1/2 ton diesel anyone? looks like it might be a reality before long...

[tcartwri]

Mazda will be bringing a 300lb/ft compound turbo to the US this year. With the right gearing it would be a sweet little motor in a B series sized truck.

Ford already has a diesel Ranger sold worldwide. Although it is a midsized truck, sized between our ranger and the F150.

The biggest hurdle in North America is the price to desulfate the crude that is available to us. When and if demand goes back up, diesel will be much more expensive than regular gasoline, and your fuel savings will be completely offset by the cost of the diesel.

 

[Renze]

i've got no clue where the cost comes from, but it's sure there when you buy one. i checked a few out for comparison. here are the msrp price increases for diesels in a few:

vw w/tdi: $2700
gm w/duramax-allison: $8400
ford w/6.7 diesel: $8000

Yes, but what do you compare ? a half ton doesnt need an Allison transmission, a 200hp Diesel would have the same low end torque as a 350hp gasser, so it can do with the same transmission and rear end as a medium power gasser.

EU has emission standards. They aren't that far behind the US and could even be even with it once theirs are fully phased in. In the EU I don't know if you can buy a gas powered pickup.

The mercedes Sprinter has a 509,511, 513, 516 models (5 ton gross, 90,110,130 and 160hp models with the 2.2 liter four cylinder) and a 519 with the 3.0 V6 at 190hp. You guys get the 3.0 derated at 150hp in the Dodge sprinter.
For gas, they only sell the 3.2 V6 engine, which in 99.9% of the cases will be converted locally to CNG or propane. the gas version may account for less than 1% of the European Sprinter sales, and will most probably be more expensive than the V6 diesel because it is sold so seldom.

 

[WilliamBos]

Yes, but what do you compare ? a half ton doesnt need an Allison transmission, a 200hp Diesel would have the same low end torque as a 350hp gasser, so it can do with the same transmission and rear end as a medium power gasser.


The mercedes Sprinter has a 509,511, 513, 516 models (5 ton gross, 90,110,130 and 160hp models with the 2.2 liter four cylinder) and a 519 with the 3.0 V6 at 190hp. You guys get the 3.0 derated at 150hp in the Dodge sprinter.
For gas, they only sell the 3.2 V6 engine, which in 99.9% of the cases will be converted locally to CNG or propane. the gas version may account for less than 1% of the European Sprinter sales, and will most probably be more expensive than the V6 diesel because it is sold so seldom.

The 4.5L Babymax that GM halted was rumoured to be over 300HP. I really wish they would release it. If not, I would love a Nissan Patrol, that is a sweet truck.

 

[handirifle]

The 4.5L Babymax that GM halted was rumoured to be over 300HP. I really wish they would release it. If not, I would love a Nissan Patrol, that is a sweet truck.

I believe that (4.5-5) is the perfect size for the 1/2 ton trucks. The thought and alks of a 3.5-4L engine, is to me, backwards. Why build a small engine and be forced to overstress it with ultra high boost just to get the power, at the cost of durability?

 

[rsewill]

Mazda will be bringing a 300lb/ft compound turbo to the US this year. With the right gearing it would be a sweet little motor in a B series sized truck.

Ford already has a diesel Ranger sold worldwide. Although it is a midsized truck, sized between our ranger and the F150.

The biggest hurdle in North America is the price to desulfate the crude that is available to us. When and if demand goes back up, diesel will be much more expensive than regular gasoline, and your fuel savings will be completely offset by the cost of the diesel.

Diesel was not desulfured except in the past few years. Even before then you couldn't get a small Diesel truck from the Big Three. And Diesel will have to be 40% higher than gas before my two VW Diesels will cost more to fuel than an equivalent gas model (using federal mileage figures.) Typically Diesel is never more than ten to fifteen percent higher than gas.

 

[lostcause]

Yes, but what do you compare ? a half ton doesnt need an Allison transmission, a 200hp Diesel would have the same low end torque as a 350hp gasser, so it can do with the same transmission and rear end as a medium power gasser.

if you read my earlier post you would have seen that my estimate of the cost increase in a 1/2 ton would be about $5k-$6k. i based this off the fact that it costs over $8k on the sticker price here to get a diesel in a 3/4 ton truck. ford is just under $8k for the engine, with no transmission change. gm is $7200 for the duramax and $1200 for the allison transmission. i had no choice to mention the allison in conjunction with the duramax, because that's the only way the diesel is available from them. if i had said that a duramax cost $8400 then there would have been a guarantee of someone "informing" me that the duramax ONLY cost $7200. i'm fully aware that if they made a lighter duty diesel it would likely function with lighter running gear, but it will be a 6 or 8 cylinder, so i see no way it will be much less than the $5k-$6k that i originally stated.

