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.

"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.

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.......

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.