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.

 

[Soundguy]

my 13yr old trucks are doing fine right now.. plan on trying to get at least 20-23 out of them...

 

[clemsonfor]

I am an exception as many others. I have said for years why do we need trucks with 390HP or 500 hp just in a normal full size truck. What happen to the engines like the ford 300. Would do pretty good on gas and could still tow, yea not at 75mph on the interstate but its a truck!

I still would like to see trucks with lower horsepower and get better MPG yet still be able to handle modest loads, say 5-7k in a half ton for tow rating. They can still make the race luxury trucks that make crazy HP and can tow 10k lbs in a half ton frame for the guys with little man syndrome as well as the city guys who need to feel "manly" as well as working folks who need them to work (although the ones needing more capacity or power could step up to 3/4 ton)

I have several trucks neither are newer than 20 years. Still do the job i need them for, just slower.

For as little as i tow in a year with my 1/2 ton i cant see getting a newer one. I still get 8mpg towing about a 5000lb load behind it, which is not that far off from a late 90s f150 loaded the same. I have not moved the truck in about a year, so it makes no sense to spend 10K on a used truck right now.

 

[buickanddeere]

I am an exception as many others. I have said for years why do we need trucks with 390HP or 500 hp just in a normal full size truck. What happen to the engines like the ford 300. Would do pretty good on gas and could still tow, yea not at 75mph on the interstate but its a truck!

I still would like to see trucks with lower horsepower and get better MPG yet still be able to handle modest loads, say 5-7k in a half ton for tow rating. They can still make the race luxury trucks that make crazy HP and can tow 10k lbs in a half ton frame for the guys with little man syndrome as well as the city guys who need to feel "manly" as well as working folks who need them to work (although the ones needing more capacity or power could step up to 3/4 ton)

I have several trucks neither are newer than 20 years. Still do the job i need them for, just slower.

For as little as i tow in a year with my 1/2 ton i cant see getting a newer one. I still get 8mpg towing about a 5000lb load behind it, which is not that far off from a late 90s f150 loaded the same. I have not moved the truck in about a year, so it makes no sense to spend 10K on a used truck right now.

P
If it requires 300HP to overcome air drag, rolling friction and raise the gross weight of the rig at 55 mph. Then that is the amount Of energy required no matter if the engine can make 300 or 500 max HP. There just isn't the spread or difference a small vs a large motor uses in fuel that there used to be. Also Looking at the Duramax since it's introduction. There has been an increase in HP with little to no change in displacemen. The extra power is just more lbs of air per minute via higher manifold pressure. With the corrisponding increase in fuel delivery. This is a topic where it's too easy to compare apples to oranges.

 

[buickanddeere]

Just thinking of 400+ HP pickups and most trailers under 10,000 lbs and all under 26,000 lbs or so. How did highway semi truck and trailers with 40ton of cargo ever make it cross country and two mountain ranges with a 318 Detroit being a "big" engine?

 

[CJONE]

Just thinking of 400+ HP pickups and most trailers under 10,000 lbs and all under 26,000 lbs or so. How did highway semi truck and trailers with 40ton of cargo ever make it cross country and two mountain ranges with a 318 Detroit being a "big" engine?

Your 318 is still in the 1000 ftlb range torque wise I would guess. That is how it moved the load. I only had to work on 1 318 and it got rebuilt regularly at about 200,000 miles where the rest of the higher powered detroits were 300,00 to 350,000 miles. The Macks and Cummins engines at 350HP+ were 700,000 to 1,000,000 mile engines. And generally the bigger more efficient engines got better mileage when worked that the smaller ones did. CJ

 

[RobertN]

Because we are generally in the minority. In the US, HP sells.

Look at the posts from Renze; in Europe, he is talking small motors with 150HP, that get good mileage. Would never fly here in the States. Works well over there though.

In general, most people do not "need" 390 or 500hp. They "want" it...

My '01 Dodge is stock except BHAF and 4" exhaust. It was only specced at 235hp. It pulls my 7000lb 5th wheel just fine.

I am an exception as many others. I have said for years why do we need trucks with 390HP or 500 hp just in a normal full size truck. What happen to the engines like the ford 300. Would do pretty good on gas and could still tow, yea not at 75mph on the interstate but its a truck!

 

[Renze]

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.

