What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

7.2L Cummins Rumors

CTF2019 said:
OHC and DOHC is so much better. No pushrods to bend and the serviceability of the valve train is way better. Imagine only needing to pull the valve cover to service cam/lifters…

I think a DOHC 6.7 or 7.2 Cummins would be welcome change.
Click to expand...
As long as they have the design ironed out and bulletproofed, I’d agree. But the ISX’s are known to flatten cams due to a lack of proper oiling in the upper valvetrain. Rocker sticks and then you end up flattening the lobe. I think they got that issue ironed out to some degree in the newer X series. Not entirely sure though because I’ve not worked on any of those. I do know the 7.2 is slated to use the same / close to the same CP-8 as what’s on the current 2025 6.7 so it’ll be interesting to see how that all shakes out. I’d still like to see the internals on that pump.
 
Looking on Cummins' website at the specs of the new 7.2L vs the old 6CT 8.3L that was used in Ford medium duties, the 7.2L is over 1600 lbs while the 6CT was just over 1500. I don't see the pickup getting an extra ~400-500 lbs of engine when payload capacity is already a big negative in many peoples' eyes. It'd also make the truck significantly more front-heavy.
They never put the 8.3 6CT in a pickup, and I don't see the 7.2L being any different.
That being said, I still view the late 90's 6CT F700/800 as one of the best trucks a guy could get. You could get a crew cab, air brakes, Allison 6 speed, air condition, 4x4. That option went away after the 90's and I've never seen the "big block" Cummins option offered in the "medium duty pickups" since. Even International shot themselves in the foot using the 6.0L powerjoke in the MXT instead of their DT466 (or even DT360). You look at the F450/550 or Silverado 4500 today and it's the same baby diesel that's in their respective 2500's.

Now a Sterling/Ram 4500/5500 with the 7.2L, widetrack, rear air, and a pickup bed could be game changing... Definitely don't see a 2500 or 3500 getting a 1600+ pound engine, though.
 
PyroJoe said:
Looking on Cummins' website at the specs of the new 7.2L vs the old 6CT 8.3L that was used in Ford medium duties, the 7.2L is over 1600 lbs while the 6CT was just over 1500.
Click to expand...
The 1600+ pound rating is the system weight (engine + aftertreatment). The engine itself is 1360 pounds, which certainly isn't light, but is less of a jump from the current B6.7 (which our site lists as 1150 pounds but that's low based on our experience).
 
GirchyGirchy said:
The 1600+ pound rating is the system weight (engine + aftertreatment). The engine itself is 1360 pounds, which certainly isn't light, but is less of a jump from the current B6.7 (which our site lists as 1150 pounds but that's low based on our experience).
Click to expand...
Still, that'd be a huge hit to the already low payload of a 2500 with a diesel.
 
You have to keep in mind that the intent of the 7.2’s development was to create a direct replacement for the 6.7L. They’re not going to create a direct replacement engine that is substantially larger or heavier than the engine it’s designed to replace. That would add costs to the manufacturers using that engine and also have negative impacts on the end-user.

As for the 2500’s low payload, you can thank Ram for that. They could easily bump that payload up by changing the suspension and choosing to allow the trucks rating to go beyond the 10k limit, but they refuse to do so. Personally I think they should ditch the coil link and go back to conventional leaf springs. Even then, the 10k gvwr is something Ram is choosing not to expand on.
 
mbarber84 said:
You have to keep in mind that the intent of the 7.2’s development was to create a direct replacement for the 6.7L. They’re not going to create a direct replacement engine that is substantially larger or heavier than the engine it’s designed to replace. That would add costs to the manufacturers using that engine and also have negative impacts on the end-user.

As for the 2500’s low payload, you can thank Ram for that. They could easily bump that payload up by changing the suspension and choosing to allow the trucks rating to go beyond the 10k limit, but they refuse to do so. Personally I think they should ditch the coil link and go back to conventional leaf springs. Even then, the 10k gvwr is something Ram is choosing not to expand on.
Click to expand...

2500 GVWR is 10k because 10,001 lbs requires DOT numbers for business use. This is how it's always been. Anywhere I've ever worked, we also made a point to always buy 3/4 ton trucks instead of 1 ton when possible to avoid the DOT number hassle.
This year, they've actually given the customer the option to select the lower 10k GVWR on certain trucks/trims. The other option was something like 10,140 lbs, and no one is going to take a DOT # just for a couple hundred pounds...
This is something that played a very big factor in my truck purchase for my business.
Same thing with the dually. 14,001+ is a medium duty. That's why GM/Ford/Dodge are all 14,000 for their DRW's. And that's why the Silverado 4500's lowest rating is 14,001. I had a long conversation with FMCSA about it. They don't foresee these numbers changing anytime soon due to the statistics surrounding crashes/fatalities in regards to these numbers.
 
