Dodge 2500 4x4 Hemi????

[garth466]

I was glad to hear the comment from Cumminsluke, even though I didn't like what I heard. In planning for my next new truck, I've been wondering how the new 6.7 is doing regarding the mileage. Of course I'm waiting to see how the thing holds up problem wise.

That said, I couldn't go to a gas truck. I'm sure the Hemi would do anything I've ever done with my Cummins, but it would be woking harder (or at least it would seems like it). I just couldn't get used to a tach going over 2500. I might just try to be smart and get the next new truck when I actually need a new truck. Almost 5 years and 64,000 miles is a record for me now. I've only had to put U-joints on the rear drive line.

 

[CumminsLuke]

I was glad to hear the comment from Cumminsluke, even though I didn't like what I heard. In planning for my next new truck, I've been wondering how the new 6.7 is doing regarding the mileage. Of course I'm waiting to see how the thing holds up problem wise.

That said, I couldn't go to a gas truck. I'm sure the Hemi would do anything I've ever done with my Cummins, but it would be woking harder (or at least it would seems like it). I just couldn't get used to a tach going over 2500. I might just try to be smart and get the next new truck when I actually need a new truck. Almost 5 years and 64,000 miles is a record for me now. I've only had to put U-joints on the rear drive line.

Garth, the 6.7L is a good engine. The meat and potatoes of the 6.7L are actually stronger than the 5.9L. The only problems we have had are a few teething pains with the new emission components. We've had to reflash a few computers, we've had to replace a few turbo chargers for excessive soot accumulation, and now they have a recall out for some of them also where we replace one of the EGR components and do a computer update also. All that said, no major problems, and I sell a bunch of them, in fact 80% of my new vehicle sales are Dodge/Cummins trucks. The mileage is going to be worse and there is nothing anyone can do about it. All three of the big three are going to have this problem though. They are pouring more coal to these engines because the general public thinks they need 300-400 hp to pull their 14' jon boat, and the more coal you pour to em the more there gonna burn. In addition, the federal government decided diesels need to run as clean as gas rigs, so now we got two or three particulate traps and oxidation catylst's (spelling?) in the exhausts stream, exhaust gas recirculation, and all kinds of other fun cra.... er.... stuff. If you do any short trip driving, long idling, and don't tow very heavy very often you will have problems with any of the big three's new diesel emission systems. The problem being excessive soot accumulation in the turbo, and in the exhaust/emission system. The federal government/EPA has ruined diesel's as far as cost justification is concerned for the Joe Blow who doesn't really need one, both in increased upfront cost for the diesel, and in long term up keep. I know just one of our particulate traps for a Dodge Cummins is around $2100. That is gonna stink once the truck is out of warranty and it needs replaced.

 

[garth466]

I guess I'll keep this truck for a while then-let the bugs get worked out. I already feel lucky that I bought one of the first HO diesels with an automatic and haven't had problems. I feel even luckier when I'm picking up all my buddies at the Ford dealer to take them home. A bunch of us bought new diesels in 03 and I was the lone Dodge guy and everyone else went Ford. My truck was was butt of many jokes for a while. Look who's laughing now.

The only notice I recieved from Dodge about my truck, I wish I ignored. I brought it in not knowing what the apparent problem was and now when I put it in reverse with the door open the horn honks! Apparently a few people ran themselves over because they exited the vehicle while it was still in reverse and they figured it was the manufacturer's fault. Thank God for lawyers!

 

[RollTideRam]

It would make sense to get 4-5k over a gas burner on my 01 Dodge. In 01 that is what the diesel cost extra. Mine is paid for now, and I want to keep it a while. I remember when I bought it in January of 03 fuel was $1.36, now at $3.25 and .40 more than gas, I would not buy diesel again. JC

 

[CumminsLuke]

It would make sense to get 4-5k over a gas burner on my 01 Dodge. In 01 that is what the diesel cost extra. Mine is paid for now, and I want to keep it a while. I remember when I bought it in January of 03 fuel was $1.36, now at $3.25 and .40 more than gas, I would not buy diesel again. JC

Your exactly right. It was a whole different story then. Today, the numbers don't work out so good.