i'm certainly not against diesels, i own one. the fact here is that the fuel mileage has been throttled over the last decade or two, so there is little to no mpg benefit now. add that to increased maintenance costs in a diesel, higher diesel prices in many areas, and it just doesn't seem practical. longevity hardly seems to be an issue here either. very few people purchase and drive a vehicle until it is completely worn out anymore. most gas v8 truck engines since the 80's have been pretty durable, so 200k is not at all unlikely. in my part of the country there are a lot of vehicles that won't make it to 200k because corrosion will get them first.

another issue is that diesels just aren't politically correct. i don't care if you can produce reams of paper stating that they are better than gas in every way, there is a large segment of the population in this country that will not, in their lifetime, believe that diesels are good for the planet.

lastly, you assume that the buying public would accept a 200hp diesel. in my world vehicles aren't sold, they are marketed. there would be a tiny percent of the population that would understand that was a fully adequate engine, but there is no profit in selling a couple thousand trucks a year. i truly believe that just that low number would turn off too many people. add in a cost that was many thousands higher than a gas truck and we're well on the way to the next bailout.

 

[rsewill]

Weight and size are two potential reasons. Durability is not at the top of the priority list anymore, courtesy of various regulations.

No, durability isn't at the top because it means that customer won't need a vehicle for awhile. Bean counters.

 

[tcartwri]

Diesel was not desulfured except in the past few years. Even before then you couldn't get a small Diesel truck from the Big Three. And Diesel will have to be 40% higher than gas before my two VW Diesels will cost more to fuel than an equivalent gas model (using federal mileage figures.) Typically Diesel is never more than ten to fifteen percent higher than gas.

My DD is a Jetta tdi. We pay significantly more for fuel here than you folks, and when diesel was 15% higher than regular, it was a wash as to which was the better vehicle to own. If you factor in the premium for the diesel powerplant, then the gasser is cheaper all around.

ULSD has been the norm for at least a decade. Prior to ~ 2005 the cost of fuel didn't push the market towards high efficiency cars the way it does now.

 

[Soundguy]

Weight and size are two potential reasons. Durability is not at the top of the priority list anymore, courtesy of various regulations.

i almost think that durability is to a target life span? and unfortunately in this sofiety.. i think the average car maker is targeting a 6-9 year new sales deal. ie.. if you buy new, they want you in another new one in 6-9 years... with a conventional diesel having a much longer lifespan than that.. then you wonder if the diesel is being derated and underdesigned ( smaller ) to make it less relaible and lower lifespan.. and if the rest of the vehicle will also be dumbed down. ie.. non hd components use din rear and fram so that they are worn out in that designed lifespan.

I wouldn't be a fan of owning a throwaway diesel ( short term )

 

[lostcause]

i almost think that durability is to a target life span? and unfortunately in this sofiety.. i think the average car maker is targeting a 6-9 year new sales deal. ie.. if you buy new, they want you in another new one in 6-9 years... with a conventional diesel having a much longer lifespan than that.. then you wonder if the diesel is being derated and underdesigned ( smaller ) to make it less relaible and lower lifespan.. and if the rest of the vehicle will also be dumbed down. ie.. non hd components use din rear and fram so that they are worn out in that designed lifespan.

I wouldn't be a fan of owning a throwaway diesel ( short term )

the average vehicle ownership term in the united states is right at 6 years now, but in 2002 it was just over 3 years. i think you can pretty much gauge that by the length of a loan. 3, 4, and 5 year loans used to be common, but they have now hit longer terms, though if we were in a booming economy you could expect more people buying at 3 years again. you've got to remember that the people on here are a vocal minority - you're forum members on an enthusiast site which means that your thoughts mirror somewhere near 1/10th of 1/10th of 1/10th of 1% of the population, or somewhere close to that. they don't care for or maintain, or hold relationships with property as long as an enthusiast.

on the topic of durability, i think that all vehicles made now are far more durable than their previous counterparts were. i've owned trucks made in every decade since the 70's and if you take them apart and set them side by side, the parts made now are almost all heavier than the old ones. just look at the curb weights and gvw ratings.

engines also run far longer now than they used to. much of that is better oils and fuel management, even with the bad fuels we have now. if it weren't for environmental concerns, think about how long you would last with fuels having lead, sulphur, and zinc contents like we had a few decades ago.

there are a lot of people around here that run their trucks on dirt roads and in the woods. they are lasting for 200k+ miles with minimal work. i've had people tell me that with the old 70's and 80's solid axle trucks they were lucky to get 50k before the suspension was so worn you couldn't keep the vehicle in the road. now it's mainly tires and routine maintenance.

corrosion protection is not far better than it used to be, which is one of the biggest killers of vehicles around here. we are using far more caustic chemicals on the roads here now to improve travel conditions in the bad months. the older 70's and 80's trucks used to rot out fast around here before we had the really bad stuff on the roads. if you were to take a newer truck back a few decades you would hardly see any rust on it for many years.