# 1500 diesel



## S.U.M (Apr 17, 2013)

Has any one test drove or bought the new ram 1500 diesel?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

S.U.M said:


> Has any one test drove or bought the new ram 1500 diesel?


Had a friend who looked into it. He didn't say much other than it was expensive and didn't other nothing over equivalent gassers. He was more worried about long term costs with fuel and maintenance. He still ain't decided what he wants but last I heard he was looking at a ecoboost f150 but I told him to hold out until the 2015's come out.


----------



## 5starbuilders (Jan 22, 2011)

What's happening in 2015 with the Eco boost?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

5starbuilders said:


> What's happening in 2015 with the Eco boost?


Not the engine the truck its self is all new. that ecoboost will be around for prob the next 3 new model years though.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

Saw one in person for the first time last month. I don't think I'd trust that new engine until a few guinea pigs try it out long term first. I'm not much for new trucks but I feel I'd be spending the extra (not much more I don't think) for a 2500 with a cummins. Harder on fuel but way more power and way higher capacities... Likely a much more reliable set up as well.

Damn I wish they put an inline 4 cummins in the half ton instead of this v6 BS...


----------



## deter (Apr 4, 2013)

problem is, its still a "Dodge"


----------



## Millworker (Jan 17, 2013)

The new diesel in those RAMs is a Fiat engine from Europe. I would wait a little bit before buying one. Originally they had planned for Cummins to make a light duty diesel engine for the RAM 1500, but with the Fiat merger a few years back that all fell apart. From what I have heard Cummins is partnering with Nissan to put a light duty engine in the upcoming Nissan pickup.

In most cases nobody buys light duty diesel passenger SUVs and Trucks. They sell very few compared to gas. Most people who buy a diesel go for the 3/4 ton or 1 ton. 



deter said:


> problem is, its still a "Dodge"


Which also happens to be one of the nicest best built trucks on the road, and continues to win awards.


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

The light duty 1/2 ton truck diesel is an interesting gap. Diesel in everything bigger, and plenty of people are buying diesel cars all over the world, even a few in the states now.


----------



## tgeb (Feb 9, 2006)

Diesel engines are much more efficient. I would like to see more mid-size trucks with diesel engines.

As an aside, there was recently a fuel inefficiency test between a Prius, and a Mercedes with their BlueTec diesel. The Mercedes beat the Prius in a head to head competition.....and, it's a Mercedes.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

i had a mazda 3 rental the other day whilst truck was in shop and the thing was getting 43mpg on the highway on a long trip. i think the prius only gets a few more MPG than that mazda yet you dont like like a tool driving it lol.

The problem with Diesel engines that size is you dont get that much better MPG. I think that ram was rated as 22MPG with that engine option. Good for a truck but gassers are getting 22MPG but with more TQ and HP and higher tow capacity's to boot. Back when most gassers were NA Diesel had the advantage because of the extra TQ but now we got forced induction gassers the gap has closed a lot.


----------



## thesidingpro (Jun 7, 2007)

I've owned several f-150's 2006, 2008, and on my second 2011. They have never left me stranded.

My 2006 had 186,000 miles on it with very little maintanence. My first 2011 had 90,000 miles on it without a single repair. Same brakes etc. I only got rid of it because I wanted a 4 door.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> i had a mazda 3 rental the other day whilst truck was in shop and the thing was getting 43mpg on the highway on a long trip. i think the prius only gets a few more MPG than that mazda yet you dont like like a tool driving it lol.
> 
> The problem with Diesel engines that size is you dont get that much better MPG. I think that ram was rated as 22MPG with that engine option. Good for a truck but gassers are getting 22MPG but with more TQ and HP and higher tow capacity's to boot. Back when most gassers were NA Diesel had the advantage because of the extra TQ but now we got forced induction gassers the gap has closed a lot.


If it wasn't for such strict emission regulations on the diesels I bet that ram would be doing closer to 30 US MPG.

My 05 5.9l cummins, all it has is an EGR, has seen 26 imp MPG on long trips.

My former boss' 6.7l 2012 never does much better than 16... I've heard with the "delete kits" they'll do well over 20.


----------



## S.U.M (Apr 17, 2013)

tgeb said:


> diesel engines are much more efficient. I would like to see more mid-size trucks with diesel engines. As an aside, there was recently a fuel inefficiency test between a prius, and a mercedes with their bluetec diesel. The mercedes beat the prius in a head to head competition.....and, it's a mercedes.


----------



## TimelessQuality (Sep 23, 2007)

deter said:


> problem is, its still a "Dodge"


Uhhh.. Not really... Find anything on the truck that identifies it as a dodge.

It's a Fiat Ram


----------



## Millworker (Jan 17, 2013)

TimelessQuality said:


> It's a Fiat Ram


Not quite, that truck was designed well before Fiat came into the picture. Its funny on some automotive groups I see all these Americans crying that a Foreign company owns/runs Chrysler now. Where were all the wealthy yanks when the company was up for grabs? Probably investing money in China.:whistling


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> i had a mazda 3 rental the other day whilst truck was in shop and the thing was getting 43mpg on the highway on a long trip. i think the prius only gets a few more MPG than that mazda yet you dont like like a tool driving it lol. The problem with Diesel engines that size is you dont get that much better MPG. I think that ram was rated as 22MPG with that engine option. Good for a truck but gassers are getting 22MPG but with more TQ and HP and higher tow capacity's to boot. Back when most gassers were NA Diesel had the advantage because of the extra TQ but now we got forced induction gassers the gap has closed a lot.


I bet my diesel has 3 times the torque as your truck, in fact I'd like to see a gasser that is even close to a diesel truck for torque or hp.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> I bet my diesel has 3 times the torque as your truck, in fact I'd like to see a gasser that is even close to a diesel truck for torque or hp.


Valid point, but I must admit, the ecoboost pulls like a tractor.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> I bet my diesel has 3 times the torque as your truck, in fact I'd like to see a gasser that is even close to a diesel truck for torque or hp.


like for like your not gonna see a massive difference between a boosted diesel or boosted gasser. 

There's 2liter straight 4 gassers that have 1000hp and 900ftlbs TQ. Find me a diesel that does that in them engine specs. TD used to have the advantage because of being turbo charged. A lot of gassers are now turbo charged so the advantage has now gone. 

I remember back when people were loving the TD golf GTI's because of them putting out so much power then they bought out the turbo gassers and everyone stopped raving about the diesels. 

Like inner says the EB is a beast of a engine. I was in interstate the other say with me mate. He has that engine and I have the 5.4. He pulled away from me at 50 like I was standing still. You not only have the TQ but you have the HP too with that engine.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

Show me a straight 4 that has 900 hp


----------



## markpage (Dec 6, 2012)

In the import / tuner world 1000 hp is pretty attainable with a 4 cylinder. Google it you'll find tons of builds and videos. I think the record for a 4 cylinder is close to 4000 hp.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

markpage said:


> In the import / tuner world 1000 hp is pretty attainable with a 4 cylinder. Google it you'll find tons of builds and videos. I think the record for a 4 cylinder is close to 4000 hp.


Yeah sure, but not stock, my 6.6 is over 800 hp and 1700 tq


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> Show me a straight 4 that has 900 hp


900hp is a pretty lame HP in the tuning world on a straight 4. Knew some guys who had old group b stage 4 rally engines put into things like escorts and lancia's and they were hitting 1000+ bhp almost 20 years ago. only issue then was they were impractical daily drivers. These days you can run 900hp reliably in a modern vehicle. Esp with all the driver aids on them to keep control in the wet. 

The civic guys are the big tuners in the straight 4 world. There are some mind boggling powers coming from These engines. 

