Nissan Titan Cummins

[RobertN]

The sad thing is, in 2001, Dodge made a hybrid Ram Cummins "contractor special". Not only was it diesel/electric, it was a sizable generator on the jobsite too. Never made it to the market.....

Obviously it's the RAM HEMI!
First Plug-In Hybrid Ram 1500 Pickups Enter Service Next Week - PickupTrucks.com News

 

[Renze]

Cummins believes in the small Diesel for a pickup truck
The Japanese believe in a small diesel for the US truck market.

....Just too bad the US auto makers are lagging behind with this trend, and Nissan takes on the shoe, while Detroit just lays back and relies on hp bragging rights...


220hp is a whole bunch of horses for a 2.8 liter: The European vans take 190hp from a 3 liter V6 (merc) 176hp from a 3 liter four, or 163hp from a 2.5 liter five. I do believe the 2.8 ISB will weigh a bit more than any of aforementioned passenger car derived engines, but still... For a half ton pickup, the QSB4.5 at 220hp would have been my choice.

 

[jas67]

Toyota would only use a CAT engine if they thought the name would bring them sales. They already have a diesel that could easily be dropped in to a Tundra. Plus they have HINO and Isuzu so a third brand of engine really isn't needed. At the end of the day it has to make sense and look like it could turn a profit.

CAT stopped making on-road diesel engines last year, due to the ever increasing EPA regulations on them. I'm sure this made Volvo, Cummins, and Navistar happy.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Apparently you didn't actually click the link as it shows the Dodge RAM as the highest on the American Made list for pickup trucks and not "finishing last". Also, the second link states that the Dodge RAM has 76% Domestic Parts Content which is the highest of the pickup trucks and even the Ford dropped from 75% to 55% and GM trucks dropped from 90% to 75%.

The Titan doesn't make that TQ until 3,400 rpms which is not any better than the others, (the HEMI makes that at 3,000 rpms). The difference is the others keep making power where-as the Titan drops the power like a bad habit. It can't even make it's max 317 HP until a high-revving 5,200 rpms! :laughing:
Even with the power coming on so late, the Titan rear-ends were failing left and right so hopefully they can put a real rear-end in that truck that can handle diesel torque.

Content is one thing but content/man hours is another.

Chris

 

[Rustyiron]

Totally agree! Funny how they don't realize that while these newer trucks have 20% cleaner emissions they are also using 30% more fuel at the same time. :mur:

Washington thinking on display!

 

[Scooby074]

CAT stopped making on-road diesel engines last year, due to the ever increasing EPA regulations on them. I'm sure this made Volvo, Cummins, and Navistar happy.

International/Navistar at least. :thumbsup:

Cat has signed up with them to make "Cat" highway trucks and "Cat" highway engines. Supposedly Cat had a hand in the design from the frame up... Sharp Lookin' truck

 

[Dargo]

I understand what you are saying but hey, the Titan is made in the US. I would bet it has as many American workers man hours put into it than the other 1/2 ton pickups if not more. About 2 years ago they had a article in USA today and the Tundra was the most "American Built" 1/2 ton followed by the F-150, Titan, GM, and Ram finishing last. Yes, I know the argument that the profits are sent back overseas but this is about putting people to work.

I am a proud Titan owner. When I bought it in 2008 it was in my opinion the best 1/2 ton truck on the market. Today, 2011, I would go back with the F-150.

Chris

I know it's slightly off, but I bought me a couple of new (to me) Excursions. Both have the 3v V10's in them and are Eddie Bauer 4X4 models. Now, I did have to run the speed limit which was around 60 most of the time, but I was pretty pleased with this mpg as shown. When I filled up and hand calculated, I was only a few tenths different. This was mpg from the '05 which I now have sold (got a bargain on 2 one owners and the '03 has about 30k miles less, so I am keeping it). Other than an older '99 Excursion, I have no experience with the V10 6.8 engines. I don't recall getting any better than 13 something on the highway with my old '99 X. It did have more miles on it and it was the older style engine. I know it's not great, but I'm thrilled to get 16 mpg on the highway with the largest SUV ever made. I don't think either Suburban, my Tahoe or either Durango with the 5.9 ever got that kind of hwy mpg.

 

[Dargo]

Wow, this would be great for Nissan. Around here they cant even give away a Titan. With a compact diesel they's sell every one they could get.

