backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by Skywalker123.. on Feb 17 at 5:03 PM

While General Motors and Ford drag their feet, Chrysler says "YES" to turbodiesels in half-ton trucks

It looks as though diesel mania is finally starting to catch on in the United States. Chrysler has confirmed that it will be offering a V6 turbodiesel in its Ram 1500 "consumer grade" pickup during the third quarter of 2013 according to USA Today.
 
The Big Three (Chrysler, Ford, GM) have long offered turbodiesel engines in their heavy-duty pickups, but have been reluctant to offer diesel power in their half-ton trucks due to concerns that Americans wouldn't pony up the money for a more fuel efficient engine (the 6.7 liter Cummins turbodiesel option on heavy-duty Ram pickups is a $7,795 option).
 
Auto enthusiasts have been craving a diesel engine in half-ton pickups for years, but the manufacturers have constantly pushed back. Chrysler, however, is finally listening to its customers.  "Customers have been emphatically asking for this, thirsting for it, craving it," said Fred Diaz, CEO of Chrysler's Ram division, citing internal studies.


Ram 1500
 
Unlike the diesel engine offered in heavy-duty versions of the Ram, Cummins won’t make this engine. Italian company VM Motori will instead manufacture the 3-liter V6 turbodiesel. The same engine will be available in the 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee and produces 240hp and 420 lb-ft of torque in that application.
 
For comparison, the 5.7-liter V8 Hemi available in the Ram 1500 produces 360hp and 390 lb-ft of torque. Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, which is billed as a fuel-efficient and powerful option for the F-150, is rated at 365hp and 420 lb-ft of torque. However, it wouldn't be a stretch to state that the Ram 1500 turbodiesel should have no problem outclassing the EcoBoost in EPA and real world fuel economy.
 
Chrysler is currently staying mum on pricing/fuel economy for the turbo diesel engine option, but TrueCar.com expects the company to court an additional 10,000 in the first year of availability with continued growth in the coming years.

Updated 2/14/2013 @ 2:32pm EST
Chrysler has made an offiical announement on the light-duty turbodiesel.

Sources: USA Today, Chrysler



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's about time
By Beenthere on 2/14/2013 10:36:39 AM , Rating: 3
It's absurd that U.S. auto makers have not been offering a good small turbo Diesel in 1/2 ton pick-ups and SUVs for the past 5 years. I don't know how good this VM Motorr Diesel engine is that will end up in this Dodge RAM but it's disappointing that they are not using the Cummins small Diesel engine that was specifically designed, developed and waiting for this application...

As you would expect Marchionne decided to go with a Fiat owned company Diesel engine over the most likely superior Cummins straight six turbo Diesel engine. This is another example of Chrysler/RAM/Jeep being Fiat bastardized. Fiat is trying to dupe U.S. customers by using Chrylser/RAM/Jeep name plates on what will eventually be all Fiat designed and partly manufactured Fiat models with some U.S. tweaks.

U.S. consumers have routinely rejected Fiat Euro models brought to the U.S. and they will likely do this again even with U.S. name plates on Fiat models - once consumers get firsthand experience with the rebadged Fiat models.




RE: It's about time
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 11:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree.

I had to go up to the Ram 3500 to get the Cummings diesel engine. I'm still pleased with it and just completed a 2,200+ mile trip. The 1-ton 3500 is overkill for my needs, but my top requirement was a diesel engine and manual transmission.

Best wishes,


RE: It's about time
By Ammohunt on 2/14/2013 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to have a diesel Dodge with a Cummins but even the used ones are out of my prices range right now. As far as i am concerned Cummins diesel is the only reason to buy a dodge diesel truck i personally wouldn't buy a dodge without one.