Check out the 1150hp golf on YouTube. It should be a MK2 if I remember correctly. There's a few with more power but the thing is so light it makes use of the power it has to the max.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> Yeah sure, but not stock, my 6.6 is over 800 hp and 1700 tq


yours is not stock either. But this ain't what we are talking about. We are talking about TD's no longer have the edge when it comes to engines no there's a boat load of boosted gassers on the market. Stock for stock with same specs they are almost the same but gasser has the edge with the extra HP available.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> 900hp is a pretty lame HP in the tuning world on a straight 4. Knew some guys who had old group b stage 4 rally engines put into things like escorts and lancia's and they were hitting 1000+ bhp almost 20 years ago. only issue then was they were impractical daily drivers. These days you can run 900hp reliably in a modern vehicle. Esp with all the driver aids on them to keep control in the wet. The civic guys are the big tuners in the straight 4 world. There are some mind boggling powers coming from These engines. Check out the 1150hp golf on YouTube. It should be a MK2 if I remember correctly. There's a few with more power but the thing is so light it makes use of the power it has to the max.


Yeah but not stock, that's my point. I friend of mine is pushing 1600 hp in his cummins, and over 3000 ft pounds. And I've seen trucks pushing 2000 hp if were talking about tuned and built trucks. 

You can buy duramax crate motors that are over 800 hp, then do a turbo, bully dog, egr delete, heads, and a few other things and you'll be way up there. Seeing we're talking about building trucks not.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> Yeah but not stock, that's my point. I friend of mine is pushing 1600 hp in his cummins, and over 3000 ft pounds. And I've seen trucks pushing 2000 hp if were talking about tuned and built trucks. You can buy duramax crate motors that are over 800 hp, then do a turbo, bully dog, egr delete, heads, and a few other things and you'll be way up there. Seeing we're talking about building trucks not.


99% of people won't do tuning to their new vehicles. If they did the sky's the limit for both engine types but like for like a stock gasser and diesel have almost identical outputs.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

Any time you want to to hook up your truck to mine and get pulled around let me knew. I'll do it in the stock 2x4 to boot.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> Any time you want to to hook up your truck to mine and get pulled around let me knew. I'll do it in the stock 2x4 to boot.


good luck with that. My truck would destroy yours on grip lol


----------



## dayexco (Mar 4, 2006)

this is the guy who reflashed my truck. http://www.dynotuneusa.com/DynotuneUSA/Welcome.html

he has people come in from all over the US and Canada to work on their toys. he had a gig with a header/exhaust company to host HP contests at car shows such as the woodward avenue dream cruise. most HP i saw or heard of in these contests was about 1400....in his shop, i saw a buick regal, 427, with a very turboed/supercharged, all the toys...1186 hp. maybe he doesn't know his stuff, but 4000 hp out of an engine? you're talking train locomotive stuff. my friend has a 400 cummins big cam he pulls twin side dumps with. had it tuned to 975 HP, couldn't keep driveshafts under it, and had probs with head bolts stretching. 

are there different types of HP ratings? dyno tune is HP to the ground HP.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

dayexco said:


> this is the guy who reflashed my truck. http://www.dynotuneusa.com/DynotuneUSA/Welcome.html he has people come in from all over the US and Canada to work on their toys. he had a gig with a header/exhaust company to host HP contests at car shows such as the woodward avenue dream cruise. most HP i saw or heard of in these contests was about 1400....in his shop, i saw a buick regal, 427, with a very turboed/supercharged, all the toys...1186 hp. maybe he doesn't know his stuff, but 4000 hp out of an engine? you're talking train locomotive stuff. my friend has a 400 cummins big cam he pulls twin side dumps with. had it tuned to 975 HP, couldn't keep driveshafts under it, and had probs with head bolts stretching. are there different types of HP ratings? dyno tune is HP to the ground HP.


 I'm talking torque, I grew up in a garage. Chit my dad's uncle invented the whole break system. My dad's the turbo product manager for d&w diesel. My grandpa owned a garage. I do truck pulls, it's not hard to hit 1000 hp at all with a diesel. Where gassers are just finishing diesels are just starting.

It's all info off of a dyno. So it's what you're putting to the ground


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> I'm talking torque, I grew up in a garage. Chit my dad's uncle invented the whole break system. My dad's the turbo product manager for d&w diesel. My grandpa owned a garage. I do truck pulls, it's not hard to hit 1000 hp at all with a diesel. Where gassers are just finishing diesels are just starting.
> 
> It's all info off of a dyno. So it's what you're putting to the ground


Diesels struggle to put out anywhere near what a gasser does HP wise. If diesel was so much better at producing HP than petrol was then top fuel would use it and so would rally so would F1 and so would Nascar. 

2 liter straight 4's start to top out at around 1300bhp before they become unreliable yes you can get vastly more if your willing to strip that engine down after every run

Next up from that you looking at the V6 engines like the GT-R uses. production your looking at around 1500hp stock of the sales floor. Then your into the 2000-2300bhp moded. 

Then your into the v8's-w16's that dont really gain you more HP over stock V6's but what they do gain you is silly amounts of head room.


----------



## markpage (Dec 6, 2012)

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0202tur_norwoods_racing_funnycar_integra/

Article on 4000hp 4 cylinder. It's a big 4 cylinder close to 300 cubic inches. But it's been done.....


----------



## B.D.R. (May 22, 2007)

My understanding is that the new Diesel engine in the ram is about a $ 5000 option. 
That will put a lot of gas in my hemi that has sufficient HP and torque.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

BCConstruction said:


> Diesels struggle to put out anywhere near what a gasser does HP wise. If diesel was so much better at producing HP than petrol was then top fuel would use it and so would rally so would F1 and so would Nascar.


This statement alone tells me you don't follow Lemans, nor do you understand nascar.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> 99% of people won't do tuning to their new vehicles. If they did the sky's the limit for both engine types but like for like a stock gasser and diesel have almost identical outputs.


What gas engines are you talking about? The new 6.7l cummins makes 385hp and 850ft lbs of torque... Even my 05 5.9l makes 325hp and 610ft lbs... These are bone stock numbers. I don't think there are any stock gassers touching 610ft lbs let alone 850.

They're also reliable daily drivers. Mod a gas engine to make those numbers and you have a toy/project vehicle.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> Diesels struggle to put out anywhere near what a gasser does HP wise. If diesel was so much better at producing HP than petrol was then top fuel would use it and so would rally so would F1 and so would Nascar. 2 liter straight 4's start to top out at around 1300bhp before they become unreliable yes you can get vastly more if your willing to strip that engine down after every run Next up from that you looking at the V6 engines like the GT-R uses. production your looking at around 1500hp stock of the sales floor. Then your into the 2000-2300bhp moded. Then your into the v8's-w16's that dont really gain you more HP over stock V6's but what they do gain you is silly amounts of head room.


 If only f1 used regular gas. They use methonal, better known as alcohol. NASCAR uses 110 octane lead gasoline. If gas was so good why do plains, helicopters, trains, anything big, use diesel? And really moving stuff isn't about hp, it's about torque


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

On top of everything else car related in my family, my cousin is Reed Sorenson


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

NCMCarpentry said:


> What gas engines are you talking about? The new 6.7l cummins makes 385hp and 850ft lbs of torque... Even my 05 5.9l makes 325hp and 610ft lbs... These are bone stock numbers. I don't think there are any stock gassers touching 610ft lbs let alone 850.
> 
> They're also reliable daily drivers. Mod a gas engine to make those numbers and you have a toy/project vehicle.


Again you need to compare like for like. I dont know of any v8 turbocharged production truck engines so there's no way of giving a comparison of diesel vs petrol. 

