Forum Discussion
- I'm not big on this truck at all but I would be very surprised if it didn't succeed, now if they would have stuck with Cummins it would have been a show stealer.
Hybridhunter wrote:
APT wrote:
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.
Then explain an estimated 1.5seconds 0-60 difference? We're talking much slower than the base engines in the newer ram or F150 that so many folks call "useless". Suddenly a pokey diesel is great? For an extra $4k? Unless it blows away the ecoboost mileage wise, enough to make it worth the $2K premium over the EB, it's a swing and a miss IMO.
Realistically, 420 ft-lbs is great for those who just don't want an engine to rev.
I still say the nissan cummins will be a home run, even if it's just a normal "1/2 ton".
It will do everything the eco diesel does, but better with less compromise.
Again, who does full throttle 0-60 runs? Putting more power to the ground between 2000 and 3500 RPM is more useful and makes daily driving more satisfying than being able to put out a bunch of power at high RPM. When you put your foot down with the diesel, something will happen without having to shift down two gears or wait till power builds in the gear you are in.
Whether the Nissan with the Cummins will be a hit will depend on what truck they put it in. The 5L is overkill for the present Titan.
Anyway, we can speculate all we want, the market will decide?APT wrote:
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.
Then explain an estimated 1.5seconds 0-60 difference? We're talking much slower than the base engines in the newer ram or F150 that so many folks call "useless". Suddenly a pokey diesel is great? For an extra $4k? Unless it blows away the ecoboost mileage wise, enough to make it worth the $2K premium over the EB, it's a swing and a miss IMO.
Realistically, 420 ft-lbs is great for those who just don't want an engine to rev.
I still say the nissan cummins will be a home run, even if it's just a normal "1/2 ton".
It will do everything the eco diesel does, but better with less compromise.Bionic Man wrote:
itguy, it is very apparent you despise Dodge/Ram. I am sure you will keep spewing your hate, but the market will speak soon enough on this one. Are you going to start back peddling if your beloved Ford brings a small diesel to market??
Nope. I'm sure they have a Diesel ready and waiting (The Duratorq from the new Transit) but I still fail to see the advantage there as well. Sure I get better fuel economy but at the price of more expensive fuel, more expensive maintenance (oil changes and DEF) so I'd say unless you are getting 10MPG better than the competition it is pointless.
Cause the "30 MPG SUV" didn't work out for Chrysler the last few times they tried it - Liberty and the most recent Grand Cherokee. And even then few saw 30 MPG. My guess is it will slot in at 26-27 MPG, which makes sense given the pickup truck is slightly heavier and less aerodynamic than the SUV. The fact that even this late in the game Chrysler is being coy with MPG makes you wonder if it won't be the huge # they were saying. People say they want MPG but yet they still sell droves of V8's in all pickups as well as cars that don't get the best fuel economy.
It was a very expensive option and hardly ever recouped. Especially considering Diesel is about the cost of premium and does not go down in price like gasoline.
For whatever reasons the US doesn't really dig diesels. I get the appeal in things like Jettas, Passats, etc. and cars where your routinely get 50 MPG. But you are one fuel system issue away from erasing any MPG advantage.wilber1 wrote:
itguy08 wrote:
APT wrote:
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.
Cough. Ecoboost. Cough. 15 MPG towing a 3k lb boat is not that great when you can get 10.5 towing 8.5k in an Ecoboost and have less maintenance costs.
I think empty mileage will be far more important than towing mileage to the great majority of people who would consider this truck.
Wilber has it right here. I think it's funny how Ford is changing their marketing for the EB from mainly talking about MPG (which it never has been a game changer) to the combo of MPG AND HP.
The VAST majority of half ton buyers rarely tow anything. Everyday MPG is much more important to them. I saw a analysis of new car buyers priorities recently. Better MPG was the number one priority to over 80% of the respondents. I don't remember seeing HP on that list. Now, if it drives like a dog MPG may take a back seat, but with 240 HP and 420 TQ, and an 8 speed transmission, it will perform VERY well.
itguy, it is very apparent you despise Dodge/Ram. I am sure you will keep spewing your hate, but the market will speak soon enough on this one. Are you going to start back peddling if your beloved Ford brings a small diesel to market??itguy08 wrote:
APT wrote:
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.
Cough. Ecoboost. Cough. 15 MPG towing a 3k lb boat is not that great when you can get 10.5 towing 8.5k in an Ecoboost and have less maintenance costs.
I think empty mileage will be far more important than towing mileage to the great majority of people who would consider this truck.eluwak wrote:
Hybridhunter wrote:
For $4000 less, and only 2000# less towing capacity. Not to mention 300 free reving horsepower to get me onto the highway or put a smile on my face at a light, 3.0 diesel seems to be an easy sell only to "diesel guys".
I still think 240hp is setting the bar too low. Nissan is going to steal this niche with their cummins. Dodge, ahem, Ram will have 1 good year IMO.
I think 240 hp is plenty for most people. People tend to buy HP and drive TQ... I've loved my low HP diesel cars when I had them. The only thing I see that might cause a problem with the Ram ED is if they decide not to give it a higher payload rating (1800-2000 lbs should do nicely).
If Nissan doesn't drop that C into a HD chassis they will probably have a major loser on their hands.
Couldn't agree more. The ability to put more HP to the ground at normal operating RPM's is more important than a peak number that we rarely if ever use.
I had a 2004 Jetta TDI 5 spd manual which only had 100 HP but felt like a lot more. It didn't have much of a 0-60 time but the way it pulled out of corners and could pull hills in higher gears than normally aspirated gassers with quite a bit more peak power, made it very satisfying and somewhat entertaining to drive.
I gave it to my son who had been driving a 2002 Mazda 5 spd manual with 30 more HP. Yes the Mazda was quicker in a straight line but it took him a while to get used to the idea that the Jetta would easily climb hills in 4th that he needed 3rd to make in the Mazda.APT wrote:
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.
Cough. Ecoboost. Cough. 15 MPG towing a 3k lb boat is not that great when you can get 10.5 towing 8.5k in an Ecoboost and have less maintenance costs.Hybridhunter wrote:
rjstractor wrote:
Nice to see good mpg. I will really consider it if I buy a 1/2 ton. For those that don't tow however, the low cost, good power and good mpg of the Pentastar V6 is pretty tempting.
For $4000 less, and only 2000# less towing capacity. Not to mention 300 free reving horsepower to get me onto the highway or put a smile on my face at a light, 3.0 diesel seems to be an easy sell only to "diesel guys".
I still think 240hp is setting the bar too low. Nissan is going to steal this niche with their cummins. Dodge, ahem, Ram will have 1 good year IMO.
Having 400+ ft-lb of torque under 2000rpm is far more valuable than 300HP at 6000rpm, unless you are racing.Hybridhunter wrote:
For $4000 less, and only 2000# less towing capacity. Not to mention 300 free reving horsepower to get me onto the highway or put a smile on my face at a light, 3.0 diesel seems to be an easy sell only to "diesel guys".
I still think 240hp is setting the bar too low. Nissan is going to steal this niche with their cummins. Dodge, ahem, Ram will have 1 good year IMO.
I think 240 hp is plenty for most people. People tend to buy HP and drive TQ... I've loved my low HP diesel cars when I had them. The only thing I see that might cause a problem with the Ram ED is if they decide not to give it a higher payload rating (1800-2000 lbs should do nicely).
If Nissan doesn't drop that C into a HD chassis they will probably have a major loser on their hands.
