The five-door, five-passenger A3 was a compelling compact-sized car before the fuel-sipping diesel went under the hood. Now, the A3's solid German road handling, premium looks and "recommended buy" rating from Consumer Reports magazine make for an even more appealing package for buyers looking to spend $30,000 to $36,000.
The five-door, five-passenger A3 was a compel...............
er............Five passenger ? O,K, if 2 or 3 of them are children, then yes. But not 5 adults unless the ones in the back are small and slim, or really good friends or not going far. It's a Golf in a business suit !
Here in Europe I'd be buying the same car but with more space, arguably better build quality, almost certainly better dealers, for less money........but it would be wearing a Skoda Octavia body and badge. Take your choice of same engines and transmissions and 5-door hatch but with lots of luggage space, or 5-door estate, (wagon ?), with even more. :shades:
Your example is like comparing a Filet mignon steak to an all meat wienie. The A3 is not a roomy 5 passenger. But comparing it to a Camry is a laugh. Personally I do not see why Audi opted to give US the A3 instead of the A4 wagon with a 2.0L TDI. A much more desirable size for all but the Mini crowd. The best bet for that platform being sold in the USA is the VW Sportswagen TDI. Plenty of room and it is the Guinness book of world records mileage champ. 9000+ miles at 67.9 MPG. Nothing has come close.
Another interesting tidbit of information. The 2010 Jetta Sportswagen TDI has a lower TCO per mile at 56 cents. Six cents per mile less than the funny looking high mileage car sold by Toyota. Which is rated at 62 cents per mile. Meaning you cannot judge a car strictly by the EPA mileage estimates. Actually the Camry Hybrid beats the over-rated Prius by 2 cents per mile. That has to be disappointing for the cult like followers.
You are a funny guy. It is like comparing a whale to a shark. A wallowing Camry to a sleek small sport sedan. I can see fun has no place in your car driving thoughts. You should go test drive the new A3, Jetta or Golf TDI. Give it a good run up to Payson and back. Except then you would hate your TCH. Better not, leave well enough alone.
So sad you are missing the real joy that can be had with driving. Not in a city though. I find NOTHING fun about the cities. Maybe the museums on the days they are not jammed with kids.
Gary says, "So sad you are missing the real joy that can be had with driving."
I'm not alone Gary. I've got plenty of company - do you?
I've met thousands of people in my life, been friends with hundreds, and not one ever said to me, "Let's go get into a good handling car and go drive it on a curvy road for FUN !!!"
Even the guys I know who love fixing up cars and owning a hot rod or two have never asked me to go joyriding on a curvy road.
I think you are the rare bird who enjoys that, and it's not the norm, but you go ahead and Go To Town With It !!! (small town only)
I think I have a lot more company than you do. Otherwise there would not be a market for sports cars and sport sedans. People that get a chuckle out of watching their gas mileage are a very small part of the population. The masses in the middle are just bored with life in general.
I hang with a whole crowd that does the "oh you got new tires? I know what road we should test them out on!" thing every few weeks.
Was given a Prius as a rental car recently. What an awful, fun-sapping ride that was.
The entire car is a Catch-22. It must be for people that hate cars, and would be happier with a better public transportation infrastructure so they wouldn't have to own a car at all.
I'd actually be a little disappointed if teleportation was a reality.
Best part of my day is the drive home. Taking some on-ramps at 'speed' makes up for 8 hours of being immobile. Cars can be a stress reliever, IMO.
If I wanted to drive FAST, I would buy a super high HP domestic like a Mustang. Fast in a straight line. I am not in that group. I think your group of acquaintances are somewhat limited. If they are all bus riding, gas gauge watchers. Then Phoenix is pretty much flat straight roads as far as the eye can see.
I hope I never get so old that a relaxing drive in the country is not fun. Best car for that being a Porsche Carerra. Wife says NO. For me the next best thing would be an SUV that handles well and can handle a sandy wash in the desert after a pleasant drive out there. I am narrowing it down. And the X5 diesel is still on the list. Does not look like we will get many more decent choices. I have to test drive the Q7 diesel one of these days.
The supercar of tomorrow is here! This is Porsche’s 918 Spyder, a hybrid performance car built to give the best of both worlds, offering a near-200mph top speed, yet managing almost 100mpg.
The Spyder joins the new Cayenne hybrid in Geneva, and previews the replacement for the Porsche Carrera GT. But while that car featured a 5.7-litre V10, the concept car uses a mid-mounted 493bhp 3.4-litre V8 derived from the firm's Spyder racing car, and it revs to 9,200rpm.
. . .and not one ever said to me, "Let's go get into a good handling car and go drive it on a curvy road for FUN !!!
Well, let's just say that you hang in a different crowd than many who post here -- to each their own, and all that. It's certainly true that those who consider cars appliances look at them differently from those who enjoy driving them long distances over interesting roads.
Sadly, your cohort appears to be running the show.
The rest of us are doing what we can with what we can find, in spite of your kind & CARB.
larsb, don't faint, but I am with you on this one. Most of my driving is either bumper to bumper or interstate. I enjoy driving but there is no place in my garage for a sports car. I'll hang onto my wallowing (not really) Lexus LS for now.
I know a freaking ton of people that get sports cars for curvy roads.
So the 'they' that you are referring to that buy sports cars, but don't like curvy roads... is an over-generalization.
The geographical majority of the US is worth having a sports car on (during the summer anyway) Its not our fault that the popular majority chooses to live where having a sports car would make no difference.
And I don't really care what the forum sampling is. Somewhere in America, right now, someone is out enjoying their car rather than typing on a forum. :P I would be too, but I already drove 200 miles today.
And Gary doesn't have to buy a Porsche 918 Hybrid V8 for $Lots to enjoy these roads.
If the darned A4 Avant Quattro TDI were in the US, I'd have one. And I like corners, not straight lines.
... Not one mention of a tranny in the previous 15 postings. No less than five manual gears for traffic rotaries and on or off ramps !!! The rest of the time I am a low RPM and cruise control guy.
..certainly fall into the "I love a good two-lane road in the mountains" group (and duallies are a lot of fun on those roads thanks to the "training wheel" effect of the extra tires), let's steer it back to diesels, please
We also drove both diesel-powered A8 models: The 4.2-liter V8 TDI and the 3.0-liter V-6. The 4.2 TDI churns out an axle-melting 590 lb-ft of torque between 1,750 and 2,750 rpm and goes from 0 to 62 mph in just 5.5 seconds – yes, faster than its gas-powered sibling, while delivering 31 mpg on the EU cycle. And no, it's not coming to the States. The 3.0 TDI drove with a spirited immediacy and startling nimbleness, and when equipped with the Quattro system it returns 36 mpg.
quote- Veltri said the new oil burner could find a home in both light- and heavy-duty Ram pickups. Cummins has been supplying its diesel engines for Dodge Ram heavy-duty pickups since 1989. Today’s Ram HD Cummins diesel is a 6.7-liter six-cylinder.
“Think about, ‘Could I also put it into a three-quarter-ton truck? Does every guy need a 6.7-liter diesel?’ It could certainly package in a heavy duty,” Veltri said.
Smaller displacement would mean better fuel economy in both light- and heavy-duty applications, Veltri said.
Chrysler would be unique in the full-size truck segment if it can deliver a light-duty diesel for its customers. GM, Ford and Toyota have indefinitely postponed development of similar programs, citing high engine costs and gasoline engine alternatives.-end
No, not everyone needs a 6.7L diesel, I'd be one of the first buyers to purchase a light duty compact, midsize or fullsize truck. 5.0L V8 Cummins is not even very light duty, it has capabilities beyond what is needed for light duty.
Cummins is offering a V6 in the same family, but the reason Chrysler wants the V8 is simple... half-ton buyers want the performance and drivability of gasoline engines, regardless of the fuel used.
The use of the 5.0 in the 2500 could also lead to use in the Power Wagon... the weight and layout of the 6.7 and its intercooler prevent its use in the rock crawler.
Anyone know what two diesel engines Nissan will be obtaining from Cummins?
It was announced in 2008 that Nissan entered an agreement with Cummins to supply two different diesel engines for it's commercial vehicles from Canton. Cummins diesel, ZF transmission and the rest Nissan.
Nissan is launching with 6 cyl gas and 8 cyl gas engines, with diesels yet to be released.
Not sure if I'm understanding your post correctly.
Cylinder config won't necessarily add/subtract any performance or drivability.
If they are going for a V8, it is just because the buyers like the idea of a V8.
I think it is an unnecessary cost, complexity, and financial risk for them to take.
I think they should do as Cummins has always done, and just scale an I-6 to the task. Smoother than a V8, with a simpler turbine piping. Somewhere around 3.5 liters would be adequate.
If BMW, VW, Audi and MB can get 400+ Ft Lbs from a 3.0L 6 cylinder, I would think a 3.5L should be near 500 ft lbs and way more than the average 1/2 ton PU driver needs. If all they look at is the HP when buying, let em drink gasoline.
The auto makers will never reach the 35 MPG mandate with a gas engine or a big diesel in their trucks. After driving the X5 diesel I am convinced that is over kill for all but the speed freak. No one really needs a big SUV or PU truck that does 0-60 MPH in 6.5 seconds.
Very few people drive what they need - unfortunately.
I remember buying my 1980 Scirocco with every option except the automatic tranny (still had manual steering and crank windows) and thinking I was really living because it had a right hand mirror, a/c and rear defog. Best car I ever owned by the way - and it only hit 60 in about 10 seconds. They were 10 fun seconds and the steering feel was telepathic.
Now we have a real princess and the pea syndrome - people expect the car to be perfect and effortless and do everything automatically. Can't have any inconvenience or minor discomfort of any kind - like diesel clatter or filling up at a truckstop or not knowing that every station carries diesel.
A smaller engine will not have the torque over the rpm range or the horsepower to compete wit the Hemi. The 5.0 does. This engine has been in development for years, and was designed with the Ram 1500 as one of its intended vehicles. The smallest engine Cummins makes for on-road use right now is the 6.7L I-6, it's a medium-duty engine, and there's no way to get that configuration down in size, weight, or emissions. Remember, the HD trucks are in a different emissions class, and are not part of EPA mileage calculations. The 2011 Ford diesel was announced last month at 390 hp and 735 lb-ft, then the 2011 GM Duramx was announced this week at 397/765. Cummins had to design something more appropriate for the half-ton and lower market, and the 5.0 V8has attracted a lot of attention.
3.5 liters? No one will buy a full-size half ton with an engine that small - the power output won't matter. Ford will learn this when they replace the 4.6 V8 in the F150 with the EcoBoost V6 - people will still buy the new 5.0 and 6.2 V8s instead.
The Cummins V6 would be a good choice for the Chrysler 300, but you won't see it in a full-size Ram.
"and there's no way to get that configuration down in size, weight, or emissions."
Well that's not really true at all. Remember, we're talking boosted engines here. There are no N/A diesels on the road in modern trucks. Displacement and cylinder config are fairly irrelevant when talking boost. The turbocharger arrangement is the limiting factor, not the cylinder config or engine size in boosted engines.
BMW gets 300hp and 420 tq out of a 3.0L I-6 clean diesel. It has a very flat torque curve and revs to 5000 rpm.
Jaguar and VW use a V6, and are only slightly less powerful. So it has been done.
Now your second paragraph starts to make sense. Customers of trucks want big engines. No real technical justification for it. Has nothing to do with what could be accomplished with any config and/or size. It is just customer perception. There really is no engineering challenge to break new ground on here.
They easily could get the power and torque they need out of an I-6 cylinder config. Heck, they could just make the Cummins 6.7 modular and lop off 2 cylinders into an I-4 and it would meet their requirements. The LD truck would have an engine precisely 66% the size and power of the HD truck.
Absolutely no reason why if the HD trucks have 390hp that the LD trucks wouldn't get by with 300-350hp. Which has been done with a 3.0-4.0L inline diesel.
Yes, those European diesels may meet the desired outputs... BUT... they won't be asked to haul or tow substantial weight. Asking a diesel of that design to move as much as 15,000 pounds of truck, people, cargo, and trailer without melting something would cost so much in development and additional components, it wouldn't be worth it to offer as an option. In the Sprinter van, the MB 3.0L V6 diesel is detuned to just 154 hp for that reason. Makes for a slow ride, but the engine will live to tell about it.
As for making an I-4 from the 6.7, Cummins already does this and always has (the 3.9L I-4 from the 5.9L I-6, and the 4.5L I-4 from the 6.7). But it hasn't been certified for US on-road vehicle use in decades. It doesn't have the rev range a half-ton customer would want (the European version redlines at 2600 rpm) and won't meet the EPA/CARB light-duty vehicle emission standards... Cummins still considers it a medium-duty class engine.
Who in their right mind would tow 15k lbs with a half ton PU. 10k is a real push for most 1/2 ton chassis. I want a vehicle that can pull my utility trailer loaded at about 4500 lbs. The VW V6 TDI is rated for 7700 lbs in the Touareg. Someone that needs to tow big trailers should buy a 3/4 or 1 ton diesel. Why make a 1/2 ton more powerful than the chassis is built for? My ideal would be a Ranger size with a 2.5L diesel that could get 35+ MPG on the highway. Right now there are plenty of choices for the Big Rig diesel buyer and NONE for the smaller PU buyer. I am sure it is all because of EPA and CARB regulations. Bunch of idiots.
... Now we are talking. Some real good points in recent post about the potential(s) and the derated (for longevity). Btw, the in-line BMW 3.0 liter has a twin turbo, compound, turbo system. Might be a little warranty challenged, with a heavy trailer; however I would like to see something like this in a small (relatively) four door pick-up.
The max vehicle + trailer weight on the 3.0 V6 diesel on the Audi Q7 is already 15,500 lbs.
X5 isn't that far behind. Sorry, but displacement has nothing to do with towing capacity either. The limiting factor on those SUVs is the rigidity of the unibody chassis and the type of hitch that can be attached.
Not only 'could' those engines pull the same kind of weight as a Hemi, but they already do, reliably. Right now the vehicle itself makes up half that weight (being a beast), so 7500lb vehicle + 7000lb trailer. If you removed all the cushy SUV-ness and lightened the chassis, you could throw 10,000lbs of that in the trailer and haul away.
Those engines are more than ready to drop right into a Ram truck if they needed to. They have only mildly inferior power and superior torque specs as a Dodge or Ford V8 in a half-ton. And turbodiesel reliability, even in Europe, still >>>> gas engine reliability. Even small turbodiesel reliability >>>>>> large gas engine reliability. On top of fuel economy, reliability is why the world runs on diesel. You just established that the transportation industry runs on medium-heavy-duty I-4 and I-6 turbodiesels.
Everything else is just speculation. "Oh, but they might." Might? Every engine might fail. But turbodiesels are notoriously more long-lasting than gassers. That whole turbo complexity thing doesn't really hold much water.
Now if you're talking BMW, then yes, the reliability issues have to do with it being a BMW. Not a diesel. Their gas cars have issues at an equal or greater rate.
You could take that BMW 3.0L I-6 and strap it to an 1500's fully boxed ladder frame right now and probably have issue-free towing of 10,000lb trailers for life. There is absolutely no reason why a 3.0+L I-6 turbodiesel would not be equal or superior to the NA gas V8s in reliability that they are being used instead of. With, of course, the main goal of added fuel economy.
As for making an I-4 from the 6.7, Cummins already does this and always has (the 3.9L I-4 from the 5.9L I-6, and the 4.5L I-4 from the 6.7). But it hasn't been certified for US on-road vehicle use in decades. It doesn't have the rev range a half-ton customer would want.
Them not being certified in the US for decades isn't the best argument for developing a whole new platform. If the 6.7 can be US legal, so could its derivative, for less effort than building a brand-new V8.
Once again, the real argument behind your posts is CUSTOMER PERCEPTION. Has nothing to do with any of those other features that a truck like that needs. It is just about configurations on paper that V8 snobs will scoff at.
I would just get over the rev range issue, because modern diesels (like the 6.7) can be crazy fast with the right transmission and gearing. Gearing can 100% make up for a lack of high redline. And it works. Driving in a Cummins HD right now, they feel as fast as the Hemi trucks right now. Without looking at the tach, you'd never know you were doing it at lower revs. Just doesn't matter, unless watching the tach is a hobby of most drivers (which I doubt), or you'll die if you don't "hear the pipes."
Do I agree that truck customers will like V8's? Of course I do. But there is again no engineering roadblock holding back from using a smaller I-6, etc.
Not sure where you got your specs from, but the factory numbers are as follows...
2010 Audi Q7 diesel: curb weight = 5512 GVWR = 7044 Max trailer weight = 6600, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
2010 BMW X5 diesel: curb weight = 5225 GVWR = 6614 Max trailer weight = 6000, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
With 4 people and luggage in the vehicle, available trailer weight will be under 5500.
In contrast: 2010 Ford F-150 4x4 Super Cab 8-ft box curb weight = 5789 GVWR = 8200 Max trailer weight = 11,100, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
Even with those same 4 people and luggage, that F150 still needs to be capable of pulling a 10,000 pound trailer without struggling... almost twice what the Q7 and X5 are rated for.
Trucks have to be overbuilt. Their limits will always be exceeded and they will be abused. The manufacturers know this, and build accordingly. The Audi Q7 diesel is rated at just 221 hp, which means its torque falls way off - that's not going to cut it in a full-size pickup. And if you lower the gear/transmission ratios to match the pulling power, you lose the fuel economy, and people will just buy the gasoline V8. You also don't want excessive boost from the turbo - the engine should be substantial enough that boost is an aid as opposed to the source. Any diesel offered in a half-ton has to feel the same to the driver's right foot as the gasoline counterpart.
I've been driving Cummins-powered Rams every day for the last 14 years. I am more than familiar with how they perform. My 1996 was rated at just 180/420, and while that was sufficient to move the truck fully loaded, it required major planning entering a highway. My 2005, rated at 325/610, has no such issue. A current Ram 1500 with the 5.7L Hemi can accelerate to 60 in about 8 seconds - any diesel under its hood will have to be close.
I don't think your examples reflect reality. I see guys all the time running around in 3/4 ton diesels and Never haul a trailer. I know some that would be tickled to get 30 MPG instead of 18 MPG empty. I don't see where the planned engines for the 1/2 tons will gain any empty MPG. If you nurse a 3/4 ton you can maybe squeeze 23-25 MPG on the highway. There are literally 100s of 1000s of 1/2 ton truck owners that never see a trailer that could benefit from a 3 liter diesel. A gas engine will NEVER give great mileage.
- No truck owner drives empty on the freeway all day every day. It's not about the maximum possible fuel economy... it's about a reasonable average. Over its life and driven conservatively, a half-ton with a gasoline V8 will average about 13-14 mpg. I know - I had two of them, and neither of them towed one pound.
- No one buys a 3/4-ton to save money unless they moved down from a 1-ton. If someone tells you they bought a 3/4-ton diesel over a 1/2-ton gasser just for the fuel economy, they either haul something heavy fairly often, bought it used, or are driving a company truck they didn't have to pay for.
- Any full-size pickup owner who tells you they want 30 mpg out of that size truck, did not want a full-size truck in the first place. That's a completely unrealistic expectation from a vehicle that size and weight. Should someone besides Mahindra offer a decent small truck with a small diesel? Absolutely. But 30 mpg from a full size truck? Maybe down a long 7% grade in neutral.
What the manufacturers want from a diesel in a half-ton is an average of 20-21 mpg - that is a 50% increase over what the gasoline V8s offer in real world driving. The manufacturers also know that the best economy is not always from the smallest engine; it's from the engine best matched to the vehicle. When Ford was ready to release the 1981 Ford Escort in the US, it was supposed to have a 1.3L I-4. Ford never delivered that engine... why? Because the 1.6 got better fuel economy - in Ford's own testing, the driver didn't need his right foot planted in the carpet to keep the car moving with the 1.6. Same with truck engines - you want the one that can handle the majority of its expected work with low throttle. It defeats the purpose if you have to stay on the go pedal. That's why all the half-ton diesels mentioned to date by the Big 3 have all been in the 4.5-5.0L range. That size engine, lightly boosted with a turbo, will handle everything a half-ton customer will ask of it - commuting empty, pulling a max trailer, and everything in between - with the same level of performance as the gas engine.