RE: It's about time
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 11:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I was looking at Ford F-250 diesels, but the Cummings was just a more reliable engine IMO. The quality of the interior is not good though. My dash is cracked in multiple places and the interior design it rather bland (2003 Ram 3500 Quad-Short. The engine over-powered all of those issues though. If Dodge put a diesel in the Dakota, I'm sure they would have buyers. No many people want a 1 ton truck for weekend trips to HomeDepot.
btw. I actually bought it through Ebay. I didn't buy new. I had first approached a dealer with my specs and the price I was willing to pay, but I never heard back from him. I ended up finding exactly what I wanted, for the price I wanted to pay. I did have to fly to Houston and then drive it 1,000+ miles home, but I am still thrilled with the truck and purchase. Ebay feedback IS key to a good transaction.

Best wishes,

Best wishes


RE: It's about time
By Argon18 on 2/14/2013 4:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Cummins is a good engine. It's funny, Ford uses the Powerstroke (built by International) in their F250, F350 and F450.

But in the larger F550, F650, and F750, they use a Cummins. Hmmmmm.


RE: It's about time
By aebiv on 2/14/2013 10:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
The new Powerstroke is a Ford engine, not an International one.

They designed it completely in-house and bought the name from International.


RE: It's about time
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/17/2013 2:57:47 PM , Rating: 1
I always though that it was better to be stroked than rammed....


RE: It's about time
By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't buy any new truck until you see what toyota has up its sleeve with the new tundra. The old one was getting a little dated, the new one might have the same dependability and have all the new tech that's in the f150.


RE: It's about time
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 4:30:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The old one was getting a little dated, the new one might have the same dependability and have all the new tech that's in the f150.


Yeah for only a third more in cost than an F-150.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Tundra is a great truck. But it's still, you know, a TRUCK. Toyota wants too much for the Tundra imo. Especially when stacked up against the competition.


RE: It's about time
By agentsmithitaly on 2/14/2013 11:11:21 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry Beenthere
Common rail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail) a key technology that powers all modern Diesel engines has been entirely developed by Fiat. The first Common Rail Diesel engine was available in the Alfa Romeo 156 car. Common rail tecnology was the key ingredient to unleash the true potential of Diesel engines, including the Cummins engine you mentioned. While Fiat has still its issues, long time passed since it was called "fix it again Tony"...

VM Motori is only 50% Fiat property, the other half is General Motors property which, if I remember correctly, is an American company. And by the way I don't see anything wrong in this decision, why do they need to outsource the engine?

In the end I agree with you about the feasiblity of Fiat models rebadge into Chrysler models, I guess this is standard practice among international carmakers. They did the same in Italy, where the Dodge Journey has been renamed Fiat Freemont, the Chrysler Sebring became a Lancia Flavia and the 300C (a car that I really like) became Lancia Thema. Also here Lancia fans complained about this trick that spoiled the great brand reputation and history, but in this shrinking economy you need to provide new models at the lowest development expenditure, Marchionne is doing a fine job. Perhaps he's the best manager Fiat ever had after Vittorio Ghidella


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/14/2013 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
Traditionally diesel engines have 2 big considerations as to what light trucks they can go in.

The first is weight. To handle the extra compression and torque the blocks are usually made of extra thick cast iron. Which adds enormous amounts of weight to the engine. Also, a lot of the other components have to be beefed up as well to handle the constant stress, which further adds to the weight.

The other is the constant high torque they generate. Diesels have an incredibly short piston stroke which translate to huge torque numbers from the crank shaft. So you have to compensate the twisting effect on the chassis by using beefier frame members and suspension. If you don't you'll actually impart a twist to your frame. Watch a semi tractor under heavy load as they attempt to accelerate from a dead stop. You'll see the whole truck kneeling and lurching to one side as the frame tries to absorb all that low end torque.

So with the weight added by the engine and the need for a heavier duty frame and suspensions it quickly eats into your ability to put a diesel into the 1/2 ton truck weight class. And for a truck, those factor again detract from the Gross Vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR)with trailer use.

The upside is that the diesel, with proper maintenance, usually has an incredibly long life compared to a gasoline engine. Many diesels are just getting broken in at the 100,000 mile point while many gassers are almost ready for the junk yard.


RE: It's about time
By CharlesBennett on 2/14/2013 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
Diesels don't produce "constant high torque". It's based on throttle position, load and rpm.