But lets use 2 current engines that are about as close in spec as possible

Ram Ecodiesel v6
240HP
420ft-lbs

Ford ecoboost v6
365hp
420ft-lbs 

When you use a Boosted petrol vs a boosted diesel in as close to same spec as possible the Petrol will have more power overall. 

By the way i used to work with paxman building diesel engines for trains, tanks and boats. Cylinders so big you can walk around inside them.


----------



## BAREIN (Dec 26, 2007)

Diesels get way more power to the wheels, losing way less through the drivetrain. look at the old 12 valve cummins, somthing like 165 HP and 400 lbs torque, But it was a real 165/400. not the most exciting thing to drive stock, but still pull better than any gasser. That being said i will be sticking to gas anymore, you need to really be using a diesel to justify it anymore.


----------



## pizalm (Mar 27, 2009)

BAREIN said:


> Diesels get way more power to the wheels, losing way less through the drivetrain. look at the old 12 valve cummins, somthing like 165 HP and 400 lbs torque, But it was a real 165/400. not the most exciting thing to drive stock, but still pull better than any gasser. That being said i will be sticking to gas anymore, you need to really be using a diesel to justify it anymore.


That makes zero sense at all. The type of motor makes no difference as to how much power is lost through the transmission to to the wheels.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

BAREIN said:


> Diesels get way more power to the wheels, losing way less through the drivetrain. look at the old 12 valve cummins, somthing like 165 HP and 400 lbs torque, But it was a real 165/400. not the most exciting thing to drive stock, but still pull better than any gasser. That being said i will be sticking to gas anymore, you need to really be using a diesel to justify it anymore.


How do you figure this. Some vehicles use the same transmission across all engine types. transmission loss is transmission loss and has nothing to do with the type of engine.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> Again you need to compare like for like. I dont know of any v8 turbocharged production truck engines so there's no way of giving a comparison of diesel vs petrol.
> 
> But lets use 2 current engines that are about as close in spec as possible
> 
> ...


Ok fair enough. I was thinking more of whats available in a 3/4 ton. Say a 6.4l hemi compared to a 6.7l cummins or 6.2l vortec vs a 6.6 duramax...

It'll be interesting to see if/when they design a larger gas engine with a factory turbo. It will also be interesting to see what kind of lifespan the v6 ecoboosts end up with.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

BAREIN said:


> Diesels get way more power to the wheels, losing way less through the drivetrain. look at the old 12 valve cummins, somthing like 165 HP and 400 lbs torque, But it was a real 165/400. not the most exciting thing to drive stock, but still pull better than any gasser. That being said i will be sticking to gas anymore, you need to really be using a diesel to justify it anymore.


For fvcks sake....


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

NCMCarpentry said:


> Ok fair enough. I was thinking more of whats available in a 3/4 ton. Say a 6.4l hemi compared to a 6.7l cummins or 6.2l vortec vs a 6.6 duramax... It'll be interesting to see if/when they design a larger gas engine with a factory turbo. It will also be interesting to see what kind of lifespan the v6 ecoboosts end up with.


I doubt we will see gasser engines that size in turbo builds. your then designing 2 engines that do exactly the same thing. that's why in amazed dodge put that diesel into the 1500 as its no better performance wise and has low max tow capacity compared to the ecoboost on the f150. I think its 2000k less towing. 

So you then have a half ton with a Diesel engine but less performance and tow capacity but higher fuel cost, engine cost and maintenance costs. 

I bet its a very limited market for that truck with that engine.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> I doubt we will see gasser engines that size in turbo builds. your then designing 2 engines that do exactly the same thing. that's why in amazed dodge put that diesel into the 1500 as its no better performance wise and has low max tow capacity compared to the ecoboost on the f150. I think its 2000k less towing.
> 
> So you then have a half ton with a Diesel engine but less performance and tow capacity but higher fuel cost, engine cost and maintenance costs.
> 
> I bet its a very limited market for that truck with that engine.


I bet the ecodiesel will see very good mpg in real world driving situations. It's definitely a step in the right direction but unfortunately limited due to emission regulations.

In my opinion a diesel half ton's place is in a lighter truck around 5000lbs with a 1000lb payload and towing capacity around 5-7000lbs... 0-60s in around 10 - 12 seconds. Something just big and strong enough to haul tools and light- midsized trailers, not win any races but be simple, reliable and get great mpg. The new colorado with the duramax 4 cylinder might achieve this but it is still a "baby truck" and doesn't have the physical bed dimensions that I would personally need.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

I agree diesels get better MPG but The problem with diesels is there's no MPG savings as once the extra cost is considered in fuel, upgrade price of the engine and maintenance your cost per mile is vastly more than a gasser. 

Same thing goes for me if I run E85. It cost less but I get less MPG so once its calculated it works out the same cost per mile.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> I agree diesels get better MPG but The problem with diesels is there's no MPG savings as once the extra cost is considered in fuel, upgrade price of the engine and maintenance your cost per mile is vastly more than a gasser.
> 
> Same thing goes for me if I run E85. It cost less but I get less MPG so once its calculated it works out the same cost per mile.


Ah well where I live diesel is only more expensive in the winter. Sometimes its even cheaper in the summer. 

If you were to drive long distances and keep your truck in service for many years there likely would be a point where the diesel makes sense. If they were to release something like what I described above I think the increased spread in fuel economy between that truck and the comparable gas version would make a diesel truck a better choice for more people. 

It's this thinking that everyone needs a truck that can tow 10k+ pounds and win races that keeps these trucks from being built. A simple 1/2 ton diesel pick up say 150hp/290ft lbs torque could easily see 40 or even 50mpg and do everything 95% of people need a 1/2 ton for. If I could get something like that with a full 8' x 5' wide bed I would be very happy...


----------



## dayexco (Mar 4, 2006)

NCMCarpentry; A simple 1/2 ton diesel pick up say 150hp/290ft lbs torque could easily see 40 or even 50mpg and do everything 95% of people need a 1/2 ton for. If I could get something like that with a full 8' x 5' wide bed I would be very happy...[/QUOTE said:


> that makes a whole lot of sense to me


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

NCMCarpentry said:


> Ah well where I live diesel is only more expensive in the winter. Sometimes its even cheaper in the summer.
> 
> If you were to drive long distances and keep your truck in service for many years there likely would be a point where the diesel makes sense. If they were to release something like what I described above I think the increased spread in fuel economy between that truck and the comparable gas version would make a diesel truck a better choice for more people.
> 
> It's this thinking that everyone needs a truck that can tow 10k+ pounds and win races that keeps these trucks from being built. A simple 1/2 ton diesel pick up say 150hp/290ft lbs torque could easily see 40 or even 50mpg and do everything 95% of people need a 1/2 ton for. If I could get something like that with a full 8' x 5' wide bed I would be very happy...


40 or 50 mpg on a half ton is a pipe dream.

Just because you have a smaller engine doesn't mean you will get better fuel consumption.

The bottom line is you are moving a 7k pound chunk of steel that is as aerodynamic as a brick...gonna take some fuel.


----------



## TheGrizz (Sep 16, 2011)

I'm gonna throw in here. I have a Land Rover Discovery 2003 with a 4.6l V8 gas burner. Land Rover makes the same vehicle with a I5 TD. This vehicle weighs 6k lbs with the V8, not sure about the TD. My V8 has to run premium gas, and on a good tank gets 16 average MPG, and that's only with straight highway driving. The I5 has been reported to get 32 average MPG regardless of type of driving. Now, a Discovery has about the same aerodynamics as a brick. If that vehicle can get 32 MPG with a diesel, I don't see why a truck couldn't. Only reason I don't own the TD is that it didn't meet the US emissions regulations


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

TheGrizz said:


> I'm gonna throw in here. I have a Land Rover Discovery 2003 with a 4.6l V8 gas burner. Land Rover makes the same vehicle with a I5 TD. This vehicle weighs 6k lbs with the V8, not sure about the TD. My V8 has to run premium gas, and on a good tank gets 16 average MPG, and that's only with straight highway driving. The I5 has been reported to get 32 average MPG regardless of type of driving. Now, a Discovery has about the same aerodynamics as a brick. If that vehicle can get 32 MPG with a diesel, I don't see why a truck couldn't. Only reason I don't own the TD is that it didn't meet the US emissions regulations


My truck is rated at 26 MPG, think it's even seen 20 in it's life?