Half ton trucks are bought most of the time in the Southeast for very little towing done just once or twice a year. I have one that is used to carry large light items periodically, and a couple of times a year a load of mulch and topsoil. I have never used it to tow anything. It is comfortable and roomy enough for adults in the backseat. I would buy a full size diesel in a heartbeat with a 6 cylinder and even if it got something like 25mpg. A 5. or 6.whatever 8 cylinder diesel would not even be a consideration. 95% of trucks here have 2 wheel drive which is all that is necessary.
I think the first mainstream manufacturer who gets it done at a reasonable price will make one heckuva splash, and everyone will wonder why it was not done before. If Mahindra can just sell enough to make it a go, then I think one of the big boys will finally be convinced to give it a try. It would probably make the market for any midsize truck with a V6 just about disappear. Why drive a $25-30,000 midsize truck that gets 16-21 with very little room and a jittery ride, when you could drive a full size that gets 25?
I guess we just disagree. If I was able to get 25 MPG most of the time with my 8500 lb Mercedes Sprinter RV, it should be a snap to get 30+ with a decent 1/2 ton PU truck. That 5 cylinder with 5 speed auto was plenty of power. It was limited to 5000 lbs towing which I never did with it. So many PU trucks get used more for dual purpose transportation and occasional hauling. Not everyone would buy a truck with a small diesel. Many folks will not pay the extra in a 3/4 ton for a diesel. After owning two diesel vehicles, for me the low RPM torque is what is important. I can't imagine a 5 L gas engine keeping up with the 3.0 L diesel in the BMW X5. It was so much faster than my Toyota 4.7 L gas engine. Not even close off the line or passing from 70-90 MPH. That 425 ft lbs of torque is a road burner. Faster than any PU V8 gasser I have ever driven. My 05 GMC 5.3L V8 was not fast at all. If someone wants a big gas engine they should offer it. I just don't see the logic in a big 4.0 to 5.0L diesel engine in a 1/2 ton PU.
I want a small 4 cylinder diesel pickup truck that I can commute to work in during the week and do my light yard work with during the weekends. VW built one back in the 60's that got 50 mpg. It looks like some automaker would sell one just to help their CAFE standards.
I am with you 100%. It seems the US is filled with nut cases that think they need a fire breathing PU truck to haul trash and compost with. It is very distressing when most of the World has Ranger sized diesel PU trucks that get 45 MPG out on the road. We get the dregs that are lucky to top 18 MPG with no power in the hills.
Asking a diesel of that design to move as much as 15,000 pounds of truck, people, cargo, and trailer without melting something would cost so much in development and additional components, it wouldn't be worth it to offer as an option.
....then list 15,000 lbs as a capacity. And then change it when its looking like the Q7 can haul upwards of 14,000 lbs of itself + trailer reliably. (With trailer brakes, the Q7 towing capacity is 3200kg).
If you're going to make it impossible to debate because you're going to change the criteria, just say so and I won't bother. You asked, I delivered.
The engine is not the limiting factor ( if you bothered to read my post, it is the unibody FRAME).
Even with those same 4 people and luggage, that F150 still needs to be capable of pulling a 10,000 pound trailer without struggling... almost twice what the Q7 and X5 are rated for.
Again, that's greatly attributable to parts other than the engine.
These engines would not struggle with that kind of weight anymore than the NA V8s found in Ford and Dodges... if they were situated in with the frames of those trucks.
Furthermore, you do NOT need the torque to remain high through the rev range to tow. You're contradicting everything about how medium-heavy duty trucks are engineered. The lower in the rpm band you can stay while accelerating with a trailer in tow, the better for economy and reliabilty.
Comments
quote-
The five-door, five-passenger A3 was a compelling compact-sized car before the fuel-sipping diesel went under the hood. Now, the A3's solid German road handling, premium looks and "recommended buy" rating from Consumer Reports magazine make for an even more appealing package for buyers looking to spend $30,000 to $36,000.
-end
er............Five passenger ? O,K, if 2 or 3 of them are children, then yes. But not 5 adults unless the ones in the back are small and slim, or really good friends or not going far. It's a Golf in a business suit !
Here in Europe I'd be buying the same car but with more space, arguably better build quality, almost certainly better dealers, for less money........but it would be wearing a Skoda Octavia body and badge. Take your choice of same engines and transmissions and 5-door hatch but with lots of luggage space, or 5-door estate, (wagon ?), with even more. :shades:
I agree. the TCH is a FAR better car, laughably so.
If I want to drive "fun" I'll go down the street to F1 Race Factory and drive some of their souped-up go carts on their track.
P.S. The most fun I have now when driving is looking at my instant mileage display and going "Nyah Nyah Nyah" when I drive past gas stations.
I'm not alone Gary. I've got plenty of company - do you?
I've met thousands of people in my life, been friends with hundreds, and not one ever said to me, "Let's go get into a good handling car and go drive it on a curvy road for FUN !!!"
Even the guys I know who love fixing up cars and owning a hot rod or two have never asked me to go joyriding on a curvy road.
