Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Nissan to Introduce CARWINGS Telematics Service to Monitor and Analyze Individual Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency | Main | Ford to Deliver 20 E85 Hybrids for Fleet Testing »

Print this post

DaimlerChrysler Introduces 50-State-Compliant Heavy-Duty Ram BLUETEC Pickup; New, More Efficient Light-Duty Engines After 2009

23 January 2007

The Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler has introduced its first BLUETEC 50-state compliant diesel: the new Dodge Ram Heavy Duty BLUETEC with an all-new 6.7-liter Cummins turbodiesel engine. The new Ram models can run with B5 and B20 biodiesel. The vehicle meets the US EPA Tier 2 and CA LEV II emissions requirements for medium-duty vehicles.

In addition to the new Ram pickup, Chrysler Group President and CEO Tom La Sorda announced an all-new diesel engine for its light duty Dodge pickup trucks that will be available after 2009. The concept for this product is the result of a nine-year partnership between Cummins and the US Department of Energy that has been developing an engine family with a 4.2-liter V6 and a 5.6-liter diesel V8 that will meet EPA Tier 2 and CARB LEV II emissions standards. (Earlier post.)

The new Cummins clean-diesel engine will provide a significant increase in low-end torque, up to a 30% improvement in fuel efficiency and a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide (C02) emissions when compared to an equivalent gasoline engine. The new light-duty turbodiesel engine with aftertreatment system will meet 50-state emissions standards for 2010.

The new 2007 Dodge Ram Heavy Duty engine uses a close-coupled diesel oxidation catalyst, a combined diesel oxidation/particulate filter, and an adsorber catalyst to reduce NOx by as much as 90% to meet its emissions requirements.

Because the Rams are classified as medium-duty vehicles (their GVWR ranges from 9,000 to 11,000 lbs, depending upon the model, the 50-state EPA Tier 2 and CA LEV II NO<sub>x</sub> requirements are less stringent than those for the passenger-vehicle-targeted Tier 2 Bin 5.

EPA Tier 2 requirements for the Ram Heavy-Duty are 0.2 g/mi NOx. For light-duty vehicles (EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 and CA LEV II—the 50-state bar), the requirements are 0.07 g/mi NOx.

In addition to the NOx adsorber and the self-cleaning DPF, the 6.7-liter turbodiesel engine includes other in-cylinder technologies to improve fuel efficiency.

A cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system combines with a uniquely designed piston combustion bowl and a high-flow, electronically-controlled Variable Geometry Turbocharger (VGT), matching boost pressure with the engine’s performance needs to reduce emissions and improve drivability. The engine uses a Bosch 1,800 bar high pressure common rail injection system.

A new closed crankcase ventilation system eliminates crankcase fumes and oil carry-over, a common problem with past diesels.

Nearly 40% of the new engine’s parts are carryover, with modifications geared to surpass emissions standards and increase horsepower and torque, while maintaining the durability associated with Dodge and Cummins.

January 23, 2007 in Diesel | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d8351229a369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DaimlerChrysler Introduces 50-State-Compliant Heavy-Duty Ram BLUETEC Pickup; New, More Efficient Light-Duty Engines After 2009:

Comments

Well, it's not quite a T2B5 LDV diesel yet but cleaning up MDVs also makes a lot of sense, because diesels are the right engine type for heavy pick-ups. Let's just hope the people who buy them have a legitimate use for tooling around in something that big.

I'm more concerned that the first thing a lot of people will do is yank out the exhaust to put in the "drain pipe" system that seems so popular on diesel pickups. Contractors and such generally just want to be able to get in their truck and have it work. The people buying these for personal use tend to chip them and put on the full exhaust, which of course means bey, bey cat, dpf, nox scrubber.

I know I'm being pessimistic. I know people won't leave emissions systems alone because it's right. They'll leave it alone when it doesn't cost them money or laws come into play to make them leave it alone.

Jason

Its no different than the Gas Muscle Car folks who remove the emissions control gear for more power. I High School I had a friend with a RX-7. He went to the wreckers and got another exhaust system that he bored out. He just bolted the working one on once a year to pass smog.

There is plenty of aftermarket stuff out there for oil and gas burners.

I'd love to have that 4.2 V6 in a Dakota PU.

"50-state compliant diesel ... an all-new 6.7-liter Cummins turbodiesel engine."