 

[chh]

I bought a new Dodge 3/4 ton flatbed in 97 with the old 12 valve Cummins. 4.10 gears and 4WD. I really needed a diesel. Just turned over 68,000 miles. The motor is heavy enough that without the 4WD it would be worthless as a feed truck. You can get it stuck in a heartbbeat. I have towed with it more in the last 2 years than the previous 8 put together. Have towed as heavy as a D3C LPG (18000 lbs) with it. I have a 2000 lb feed box on it now. Really have like it but the numbers sure don't work anymore to me for a diesel. The next truck I get will most likely be a gas duelly flatbed. But that won't be a least for couple of more years the way things are going.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Not sure if it is true with the Dodges but the GM trucks with the cylinder cut out is about worthless. My best friend bought a new GM 1/2 ton 4x4 the same month I bought a new F-150 4x4. His GM has the cylinder cut out and will get better millage on the highway if he goes under 60, but who does that? He is a die hard GM man and he will be the first to tell you its just a joke. We both get 15 mpg in town and about 18 on the highway at real speeds and driving habits.

Chris

 

[Z-Michigan]

Not sure if it is true with the Dodges but the GM trucks with the cylinder cut out is about worthless. My best friend bought a new GM 1/2 ton 4x4 the same month I bought a new F-150 4x4. His GM has the cylinder cut out and will get better millage on the highway if he goes under 60, but who does that? He is a die hard GM man and he will be the first to tell you its just a joke. We both get 15 mpg in town and about 18 on the highway at real speeds and driving habits.
Chris

I have a 2007 Suburban 4x4 5.3L and disagree 100%. The DOD system is on a lot of the time in my driving. I get 16.5-17mpg in commuting (cold starts, little freeway) and can see up to 20mpg on the freeway at 70mph. I watch the DOD indicator some and now also recognize the sound of V4 mode and let me tell you it is active a lot of the time. Definitely a lot at 55-60mph, but also a fair bit on the freeway. A tiny downhill (nearly imperceptible) and DOD will cut in to V4 mode. Michigan is flat but not dead flat so I'm in V4 mode maybe 30-40% of the time on the freeway at 70mph. Also, I do a lot of driving on country roads where 55mph is both the speed limit and safe. So, IMHO, DOD is a very worthwhile feature.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have a 2007 Suburban 4x4 5.3L and disagree 100%. The DOD system is on a lot of the time in my driving. I get 16.5-17mpg in commuting (cold starts, little freeway) and can see up to 20mpg on the freeway at 70mph. I watch the DOD indicator some and now also recognize the sound of V4 mode and let me tell you it is active a lot of the time. Definitely a lot at 55-60mph, but also a fair bit on the freeway. A tiny downhill (nearly imperceptible) and DOD will cut in to V4 mode. Michigan is flat but not dead flat so I'm in V4 mode maybe 30-40% of the time on the freeway at 70mph. Also, I do a lot of driving on country roads where 55mph is both the speed limit and safe. So, IMHO, DOD is a very worthwhile feature.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the rear end gearing. I am not sure what he has but I am guessing its about like my F-150's 3.73 gears. Also Southern Indiana is quite hilly. I would guess in that case you are loosing more going up than you can gain going down. Like I said he has reported 15 in town and 18 on the highway average.

Chris

 

[Z-Michigan]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the rear end gearing. I am not sure what he has but I am guessing its about like my F-150's 3.73 gears. Also Southern Indiana is quite hilly. I would guess in that case you are loosing more going up than you can gain going down. Like I said he has reported 15 in town and 18 on the highway average.
Chris

Rear end gears is a good question. I have 3.73, which are stock on Suburban/Tahoe and probably stock on the K1500 also. Some people on another forum have reported that with 4.10 gears they actually get better mileage than friends with an identical Tahoe except for 3.73 gears, because with the 4.10 ratio the engine spends more time in V4 mode. Yes, very counterintuitive.

I was in the Columbus to Bloomington area a few weeks ago. Quite hilly, and scenic too. I can see how in hill country you would lose more and see less benefit - i.e. V4 mode only going downhill, when the engine wouldn't have been using much gas anyway if in V8 mode. On the other hand, my aunt and uncle-in-law have a van-based RV with the Chevy 6.0L motor (not DOD), rear gears must be 4.10 or even shorter, the whole rig must weigh at least 9-10k lbs and has the aerodynamics of a rough brick, and they reported getting a true 19mpg while driving through and in the Colorado Rockies this past summer. I can't explain that, but the uncle-in-law is a retired A&P aircraft mechanic who now does full range building engineering stuff, so he knows his stuff and hasn't ever lied or been mistaken in my past experience. Mileage doesn't always follow intuition!