Quote:

..........Ya think it makes your exhaust smell like the open pit potty at some campgrounds, and state parks?

Will flies be attracted to your tail pipe?

GMC_Man wrote:

At least Chevy is finally going to do something with that big ol' ugly a** chrome front bumper.

moparmaga2 wrote:

I doubt there are 1,000 potential diesel truck buyers that are concerned with the amount of torque the diesel puts out.

So you can stick a semi engine in a truck, so what? Your MPG will just suffer even more.

At the present rate of fuel doubling in price every year, Diesel will be $12.00 a gallon by then.

Do you think anyone will really care?

8.1 Van wrote:

Since GM is spending $75 million on the 2010 Duramax EPA upgrades they will have to charge at least $10,000 for the 2010 Duramax option to break even since there will be alot less unit sales. I bet many will keep their current diesel pickups for a very long time before selling or trading them in since trade in values dropped so much.

woodrow wrote:



Must be back from the piston slap mechanic I see, trolling another good informative post. Have you had a compression check lately?

jefff929 wrote:

Moparmagna2, I'll bite.

Torque gets the job done, period. I bet there a few more than 1,000

It is not the engine in the tuck, it is the technology applied to the application that will make the urea another way of making cleaner emissions.

IMO, the weed burner technology was a bad idea from the get go. The urea technology, and for that matter diesel and other fuels, has long been ignored by folks on this side of the pond. We are by enlarge an ignorant society that thrives on paradigms, litigation and hype, it is about time we grew up and realized that we need to quit focusing on pieces of the puzzle and look at the entire picture. In the 70s we cleaned up the great lakes and other waterways. In the 80s and 90s we focused on other areas of the environment, even at the detriment of peoples lively hoods. We became overly concerned with what folks think and say that we deem inappropriate, with total disregard for contrary viewpoints. We are now incapable of manufacturing, locally, simple things for daily living and if we had a global shipping disaster we would be incapable of taking care of ourselves for any extended period of time should our infrastructure fail.

So we continue down our road in all our ignorant bliss, have a nice day.

ib516 wrote:


A bit naive don't you think? Why has there been (and continues to be) a "power war" between the big 3 diesel truck (Ford/GM/Dodge)?

Lets look at the last few years of diesel engines in pickup trucks:
- 2001 GM introduces the Duramax with 520tq. Dodge/Cummins introduces the "HO" version of the 5.9L Cummmins with 505tq, up from 460. Ford 7.3L tq goes to 500 lbs-ft.

- 2003, Dodge/Cummins introduces the 305hp/555tq version of the HO Cummins. Ford ups the diesel hp/tq in the F250/350 to 325hp/560tq.

- 2004, GM introduces the LLY version of the Duramax with 310hp/590tq. 2004.5 Dodge/Cummins breaks the "600" tq barrier with the 325hp/600tq version of the 5.9L Cummins. GM responds with the 310hp/605tq version of the LLY in 2005.

- 2006, Cummins ups the tq to 610, then GM goes to the LBZ with 350hp/650tq.

- And on it goes. Been living under a rock the last few years? Or just into bashing diesels based on inflamitory claims and ignorance?

You're 100% wrong. Diesel buyers need big power to move big loads. Also, the diesel aftermarket that sells millions of dollars worth of products designed to increase tq and hp says you're full of it. Not everyone has a 15' RV.