Riccochet said:
Still, that'd be a huge hit to the already low payload of a 2500 with a diesel.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind this is the MD version of the engine, not the automotive, so it'll be heavier regardless. The true MD ISB has always been hefty.
 
GirchyGirchy said:
Keep in mind this is the MD version of the engine, not the automotive, so it'll be heavier regardless. The true MD ISB has always been hefty.
Click to expand...
Good point. That bellhousing adapter with engine mounts likely weighs a nice little extra bit.
 
JohnandDonna said:
... Not sure why anyone gets the diesel in the 2500 as you cannot use it to its full capability. If you actually need the diesel (and most who get it don't actually need it) get the 3500. Why deal with DEF and emmisson issues if you don't have to. Now if they roll back the requirements for DEF and allow deletion of the emissions system, then the diesel once again becomes an outstanding choice. I guess we shall see. But as they say, it's your money, and you should spend as you deem fit.
Click to expand...
When I bought mine last year, it took a lot of searching to find a higher-trim non-PW with a Hemi on lots in the region. The dealerships around us +/- 300 miles were ordering almost exclusively Cummins on everything above the Tradesman and Big Horn trims. The few exceptions at the time weren't optioned well, for the most part. Dealers were treating it as a Cummins + almost all the options, or Hemi with few options. I guess for the most part they sell that way successfully, so there's no incentive to mix it up much. Plus the benefits of increased profit plus whatever RAM gives them for better sales numbers.
 
PyroJoe said:
Looking on Cummins' website at the specs of the new 7.2L vs the old 6CT 8.3L that was used in Ford medium duties, the 7.2L is over 1600 lbs while the 6CT was just over 1500. I don't see the pickup getting an extra ~400-500 lbs of engine when payload capacity is already a big negative in many peoples' eyes. It'd also make the truck significantly more front-heavy.
They never put the 8.3 6CT in a pickup, and I don't see the 7.2L being any different.
That being said, I still view the late 90's 6CT F700/800 as one of the best trucks a guy could get. You could get a crew cab, air brakes, Allison 6 speed, air condition, 4x4. That option went away after the 90's and I've never seen the "big block" Cummins option offered in the "medium duty pickups" since. Even International shot themselves in the foot using the 6.0L powerjoke in the MXT instead of their DT466 (or even DT360). You look at the F450/550 or Silverado 4500 today and it's the same baby diesel that's in their respective 2500's.

Now a Sterling/Ram 4500/5500 with the 7.2L, widetrack, rear air, and a pickup bed could be game changing... Definitely don't see a 2500 or 3500 getting a 1600+ pound engine, though.
Click to expand...
I actually spoke with a Cummins rep at a convention last month. He said that while the 7.2 will be releasing soon, the pickups will not see it. He said that Cummins and ram signed a 10 year deal for the newest 6.7 and that will be the power plant for the pickups going forward.
 
MadMedic117 said:
I actually spoke with a Cummins rep at a convention last month. He said that while the 7.2 will be releasing soon, the pickups will not see it. He said that Cummins and ram signed a 10 year deal for the newest 6.7 and that will be the power plant for the pickups going forward.
Click to expand...
That's major news right there. I'd love to see this corroborated. There have been so many rumors floating around. Cummins potentially parting ways with Dodge. 7.2L going into pickups. Etc. I've been keeping the option open in the back of my mind to trade into a 7.2L if they actually did come out. I honestly bet that rumor is hurting current pickup sales. I was on the fence about waiting to order, myself. Thanks for sharing!


Also, no one has mentioned the goofy 48 volt alternator. What's that all about?
340hp/1000lb*ft. 2400 RPM governed speed. That's slow. I still have hope for an F450 killer, though.
 
PyroJoe said:
That's major news right there. I'd love to see this corroborated. There have been so many rumors floating around. Cummins potentially parting ways with Dodge. 7.2L going into pickups. Etc. I've been keeping the option open in the back of my mind to trade into a 7.2L if they actually did come out. I honestly bet that rumor is hurting current pickup sales. I was on the fence about waiting to order, myself. Thanks for sharing!


