(first posted 1/14/2015) Until fairly recently, when it came to pickups, it wasn’t “The Big Three”, but “The Big Two”, and Dodge (and International). I don’t have ready stats, but the gap between GM/Ford and Dodge was always very wide ever since WWII, and by the late 70s, one had to wonder if their trucks had any future. By the mid-late 80s, the situation looked even more dire; the D-Series, renamed “Ram” in 1981, was very long in tooth, and the gap with the big guys was widening, what with new generations of GM and Ford trucks. One brilliant little maneuver direct-injected enough life into the Ram for the brand to survive long enough until the all-new 1994 Ram arrived: the Cummins Turbo Diesel.
It wasn’t Dodge’s first shot at offering US pickup buyers a diesel. In 1962, Dodge offered Americans the same Perkins diesel six to US customers that had been available to export buyers for some years. They mostly passed; some 1000 were sold. Now that would be quite a find.
In its second attempt, in 1978, Dodge offered the 105 hp Mitsubishi naturally-aspirated 6DR5 six-cylinder diesel in its pickups and vans. There’s no record of any diesel vans actually getting built with it, but some 2,835 pickups were, and some of them are still clattering away. Full story here.
image via fourwheeler.com
In 1985, this red and white Dodge D350 was driven to Cummins’ facilities to have one of its B6 series direct-injection turbocharged diesel inline sixes installed, the prototype of what would be offered to the public in 1989. Four Wheeler drove it recently, and was impressed…by the shaking, noise, vague handling, and of course, the torque. Which this was all about, of course.
At the time, GM and Ford were offering diesels in their pickups and light trucks, but these engines were from another era. The GM 6.2 L V8 was naturally aspirated, had indirect injection, and had a very modest 130-143 hp, and 240-257 lb.ft. of torque. Ford’s 6.9 L V8, built by Navistar, also naturally aspirated, was a bit better, with 170 hp and 315-338 lb,ft. of torque.
The state of the art Cummins direct-injected turbocharged 5.9 L B6 churned out 160 hp, and for the times, an unheard-of 400 lb.ft. of torque. It redefined the whole idea of diesel light trucks, and gave Dodge a desperately-needed shot in the arm.
image via dieselpowermag.com
Ideally, I’d have found one of the ’89 or ’90 versions, with this grille for this story, but they’re becoming hard to find. It’s more of a problem of the bodies wearing out before the engines, though, as the Cummins B6 has been known to run a half-million miles before expiring. And usually those are particularly hard miles.
These early Dodge Cummins quickly became the favorites for the heavy-duty towing crowd, including big multiple-car carrying trailers and such. Within a year or two of their arrival, I used to see them in commercial work plying I-5, not unlike smaller versions of the really big Cummins-powered trucks.
I called this a ’91, but it could just as well be a ’92 or ’93, as I can’t tell the difference. It has the bolder grille that was undoubtedly meant to help buyers prepare for what was to come in 1994.
This is of course a regular cab version. And for the most part, it evokes the early 70s more than the early 90s. A Club cab was also available; Dodge had pioneered the extended cab back in 1974. Ironically, a double cab was not available; Dodge killed that just a few years earlier, before the Cummins came along as well as the big boom in double cabs. And Dodge had also pioneered that, as a regular production version.
The Cummins was paired with a modified version of Chrysler’s famous 727 Torqueflite, or a manual five speed.
I knew a guy back about twenty years ago who had one of these for his landscaping company. He specialized in stone walls and such, and hauled around a lot of big stones. The bed floor and sides on his Dodge was already all lumpy and beat up, even though it was just a few years old. Its steel was obviously not as thick as the stuff used to build the bed on my ’66 Ford, which is still mostly straight, despite untold loads of rocks dropped into it with a front end loader. He was going to be looking for used beds soon, as the Cummins was just barely broken in.
I used to rather want one of these, but I’ve long changed my mind. As much as I like the idea of these Cummins, my tinnitus most definitely doesn’t. They are obscenely loud, and that aspect has grated on my ears for a long time; I rather hate when one pulls up next to me at a light and I have my window open. But then my ears are shot. Fortunately, the latest versions finally got modern fuel injection systems that have largely fixed that issue. Not that that makes me want one any more; I drive my truck a couple of thousand miles per year; at that rate it would never pay for itself. But I like the idea of them; when they’re not actually running. I prefer to listen to the purr of my gasoline six on a summer day with the window open.
Related reading:
Call me old-school, but I’ve always liked the first generation Dodge Ram Cummins Diesel pickup truck. If I were in the market for a pickup truck, I’d buy a Dodge Ram D250 or D350, since they were the ones available with the 5.9 litre Cummins turbo diesel. 🙂
And 1st Gen Cummins Rams still command a hefty pricetag. Ive seen worn out crap selling for near $10K here in the PacNW. A reasonably clean 4×4 will command in the mid-high teens easy…even with some moderate body damage.