Diesels don't have incredibly "short piston strokes". As a matter of fact, it's just the opposite for most industrial diesels and the Cummins offered in the Dodge. Long stroke engine inherently produce more torque but are rpm limited.

Diesels don't put any more stress on a chassis than an equivalent output gasoline engine.


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/14/2013 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Diesels don't produce "constant high torque". It's based on throttle position, load and rpm.


A diesel operates in a very narrow RPM band. On a dynometer you'll also see that a diesel's torque is relatively flat across that band.

quote:
Diesels don't have incredibly "short piston strokes"...


Odd...I have IH,Cummins,PS,and Cat diesels in my vehicles, I do all my own repair work, and yes they are much shorter stoked than their gasser equivalents.

quote:
Diesels don't put any more stress on a chassis than an equivalent output gasoline engine.


Again, a diesels torque curve is relatively constant and flat over a very short RPM range, while a gas engine's maximum torque is only ever realized in a very small section inside its RPM.

A diesel can maintain it's torque numbers all day, while a gasser tends to destroy itself when operated at max torque too long.


RE: It's about time
By drycrust3 on 2/14/2013 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Odd...I have IH,Cummins,PS,and Cat diesels in my vehicles, I do all my own repair work, and yes they are much shorter stoked than their gasser equivalents.

Are these engines turbo charged?


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/14/2013 3:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are these engines turbo charged?


The only one I have that isn't is an old Detroit Diesel that I've rebuilding to use as a generator.


RE: It's about time
By Argon18 on 2/14/2013 4:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
How does a gasser "destroy itself" when operating at max torque? Modern high performance gasoline engines, at least the ones from BMW and Porsche that I'm familiar with, use variable valve timing to give outstanding low end torque.

The M54 engine in my 2004 BMW 325i makes maximum torque at just 3500 rpm, which is incidentally also the speed of the engine when cruising on the highway in 5th gear.

Also, claiming a diesel operated in a "very narrow rpm band" is misleading as well. My w210 Mercedes turbodiesel has an engine redline of almost 6000 rpm. 6000! and I regularly run it up there. I understand most trucks are closer to 3500 rpm, but that's more a function of how that particular engine is tuned, not of diesel technology in general.

Agree that modern diesels are a superior technology, but assumptions, generalizations, and false statements don't help anyone.


RE: It's about time
By Dorkyman on 2/14/2013 5:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. There is nothing to say a gasoline ICE will "destroy itself" via torque any more than a diesel will.

Saying that, it is true that the design criteria are different. Diesels are expected to run for decades, gassers are designed to be inexpensive, light, and moderately long-lived.


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/17/2013 2:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, take your gasoline powered car down and put it on a dyno. Have it tested for its max torque curve. Then with numbers in hand, head down the high ay and hold it at max torque. Shouldn't have to hold it there more than 30 minutes before your engines blows or seizes. Usually it will be a piston rod that bends or fails.

Please don't forget to record the test.

Also, did I miss something? The article is talking about a 1/2 ton truck and the diesel intended for it. I'm not speaking to your BMW.


RE: It's about time
By Varun on 2/15/2013 1:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's great that you do your own engine work, but just FYI, diesel engines don't have short piston strokes. I'm not sure where you ever came up with that idea.

In fact, the Cummins 6.7 is an undersquare engine just like most diesel engines.
"4.21 inches bore (106.9 mm) and 4.88 inches (124.0 mm) stroke"

Gas engines certainly don't destroy themselves if used at max torque unless they are just poorly designed. A Diesel engine will normally last longer (assuming both are maintained well) due to several factors such as the fuel being a lubricant and the much lower RPM. The torque curve is there - it can be mostly flat on a lot of the newer turbo engines but that's a function of the turbo. If you don't believe me, here is the torque curve of a BMW N54 3.0L Gas engine:
http://www.n54tech.com/forums/attachment.php?attac...

Turbos give great torque curves.


RE: It's about time
By Skywalker123 on 2/17/2013 12:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesels don't have incredibly "short piston strokes"...