Plus it would light a fire under Toyota and Ford to bring over their diesels.

I'm NOT a Toyota guy by any means. I figure it has to be against the odds, but Toyota bought my Avalon back under the Lemon Law. I had a 4-Runner and it was just as bad. Still, if all Toyotas were as bad as the ones I had, they'd be out of business. Having said that, I'd be really interested in a 1 ton Toyota diesel if they ever brought them over. The Sequoia plant is only about 20 miles from me and I know several people who work there. It's been over two years ago that they showed the employees a diesel powered Sequoia and diesel Tundra. Still, I've never heard any word of either being sold here.

 

[handirifle]

I just completely and throughly disagree with you here. If you want a hot rod go buy a Pony Car, not a truck. This is exactly what the automakers need to do and a lot of people have been screaming for it for a long time.

Which 1/2 ton truck makes 400 ft-lbs? Name one?

Why would you have to change the oil and fuel filters more? There are people I know who go 10,000 miles between oil changes (I wouldn't) and with diesel the fuel won't go bad like in gas.

There are tons of trucks out there that will get 17-18 mpg on the hwy, but no fullsize trucks that will get 30+ mpg and still be capable of towing 6-8K on a regular basis.

No one's talkin about a hot rod, but a capable vehicle. Sure the little engine gets a (claimed) 30 mpg, that has yet to be proven. Very few vehicles ever get the epa mileage they claim, in my experience. The torque numbers are good, but with 220hp it's going to be a slow accelerator, and while some may surely jump on this one, I can guarantee you, it won't be long before folks start pushing the factories for higher numbers. No one likes to drive a truck that is pitifully slow when getting on the freeway, much less, when towing. I can bet you money, that those same gas trucks (many of the 1/2 ton gassers are OVER 400lbs torque, by the way) will out pull, out accelerate, and just flat out perform that little engine. Plus as hard as they are pushing that engine, they will probably last just as long.

Guys around here that have the diesel trucks, have to swap fuel filters at least once a year to keep from getting them clogged. I have never had to change a fuel filter on a gas engine. I've done it, but never had to.

As for the claimed 30 mpg, if it gets that, given the local price difference of fuel, $4,21 87 octane vs $4.75 #2 Diesel, and driving 10,000 miles a year, I see about $755 difference a year, in the favor of the diesel. That is compared to a gas truck getting 18 mpg, and many are making higher claims than that. The Ford Eco-Boost claims 22, with a 10,300lb tow rating, about 380hp and over 400lbs torque from a 3.5L V6.

When all these things are factored against it, I think the 220 hp numbers are just too low, for todays market. Sure 10 years ago, that's what some engines got, but everything else has advanced, it's time they did too.

Now, factor in the extra cost of the diesel package, $8000 the last time I checked, the extra oil costs, filters, and it take a LONG time to make it worth it. The the package cost alone, makes it over 10 years to pay off the difference, using the 10,000 mile a year figure.

 

[Lt CHEG]

No one's talkin about a hot rod, but a capable vehicle. Sure the little engine gets a (claimed) 30 mpg, that has yet to be proven. Very few vehicles ever get the epa mileage they claim, in my experience. The torque numbers are good, but with 220hp it's going to be a slow accelerator, and while some may surely jump on this one, I can guarantee you, it won't be long before folks start pushing the factories for higher numbers. No one likes to drive a truck that is pitifully slow when getting on the freeway, much less, when towing. I can bet you money, that those same gas trucks (many of the 1/2 ton gassers are OVER 400lbs torque, by the way) will out pull, out accelerate, and just flat out perform that little engine. Plus as hard as they are pushing that engine, they will probably last just as long.

Guys around here that have the diesel trucks, have to swap fuel filters at least once a year to keep from getting them clogged. I have never had to change a fuel filter on a gas engine. I've done it, but never had to.

As for the claimed 30 mpg, if it gets that, given the local price difference of fuel, $4,21 87 octane vs $4.75 #2 Diesel, and driving 10,000 miles a year, I see about $755 difference a year, in the favor of the diesel. That is compared to a gas truck getting 18 mpg, and many are making higher claims than that. The Ford Eco-Boost claims 22, with a 10,300lb tow rating, about 380hp and over 400lbs torque from a 3.5L V6.

When all these things are factored against it, I think the 220 hp numbers are just too low, for todays market. Sure 10 years ago, that's what some engines got, but everything else has advanced, it's time they did too.

Now, factor in the extra cost of the diesel package, $8000 the last time I checked, the extra oil costs, filters, and it take a LONG time to make it worth it. The the package cost alone, makes it over 10 years to pay off the difference, using the 10,000 mile a year figure.

You make some good points and this truck may not be for you. It may very well be for some of us though. I drive my 6.4 Powerstroke like a truck, not a hot rod. I pretend that there is an egg under the accelerator pedal and accelerate very slowly so as to keep my boost at or below 10psi. I also realize that the truck is a giant brick and not very aerodynamic so I drive it around 68 mph on the highway to maximize fuel economy. Driving this way I am able to get better fuel economy than a lot of people report on their 6.4 Powerstroke equipped trucks. It is a truck after all and the only time I need the 350 horsepower and 650 lb ft of torque are when towing my tractor, so when not doing that I try not to use the extra power. I have my wife's Honda CR V for driving like a car, and my Government vehicle for work so I can drive fast with other vehicles, I don't need to do so with my truck. I have no doubt that this truck would have no problem merging onto the highway and cruising at 75 to 80 mph. It might not compete with a 3 series BMW in the 0-60 or quarter mile times, but a lot of us don't care as long as it gets good fuel economy.

As for the extra cost of diesel engines, diesel fuel and maintenance those are valid points. There's no arguing the extra expense of diesel engines. I think diesel fuel prices vary quite a bit geographically. In many parts of the country diesel was cheaper than or on par with the cost of 87 octane. Even here in NY diesel in the summer time runs around the cost of premium, usually a little less, while in the winter time it costs a bit more. I figure at worst diesel fuel averages 8% to 10% more than 87 octane. I maintain a gasoline engine as thoroughly as a diesel engine so that it lasts as long so to me maintenance costs, especially on a smaller diesel that won't use as much oil won't be that much higher. I'll figure 10% more maintenance cost for a diesel over the way I maintain a gas engine. Lastly the area that is the hardest factor for the average user to overcome, up front purchase cost. Diesel engines cost a lot more than gasoline engines. I believe that better fuel economy and higher maintenance costs are easily made up by the better fuel economy of diesel engines, however for the typical user they will probably not drive enough to recoup the higher up front purchase cost unless they own and drive the vehicle for a very long time or use it very hard. The thing is that for a lot of people that just doesn't matter. How many hemi powered Dodge Challengers ever see a drag strip or for that matter anything other than daily driving? How many of these jacked and lifted trucks that people seem to like driving in some areas ever see real, hard core off road use? I'd personally guess not a lot by the way that most of the ones that I see are always immaculate. So why do people spend the extra money for these enhanced performance options or customizations? Because these purchases make them feel good. I think the same justification could justify the purchase of a smaller diesel pickup for a lot of folks. I really like driving a diesel pickup. I like the way it sounds, especially the newer ones that are mostly quiet and well mannered but exhibit enough diesel characteristic to know that it's a diesel.

Lastly, I'll make one other point. To some people, myself included driving a small car all the time is not really a feasible option. Yet we'd like to get better fuel economy. I don't drive my personally owned vehicle enough to justify having one heavy duty truck for my towing and hauling needs, while also owning a commuter car. Moreover I can't justify the cost of owning, insuring and maintaining an additional vehicle. I also don't have the space for another vehicle. So since a smaller vehicle, even coupled with a trailer will simply not meet my needs I must buy a large truck. Yet at the same time, every time I pull up to the fuel pumps, I hate giving my money to the oil companies. I personally despise paying as much money for oil as we do. We spend an enormous amount, especially now, on parasitic speculators who do absolutely nothing to bring the product to market or improve it in any way but reap large profits from causing parasitic loss to the market. I have other gripes about the fuel situation too, but I think I can summarize my feelings and those of many others by saying that for many of us, we'd rather spend more on a vehicle if it means that we can spend less on fuel, even if the fuel savings don't make up for the extra vehicle expense. If I had the choice of giving GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. $8000 or giving the oil companies only $4000, I would gladly pay the extra to the car companies. I would derive tremendous satisfaction from giving a lot less to the oil companies, even if it meant paying more for my truck. I know I'm not alone and I think that because of that there would definitely be a market for this truck if Nissan chooses to build it.