the cranks were custom made from solid.
Which was a real waste of time because the Olds 350 diesel was just a converted gas, and it's biggest issue was it was weak. I removed about 13 of those and installed 350-403 gas. And at that time the price of a used good running 350 olds went through the roof {$1,200 to 1,500}. * The trouble with diesel converted to gas--weight. I just posted this on 454 thread. Duramax--------835 lbs. 454--------------680 lbs 350--------------520 lbs Ford 7.3 P/S----920 lbs Ford FE----------658 lbs Ford 302--------475 lbs Cummins 5.9---1,100 lbs. * Consider it another bastuard item from Cummins, they've made several. But not much reason to spend all the R&D on a diesel block, head, crank, the rotating assembly is too heavy. Brodix aluminum block, heads are all milled to perfection already, building a hotrod engine out of a diesel---well that proves nothing except how much money was wasted, the Brodix stuff is costly enough.
Not to argue the 300 ford six design but, it was a basic gas inline six design not based on diesel. Main reason---the open cam/lifter area, that's not a rigid design for diesel. What made all six cylinder engines sturdy was the 7 main bearing design, coupled with good oiling and cooling system, and those three items is where the Ford 300 six shined. * But it's hard to beat a slant six, not a power house but keeps on ticking. *
Ah, the leaning tower of power. #2 son learned to drive in one in a Dodge 1/2 ton pickup. It taught him to feather a clutch so smoothly you didn't know you started to roll, and how to operate a manual choke. After he graduated hs the engine was turned into a stationary power unit.
I had a ‘86 Bronco with the 300 and 4 on the floor. Great engine, lots of low end toque. The only problem I had with it as it would occasionally break the roll pin on the distributor and die. Got so I could swap in a new pin where ever it happened in about 20 minutes. When I was a boy the neighbor had a early 60’s POS Dodge Dart, (might have been a Valiant) with the slant 6. Ran so quiet you couldn’t hear that engine running even standing right next to the car. No vibration either!
I see a CNG truck fueling station along the interstate, never seen anyone in there. How is it penciling out ? How is it being done ? Diesel engine with CNG addition ? or spark ignited CNG ?
Inline six's have the smoothest firing order. As in my $454 thread--2025 Dodge Charger, inline six with twin turbochargers @ 420 hp base model and 550 hp option. *
CNG is all over California, those last and perform well for what those designed for, common.
Inline six's have the smoothest firing order.
I drove a V10 gasser the other day for the first time. Here I was thinking V8's were awesome.
The geometry of an inline engine lends itself to longer rods and longer strokes, giving more low end torque. The slant 6 had the longest stroke of any contemporary Detroit gas engine. The long stroke gave the engine a low end driveability as good as engines with 50 more cubes, even though the largest of the slant 6 engines was only 225 cid.
At that time, allot of theory has been changed. Mainly because of highway speeds, shorter stroke larger bore gave way to higher rpm, then the overdrive series of automatics came along. But even with that in mind a V6 large bore short stroke twin turbo will produce 600 hp out of the factory. Where the engines of years ago suffer is very poor flowing cylinder heads. CNC machining produces perfect quinch combustion chambers and perfectly tuned intake/exhaust runners. Next is the ring seal. Imagine if a engine like a slant six had those qualities way back when.
Yes. A tremendous amount of work has gone into airflow development in cylinder heads. 40 years ago air flow benches were few and far between even in the auto manufacturers. Once they started working with airflow, first they started working on bulk air flow. Then they started looking at swirl (GM Vortec). Then they started looking at tumble. I left the business decades ago, don't know what state of the art is today.
Well the art has produced aluminum cylinder heads with nothing else changed just heads, a horse power gain of an average 40 plus in some cases 60. With changing intake it approaches 70 to 75 without the detonation worries. Combustion chamber hot spots are virtually eliminated.
This was bugging me because I knew I turned some short stroke slant six cranks. * All had a 3.406 bore. 170 had a 3.125 stroke 198 had a 3.64 stroke 225 had a 4.125 stroke.
Thats a cuss word to TS lol
Yea, but I was using it as a place, not as a religion.
You both got it wrong when it comes that---Motown Muscle then Detroit Iron when it comes to gas ice.---
Not a vehicle engine but a Perkins 3-152 was made in gas and diesel versions and the HP and torque were almost identical. The gas version was super heavy duty as it was basically a converted diesel. They both had exceptional fuel efficiency. Why can't they use industrial/tractor type lower RPM gas engines in vehicles like they have with diesels? They'd last a long time.
There was the Toro Flow gas/diesel GM converted back in the 60's.
Maybe this new Cummins will be a decent engine. Curious what the RPM range is?
The school district where I live has phased out diesels for their school busses and are now powered by propane. The diesels were just getting too costly to run with all the emissions repairs. The Bluebird chassis use Ford engines, either the V10 or the 7.3 Godzilla depending on the age. They have a number of International chassis busses as well and IH has offered a gas V8 option in the medium duty chassis now. One beer distributor in the area has a Volvo tractor pulling a side loader trailer that is CNG powered. I was able to hear it start up one afternoon and it sounded like a big 6 cylinder. Personally I've stopped buying diesel pickups because the cost and headaches that go with them aren't worth the little bit of extra fuel mileage to me. I'm OK getting somewhere a few minutes later because I don't have as much power for towing, today's gas engines are pulling better than diesels from 20 years ago.
I can think of a number of industrial engines that go both ways. The Lister LP/Alpha series and Kubota is pushing hard several gas/propane/NG versions of their 4 cylinder diesels, very good engines, simple. I have seen a brand new industrial Cummins 5.9 vapor fueled engine, has 6 valve covers it's basically an old 12 valve. Also I understand they make an 8.3 or 8.9 liter version, probably mainly different pistons and heads. Blocks are cast in India.