I think you are the rare bird who enjoys that, and it's not the norm, but you go ahead and Go To Town With It !!! (small town only)
I hang with a whole crowd that does the "oh you got new tires? I know what road we should test them out on!" thing every few weeks.
Was given a Prius as a rental car recently. What an awful, fun-sapping ride that was.
The entire car is a Catch-22. It must be for people that hate cars, and would be happier with a better public transportation infrastructure so they wouldn't have to own a car at all.
I'd actually be a little disappointed if teleportation was a reality.
Best part of my day is the drive home. Taking some on-ramps at 'speed'
People like to DRIVE FAST. That's why those cars sell well.
NOT because they want to "take it for a curvy drive in the mountains so I can feel the G-Forces on my hips."
Pshaw......
But they don't seek out a "great-handling car" so they can take it for pleasure drives every weekend.
I mean, like anything else, there IS a market for that kind of person.
But it's not huge.
I hope I never get so old that a relaxing drive in the country is not fun. Best car for that being a Porsche Carerra. Wife says NO. For me the next best thing would be an SUV that handles well and can handle a sandy wash in the desert after a pleasant drive out there. I am narrowing it down. And the X5 diesel is still on the list. Does not look like we will get many more decent choices. I have to test drive the Q7 diesel one of these days.
Porsche's hybrid supercar at Geneva 2010
The supercar of tomorrow is here! This is Porsche’s 918 Spyder, a hybrid performance car built to give the best of both worlds, offering a near-200mph top speed, yet managing almost 100mpg.
The Spyder joins the new Cayenne hybrid in Geneva, and previews the replacement for the Porsche Carrera GT. But while that car featured a 5.7-litre V10, the concept car uses a mid-mounted 493bhp 3.4-litre V8 derived from the firm's Spyder racing car, and it revs to 9,200rpm.
>>SEE THE 918 SPYDER IN ACTION HERE
Well, let's just say that you hang in a different crowd than many who post here -- to each their own, and all that. It's certainly true that those who consider cars appliances look at them differently from those who enjoy driving them long distances over interesting roads.
Sadly, your cohort appears to be running the show.
The rest of us are doing what we can with what we can find, in spite of your kind & CARB.
Nice turn of phrase -- I couldn't agree more.
"my kind" is what, exactly? If you mean, the kind of people who like clean cars and clean air, then YEP I'm that kind.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I know a freaking ton of people that get sports cars for curvy roads.
So the 'they' that you are referring to that buy sports cars, but don't like curvy roads... is an over-generalization.
The geographical majority of the US is worth having a sports car on (during the summer anyway)
Its not our fault that the popular majority chooses to live where having a sports car would make no difference.
And I don't really care what the forum sampling is. Somewhere in America, right now, someone is out enjoying their car rather than typing on a forum. :P I would be too, but I already drove 200 miles today.
And Gary doesn't have to buy a Porsche 918 Hybrid V8 for $Lots to enjoy these roads.
If the darned A4 Avant Quattro TDI were in the US, I'd have one. And I like corners, not straight lines.
OH YEAH!
Make mine the Allroad for those trips to the desert and an occasional fire trail.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
-Autoblog
... sigh. :mad:
Small, Premium, not in the USA
quote-
Veltri said the new oil burner could find a home in both light- and heavy-duty Ram pickups. Cummins has been supplying its diesel engines for Dodge Ram heavy-duty pickups since 1989. Today’s Ram HD Cummins diesel is a 6.7-liter six-cylinder.
“Think about, ‘Could I also put it into a three-quarter-ton truck? Does every guy need a 6.7-liter diesel?’ It could certainly package in a heavy duty,” Veltri said.
Smaller displacement would mean better fuel economy in both light- and heavy-duty applications, Veltri said.
Chrysler would be unique in the full-size truck segment if it can deliver a light-duty diesel for its customers. GM, Ford and Toyota have indefinitely postponed development of similar programs, citing high engine costs and gasoline engine alternatives.-end
No, not everyone needs a 6.7L diesel, I'd be one of the first buyers to purchase a light duty compact, midsize or fullsize truck.
5.0L V8 Cummins is not even very light duty, it has capabilities beyond what is needed for light duty.
The use of the 5.0 in the 2500 could also lead to use in the Power Wagon... the weight and layout of the 6.7 and its intercooler prevent its use in the rock crawler.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
It was announced in 2008 that Nissan entered an agreement with Cummins to supply two different diesel engines for it's commercial vehicles from Canton. Cummins diesel, ZF transmission and the rest Nissan.
Nissan is launching with 6 cyl gas and 8 cyl gas engines, with diesels yet to be released.
Cylinder config won't necessarily add/subtract any performance or drivability.
If they are going for a V8, it is just because the buyers like the idea of a V8.
I think it is an unnecessary cost, complexity, and financial risk for them to take.
I think they should do as Cummins has always done, and just scale an I-6 to the task. Smoother than a V8, with a simpler turbine piping. Somewhere around 3.5 liters would be adequate.
The auto makers will never reach the 35 MPG mandate with a gas engine or a big diesel in their trucks. After driving the X5 diesel I am convinced that is over kill for all but the speed freak. No one really needs a big SUV or PU truck that does 0-60 MPH in 6.5 seconds.
