Nissan Titan with a diesel!!!

Bionic Man wrote:
T&P, I think you are missing the mark on this one.

For now, I'm not going to address the comments regarding diesel and cars, but let's talk about diesels in trucks.

If memory serves me, the old GM 5.7 diesel that was put in a truck was an absolute slug. The same with the 6.2. They could not get out of their own way, and they were trying to sell them in 2500/3500 trucks that are regularily used for hard work. And, at that time, what did gasoline cost? Was anyone really looking at MPG?

The 3.0 is competing in a different time. We regularily have spikes where fuel costs over $4/gallon (or 5), the political atmosphere is pushing everyone to be "green" and CAFE standards are requiring manufactures to make significant improvements in MPG (and as good as the ecoboost may be in some areas, it is not a step forward in economy).

And, the 3.0 is going in a 1500 series truck - not a 2500/3500. I don't know the numbers, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of folks that purchase a 1500 rarely pull. They spend more of their time commuting to/from work, Home Depot, or in the case of contractors, to and from the job site with a bed full of tools and supplies. You don't need 350 or even 300 hp to comfortably accomplish those tasks.

And even if someone does occasionally (or even regularily) pull something it will not be the slug the old GM diesels were. I had an '01 CTD that had similar output as this 3.0 (and less gears). Sure, it did not pull nearly as well as my 6.7 does, but even going up the mountains puling my 10,000 pound 5er it did fine. Towing my 4500 pound boat to and from the lake it did great, especially when it wasn't in the mountains.

I am certain that there will be a market for this. Time will prove one of us wrong.

And, since this thread is about the Cummins in the TItan, I will say I wish that RAM would have stuck with Cummins. My only guess as to why they did not is that the Cummins must be at a disadvantage to the 3.0 in both cost and efficiency.

BM,
I understand your points, but having said that the 6.2 GM diesel made great fuel economy during a time when diesel was much cheaper than gas, but it's poor performance and it's reliability to a lesser degree is what killed that engine option IMO.

Fast forward to today, and diesel is more expensive than gas, and the diesel engine option is way more expensive than a premium gas engine option. With all the added diesel emissions equipment and some of the issues $$$ that can develop from these emissions for the daily driver going to Home Depot, or the contractors that idle their engines for extended times at the job site any diesel engine in a half ton truck will have to be a great design to be as dependable as todays gas engines.

Let's see Macoroni put a 3.0 VM Motori thru some grueling testing for all to see!

uhm? VM Motori has been building their engines for a lot longer then yer "ECO BUST", in fact, VM Motori has been supplying Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, GM, Rover and FORD for years. Take yer "blinders" off, not everything revolves around North America car/truck users.

I think people who wanna argue which truck is king Turd of Poop Island, ought to just buy a horse...but then there's the boarding, vet bills and "take for ever to get anywhere" issues. Wonder how long it would take fer dat horsey to pull a 15,000+# 5'er up a 8% grade? Poor thing would prob drop dead after a few feet!? Then you'd have not just the ECO terrorists but PETA on yer arse!!

I can't wait until even more yahoos have diesel so we have even more threads about poor DEF quality, constant regens, poor fuel economy and diesel being sooo expensive.

T&P, I think you are missing the mark on this one.

For now, I'm not going to address the comments regarding diesel and cars, but let's talk about diesels in trucks.

If memory serves me, the old GM 5.7 diesel that was put in a truck was an absolute slug. The same with the 6.2. They could not get out of their own way, and they were trying to sell them in 2500/3500 trucks that are regularily used for hard work. And, at that time, what did gasoline cost? Was anyone really looking at MPG?

The 3.0 is competing in a different time. We regularily have spikes where fuel costs over $4/gallon (or 5), the political atmosphere is pushing everyone to be "green" and CAFE standards are requiring manufactures to make significant improvements in MPG (and as good as the ecoboost may be in some areas, it is not a step forward in economy).

