Talk:Cummins B Series engine/Archive 1 2009-2011

*****

Someone could make a table to plug in ratings if they feel it make some of this read more precise..................--Dana60Cummins (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Transmissions

The G-56 6 speed transmission is NOT manufactured by Getrag. It is actually manufactured by Mercedes Benz Commercial Vehicles Division.

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/media_library/unitedkingdom/mpc_unitedkingdom/trucks/products/newatego_cv506.object-Single-MEDIA.tmp/Atego%20815,%20818,%20823%20CV%20506.pdf

The notion that the G-56 is manufactured by Getrag is supported by some by the "G" designation of the transmission. This designation is contrary to Getrag's own designation system. All Getrag manual transmissions use a sequence giving the number of forward gears then the designation MT then the designation I for inline or T for traverse followed by the input torque rating in Newton meters. For example a 6 speed inline manual transmission with an input torque rating of 500 Nm would be identified as 6MTI500.

Dodge in fact does use a Getrag 6 speed manual transmission to replace the NV3500 in its Ram and Dakota trucks. However this transmission is a light duty model and is never combined with the Cummins Turbodiesel.

Known Transmissions behind the B Series Cummins (Class 2-8 trucks)

3.9

GM

Turbo 400

Allison series

AT545, 1000, 2000?

5.9

Allison series

1000, 2000 & 3000

Dodge Manuals

G-56 (6 Speed), NV5600 (6 Speed), NV4500 (5 speed), and Getrag G360 (5 speed)

Dodge Automatic

48RE, 47RE, 47RH, & A618

Eaton/Fuller

FSO6406A 6 speed and Eaton 10 Speed

Spicer

5 and/or 6 Speed?

6.7

Allison series

1000, 2000 & 3000

Aisin

AS68RC

Dodge Automatic

68RFE (Orion)

Dodge Manual

G-56

3.3

Isn't there a 3.3 engine in the B series as well?

Yes it is but very little is known on it. The 3.9 shared 5.9 parts, but I don't know if any parts are the same on the 3.3. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also a 4.5 litre B series 4 cylinder engine. --86.169.37.122 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues

This article needs to have a little more focus on Non-Dodge Ram applications. This engine was found in Class 6 and 7 Ford Medium Duty trucks, Frieghtliners, Tractors, a slew of construction equipment Gen set, Marine applications, etc. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some examples here - Alexander Dennis Enviro 200/300/400 service buses in the UK all use Cummins ISBe 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder engines, as do DAF LF45/LF55/CF65 lorries. Capacities in the ADL service buses and the DAF lorries are 4.5L and 6.7L respectively, up from 3.9L and 5.9L respectively due to more recent European emissions standards. The "old" B-series engines are used in the vehicles they replaced, which were made from the late 80s to early 90s until the early to mid 2000s. Hope this helps! --86.169.37.122 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out as well that the ISBe engines were used in the old service bus models only for the last 5 years of production since the service buses were replaced about 5 years after the lorries were and the significantly stricter European emission standards of 2001 meant the manufacturers were "forced" to use the new ISBe engines rather than the "old" B ones. --86.169.37.122 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many owners have decided to risk voiding their warranties, and remove or disable the EGR and DPF systems on their trucks, resulting in a much more reliable engine and truck, with better economy. Those who have done the EGR and DPF deletes report getting around 18 MPG in city traffic, and over 21 MPG on the highway, while not towing." --Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(Someone else covered this: Thank you to whoever.)--Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dodge had a diesel in the 1978

Though it wasn't especially popular, Dodge did place a Mitsubishi diesel into their pickups in 1978. The trucks were very, very slow. I recall Motor Trend writing a story about the trucks.

Potential references

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/history/segment10.html

6BT

6BT (Non-Dodge) VE & P7100 Ratings

160 hp / 400 lb-ft torque. 175 hp / 420 lb-ft torque. 175 hp / 430 lb-ft torque. 180 hp / 420 lb-ft torque. 190 hp / 475 lb-ft torque. 210 hp / 485 lb-ft torque. 210 hp / 520 lb-ft torque. 215 hp / 440 lb-ft torque. 230 hp / 605 lb-ft torque.

ISB

(Non-Dodge)ISB VP44 & Common Rail Ratings

ISB175: 175 hp @ 2500 rpm 420 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB190: 190 hp @ 2600 rpm 520 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm. ISB195: 195 hp @ 2500 rpm 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB210: 210 hp @ 2600 rpm 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB215: 215 hp @ 2500 rpm 520 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB215: 215 hp @ 2500 rpm 605 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB230: 230 hp @ 2500 rpm 605 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB230: 230 hp @ 2500 rpm 660 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB250: 250 hp @ 2500 rpm 660 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB275: 275 hp @ 2500 rpm 660 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB300: 300 hp @ 2600 rpm 660 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm. ISB300: 300 hp @ 2600 rpm 660 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm.

slanted

The first time that info was deleted was not even done by me, I only back up the removal of it being it is biased. I'll break it down for you paragraph for paragraph:

The EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation), and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) implementations on these engines offered in 2007.5+ Dodge Ram 2500-3500 trucks are plagued with problems, ranging from soot plugged turbos (which creates another subset of problems in itself), soot caked intakes, and plugged DPF filter systems. Most of these caused catastrophic system failures, many times leaving the driver stranded.

All these problems are problems are in any truck equipped with the new emissions devices. Ford, GM, Dodge, doesn't matter. Even the big trucks. And I have worked on them all, including work for Dodge, Ford and GM dealerships, I don't need ask them anything. This isn't a Dodge/Cummins problem. It's a emissions system technology problem.