The Cummins motors are popular transplants for boats, too.
Boats, huh? Im assuming that’s in bigger boats, like crabbers?
Yup, those guys like LOTS of power so they can get to openings as fast as they can. A lot of seiners I have seen have absurdly big engines in them, which is not going to make them faster than the hull speed anyway. There is a safety quotient in the factor as most mariners would rather have a low stressed big engine turning a big prop relatively slowly. This gives economical cruising and lots of pulling power when the nets are out.
The fish-boats I worked as a kid all had BIG engines in them. These guys made serious money and they had some nice boats.
On a boat, the understressed powerplant makes a lot of sense. Im a relative noob on oil burners, but SOME have said that these 6bts are a bad move in a Jeep since they don’t tax the motor near enough. In a gas engine that’s great but supposedly diesels need to be worked good and hard to actually increase their lifespan and efficiency. That sort of makes sense, since theyre not ideal for short quick hops around town, being cut off and started up often. Better to get them on the pavement and haul ass for long distances.
I’ve heard many diesel horror stories supposedly caused by short trip, errand running, city driving. No idea how much truth there is to it.
But there was a time in the 90s when I worked for UPS. They ran the same cummins motor in their delivery trucks and I never heard of any problems from those and that was lots of really short trips…on, then off, then on, then off…all day long. GMC low boy chassis, small dia wheels, with Cummins B series motor(same as in the Dodge pickup) and a spicer 6 speed stick. I do not remember what they had for a rear axle, but the front axle was a basic kingpin type. Those trucks had what seemed like unlimited torque. You did not need first gear even when the truck was loaded.
I had three of them. 2 got stolen, all were ’91 4X4’s. As you said, they still hold strong value, pulled like a freight train, got great economy ( I personally got close to 30 MPG) and rattled and buzzed everything to distraction. If you look for one, for example, they will have most of the box mount spot welds busted, and cracks from stress and vibration in the tailgates and door shells and especially in front of the a pillar behind the windshield rubber. But holy moly, run they do! Personal preference was an automatic, as it at least could be kept on the boil and could keep up with traffic, and much easier to back loads up hills. Longevity? Try to find a non Cummins Ram…oh, by the way, the motorhome application, with its big brother 8.3 Liter is every bit as good….they are fabulous! In fact, if your looking for an older pusher motorhome, you can’t do better with the allison 6 speed in a spartan chassis, but now we are getting off topic….sorry!
A couple of years ago I got a 93 one ton dually extended cab 2wd automatic Cummins Ram that was perfect except for paint on hood and roof, and a cracked windshield. It had 237k miles on it. My dad bought it from the original owner who could no longer drive at the assisted living home they were both in for $2500.00. I had to sell it since 89 year old Dad had no license but was determined to drive it anyway. The interior was almost perfect and it was fully loaded and everything worked, it had power everything except mirrors and aftermarket custom seat. It had a shell on it and plywood over the bed, it was like new under the shell. The weak point on these seems to be the transmission. The original 727 trans was good for about 160k, and the truck was used to tow a 32ft Airstream trailer much of the time. I had all repair records, even the original invoice and window sticker from new. It only needed a battery and brake work when we got it. But in the last 70k miles it went through two replacement transmissions (one warranty, the second about 40k later). and 3 torque converters, two flexplates and 2 rebuilds on the overdrive unit. I sold it to a neighbor still needing brake work and battery for what we paid, his daughter and husband were good tenants in my rental. I’m glad I sold it cheaply because after a month the flexplate broke again and also snapped the ears off the torque converter at the same time. The only other repairs records I could find were water pump, fan clutch, hoses, fuel filters, ball joints and tie rod ends. I did replace the headlight switch because only the high beams worked and all the wiring for it was overheated and fried, cut out the bad pieces and spliced in new. It was fun to drive although I only put about 300 miles on it before I sold it. I would have kept it if I did not already have a much newer truck. The body and frame seemed to be thick steel, and it had no rust. It seemed to be well built even though it was manufactured in Mexico.
If it kept breaking flex plates and torque converters I’d say that either someone left out/damaged the dowels that align the engine and trans. It could also be damage to transmission case itself.
Could be the case, the first time the factory installed trans failed the flex plate and torque converter were also replaced, but it’s not clear from the invoice if they also failed when the original factory trans was replaced or if the new parts were installed as a package. The first time after the replacement a few thousand miles later everything (including the rebuilt transmission) was replaced by the transmission shop that did the first repair. They may very well have done damage to the dowels, it seems like there must be some kind of alignment issue. It did last about 40k miles after the second transmission/flexplate/torque converter replacement. I’m glad I sold it before it failed again.