Very few people drive what they need - unfortunately.
I remember buying my 1980 Scirocco with every option except the automatic tranny (still had manual steering and crank windows) and thinking I was really living because it had a right hand mirror, a/c and rear defog. Best car I ever owned by the way - and it only hit 60 in about 10 seconds. They were 10 fun seconds and the steering feel was telepathic.
Now we have a real princess and the pea syndrome - people expect the car to be perfect and effortless and do everything automatically. Can't have any inconvenience or minor discomfort of any kind - like diesel clatter or filling up at a truckstop or not knowing that every station carries diesel.
3.5 liters? No one will buy a full-size half ton with an engine that small - the power output won't matter. Ford will learn this when they replace the 4.6 V8 in the F150 with the EcoBoost V6 - people will still buy the new 5.0 and 6.2 V8s instead.
The Cummins V6 would be a good choice for the Chrysler 300, but you won't see it in a full-size Ram.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Well that's not really true at all. Remember, we're talking boosted engines here. There are no N/A diesels on the road in modern trucks. Displacement and cylinder config are fairly irrelevant when talking boost. The turbocharger arrangement is the limiting factor, not the cylinder config or engine size in boosted engines.
BMW gets 300hp and 420 tq out of a 3.0L I-6 clean diesel. It has a very flat torque curve and revs to 5000 rpm.
Jaguar and VW use a V6, and are only slightly less powerful. So it has been done.
Now your second paragraph starts to make sense. Customers of trucks want big engines. No real technical justification for it. Has nothing to do with what could be accomplished with any config and/or size. It is just customer perception. There really is no engineering challenge to break new ground on here.
They easily could get the power and torque they need out of an I-6 cylinder config. Heck, they could just make the Cummins 6.7 modular and lop off 2 cylinders into an I-4 and it would meet their requirements. The LD truck would have an engine precisely 66% the size and power of the HD truck.
Absolutely no reason why if the HD trucks have 390hp that the LD trucks wouldn't get by with 300-350hp. Which has been done with a 3.0-4.0L inline diesel.
As for making an I-4 from the 6.7, Cummins already does this and always has (the 3.9L I-4 from the 5.9L I-6, and the 4.5L I-4 from the 6.7). But it hasn't been certified for US on-road vehicle use in decades. It doesn't have the rev range a half-ton customer would want (the European version redlines at 2600 rpm) and won't meet the EPA/CARB light-duty vehicle emission standards... Cummins still considers it a medium-duty class engine.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
X5 isn't that far behind. Sorry, but displacement has nothing to do with towing capacity either. The limiting factor on those SUVs is the rigidity of the unibody chassis and the type of hitch that can be attached.
Not only 'could' those engines pull the same kind of weight as a Hemi, but they already do, reliably. Right now the vehicle itself makes up half that weight (being a beast), so 7500lb vehicle + 7000lb trailer. If you removed all the cushy SUV-ness and lightened the chassis, you could throw 10,000lbs of that in the trailer and haul away.
Those engines are more than ready to drop right into a Ram truck if they needed to. They have only mildly inferior power and superior torque specs as a Dodge or Ford V8 in a half-ton. And turbodiesel reliability, even in Europe, still >>>> gas engine reliability. Even small turbodiesel reliability >>>>>> large gas engine reliability. On top of fuel economy, reliability is why the world runs on diesel. You just established that the transportation industry runs on medium-heavy-duty I-4 and I-6 turbodiesels.
Everything else is just speculation. "Oh, but they might." Might? Every engine might fail. But turbodiesels are notoriously more long-lasting than gassers. That whole turbo complexity thing doesn't really hold much water.
Now if you're talking BMW, then yes, the reliability issues have to do with it being a BMW. Not a diesel. Their gas cars have issues at an equal or greater rate.
You could take that BMW 3.0L I-6 and strap it to an 1500's fully boxed ladder frame right now and probably have issue-free towing of 10,000lb trailers for life. There is absolutely no reason why a 3.0+L I-6 turbodiesel would not be equal or superior to the NA gas V8s in reliability that they are being used instead of. With, of course, the main goal of added fuel economy.
As for making an I-4 from the 6.7, Cummins already does this and always has (the 3.9L I-4 from the 5.9L I-6, and the 4.5L I-4 from the 6.7). But it hasn't been certified for US on-road vehicle use in decades. It doesn't have the rev range a half-ton customer would want.
Them not being certified in the US for decades isn't the best argument for developing a whole new platform. If the 6.7 can be US legal, so could its derivative, for less effort than building a brand-new V8.
Once again, the real argument behind your posts is CUSTOMER PERCEPTION. Has nothing to do with any of those other features that a truck like that needs. It is just about configurations on paper that V8 snobs will scoff at.
I would just get over the rev range issue, because modern diesels (like the 6.7) can be crazy fast with the right transmission and gearing. Gearing can 100% make up for a lack of high redline. And it works. Driving in a Cummins HD right now, they feel as fast as the Hemi trucks right now. Without looking at the tach, you'd never know you were doing it at lower revs. Just doesn't matter, unless watching the tach is a hobby of most drivers (which I doubt), or you'll die if you don't "hear the pipes."
