diesel war?

[Foragefarmer]

Nissan is introducing a Cummins diesel for the Titan for the 2015 model year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/autos-nissan-diesel-idUSL2N0GL1RX20130820

First Ram now Nissan oh if only Toyota would get on board!

 

[Bigg_Redd]

Nissan is introducing a Cummins diesel for the Titan for the 2015 model year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/autos-nissan-diesel-idUSL2N0GL1RX20130820

First Ram now Nissan oh if only Toyota would get on board!

Toyota has been "on board" since the 80s. It's the EPA and the American consumer that need to get on board.

 

[Jags]

And I am happy for this war. My big problem is this:

"The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet, the company said."

WHY? A Titan isn't the truck you should be using for a triple axle horse trailer, so why the big HP and torque? I think the ram and Jeep simply makes more sense and will be far more fuel efficient. Why does it have to be a "power" war. Jeesh. My current Jeep has ~240 ft pounds of torque. More than enough for the "average" person that tows a trailer or fishing boat. The NEW jeep is gonna have around 420. That should EASILY get the job done and maintain good MPG (~30).

 

[MasterMech]

That's a LOT bigger than the baby diesel going in the Ram 1500........

You're not even in the game with the power war until you produce over 400HP/800lb ft of torque.

 

[Jags]

You're not even in the game with the power war until you produce over 400HP/800lb ft of torque.

And don't want to be. That is the whole idea. I have NO use for an 800ft lb diesel getting 16 mpg. 420 ft lbs and 30 mpg is more my style.

For 97% of 1/2 ton pickup/Jeep Grand cherokee owners - the "baby" diesel is gonna be a great performance package. Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?

 

[MasterMech]

Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?

Let's chain 'em up and find out.

I'm fully aware of the short comings of my 7.9:1 compression ratio'd "peanut port" big block. But I'm gonna laugh myself silly dragging that Jeep behind me. Or else I'm gonna be REAL surprised.

TBI 454 = 240HP/380 lb ft stock, and the torque is all in at 1800 RPM.

The last laugh is yours however, at the pump that is.

 

[Jags]

Let's chain 'em up and find out.

Gonna laugh my butt off when I pass the third gas station that you are stopped at.

Again - it ain't always about "more power". If you don't have a use for it, why burn it?

 

[MasterMech]

Gonna laugh my butt off when I pass the third gas station that you are stopped at.

Again - it ain't always about "more power". If you don't have a use for it, why burn it?

Believe me, if I ain't got a use for it, it ain't runnin'. (My Canyon runs for my "everyday" truck needs. Now that could use that 3.0L .....)

 

[Jags]

Believe me, if I ain't got a use for it, it ain't runnin'. (My Canyon runs for my "everyday" truck needs. Now that could use that 3.0L .....)

Imagine if that Canyon had 420 ft lbs of torque and got 30 mpg. That would put a smile on your face.

(Now you are picking up what I am laying down.)

 

[Jags]

That is my point all the way. Why not have a sweet option for the middle of the road. When the 1 ton dually isn't needed, but you might want to tow your fishing boat or wood trailer or 98% of the normal stuff you do with a daily driver.

 

[MrWhoopee]

And I am happy for this war. My big problem is this:

"The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet, the company said."

WHY? A Titan isn't the truck you should be using for a triple axle horse trailer, so why the big HP and torque? I think the ram and Jeep simply makes more sense and will be far more fuel efficient. Why does it have to be a "power" war. Jeesh. My current Jeep has ~240 ft pounds of torque. More than enough for the "average" person that tows a trailer or fishing boat. The NEW jeep is gonna have around 420. That should EASILY get the job done and maintain good MPG (~30).

[rant mode=on]
It's the macho, American way. Bigger and more powerful is always better. Screw fuel economy, manueverability, practicality, etc. It's a good thing traffic lanes are only 12 ft. wide and most parking garages have a height limit under 8 ft. I am appalled (though not surprised) that Nissan and Toyota have jumped into the "huge" pickup market, building trucks so big you can't see over the hood. There are, of course, legitimate uses for high ground clearance, heavy towing capactiy, four-wheel drive trucks. I would guess, however, that 90% of those beasts never get off the pavement and are used principally as passenger vehicles and phallic symbols. The perfect vehicle for your 18 year-old son to drive to school. At least the Hummer died a well-earned death, if years too late.
[rant mode=off]

Here's my phallic symbol:

 

[Jags]

Durned hippies.

 

[Foragefarmer]

Toyota has been "on board" since the 80s. It's the EPA and the American consumer that need to get on board.

You are correct my statement was accurate but misleading. I am well aware that you can get a diesel Hilux everywhere else in the world but here.