Wow Ive never heard of a 727 torqueflyte being called a weak point before but running Cummins type torque thru one could likely do that I guess.
So why didn’t the Big Two offer better diesels at the time? I’m assuming they did eventually.
In ’87, Ford’s IH V8 was bumped to 7.3 liters. It was considered a very tough engine. In ’93, they put a turbo on it too. But then in ’94. the new direct-injection Powerstroke V8 (also by IH) came along.
GM upped their V8 to 6.5 L in 1992, and added a turbo to it. But like Ford, their definitive diesel came along later, in 1992, with the new direct-injected Duramax V8, still built today.
These new diesels by both Ford and GM made their offerings competitive with the Dodge Cummins, but by that time the Cummins had built a strong following.
Also, Ford had some repeated (expensive warranty) issues with the IH Powerstroke engine, so recently switched to a new diesel of their own design. The GM Duramax seems to have a pretty solid rep, like the Cummins. But it’s not a subject I keep up on in detail. These are expensive engines, and having something go wrong after the warranty can be very painful.
Fords passenger car diesels are a joint venture with Peugeot/Citroen for their HDI technology, does Ford US utilise that too or local injection tech?
I’m pretty sure it’s not HDI.
Yes the Power Stroke engines use high pressure common rail electronically controlled injection system and that predates the the Peugeot/Citroen-Ford joint venture. Fact is all diesel engines in the US have long since dropped the traditional mechanical distributor style injection pump for one version or another of the common rail electronic system.
Makes me wonder why Ford did the joint venture with PSA although Ford does use a lot of PSA powertrains in its lineup of Mondeo/Focus models and its own engines in other things, Mind you BMW uses PSA powertrains in its Mini especially the diesel model.
Because developing a diesel that meets current emissions regulations, and customer expectations is expensive so better to share the cost when possible.
Paul,
The Duramax diesel didn’t appear until 2001, not 1992.
Ooops; typo. FWIW, Wiki says MY 2001.
I very, very nearly bought a Ford F-250 Supercab 4X4 diesel brand new when I was teaching in the Rockies, circa 1990. The truck had torque to burn and seemed plenty powerful to me. Only the $28,000 price tag scared me away. Instead, I bought a used Toyota 4X4 for $8000, drove it for two years and sold for $6000. A much better deal all around, but the 7.3 was a really great engine!
Note there were 3 different Power Stroke engines supplied by IH, the 7.3 was near bullet proof and did not suffer from repeated, expensive warranty issues. That was the 6.0 that IH rushed out to earn credits with the EPA for every 2007 emissions compliant engine sold before they were required to do so. It was replaced rather quickly by the 6.4, which was better than the 6.0 but no where near as bullet proof as the old 7.3.
GM 6.2L diesels were weak. I had one in a fullsize GMC van. The engine outlasted the rest of the van without requiring any expensive repairs over its life, but acceleration could be measured with a calendar. The 6.2L begat the 6.5L, which was also available turbocharged. They were still nothing to write home about, and unreliable too. GM finally formed a joint venture with Isuzu to make the 6.6L Duramax V8 turbodiesel. The first generation had a fatal flaw: the injector bodies crack and contaminate the crankcase oil with diesel fuel. That wipes out the bearings in the engine. That was rectified for the 2nd gen Duramax in 2005. The best Duramax-equipped GM trucks (IMO) are the 2005-06 models. After that they had the new emissions controls on them, which have been a lot of headaches for all manufacturers.
I don’t know as much about the Ford diesels. They formed a partnership with Navistar which resulted in the 7.3L Powerstroke diesel in 1994, which I think was pretty well-liked. That was replaced with the 6.0L in the early 2000’s. That engine was a complete disaster. Ford and Navistar eventually dissolved their partnership amidst a bunch of finger-pointing about whose fault it was. I think the latest Ford Powerstroke was designed in-house at Ford.
Ive driven GM/Ford normally aspirated diesels, a Powerstroke as well as 12V and 24V Cummins. Even the 12V is a revelation but the 24V felt completely untaxed even in a 4×4 quadcab longbed. My choice would be a single cab 4×4 with the 6spd stick…what a hoot to drive.
The 6.2 in my ’84 Suburban was a slug and could barely maintain 70 – pushing the pedal down further just resulted in a downshift and lots of noise but no acceleration, the transmission would shift down at the lightest suggestion of a hill on cruise control and required a steady diet of ATF. 23 mpg at a steady 60 in the national 65 mph speed limit days was the only positive point for me. I shudder to think how it would have done going up the Rockies west of Denver.
I guess the Cummins 5.9 liter was “adequate” for the Dodge. Must be, in the early nineties it was powerful enough to drive a 22,000 lbs truck. This DAF 45 (basically a Leyland truck introduced in the eighties) from the same era as the CC Dodge also has the 160 hp turbo charged Cummins engine.
