Nissan Titan XD Cummins Diesel Fuel Mileage

I am not sure what advantages are that Nissan is shooting for. The price on the truck tested was around $58k. Fully loaded I am sure. The MSRP on my 2015 completely loaded LBZ 3500 was 64K. The Nissan specs about the same as the first LB7 Duramax trucks (considerably less than the current big three). The issues are that the MPG is not good enough, the capability of the Nissan trucks is not enough to compete with the HD offerings of the big three, and the price is too close to the big three to make do with the lesser capability (but comparable mpg). Unless you just want a Nissan there is not anything really compelling about it.

I personally felt that for this to work for Nissan they would really have to thread the needle. I think they missed and stuck themselves. The MPG aspect is important, but when I saw the specs, I knew that the powertrain would have to be beefy to hold that power, and so the weight is going to be there which mean less payload. Lastly the price component was huge. As it turned out almost 60k for a pickup with 60-75% of the capacity of a big three pickup is a complete miss. I think Ram and GM will prove to be much more successful in the diesel half ton market.

As to blended fuel, I just got back from a 2K mile trip to California, blended fuel (severely leaned out as it was minus 20 in Idaho). I got 17 mpg on the trip not pulling anything. With Summer diesel, I would see a couple mpg improvement typically, but it really depends on how much number 1 is mixed in with the #2. So the leaner the mix, the worse the power and subsequent mileage. How much better the Nissan will do with Summer diesel really depends on how the fuel was mixed.

For a little different perspective on fuel economy my DP with a Cummins averaged 11mpg on a 4,500 mile trip from Tennessee to Glacier NP and Yellowstone. This is on a 24,000lb vehicle that is 8 1/2ft wide and 11'4" tall. I don't think that my daughter's ecoboost has ever gotten below 18mpg w/o trailer and as high as 27. So yes, I find 17mpg in a pickup to be unacceptable, especially if you have to factor in the extra cost of diesel fuel and exhaust fluid.

By the way, the latest issue of Car and Driver (February) has their test of the diesel and they observed only 15mpg. I am sure that they drove aggressively and that I would get somewhat better but that is still low.

That mpg is not impressive on the surface, but IMO comparisons to other trucks based on user reported mpg are of little value. The only way to accurately compare is to run different trucks under exactly the same conditions on the same route. It would be interesting TFL or someone else to do an "all diesel" comparison test to give an accurate comparison of performance and mpg among the growing range of available diesel pickups, from the Colorado up to the 3500 series trucks. It would not be an "apples to apples" comparison, but it might help future truck buyers (like me) make an informed decision on how much truck to buy based on their needs and wants.

goducks10 wrote:
Would they be using a winter blend of diesel? I don't have it out here in Oregon that I know of. At least on the west side of the state. Just doesn't get that cold. If so would that affect the MPG?
As far as owning one. Personally I don't care for the looks. That aside I could see it being a great TT tower. You don't need 5th wheel payload CCC for a TT. If you could get 12-13 towing and 20-22mpg on the hwy that would be a decent truck. Price wise though puts it too close to a 3/4 ton IMO.

In gas vehicles winter blend makes for poorer fuel economy. I don't know what impact it has in diesel, but in Colorado it would definitely be winterized blend this time of year. All of central and eastern Oregon has winter blend diesel this time of year also, btw.

Fuel economy in the winter sucks and it isn't just the fuel. Stuff takes longer to warm up and the air is more dense. I did about 300 miles yesterday on the freeway at 80-82. There are some pretty good mountains in the stretch I did, and it was cold (temps ranged from about 8 to -10). The EVIC, which I've found to be generally very accurate when cross checked, showed just under 15 mpg. This was loaded with family, dog and "stuff", but no trailer. Same speed and stretch of freeway in the summer would net at least 4 mpg higher.

I'd be surprised if this Nissan doesn't get better fuel economy than the bigger diesels, but I bet it won't do a ton better.

goducks10 wrote:
Would they be using a winter blend of diesel? I don't have it out here in Oregon that I know of. At least on the west side of the state. Just doesn't get that cold. If so would that affect the MPG?
As far as owning one. Personally I don't care for the looks. That aside I could see it being a great TT tower. You don't need 5th wheel payload CCC for a TT. If you could get 12-13 towing and 20-22mpg on the hwy that would be a decent truck. Price wise though puts it too close to a 3/4 ton IMO.