----------



## TheGrizz (Sep 16, 2011)

Inner10 said:


> My truck is rated at 26 MPG, think it's even seen 20 in it's life?


I'm not speaking of ratings, I'm talking about real numbers reported by fellow owners in Europe, Africa, and South America where the diesel models were available.


----------



## Nepean GC (Sep 10, 2012)

Inner10 said:


> My truck is rated at 26 MPG, think it's even seen 20 in it's life?


You've got a Ram right? Which ram is rated at 26 US MPG with 4x4?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

yeah 40-50mpg out of a truck aint gonna happen. I would say even if you had the most advanced diesel currently made you would be lucky to see 30MPG in a truck and that's on paper. real world you will probably see around 25-26mpg with real driving.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Nepean GC said:


> You've got a Ram right? Which ram is rated at 26 US MPG with 4x4?


He is on the imperial gallon i think


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Nepean GC said:


> You've got a Ram right? Which ram is rated at 26 US MPG with 4x4?


I guessed the L/100K conversion, I was trying to remember what the EPA sticker said when I bought it. I believe it was 10.4 L/100K highway and 14.0L/100K city which on closer inspection translates into 23/17MPG which it's never seen in it's life.

It's a 2011 5.7 4x4.


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Good call BC, cover my screw up guess with solid logic! 27MPG using imperial gallons. :thumbup:


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Inner10 said:


> Good call BC, cover my screw up guess with solid logic! 27MPG using imperial gallons. :thumbup:


Lol that's what I'm here for.


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

I don't expect to see any ecoboost technology in a bigger engine anytime soon. The most profitable engine for a 3/4 ton is the diesel. 



In my opinion, gassers are the new workhorse, diesels are the new hotrods.

The new diesels are no longer the hassle free low maintenance engine they once were.

They are expensive, high maintenance and repairs are so dam expensive that many fleets are switching to gas.


I believe that diesel is a superior fuel, I used to be a diesel guy myself. IIRC diesel fuel contains 15% more energy per gallon, the engines are normally more robust. But the fuel system is ridiculous, and the horsepower wars and the EPA have destroyed most of the benefit.


----------



## 1985gt (Dec 10, 2010)

Gas engines will never be the new "workhorse". They simply can't put out the torque numbers cubic inch per cubic inch that a diesel can.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

Inner10 said:


> 40 or 50 mpg on a half ton is a pipe dream.
> 
> Just because you have a smaller engine doesn't mean you will get better fuel consumption.
> 
> The bottom line is you are moving a 7k pound chunk of steel that is as aerodynamic as a brick...gonna take some fuel.


I'm talking a true "half ton" payload truck... Would weigh in around 4k pounds. It's absolutely possible 40 imp MPG atleast.

Do todays half tons weigh 7000lbs? My 05 dodge ram 2500 4x4 diesel is around 7500 and my 93 Chevy K1500 is around 4600... Both have been on scales several times.

I've seen 26 imp mpg (hand calculated) out of my dodge on long distance trips. Cut the weight in half, cut the displacement in half why can't you get 1.5x the fuel economy?


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

1985gt said:


> Gas engines will never be the new "workhorse". They simply can't put out the torque numbers cubic inch per cubic inch that a diesel can.


Sure about that?

For one,
The 213 C.I ecoboost makes 420 ft/lb
The New cummins 408 CI diesel makes 660-800 Ft/lb

Either case the torque is roughly double the CI displacement.

That's a wash.


Secondly, nobody needs 800ft/lb in a pickup. 420 is more than enough for the vast majority of drivers. 

You can doubt it if you want, but the utility/fire/police/companies are all using chevrolets 6.0 or the ford v10.

Most construction guys use f150's 

The diesel is a status symbol.  (not in every case, but it increasingly becoming the norm)


----------



## Robinson1 (Mar 14, 2014)

NCMCarpentry said:


> I'm talking a true "half ton" payload truck... Would weigh in around 4k pounds. It's absolutely possible 40 imp MPG atleast.
> 
> *Do todays half tons weigh 7000lbs*? My 05 dodge ram 2500 4x4 diesel is around 7500 and my 93 Chevy K1500 is around 4600... Both have been on scales several times.
> 
> I've seen 26 imp mpg (hand calculated) out of my dodge on long distance trips. Cut the weight in half, cut the displacement in half why can't you get 1.5x the fuel economy?



Yeah pretty much.

I had a 2007 GMC Sierra 1500 that went 7200 on the scales with tool boxes and ladder rack.

My current 2011 F250 weights 8600 with no ladder rack.

As far as the new diesel Ram goes. I really don't see the point. The Hemi will do practically everything it does with less cost. The Ecoboost will duplicate the diesel Ram. 

As far as gas vs. diesel I'm sort of on the fence. My current truck is gas and it does everything I need it to do. If I was buying a new work truck tomorrow it would be a gasser. I rarely ever tow anything over 8k and when I do its rental equipment, usually less than 20 miles. 

If I were shooting heavy trailers cross country on a regular basis I'd have a diesel. Then again maybe not. The Ford 6.2L coupled with the available 4.30:1 rear end is a tank.

I see more gas work trucks than I do diesel. Once in a while I see a diesel 1 ton flat bed with company lettering. All the 3/4 ton diesels running around have stacks and lift kits - those aren't work trucks.


----------



## 66 Shelby (Jan 11, 2009)

jlsconstruction said:


> If only f1 used regular gas. They use methonal, better known as alcohol. NASCAR uses 110 octane lead gasoline. If gas was so good why do plains, helicopters, trains, anything big, use diesel? And really moving stuff isn't about hp, it's about torque


NASCAR hasn't used leaded gas in nearly 20 years. And they use E15 now.

FWIW - I have a 1 ton diesel van and love it. Pulls like a mofo. Doesn't have the HP (or 0-60 speed) of my 1/2 ton truck though.


----------



## SuperiorHIP (Aug 15, 2010)

Damn you guys have some heavy trucks. My 06 ram quad cab, diesel, 4x4, full tank of fuel and tool box only comes in at around 7200-7300 lbs. 

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm's. Diesels run (generally) much lower rpms than a gasser and therefore don't see the horsepower numbers that gas engines do not to mention they make their peak torque numbers around 2200-2500 rpms if I recall. This is why diesels work so well for towing heavy loads over a gas engine without breaking a sweat. Gasoline is also a solvent where diesel fuel acts as more of a lubricant, add this with the slower turning engine and you get a much longer lasting engine.

The downside is the fears that I have with my own truck, at 175000 miles I am waiting for a large repair bill to show up. Injectors are $600/each, injection pump can run $2k, remanufactured engine (should something really bad happen) can run $7k. Everything is bigger and heavier making it harder to work on, you need an engine lift just to remove the head. Mine is the year before the EGR systems, now you have to deal with urea injection and all the other crap that kills mileage (regenerations systems) and seems to cause a lot of trouble with yet more systems to malfunction. I love my truck, it has been very good to me but my next truck will not be a diesel.