Propane buses were really popular as were propane conversions. Then the price of propane made it no longer a cost effective option. Diesel jumping in price and trucks having worse mileage and all the emissions makes gas engines more desirable. What ever fuel seems to be the most in demand, the more it jumps in price. Diesel used to be quite a bit less than gas but now it's a fair amount more.
These new Cummins engines have several fuel options.
The thing about propane was it likes compression, 11.1 works well, and too many engines had propane installed with lower compression ratios. But because it's dry seats and valves designed for propane are a must.
Funny thing about all this is the huge displacement gas engines of 45 years ago in some ways are making a come back. The price of a core 454 complete has jumped in the last 3 years, and not because those are rare. But because there is enough performance aftermarket parts now to build stout horse power/torque and still land in a area of 12 mpg, sometimes more. A brand new set of aluminum sbc heads complete can be had for $900.00, to rebuild a set of iron $350 to $400. But the trouble with using a diesel block design is the unnecessary weight in a highway vehicle. * The big advancement in gas engines from factory--CNC machined heads, roller cams and fuel injection with coil pack ignition.
I'd rather have a blown gasser than any diesel from the EGR era and newer.
I still think Ford would have been better off to modernize the 302/351w/460 instead of that whole Mod motor debacle, an now they've basically come full circle with the 6.8/7.3 gas motors. Put some really good heads and modern EFI on the 351w and 460 and the Chevy LS would have had some serious contenders. I'm still of the belief the Chevy LS motors are basically a 351w with High port Yates heads and modern EFI/ignition. They certainly have a lot more in common with a SBF than a SBC. I do like the way the old big blocks pulled. Have a '88 F-250 with a 460, not a ton of power by todays standards but peak torque was at 1800rpms and the torque curve was flat as a skillet. Hit a hill with a good load behind and just keep your foot in it, seemed like it would just pull forever before you had to drop a gear, similar to my 7.3IDI actually. I can see why these new diesel pickups are all automatics, drove one of the last manual Dodges with the 6.7 Cummins and it was a miserable thing to tow with. All the power in the world if you kept it in that narrow power band, way at the top. Fall off the boost and nobody's home and not enough gears to keep it where it was happy.
And not just my op but the 351C was/ still is twice the engine the W ever was or is. The only reason Ford quit producing the 351C was the company memorandum sent out in early 1973 that all high performance R&D will cease and desist as of now on. Then came the Granada's. Same with Chevrolet & Chrysler--in 1974 a 454 came with two horse power options, 215 & 235. A two barrel 327 in 1967 put out more hp and torque. * Everyone forgets what the gas crisis in 73 did--well not many on here are even old enough to remember.
I won't argue with that, in stock trim there was no comparison. But sheer numbers produced are what changed the tides for the 351C vs 351W, that and the 5.0 Foxbody mustang. Once the aftermarket sbf heads started becoming available in the early 90's that changed everything. Even those early World, Yates, and Ford Motorsports heads made the 351w a real runner. And along with the heads came the roller cams. One can argue the benefits of the 351C short block vs the W, but the real difference was the heads. The aftermarket closed that gap, and unfortunately there are very few 351C's left. Closest thing to a 351C I've ever had in my possession is a 351M (not even close I know), but I've got several Windsor small blocks on the shelf. That said, I would absolutely love to build a 351C if one were to show up at my doorstep wrapped in a '70-71 Mustang, Cougar or Torino...
What was difference on the 351M compared to the 351W?
Only thing they had in common was the bore spacing. The 351M and 400 were 335 series engines like the 351C, but they were physically larger, heavier, and had very little aftermarket support compared to the Windsor. Weight difference was about 50lbs, although build a 351w with an aluminum top end, mini starter, etc and the difference is 100lbs+. The 2v smog heads that came on the M's look decent at first glance (canted 2.04/1.65 valves, etc) but had huge 78cc chambers (low compression) and didn't flow good. They were a good yeoman duty engine in the large cars, trucks and full-size bronco, but nothing to write home about performance wise.
Some Oliver tractors as far back as the 50s i know had Waukesha engines that were LP, gas or diesel and it was all the same blocks and heads that were blocked off where the gas or diesel variants went. Engines had pressurized oil systems except for the rods that had little funnel spots on top that caught the oil to lubricate the rod bearings.
From a aluminum head standpoint yes--it takes a little valve bowl work and a very low volume dome piston to correct that problem.
Diesel engines are just plain a bad deal now, fuel systems and emission systems made them into a rich mans power plant. And none of them are as reliable as the old days. If the gasoline engine is built using some of the same design features of a diesel engine that is a good thing. Well depends on the diesel I guess, I for fun started studying the 6.7 PS, I see very little good about it at all. How can a person become a consultant to some of these idiot outfits to offer some suggestions of how to do it the right way? Its all about cutting corners now, no wonder the problems, recalls etc.
Emissions might get rolled back and it might kill this gad engine. I would just figure about half the fuel economy and half the life of the engine, remember exhaust it a lot hotter with gasoline.
I'm in the market for a 1 ton and unless I find a diesel from the early 2000's that isn't beat into the ground I'll be buying a gasser. $15k upcharge for a new diesel is nuts. Price difference alone buys 10,000 liters of gasoline.
and that's why my grandpa never bought diesel pick ups for the farm. He said it didn't make financial sense. Our 2013 Chevy 2500HD was bought used with 40,000 miles for $15,000+/-. The 6.0 gas engine has plenty of power to tow 14,000 pounds and it always starts no matter the temperature. We've put 30,000 miles on it now with nothing more than oil changes. I don't know what the fuel mileage is, but we don't really care either because this truck is our primary tow vehicle. It just needs to start when we need it and get the load down the road.
By the sounds of it the fuel mileage difference between a new diesel and a new gasser isn't much. I bet it takes around 200,000 to 250,000 km to make up the difference in purchase price alone. Not to mention the possibility of drastically reduced reliability from the emission systems. Won't be cheap to fix that stuff once it's out of warranty. Even under warranty who has the time to sit around for 2 weeks every time it ends up at the dealer?