My Ram can get 13 towing my 8500 lbs trailer if i keep speeds at or below 60. I average about 22 on the highway at 70 mph unloaded. My Tradesman is probably cheaper than this Titan will end up being.

I would get comparable milage, more payload, better brakes, stronger frame, more durable truck overall for a better price by just buying a true HD truck.

I think that Nissan may have missed the mark here. They will likely sell some, but I think this is a pretty small market size willing to overpay for under performance.

FishOnOne wrote:


I believe if Chrysler stayed out of bankruptcy you would have a cummins V8 or V6 in a 1500 truck. Fiat was the reason the ED got the green light.

On the F150 going diesel I would say they're going the same route as the ED and the baby Duramax for the midsizes to promote improved fuel economy benefits in an effort to meet the 2025 CAFE standards. Having said that I will predict the F150 will have more towing and hauling capacity so fuel mileage may not be the overall top priority with this engine since Ford is on target to meet the new CAFE standards while FCA is having to buy credits from companies like Tesla and Honda since they are not inline to be compliant in time.

I'm not so sure on the FCA front, as FCA has worked with VM Motori in the past as well for Jeep wranglers. However, you may be right about a Cummins V6 as I do recall the DOE testing both, a V8 and V6 motor from Cummins in the late 2000's. Looks like Nissan went with the V8, I just don't know if a Chrysler would had done the V8 or gone with a V6 Cummins. But that's all supposition at this point. Also, I recall Nissan testing some form of ISF motor as well with the DOE from Cummins. Maybe that'll end up in a Frontier?

As for the FCA buying credits bit, it runs much deeper than RAM. I think the "RAM" portion of Chrysler is fine. The issue is that FCA is selling a whole lot of larger cars (Charger, Challenger, 300, etc...) in the US, it's a large part of their sales. The average fuel economy of these larger cars isn't so stellar because of how people opt to purchase them (V8's). Jeep is also making killer sales, but the vehicles there also suffer the same, since a vast majority of those vehicles tend to be gassers and large gassers at that (or just totally un-aerodynamic like the Wrangler). It will be interesting to see how FCA wades through this.

As for the F-150, I think they would go for the fuel economy side of things as well. They certainly have the Chassis to pull it off. Especially since it looks like there's a healthy appetite for those that want better fuel economy and just enough power to handle hauling something bulky, the boat to the lake, or a small RV to the mountain, along with plenty of grunt for daily driving in traffic.

jus2shy wrote:
Huh, just drove from stump town to the coast and back. Hills/mountains, speeds between 45 and 70 mph. 22 mpg, with my EVIC being typically 1% to 3% off. So still over 20 mpg.

That's kinda of a disappointment in the MPG category for the Titan, however they did note that it's still a pre-production unit. I also wonder what rear end since it looked like they were close to 2,000 rpm at 70 mph. Could be the camera angle though.

But then it's easier to understand why RAM did the Ecodiesel engine since MPG was their priority. I wonder what the design priority is for the diesel F-150 that was recently captured Pickuptrucks.com

I believe if Chrysler stayed out of bankruptcy you would have a cummins V8 or V6 in a 1500 truck. Fiat was the reason the ED got the green light.

On the F150 going diesel I would say they're going the same route as the ED and the baby Duramax for the midsizes to promote improved fuel economy benefits in an effort to meet the 2025 CAFE standards. Having said that I will predict the F150 will have more towing and hauling capacity so fuel mileage may not be the overall top priority with this engine since Ford is on target to meet the new CAFE standards while FCA is having to buy credits from companies like Tesla and Honda since they are not inline to be compliant in time.

ChooChooMan74 wrote:
I am glad that I went with the Ram 1500 over the Titan for now.

Yeah I bet you are :B 17 highway is not even that good for a gasser.

Must have something to do with the HPFP :w

Would they be using a winter blend of diesel? I don't have it out here in Oregon that I know of. At least on the west side of the state. Just doesn't get that cold. If so would that affect the MPG?
As far as owning one. Personally I don't care for the looks. That aside I could see it being a great TT tower. You don't need 5th wheel payload CCC for a TT. If you could get 12-13 towing and 20-22mpg on the hwy that would be a decent truck. Price wise though puts it too close to a 3/4 ton IMO.

Way too early to be disappointed in any of the numbers. I was fairly excited for this truck and talked the father in law into waiting to see it before buying his next truck. What I am disappointed in is the price, can get a nicely equipped Ram 2500 for less which to me seems like a smarter buy!