In Europe especially the English truck makers (like Ford, ERF, Foden, Scammell) used Cummins engines. On the continent Sisu from Finland had them and DAF in their light models. For a brief period in the mid-nineties DAF also used a 14 liter Cummins in their 500 hp top model.
I guess the Cummins 5.9 liter was “adequate” for the Dodge
Just barely; you know how Americans like lots of effortless power on tap. 🙂
Well in that size truck it was better than its Leyland predecessor fitted with the old Leyland 401 engine, all of 140 hp and 5sp box (no splitter or 2-sp rear) we used to transport racing car with… The slightest gradient meant dropping to 30-40 MPH and being overtaken by anything else on the road other than tractors. It had a radio fitted as a symbolic gesture of some sort; it was useless for all intents and purposes. But it never broke down and plodded on in that typically British way…
It seems that just about everyone who had a heavier-than-standard duty pickup and was willing to go to a diesel wanted this engine. The problem was, there were a lot of people who were unwilling to take the Dodge pickup that the engine came in.
My BIL is a farmer who lived through this era with a pair of Ford Powerstroke F-250s that ke kept for a long time. He eventually bought a Dodge (from late in the generation that started in 1994) but after awhile, he decided that he just didn’t like it. He is back in a F-250 diesel.
These Dodge pickups were pre-Iacocca in execution through and through. Fabulous running gear in a body that was two notches below the competition in almost every way. Which should make sense, as these went back to 1972 (not a high point for Mopar body quality).
Very true about the bodies; I have driven many of these pickups plus having owned an ’87 D-250. The doors often required a few slams to properly close.
On the flip side, they were quite durable. Mine had been purchased new by the U.S. Army, then later sold to the town of Vandalia, MO. I came along later with $400 and drove it home. The poor thing had 92,000 very hard miles on it, but she always started, always ran great, and never left me sitting.
“Fabulous running gear in a body that was two notches below the competition in almost every way. ”
Cant say I agree on this, at all. My dad has a ’84 Power Ram that’s been with us since 1990 when I started driving. Its a ‘Custom 150’….in other words a ‘real’ truck with no luxo doodads…very basic. The panels line up nice, everything is nice and tight. Its not ‘quiet’ by any means due to lack of sound deadening…not even a headliner! But its always been a nicely put together rig. The ’88 GM trucks with the Fisher-Price interior…..UGH.
“Cant say I agree on this, at all.”
Yep, I’m with you on this.
That’s the best part of these trucks. There’s still lots to be found in the junkyards if you need marker lights or door hinges for a 40 year old Dart. 😉
Dodge brought back the “Club Cab” for the 91+ trucks.
I knew a kid that had a jacked up 93 Cummins Club in Green with a Tan interior. It looked dated but was still a handsome truck.
Hey Paul,
Using the license plate number I ran a Carfax on the Dodge to determine its actual year.
You were off by just one – the truck is a 1992, according to Carfax.
Thanks. Is it worth changing the title? 🙂
Paul,
That is entirely your call. It’s up to you at this time.
I personally think it wouldn’t make a difference changing the title, as the ’91 thru ’93 trucks look the same to me.
I like that first picture that shows three successive generations of Dodge pickups, plus a Dakota for good measure.
I was wondering if anyone would notice 🙂 Dodge convention.
I liked the old Dodge pickups. Didn’t like the ’94 restyle at all. They were due for some freshening up, but I think Dodge went in the wrong direction. And I thing they should still be called Dodges. Can’t help but wonder where the “Ram” thing came from.
I also think it wood be great if you could get a half ton standard cab pickup with a diesel engine. Several mini pickups were available with diesel engines. Speaking of small trucks, I think it would be great if they came back too. The S10 and Ranger were very popular, I don’t know why they were dropped.
One thing Dodge/Ram did get right. They used a “real” diesel engine. They didn’t try to convert a gasoline engine. The Cummins name is what sold. Back when Chrysler was affiliated with MB, I heard rumors that they were going to drop the Cummins and use the Benz diesel. I think that would be a marketing nightmare. I would take the Cummins over the Duramax or Powerstroke any day.
They started calling them Ram in ’81, after the little ram hood ornament on the ’33-’36 trucks (IIRC). Renaming the whole brand to “Ram” in 2009 was part of a rebranding effort, so Dodge could focus on “lifestyle vehicles” and not worry about them looking weird with a big fat crosshair grille and ANGRY HEADLIGHTS.
I thought the whole RAM brand thing was part of Chrysler’s bankruptcy deal.
