'08 Dakota 4.7

Page 3 of 3  
Got details on the Banks kit? Sounds interesting.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe, There are more possibilities than Banks as well. I am running the the Six Gun and Speed Loader with the High Ram intake, Turbo waste gate actuator and Banks 4" exhaust system including the 4" straight through stainless glass pack muffler. There are simillar offerings from others that do similar deeds. Basically you advance the timing of the injection events, modify the common rail fuel pressure and modify the air flow into and exhaust gasses from the engine. These changes can be made without causing loss of mileage because diesel engines do not use air controls and therefore do not run under vacuum conditions. If fact, the timing changes can actually increase miles per gallon. Of course when your foot is in it, you can expect to burn the fuel. However the message is that this extra reserve power comes at no sacrifice in efficiency. After driving a high perforfance diesel, I will never drive another gas powered vehicle. The drivability with such low engine speed torque and the smoothness offered from idle to top speed are characteristics simply not available with gasoline engines which run under vacuum conditions unless WOT. I can talk about this forever, but before you commit yourself, drive a Cummins powered truck and see for yourself. Then see if you can find an unhappy owner of one! Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've heard pretty much the same thing from other diesel owners. Sounds like this is the way to go.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

If you don't want a 3/4 or 1 ton truck just wait another year. The 2009 Ram 1500 gets a 5.6L Cummins V8 diesel. I bet the new 4.2L V6 Cummins will be available for the Dakota/Durango within a few years too. http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/dodge/0612dp_new_cummins_v6_and_v8/index.html http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/2009-ram.html
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sweet. Especially with today's technology, it's about time we started seeing more diesels in light-duty trucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

Like the 3.0L v6 in the ranger in Thailand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Suddenly, without warning, Joe exclaimed (1/2/2008 12:16 PM):
> > My 2001 4.7l 4x4 SLT Dak currently gets about 13.5 city, 17-18 highway. But when it was new, it got closer to 19mpg average, both city and hwy-ish miles.
I love my Dak though, wouldn't trade it for twice the mileage.
jmc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jmc wrote:

Did dodge ever put a diesel in any of the dakotas? I thought I saw a Diesel jeep cherokee running around town here... i never did see one on a lot (that i remember) it seems to me it was a 3.0L diesel, with quite impressive power.
Surprising North America hasn't made better use of diesel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, not exactly. An Italian Diesel was introduced in the 3.0L size range in the Jeep and was discontinued for emissions reasons. I actually find that amazing because Mercedes has several engines in that size range that are quite powerful and are emissions compliant, like the engine in the Sprinter. It is however important to note that ALL automotive diesel engines now produced in that range are of the new high speed variety and those engines are lightweight and have a broader speed range, but suffer poorer brake mean specific fuel consumption BMSFC. They have a BSMFC in the range of 4.1 lbs per hp hour, as opposed to the conventional industrial diesel of 3.7/3.8 lbs per hp hour. These more modern diesels trade off efficiency for reduced noise, particulate and NO emissions. Although I regret the efficiency and mileage loss this change represents, the decrease in weight and noise makes their use quite appealing. They do not have the same brute low speed torque the industrial engine has either. This has been sacrificed for the higher engine speed range. However, a lot of these detractions are smothered by the fuel energy advantage, as diesel has 25% greater thermal energy by volume over gasoline, which means a 25% increase in mileage and range even if the BMSFC is the same as a gasoline motor. This is pretty hard to beat. Especially when you can drive the thing on waste cooking oil. Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.