Yes, big issue is public acceptance, despite all facts. It had to do with Oldsmobile 88 and Chevy 6.2, both with a low compression gas engine crank and rods, just because of 70's oil crisis policy, giving it a false start. We in Europe had diesel cars from Peugeot and Mercedes, mostly developed to be a taxi engine, which were 1,000,000km engines.... like a big rig. Just not fast, they were craving for turbo breath in the late 50's because old IDI engines had too much injection retardation at high speeds, so they couldnt get the power by rev'ing it high...

lastly, you assume that the buying public would accept a 200hp diesel. in my world vehicles aren't sold, they are marketed.

Yes, who was that Nascar driver that said "Torque wins races on sunday, but horspower sells cars on Monday" ?? About two months ago there was a BMW with a loud pipe next to me at the traffic lights. I left him with my 140hp 2.5TDI in a big fat smokecloud (EGR valve sticks when i drive too slow for too long) because mine has a wider powerband, it redlines at 4500 but at 4000rpm it starts to drop power... But the 300Nm at 1900rpm is just sweet...

Look at the posts from Renze; in Europe, he is talking small motors with 150HP, that get good mileage. Would never fly here in the States. Works well over there though.

150hp motors arent fuel efficient in 3 ton vehicles... manufacturers reduce the gearing to make them able to come along with the rest of traffic, which makes them high revving engines. You need to reduce RPM to reduce engine friction, and giving it more time for each cylinder to take a deep breath (thats what older atmospheric engines got their max torque from: at that RPM the cylinder fill rate was best, even though fuel injection rate was linear with the rpm)

In a half ton pickup truck, the 150hp 2.5 liter with the 4.11 gears it would require, just wouldnt cut it. In a Ranger it would be a fine engine if it had the torque to pull tall gears.

In general, most people do not "need" 390 or 500hp. They "want" it...

My '01 Dodge is stock except BHAF and 4" exhaust. It was only specced at 235hp. It pulls my 7000lb 5th wheel just fine.

The Cummins 6.7 is now putting out 360hp ?? Then its 4.5 four banger sibling would do 240hp, with driveability at normal driving (from low end torque) comparable to a 350hp gasser. It just wouldnt win a drag race, but thats not what a truck is for anyways....

Mercedes sells 5.1 liter four bangers in their 7.5 to 12 ton distribution truck range, with up to 230hp... That is heavy duty, so max 2200rpm and not 3200 or 3500 like Cummins/Ram...

 

[WM75Guy]

This was from 2010: "The 4.5-liter V-8 is fully developed and ready, said Mark Cieslak, GMC full-size truck chief engineer. If we decided to offer it, we could launch it in a heartbeat." It was shelved after GM went belly up. It could go anywhere the 5.3 V8 could go with 25% better MPG.

GM Ponders Reviving 4.5-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel - PickupTrucks.com News

The 4.5 as designed had 310 HP and 520 footpounds of torque. I had a 94 GMC 1/2 ton 2WD with the 6.5 and auto transmission. The 6.5 had 215 Hp and 440 ft lb of torque. I hope it comes out. I would like to have a Yukon 4WD with the diesel.

 

[VA MTN MAN]

I must have lucked up on my 2011 f150 v8. I have 39000 miles on it and it has averaged 20.6 mpg the whole time. I have never driven it on the interstate but on 2 lane roads in rolling hills. i drive between 55 and 60 mph. I thought everyone was getting about the same and couldnt figure why anyone would take the eco boost over the v8.

 

[Diamondpilot]

This was from 2010: "The 4.5-liter V-8 is fully developed and ready, said Mark Cieslak, GMC full-size truck chief engineer. If we decided to offer it, we could launch it in a heartbeat." It was shelved after GM went belly up. It could go anywhere the 5.3 V8 could go with 25% better MPG.

GM Ponders Reviving 4.5-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel - PickupTrucks.com News

The 4.5 as designed had 310 HP and 520 footpounds of torque. I had a 94 GMC 1/2 ton 2WD with the 6.5 and auto transmission. The 6.5 had 215 Hp and 440 ft lb of torque. I hope it comes out. I would like to have a Yukon 4WD with the diesel.

See, this would be a winner to me and I am the last guy in the world to own a GM anything. Maybe bump the HP to 350 but 310 would do. The torque is where its at.

Just does not make any sense if they have ti ready to go for 2 years and have spent all that money on R&D that they would not bring it to market?:confused2: I know GM had its issues with money but to shelve it after all the time and money was spent seems crazy to me. They need to do something quick with it or it will be a fossil quick and not be able to meet the next round of emmisons coming up in 3 years.

Chris