# diesel war?



## Foragefarmer (Aug 21, 2013)

Nissan is introducing a Cummins diesel for the Titan for the 2015 model year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/autos-nissan-diesel-idUSL2N0GL1RX20130820

First Ram now Nissan oh if only Toyota would get on board!


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 21, 2013)

Foragefarmer said:


> Nissan is introducing a Cummins diesel for the Titan for the 2015 model year.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/autos-nissan-diesel-idUSL2N0GL1RX20130820
> 
> First Ram now Nissan *oh if only Toyota would get on board!*


 

Toyota has been "on board" since the 80s.  It's the EPA and the American consumer that need to get on board.


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

And I am happy for this war.  My big problem is this:

"The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet, the company said."

WHY?  A Titan isn't the truck you should be using for a triple axle horse trailer, so why the big HP and torque?  I think the ram and Jeep simply makes more sense and will be far more fuel efficient.  Why does it have to be a "power" war.  Jeesh.  My current Jeep has ~240 ft pounds of torque.  More than enough for the "average" person that tows a trailer or fishing boat.  The NEW jeep is gonna have around 420.  That should EASILY get the job done and maintain good MPG (~30).


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 21, 2013)

That's a LOT bigger than the baby diesel going in the Ram 1500........

You're not even in the game with the power war until you produce over 400HP/800lb ft of torque.


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> You're not even in the game with the power war until you produce over 400HP/800lb ft of torque.


 
And don't want to be. That is the whole idea. I have NO use for an 800ft lb diesel getting 16 mpg. 420 ft lbs and 30 mpg is more my style.

For 97% of 1/2 ton pickup/Jeep Grand cherokee owners - the "baby" diesel is gonna be a great performance package.  Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 21, 2013)

Jags said:


> Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?


 
Let's chain 'em up and find out. 

I'm fully aware of the short comings of my 7.9:1 compression ratio'd "peanut port" big block. But I'm gonna laugh myself silly dragging that Jeep behind me.  Or else I'm gonna be REAL surprised.

TBI 454 = 240HP/380 lb ft stock, and the torque is all in at 1800 RPM. 

The last laugh is yours however, at the pump that is.


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> Let's chain 'em up and find out.


 
Gonna laugh my butt off when I pass the third gas station that you are stopped at.

Again - it ain't always about "more power".  If you don't have a use for it, why burn it?


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 21, 2013)

Jags said:


> Gonna laugh my butt off when I pass the third gas station that you are stopped at.
> 
> Again - it ain't always about "more power". If you don't have a use for it, why burn it?


 
Believe me, if I ain't got a use for it, it ain't runnin'.  (My Canyon runs for my "everyday" truck needs.  Now that could use that 3.0L .....)


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> Believe me, if I ain't got a use for it, it ain't runnin'.  (My Canyon runs for my "everyday" truck needs. Now that could use that 3.0L .....)


 
Imagine if that Canyon had 420 ft lbs of torque and got 30 mpg. That would put a smile on your face.

(Now you are picking up what I am laying down.)


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

That is my point all the way.  Why not have a sweet option for the middle of the road.  When the 1 ton dually isn't needed, but you might want to tow your fishing boat or wood trailer or 98% of the normal stuff you do with a daily driver.


----------



## MrWhoopee (Aug 21, 2013)

Jags said:


> And I am happy for this war. My big problem is this:
> 
> "The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet, the company said."
> 
> WHY? A Titan isn't the truck you should be using for a triple axle horse trailer, so why the big HP and torque? I think the ram and Jeep simply makes more sense and will be far more fuel efficient. Why does it have to be a "power" war. Jeesh. My current Jeep has ~240 ft pounds of torque. More than enough for the "average" person that tows a trailer or fishing boat. The NEW jeep is gonna have around 420. That should EASILY get the job done and maintain good MPG (~30).


