SoCalDesertRider wrote: If the Cummins passes fine without urea in the pickups, why do the chassis-cabs need urea?? Doesn't make any sense to me! What if I order my chassis-cab with a side of pickup bed, will they hold the urea???
The urea tank in the C+C models is under the cab. And....I don't know why they use urea in the C+C models and not in the pickups. Good question
2004 Cougar 301 BHS "MEGACASPER" 2007 Dodge/5.9L Cummins/3500 SRW Megacab/48RE/4x4/3.73/10,100# GVWR
RV and truck weight = ~20,000# Hypertech Max Energy
"You might be wondering why Chrysler is using a NOx adsorber on its HD pickups and urea SCR on its Chassis Cabs. It’s because the NOx adsorber depends on rare earth metals. Until recently, the prices of these metals had been sky high. DEF is much cheaper than rhodium or palladium. The drawback against urea though is it requires periodic maintenance and driver action."
It's true - How? Superior engineering by Cummins. The Cummins 6.7L was 2010 emissions compliant at it's introduction in 2007. They will use urea in the cab and chassis models, but not in the pickups.
"Chrysler has strategically prepared for 2010 over the past two years. In 2007, it introduced for its heavy-duty pickups an enhanced and innovative 350-horsepower, 650-pounds-feet-of-torque, 6.7-liter six-cylinder Cummins diesel, based on the previous 5.9-liter Cummins engine. The new diesel added a segment-exclusive exhaust brake, like over-the-road trucks use. The 6.7-liter motor not only met new 2007 EPA limits on soot emissions, but it reached 2010 NOx emissions requirements three years early."
Now forced to play catch-up for 2010, Ford’s and GM’s NOx solutions are expected to come in the form of urea selective catalytic reduction. Urea SCR will use canisters (which will need to be replaced or refilled periodically) of the diesel emissions fluid that will be shot into the exhaust stream to lower NOx. While Ford and GM spend time and money to develop these new engines, Chrysler is sticking with its proven Cummins 6.7-liter for its 2010 heavy-duty pickups. It’s being carried over from the 2007-09 models without any changes."
"...this Cummins blasts past the new '07 EPA emissions standards and meets the '10 regulations without the use of a complicated urea injection system that may show up in some lighter cars and trucks over the next few years. The relative simplicity of the Cummins Bluetec system is one of its greatest assets."
A quote from the article; "It featured a diesel particulate filter meant to catch and burn off soot, plus special “adsorber” catalyst material to soak up and break down NOx molecules before they leave the tailpipe."
So does all of the 2007.5+ Cummins have that special "absorber", or will they start coming on the trucks in 2010?
SoCalDesertRider wrote: If the Cummins passes fine without urea in the pickups, why do the chassis-cabs need urea?? Doesn't make any sense to me! What if I order my chassis-cab with a side of pickup bed, will they hold the urea???
The urea tank in the C+C models is under the cab. And....I don't know why they use urea in the C+C models and not in the pickups. Good question
The Pickups are in a different emmissions class than the C&C which is why the use of urea in the C&C.
Rich
'09 Dodge/Cummins 6.7 3500 Quad Cab DRW SLT Laramie Auto, Timbrens & Overload Bump Stop Spacers; Tork Lift Super Hitch, Tiedowns and Fastguns, ExtremeAir 12 Volt Air Compressor
'04 Arctic Fox 990; 91 Jeep Wrangler ARB's TeraLow 4.5" Rubicon Express Lift
A quote from the article; "It featured a diesel particulate filter meant to catch and burn off soot, plus special “adsorber” catalyst material to soak up and break down NOx molecules before they leave the tailpipe."
So does all of the 2007.5+ Cummins have that special "absorber", or will they start coming on the trucks in 2010?
I'm not sure. Just a guess that maybe they have been used all along as Dodge was touting the fact that the 07 6.7L Cummins was the "cleanest" of all the big 3 diesels in when it was introduced in 2007, and that it met the 2010 emissions regs 3 years early.
Also, in that last quote of mine from the article it says they will be carried over into 2010 without any changes. Seems like they have been using it all along.
It's kind of funny when I see people trying to argue that the Duramax or the PSD is a better engine than the Cummins. It's pretty well accepted all over the diesel community that the Cummins is the leader. Now as for the truck itself, sure, you can argue some of that stuff but the engine arguments are a waste of time and effort.
jthorpe wrote: It's kind of funny when I see people trying to argue that the Duramax or the PSD is a better engine than the Cummins. It's pretty well accepted all over the diesel community that the Cummins is the leader. Now as for the truck itself, sure, you can argue some of that stuff but the engine arguments are a waste of time and effort.
True. You don't see many websites devoted to ripping out Cummins engines and replacing them with Powerstrokes or Duramaxes, but there are quite a few (such as Destroked) that are focused on putting Cummins diesels into Fords though... Also, lots of 12V 5.9L Cummins diesels being put into late 90s Chevys and GMCs too.
You also don't see Ford putting their last 3 diesel engines in their own F650 and F750s. They use a Cummins or a CAT. The same Cummins is available in the 2500/3500 Dodge.
surveyorjp wrote: Strange, I've not read any automotive journalist who shares your opinion. In fact, most have stated it is the best interior ever in a Dodge pickup, and better than the current offerings from other manufacturers. Better than some by a wide margin in fact.
Yeah, and we all know how well respected automotive journalists are. They always get it right.
Happy trails!!
Pete
2004 F-250 SC XLT FX4 OFF ROAD 5.4L, camper package, snowplow prep and more.
1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4x4 5.2 V8
jthorpe wrote: It's kind of funny when I see people trying to argue that the Duramax or the PSD is a better engine than the Cummins. It's pretty well accepted all over the diesel community that the Cummins is the leader. Now as for the truck itself, sure, you can argue some of that stuff but the engine arguments are a waste of time and effort.
That "acceptance all over the diesel community" is based on many many years of Cummins well earned engine reputation as used in medium truck, construction and industrail uses. The PSD? well we won't talk about that, but the Duramax was designed specifically for use in modern light duty trucks with a shorter life expectancy, owned and operated by non professional drivers. It's secondary mission is that of medium duty applications, small motorhomes, tow trucks etc. The goals set by the designers, lighter weight, shorter length, noise reduction, wider RPM range, etc. are met very well and as such it might be the "best" engine out there right now for it's intended use. This very forum seems to lack references implying Duramax owners regret not buying a truck powered by the old school medium duty engine in their highway driven pickups. It seems the typical Duramax owner is a very satisfied owner and certainly believe GM and Isuzu designed a winner indeed.
As for "the truck itself" After owning my 05 since new and seeing the 09 half ton and 2010 HDDodge trucks, I am yet to understand why there are still references to suggest a GM is a superior product. I've owned them all in the 44 years I've been driving, and if ordering a 2010 today, the decision would not be an easy one. All things being equal (belief in manufacturer's survival) Dodge would probably still get my money.
* This post was
edited 09/14/09 03:25pm by dshelley *
Offline