My $.02 - Owned many diesel pickups over the years with a couple of gassers thrown in, including a 1998 2500 Chevy I bought new that was a total POS. Haven't bought a GM product since then. First of all we have not had any issues with the new emissions with DEF on our pickups. 3 Ford 6.7's and 1 RAM 6.7. One 6.7 has 200K on the clock, sold one with 90K, the other 50K and the RAM 100K. Not a heap of miles but it's what we've experienced. A diesel pickup will cost approx. $10K more to purchase than a comparable gasser but the diesel truck will bring around $8-10K more on the used market than a gasser of similar age, miles and condition. Diesel is normally more expensive than gasoline at the pump however diesel trucks perform better and get better milage under load than a comparable gas powered truck. Diesel costs more to maintain but you can get more miles out of an oil change. Biggest plus is power and torque when you use a truck for work hauling and towing on a regular basis. No alternate for that. Personally I have no desire to ever buy another gas powered 3/4-1 ton truck. With the EPA cutting many regulations, we might actually see some of this emissions equipment go away on trucks and equipment which would be outstanding. If that does happen I am deleting every truck and piece of equipment out of warranty that has DPF's and uses DEF. Interesting times no doubt.
I keep hearing about emissions going away but in reality what are the odds of this? Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great but it just doesn’t seem realistic. even if it does, how does California play into this? They seem to be playing by a set of rules even stricter than everyone else.
In all seriousness I couldn't care less about California regulations. If the fed's do away with certain regulations, Cali can do whatever they want.
My experience is, diesel was great 10 years ago now not so much. Costs more to maintain and you never see the payback unless you run it for 500+k miles or you trade it in, or outright sell it. Diesel trucks always made bank on their resale and trade in value but that’s when people could justify it. Going to be interesting times ahead. As much as I don’t like Fords, I got 700k miles out of a 7.3 and didn’t do anything other than a couple of batteries, a water pump and oil changes. When I got rid of it the blow by sounded like a raccoon squalling every time it turned over. I miss that truck. My brother claims all these small displacement gas turbos, are only good for so many miles and then require serious work. That is all you are going to get, if things don’t change. My next truck, might be a 5.7 gasser in a Tundra package.
Yeah I'll believe that when I see it.
I’ve got a 2014 tundra with the 5.7. Bought it in 2017 with 38k on the odometer. It currently has 137k on it. Haven’t done anything outside of regular maintenance. Most of the miles have been towing a boat. Runs like a scalded cat, not good on gas. It’s paid for and I don’t care about mpg. With the price of new pickups, I’ll be driving it until it rots out or falls apart. Then i’ll replace it with another Toyota.
Yeah me too but we can be hopeful.
So a diesel truck costs $10-$15K more up front, requires more expensive maintenance, repairs and fuel and gets $10K more on resale. How is that more economical than a gas truck? If you do a lot of heavy towing a diesel makes more sense. A diesel can get better mileage but that is negated some because it costs more. It's the same argument with JD tractors. Yeah, they cost more but have better resale value. Well they should. 6.0L GM gas engines have good power but are absolute pigs on gas if not needed for towing. I think the Ford Ecoboost is a big step in the right direction. Low RPM torque similar to a diesel and no emissions crap to deal with or have to repair. Cummins could be onto something with their new engine but it's too early to tell. Emissions guidelines may get a slight reprieve but they're never going to go away. Cat stopped making on highway engines because of tough emissions standards. It's hard to say if they are losing billions of $$$$$$$ to their competitors or if it wasn't cost effective to continue with on highway engines. They obviously thought it was a losing battle. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
Diesel engines will still be crap, unless its an instant return to the old reliable zero electronics involved, and proven designs of the 80's and 90's as far as pick up engines go. Yeah it was just crazy hearing about those Ca fire trucks during that mess and how some from other states not allowed since they didn't pass emissions. Then there is the other vehicles like EMS etc, parked on a road side because of a sesor or loose wire, with an injured person on board, those should have the most reliable nonelectronic power source possible. Oh and what makes most engines pigs on gas is, reducing efficiency with the emiss crap, like egr pollution of the combustion process, etc etc.
There's a good reason military diesels are exempt from most of the emissions systems.
Agreed. Even if they get rid of the emissions crap on the new diesels, customers are still going to demand the huge power numbers that they've been running the past few years, probably even more. I don't want 1000+lb-ft in my pickup, I want reliability, longevity, and good economy, all which are gone now. Newest diesel I owned was a '99 F-250 with the 7.3 PS and 6 speed. Perfect blend of power and economy, I think it was like 260hp/525lb-ft. That's all you need in a pickup, if that level of power is inadequate either get a bigger truck or stop trying to tow at 80mph. As to completely deregulating the emissions on diesel trucks, I don't think the industry is going to react the way people think it will. They have spent decades and billions of dollars working on the technology they are currently using. I doubt they are going to completely retool everything and go back to making tier 1 engines from the 90's. What happens in 4 years when a different administration comes in? What about the rest of the developed world that still has strict emissions standards? I have no problem with cleaner air, but it has to be done in a way that is sensible and economically feasible. I don't mind catalytic converters on cars, or even the DPF on the new diesels, as long as they work correctly and don't cause any hardships for me. I do have a major problem with anything requiring DEF, that is a terrible band aid technology that DOES cause considerable extra expense, maintenance and downtime. I don't own anything that runs DEF and I hope I never have to. CAFE fuel economy standards are hopefully one that will get axed. Like so many government programs, they had good intentions but it was horribly written and implemented. CAFE is the reason why you can't buy a true compact pickup anymore, 'economy cars' are the size of a full size sedan, and they do stupid stuff like make the wheelbase of a reg cab 3/4 ton truck several inches longer. It's a classic example of a law having exactly the opposite effect that they desired.