 
[rant mode=on]
It's the macho, American way. Bigger and more powerful is always better. Screw fuel economy, manueverability, practicality, etc. It's a good thing traffic lanes are only 12 ft. wide and most parking garages have a height limit under 8 ft.  I am appalled (though not surprised) that Nissan and Toyota have jumped into the "huge" pickup market, building trucks so big you can't see over the hood. There are, of course, legitimate uses for high ground clearance, heavy towing capactiy, four-wheel drive trucks. I would guess, however, that 90% of those beasts never get off the pavement and are used principally as passenger vehicles and phallic symbols. The perfect vehicle for your 18 year-old son to drive to school. At least the Hummer died a well-earned death, if years too late.
[rant mode=off]

Here's my phallic symbol:


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

Durned hippies.


----------



## Foragefarmer (Aug 21, 2013)

Bigg_Redd said:


> Toyota has been "on board" since the 80s. It's the EPA and the American consumer that need to get on board.


 

You are correct my statement was accurate but misleading. I am well aware that you can get a diesel Hilux everywhere else in the world but here.


----------



## MrWhoopee (Aug 21, 2013)

Jags said:


> Durned hippies.


 
That's "durned, unrepentant, old hippies" to you, sir. And smile when you say it.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 21, 2013)

Jags said:


> And don't want to be. That is the whole idea. I have NO use for an 800ft lb diesel getting 16 mpg. 420 ft lbs and 30 mpg is more my style.
> 
> For 97% of 1/2 ton pickup/Jeep Grand cherokee owners - the "baby" diesel is gonna be a great performance package. Do you realize that a TBI 454 doesn't produce as much torque as the "baby" diesel?


 
So here's the thing. Everything you know about the diesel habits of current diesel truck owners is based on the fact that the only way to get a diesel was to buy a big gigantic 3/4 ton or bigger model whether you needed it or not. Despite this, the big truck got better mpg than a minivan and had plenty of power. It is entirely possible that a huge segment of the current macho truck owners would be very happy with a 1/2 ton version with much lower power and ratings.

It's not that anybody claimed to NEED a 1 ton truck to commute with but that was the only option and it was a pretty good option beating out the smaller full size gas trucks in mpg, power, comfort, resale, etc.

What's really exciting to me is the availability of the 4 cylinder diesels in cars, suvs, and minitrucks.


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 21, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> It is entirely possible that a huge segment of the current macho truck owners would be very happy with a 1/2 ton version with much lower power and ratings.


 



Jags said:


> The new engine is a turbocharged 5.0-liter V8 rated at more than 300 horsepower, with torque of around 550 pounds-feet


 
In a half ton truck? That's gonna scoot pretty good....


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 21, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> In a half ton truck? That's gonna scoot pretty good....


 
Compare that 6000# half ton to the 8000# one ton that gets the 385HP/850 ft-lbs torque cummins in 2014.

Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.

The current gas engine one ton makes 410 HP and 429 torque.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 21, 2013)

I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG. 

Now I drive a 4 liter gas Tacoma and am pleased with 19MPG with very good performance, but would be grinning wildly if I could have torque and MPG of a modest sized diesel in a Tacoma size truck.

There keep being rumors of a Mahindra diesel pickup coming to the US, which could be really interesting, but it keeps dissipating back into vaporware.

One thing that I would want to be really, really sure of with any future diesel that I might buy was simplicity and serviceability/ maintenance costs over time. Old diesels were stone-axe simple and easy to maintain but some of the new ones can be idiotically complex in my opinion (like the newer Ford Super Duty diesels that need to have the cab lifted off for any degree of significant engine work). Both performance and fuel economy become moot if long term costs of ownership or repair crater due to overcomplexity.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 21, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> Compare that 6000# half ton to the 8000# one ton that gets the 385HP/850 ft-lbs torque cummins in 2014.
> 
> Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.