Also, no one has mentioned the goofy 48 volt alternator. What's that all about?
340hp/1000lb*ft. 2400 RPM governed speed. That's slow. I still have hope for an F450 killer, though.
Click to expand...
Basically a grid heater (for lack of better terms) will be part of the after treatment that’s what the 48v will supply when it’s active. The heaters help maintain exhaust temps to keep them in the optimal range for nox conversion and soot oxidation.
 
PyroJoe said:
That's major news right there. I'd love to see this corroborated. There have been so many rumors floating around. Cummins potentially parting ways with Dodge. 7.2L going into pickups. Etc. I've been keeping the option open in the back of my mind to trade into a 7.2L if they actually did come out. I honestly bet that rumor is hurting current pickup sales. I was on the fence about waiting to order, myself. Thanks for sharing!


Also, no one has mentioned the goofy 48 volt alternator. What's that all about?
340hp/1000lb*ft. 2400 RPM governed speed. That's slow. I still have hope for an F450 killer, though.
Click to expand...
Our contract with Stellantis extends until 2030. We'll see what happens for 2031 - which should introduce the next model, given the usual six-year life cycle we've had for a while now. I don't know squat about anything past the 2027 engine at this point.

The 48V system is most likely for higher-current applications like the other poster mentioned, and perhaps a higher-voltage starter to go with the stop/start function.
 
GirchyGirchy said:
Our contract with Stellantis extends until 2030. We'll see what happens for 2031 - which should introduce the next model, given the usual six-year life cycle we've had for a while now. I don't know squat about anything past the 2027 engine at this point.

The 48V system is most likely for higher-current applications like the other poster mentioned, and perhaps a higher-voltage starter to go with the stop/start function.
Click to expand...

Emissions would be my bet for a 48V alternator. Since cummins has migrated to using an electric powered heating element to do DPF regens. Which consumes a lot of electricity and this reduces the AMP draw and needed wiring gauge. About time. The system of using post injection events to send un-burnt fuel to the DPF to heat it for a Regen was always a poor design choice by RAM. It was cheap to implement (which is why it was picked) but leads to increased fuel consumption, and more oil dilution with fuel which is a problem for drivers who take short trips and frequently regen. It was never a very good strategy, others avoided this (GM) put an extra injector in the exhaust to solve the fuel dilution issue.
 
There has been no further talk or news that a 7.2L cummins diesel is coming to RAM that I've seen. But the rumor always was for a 7.2 in the 27 model year+. So its possible that it might happen, particularly if GM brings out its 8.3L "megamax" but thus far this looks to not be a thing for consumer trucks. Maybe GM's class 5? Ram seems fine to sit on their 6.7 "ho" as their standard engine now, and let ford have the high power (at least on paper) powerstroke.

I suspect that the big 3 is having a hard time with engine development due to lack of money. They opted to cut ICE development expenditures to go all electric, which has been a money looser for them (I'm sure ford and GM have taken eye watering losses on the EV trucks / factories to the tunes of billions). Now are having to pivot back to ICE development without much money in their war chests. With a regulatory environment that was setup to kill ICE engines through a million emissions regulations, and all of the US companies having trouble selling their hyper expensive vehicles. I expect not much to happen, with expensive engine developments.
 
When they went from 5.9 to 6.7 was it about power? No. It was about emissions laws. Same thing here. Going from 6.7 to 7.2 is all about emissions, not necessarily power. Unless you've been under a rock, you've seen that GM is looking at the same thing. There have been 8.3L Duramax rumors floating for almost two years now.

Larger displacement makes it easier to reduce emissions at the same power levels. It's that simple. If Ram sees that a 7.2 would benefit them from a business standpoint, there is nothing stopping them from getting a version of that engine for their pickups in the next 5 years.
 
thecastle said:
Emissions would be my bet for a 48V alternator. Since cummins has migrated to using an electric powered heating element to do DPF regens. Which consumes a lot of electricity and this reduces the AMP draw and needed wiring gauge. About time. The system of using post injection events to send un-burnt fuel to the DPF to heat it for a Regen was always a poor design choice by RAM. It was cheap to implement (which is why it was picked) but leads to increased fuel consumption, and more oil dilution with fuel which is a problem for drivers who take short trips and frequently regen. It was never a very good strategy, others avoided this (GM) put an extra injector in the exhaust to solve the fuel dilution issue.
Click to expand...
Not electric regens at all. Fuel is still used for regens.

All the heaters are for is fast DOC and SCR warmup to combat NoX at low load and cold start.

So basically the 48v system is another complicated emissions control device that will fail. Has nothing to do with improving emissions system and engine reliability.

1760622816398.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top