The commonly regarded as the two best diesels is the n14 and the series 60, both are electronic. I would say you need at least 300 HP in a pickup, and as far as Ford goes the 5r110 (03+) combined with a vgt turbo extremely changes a pickup diesel and I believe why so many people love the 6.0 over the 7.3. I Have heard many things but the common is roll back 20 years, they would just sell delete kits and tunes, oems would just have factory deleted engines, they are not going to make different engines then what they can do now. Lots of people think smog and etc will come back, fuel injection gas engines and common rail diesels run so much better it would take a lot of people abusing black smoke for something like that to come back. I also heard that 200k of a pickup diesel nox emissions is equal to 5 lightning strikes, so those def boxes are extremely way harder on the environment that an engine. I'd just like to see something where you can't roll smoke or something
In theory, yes, except the fact that those engines are nothing but expensive problems. They don't hold up real well; there is a reason Ford never put them in the heavy trucks, instead going back to naturally aspirated big cube gas.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I would be in favor of leaving all the highway vehicles alone, if we could go back to Tier 2 on every single off-highway piece of equipment made. To me, Tier 2 was the pinnacle in diesel engine design. Yes, they still stink, but that's about it, nothing like a blue haze chugging Big Cam, or a slobbering Detroit.
i have a really nice condition F150 2017 ‘lawn ornament’ currently (wrecking yard 3.5 eco boost price here-$6000 to $7000). Ran really nice and smooth for a while (lol!). It was a rare unit with higher payload (2500lbs)/gvw 7800lbs so could legally scale with tidy tank/tools etc. I think overly complicated: failure prone cam phasers, 2 tiny hard to access turbos, 2 timing chains, intercooler (plastic). 1. Very hard on fuel with any load/hauling (pretty good empty) 2. Next to zero holdback on descents (10 speed would drop and bunch of gears, rev high and make a lot of noise) Just my opinion…
There's nothing wrong with the eco boost, there's everything wrong with current new engine designs. Eco boost a old engine and it would last.
That story was a total lie, what it really was, was the State fire headquarters shops (Davis) are right along the route that the out of state fire trucks were taking (I-80) and they stopped there for mechanical inspection, to fix the bulging tires and worn out brakes on the Possum Hollow Volunteer Fire Hall trucks coming in, once repairs were made in a few hours they were on their way.
I don't think it would take much for manufacturers to remove DPF's and DEF systems. There are deleted pickups running all over the place. It would be even easier for equipment manufacturers to get rid of it. They all already make Tier 2 equipment for countries around the world.
IMO, turbos don't belong on spark passenger engines. And when the factory installs them, they do it as cheaply as possible. Run it hard, turn it off. How long before the oil cooks, cokes, and blocks the oil? And who wants to wait 5 minutes to turn off your engine before you go into the store? And unlike a diesel, you can't just force more air into the cylinder. Diesels? Turbo all the way. There are no problems with forcing more air into the combustion chamber on compression ignition. The high point of gas powered pickups was Chevy's 8.2L. Yes, it was a fuel hog. But you can schedule fuel stops, and gas pumps are everywhere, 24/7. It won't leave you stranded in the middle of the night when the only good mechanic you know is 500 miles away. Other than oil changes, plugs about every 120K, and an air filter no maintenance required.
I honestly believe that when those trucks were being produced, if GM would have wanted them to get better mileage, and that they wouldn't have had to hide under the shroud of *emissions* they would have. Easily. For the exact same reasons that Tier 2 engines prior to 2003 make 25-40% better mileage before an ECM flash. I will not get into any further discussion on why, I just know that there are more factors at play in this than most want to admit.
That new EPA guy said a number of things in his little speech, some other things are on their web site, but if they would simply say a return to Tier 3 (or is it 2?) without EGR and DPF I would feel a lot better. Right now it is all non specific and everybody on the internet is just thinking it says whatever they want it to say. I'm OK with HPCR, it's the not-in-cylinder systems that are the problem. But we all know there is more to it than that, because this emissions choking has greatly accelerated the hamster wheel of truck and equipment replacement cycle, and the manufacturers don't want to go back on that.
My neighbour and I were talking trucks the other day. He worked for one of the big heavy haul outfits and they were using Ecoboost F-150's for pilot trucks. Said they'd rarely get much more than 100,000 kilometers out of them before the engines crapped out. Don't really see many problems with the 5.0 though. Service manager and shop lead at my local dealer have told me they've seen the 5.0 last half a million kilometers if taken care of.
I agree with that. I personally have never been a fan of the Ford Ecoboost concept, and honestly I believe it's something that neither Ford nor the consumer really want. I think their hand was forced to go that way to a)meet unobtainable fuel economy standards and b)deliver the power that consumers think they need. Ford has pushed them so hard to meet the fleet average economy standards that are brought down by models with the V8s. Problem with the Ecoboost is you have a tiny displacement engine, pushing lots of boost and lots of power. These new Ecoboost 2.7 and 3.5 are pushing big block and diesel like power numbers out of a peanut sized engine. Longevity and reliability are the first things to go in that scenario, followed by fuel economy. They publish great economy numbers, but that's in ideal not-real-world conditions. If the power is there people are going to use it, then economy goes right out the window. Start to really work it and then the mpg is really going straight to ****. It takes no small amount of fuel to make 400hp/500lb-ft.
Eh? That's only 60,000 miles. I owned one for 95,000 miles that ran great until the truck got totaled. I know several that are well over 125,000 miles (200,000km) and run very well. My brother in law is having an electrical gremlin with his at 200,000 miles, but they think it's the throttle body because the truck goes from running perfect, to running like crap, and back on its own. I liked my 3.5L ecoboost. Plenty of power and reasonable fuel mileage when empty. Loaded, it performed really well and I didn't care about the fuel economy then.
Tier 2 is unadulterated. Tier 3 is EGR and limited catalytic converter. Tier 4i was full-on DPF, Tier 4Final is DEF. Obviously, these are kind of a summation, but relative to the general progression from nothing to what we have today on diesel engines.