 

[MrWhoopee]

Durned hippies.

That's "durned, unrepentant, old hippies" to you, sir. And smile when you say it.

 

[Highbeam]

And don't want to be. That is the whole idea. I have NO use for an 800ft lb diesel getting 16 mpg. 420 ft lbs and 30 mpg is more my style.

For 97% of 1/2 ton pickup/Jeep Grand cherokee owners - the "baby" diesel is gonna be a great performance package. Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?

So here's the thing. Everything you know about the diesel habits of current diesel truck owners is based on the fact that the only way to get a diesel was to buy a big gigantic 3/4 ton or bigger model whether you needed it or not. Despite this, the big truck got better mpg than a minivan and had plenty of power. It is entirely possible that a huge segment of the current macho truck owners would be very happy with a 1/2 ton version with much lower power and ratings.

It's not that anybody claimed to NEED a 1 ton truck to commute with but that was the only option and it was a pretty good option beating out the smaller full size gas trucks in mpg, power, comfort, resale, etc.

What's really exciting to me is the availability of the 4 cylinder diesels in cars, suvs, and minitrucks.

 

[MasterMech]

It is entirely possible that a huge segment of the current macho truck owners would be very happy with a 1/2 ton version with much lower power and ratings.

The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet

In a half ton truck? That's gonna scoot pretty good....

 

[Highbeam]

In a half ton truck? That's gonna scoot pretty good....

Compare that 6000# half ton to the 8000# one ton that gets the 385HP/850 ft-lbs torque cummins in 2014.

Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.

The current gas engine one ton makes 410 HP and 429 torque.

 

[pybyr]

I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.

Now I drive a 4 liter gas Tacoma and am pleased with 19MPG with very good performance, but would be grinning wildly if I could have torque and MPG of a modest sized diesel in a Tacoma size truck.

There keep being rumors of a Mahindra diesel pickup coming to the US, which could be really interesting, but it keeps dissipating back into vaporware.

One thing that I would want to be really, really sure of with any future diesel that I might buy was simplicity and serviceability/ maintenance costs over time. Old diesels were stone-axe simple and easy to maintain but some of the new ones can be idiotically complex in my opinion (like the newer Ford Super Duty diesels that need to have the cab lifted off for any degree of significant engine work). Both performance and fuel economy become moot if long term costs of ownership or repair crater due to overcomplexity.

 

[pybyr]

Compare that 6000# half ton to the 8000# one ton that gets the 385HP/850 ft-lbs torque cummins in 2014.

Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.

Yep. Another one of my vehicles along the way was an 89 F350 4WD toolbox body non-turbo 7.3 indirect injected diesel- got 14-16 mpg carrying nothing, and 14-16 MPG loaded to the gills and hauling a trailer... not a lot of power but it didn't seem to care what it was pulling

 

[Ashful]

Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.

Hence, the perfect system. I don't put enough miles on any vehicle, or keep my trucks long enough to realize the advantages of diesel. My primary interest in diesel is sort of back-handed, in that buying diesel is currently the only way to get a manual transmission, in most pickup trucks. Sad to see they're pairing most of these newer, smaller diesels with automatic transmissions.

 

[MasterMech]

I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.

What was the MPG of that big Dodge? Should've been comparable to your Tacoma, even towing a few Tacomas out back....

My Dad's '03 2500HD 4x4 Duramax (LB6) routinely gets near 20 MPG average and breaks that routinely for highway travel.

 

[Bret Hart]

Don't see much MPG difference with or without a trailer here, maybe 1 MPG at most. 17.5 on summer fuel and 15.5ish on winter fuel depending on idle time. Every tank hand calculated. Never trust the factory supplied lie-o-meters for MPG info. Many are terribly inaccurate.

2000 Ram 2500 quad cab short bed 4x4
5.9 Cummins.
Auto trans.
3.55 gears.
265/75/16 tires. Factory option, speedo calibrated to 265's.
8000# with contractor cap, tools, and me in the seat.
Amsoil in everything.
278,xxx miles and counting.

 

[Highbeam]

I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.

Now I drive a 4 liter gas Tacoma and am pleased with 19MPG with very good performance, but would be grinning wildly if I could have torque and MPG of a modest sized diesel in a Tacoma size truck.

Whoa there. You switched from a mind blowingly powerful truck that was very capable, large, and comfortable, that got nearly 20 mpg to a mini-truck with way less power, smaller, and less comfortable with the same mpg and you are happy about that? Did you make this change knowingly?

 

[Jags]

I just snickered.

 

[Stephen in SoKY]

I'm waiting for the VW Rabbit Pickup to come back.......without all the anti-smog crap we have to contend with these days. I had a 1985 Jetta diesel that was just about perfect.