From: koziarz@halibut.nosc.mil (Walter A. Koziarz)
Subject: Re: Cummins Thread
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:53:19 GMT

In article <23058@drutx.ATT.COM> ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240) writes:

>To those folks who bad mouthed the over all durability of Dodge trucks, I say
>that they are far supperior in the areas of chassis rigidity, drive line strength,
>and ability to withstand abuse than GM or Ford products (I've owned examples of
>all three makes).  The only constistent down fall of Chryslers in general, in
>my experience, is their charging systems, which are weak unless you get the 120Amp
>alternator, and tend to burn out alternators and voltage regulators with maddening
>regularity.  I have noticed that ChryCo has switched to Delco alts in their
>passenger cars in the last 5-6 years.

hmmmmm, I've never had alternator/regulator problems...  I did burn out the
connector from alternator to under-dash-via-bulkhead-disconnect in a 1975
RamCharger due to excess current drawn while charging a dual-battery
installation (so the electrical-systems-mechanic tried to convince me).  I
hadn't noticed Delco alternators... but rather Bosch, Nippondenso and a few
(fewer and fewer) Chrysler... my Cummins-powered W350 has Nippondenso starter
*and* alternator... the Sundance I recently traded on a RamCharger had Chrysler
alternator and Nippondenso starter...  Anyway, no argument on the rest of the
above... Dodge has, without a doubt, the strongest frame and drivetrain in the
light-truck industry.

>When it comes to sheer grunt to pull heavy loads, the Dodge/Cummins is awesome
>compared to Ford/GM.  I know several people who own these beasts and have seen
>them in action.  Here in the mountains of Colorado (No Amendment 2 flames please,
>we just don't give a damn any more), these trucks are fast replacing the Fords and
>Chev/GMCs on the road for REAL work.  I've tested the 3/4 ton products of the big
>three in my search for a new truck (can't afford any of 'em just yet) and found
>the Dodge head and shoulders above the competition.  The 454 and 460 trucks
>don't come close.

hehehe, did *anyone* really, honestly expect a gas-pig, even a pig-block to
challenge a Diesel for load-moving ability?  359cid of turbocharged Cummins is
nothing short of other-wordly in its output...

>It is a routine sight here in the hills to see a Dodge/Cummins passing cars at
>high altitude, up hill, pulling a load, at 5-10 mph faster than the surrounding
>traffic.  Also, almost every work truck less than 5 years old one sees on the
>ranches in the area are Dodge diesels.  There's hardly a Ford or GM around any
>more.  The only work truck on Dodge dealer's lots are the Cummins' and they're
>selling quite rapidly.  My only concern is that Dodge may drop the Cummins
>option in the '94 models because that's when their new 480 CI V10 gas motor is to
>debut.  Hopefully, they'll make both motors available and just drop the 360CID
>for 3/4-1 ton trucks and build only V10s and diesels.

I don't think you've got to be concerned with Dodge dropping the Cummins for
1994, they've recently (within last 12 mos.) signed a contract with Cummins for
Diesels through 1997...  The V-10 will be an awesome gas-pig, but still will be
no match for the Cummins in real *work* situations.  I'd, personally, like to
see Dodge offer either the B5.9-190 or B5.9-210 rather than the B5.9-160 (the
-190 and -210 are 190hp and 210 hp variants of the same engine family),
further, I would like to see the B3.9-120 installed in the 1/2-ton trucks
(300l-ft@1700 and 120hp@2500) with the same fuel-rate as the 6-cylinder
family-members...


>Larry


Walt K.







Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech