Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Most trucks will soon move to 6- or 7- speed automatics anyway. They won't sacrifice economy with an overdrive. Anyway, I'm not suggesting leaving the redline at 2600. It has been proven that diesels can rev to 5000rpms in inline form. So Cummins could do it.
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.
Very wishful thinking on your part here. In modern diesels (any), boost is the source of the economy and the power, not simply an 'aid.' An NA diesel of 6.7L wouldn't crack 200hp. Its not even feasible. These modern diesels of 350hp+ are totally reliant on boost for their performance.
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.
Again, that has nothing to do with displacement. 8 seconds would be acheivable with a 3.0 -4.0L I-6 diesel, as would 10,000lb tow weight, all in a truck with a hydroformed ladder-rail FRAME.
Vehicles with similar curb weight already accelerate to 60 in under 7 seconds.... with 3 liter diesels.
That example just doesn't work for a turbodiesel.
The extra 'boost' is really just the same amount of air and fuel in a smaller chamber. No more 'getting on the throttle' or anything. They'll pump at the same rate.
The injector duty cycle on the smaller engine might be higher... but you'll have fewer cylinders.
There theoretically isn't even a way your example could be possible in this instance. If the 3.0L has the torque to do the job, it already has everything else to do the job as well.
The boost guage might read higher, but the same amount of air and fuel are used (under ideal circumstances. In real life, the larger V engine, if weighing more, will burn more fuel)
You even said that the torque drops off up high. Not unlike the diesels of old.
406 lb-ft at 1100 rpm (or whatever) is 406 lb-ft at 1100rpm. Small/large, 6/8, I/V. Doesn't matter. You burn the same amount of fuel to get that torque at that rpm. Or historically, LESS fuel is used in the smaller diesel engines moving loads in the 15000 lb range (step vans, etc).
We've already established that 3.9L diesels have powered the world's bread-trucks and step-vans. So they can push vehicles of 15,000 + lbs gross weight, reliably.
There is no question that an I-6 turbodiesel can rev exceptionally high for a diesel engine.
The only thing we're disagreeing on is you think that because the 'old' diesels towed weight, that the 'newer' ones of similar displacement couldn't do it reliably. :confuse:
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that a sub- 4.0L diesel gets less economy (they get better, and that's why the smaller vans use smaller diesels), nor that they 'melt anything', nor that they get less power and torque than V8 gasers....
And yet you somehow think it is certain that they couldn't tow as much as an NA V8... still with all evidence to the contrary.
Theoretically, there isn't really 'more boost' going on in the smaller diesel. The PSI might be higher, but the flow rate is the same.
And there is no proof to your idea that the natural vacuum of the larger engine means less fuel will be used while the same amount of air... and fuel... are used to achieve the same result.
Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic ocean 1998. 45 MPG average. 4 cylinder diesel with 5 speed manual. How much oil would Americans have saved with that truck vs the millions of Ranger, S10 & Tacoma gas hogs sold? How many like myself have opted for a Sierra size because there was no significant gain in mileage with a smaller PU truck?
The US truck buyers are being screwed by some combination of forces.
This truck was built in Brazil, and these are the two Brazilian men that drove the truck. I cannot remember how long they took to make the 11,000 mile journey.
Also, automatics have been becoming much more efficient and reliable to the point that FE numbers are identical to those of a vehicle with a manual trans. Then there is cost in terms of parts inventory.
I would love to see diesel as an option in more vehicles but that will not happen for some time to come. Americans are stuck on the unit price of diesel fuel versus the long term savings.
400 lb-ft engines are already available in the half-ton trucks, so one with notably less horsepower is not going to get a potential buyer to shell out the price premium. Using the Q7 engine vs the Hemi, do you think Dodge will REALLY sell the diesel when both engines make the same torque, but the diesel makes 45% less hp and costs a lot more money up front? (Note: Dodge is about to drop the 4.7 V8 because the Hemi is faster AND gets better mileage on the EPA test thanks to MDS - that will make it standard on every Ram 1500 except the strip-model regular cab 2WD.)
During its development, the goal of the Cummins V8 was 300-350 hp and 525-550 lb-ft of torque. Tested in Ram 1500s, the Cummins kept right alongside the gasoline V8 in all the acceleration tests, empty and loaded. And still got an average of 45% better mileage. Just as the diesels sell so well in the HD pickups because they do more than the gasoline V8s, a half-ton diesel will sell well if it does more than the available gasoline engines. It's not enough to a true full-size truck buyer just to get the load moving... they need to get it moving as quickly as possible.
Again, I agree with most of you that a compact diesel pickup is sorely lacking in the US market, and a 2.5-3.0L engine would do wonders. But in the full-size market the game has changed from earlier in the decade. The first 5-7 years, the Big 3 absolutely wanted "civilian" buyers - they marketed half-tons as the new "family car". If you want a family truck now, you will pay through the nose for it, because the features a family would want are being limited to the top trim levels, making these rigs approach $50K. The manufacturers don't want the civilians buyers any more - they want families in a compact/mid-size car that helps their CAFE. Chrysler admitted that one of the reasons for the rear coil suspension was for civilians - but the truck was locked in and released to auto shows before the summer of 2008 oil spike, and all the families went back to cars. Dodge has to keep that suspension for now because of the investment made - when that truck is refreshed for the 2013 model year, don't be surprised if it goes back to rear leaf springs. But if you're a commercial operation or someone who will genuinely use the capabilities of a full-size pickup often, come on down. Dodge will market the Cummins V8 as the best half-ton engine available - in terms of performance, capability, and economy.
A few of you disagree with me and that's fine
We'll all see what happens.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
If Dodge can pull that off with their diesel engine it would come close to what I would want in a new PU truck. That averages out to 29 MPG highway and 23 MPG combined. I am not a big Dodge fan. But who knows. If Ford could match that 45% increase I would get my 30 MPG on the highway goal. I think I would go for the F150 diesel because of the situation with Chrysler being very shaky.
PS
My brother in law went for the Hemi over the diesel because he could not justify the $7000 premium. He tows his race cars all over the place with the hemi and likes it.
I was in the 1/2-ton market for 7 years. Decided on the 3/8ths-ton Frontier after the F-150 got far too big for anything I could practically do with it. My family lives on a ranch with a dirt driveway, so I really only need a 4x4 occasionally. When I go visit them, I tow horse trailers, dirtbikes, etc. But NEVER in my 10 years of truck ownership have I needed to tow 11,000 lbs. I mean the opportunity never even arose.
And I think I represent more of the 'average' truck market, than the 'extreme' uses these things are capable of. Even my old '95 F-150 could out-tow anything a ranch kid like me needed it for. Not just adequate, ideal, IMO.
Mine was 'adequate is ideal' and yours is apparently 'adequate is not ideal for these buyers' So we're basically not in disagreement, and I apologize if I didn't connect the dots.
Though I still think curb weight is more relevant than aerodynamics below 60mph.
Check out costs so that you don't get a dirty deal
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100315/OPINION03/3150304/1148/auto01/Clean-diesels-- bring-a-mess-of-decisions#ixzz0iGcMtpYk
quote-
When it comes to the overall driving experience, clean diesels also have an advantage, notes Mike Quincy, an auto specialist with Consumer Reports who recently took a spin in a VW Golf turbo-diesel at the test track and reports getting an impressive 38 mpg with a manual five-speed transmission.
"That compares very favorable to our last test on a Toyota Prius, which got 44 mpg," Quincy says.
"But the Golf is so much more engaging to drive. If you line them up side by side, most of my colleagues would choose the Golf. It's just so much nicer to drive."
Diesel engines also are quicker off the line to accelerate and can offer much longer cruising range for long trips, he adds, such as the Mercedes E-class diesel. "The cruising range was 600 miles on one tank of fuel," Quincy says. "It was beautiful."
There are other pros and cons for clean diesel cars. For example, diesels engines last longer and need less frequent tune-ups, notes O'Dell of Edmunds.com
"Your tune-ups are farther apart but they're little more expensive. It's just that you have lot more reliability," he says. "A diesel engine is barely broken in at a couple hundred-thousand miles, so the big savings is on repairs. You're not going to develop the wear-and-tear problems."
-end quote
Absolutely not true. It is all the 300K+ mile F-350 stake body work trucks that contractors use that take a beating and keep on trucking.
Despite looking complicated to your eye, they seldom tire out to the point where regular maintenance cannot keep them running for 300K miles.
- light pickups, like the Toyota Hilux and Nissan Navarra (still unkillable, even in today's turbocharged form)
- small European cars
They are not less reliable due to complexity. The article itself stated that the maintenance intervals were more costly, but less frequent.
Best bet is to keep the older diesel trucks and rebuild. The new ones are not suitable for extreme cold temperatures. I am sure they wish they had kept the old ones instead of turning them in at the end of the lease.
They are the source of the lawsuit that exists between Ford and International, and the reason Ford is producing the Scorpion diesel in-house.
The Cummins and Duramax engines of the same period kept on trucking.
This is the primary reason GM and Ford have mothballed their "baby" diesel trucks.
Its not hard, with the modern technology available, to produce a 4.5 to 5.0L diesel that will easily outperform a 5.3 -6.2L gasser.
The problem is making the diesel at a price that consumers are willing to pay for it.