Yes, a summation. Like in 2006 there was Cummins 8.3 with about 310 or 330 horsepower IIRC, HPCR injection, catalyst muffler, and nothing else. But I think they used some flex credits to get around EGR. But that engine was just about perfect, it just ran and ran with no problems, ran quiet, no smoke, nothing. If we could all go back to stuff like that the world would be better.
Facts--for a naturally aspirated Chevy 350 * @5500 rpm 350 cu.in.---CFM required mild street stock---473.5 CFM Racing --------------612.7 CFM. Cam duration in allot of engines especially these days because of either being OHC or roller is used to cram more air into cylinders. One of the biggest reasons auto manufactures went to roller cam V8's starting in the mid 80's was not just performance enhancement. Because of the style of lobe ramps on a roller cam a stock engine can run way more duration allowing more air charge in cylinders without sacrificing a smooth idle or smooth running. It was a great way to clean up and meet EPA requirements. Plus a roller cam got rid of the issue with zinc for flat tappet hydraulic cams, and a roller will long out live a flat tappet. * Think of CFM as if you were sucking through a straw, the higher the rpm the harder it is through the same size straw. As far as turbocharging--that science has come along way too. * Most of what is incorporated into engines for the public--probably started in a little shack behind a couple guys houses years ago like--Ed Iskenderian.
If you would sleeve the 5.0 down to 3.5 and turbo it the same as the eco boost it would last as long as the 5.0 regular. Low flow oil pumps driven by a belt don't do well, and Ford is not along with only engines only lasting 80k miles. Gas turbos are fine with Efi as you measure the air instead of measuring the fuel. If your base engine will only go 80k miles the turbo version won't do any better
Eco 3.5 bore 3.624 x 3.409 stroke 5.0L Coyote bore 3.63 x 3.65 stroke almost square 5.0L 302 bore 4.000 x 3.000 stroke * not much point--the Coyote is already there.
A thought that many don't ponder/wonder or even care, it's just the way things are built and someone higher up came up with the idea it was all that was needed so that's why it seems to always be the same every time they see it. Intake and exhaust valve diameters, why is it a cylinder head has 1.94 intakes and 1.50 exhaust valves. A very simple and yet dumb question I thought at the time { I was 14} when I asked it of a {I thought experienced} mechanic, only to get a answer of {I suppose that's all the engineers thought was needed}. Then I happened to be at a Auto Rama show car/race car show in Sacramento in 1970. I asked the same question to a guy standing next to a car that was a Ford factory race sponsored BOSS 302. Moody told me it's hard for a engine to pull air in past a small valve but it's much easier to push it past the same small valve. * The reason to add boost from a turbo or supercharger., and diesel uses the same valve diameter for all.
My point is the 3.5 sucks because of the engine and not the turbos
I agree to a point--might as well drive a Coyote.
There are a lot of people really happy with their Ecoboost engines and have got a lot of miles out of them. Proper maintenance and driving them reasonably helps. If the comparison is to diesels, after a long drive or working them hard any engine with a turbo should be idled for a couple minutes before you shut it off. Should be warmed up for a few minutes as well. Any engine should be idled after working hard. You don't just shut of your equipment so why would you just shut off your vehicle. The technology is there. With a little refinement there could be gas engines just as reliable as diesel engines. There have also been some less than stellar diesel engines. You have to do an apples to apples comparison. You can't compare the best diesel to a marginal gas engine. Update a 300-6 with Ecoboost technology and it would be hard to beat.
Here's a fine example of gas guzzling power -400 Hall Scott and it's even a over head cam engine. *
There, fixed it for you.
Good grief, you old farts that continue to sing a 300-6 praises. I've been around a few, and not one could hardly get out of it's own way.
Pre emissions diesels, there are lots of fine examples. Some with emissions are OK but they are so complicated and expensive to fix when they break down they defeat the purpose of a reliable diesel.
300-6's were well known to go over 500K miles and had good torque for pulling even in a 1 ton. Not the fastest but about as bulletproof as you could get. Not many gas engines had that kind of reputation. The problem now is everyday is in too much of hurry. See people weaving in and out of traffic just to get ahead of you and you get to the next stop light and they're one car ahead of you.
No, not at all. Listen, I drove an F150 with a 300/6 for 13 years. It was a great truck, probably the best engine I will ever have, but it was not a towing engine. With 4000lb behind it had all it could do to *try* to keep 60 on the highway. Nobody has ever sung the 300/6's praises louder than me, but if there was any significant amount of weight to be moved you needed something else.
Looks like the gas Cummins will be 200/300 HP and 600/660 tq under 2000 rpm. Will be a great engine imo, better than the gas v8s
First off----don't get too excited about a Cummins gas--The amount of gutless worthless turds Cummins has built is just about equal to anything good Cummins built. All people can relate to when it comes to Cummins is the 5.9-8.3's and a T-shirt. Cummins road of garbage is just as impressive as it's road to triumph. Lets see there were these all wonderful and great---triple nickel 555's, and 903's, then that wonderful series of big cam's which only two the BCII & III had a good reputation, anything with low flow or STC really was is a loser. The old taper nose cranks were notorious for breaking even at stock settings. Cummins was a pushrod engine company, Cat & Detroit both had OHC long before Cummins, and when Cummins built the twin cam ISX--too many issues went back to R&D. You can always tell where a M11 parked, there is a outline on the ground. Glory over the twin turbo 475 BCII with MVT timing, or for that fact anything with MVT was a loser. The all great KTA series holy smokes that thing had so many Cummins revisions. And the mighty 1710. *The N14 was the best they built in large displacement. * I wouldn't get too excited about a gas engine. It will take about 6 years to work the bugs out. Because if Cummins approaches building a gas engine like their diesels---there will be a list of CPL's twenty miles long.
The 5.9 was a noisy rattletrap anyway . . .
Yeah the 5.9 is not all that great. If they base it off the 2025 6.7 it should be ok
It still has hydraulic roller lifters---pew. How about OHC solid.