Do I agree that truck customers will like V8's? Of course I do. But there is again no engineering roadblock holding back from using a smaller I-6, etc.
2010 Audi Q7 diesel:
curb weight = 5512
GVWR = 7044
Max trailer weight = 6600, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
2010 BMW X5 diesel:
curb weight = 5225
GVWR = 6614
Max trailer weight = 6000, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
With 4 people and luggage in the vehicle, available trailer weight will be under 5500.
In contrast:
2010 Ford F-150 4x4 Super Cab 8-ft box
curb weight = 5789
GVWR = 8200
Max trailer weight = 11,100, reduced by weight used by the vehicle's payload
Even with those same 4 people and luggage, that F150 still needs to be capable of pulling a 10,000 pound trailer without struggling... almost twice what the Q7 and X5 are rated for.
Trucks have to be overbuilt. Their limits will always be exceeded and they will be abused. The manufacturers know this, and build accordingly. The Audi Q7 diesel is rated at just 221 hp, which means its torque falls way off - that's not going to cut it in a full-size pickup. And if you lower the gear/transmission ratios to match the pulling power, you lose the fuel economy, and people will just buy the gasoline V8. You also don't want excessive boost from the turbo - the engine should be substantial enough that boost is an aid as opposed to the source. Any diesel offered in a half-ton has to feel the same to the driver's right foot as the gasoline counterpart.
I've been driving Cummins-powered Rams every day for the last 14 years. I am more than familiar with how they perform. My 1996 was rated at just 180/420, and while that was sufficient to move the truck fully loaded, it required major planning entering a highway. My 2005, rated at 325/610, has no such issue. A current Ram 1500 with the 5.7L Hemi can accelerate to 60 in about 8 seconds - any diesel under its hood will have to be close.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Server issue, not you or me. Some of my replies don't show either.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
- No truck owner drives empty on the freeway all day every day. It's not about the maximum possible fuel economy... it's about a reasonable average. Over its life and driven conservatively, a half-ton with a gasoline V8 will average about 13-14 mpg. I know - I had two of them, and neither of them towed one pound.
- No one buys a 3/4-ton to save money unless they moved down from a 1-ton. If someone tells you they bought a 3/4-ton diesel over a 1/2-ton gasser just for the fuel economy, they either haul something heavy fairly often, bought it used, or are driving a company truck they didn't have to pay for.
- Any full-size pickup owner who tells you they want 30 mpg out of that size truck, did not want a full-size truck in the first place. That's a completely unrealistic expectation from a vehicle that size and weight. Should someone besides Mahindra offer a decent small truck with a small diesel? Absolutely. But 30 mpg from a full size truck? Maybe down a long 7% grade in neutral.
What the manufacturers want from a diesel in a half-ton is an average of 20-21 mpg - that is a 50% increase over what the gasoline V8s offer in real world driving. The manufacturers also know that the best economy is not always from the smallest engine; it's from the engine best matched to the vehicle. When Ford was ready to release the 1981 Ford Escort in the US, it was supposed to have a 1.3L I-4. Ford never delivered that engine... why? Because the 1.6 got better fuel economy - in Ford's own testing, the driver didn't need his right foot planted in the carpet to keep the car moving with the 1.6. Same with truck engines - you want the one that can handle the majority of its expected work with low throttle. It defeats the purpose if you have to stay on the go pedal. That's why all the half-ton diesels mentioned to date by the Big 3 have all been in the 4.5-5.0L range. That size engine, lightly boosted with a turbo, will handle everything a half-ton customer will ask of it - commuting empty, pulling a max trailer, and everything in between - with the same level of performance as the gas engine.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
I think the first mainstream manufacturer who gets it done at a reasonable price will make one heckuva splash, and everyone will wonder why it was not done before. If Mahindra can just sell enough to make it a go, then I think one of the big boys will finally be convinced to give it a try. It would probably make the market for any midsize truck with a V6 just about disappear. Why drive a $25-30,000 midsize truck that gets 16-21 with very little room and a jittery ride, when you could drive a full size that gets 25?
Asking a diesel of that design to move as much as 15,000 pounds of truck, people, cargo, and trailer without melting something would cost so much in development and additional components, it wouldn't be worth it to offer as an option.
....then list 15,000 lbs as a capacity. And then change it when its looking like the Q7 can haul upwards of 14,000 lbs of itself + trailer reliably. (With trailer brakes, the Q7 towing capacity is 3200kg).
If you're going to make it impossible to debate because you're going to change the criteria, just say so and I won't bother. You asked, I delivered.
The engine is not the limiting factor ( if you bothered to read my post, it is the unibody FRAME).
Even with those same 4 people and luggage, that F150 still needs to be capable of pulling a 10,000 pound trailer without struggling... almost twice what the Q7 and X5 are rated for.
Again, that's greatly attributable to parts other than the engine.
These engines would not struggle with that kind of weight anymore than the NA V8s found in Ford and Dodges... if they were situated in with the frames of those trucks.
Furthermore, you do NOT need the torque to remain high through the rev range to tow. You're contradicting everything about how medium-heavy duty trucks are engineered. The lower in the rpm band you can stay while accelerating with a trailer in tow, the better for economy and reliabilty.