Now, tell me…. do you actually think the Charger looks better now that they’ve “Darted” it. The “old” Charger design screamed two things to me:
1. Testosterone!!!!
2. You have the right to remain silent…
The new one doesn’t scream anything to me. It’s too bland.
I think the new Charger makes more sense now that it resembles the dart. An ‘aggressive sedan’ is kind of a wonky oxymoron. Leave aggressive, macho and testosterone for the Challenger which is where it belongs.
As to the Dodge truck line being rebranded ‘Ram’…..ugh. Stupid. They’ll always be ‘Dodge Rams’ to me. That said, if you like ‘aggressive’, check out the upcoming Ram Rebel. Now THATS a truck I can get behind! I like the crewcab/shortie bed well enough but gimme a single cab shortbed..and gimme a nice electric blue.
I think the grille on the Ram Rebel looks awful. Stick with the crosshairs style.
Now where have I seen that grille before…?
I want an agressive sedan. How else can I powerslide to “Kickstart my Heart” while carrying five people?
The older new Charger seemed so outlandish and masculine to me that I like it. Unless a black one is following me, at least 😉
I think it was a dumb move. Dodge has always been the sporty, aggresive one in the Big Three. You don’t neuter pure testosterone!
> Renaming the whole brand to “Ram” in 2009 was part of a rebranding effort, so Dodge could focus on “lifestyle vehicles” and not worry about them looking weird with a big fat crosshair grille and ANGRY HEADLIGHTS.
I thought it was a pointless exercise. There is no rule that all vehicles under a brand must look identical. This seems like a European thing, but Dodge is not BMW! They could’ve kept the trucks under Dodge and still restyled the cars.
I assume this was also part of the reasoning behind making “SRT” a separate brand and moving the Viper from Dodge to SRT. Well, they gave up on that and Viper is a Dodge again.
Since the trucks seemed to be much more popular than any of the Dodge cars, I would guess there was consideration of dropping the Dodge name at some point. By making the trucks into “Rams” they would avoid the orphan brand concerns.
Dodge is now Fiat, European styling is on its way.
JYD—I hear tell the VM 3.0 V6 diesel may be working its way across ALL Ram1500s, not just crewcabs and quadcabs. Dod…er…Ram seems to be betting all in on a lite duty diesel, and they appear to be selling. Stay tuned.
The 3.0L diesel is available in the “Tradesman” RWD, regular cab, 8′ bed basic work truck.
It’s available, but the hard part is finding one. It’d almost have to be special-ordered off the website, since no dealers would want one, and any regular cab EcoDiesels that last 20 years will be instant CCs.
I agree, don’t expect to find one in a dealer’s inventory. The fact that it is offered means you could go into a dealership and order one though.
Youre right about this grille, Paul. A few ’91’s had it but it goes to ’93. But ive seen it swapped onto first gen Rams back to ’81. Bolts right up.
You forgot about the Jeep J-series which probably was on the chart under Dodge and above International.
Nyeeehh, in some places IH was above both Jeep and Dodge. Mostly the Midwest where IH tractors were king.
In the Midwest, you might have a point. But on the coasts, Jeeps were a lot more prolific. Jeeps and Meyer plow rigs were near synonomous in NJ in the late 70s. And FSJs may not be an everyday sighting here in Oregon, but they aren’t exactly rare either.
What hurt both was lack of a full model lineup. Jeep only made 4x4s, and 2wd trucks always outsell 4-bys. Also, IHC didn’t even have a ‘regular’ half ton truck at one point…they just halfcabbed the lwb Scout Traveler. The Terra, I think it was called. Really neat trucks but not really competition in that market.
Wiki says the Gladiators (probably not the later J-Series, though) were offered as RWD (probably as a delete option for credit), but doesn’t mention if any actually sold. More than a few Comanches left the factory RWD.
As for the Terra, that was after IH had already pulled out of the full-size truck market post-’75. In some ways, the Scout Terra was the predecessor to today’s “lifestyle” midsize trucks, just too early.
IH was ahead of its time in another way, too. They were the first to make a crew cab/short bed pickup by cutting the roof off a Travelall, 30 years before the Chevy Avalanche. Called it the Wagon Master. And yes, it was a bad idea to pull a fifth-wheel with the hitch behind the rear axle, even if it came that way from the factory.
Yup they advertised the Wagonmaster as “perfect for the new 5th wheel trailers” but in practice it didn’t work well at all because you couldn’t put the pin over the axle which was the point of a 5th wheel. They didn’t sell that well and were discontinued before the rest of the full size line was.
The Scout and Scout II were highly popular as plow vehicles. They were available with the plow “factory installed” which was really installed at the Truck Sales Processing Center after it left the line. For a short while they even offered the SnoStar package which included the plow equipment, high output alternator, “school bus yellow” paint and special graphics.