These systems, mandated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as per the 2010 diesel engine regulations, also cause a drop of at least 25% in economy. Similar legally mandated systems on competing diesel engines such as the Power Stroke and Duramax have been mostly trouble-free and without such large-scale negative impacts, providing hope that these problems may be solvable on the B series with future design revisions, and possible manufacturer recalls.

Powerstrokes started on fire. Duramax runs fleetguard DPF systems, they have the same failure rates as the Dodge's because Dodge also uses Fleetguard. Cummins owns fleetguard. Once again, this isn't a Dodge/Cummins problem. It's a emissions system technology problem. The 25% drop in fuel economy shouldn't even be stated, because these engines are made with EGR/DPF. A EGR deletion will increase fuel economy by 25%.

Despite Chrysler's attempts to fix these problems to date, owners are still caught in the middle. Chrysler has offered many owners to buy back their vehicles.

Ford has actually bought more trucks back than GM and Dodge combined.

Chrysler has suggested that owners "drive it hard, drive it fast" but it is not always possible or safe to do this, and it may result in failures of the engine and other powertrain components.

Chrysler actually suggests just leaving the the turbo brake on.

Many owners have decided to risk voiding their warranties by removing or disabling the EGR and DPF items on their trucks, resulting in a much more reliable engine and truck with better economy. They report getting around 18 MPG in city traffic, and over 21 MPG on the highway, while not towing.

By far, the worst part of this whole data bash. Yes owners do EGR/DPF deletes and do get better mileage, perhaps 18/21. But these trucks are built completely different Class 2-5. Let alone this engine shows up in class 6-8 Fords, with the same problems. So can these 18/21 after the delete. Sure, a 2wd, reg cab, 3.42 gearing will get over 25 MPG running bone stock. A 5500 4x4 might do 10 MPG with the deletion. They are all different.

Under warranty, all problems with the engine and powertrain will be repaired, as long as the owner has not removed any of the emissions system or installed any other potentially warranty-voiding devices. Warranty repairs can prove to be problematic for owners, as warranty repair policies may vary from dealer to dealer. However, under US law, all problems related to emissions systems must be covered under warranty for 5 years or 100,000 miles (significantly longer than the standard warranty); dealers refusing emissions-related warranty repairs risk legal punishment for both themselves and Chrysler Corporation. Although it has been found that on some non-California registered 2007.5 models that emissions warranty is only 5 year or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.

Dealers refusing warranty repairs for no reason is non existent. That whole thing is slanted.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural Gas

The B-series engine also has a natural gas version that uses spark plugs. It is not strictly a diesel engine. See the B5.9 195G model. Perhaps should be in the article.MartinezMD (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to do some searching. Last time I checked I couldn't even find a picture of it. I'll see if I can find some data on it now though.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable references.

In the revisions since my last minor edit, there has been much additional info, including names of people associated with the development of certain versions, of which little is verifiable. In fact, it seems much of this entry is not backed by verifiable references. I'm going to tag the whole entry as such. Caisson 06 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Cummins B Series engine article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dodge Ram ISB CR

Dana60Cummins -- thanks for adding a partial citation for the claims in that paragraph. I had deleted the paragraph because it had was totally unsourced, and had not become sourced in many weeks since citations had been requested. But you did not merely "undo" the 880 Byte deletion edit I made, you added back the claims, and added a citation, as is illustrated in the edit summary (copied below) by your addition of 965 Bytes. So the comment should be a bit more clear to encourage other editors to source their claims.

(cur | prev) 2012-04-30T13:10:16‎ Dana60Cummins (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,361 bytes) (+965)‎ . . (Undid revision 489897672 by N2e (talk) That section was dead on & overdue.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 2012-04-30T04:35:53‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,396 bytes) (-880)‎ . . (→‎Dodge Ram ISB CR: could be, but a verifiable source is needed for these claims to stay in Wikipedia; add back in if you have a source you can cite) (undo)

Having said that, it is not clear that a primary source from the manufacturer can be used to back up every claim in that paragraph. Do you believe it can? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The main point is the section needs to stay. All the data I know personally to be correct, obviously my user name represents a conflict of interest. But things like the engine being noticeably quieter are simple facts about diesel injection system evolution. Common rail systems are quiet, compared to older systems, the Dodge Ram diesels were maybe the best example of this. Listening to a 2nd gen vs. 3rd gen and the difference was so drastic that some gearheads didn't even like the quieter engine. The B series Cummins engines basically needs 3 sections for each engine type. One for the Dodge Rams, one for the on-road engines and one for off-road engines. You deleted a section I feel it needs, that's why I undid your edit. Keep the section, edit what you need.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem on the section staying. But if assertions are not sourced, and especially if citations have been requested for some time, it is quite appropriate for the unsourced claims to be removed. The default position is that the material should stay out of Wikipedia until sourced, not that it should stay in Wikipedia and someone else should have to do the research to support the claims.

As for that particular paragraph, it was formerly completely unsourced. Since you have now added a citation, it would appear that it has a source for the entire paragraph. I question that the single WP:Primary Source actually does source all the claims in that paragraph; but fair enough, I haven't had time to check it all out yet. Best course of action is for the editor who wants the material to stay in Wikipedia to ensure it is properly sourced. But if that is not checked out by you, I'll get back here eventually and check it myself.

Thanks for adding a source for the paragraph. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)