Odd...I have IH,Cummins,PS,and Cat diesels in my vehicles, I do all my own repair work, and yes they are much shorter stoked than their gasser equivalents.


Thats odd, the Caterpillar c9 u mention in another post is has a MUCH longer stroke than most engines,

In-line 6-Cylinder, 4-Stroke-Cycle Diesel
Bore — in (mm) .................... 4.53 (115)
Stroke — in (mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.87 (149)
Displacement — cu in (L). . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 (9.3)
Aspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turbocharged


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/17/2013 3:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant, The engine is much larger in proportion than what you'll find in light duty trucks. The greater size of the block and bore is proportional to the duration of the stroke.


RE: It's about time
By Skywalker123 on 2/17/2013 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesels have an incredibly short piston stroke which translate to huge torque numbers from the crank shaft.


This is your exact quote, the size of the diesel is IRRELEVANT give me ONE example of a short stroke diesel used in trucks of any kind. Also, i repeat, short strokes dont generate torque long strokes do.


RE: It's about time
By Dr of crap on 2/14/2013 12:39:43 PM , Rating: 3
Agree with alomst all of your post.

It's the car bodies that wear out, not the engines. I have two cars over 100,000 miles and going strong running like new, one at 185,000 and one at 173,000. And you'll find stories of people keeping they're cars longer now, and the engines are just fine.

Maybe you haven't owned a "gasser" in 40 years, but they last long for MOST people.


RE: It's about time
By Bad-Karma on 2/14/2013 1:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Very true, but most people have a tendency to take care of the body and not the engine.

I've got a F750 Super Crewzer that I use to hall my 5th wheel camper around. It has a Caterpillar C9. I last tore it down for inspection at 500K miles and only had to replace the rings. Other general components have of course failed but nothing with the engine itself. It is now at 740K(ish)and going strong.

I have an IH T444E in my F550 that is approaching 400K.

I do happen to use by-pass filters on all my diesels to promote that kind of longevity.

So like I said, if treated right these big diesels will just be breaking in at 100K miles. Try that with a gas engine.


RE: It's about time
By Spuke on 2/14/2013 7:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So like I said, if treated right these big diesels will just be breaking in at 100K miles. Try that with a gas engine.
This isn't the 60's. There are gas engines that last well into the 300k mile range. It's not unheard of. My daily driver is at 116k miles, nothing wrong at all with the engine. Personally, I've never owned a car that I didn't keep at LEAST 100k miles and all were sold or traded for new or newer used one's. My old 92 Nissan Sentra was sold at 250k miles, the new owner kept the car two years and sold it to someone else.


RE: It's about time
By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 96 F150 with almost 240k miles on it, and the only engine work the 4.9L I6 has had done on it is replacing a water pump when it developed a pinhole in the tube to the heater core. I know several older models from the late 70s that have even more miles and still going strong that our neighbors own. My first vehicle in high school was a 71 F100 with a 302 V8 what had over 300k miles on it when my father bought it, it only died when the radiator got clogged and it over heated. Gas engines can last a very long time if taken care of, but for diesels I can attest they will last longer, but most of those are the larger ones. My uncle had his semi's Cummins overhauled for the third time and each time it had about 1M miles on it, last time was only 900K but close enough.


RE: It's about time
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My uncle had his semi's Cummins overhauled for the third time and each time it had about 1M miles on it, last time was only 900K but close enough.
If the
"overhaul" was a rebuild, you can do that with gas engines too. I'm not trying to crap on you or anything BTW, I really want to know. I hear diesel owners say that all the time (I'm a diesel owner too) but no one I know keeps their diesels anywhere near 1M miles to take advantage of the supposed longevity. I know you were talking about a semi and they do run their engines into the ground but in my experience there's a LOT repairs in those 1M miles.


RE: It's about time
By JediJeb on 2/15/2013 11:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it was a rebuild, and I have done those on gas engines myself too, but usually they have to be done sooner with a gas than a diesel engine. Same was always true for farm tractor engines as well. As for my uncle's truck, they were putting about 6k miles per week on it so 1M miles comes up pretty soon(roughly one east coast to west coast trip each week). My Aunt and Uncle drove together so they only came home about every three weeks. This last time the compression was getting a little low so he had it rebuilt, but hadn't had any engine problems other than the loss of power from the wear. It is rather amazing what the combination of newer engines and lubricants does for longevity of the commercial engines.