----------



## Robinson_Cnst (Jan 5, 2012)

Yes a gas motor can make big numbers on a dyno and down a quarter mile strip pushing a 2400 lb piece of jap steel.
Diesels make reliable power day in and day out with much much less maintenance and better reliability. Find me a farm tractor pulling a 40' planter running a 4cyl gas motor lol


----------



## going_commando (Feb 19, 2013)

In a 2wd truck the ram ecodiesel is rated 28mpg highway. Pretty dang good if you ask me, plus it's rated 9200 lbs towing. 

With gas engines getting direct injection and turbos the mileage and power is getting closer, but there is more energy in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline (measured in btus), so with similar tech and whatnot, the diesel will have more power per gallon fuel burned. Simple thermodynamics. Whether it will pay itself off, who knows, but it's pretty cool anyway. Diesel fuel is finally closing back in on gas when it comes to cost/gallon, so that is a plus for the diesel as well. The ecodiesel is a $4500 option over the 3.6l v6, and $2000 something over the hemi. Just wanted to inject some of the facts into this conversation. :laughing:

If it were me and I was shopping for a new pickup and was planning on towing and wanted a Ram, I would go with the diesel. If I wasn't towing heavy, I would go with the pentastar v6. Between the ram diesel and ford Ecoboost? I would go with whatever truck you like more, and leave it at that. Diesels are cool, but in the US with urea injection and whatnot, I'm not sure that the payback will work out with the diesel,but I guess time will tell.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

SuperiorHIP said:


> Damn you guys have some heavy trucks. My 06 ram quad cab, diesel, 4x4, full tank of fuel and tool box only comes in at around 7200-7300 lbs. Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm's. Diesels run (generally) much lower rpms than a gasser and therefore don't see the horsepower numbers that gas engines do not to mention they make their peak torque numbers around 2200-2500 rpms if I recall. This is why diesels work so well for towing heavy loads over a gas engine without breaking a sweat. Gasoline is also a solvent where diesel fuel acts as more of a lubricant, add this with the slower turning engine and you get a much longer lasting engine. The downside is the fears that I have with my own truck, at 175000 miles I am waiting for a large repair bill to show up. Injectors are $600/each, injection pump can run $2k, remanufactured engine (should something really bad happen) can run $7k. Everything is bigger and heavier making it harder to work on, you need an engine lift just to remove the head. Mine is the year before the EGR systems, now you have to deal with urea injection and all the other crap that kills mileage (regenerations systems) and seems to cause a lot of trouble with yet more systems to malfunction. I love my truck, it has been very good to me but my next truck will not be a diesel.


Let's use the ram and f150 as a comparison again. Look into what engine produces the most TQ at lower RPM's. 

Ecoboost [email protected]
Ecodiesel [email protected]


----------



## 1985gt (Dec 10, 2010)

JT Wood said:


> Sure about that?
> 
> For one,
> The 213 C.I ecoboost makes 420 ft/lb
> ...



So a twin turbo v6 compared to a single turbo i-6. Fair enough comparison. Never mind all that it's a wash, sure you could get a single turbo gas to perform that well under the right conditions. Heck you could get a modded big block gas to do that also. But that isn't what we were talking about is it?



JT Wood said:


> Secondly, nobody needs 800ft/lb in a pickup. 420 is more than enough for the vast majority of drivers.


Nobody? Tell that to the guys hauling 20-30k on goose necks. Some of us need more then 400 lb/ft. Fyi torque is measured in lb/ft not ft/lbs.



JT Wood said:


> You can doubt it if you want, but the utility/fire/police/companies are all using chevrolets 6.0 or the ford v10.


We have both at work, the 6L is nice to a point, maybe 5-6k lbs. The f450 V10 we have pulls our goose neck. I've put close to 20k on it, handled it ok I wouldn't put it on the hwy though. Now stack 8' of insulation on top of the deck over wheels trailer and run down the hwy, throw in a head wind and a hill can the truck can't get out of it's own way. That is where a diesel will preform. 



JT Wood said:


> Most construction guys use f150's


hmm we run chevy's mostly 5.3's mine has a 4.8 but i don't pull anything large with it. Guess we aren't "construction guys" 



JT Wood said:


> The diesel is a status symbol. (not in every case, but it increasingly becoming the norm)


While I will agree, there is a lot of people who own a diesel because it looks cool. There is a place for them. 

Now look at it this way. Why exactly are all most of the medium duty and up trucks diesels? They need to move stuff and they need the engines to last for millions of miles. A gas engine produces it' higher HP and torque numbers at higher RPMS. This is in part why fuel mileage drops. Diesels thrive on being worked, they work harder at the lower RPM ranges and are better on fuel consumption. 


I don't have a diesel yet, but I will be buying one for what I need on for personally. I tow a fairly large camper a lot, also other equipment. For what I use in fuel right now if I had a diesel it would make up for the extra cost (in a used truck) Our fuel here is now more expensive for premium then it is for diesel. My truck gets about 10 mpg towning our camper, down to 7-8 at hwy speeds and if I hit a big hill i've had it go down to 4 all while loosing speed. My neighbor has a duramax, get 25 hwy with it, 12-16 or so pulling 10k pounds, all the time. I also have a friend who has the 8l, 8 mpg towing a horse trailer, empty or loaded. He's like you, die hard against diesels. TO each their own. 

Oh and to comment on the dodge diesel. It's not needed. You lose towing, and fuel and it costs more. If you want to talk fad truck, thats it.


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

I'll also throw in the ford ecoboost was a huge project with all kinds of time and research put into it. The "ecodiesel" was just brought over from fiat...


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

1985gt said:


> So a twin turbo v6 compared to a single turbo i-6. Fair enough comparison. Never mind all that it's a wash, sure you could get a single turbo gas to perform that well under the right conditions. Heck you could get a modded big block gas to do that also. But that isn't what we were talking about is it?
> 
> Thats exactly what we are talking about. They are both completely stock engines. Whats the issue? The 6.4 was a twin/sequential turbo too.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

NCMCarpentry said:


> It's this thinking that everyone needs a truck that can tow 10k+ pounds and win races that keeps these trucks from being built. A simple 1/2 ton diesel pick up say 150hp/290ft lbs torque could easily see 40 or even 50mpg and do everything 95% of people need a 1/2 ton for. If I could get something like that with a full 8' x 5' wide bed I would be very happy...


Chevy was doing it 30 years ago with the 6.2L. Not 40mpg but 20-24 if you had a 1/2 ton with OD. The 350's were maybe getting a average of 12 at the time. It's too bad the 5.7L gave the small detroits such a bad name. They were good cheap engines. Still are. But they are slow, not as bad if turboed


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> Chevy was doing it 30 years ago with the 6.2L. Not 40mpg but 20-24 if you had a 1/2 ton with OD. The 350's were maybe getting a average of 12 at the time. It's too bad the 5.7L gave the small detroits such a bad name. They were good cheap engines. Still are. But they are slow, not as bad if turboed


I'm pretty familiar with the detroits in the old chevys. The 5.7l diesel was made by GM and was just a 350 modified to run on diesel from what I understand. Complete failure and I wouldn't associate the 5.7 with a 6.2 or 6.5... 

You could get good mileage out of the 6.2s and they were a decent engine, aside from being slow. I think a 3l or so I4 turbo diesel could perform way more efficiently. Especially if they could do way with part of the emissions laws for the sake of fuel efficiency. More pollution per litre burnt but less litres burnt equals the same amount of emissions...

Put that I4 in something like a jeep comanche x 1.25. Any "half ton" manufactured today is just too big and heavy.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

NCMCarpentry said:


> Especially if they could do way with part of the emissions laws for the sake of fuel efficiency. More pollution per litre burnt but less litres burnt equals the same amount of emissions....



The prob with diesel is it still puts out more toxins than petrol. They are gonna have to do a lot more emission control on these diesels before they get near to how clean petrol burns. That means even less performance from them and even more cost up front. 

