Nissan Titan - Diesel Goodness

Why not make a comparison? My 2004.0 305HP/555TQ Cummins is "rated" similarly to the Nissan in towing (though it can do far more, and did in commercial service). It's a fair enough comparison in terms of power and trailer towing. The smaller rear axle is the giveaway as to the Nissans limits.

For someone wanting a better blend of power and fuel economy the Nissan may wind up being a good choice.

FE comparisons have to be made citing exact truck spec, climate and terrain for accuracy. Driver motivation, as well (call that mpg at 65 or slower on cruise control to make it easy). Random numbers outside of this contextual set don't mean much as they are determinative per Cummins. Some guy claiming X without the above factors cited is blowing hot air (to be kind). T

Were I to change to this new truck then I'd be concerned how well it does carrying a constant 1200-lbs payload, and is the engine also designed to last 350k as is my CTD, or is it in Ford/GM territory at 225k miles? That twin turbo setup tells me that it more likely the latter. Longest life with highest reliability at lowest cost is what drives this kind of decision for me.

At current $2.75/gl my life average is 12.5 cpm fuel cost. Given the higher cost of operation of an emissions-controlled diesel versus my exempt drivetrain, I'd want to see similar or better numbers to offset higher lifetime operational costs ( as is the case in comparing a current CTD to my truck).

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

BTW speaking of fairness, do you think it was fair to compare a 2016 5.0 diesel with a 2004 5.9? :R

Who did that Turtel? All I said was it's output is the same or near the same as my 2004 5.9 not the mileage! Nothing could touch the older 2003/2004 5.9 HO for fuel mileage in the truck market! Go back and re-read it if you must. :R

broark01 wrote:
Hooray, a Toyota with a diesel. It is as exciting as a fiat 1500 ram with a diesel. Woohoo the world is saved.

I have heard that it will have the same Cummins as the TItan

Rick you picked the wrong brand for your mileage comparison. :B I can pull down 20 MPG on the hiway if empty. But then again my truck doesn't have hips like yours does. :B

I was talking about the 2011 like in the article.

DieselPower Mag wrote:
Fuel Economy Loop (with and without trailers, each truck drove loop twice)
TRUCK: MILEAGE (EMPTY): MILEAGE (WITH 10,000-POUND TRAILER):
Ford F-250 17.61 mpg 13.25 mpg
Chevy 2500 20.14 mpg 13.53 mpg
Ram 2500 17.49 mpg 12.58 mpg
TRUCK: MILEAGE (EMPTY): MILEAGE (WITH 12,000-POUND TRAILER):
Ford F-350 17.04 mpg 12.45 mpg
GMC 3500 17.83 mpg 11.02 mpg
Ram 3500 14.75 mpg 11.35 mpg

Or if you want to go to 2014 with PUT.com: :B

PUTs.com wrote:
At the end of our two separate drive loops (one done with a trailer and one without), all three one-ton turbo-diesels were close to one another when driven empty, with the Ram 3500 finishing just ahead of its two competitors with a calculated 16.31 mpg. The three were separated by less than 2 percent. However, with trailer in tow, the GMC Sierra 3500 did a much better job than the Ford F-350 or the Ram with a best fuel economy calculation of 7.76 mpg, which was more than 10 percent better than the Ford and 7 percent better than the Ram HD.

BTW I would have a Goat in my garage right now if it would have had a 6 speed tranny. With my LBZ 3.73 gears and a 6 speed it really helps with the mileage situation.

The Ford wasn't even in the running because I use my truck for work and needed a dependable diesel truck in 2006. :W

I lucked out with my "gold standard LBZ" truck! :B

BTW speaking of fairness, do you think it was fair to compare a 2016 5.0 diesel with a 2004 5.9?

Point A to Point B Yes
Time from Point A to Point B up a grade No :W

Last time I checked the Duramax and the Powerstroke is a V8 diesel and the article I posted proves it does get better mileage that the 6.

Well not knowing the years you speak of Bob, I'll just speak to a pre emissions era like >2007. Personally hand figured numbers for my little 6 banger highway non towing at 65 is right at 19-20 MPG. And thats with 6 tires not 4. Pretty sure most 6.0 PSD and DMAX can't get that mileage. But then again I read some poster from S Dakota could out climb any diesel at 11k' in elevation out of his 5.7 Hemi :B
Changing years to this years Ike test on FLT the 2015 Ram got much better mileage than the Ford did. But then again what was their DEF usage? Ah now we have to figure in the DEF to add to the equation :W To bad GM couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute to that test.
Bottom line is YMMV and I take the rags for what they are.... Corporate America just trying to make a buck or million.
PS need that Edmonds link on the 2004 PSD being the most reliable engine. It was priceless :B

Hooray, a Toyota with a diesel. It is as exciting as a fiat 1500 ram with a diesel. Woohoo the world is saved.

wilber1 wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

No V-8 diesel can make better mileage than the in-line Cummins.

Say what???? :R Stop being silly!!

You need to tell that to these guys.

And both of the V8's put out about 50 more horsepower than the little slant 6 and still beat it in mileage!! :B

In 2011, Ford and GM were using DEF. Ram was still using EGR for NOX until 2013. You need to compare likes with likes. I don't know how the 2013's and later compare.

On edit. I6's are naturally balanced allowing them to use bigger displacement cylinders which is good for low rpm torque. V8's are naturally unbalanced but smaller bores and shorter crankshafts allow them to run at higher RPM giving them more HP potential. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The statement made was: "No V-8 diesel can make better mileage than the in-line Cummins."

Last time I checked the Duramax and the Powerstroke is a V8 diesel and the article I posted proves it does get better mileage that the 6.

BTW speaking of fairness, do you think it was fair to compare a 2016 5.0 diesel with a 2004 5.9? :R

IdaD wrote:

brulaz wrote:
And the V8 should run smoother (less vibration and quieter as a result).

An I6 configuration is actually inherently smoother than a V8 configuration because the forces cancel out naturally.

I was going to say that but you already said it. When I seen the picture of the Titan I first though it was a F-150.

IdaD wrote:

brulaz wrote:
And the V8 should run smoother (less vibration and quieter as a result).

An I6 configuration is actually inherently smoother than a V8 configuration because the forces cancel out naturally.

Hmmm, right you are:
http://www.dieselhub.com/tech/i6-vs-v8.html

No idea where that brain blip came from.:R

Anyway, here's what the Cummins 5L V8 sounds like:
http://nissannews.com/media_storage/downloads/StartupRing.m4r

itguy08 wrote:
Cause Ram guys are saying $80 DIY oil changes on the Ecodiesel.
From www.ram1500diesel.com :
Ram Ecodieel Oil Change Cost DIY
Dealer Oil Changes
EcoDiesel Oil Change Price Shock

The dealer does oil changes on my Ecoboosts for $40 every 7.5-10k. I can DIY with Pennzoil Platinum (one of the best oils out there) for a hair over $40.

I was at the Houston Auto Show earlier this year where I saw a 2015 F150 Platinum Ecoboost with a price just over $62,000. Do people spend $50,000-$60,000 on new trucks and really quibble about whether the price of an oil change is $40 or $80? It's not like you need to change your oil twice a week.

Guess I am mistaken. I thought this was supposed to be a thread about the new Nissan Titan.