My Father is a retired school bus mechanic, and he can attest to the greater longevity of the diesel engines for that usage as opposed to the gasoline engines they used to use.


RE: It's about time
By Wy White Wolf on 2/14/2013 12:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Guess no one ever pointed that out to all the non US manufactures that have built millions of mid to small vehicles with diesels.

Isuzu put one in a compact truck that was sold in the US.


RE: It's about time
By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nissan also had a small diesel truck in the 80s. I am trying to remember who made the diesel that was in the Chevy Luv also. Ford offered a 2.0 diesel in the first few years of the Ranger too as did Jeep in the early Cherokee models from 85 up.


RE: It's about time
By Skywalker123 on 2/17/2013 12:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
As someone else mentioned diesel engines arent designed to be "incredibly short stroke" and short strokes are used in high rpm engines and long strokes are used to provide a lot of torque not short strokes


By cknobman on 2/14/2013 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 3
I know diesel is more fuel efficient but here in the USA there really is no consumer benefit. People (on this board) love to bash hybrids and EV's for their price premium but praise diesel.

With diesel adding $5k + to the price its already treading on thin ground when it comes to making your money back as they often get less than 15 more mpg vs their gas counterparts.

Then diesel fuel (in my area) is a minimum of .40 cents per gallon more vs gas.

So you pay a premium for the vehicle and then a premium for the fuel every single time you go to fill up. Regular consumers just are not going to go for it.




By Lord 666 on 2/14/2013 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
There was a line for the diesel pump yesterday. A school bus was ahead of me with the person behind me in a diesel Cayenne. Never had to wait for a diesel pump locally. The local Exxon just added diesel as well. Most of the Jettas I see on the Interstate are TDIs with almost all of the new Passats being diesel.

Yes, demand is increasing.


By Pneumothorax on 2/14/2013 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yup speaking of lines... I'm always competing for the local diesel pump with my 335d. My local station's 2 pumps usually are taken up by a F-250 on one side and a TDI station wagon on the other. Speaking of diesel prices, we pay so much for fuel here in Kalifornia, that diesel is almost always cheaper than premium unleaded which what my BMW would be running on anyway if it was a gasser.


By agentsmithitaly on 2/14/2013 11:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
I might add that for heavy duty users Diesel engines have simple more endurance, plenty of torque and require less maintenance, further saving costs. They are developed to last 150.000 miles, if I did the conversion correctly.
Diesel PT Cruiser had a maintenance cycle of 12.500 miles, Audi Diesel engines 19.000 miles. A gas powered PT Cruiser my family owned needed maintenance every 7.500 miles


By cknobman on 2/14/2013 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel is not a guarantee for longevity and if something does go wrong it is much more expensive to fix than a gasoline powered vehicle.

I worked at firestone and kwik kar (this was about 15 years ago when I was a late teen) and would regularly see gas powered trucks come in for routine oil changes on original built engines that had over 150000 miles (these were commonly Toyota Tacomas).

Todays gasoline powered engines with proper maintenance will last 200000 miles (and even more).

Also with the average turnover rate of most consumers they are likely never even going to own the vehicle long enough to wear it out or even recoupe the extra cost for diesel anyways.


By Dr of crap on 2/14/2013 12:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly!

It's just another expensive alternative, but we do need all of these alternatives for everyone to sort through for themselves, EVs, hybrids, diesels, CNGs, fuel cells - all of them.

But I do agree with you!


By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I knew a guy who had over 250,000 on a turbo toyota truck, the old bullet proof 22re. To top it off it was a turbo, of course the turbo didn't make it to 250,000.


By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also with the average turnover rate of most consumers they are likely never even going to own the vehicle long enough to wear it out or even recoupe the extra cost for diesel anyways.