If your worried about the environment and pocket diesel is not the way to go :laughing:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

The 5.7L D being a converted 5.7L gas is an old wives tale. But they did have problems...mainly that the first ones didn't have a water seperator. But it gave everyone at the time a bad taste. i don't know who produces engines for Hino, of it's nissan or someone else but they have 4's behind lots of 1 tons that get 30mpg


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> The prob with diesel is it still puts out more toxins than petrol. They are gonna have to do a lot more emission control on these diesels before they get near to how clean petrol burns. That means even less performance from them and even more cost up front.


Not all toxins. Go idle your diesel in the garage for a couple hours and you might throw up, idle your gas truck and you won't do anything again. There are other emissions that are lower with diesels but I'd have to look it up to know. Diesels produce more smog, ie straight carbon, but less greenhouse gases or something, oxides of carbon


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> Not all toxins. Go idle your diesel in the garage for a couple hours and you might throw up, idle your gas truck and you won't do anything again. There are other emissions that are lower with diesels but I'd have to look it up to know. Diesels produce more smog, ie straight carbon, but less greenhouse gases or something, oxides of carbon


There's been a lot going on with diesels to clean them up. Oil companys, car manufacturers and politicians make vastly more money from you buying diesel vehicles than petrol. They wont be going anywhere anytime soon but we will see vastly more emissions control on them. 

here's something i copied and pasted

Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of thousands of gases and fine particles that contains more than 40 toxic air contaminants. These include cancer-causing substances such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde, as well as other seriously harmful pollutants.
The microscopic particles in diesel exhaust are less than one-fifth the thickness of a human hair, small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing inflammation, asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes, and worsening lung disease in the elderly and young. The World Health Organisation says long-term exposure to these particles — called PM2.5s because they are just two-and-a-half thousands of a millimetre across — alters the way children's brains grow and could make them less intelligent. research last year found a link between pollutants in diesel fumes and autism.

U.S. studies have shown that adults exposed to PM2.5s suffer a greater loss of mental faculties than those living away from pollution. The exhausts also spew out nitrogen dioxide, a substance that irritates lungs and reduces our ability to fight disease.

On top of all this, it has now been discovered that diesel cars could contribute very much more to global warming than scientists first thought. The tiny particles of soot — or 'black carbon' — in diesel exhaust are now believed to be second only to carbon dioxide in their ability to cause global warming.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

The nitrogen oxide levels have been greatly reduced in the last 10 years since ULSD has been around. I'm not saying that diesels are clean burning, just that the emissions they put out are visible...smog, the emissions that gassers put out is invisble, ....greenhouse type gases. Both are poluutants, but different, to say that gas engines don't put out as many toxins just isn't true


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

dom-mas said:


> The 5.7L D being a converted 5.7L gas is an old wives tale. But they did have problems...mainly that the first ones didn't have a water seperator. But it gave everyone at the time a bad taste. i don't know who produces engines for Hino, of it's nissan or someone else but they have 4's behind lots of 1 tons that get 30mpg




It's toyota, And I was seriously considering this truck if it ever came to production.
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0804dp_2008_toyota_tundra_diesel/


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> The nitrogen oxide levels have been greatly reduced in the last 10 years since ULSD has been around. I'm not saying that diesels are clean burning, just that the emissions they put out are visible...smog, the emissions that gassers put out is invisble, ....greenhouse type gases. Both are poluutants, but different, to say that gas engines don't put out as many toxins just isn't true


Only telling ya what i been reading over the last few years. Here's another copy and paste from a site about diesel. I don't doubt they can clean them up but it will make them much more money and less efficient.

"It is important to determine the main sources of secondary organic aerosols for they are known to be detrimental to human health; and according to the latest study, it is not the gasoline that is majorly responsible for these air pollutants, but rather, the diesel.

An estimated 65 to 90% of an area’s secondary organic aerosols emissions from vehicles are caused by diesel."


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

JT Wood said:


> It's toyota, And I was seriously considering this truck if it ever came to production.
> http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0804dp_2008_toyota_tundra_diesel/


Toyota struggle to compete in the half ton world so they would be destroyed in the 3/4 and one ton markets. They know this and its the reason they wont release one.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Again it's over kill. Why not put a 3 or 4 L 4cyl that makes 150 Hp & 300lb/ft tq. Market a work truck that gets 30mpg day in and day out and will last 300 000miles. But no everyone needs 300hp and 600lb/ft tq so they can carry a ladder and a couple tool boxes around (not necessarily talking about folks here) The motors are bigger, but they have to be more efficient so they become more complex and more expensive to repair so when the warranty is up they are almost throw away cause no one wants to deal with repairs.


----------



## 1985gt (Dec 10, 2010)

JT Wood said:


> I used to pull a 25,000 Lb gooseneck down the highway in another life. It was a 97 12V With the manual Transmission, it put down 440 ft/lb and 215Hp .. I never needed or even wanted more power.
> 800 lb is nice but totally not necessary. And like I said. The vast vast majority of truck users don't tow that heavy


Our 1999 Ford V10 310HP 425 lb/ft. Again get a tall load, and it struggles at hwy speeds. The load is light something around 3-4k. The difference I guess could be the gearing.

My 2005 chevy 5.3 isn't too far off on those numbers 295 HP 335 lb/ft and 10k is pushing it hard. On so many levels :whistling 



JT Wood said:


> I agree a diesel typically has better towing characteristics, but the new ecoboost is putting serious numbers down at low rpm


That may be but what it does on paper and what it does in the real world are two completely different things. I'm a Ford guy, but they do have their own set of problems also. Plus how reliable will it be down the road. Look at all the 7.3's still around and people will pay for them also. The 6.0's are better now since most of the bad stuff has been replaced. But everyone wants an ol 7.3.




JT Wood said:


> Ok Most constructon guys drive 1/2 tons. No offense was intended


Well that depends also. Depends on how DOT is in your state. It's pretty easy to overload a 1/2 ton. But yes for carrying around a few tools a couple ladders and maybe a small cargo trailer that is all one really needs.



JT Wood said:


> I'm interested to see what the medium duty market does in the next decade. Gas is becoming a very real alternative. And the big rigs are not caught up in the HP wars as much as the pickup truck market. Their focus is reliability. The big 3 focus on winning the HP wars and it is destroying the reliabilty IMO


A long time ago everything was gas, it just wasn't reliable. We have an old 1988 chevy c60 out in the yard with a 350. We use to have all gas dumps. most were 366's. The 366's were reliable. Others not so much. But fuel milage, forget about it. We also have an old 64 international with a 301 two barrel. Strong little motor. The thing is they have been tried. You put 100k on them and they are ready for a rebuild.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

1985gt said:


> Our 1999 Ford V10 310HP 425 lb/ft. Again get a tall load, and it struggles at hwy speeds. The load is light something around 3-4k. The difference I guess could be the gearing.
> 
> My 2005 chevy 5.3 isn't too far off on those numbers 295 HP 335 lb/ft and 10k is pushing it hard. On so many levels :whistling
> 
> ...




I can tell you the ecoboost runs like a beast. Better than the 6.2 too. My truck at best has 390ftlbs and that thing has 420ftlbs but the delivery of the power down so low and even lower than most diesels makes it feels much more powerful when you put your foot down. 

My mates truck pulls away from mine like a rocket even though powers so close. I need to get my revs up before i start producing HP and TQ but he's at his max boost as soon as he hits the people.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> but he's at his max boost as soon as he hits the people.


Maybe he should stop driving on the sidewalk


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

dom-mas said:


> Again it's over kill. Why not put a 3 or 4 L 4cyl that makes 150 Hp & 300lb/ft tq. Market a work truck that gets 30mpg day in and day out


I agree... In the half tons.