Here is a video of a Scout 800 SnoStar that was restored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypa7D2wXUs0
Note the interesting combination of the bulkhead normally used on the Cabtop with the full length travel top to keep the things like chains, tow straps, jumper cables ect separate from but accessible to the driver.
I see plenty of Blazers, a few Broncos and the occasional Ramcharger doing plow duty here in MN, and I guess it’s only because of the ultra-short WB, but at the end of the day you’re putting a heavy plow on a 1/2-ton truck. The Scout is the only “little truck” I’d trust to run a plow, one-ton version or no, because of IH’s long and storied history of insanely overbuilding its products until they rode worse than their tractor siblings.
Ahhh, yes. I had forgotten about all those Scouts with plows. I used to know a guy who had a plow business way back when. He bought ONLY Scouts with straight sixes and stickshifts and hired drivers and had contracts to plow parking lots. I’m trying to remember what else I used to see plowing parking lots back then. I think there used to be Jeep CJ series with plows doing parking lots.
That was a long time ago.
You are correct that in many years IH was number 3 in pickup sales and in many rural areas they did even better than that since some Ag equipment dealers also had Light Line franchises.
Yes 1975 was the last year for the full size trucks. In response to the loss of the full size pickup and Travelall they stretched the Scout II 18″. The longer one with the full length top was called the Traveler. Through the Midas corp you could order a 7 passenger version. At the same time they discontinued the cab top that was on the 100″ wheel base and introduced the Terra on the 118″ wheel base.
The 1975 Cabtop and 1976 and up Terra were the first compact “one ton” pickups. This was mainly due to dodging the catalytic converter rules by upping the spring rates to 3100lb front and rear so that they were in the “over 6000lb” class. Depending on exactly how the vehicle was equipped the curb weight was 3850-4250lbs. They did advertise the Terra as a one ton for a little while. They also advertised it as the only diesel pickup for a few years too. They used the Chrysler-Nissan “CN33” also known as the SD-33 after Chrysler’s exclusive distribution of Nissan diesel engines expired and they started purchasing them directly from Nissan.
Speaking of diesel IH’s they also offered the Perkins diesel for a couple of years in the 60’s there was a beautiful one on ebay recently. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-International-Factory-Diesel-Pickup-RARE-/281526158503?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=16bQgFR2S5CmJTkbRSTVb2cNBEc%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
Had IH kept the full size alive another year or two it would have very likely been offered with the 6.9 and it may have never made it into Fords. In 1974 IH completely redesigned the chassis for the full size line to accept the MV 404 and MV 446 engines that were under development. The MV and 6.9 were co-developed to be fully interchangeable by sharing the same mounting locations, bellhousing pattern, water pump and had similar external dimensions. Unfortunately the MV wasn’t ready in time for the 1974 MY introduction so it was dropped. Service manuals do include it for example on the wiring diagrams, where it is followed by (not offered).
The full size line was discontinued in part due to dropping demand for the 1974 model year due to the 1st energy crisis and in part due to increasing sales of the Loadstar. They were made in the same plant and they were pushing the limits on the single Loadstar line. They also were running the production line for the 392 which was popular in both. They were so desperate for a ~400″ engine they started buying the AMC 401 for use in the full size trucks to free up the 392 production for the Loadstar. In the IH it was sold as the V400.
Regarding the MV gas V-8’s and the 6.9L diesel family, I am not too sure they were actually co-developed. The book ‘A Corporate Tragedy’ states that IH spent a lot of money on the MV’s as a replacement for the V304-345-392 series engines, primarily for the light duty line. The MV’s were indeed late, and though the light line was extensively redesigned to take the MV engines the decision was made to drop the light line before the MV ever made it into production, as you stated. That left IH with a lot of mid-sized V-8 production capacity they did not need (why the older V-8’s were not dropped is beyond me). As their financial situation worsened, IH decided to ‘re-purpose’ the expensive MV tooling and assembly line to build a small diesel. the 6.9L (with an eye towards selling it to other OEM’s, like Ford) The use of the MV tooling dictated many design parameters of the 6.9L (and a few parts were shared where possible), but they were not really developed at the same time. The last MV’s were built in 1981, about a year before the 6.9L was introduced. Could the IH light trucks have ended up with the 6.9L? Possibly, but the MV was killed to make the 6.9L.. Too bad, it would have made a decent truck.
The collection of factory literature I have indicates that the MV/6.9 were co-developed though the 6.9 was not put into production until later.
They kept the SV for a number of reasons. It was used in the Scout II in the 304 and 345 displacements and since they deemed the 392 to much displacement for the Scout II the 404 and 446 would have certainly been deemed to much too as well.
The 392 was also quite popular in the MD trucks and was often chosen over the 404. Many MD truck customers had SVs in their trucks and were reluctant to change due to need to stock additional parts to service their fleet. In use the MV did not turn out to be as durable and reliable as the SV.