And, the 3.0 is going in a 1500 series truck - not a 2500/3500. I don't know the numbers, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of folks that purchase a 1500 rarely pull. They spend more of their time commuting to/from work, Home Depot, or in the case of contractors, to and from the job site with a bed full of tools and supplies. You don't need 350 or even 300 hp to comfortably accomplish those tasks.

And even if someone does occasionally (or even regularily) pull something it will not be the slug the old GM diesels were. I had an '01 CTD that had similar output as this 3.0 (and less gears). Sure, it did not pull nearly as well as my 6.7 does, but even going up the mountains puling my 10,000 pound 5er it did fine. Towing my 4500 pound boat to and from the lake it did great, especially when it wasn't in the mountains.

I am certain that there will be a market for this. Time will prove one of us wrong.

And, since this thread is about the Cummins in the TItan, I will say I wish that RAM would have stuck with Cummins. My only guess as to why they did not is that the Cummins must be at a disadvantage to the 3.0 in both cost and efficiency.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
There is a reason why big trucks have a 2 speed rear end. It's to get the 30,000# load moving, will they race up the Eisenhower Pass, nope but run a EB up and down that pass ballsout day in and day out and comeback and report how many miles it took to kill it. Longevity and fuel mileage is where a diesel will kill a gasser (in-line not v type as much).

Talk all you want about cost of ownership there is not much difference anymore, my wife's 200 3.6 oil changes cost $112.00 full syn at the dealership, my truck cost me $138.00 full syn, yes doing it myself. Car tells me to change it about every 3-5,000 miles. The truck could care less, one year or 25,000 miles. Which one will cost me more per year? My truck is rated to tow 13,850 trailer the 200 1000#.

Not sure why you guys care so much about something you will never own :h unless you are wishing you had bought a different truck in the first place :@ .

Don

Ford put up a video of a Ecoboost engine spending time on a engine dyno, Pulling logs at a forest service, Running WOT for 24 hours pulling 11k pounds on a race track, Pulling a trailer up a hill while smoking the RAM and GM truck, Baha race, and had the balls to tear down the engine in front of an audience at a car show.

Here's another EcoBoost video on a tow test.

Let's see Macoroni put a 3.0 VM Motori :B thru some grueling testing for all to see! Until then I'll take your comments with a grain of salt. :W

The Durango may be replaced by a new version of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer in the next couple of years.

http://futurecars2014.com/2013/08/2015-jeep-grand-wagoneer-concept/

itguy08 wrote:

APT wrote:
I'm hoping Dodge puts the 3.0L diesel into the Durango. I would love a 3-row SUV with one as a DD!

Doubtful as the Durnago is gone in 2016.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/05/dodge-durango-avenger-models-will-be-discontinued-srt-model-fo/

Bionic Man wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
241HP 550FT/TQ so it's making the same TQ with lower HP. can't wait to so these two on the road.

Don

Come on over and drive my 6.5 diesel with a TT on the back. It has a little bit more torque and a little less HP then the "Eyetallian Cummins." It will feel almost exactly like this new Ram.

Power aside, the RAM will have twice the gears as your 6.5 and likely be quite a bit lighter. Not really an accurate comparison.

Gears does not make trucks any faster towing up a hill. Well, not appreciably any faster anyway. The only way to fix that is with HP. Put 8 or 9K of TT on the tail of that 1/2 ton and see what happens going up Eisenhower Tunnel.

I said it once and I will say it again; the EB is going to waste this thing in a towing test. And that will end the love affair to this thing with most people. Over a 125 more HP. It's not even going to be close.

So, your saying that having more gears which would allow the engine to spend significantly more time in the powerbad would not result in the ability to maintain higher speed up grades? I disagree.

I do agree if you are looking for a drag race up Eisenhower (a pass I pull several times per month in the summer) that the EB will win. I also contend that the diesel will return SIGNIFICANTLY higher MPG, both towing and solo.

We shall see what is more important to the consumer. My guess is that there will be plenty of people that want the MPG. My guess is also that Ford will sell more EB trucks than RAM will sell 1500 diesels. But that does not make the diesel a failure.

Significantly, no, it just won't make that much difference.