Just what we needed right now. It will be really useful for those of us who have tow heavy earth-moving equipment.

Bravo, Dodge and Cummins!

You raised a good point Jason. Maybe we can find some solace in that people wouldn't dismantle their catalytic systems until they eventually fail or cost them big money in maintenance costs. Hopefully, the devices these car companies are proposing will last a long time.

Thats just what we need in these energy conscious times, for an even bigger diesel ram heavy duty truck to be introduced. I guess its not enough to pull one huge tree out of the ground with a passenger type truck. Now we can pull out two trees at once! Notice there was no mileage or efficiency comparisons. Also note the reference to less stringent emission requirements because of the medium duty classification. A backward step!

And yes, someone hit it right on the head. Kids, with parents with fat wallets, will have these hopped up, jacked up monsters. The aftermarket tuners will jump on this and offer sewer pipe size exhausts, and trash can sizes mufflers for us all to have to listen to the extremely loud exhausts that blare right at our side windows, as we look up at their jacked up shock absorbers and after market suspensions. While sounding just like over the road 18 wheelers. I dont care if it has a cleaner exhaust. It will invariably have a much much dirtier noise pollution.

A HUGE step backward for Cummins and DaimlerChrysler, in my opinion, if they are to put it in pickups trucks.

Now the 4.2 liter may be a different animal.......

Mark A,
As opposed to what...a less efficient Otto engine?

Jason -

EPA and CARB both mandate strict OBD monitoring on clean diesel vehicles, precisely to prevent defeat strategies of the kind you describe. If you try to disable something, your engine might start once more but not twice. This ain't your daddy's diesel truck.

OBD has been very effective at curtailing defeat strategies in gasoline engines. In Europe, both gasoline and diesel engines feature EOBD, and other geographies have or are adopting similar safeguards.

Alan: How about a truck the size the smaller Dodge pick up used to be powered by a 2 liter diesel. Bet that would be more than enough for most of the rhinestone cowboys to get their loads of mulch home on Saturdays.

I read on the 4-Wheel & Off-Road website that the Cummins 4.2 and 5.6 diesels were being tested in a Dodge Durango and Ram 1500, respectively. They were both 4WD automatics and averaged around 22-24mpg. That's not bad when a Durango 4.7 V8 2WD gets around 17mpg and a Ram 1500 5.7 2WD does 12mpg.

Correct that: I found the info on Diesel Power Magazine's website.

By the time Dodge gets their act together (as well as Ford & GM). Toyota will already be smoking their asses with the diesel version of the Tacoma.

Mental note to buy more Toyota stock

Allen Z, yes I would take an quieter, slightly less efficient otto engine over a noisy, dirty diesel anyday. Sure diesel emission standards are getting better, but are still not on par with a comparable gas engine. Have you ever pumped diesel at a self serv gas station? Your hands will always be dirty afterwards. Almost never with a gas pump.

I am just sad at the trend I am seeing for this truck. Use more resources, instead of using less. Diamler/Chrysler and Cummins are doing us a great diservice with this type of offering if it to be for a standard pickup, at this time, in my opinion. Everyone bashes GM, but at least they are going in the right direction. Diamler/Chrysler isnt. But everyone also has a bellybutton......

Mark A:
Most truck stop diesel pumps (at least here in the U.S.) are filthy due to truckers wearing work gloves when they refuel to avoid getting fuel on their hands and to protect their hands from a cold metal fuel cap. "Four wheeler" pumps are usually just as clean(?) as gasoline pumps. Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say this will use more resources.

Mark:

In towing mode full-size pick-up with diesel engine consumes almost twice less fuel than gasoline one. It is also way more efficient on partial power, especially idle. For people who need (or think that they need) really big vehicle diesel is the engine to have. Fortunately, it becomes as clean as gasoline.

Despite popular believe, cat converter does not reduce max power at all on gasoline engines. Very few modifiers bother to remove or bore-out cat converter, because power gain is non-existent and penalty could be detrimental to their business. Mufflers – yes, it is a problem, and EPA surely should consider noise as pollution and regulate it.

On diesel engines, clogged DPF could be a problem, but we have to see it it will be the real one.

Rafael:

I am kind of puzzled. Here in NA OBD records failures, but ECU does not interfere with starting or operation of the vehicle. Do you have some kind of emission control failure enforcement, embedded in ECU software to force driver to fix the problem?