 
Yep. Another one of my vehicles along the way was an 89 F350 4WD toolbox body non-turbo 7.3 indirect injected diesel- got 14-16 mpg carrying nothing, and 14-16 MPG loaded to the gills and hauling a trailer... not a lot of power but it didn't seem to care what it was pulling


----------



## Ashful (Aug 21, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> Diesels are funny, they get great mpg unloaded but similar to gas mpg when loaded. I wonder if the mpg for these half ton trucks will be much better.


 
Hence, the perfect system.  I don't put enough miles on any vehicle, or keep my trucks long enough to realize the advantages of diesel.  My primary interest in diesel is sort of back-handed, in that buying diesel is currently the only way to get a manual transmission, in most pickup trucks.  Sad to see they're pairing most of these newer, smaller diesels with automatic transmissions.


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.


 
What was the MPG of that big Dodge?  Should've been comparable to your Tacoma, even towing a few Tacomas out back.... 

My Dad's '03 2500HD 4x4 Duramax (LB6) routinely gets near 20 MPG average and breaks that routinely for highway travel.


----------



## Bret Hart (Aug 21, 2013)

Don't see much MPG difference with or without a trailer here, maybe 1 MPG at most. 17.5 on summer fuel and 15.5ish on winter fuel depending on idle time. Every tank hand calculated. Never trust the factory supplied lie-o-meters for MPG info. Many are terribly inaccurate.

2000 Ram 2500 quad cab short bed 4x4
5.9 Cummins.
Auto trans.
3.55 gears.
265/75/16 tires. Factory option, speedo calibrated to 265's.
8000# with contractor cap, tools, and me in the seat.
Amsoil in everything.
278,xxx miles and counting.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.
> 
> Now I drive a 4 liter gas Tacoma and am pleased with 19MPG with very good performance, but would be grinning wildly if I could have torque and MPG of a modest sized diesel in a Tacoma size truck.


 
Whoa there. You switched from a mind blowingly powerful truck that was very capable, large, and comfortable, that got nearly 20 mpg to a mini-truck with way less power, smaller, and less comfortable with the same mpg and you are happy about that? Did you make this change knowingly?


----------



## Jags (Aug 21, 2013)

I just snickered.


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Aug 21, 2013)

I'm waiting for the VW Rabbit Pickup to come back.......without all the anti-smog crap we have to contend with these days. I had a 1985 Jetta diesel that was just about perfect.


----------



## ditchrider (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> One thing that I would want to be really, really sure of with any future diesel that I might buy was simplicity and serviceability/ maintenance costs over time. Old diesels were stone-axe simple and easy to maintain but some of the new ones can be idiotically complex in my opinion (like the newer Ford Super Duty diesels that need to have the cab lifted off for any degree of significant engine work). Both performance and fuel economy become moot if long term costs of ownership or repair crater due to overcomplexity.


 
 A buddy and I were talking about this topic many years ago. I think he put it pretty plain when he said "We had in our hands a perfect, self sufficient machine (the diesel engine) and some a$$h@le has to f*!& it up with electricity"


----------



## Foragefarmer (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> One thing that I would want to be really, really sure of with any future diesel that I might buy was simplicity and serviceability/ maintenance costs over time. Old diesels were stone-axe simple and easy to maintain but some of the new ones can be idiotically complex in my opinion (like the newer Ford Super Duty diesels that need to have the cab lifted off for any degree of significant engine work). Both performance and fuel economy become moot if long term costs of ownership or repair crater due to overcomplexity.


 
I think the EPA has made that impossible at this point. I am in favor of cleaner running vehicles but not at the cost fuel economy which is what has happened with diesel trucks and any heavy equipment needing to be tier 4 compliant like tractors.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 21, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> What was the MPG of that big Dodge? Should've been comparable to your Tacoma, even towing a few Tacomas out back....
> 
> My Dad's '03 2500HD 4x4 Duramax (LB6) routinely gets near 20 MPG average and breaks that routinely for highway travel.