At the time IH had a significant relationship with Chrysler and they sold the MV to Chrysler for their MD truck line since in MD use it proved to be more durable than the Industrial 413. Of course IH had been buying 727s and the Nissan diesel from Chrysler. As IH was facing the harsh reality of the 1981 emissions standards they had planned on using the slant 6 as the base engine in the Scout II for 1981 if they had not canceled it. They had used the AMC 6 for a number of years but the 401 put an end to that relationship.
Interestingly at one point you could get your IH with a AMC engine, Chrysler transmission and a whole host of parts from the GM, Packard Electric, Delco-Remy, Saginaw, Rochester Products and Guide divisions. Ford was the only US automaker they did not have a relationship with in the 70’s and by the 80’s they had ended the relationship with AMC and Chrysler and started one with Ford.
Yes, a friend’s dad had a 73 Scout II that was such a mongrel, with an AMC six, a Chrysler Torqueflite and the GM steering column complete with GM key blanks. It never got a chance to rust because the three kids kept smashing body panels.
Well, if IH said it’s so, good enough for me! BTW- Chrysler only bought a handful of MV446’s for their large class A motorhome chassis, and that was 2 years after Chrysler gave up on medium duty trucks (at least in the U.S.). Have to say in my experience the 413-3 was one tough engine, equal to any IH we ever had. Maybe the only gas engine that was more durable (and was probably the most durable gasser ever built) was the large GMC V-6’s. Around 1981 the fleet I work for bought a bunch of S-1700 dump trucks, some with V-392’s, some with MV-404’s. Other than that the trucks were spec’d out very similar. Got good service out of all of them, they performed the same and the only difference was under the hood.
Everything about these has already been said in the comments and article, but MAN were these a great engine and trans wrapped in a CRAPPY package. My buddy had one of these and he LOVED it, but everytime I road in it I was struck by how loud it was and how EVERY piece of interior and exterior plastic was cracked and falling off from the combo of poor quality and the relentless vibration of the big 6 diesel. It would ‘pull the hinges off a hill’ as he used to say, but I dreaded long trips in it.
Paul, I have to disagree on the ‘long in the tooth by ’81’ observation….
These date back to ’72, the contemporary GM trucks to ’73. Going up to ’87 GM did very little to update the actual running gear of their trucks, the dawn of FI excluded. They scrapped the F/T 4wd system as did Dodge, and they reworked the grille/headlights. Far as I know, that’s about it. The Mopars’ body panels are all a bit different after ’81. Very similar but a little more boxy, as opposed to the ‘fuselage truck’ look that the ’70s rigs had. Look close, you can almost see some ’71 Charger/Satellite in the ’72-’81 rigs. Even the interior is completely different. Dodge upgraded from the laughable 5 x 4 1/2 wheel bolts and scrapped the fulltime 4×4 setup. Fords were changed the most after ’80.
Now, if you meant these were a bit old school by ’93….well absolutely! 21 years on the same basic platform!
GM changed not only the grille, but also the front fenders, hood and cowl in ’81. They also made the 1/2 ton chassis somewhat lighter, but not much. Drivetrains didn’t change too much, Olds diesel in ’78, 6.2L Detroit in ’82, 700R4 overdrive in some models in ’84.
Reminds me of a line given to me by a friend who is a very strong supporter of all things Chrysler. Who remembers the tag line for the new look trucks in 94?…”The rules have changed”. What were the rules?, that Dodge trucks had to be ugly” A little strong, they weren’t ugly, just bland. And the “Mini-Semi” look sold.
My only experience with a Cummins was when I borrowed a 1995 farm truck two years ago. The 3/4 ton 4×4 manual trans had 338,000 miles on it, had been used hard, was beat to crap and full of pig crap. Lovely sounding I know. After a little clean up I towed a car trailer from Iowa to Denver picked up a car and drove back to Iowa. The truck drove pretty much the same with the loaded trailer as it did on the trip there. It didn’t seem to care.
My first girlfriend’s dad had one of the first ones out, an automatic D250, to tow his six horse trailer between Vancouver Island to Alberta, over the Rockies. He did that several times a year. For several years, he used a 1979 GMC 3500 dually, with 454 and Turbo 400, which was rebuilt especially for LPG. The contrast between them was amazing. The GMC purred from the smooth, low stressed big block, and the Cummins just pounded like crazy. His was loaded (as was he) and even that one was primitive. Thank Buddha I never had to go to Alberta in it, and his wife hated it. The Dodge motor pulled like crazy and you hardly felt the horse trailer. On hills, it made 100 km/h up and down. It was good for 15 US mpg hauling the heavy trailer.