If we were talking about two stroke motorcycles with a peaky torque band my answer would change. If we are talking about a gasoline race engine, or even just a gasoline engine, my answer would be different.

We aren't; we are talking about diesels with a broaddddddddddd torque band.

If you drive a lot of diesel trucks you will soon learn you don't need to shift them a lot. At least a lot less than a gasoline engine of the same power rating. With a gasoline engine you can pick up a lot of RPM and speed if you just grab the next gear. Not true with a diesel. This is really true of the big 6 because they are know for torque.

Will this thing be a success? I have no idea? I do know this; historically, the American public hates underpowered vehicles and a lot don't like diesels. This is not the first time a manufacture tried to put an underpowered diesel engine in a truck or car. Look at the 5.7 diesel in the pickups. What is a success? Nope.
Then there was the 6.2 diesel in a pickup. Was it a success? Not really. The VW diesel Rabbit, nope. Look at the VW TDI. Do they sell a ton in the US? Nope. Every one of these cars and trucks I have mentioned got FANTASTIC fuel mileage but did the public flock to the dealerships to buy a diesel? Nope.

Lets face it, this thing is underpowered by todays standards and by the competition. I don't care how many gears you give this thing, the EB will make it look silly in a tow off and Ford is going to play that card for all it's worth.

Do they plan to start out with 240 hp and then down the road turn the wick up on this thing? Maybe so? Look a the Dmax. So if they made room to grow with this engine and can get close to 300 to 330 hp out of this thing, reliably, it may not be a bad deal. :)

There is a reason why big trucks have a 2 speed rear end. It's to get the 30,000# load moving, will they race up the Eisenhower Pass, nope but run a EB up and down that pass ballsout day in and day out and comeback and report how many miles it took to kill it. Longevity and fuel mileage is where a diesel will kill a gasser (in-line not v type as much).

Talk all you want about cost of ownership there is not much difference anymore, my wife's 200 3.6 oil changes cost $112.00 full syn at the dealership, my truck cost me $138.00 full syn, yes doing it myself. Car tells me to change it about every 3-5,000 miles. The truck could care less, one year or 25,000 miles. Which one will cost me more per year? My truck is rated to tow 13,850 trailer the 200 1000#.

Not sure why you guys care so much about something you will never own :h unless you are wishing you had bought a different truck in the first place :@ .

Don

The ecoboost is a good motor- but it is no Cummins.

All of us could buy a gas 3/4 or 1-ton truck. There is a reason we buy diesels- the same will hold true with 1/2 ton truck buyers.

A lot of guys pulling small to medium size fifth wheels will be able to get by with a 1/2 ton truck now that there is a decent engine option.

Bionic Man wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
241HP 550FT/TQ so it's making the same TQ with lower HP. can't wait to so these two on the road.

Don

Come on over and drive my 6.5 diesel with a TT on the back. It has a little bit more torque and a little less HP then the "Eyetallian Cummins." It will feel almost exactly like this new Ram.

Power aside, the RAM will have twice the gears as your 6.5 and likely be quite a bit lighter. Not really an accurate comparison.

Gears does not make trucks any faster towing up a hill. Well, not appreciably any faster anyway. The only way to fix that is with HP. Put 8 or 9K of TT on the tail of that 1/2 ton and see what happens going up Eisenhower Tunnel.

I said it once and I will say it again; the EB is going to waste this thing in a towing test. And that will end the love affair to this thing with most people. Over a 125 more HP. It's not even going to be close.

So, your saying that having more gears which would allow the engine to spend significantly more time in the powerbad would not result in the ability to maintain higher speed up grades? I disagree.

I do agree if you are looking for a drag race up Eisenhower (a pass I pull several times per month in the summer) that the EB will win. I also contend that the diesel will return SIGNIFICANTLY higher MPG, both towing and solo.

We shall see what is more important to the consumer. My guess is that there will be plenty of people that want the MPG. My guess is also that Ford will sell more EB trucks than RAM will sell 1500 diesels. But that does not make the diesel a failure.

x2