You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
well it seems they are headed in the right direction. they must have figured out that they can't build a auto tranny to save their lives so they contracted with AISIN . AISIN makes good reliable units. but after all its still a DODGE!
The boxed frame is nothing more than the company trying to gain a marketing advantage over the other. The boxed frame does however add alot of extra weight, and a C frame has proven to be more than enough on light to medium duty trucks. It provides proper flex and enough strength for most any job these trucks will see. Its also lighter, and much cheaper to make.
Look at how straight and low profile that frame is, closer to a tractor trailer frame. No uneeded bends or twists.
Took them long enough, but it looks like they are going in the right direction. As others have said it's about time Dodge faced the fact that they can't build a transmission worth a damn. I'd be interested to see how the engine performs with all the new systems they have put on it. The magazine article makes it sound great. It is a completly new engine design so I would expect some bugs to appear. When will they start making the outside of the truck look better?
"We asked if this transmission (new 6spd auto) was going to be used in the regular 2500 and 3500 trucks and were told that the '07 model will continue with the 48RE."
This doesn't make any sense, unless its a cost/fitment issue....
__________________
2000 F250 4x4 VX Crew lariet
6" lift 35/12.5 bfg A/T auto 3.73
K&N FIPK, JBA exhaust
Full memphis audio system with 15" sub behind seat
228,000mi, SOLD
That's the same reason why big rigs have C-channel frames. If the frames were boxed, the torque from the engine would rip them apart. I saw that on Trucks!
__________________
1980 Ford Bronco, 351M, edelbrock intake and carb, Lincoln Mark VIII electric fan, Flowmaster, Holley Black electric fuel pump.
"We asked if this transmission (new 6spd auto) was going to be used in the regular 2500 and 3500 trucks and were told that the '07 model will continue with the 48RE."
This doesn't make any sense, unless its a cost/fitment issue....
Agreed the story got wierd at the end stating that the new engine, transmission, and frame would not be used in the regular 2500/3500. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the 5.9 would not meet the 2007 emmission standards. I see alot of Dodge lovers buying chassis cabs and ordering beds to put on them. I know I would if Ford came out and said "we are only putting the new 6.4tt and 6 speed auto in the chassis cabs". Of course they may be doing it this way on purpose. They won't sell as many chassis cabs as they would regular trucks, but the chassis cabs will see more use in a shoter period of time. This would give them a "test market" to work any bugs out before it went into large scale production. I'm probably being paranoid.
The boxed frame is nothing more than the company trying to gain a marketing advantage over the other. The boxed frame does however add alot of extra weight, and a C frame has proven to be more than enough on light to medium duty trucks. It provides proper flex and enough strength for most any job these trucks will see. Its also lighter, and much cheaper to make.
Look at how straight and low profile that frame is, closer to a tractor trailer frame. No uneeded bends or twists.
Damn the new dodges look hot as hell.
Galizien:
The boxed frame- as used by D-C in the 2500 and 3500 actually weighs LESS than the C section Ford due a lighter gauge steel. You are correct about flex though- All other things being equal, box section frames tend to be stiffer up to the point where they fail- and C section frames handle deflection better.
The trade-off is that a frame that flexes will make a poorer handeling truck- soft. But stiff frames tend to fail when abused.
I guess one probably makes sense for lighter trucks where overloading is not going to be a significant issue and the other frame makes sense once you are in the range of trucks where frames simply have to flex in order not to fail.
Agreed the story got wierd at the end stating that the new engine, transmission, and frame would not be used in the regular 2500/3500. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the 5.9 would not meet the 2007 emmission standards. I see alot of Dodge lovers buying chassis cabs and ordering beds to put on them. I know I would if Ford came out and said "we are only putting the new 6.4tt and 6 speed auto in the chassis cabs". Of course they may be doing it this way on purpose. They won't sell as many chassis cabs as they would regular trucks, but the chassis cabs will see more use in a shoter period of time. This would give them a "test market" to work any bugs out before it went into large scale production. I'm probably being paranoid.
They can do this if the MY 2007 trucks are built in calender year 2006. The current engine will still be viable until Dec. 31, 2006. All the things I've read on the new emission standards seem to reference a calender year, not a model year. So perhaps they'll come out with a MY 2007.5 once Jan 1 approaches with the new engine onboard.
__________________
(Cheap, Fast, Reliable...Pick any two)
" While this system is much more complicated than the existing high-pressure, common-rail engine. However, it has been used by Cummins since 2002 with 300,000 engines currently on the road and over 30 billion miles on the road. "
" While this system is much more complicated than the existing high-pressure, common-rail engine. However, it has been used by Cummins since 2002 with 300,000 engines currently on the road and over 30 billion miles on the road. "
Ford/ Navistar did that!! It's called the 6.0
Yeah, good point. Isn't that about 6,000 of those engines per state according to Cummins? With that many eninges, it sure seems like we would all know somebody with that new engine... Perhaps they mean "300,000 engines" but not necessairly 300,000 new 6.7 Tier II engines already on the road. Or maybe they 300,000 engines with the new Tier II compliant system, but not 300,000 6.7 engines.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