The point here is that the automakers should be offering more fuel efficient personal transportation, using less resources. This Dodge ram, with a 6.7 liter diesel, is presumably replacing the older 5.9 liter. I still think is a major step backward for this automaker and engine supplier. It takes more resources to make these trucks bigger, with the bigger engines, bigger suspensions, drivelines, and fuel tanks. That cant be argued. Do we really need personal transportation that can pull 25,000 pounds. I still dont think we need personal vehicles that can pull 15,000 pounds.

As for the diesel pump situation, I have never ever seen a clean pump, for "trucker" or "four-wheeler". Just the nature of the fuel. It is oily, and dust and dirt stick to it. It does not totally evaporate like gasoline, an leaves an oily residue if spilled. That also cant be argued.

Displacement has gone up on virtually all diesel engines to counteract the addition of EGR. The recirculation of up to 30% exhaust gas reduces the oxygen content in the combustion chamber, which reduces combustion temperatures and lowers Nox. Particulate Material (PM or smoke) goes up, but that is removed by a particulate filter. There is a 98% reduction of smog forming gases since 1990 in the U. S. 60 2007 compliant engines produce the same emissions as one 1988 model. www.dieselforum.org.

Mark:
Modern diesel engines have come a long way from what they were in the seventies. I'm sure you're already aware that they are more fuel efficient than the same size gas engine. The high torque advantage of diesels is just one of the many benefits these engines offer. And with more and more bio-diesel outlets appearing, the modern diesel is an idea whose time has come. You will always have the "tuner crowd" of course, but you neglect to consider the large market of people that have actual uses for heavy, 4 wheel drive pick-ups. For the people in that crowd, a more fuel efficient vehicle to use for their businesses would be quite welcome. I know a lot of Contractors who would rejoice to have a diesel engine offered in a 1/2 ton pick-up chassis.

As far as the dirty gas pumps, I guess all I can recommend is to hire a butler to pump your fuel.

Because the Rams are classified as medium-duty vehicles (their GVWR ranges from 9,000 to 11,000 lbs, depending upon the model, the 50-state EPA Tier 2 and CA LEV II NOx requirements are less stringent than those for the passenger-vehicle-targeted Tier 2 Bin 5.

EPA Tier 2 requirements for the Ram Heavy-Duty are 0.2 g/mi NOx. For light-duty vehicles (EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 and CA LEV II—the 50-state bar), the requirements are 0.07 g/mi NOx.

Mike, are you sure about this?

According to a press release on Dieselnet, the 6.7 Dodge/Cummins BLUETEC meets the 2010 Heavy Duty emissions regs (0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx; 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM - http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/01daimler.php)

These numbers also don't match up with the MDPV limits (0.9 g/mi NOx; 0.12 g/mi PM) and the MDPV Bin expires in 2008, not 2010 (http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php).

MDPVs are said to be primarily large SUVs and vans, but not heavy-duty pickup trucks.

According to EPA, this is approximately equivalent to a diesel SUV or light pick-up truck emitting at the Tier 2-bin 5 level (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/deerpresentation.pdf - slide #6).

Given the size of the Ram heavy-duty, that's pretty impressive IMO.

Mark,

Dirty diesel fuel pumps? I'm sure the gasoline drips just as much - only it is volatile so it becomes and atmospheric problem rather than remaining confined to the pump.

If you don't want stinky hands from either kind of fuel pump, get gloves.

Regarding gasoline being cleaner than diesel - the emission regs for this vehicle are the same regardless of whether the engine is gasoline or diesel: they are expressed in a per mile rate rather than by engine power. The diesel engine is *3 years ahead of schedule* in meeting emission regulations. Do you think the gasoline is?

Finally, you've assumed that a larger displacement engine automatically requires larger truck, engine (block?), suspension, driveline, and tank. Except for the transmission, none of these necessarily automatically follow from using a larger displacement engine. The change in stroke and bore is 4 and 5mm respectively, or less than 5%. The highway fuel economy of the 6.7 with the new transmission is better than the 5.9.
(see http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/09/28/dodge-announces-powerful-67-liter-cummins-turbo-diesel/)

I think Dodge has done a great job with this truck. While many of the traditional customers for this kind of vehicle won't be willing to pay for emissions reductions, they will pay for power, torque, and fuel economy.
Marketing best-in-class emissions would be difficult - except that it is also the leader in the things customers are ready to pay for.

Harvey,

If more displacement leads to more torque/power (which the article states), almost all componets have to be made stronger. The need for stronger transmission/driveshaft/axles is pretty obvious. These place more loads on the suspension (due to both the heavier curb weight and the reaction forces from the drivetrain), so the suspension needs to be stronger. That also requires the mounting location (either frame or body) needs to be stronger. If the body/frame is heavier, that requires a stronger suspension to support it, and more power to get the same performance. More power starts the cycle over again. OK, you are correct, if the efficiency of the engine outpaces the weight gain of the truck, then a larger fuel tank is not necessarily needed to have the same range.

Now, stronger components usually means either bigger/heavier or more expensive. Since there is a limit on how expensive a vehicle can be before no one buys it or before a manufacturer no longer makes a profit on it, stronger inevitably means bigger or heavier. So yes, added displacement will mean a bigger, heavier vehicle.

Why so bitter about the 6.7? They already have the 5.9 (which seems to be a great engine by the way). Adding the 5.6 V8 and the 4.2 V6 are very welcome by me. Having a 4.2 Diesel in a Dakota would be a dream.

Something that can be a daily driver, haul kids, boats, campers, stuff up to the lake and have a torque advantage and easily get 20-25 mpg would be fantastic. It would even fit in my tiny garage.

the base of that motor is the same as the 5.9 not made with stronger parts but the same parts
the old parts were built to last so they were stronger than needed
the added weight in this truck come from the egr system and the dpf
new trans has a double overdrive means better millage
uses less fuel to do the same as the old
no way it is back stepping it is a step forword to needing less oil
and until 07 the cummins 5.9 was the only diesel motor to meet 50 state regs with out an egr system

I don't think you guys realize this, but the 6.7 L Cummins diesel is about a $6100 option now that the emmissions adds another $500 to the bill, so, unlike a big-block gasser, just every joe out there isn't going to buy these trucks, which are expensive by their very nature. I think you guys are forgetting that the much higher cost of motor fuels in general is forcing people to look at their vehicle purchase a little closer than they did before. Even us rednecks.

Base 1500 Quad Cab 4x4 with base V8 and manual is 25,500. Add 1150 each for a 5.7 Hemi V8 and 5 Sp auto, gets you to $28,800. A Base model 2500 Quad Cab 4x4 with 6.7L Cummins and a 6 Speed auto is $38,000. Most trucks won't be base models, so add between $2-5000 for the upgraded trim level and any additional options go above and beyond. If you go full ton, pulling the big loads, it's over $40 grand before options.

Bought my 2005 M.Y. 2500 QC short bed 4x4 for $30,000 and she gets 18 MPG at about 7,000 lbs dry wt. A comparable gasser would only get about 12-15 MPG and can't even begin to handle the loads this thing will haul. First owner was a contractor. Sold it because he was the boss, and all he did was drive from worksite to worksite doing estimates. So he bought a midsize sedan.

Carl,

The 6.7L cummins fuel economy comes no where close to what the last two model year 5.9L (ISB 325) engines were achiving. I have owned Dodge trucks with all of the available cummins engines, 6BTA, ISB, ISB 325, and the 6.7L. Regretably I just traded a 2005 with the 5.9 common rail, for a 2008 6.7. The 05 with an avg. of 22.4 MPG. The 6.7 barley gets into the 14's. How can this be efficient. I am very familiar with all of the diesel engines in production from 87 to the present and as far a engine efficiency goes they are all going down hill. How can you say the engine is cleaner ( it may be out the tailpipe, but thats besides the point) when it requires nearly twice the fuel to go the same distance.
Andrey,
Yes some of us do need personal trucks that are capable of lugging around 25K lbs. 30% of my driving is with 15,000 lbs behind my 8000 lb truck.
The majority of people I find wanting chips, exhaust, intakes, and upgrades are trying to improve fuel the economy of there newer diesel so that it at least matches the economy of there older diesel. There are a few that just want noise and black smoke, those are the under educated diesel enthusiast that do not realize that the black smoke that just belched from the 6 inch exhaust stack could have been put to better use by being burnt in the combustion chamber, had they planned their engine modifications more carefully.
Keith at Wies Equipment Repair

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group