The ones who will purchase the diesel option are more like me, I have owned my current truck 16 years and really don't see a reason to trade it off yet. If I can get a good quality diesel in a half ton truck with decent fuel mileage I would probably purchase that and keep it another 20 years. I just want to make sure the next one I do purchase is going to last 20 years or else it isn't even worth my consideration.


By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 1
An added advantage with diesel engines is the longevity of the engines. Less moving parts than a gas engine and practically bullet proof IMO. 300,000 miles is the expected rebuild millage on a Cummings engine (straight six). Most gas owners wouldn't consider a gas engine with 75,000 miles on it. I just rolled 145,000 miles on my Dodge Ram Cummings.

What I would really like to see...is the millions of gallons of used cooking oil from local restaurants be processed into Bio-diesel and sold locally. This is a product that can be used twice, once for cooking and then as clean fuel. This Bio-diesel could be used to fuel local city buses and semi-tractor trailers.

No need to drill or re-invent the engine if you tap into this overlooked resource IMO. Diesels were actually designed to run on peanut oil.

Best wishes,


By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends on the type of miles, manufacturer, and maintenance. I would have no problem buying a toyota or honda with that many miles so long as I new the owner, and know it was babied.


By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
The cooking oil is a great way to reduce waste, but it only works on a small scale.


By JediJeb on 2/15/2013 11:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
. Less moving parts than a gas engine and practically bullet proof IMO


I agree with most of what you said, but I am not sure there really is much difference in the number of parts between a gas and diesel engine. Pistons, rods, crank, cam, valves, balancers are all needed for each in the same amount(with the exception maybe of the high performance engines with more than two valves per cylinder).


By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 4:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree.

Every time "Diesel" and "America" is put together on Daily Tech, we have throngs of people praising America for "finally" getting on board with diesel vehicles. As if they are some amazing end-all benefit.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but for a daily driver vehicle, I would be crazy to buy diesel. Can someone explain to me why I would want one?

1. Thousands more upfront to purchase.
2. Crazy maintenance fees for oil changes and what-not (like $100 for an oil change, seriously!)
3. Major cost increase for diesel fuel (in America) over petroleum. Why does cruddy dirty diesel fuel cost as much as premium petrol here? (rhetorical, I know it's taxes)

All this in exchange for better fuel economy. Note: better. Not amazing, not 50% higher, just a bit better.

This is what's called a "non-starter" if there ever was one. Where's the benefits in diesel fuel again?


By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does cruddy dirty diesel fuel cost as much as premium petrol here? (rhetorical, I know it's taxes)


Another reason it costs more is because it isn't "cruddy dirty fuel" anymore. Especially the requirement for lower sulfur content which increased the price to above that of gasoline back a few years ago. It was cheaper than gas back before that even with the higher tax rate.

quote:
Crazy maintenance fees for oil changes and what-not (like $100 for an oil change, seriously!)


I once went to Grease Monkey and had the oil changed in my Trans Am with full synthetic and it cost me $70 and that was 10 years ago. Having anyone do an oil change for you using good oil and a good filter is not cheap anymore for any type vehicle not just diesel. Other than that, there shouldn't be any required maintenance on a diesel except maybe an air filter for at least 100k miles, and most diesel owners I know have done nothing other than change oil and air filters for 200k plus miles on them. Most diesel engines get oil changes at 10k miles or longer so less of those to worry about too.

The upfront cost is about the only thing that keeps me away, but as I have said before, if I plan to keep the vehicle 20 plus years that cost spread out over that much time isn't so bad either.