I can't say I share the same opinion. There are thousands of machines that were built with a 5.9 where the machine wore out and the engine was still fine.
Agreed. It's a variant but that little 3.9 in my 1995 Gradall will fire off every time you hit the switch and I don't remember when we changed or even charged a battery on it. In 30 years all we have done is service it and change a starter. No ****.
Twenty years ago, the shop guy at Krider Equipment (before it was Titan) told me they had a couple of wheel loaders with over 17k hours that were in a factory application. Well maintained, had pins and bushings replaced, very few operators. Management decided that instead of trading them in, they replaced the engines. They ran well, didn't use oil, they just were concerned because of the hours. They tore one of them down to inspect it, and said the bearings showed minimal wear, and the cylinders showed none, said you could still see the cross-hatch. Now put that same engine in a pickup or farm tractor, they do not seem to last as long. Probably mostly due to abuse or neglect, but that's not the engine's fault.
3.9's too. Can't seem to kill them little guys either.
I've had excellent luck with the 3.9/5.9 Cummins when run at reasonable power levels, especially in construction/industrial applications. The 5.9 in the pickups and MDT's, especially the later versions, were being pushed beyond what they were ever intended to be IMO.
The 351W was such a success the demand was higher than Ford could produce them. To meet the immediate demand they created the 351M for Modified using the 400 block with the 351W crank. The result was dismal. It was a very low compression engine to meet smog requirements and horsepower was just 160. It also was prone to cracking on the block deck. I had an F350 with one in it and it was a pig. I ended up swapping it out for the 351W that I built up a little and was much happier. The 351C was designed for racing. The ports and valves were huge! It was popular back in my motorhead days and there were articles where they modified the heads to fit the small block. A lot of machining was required so it was a very expensive proposition. From what I read back in that time period it ceased production because they couldn't make it meet the emissions standards of the Clean Air Act of 1970. 1971 was the last year it was available in a factory vehicle. It would be interesting to see what could be done with that engine today with fuel injection and fuel management system. I bet it would be a screamer!!
The 351W was a mid cu.in low horse power engine. With terrible 302 heads, there was not enough port size to accommodate the displacement. The W came out during the Cleveland reign. The Cleveland came in two varieties 2V & 4V, the 2V head was also used on the 351M/ 400. The Cleveland 4V heads were derived from the Boss 302, and the 2V head is quite similar except smaller intakes & open chamber. Cleveland's had two basic heads {closed & open chamber} with 2.19 intake valves, the intake ports/runners rivaled the 429's. Not many 351M's made they'er way into cars but the 400 did. Low compression and poor oiling was the biggest issue with modifieds. It wasn't until late 80's rolled around and major experimenting with the 351 Windsor did anything in the way of aftermarket heads arrive. Once it had some heads it ran. But the 400 can be built to over 500 hp to because of aftermarket. And all have the same bore spacing. * 351 Cleveland Cylinder Heads Guide: Factory Iron Heads 351 Cleveland Cylinder Heads Guide: Factory Iron Heads- Covers Engine Building and Performance Updgrades to the 351C, 351M, 400M Ford Cleveland Engine www.diyford.com These heads are the reason it was banned from NASCAR. The trouble is building a Cleveland these days just about breaks the bank.
The over built legend of the 5.9 doesn't mean a gas engine will be as good. The first buyers will be guinea pigs.
Well {At the time those were built early to mid 70's} both were turds. Aftermarket is what made the Windsor into something worth while. Back in those years both were considered {dogs}. Ford, Chevy & Dodge in that time period were just trying to keep their heads above water with epa rules, All three companies detuned every engine platform, a 454 in 73 was 215 to a max of 235 horse power. Most SBC were 180. 318 dodge 120. And the other reason, Honda, Nissan/Datsun & Toyota were starting to kill them by 1980.
As far as the 5.9 Cummins, I know some farmers with a a Case 2096 tractor with well over 20,000 hours on the original engine. It still doesn't use any oil. Regular oil changes and always plugged in in the winter. I don't think the tach and hour meter work anymore but I remember driving it many years ago and it 14,000 hours at that time.
Well---300 hp and 660 torque---hmm, below 2000 rpm---from 360 cu.in 5.9 liter gasoline engine-----Some how I would like to see those numbers on a independent dyno test. * Because those are pretty impressive numbers---that mysteriously only cummins had the ability to produce. Not that It couldn't be done but it's questionable from the standpoint this is cummins first foray into octane burners and they magically produce out of thin gasoline 360 @ 660. * Independent test would be due.
Mileage--It will be interesting the reported mileage---A dodge 360/5.9 V8 gas injected or carbureted never got from factory over 11 miles to gallon, Detroit has been chasing the magic for years on how to produce horse power and torque of high numbers-on very little gas. And cummins had been keeping this secret all this time.
Well it's a 6.7 and probably has nothing to do with the 5.9 except they both have pistons and push rods Anyone buying a gas over a diesel does not care about fuel mileage
I see your back into following me--and trying to contradict anything in my posts. Yes people care about mileage, the ones here don't represent the total population. And yes 6.7 409 cu.in. so what whether it 5.9 or 6.7 it's a loosing battle for mileage verses power--the more cubes the more gas, a 6.7 is just a bigger gas whore, but oh yeah the gas prices were going to drop????? And that is strictly your opinion not everyone else's. * Have a good day.
But they do care about the Total Cost of Operation.
Which they believe will be lower with a gas engine
Dude I just reply on what to I don't care who it is. I definitely will thank you, you too
Likely another failure like most of the engines are since the last 10 or so years or more. So does Cummins now to the cracked crap, and PM?
I skipped much of the conversation so excuse me if some of this has been said. That engine was totally designed for the California market. It was actually delayed about 2 years because they were having issues with the first iterations. Since they were close to the timeline for CARB 27, they changed the design process to focus on that. I have ran a couple of these engines. We blew them up, but hey, it's called research for a reason. All that said, it should be a pretty decent engine, but I would expect a niche market. Someone that doesn't know diesel, or has no diesel in their fleet, or someone that runs primarily in California.
I'd like to hear all the juicy details? It may have a chance if there is no PM, no cracked parts, and no chains in it.
And it is weve proved it quite a few times. If a pickup isnt towing 75 or more percent of the time over 200000 miles the gas job over its life pencils out to be cheaper.
I had a ton of stuff typed up, then remembered I don't know how much I should say due to my job. What I will say is that the first engine was being tested on a chassis dyno. We blew the spark plugs out of it. After the engine was checked by Cummins, they realized they built an engine with internals for a lower hp calibration, not the hp level they had us running. Again, probably will be a fine engine, but stuff happens with prototype engines during development.
I call absolute bullsh!t that the HP caused the spark plugs to blow out, I've actually never heard of something so stupid. I knew guys 20 years ago truck pulling that had Cleveland heads on a 400. Conservative figures had it turning over 900 horsepower, didn't blow a plug out. Only ever seen it happen once, on a 440 Chrysler, the porcelain shattered. And the guy running it called which cylinder it was before he opened the hood, as he had dropped that plug on the shop floor when putting them in. You are going to take an engineer's word that the plugs blew out because of horsepower? Don't think so, but someone will probably reason otherwise.
Ford 5.4 2v has entered the chat
I gave him a like for content. But those puny little air cooled engines that VW built, those things were notorious for blowing plugs out of aluminum heads, same with Datsun L16 L20 L24 L26. Installing spark plug inserts was very common. And those didn't have the power to pull a sick whore off a **** pot.
Don't worry, somebody, somewhere is going to makes lots of money on that engine. It might be a great engine and owners will get rich trucking with it (lol), or it might be the flat rate dealer guys who will make bank replacing whatever is wrong with all of them, but somebody will love it.
PM me the info, won't leak it. Hmm must be bad material choice for the head to lose spark plugs. Sounds like those computer desk jockey engineers could use some help.
There may have been a good reason(s) the plugs blew out that isn't too hard to fix. I think the worst thing Cummins could do is put the engine out before it is throughly tested and the bugs have been worked out. Really hard to come back from a poor gas engine on your first attempt. I read that Ford spent a $billion developing the 2.7 Ecoboost and that including things like testing it in the Baja 1000. I forget how many miles were driven testing them but it was substantial. I'm very happy with mine. If someone were to drive a truck with a 2.7 with ear plugs and didn't know what engine it was, they wouldn't believe a 2.7 could perform that well. The fuel economy is better than the base 3.7 non turbo I had in my 2011 F150. It's also faster than a GM 5.3L V8. GM now has their own 2.7. Can't just be a coincidence.
Large users like UPS and Fedex don't "believe".... They keep very good records, and make decisions based on data, hard numbers. Dartboards are not involved.
For a company like my old place of employment. Running 62 tractors at this point in time with a average of 7 million operational miles over the entire year. Comes to average miles per each unit 112,900. Which brings around the concern of mileage cost per unit at year end.------Now which truck powered by which power plant controlled by which transmission by which final gear ratio by which aerodynamics--one model gets 4.9 average another 5.1 and yet another 5.4. Now figure the cost savings of a 1/2 gallon over 7 million on a average price nationally 3.60 per gallon at todays price. * Only talking 1/2 gallon savings not 5 to 6. With narrow profit margins a half gallon is huge. And that doesn't include diesel to run refer units, and those truly need to be in top form because a unit not properly washed out ends up with plugged condenser coils from debris and can burn 3 times as fuel to cool a load.
TS, how much fuel will a refer burn average?
That's a loaded question--It all depends--brand of trailer, construction, insulation, age, age of refer unit, compressor, door seals, brand of refer unit, and just how good the maintenance is including washing out condenser coils yearly. And just what the ambient temp is, a new trailer with good door seal should be able to keep -10 @ 95* and only start for short period about 2 times an hour. Old trailer--in same environment can burn 25 to 30 gallons in a 24 hour period hardly stopping. * Only one brand to own-Utility.
If the details I found on this engine is true, I see some problems on the horizon. Time will tell.
And there was the-could have would have been by Chrysler. * Automotive History: Diesel Chrysler Slant-Sixes, In-House and Otherwise - Curbside Classic Lately it’s Diesel Days here at CC. Paul’s put up articles about a gasoline-engine-based diesel that went just fine (VW’s 4-pot), and one that probably shouldn’t have been built but […] www.curbsideclassic.com
Might have grown into something that would be in Dodge pickups instead of the 5.9?
If Dodge would have never had a Cummins, there would be no Dodge left on the Earth. I have yet in my lifetime to find a Dodge pickup cab that is half as good as a Ford or GM.
Yeah it could have with a few more cu.in. displacement, and probably sound. But as in the article Lee Iacocca decided to drop it because issues in oil industry were subsiding. Which is usually the case involving gas/fuel prices. If it had happened Cummins would have lost out because Ford & GM already had too much at stake in their own diesel programs to just up and cross over.
Had reservations when I bought our '19 3500 because I remember Dodge in the 80's. My guys wanted a RAM so bought them a RAM. It's been a great truck. It's just crested 100K miles and I'm about to semi-retire it as a service truck and buy them another one.
People would have bought those Dodges no matter what. It's the old Chevy, Ford & Dodge war. I know just as many that wouldn't own a Ford or Chevy. And to add there was a Ford dealer here in town forever. Then about 9/10 years ago Ford pulled the dealer and everything went 50 plus miles away to the Pasco Ford dealer. Well because that happened sales for Chevy and Dodge went up here because folks didn't want to bother with owning a truck that had no intown dealer.
*
We picked this 2015 up recently, currently at 375km (233,000 miles). Pretty impressed so far, real basic model (manual 4x4 shift, steel rims etc.). Was a service truck for a logging outfit....Underhood is very "uncluttered" and oil stays nice and clean after change....