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

85 gt. Have you driven an ecoboost? 

They are unreal. I drove one with 3:55 gears and it pulled like a raped ape. Remember it's a 3.5l 


Imagine a 6.2 with 4:10 gears. wow. Talk about a towing machine

But like I said. We will probably never see one. Because the diesels are the high profit engine.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

JT Wood said:


> I agree... In the half tons.


even in a 3/4. I have an old 1 ton with a naturally aspirated 6.2L. 140hp and 260lbs of tq @ 1800rpm. It does everything I need it to, just not quickly. If it was turboed it would be a great little engine. If they had forged cranks instead of cast ones there would be tons left. Someone esle posted about a C60 with a 350 in it. That used to be enough power, now no one thinks it's acceptable to have a work truck that won't do 0-60 in more than 8 secs. It doesn't make sense to me


----------



## deter (Apr 4, 2013)

im in agreement with above. a 4cyl half ton diesel would be an awesome pickup to see on the roads. something with a reasonable amount of power for those of us that only need to tow 5k# or less. 30mpg real-world would be nice. We too, have an old c60 dump with a 350 engine. definitely wont win any races, but hauls 10 tons no problem


----------



## deter (Apr 4, 2013)

TimelessQuality said:


> Uhhh.. Not really... Find anything on the truck that identifies it as a dodge.
> 
> It's a Fiat Ram


LOL. hence the way I typed "Dodge"


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

dom-mas said:


> even in a 3/4. I have an old 1 ton with a naturally aspirated 6.2L. 140hp and 260lbs of tq @ 1800rpm. It does everything I need it to, just not quickly. If it was turboed it would be a great little engine. If they had forged cranks instead of cast ones there would be tons left. Someone esle posted about a C60 with a 350 in it. That used to be enough power, now no one thinks it's acceptable to have a work truck that won't do 0-60 in more than 8 secs. It doesn't make sense to me


I had a 6.2 n/a. In the rocky mountains towing 15,000. I can guarantee that it would have been a road hazard. I used to struggle to do 100 km/hr with a small travel trailer. 

I'm guessing top speed would have been less than 30mph on the hills. Even my n/a 7.3. Had a hard time towing only 10k up Hills. 

For a 3/4 Ton or better I would never buy something that didn't have around 180 hp and 400 -450 torque. 

A smaller one might do it, but it's irritating as hell to drive with a load.


Fwiw my 6.2 in a 1500 gmc averaged over 20 MPH ...I mean mpg. :laughing:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Yes, I could see that it would be crap in mountain country but i pulled a 30' tralier weighing 8000k and kept at 100kmh no problems and had pedal left. On flat ground. We don't have the hills here you have there but when I hit a 15% grade it had problems after say 1/4 mile. I'd be cresting the hills at 50kmh.

From what i understand the 6.2's did MUCH better with a turbo at high altitudes and with hills. Brought them up around 180 hp and 350lbs/ft.

My 1 ton truck will do 120kmh with 4.10's and no OD. It's screaming but it takes it and asks for more. I can bury the needle at 140kmh...nothing for todays trucks but it does everything I need it to, but it only gets 17mpg (american gallons). Still better than most modern 1 tons. (what they really get not what the EPA rates them at)


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

I was thinking. Mine was a half ton so it probably had highway gears too. It made it over 450,000 km though. Even them it still ran good but the starter literally ripped out of the motor and took the mounting tangs with it. The last 2 weeks I owned it I couldn't shut it off. I let it run overnight, because to start it I had to wedge it in place from underneath and get my wife to crank the engine from the drivers seat. :laughing:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

It's too bad, they got such a bad rap because they were slow. Sure it's not a cummins or international but it was cheap. I love it. I can buy a used engine for $200-$400 and have someone install it for the same. injectors cost $25 rebuilt, Injection pumps cost $500 rebuilt. Easy to work on, cheap to maintain and repair. So long as the crank holds out and the starter doesn't rip out the block the'yre good to go. Plus mechanically injected. All you need is a working starter and 12v to the inj pump. With a standard you don't even need the starter, just a hill


----------



## 1985gt (Dec 10, 2010)

JT Wood said:


> 85 gt. Have you driven an ecoboost?
> 
> They are unreal. I drove one with 3:55 gears and it pulled like a raped ape. Remember it's a 3.5l
> 
> ...


No I have never driven on. I've heard they are plenty powerful I just worry about long term. I keep trucks like a lot of people until they die. Plus I'll never buy a new pick up. I might have to go look at a used one and price one out. But that still doesn't get over my reliability factor.


----------



## Millworker (Jan 17, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> Toyota struggle to compete in the half ton world so they would be destroyed in the 3/4 and one ton markets. They know this and its the reason they wont release one.


 I bet a Honda ridgeline is built stiffer then those bow flex Toyota trucks. Toyota should just call it quits in the truck market and stick to what they know best. Bland, overrated econo cars.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Millworker said:


> I bet a Honda ridgeline is built stiffer then those bow flex Toyota trucks. Toyota should just call it quits in the truck market and stick to what they know best. Bland, overrated econo cars.



Lol @ bowflex truck 


But I agree. they are good at the bland and boring. They can't even make a Lexus look nice. Even the LFA is ugly.


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

Millworker said:


> I bet a Honda ridgeline is built stiffer then those bow flex Toyota trucks. Toyota should just call it quits in the truck market and stick to what they know best. Bland, overrated econo cars.


If I remember correctly, the ridgeline is based off the minivan. (unibody) so it dam well better be more stiff. with a whopping 5K towing capacity, I don't think it threatens anybody.


There is nothing wrong with a flexible frame anyway. 


A Ridgid frame does not equal a strong frame, And I would certainly be willing to gamble on a hino engine in my pickup truck. Long before I went to a 6.0 or a duramax. (I like the cummins)


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I know a wrecker with a Hino cab over for his recovery truck. not sure on model. he says it has been the most trouble free engine he's ever had. He's had Cummins, International, just about anything they put in a medium duty truck. He likes the Hino the best. I realise that medium duty trucks are a different breed than our light duty trucks but if the manufacturer is the same I'm sure a lot of the tech would be the same as well, also the tolerances


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> Yes, I could see that it would be crap in mountain country but i pulled a 30' tralier weighing 8000k and kept at 100kmh no problems and had pedal left. On flat ground. We don't have the hills here you have there but when I hit a 15% grade it had problems after say 1/4 mile. I'd be cresting the hills at 50kmh.
> 
> From what i understand the 6.2's did MUCH better with a turbo at high altitudes and with hills. Brought them up around 180 hp and 350lbs/ft.
> 
> *My 1 ton truck will do 120kmh with 4.10's and no OD. It's screaming but it takes it and asks for more. I can bury the needle at 140kmh...nothing for todays trucks but it does everything I need it to, but it only gets 17mpg (american gallons). Still better than most modern 1 tons. (what they really get not what the EPA rates them at)*


What truck is this? 6.5?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

1990 r3500 CC srw N/A 6.2l


----------



## NCMCarpentry (Apr 7, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> 1990 r3500 CC srw N/A 6.2l


Nice, I remember wanting a RCLB 1500 or 2500 with a 6.2 for my first vehicle, could only find ones with 300-400k+ on them. That says something about their lifespan though... Those older gms are sweet trucks, I have a 93 K1500 with a 305 that sits in the bush, put some fresh gas in it gave it a boost and took it for a spin yesterday. Can't bring myself to scrap it.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I love the square bodies. And not just when they're restored. To me that's what a work truck is. Probably got imprinted on me when i was a kid. I would say that a 6.2L with 400 000km is nearing the end of it's life. Mine only has 250 000kms, it was a toy hauler for the guy I bought it from.