By Spuke on 2/15/2013 12:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't own a diesel. The pumps ARE "cruddy and dirty". I usually wear a glove. The only diesel pumps that I've seen that are clean are at stations fairly far away from the freeways and I never see another diesel fueling there. Sure ULSD is cleaner than the old stuff but still not as clean as gas.

quote:
Other than that, there shouldn't be any required maintenance on a diesel except maybe an air filter for at least 100k miles, and most diesel owners I know have done nothing other than change oil and air filters for 200k plus miles on them.
LOL! Then they're neglecting their maintenance! I had the oil, oil filter and FUEL filters changed every three months on my truck while it was a daily driver (required maintenance). Significantly more costly than my Solstice with JUST oil and oil filter changes every 3-4 months or so (I use the oil life indicator). Gas engines use less oil and don't require fuel filter changes either. Also, when a diesel has a problem the cost to repair is much higher as well. Neighbor had a $3600 fuel system repair on hers and she was lucky cause it only took out one injector (mechanic said that problem usually takes them all or nearly all of them out). I talked to my BIL about her problem because she thought she was getting jacked and he said that problem is fairly common in diesels (fuel control takes a dump) and repair cost is a little high but not out of line.


By JediJeb on 2/15/2013 11:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You obviously don't own a diesel. The pumps ARE "cruddy and dirty". I usually wear a glove. The only diesel pumps that I've seen that are clean are at stations fairly far away from the freeways and I never see another diesel fueling there. Sure ULSD is cleaner than the old stuff but still not as clean as gas.


I was thinking of the fuel in the tank not necessarily the pumps themselves. The only reason the gasoline pump is cleaner is because it is more volatile while the diesel has heavier hydrocarbons and leaves an oily residue when the more volatile components evaporate and those capture the dust particles that land on the pump handle.

Seems though that the fuel filter is the only other regular maintenance item for the diesel(unless you consider the urea for the newest ones, I have no experience with those yet). As for the fuel problem, maybe that is a sign that the newer electronic fuel systems are less durable than the older mechanical fuel pumps.


Wut?
By Chadder007 on 2/14/2013 10:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
WTF? They aren't using the Cummin's motor that was made for this?




RE: Wut?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 10:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Nope :(


RE: Wut?
By Spuke on 2/14/2013 11:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
My guess is if this sells remotely well, Ford and GM will offers theirs too. Ford, especially, won't let another manufacturer take an inch of their marketshare in the pickup arena. I know GM has a small diesel engine ready but anyone know if Ford does?


RE: Wut?
By tbird635 on 2/14/2013 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Ford does have a diesel ready and it will be available in the US in the Transit Van. https://rumors.automobilemag.com/2014-ford-transit...
Probably a matter of time before it shows up in the F150


RE: Wut?
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Doubt Ford will use that engine unless power is upped to match or beat Chrysler.


RE: Wut?
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 11:09:15 AM , Rating: 3
For a 1/2 ton, it would probalby be overkill.
I checked out the VM Morori site and there I4 diesel engines were used in the Toyota land cruisers.

http://www.vmmotori.it/en/index.jsp

I think I'd prefer an I4 engine over the V6 if possible. Inline engines just seem to have better performance/reliability over time IMO.

A diesel Toyota Tacoma would be sweet for mid-sized truck buyers. I think too many general consumers still think of "smoky and slow" when they think diesel.


RE: Wut?
By agentsmithitaly on 2/14/2013 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm happy you took the time to look at the VM Motori website. I think their engines are up to the reputation of Cummins ones.
Plus it's half owned by Fiat, the company who developed Common Rail tecnology, implemented in almost all modern Diesel engines.
Too bad the poor management at the time decided to sell the technology to Bosch, which made a lot of money from it...


RE: Wut?
By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus it's half owned by Fiat,


That is probably the reason right there they went with that engine, plus the fact that Ford now owns Cummins.


RE: Wut?
By xprojected on 2/14/2013 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
The heavy duty (2500+) pickup diesels like Cummins don't meet strict US/California emissions regulations for light duty vehicles, including regular pickups. They have to use the new "clean diesel" engines.


RE: Wut?
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 1:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since there is no chance in H_LL that I'll EVER be moving to California and since it's a 2003 3500 Quad-cab with only 145,000 miles on it....I'm not concerned with Obama's EPA. I'll drive it till the body falls apart, then I'll replace that part.

I'll never be buying a brand new car/truck. It just not worth it to me IMO.

Best wishes,


RE: Wut?
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 3:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
Heavy duty pickups were exempt from CA emissions testing until a year ago. Even then, the emissions test is a joke and easy to pass. It's really not an emissions test, they're just looking for modded trucks. Still easy to pass even with a modded truck IMO.