Would you really pay the extra $3500 or more these engines will cost over their gas counterparts. Some would, but the gas engines have become pretty darn good, and most will pocket the difference.
Just remember the full size diesels come in at ~ $7-* K more than their gas counterparts.
Many justify the expense there for the HUGE performance disparity that exists, and the abilities of the diesel trucks.
If you want to tow 12-20K lbs., the diesel is your ONLY real option.
1. The ULSD is #2 Diesel and it is all over and cost 2.94 gal in Santa Ana CA 92703.
2. I just drove 7 hours to Phoenix AZ from Newport Beach CA and averaged 60 MPG
and 55MPG with the A/C on and Cruise Control! It got 6 on the floor automatic room
for five dudes and luggage too.
3. It is comfy and the panoramic roof is a blast.
4. It is fun to drive it is a Station Wagon same size as the Audi and Mercedes ones.
5. Great get up and go even over 80 MPH it is a blast.
6. It is clean diesel.
It was unfortunate, since Ford and its customers were all caught by surprise by it. Ford wanted to provide a good engine and service, but Navistar had taken a nap on quality control in the mid-late '00s.
The problems were numerous, so I tend to say that any company that feels like taking a nap on quality control can ruin even a diesel.
I used Cummins and Duramax as examples because they didn't have as many warranty problems, so its not something indicative of diesels in general.
Yes, most assuredly would. You don't 'pocket the difference.' You recoup the purchase price when you sell it.
Part of the Total Cost of Ownership calculation is depreciation, and especially for HD trucks, diesels deprecieate at almost half the rate. So you lose more money every mile driven in the gasser.
It is very easy to see a diesel truck of 5-10 age sell for $7K-10K more with equivalent miles to a gasser. Frankly, historically, it has been a better investment (not counting interest of course)
Not I'm not saying all customers are smart enough to pick up on this, but it may be enough to make selling the diesel worth it to Ram. They'll make money on it.
So price just isn't even a concern to me.
quote Autoweek-
In a deal signed on Monday, Carbon ordered more than 240,000 units of BMW's 3.0-liter inline six-cylinder turbodiesel--the same engine used in the X5. In the X5, the diesel is rated at 265 hp and 425 lb-ft of torque.
The deal calls for BMW to deliver the diesel engines complete with a cooling system, exhaust gas recirculation and an automatic transmission.-end
Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100322/CARREVIEWS/100329990#ixzz0iwkcY8JD
With commuters spending 41 minutes a day driving to/from work, having the right vehicle is key to saving money and providing comfort and safety on the road
Jetta TDI on the list of top vehicles for commuters.
Today marks the end of the first week in which a new, cleaner diesel fuel - with sulfur reduced 97% compared to the fuel it will eventually replace -- has been on sale throughout much the nation.
Autospiesquote- Granted, if I was going to the dealer with a $25,000 check today, you can bet that I would be picking up a 2010 Golf TDI over all the competition, even the GTI.
This is why: it does everything a GTI does just with a slower launch time. With the MPG it obtains though, I can live with life in the slower lane. Oh yeah, and it excites me like a Lotus Evora would.-end
From automobilemag.com
Surprisingly, Mazda also plans on bringing its efficient Sky-D diesel engine to the U.S. for the 2012 model year. Although it would make sense to offer the engine in a larger vehicle like the CX-7 or CX-9 crossovers, the company’s official release says the oil-burning engine will be fitted in a “next-generation midsize sedan” -- so we’re betting a diesel Mazda6 is in our future.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Give the beauro-commies enough time to re-arrange things so that something they dislike goes away, even if its good for the consumer and the economy.
Unfortunately, that doesn't enter into their decision making process.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Nissan Diesel Titan
I'll buy it.
Thank you! This is totally the logic truckmakers should have been using before CARB became the omnipotent power that it is in terms of air legislation.
When it was easy to do... they waited until it became too difficult. If the Jetta diesel weren't alone in its fight 10 years ago, more owners/fanbase/manufacturers could have fought back against the 'banning' for something more mild and a phased approach that allowed continuity of service for exceedingly economical vehicles.
Volkswagen's full line of award-winning TDI® Clean Diesel models, which includes the Jetta, Jetta SportWagen, Golf, and Touareg, once again proved popular with customers. The exciting and economical Jetta SportWagen TDI took the lead, accounting for 85.0% of all Jetta SportWagens sold in March.
With a gas engine it is just another wagon. With the TDI capable of 50+ MPG it is the leader of the pack. I am really tempted to get one for most of our driving.
I'm actually thinking about moving... which will in turn lengthen my commute, but will allow me to own some acreage, which is the goal.
I am definitely thinking along those lines as well.
Hell I'll bet I average 60mpg on the roads I'm planning on commuting on. Hard to pass up the Jetta TDI for that reason.