Yup the old GM's will run on anything anywhere.


----------



## Millworker (Jan 17, 2013)

JT Wood said:


> There is nothing wrong with a flexible frame anyway.
> A Ridgid frame does not equal a strong frame


You obviously don't know much about pick up trucks do you? It goes a little deeper then the frame. Tests and comparisons are all over the web. Go have a look at the Tundra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ2SJ-ENRgk


----------



## JT Wood (Dec 17, 2007)

Millworker said:


> You obviously don't know much about pick up trucks do you? It goes a little deeper then the frame. Tests and comparisons are all over the web. Go have a look at the Tundra.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ2SJ-ENRgk


I know that ford made that commercial and ford won the contest.

If you go to other parts of youtube chevy makes the commercials and chevy wins the frame test.

If rigid box frames were so great you would probably see class 8 trucks using them. But you don't. they use c channel frames.

Don't get me wrong i think the f 150 has a great frame i just don't think that rigid equals superior in every circumstance


----------



## Millworker (Jan 17, 2013)

JT Wood said:


> I know that ford made that commercial and ford won the contest.
> 
> If you go to other parts of youtube chevy makes the commercials and chevy wins the frame test.
> 
> ...


I am not even a Ford guy but I have seen enough reviews/durability tests across all makes to make up my mind on the Tundra.

Nobody does the testing and research Ford does on the F series line. They buy every other brand of truck and run them through a beating to see what breaks first, they then improve the durability and strength in their own trucks.

In the video I posted they even commented specifically on the Toyota and its lack of stability. "Is it still in one piece?"


----------



## Hoover Niebold (Dec 22, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> Diesels struggle to put out anywhere near what a gasser does HP wise. If diesel was so much better at producing HP than petrol was then top fuel would use it and so would rally so would F1 and so would Nascar.


It's not a HP issue it's a weight issue in those vehicles. A diesel off-road truck was built that blew by fuel stops and the only real problem was the torque physically ripping the tires away from the bead locks.

Show me any gas engine I can hook a load to and floor it every single time I pull on to the interstate without grenading in short order and I'll buy it. Only other qualifier is it has to last well over 200,000 miles with 10,000 mile between oil changes and I don't wanna have to add a drop. You know, like the Cummins I drive now.

'04.5 5.9 automatic, FASS150, Goerend full billet trans, head studs, and a Smarty(plug n play tuner) on level 9 with torque at level 5 for the past 5 years without any issue pulling a 24' enclosed trailer weighing 10,000# that it will light the tires pulling at will up to 30mph. Without the trailer it chirps into overdrive at 85 with 35" Nittos, traction is non-existent under 50mph in 2 wheel drive. 279,000 miles and uses no oil between 10,000 mile oil changes. Stock turbo and injectors still. But it's a Dodge and does have it's issues, the one I've had is the wiring, the left rear door wires have broken twice since new. Oh the horrors!

Now all I need is a gasser that will perform and last as long getting 20-22 mpg alone or 14+ with the trailer hooked.



The Fiat diesel has been around for decades and is a proven long term performer. While shopping for a new Cummins last Friday I met a man with the Eco Diesel that he has had since March with 22,000 miles on it. He said he pulls an RV and has been averaging near 20 mpg pulling and up to 30 mpg unloaded. According to him the big difference is how easy it pulls the RV without constantly hunting for the right gear compared to a 410hp/410tq hemi he had prior. The Eco Diesel makes 420 #ft tq and it's only a $2500 premium over it's closets counterpart the 410/410 hemi. Now let's just see what happens when cheap plug and play tuners for these start hitting the market. No gas engine will be able to compete in longevity, towing capability, fuel economy, or be able to run a renewable fuel. 

If I could manage with a 1/2 ton I would not hesitate to own the Eco Diesel.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Hoover Niebold said:


> It's not a HP issue it's a weight issue in those vehicles. A diesel off-road truck was built that blew by fuel stops and the only real problem was the torque physically ripping the tires away from the bead locks. Show me any gas engine I can hook a load to and floor it every single time I pull on to the interstate without grenading in short order and I'll buy it. Only other qualifier is it has to last well over 200,000 miles with 10,000 mile between oil changes and I don't wanna have to add a drop. You know, like the Cummins I drive now. '04.5 5.9 automatic, FASS150, Goerend full billet trans, head studs, and a Smarty(plug n play tuner) on level 9 with torque at level 5 for the past 5 years without any issue pulling a 24' enclosed trailer weighing 10,000# that it will light the tires pulling at will up to 30mph. Without the trailer it chirps into overdrive at 85 with 35" Nittos, traction is non-existent under 50mph in 2 wheel drive. 279,000 miles and uses no oil between 10,000 mile oil changes. Stock turbo and injectors still. But it's a Dodge and does have it's issues, the one I've had is the wiring, the left rear door wires have broken twice since new. Oh the horrors! Now all I need is a gasser that will perform and last as long getting 20-22 mpg alone or 14+ with the trailer hooked. The Fiat diesel has been around for decades and is a proven long term performer. While shopping for a new Cummins last Friday I met a man with the Eco Diesel that he has had since March with 22,000 miles on it. He said he pulls an RV and has been averaging near 20 mpg pulling and up to 30 mpg unloaded. According to him the big difference is how easy it pulls the RV without constantly hunting for the right gear compared to a 410hp/410tq hemi he had prior. The Eco Diesel makes 420 #ft tq and it's only a $2500 premium over it's closets counterpart the 410/410 hemi. Now let's just see what happens when cheap plug and play tuners for these start hitting the market. No gas engine will be able to compete in longevity, towing capability, fuel economy, or be able to run a renewable fuel. If I could manage with a 1/2 ton I would not hesitate to own the Eco Diesel.


The debates not about weight. Its about having a diesel in a 1/2ton when you can get a gasser with the same power but vastly less maintenance cost and running costs which tows more and carrys more. We can go on all day about what these things can be modded to but its stock trucks that we are talking about here. 

Diesel has its place for sure. Just not in 1/2 ton trucks, SUV's or sports cars to name a few.


----------



## Hoover Niebold (Dec 22, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> The debates not about weight. Its about having a diesel in a 1/2ton when you can get a gasser with the same power but vastly less maintenance cost and running costs which tows more and carrys more. We can go on all day about what these things can be modded to but its stock trucks that we are talking about here.
> 
> Diesel has its place for sure. Just not in 1/2 ton trucks, SUV's or sports cars to name a few.


I don't think you have any clue about how cheap maintenance and repairs are on a diesel are over miles, or the fuel economy even at the fuel cost premium. A 3/4 ton working harder for less than a 1/2 ton to operate kinda confirms the value of diesel IMO. Your results may vary.

(I ? if a truck with a $700 tuner has been "modded".)

And F1 and NASCAR are about weight.


----------



## Hoover Niebold (Dec 22, 2012)

Road racers giving up 300# for durability please. Pfft.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Hoover Niebold said:


> I don't think you have any clue about how cheap maintenance and repairs are on a diesel are over miles, or the fuel economy even at the fuel cost premium. A 3/4 ton working harder for less than a 1/2 ton to operate kinda confirms the value of diesel IMO. Your results may vary. (I ? if a truck with a $700 tuner has been "modded".) And F1 and NASCAR are about weight.


If you had anything to back your statements up you may have a point but you don't. Check out the ecoboost vs Ecodiesel as a comparison. It tows less, carrys less, costs more each mile to run, has the same TQ the ecoboost has vastly more HP and after all that its slower. 

Now tell me why the diesel a better option. we all ready been through the "well diesels are cheaper to mod" and "diesels have more TQ when modded" argument. 99% of people who buy 1/2 tons don't tune them. 

You would have to be a idiot or dodge fanboy to buy the diesel.


----------