VM motor seems solid
By 225commander on 2/14/2013 12:13:40 PM , Rating: 3
I can chime in on this topic, having recently purchased a Jeep Liberty CRD. They were only made for years '05 & '06, discontinued due to ULSDiesel fuel guidelines adopted in US for '07, this same motor also shows up in the '08-'10 Cherokee I think. It is a 2.8L i4 turbo diesel, producing 290ftlbs (limited to 240ftlbs in lockup) and 160HP. The thing has a tow rating of 5,000lbs! and will do 25-27mpg unladen on the highway at 70mph, impressive for sure. Word is the VM engine is 'rated' for 1million miles service life(the base motor itself), although the Jeep Liberty wrapped around it will never come close, haha. Very capable little rig though, I just towed a F250 Entergy work truck with steel work box 60 miles on a tow dolly and I very well bet its a bit more than the rated 5,000lbs :)
Im guessing this V6 will be more than adequate and put down soe impressive mpg numbers, with appropriate, um uh, 'off road only' tuning to 'unleash the beast' from EPA mandated restrictions.




RE: VM motor seems solid
By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 3
That engine in the new grand Cherokee would be very tempting.


RE: VM motor seems solid
By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2013 4:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
I love the new cherokee, but don't love the idea of getting 15mpg.


RE: VM motor seems solid
By Lord 666 on 2/14/2013 6:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
The 2008-2010 Cherokee CDI is a MB 3.0 power plant.


By Philippine Mango on 2/14/2013 10:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
I mean just make a pickup truck like the size of a Tacoma or Ranger that weighs less than 3000lbs and has a 1.8L engine like those old Chevy Luv pickup trucks of the 70s. That Chevy Luv with the diesel was like 60hp with lots of torque and got 30mpg! Imagine if they used a modern engine, they could get 130hp with the more torque and the same or better MPG.




RE: Why can't they make a smallish pickup truck
By JediJeb on 2/14/2013 11:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly miss those vehicles from the late 70s to mid 80s. The Chevy Luv, Ford Currier, Dodge D50, original Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Isuzu, little trucks. I like my full size for when I need it but those original ones were great for daily drivers, along with the original S10 and Ranger(the latter Rangers just got too big for what they should have been).

I still wish I hadn't sold my 85 Ranger extended cab a couple years ago, but I just couldn't afford to rebuild the engine at the time.


RE: Why can't they make a smallish pickup truck
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 4:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean just make a pickup truck like the size of a Tacoma or Ranger that weighs less than 3000lbs and has a 1.8L engine like those old Chevy Luv pickup trucks of the 70s.
How can you make a Tacoma or Ranger sized pickup that weighs over 1000 lbs less than what it does now?


By JediJeb on 2/15/2013 11:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
The curb weight of a 2005 long bed regular cab ranger was only 3073 pounds, so it isn't an impossible task. That one is a little larger than a 70s Chevy Luv.


Finally
By CharlesBennett on 2/14/2013 11:48:27 AM , Rating: 3
I owned a Dodge diesel and frankly, the current diesels are overkill. Sure, it's nice to tow 10,000 lbs up a 6% grade at 5,000 ft elevation and be able to do 80 mph... But, after doing so, I realized that I owned a vehicle that had far more capability than was necessary. For me, a drop in hp/tq, fitted to a lighter vehicle would be ideal. I hope these new engines can get the 1500 size trucks into the 25 mpg range at 75 mph. If they do, I'm a very likely buyer.




RE: Finally
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 4:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'll wait for the Ford or Chevy 1/2 ton diesels. The Ram's payload capacity has always been substantially lower than Ford and Chevy.


Why no love for the minivan
By Lord 666 on 2/14/2013 11:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
While savvy buyers might avoid this diesel p/u because it is not a Cummins, soccer mom's do not know otherwise.

Since the R350 CDI is no longer being made, a diesel Caravan would help spark interest in the market while tremendously improving their CAFE numbers.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki