Allpar claims that it is a Detroit Diesel / VM Motori model, not a MB diesel. Here is the link http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/liberty-2005.html Mudinyeri, good joke but that wasn't what I meant. I meant a smaller, more fuel diesel for the 1500 Ram, not in a completely different diesel-powered vehicle. Somethiing along the lines of maybe a 4 cylinder version of the Cummins, if this is possible. Doing to the Cummins as Chrysler has made the 3.9 and 3.7, just by chopping off two cylinders. That should make a 3.9 liter with around 215-220 hp and 405-410 ft-lbs of torque (numbers higher than what the Cummins started offering in the Ram at the beginning) according to my math. This should cut down on fuel consumption, without the cost of reliability, horsepower, and torque. I'm sure the 2.8 is a good engine for the Liberty and would make a good engine for some other vehicles such as the Dakota and Caravan (if given a transmission with higher torque capabilities), but I think a 2.8 is just too small even if it has V8 level torque.

 

just to let you know, Cummins does have a V6 and V8 in the works for the 1500 and does have them in test vehicles. I dont know the exact numbers off the top of my head, it is one of my TDR mags, but the V8 with a 5.6L displacement provides about just under 300hp but has 560ft-lb torque.

the writer of the article even drove the truck and said the acceleration is equal to or better than the hemi

oh, and there were no frame or body mods done, it was a drop and drive for both V6 and V8

 

I have also heard about this, just without any details whatsoever. Any idea on the fuel mileage? HEMI acceleration with diesel fuel mileage and Cummins reliability. SSSSWWWWEEEETTTTT![sm=goodidea.gif][sm=drooldude.gif] I wonder how much extra that will cost. Do you know if the V6 and V8 is still an OHV design with iron block and head? If they are still this way the reliability would probably be better than the fuel injector blowing Powerstroke and the DuraCRAP with its rumored cracking head problems. If they are planning on doing this, will they eliminate some of the other engine options (the 3.7 &/or the 4.7)? I personally doubt it. Are they still planning on keeping the 5.9 in the 2500/3500. I heard a rumor of a 6.7 version of the 5.9 might be offered.

I wonder which transmission it would use. Probably the 48RE if they don't come up with any new transmissions (hint, hint). I wish that they would make a beefed-up verison of the 545RFE (used with the HEMI in the trucks) so then they would no long have a gearing disadvantage. Here is something I have wondered about the 545RFE. Could you adjust the transmission and the gear ratios so then it could be a full six speed (switching out the two second gear ratios)?

Thanks for the details, Drew!

 

Something I just thought about. One of the best arguments for the I6 Cummins is the fact that it has less moving parts. Less things to break, less cylinders that are, truthfully, unneeded in comparison to Ford and GM. This helps the fuel economy and probably the price as well. So my new question is, why go to a V8? With the fact that this is only .3 liters smaller and produces 25 less hp and 50 less ft-lbs of torque, would this really answer my wish for a more fuel efficient engine than the I6 Cummins. The fact that it has two extra cylinders seems to me that it would use more fuel, just like the slightly larger Powerstroke and DuraCRAP, as well as cost more too. Now the V6 that you mentioned most likely would answer these wants.

 

first of all, I have also been hearing of reports about the possability of a 6.7L Cummins. now while the 5.9 ISB is capable of 425hp and 910ft-lb tq with only changing the turbo, injectors, and fuel pump, the life span would be just margianable better than that of the PS or duramax. however the only way to keep the reliability and upping the power any more would be to increase the size of the engine.

in the military the 2.5 ton trucks have a 6.7L turbo diesel that lasts forever and a day, gobs of torque, but not much when it comes to horsepower, but thats to be expected from a military engine. however, on my truck, which has this engine, the fuel pump has been played with a bit

anyway, back to the Cummins. Ive heard of a new tranny for the cummins, the 68RE(I believe) a 6 speed tranny that can handle more then the 48RE, plus I can see pulling ability going up since the tranny will keep the engine more in the power band. this tranny might be able to live behind a 6.7L engine. now about the 1500 diesels. I'm pretty sure the 545RFE would in no way be able to handle the torque of the V8, however it might be able to live behind the V6 with a different torque converter and clutch upgrade.

now, about the V6 and V8 engines themselves. I have heard nothing about the design of the engines other than they are a 4.7 V6 and a 5.6L V8. however if I know Cummins the engines will still be running long after the body has fallen off

but one more thing about the 6.7L engine. the block is MUCH longer than the 5.9ISB so the ability of fitting it between the radiator and firewall might be quite difficult. but dont rule out a stroked 5.9L ISB

 

I have also heard about the 68RE. The question is will it just be a 48RE with 2 more ratios and beefed up a bit, or a completely new design just sharing the "8RE" part of the name, and what new ratios will it have. Hopefully with this transmission, they will add an additional overdrive ratio that is taller than the current overdrive offered in the 48RE to help cut down on a bit of fuel consumption by having the engine run at a lower rpm at cruising speeds. If they do this, it would probably be better that they have a wider difference in the two overdrive ratios, unlike the 545RFE (.75 and .67). That is barely worth having two overdrives. They should have made the top one taller to max out the fuel economy.

I don't doubt the Cummins engines will outlive the truck itself. They are excellent in reliability and just plan lasting. The fact that the 6.7L Cummins is longer means it is still a I6, kind of like the way a big block is to a small block engine? Would the longer block mean that it is moved up from the classification from a medium-duty to a heavy-duty diesel engine, in terms of diesel engine classifications?

A more stroked engine means more torque; therefore, that wouldn't be a bad idea either. The old saying is definitely true "There is no replacement for displacement!"

 

I have also heard rumors about the 68RE. Now the question is will this be a completely new design or just a 48RE that has just 2 more gears and is beefed-up a bit, and if this happens, will this have two alternate overdrives as does the 545RFE. If so, I hope that they will actually take advantage of this chance and put a taller overdrive so then they can max-out on the fuel economy, like a .50 (for highway cruising) top gear and a .75 second level overdrive (for towing purposes and hilly conditions).

I have no doubts that Cummins makes engines that have the potiential of outliving the truck that it is in. I just find that particular designs of diesel engines tend to have fewer problems than others, and that some have better hp and torque characteristics. You mentioned that the 6.7L Cummins is longer than the 5.9 Cummins, I am assuming that means that it is still a I6. Does this mean that it is a big block? The 5.9L Cummins is classified as a medium-duty diesel, does being longer make it a heavy-duty diesel under diesel classifications?

A stroked out 5.9L version would mean even more torque! Sounds great to me! They are going to need more than 700 ft-lbs of torque because Toyota claims their next "truck" will offer a diesel with 700 ft-lbs of torque. The best way to defeat the competition is to prevent them from ever getting an advantage in the first place. I seriously doubt that they will be able to offer a superior diesel in quality than the Cummins, since this is a new thing for to them and Cummins has done this as their primary product for decades upon decades and have perfected their product as time has gone on. Toyota would be wise to try and get a diesel from a professional manufacture of diesel instead of trying to develop one themself. The only problem is their are not too many good ones left. Just CAT really.

BTW, if the 5.9L Cummins can produce up to 425hp and 910ft-lbs of torque, what is the best the 6.0 Powerstroke and 6.6 Duramax can produce?

 

the 68RE is a new design that is just adapting the 8RE name from what I am seeing.

now about the Ford and chevy offerings, those two engines are built exclusively for Ford and chevy. there are kits to put the 5.9L cummins between the frame rails of every Ford and chevy truck produced, Ive even seen the ISB sitting under the hood of a blazer[sm=ummmmokay.gif]. however, no kit is available to put a power stoke or a duramax under the hood of anything else.

now about toyota produceing a diesel. since I own a tacoma, this little truck will scream. the engine is built to last and I rag it every time I crank it up. infact every toyota Ive driven the engine has been a work of art. so when it comes to a diesel engine I would expect no less from toyota. I just hope they take a page out of the ford and chevy books and dont try to make one with aluminum heads.

 

Well, why would you want to in the first place? It is obvious which engine is superior just based on the fact that people with GMs and Fords want the Cummins in their trucks, but Dodge owners are happy with their Cummins. I have a different view of Toyota than you do. My aunt had a 99 Camry Solara with only 80,000 and the engine was sludging. I have read that Toyota had problems with both the 2.2L I4 and the 3.0L V6 with sluding which covered the majority of their car line-up. I believe Toyota can produce a good diesel, just not as good as the Cummins. At least not for a few years. It takes trial and error in order to get to be the best at doing or making something.

 

i just purchased a 2005 4 speed auto tranny quad long bed with 4.10's.

just out of curiosity do you know what your tachometer is reading at 70 or 75 mile an hour?

i'm considering changing to the 3.73's but i'm just not sure if it is worth it.

thanks,
mark