New Consumer Reports says 6.7 Cummins sucks

[sawtooth1]

Looks like Ford may gain back some customers if this new engine is a success. The 6.7 Cummins has been a nightmare and the new Consumer Reports shows it. My local diesel tech for all of the big three said the Duramax is best mainly cause its been around so long and the 6.4 is close second if you remove all the radiator issues during the 1st year of production. Anyway, he's worked on some 6.7's and is hearing they are having major issues. He loves the big C and says the older 5.9's were about bullet proof. Anyway, guess time will tell.

[Shooter04]

Originally Posted by sawtooth1

Looks like Ford may gain back some customers if this new engine is a success. The 6.7 Cummins has been a nightmare and the new Consumer Reports shows it. My local diesel tech for all of the big three said the Duramax is best mainly cause its been around so long and the 6.4 is close second if you remove all the radiator issues during the 1st year of production. Anyway, he's worked on some 6.7's and is hearing they are having major issues. He loves the big C and says the older 5.9's were about bullet proof. Anyway, guess time will tell.

Just to clarify, you mean the Cummins 6.7 not the powerstroke 6.7 right?

[Zytek_Fan]

Actually it's more of a statement about the new emissions diesels in general. The Cummins has been the more extreme of these failures due to emissions equipment, but what it does is exemplify how horribly wrong it was to put emissions equipment on diesels.
Truth is they don't need it. Diesels burn way cleaner than any gasoline engine, even if there is smoke because guess what the smoke is? Carbon (largely). Carbon that falls back down to Earth and it begins the carbon cycle all over again.

It is not the fault of the manufacturers for these issues, it is the fault of the EPA and other government emissions panels.

[Shooter04]

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Actually it's more of a statement about the new emissions diesels in general. The Cummins has been the more extreme of these failures due to emissions equipment, but what it does is exemplify how horribly wrong it was to put emissions equipment on diesels.
Truth is they don't need it. Diesels burn way cleaner than any gasoline engine, even if there is smoke because guess what the smoke is? Carbon (largely). Carbon that falls back down to Earth and it begins the carbon cycle all over again.

It is not the fault of the manufacturers for these issues, it is the fault of the EPA and other government emissions panels.

Not that i'm on the whole EPA bandwagon but isn't the entire point of all the emissions equipment crap to lower carbon output? And the black smoke is soot...more of a fertilizer right?

[ianstew]

the emissions on diesels are for sulfur and nitrogen oxides, hence the ULSD fuel mandated now...diesels produce much more nitrogen and sulfur oxides than gassers, and these two pollutants are the major cause of acid rain. at least according to the EPA. but wee all know their track record so far......

[sawtooth1]

thats exactly right. It is the Cummins motor they are talking about but as someone else said its mostly emissions releated as it is with all of the big three. Going to be real interesting to see how the new engines and Urea deal work out. Cummins could have all the bugs worked out this year considering they don't have to change anything on their motors. I sure hope the new Ford 6.7 is a good one though as the 6.4 seems to be turning out pretty good overall. Especially considering it was a brand new motor and included all the major emission changes for 2008. Kinda hate to see its departure so soon. My truck is so smooth and powerful its much better overall than other diesels i've used. Maybe the new one willl be even better.

[MyDiesel250]

IDK the cummins dosent need all of that emissions Sh** on it like the urea stuff maybe it will be a better motor cant say cause the fords 6.7 hasnt come out but we will all see

[powerstrokes only]

All I know is everybody I know with a 6.7 Cummins has had heck with the DPF's clogging up! I am positive they don't have it figured out yet, and why are the new 4500's going to have to have urea injection?? I hate all the EPA crap on these new trucks, I can't even beleive the diff. in my 6.4 since I did a DPF delete, night and day!!!!!!!!

[supreme oppressor]

Not that i'm on the whole EPA bandwagon but isn't the entire point of all the emissions equipment crap to lower carbon output? And the black smoke is soot...more of a fertilizer right?

The emmissions people who talk about lower carbon output are just too lazy to say what they mean - carbon dioxide. Only way to reduce that, regardless of gas or diesel, is better mileage. In a perfect world all that would come out of the tailpipe would be CO2 and H2O.

[hammett88]

yeah but this doesnt suprise anybody who has to deal with the epa on a regular basis... im a water well driller and we went to a jobsite and marked a location to drill a well by simply driving a piece of 2in pipe in the ground.. one of there boneheads drove up and saw the pipe sticking up and called us in saying we didnt call in and finish registering the well before drilling.... idiot!!