No doubt. Big difference in the RAM and my 350 under the hood. My 350 6.7 looks like a Space X booster engine. The RAM looks like an inline 6.
The old pickup debate. Them chevys and mocars maybe ok. The only time i needed a ride home with a ford was when the fuel pump in the tank died. And fomoco probably had it out sourced to delco any ways
I just like ones that start, go from point A to B and stop when I want.
Dodge? You mean Cummins shipping crate!
"Fummins" conversion kit.
I don't know--years ago #43 was real hard to beat, the other two just looked at exhaust pipes.
And years later, after the truth came out, he was notoriously one of the biggest cheaters out there.
As were all, anything Smokey touched was dubious at best.
Racing was certainly more interesting back then. It’s been streamlined so much nowadays that they might as well be built on an assembly line. Almost like the IROC series.
I use to keep track about 35 years ago but haven't much since, too many yellows thrown in late laps to tighten the group. But the speeds in a full metal body car back them were something.
Chrysler needs to be let to die, I hope our government doesn't bail them out again
Not surprising Chrysler teamed with Perkins. Perkins had one of the most state of the art R&D dept's. at the time. Other diesel manufactures were working with or using Perkins facilities. Isuzu being one of them. Can't remember if it was for working on reducing emissions or other reasons. Chrysler were known for having very stout engines and even Ford knew it. I remember reading about it, I think in Lee Iacocca's book. It's too bad the Ford Cammer 427 was banned from Nascar. It might have been the only engine capable of running with the 426 Hemi in the 60's. That said the 426 Hemi is legendary for a reason. Every top fuel engine in drag racing is based on the 426 Hemi even today. Saddest day for Richard Petty was when he tried drag racing a Hemi. Launched hard only to drift towards the grandstand killing a spectator. That was it for his drag racing experience. Have had a couple 70's Dodge trucks and they were just as reliable as any other trucks I've driven. Bought a 2000 Chev. 2500 with a 6.0L and it was by far the worst truck I've ever had. Mileage sucked, right side exhaust manifold cracked and exhaust pipe broke, heater stopped producing heat even after a pro. flush, heater fan appeared to dislodge from shaft and just rattled around, front end had to be completely rebuilt. Won't buy another GM vehicle after all the issues I had with that truck. Much rather have one of 70's Dodge trucks. Had a new 87 Ford Ranger that was stone reliable and drove for over 15 years (400,000kms.). Only needed the heater core replaced that wasn't difficult and a pickup in the distributor when it lost spark. Still had the original starter and alternator. I like my 2015 F150 with a 2.7 Ecoboost except for having to replace the fuel pump. Hoping to keep it for several more years as the price of new trucks is beyond ridiculous.
I can pretty much guarantee that I will never be buying a new truck again. Even if I find the money, can’t justify spending 2 houses on a new truck.
Chrysler/Dodge firsts. Replaceable oil filter element 1924 Hydraulic brakes 1924 Rubber engine mounts 1925 Down draft carburetor 1929 Power brakes 1932 Automatic overdrive 1934 Electric wipers 1939 Full flow oil filter 1946 Four wheel disc brakes 1949 Ignition key starting 1949 Resistor spark plugs 1949 Padded dash 1949 Power steering 1951 Curved side glass 1957 First electronic fuel injection 1958 Cruise control 1958 Alternator 1960 Antilock brakes 1971 Electronic ignition 1973 Computer controlled emissions 1976 Electronic voice alert 1983 * First automaker to incorporate data analysis in manufacturing 1925 First to use wind tunnel testing 1936. * And the mighty Hemispherical engine-was first built for the Republic P47 Thunderbolt experimental aircraft. The first Hemi engine in a car 1951--the 331 Red Ram over head valve.
I had a couple 1936 Dodge trucks & a 1956 Power Wagon. Mine didn't feature any of those innovations, though the Power Wagon has a brake booster. I don't know if it was an option, or aftermarket.
A Chrysler/Dodge option for Power Wagons by what I've read.
And that Chrysler Hemi--everyone copied it to some extent. Duntov, GM's big guy tried to build the 327 hemi never produced, And Fords 427 sohc . *
I remember grandparents had a Plymouth I think it was that had pushbuttons for the automatic transmission.
The Ford Boss engines are often referred to as semi-Hemi's.
Do you happen to know a competent rebuilder?
Not on this side of country, but the best would be to look up companies that specialize in auto restoration, especially for old Chryslers.
Parents had several--one was a George Jetson 62 Plymouth 413 High Perf cop car. Brother took it on a date in 1965, raced all the cars intown and roasted the tires off it, last time he drove that.
I think Chrysler was the only to offer a record player along with the radio, circa 1956.
I think your correct, the records had extra deep groves to keep the needle from skipping on rough roads.
The guys from the Graveyard cars TV show (Welby's Car Care in Oregon) specialize in Chrysler muscle cars but have done some older stuff. The owner (Mark Worman) is the only one named an official Chrysler brand ambassador. They gave him the 1st new generation Hemi that makes 1000 HP on pump gas. He put it into a Christine tribute car. There's also another guy they deal with that specializes in Chrysler parts and knows the older stuff better. If nothing else they night be able to recommend a shop that could help you. I imagine they are very pricey.
I just noticed this engine. Id be interested when it comes out. Says it runs on 87 grade and looks to make power like the older 7, 8, and 9 liter diesels. Ive been using two F700s with the 7 liter gas to deliver firewood and wouldn't mind a more comfortable and better visibility cab like a class 6 Kenworth. Was looking at newer F650s to get a gas engine truck but this Cummins looks way better than what Ford has to offer. Do we know if it comes air equipped? The Ford gas engines 6.8 and 7.3 dont have air as an option from what ive found.
I would think it has an air option but I'd want to see some longer term evaluations of it before I jumped right in and bought it.