I liked the GMC a lot more. I drove that truck a lot and with the hot-rodded 454 it ran great. With the trailer, it had to rev more than the Dodge and seemed to pull harder to get the heavy horse trailer going. However, it was much more comfortable and had a very nice interior for the day. It gobbled LPG at the rate of like 10 mpg, but it was only $0.23 a litre at the time. It was actually cheaper to fuel than the Dodge.
The 89-93 Dodge D250 2WD extra-cab shortbed w/ cummins and stick shift is one of my most favorite vehicles of all time.
My friend’s 1978 with the Mitsu diesel was unstoppable, but amazingly slow. My ’77 Power Wagon was intolerably slow when it was stock, and it was a rocket compared to the diesel. It clattered away at idle and roared when it was at full throttle, which it was at pretty much any time it was in motion. I think my friend’s truck ran a 23 second 1/4 mile at the strip once. My truck did an 18.00 ET stock, eventually though, I had my truck down to about high 14’s at close to 100MPH, He eventually sold his diesel powered truck and bought a 440 Power Wagon that he had for about 16 years. He had it running high 13’s at one point, getting about 8MPG.
My friend’s dad bought a ’91 extended cab 4X4 brand new. This guy was a Ford fanatic, and we were shocked when he bought it. However, he was a large truck diesel tech, and loved cummings diesels. The truck sat high on big 16 truck tires, was two tone grey, and was stick shift. I doubt he ever revved it over 2000 rpm’s. I can still hear him coming down our street sounding like an old garbage truck, lol. I loved the truck, and longed to own it…. After ten years he sold it to the first person that looked at it, after advertising it for about five hours. At the time, it still looked brand new and he got several thousand over blue book.
Not this generation but a youtube video by the renowned Saabkyle04 driving a 99 with the 5.9. Just love the sound of that engine. Just have a beautiful hum while the power strokes have that tick.
Hate the way he revs the snot out of it a decent manual trans would make it a better drive to take advantage of the low end torque, other than the gearbox wrap it I’ll take it.
Before the 1994’s came out, these were the enbodiment of Ram Tough: tough to look at, tough to sell…
The Cummins 5.9 B Series is an interesting piece. Its a matter of perspective.
In the Dodge pickup it is the King of the Hill diesel engine.
The 5.9 was also available in medium duty trucks and there it was looked at as the cheap barely adequate gutless throw away engine. The gold standard is an engine with replaceable cylinder liners/sleeves.
That was the big knock on the 5.9 Cummins and Cat’s 3208, 3116 and 3126.
Ditto the Perkins.
Fantastic tractor engine, yay.
Medium truck, mehhhhh.
Pickup, nahhhh.
Big city taxicab ? LOL
Now the Perkins that was one successful gasoline diesel conversion. That cured all of the original engine’s shortcomings.
Did anybody ever have to do any repair to a Perkins gasser?
In the 90’s I had friends whose families owned trucking companies, they really liked to make fun of the 3208 but they seemed kind of neutral on the Cummins.
The marine world seemed to like both of these engines (with the Cummins again getting the nod over the CAT). Lots of 5.9 in recreational boats and small commercial boats. 3208’s were pretty common too.
These Dodge/Cummins pickups would still be weapon of choice if I wanted a large pickup, Cummins engines are in most of the fleet of trucks I’m driving now with a couple of Detroits just for difference but those are 550 and 600 hp engines with real torque but of course those are working 54 tonne commercial trucks not pickups, but Cummins make a good diesel engine I prefer CATs but those are getting rare now though we do have two CAT 630 tractor units with C15s in them lovely to drive.
But in a toy trucks like pickups Chrysler did the right thing and got an engine from a real truck engine manufacturer and led the game.
Caterpillar stopped offering on-higway truck diesels back in 2010, IIRC. Certainly in North-America, don’t know about other regions.
I assume that current Detroit engines are largely the same as Mercedes-Benz heavy truck diesels, maybe even identical.
For example, both the Detroit DD16 and the Mercedes-Benz OM 473 have a displacement of 15.6 liter. The biggest on-highway truck diesel Benz and Detroit (both owned by Daimler) offer these days.
Living in Arkansas, I’d expect to see more of this generation of Dodge truck than I do, they’re far outnumbered by the F-100s and C-10s that are still on the ground. A local pawn shop has an ’84 GMC that I’m waiting for the owner to miss a payment on. But there are so few Dodges of this kind on the street that seeing one would be memorable.
Cat 3208’s were nothing to write home about, in my experience. They were short-lived (as Diesels go,) were not tremendously powerful, were cumbersome to work on, and just did not seem to uphold the Caterpillar image or reputation, either in truck, school bus, or farm equipment (big Oliver wheel tractors) applications. In-line engines (preferably with 6 cylinders) are the way to go.