 
My '06 Ram 5.9 Cummins came with 4.10 axles+ auto transmission, which, unfortunately, meant 14-15 MPG in summer and less (11-12) in cold weather, and it was incredibly slow to warm up in the winter, even for a diesel (ran great but unless it had been plugged in, took 8-10 miles before heat or defrost began to work).  The MPG combined with the way that diesel started to exceed the cost of gas (and stayed that way) negated any advantage, even though I like diesels (a lot) in many ways. I should have held out/ searched for a stickshift 5.9 with 3.55 axles (though gearshifts had already become scarce and almost a special order even in diesels, to my disappointment), if I'd fully known how much of a difference that would have made- I probably would have been getting in the 20s and would probably still have it. Plus, even though I like big, sturdy vehicles, the 2500 Ram was a bit ridiculous to try to park in many situations.  Tacoma gets 18-20 MPG pretty reliably, which beats 14 and the higher cost of diesel.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 21, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> Whoa there. You switched from a mind blowingly powerful truck that was very capable, large, and comfortable, that got nearly 20 mpg to a mini-truck with way less power, smaller, and less comfortable with the same mpg and you are happy about that? Did you make this change knowingly?


 see my other follow up about the 4.10 gears in the Dodge and resulting disappointingly/ surprisingly unimpressive MPG


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> see my other follow up about the 4.10 gears in the Dodge and resulting disappointingly/ surprisingly unimpressive MPG


 
If you could only muster 14-15 mpg and you have no need for a big truck then yes, a gasser makes more sense. I will say that 14-15 is not typical at all when you ask a late model 5.9 owner about mpg.


----------



## ditchrider (Aug 21, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> If you could only muster 14-15 mpg and you have no need for a big truck then yes, a gasser makes more sense. I will  say that 14-15 is not typical at all when you ask a late model 5.9 owner about mpg.


 
95 ram 3/4ton. I typically get 17-18 in the summer. It'll drop to around 13 when I'm pulling a trailer. But on the highway I keep it under 70, that's just a smidge under 2000 rpm. Just another 5 mph costs me significantly in fuel mileage, at least 4 mpg, whether I'm loaded or not.


----------



## lukem (Aug 21, 2013)

500 lb ft in a half ton?  5.0?  V8?

Talk about missing the mark.  Give me 350....3ish...and 4 in a row.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> I owned one of the last 5.9L Dodge Cummins trucks (06) (before they went to the newer engine) and it was mind-blowingly powerful (325 HP and 625 ft/lb of torque at low/ mid RPM!) at reasonably good MPG, though I'd have gladly had 1/2 the HP and torque in exchange for much higher MPG.
> 
> Now I drive a 4 liter gas Tacoma and am pleased with 19MPG with very good performance, but would be grinning wildly if I could have torque and MPG of a modest sized diesel in a Tacoma size truck.
> 
> ...


 
this


----------



## salecker (Aug 21, 2013)

pybyr said:


> Yep. Another one of my vehicles along the way was an 89 F350 4WD toolbox body non-turbo 7.3 indirect injected diesel- got 14-16 mpg carrying nothing, and 14-16 MPG loaded to the gills and hauling a trailer... not a lot of power but it didn't seem to care what it was pulling


My truck is like that 90 6.2 NA i ton 4x4 crewcab 17 MPG empty or pulling a trailer.Not much power but cheep to run and cheep parts if you need them.Best of all no computer.
 Thomas


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 22, 2013)

salecker said:


> My truck is like that 90 6.2 NA i ton 4x4 crewcab 17 MPG empty or pulling a trailer.Not much power but cheep to run and cheep parts if you need them.Best of all no computer.
> Thomas


My truck is the same way.  MPG hardly changes regardless of load.  But the number is 7 not 17.


----------



## Kevin* (Aug 22, 2013)

Stephen in SoKY said:


> I'm waiting for the VW Rabbit Pickup to come back.......without all the anti-smog crap we have to contend with these days. I had a 1985 Jetta diesel that was just about perfect.


I just took that smog stuff off my '08 ram and that 6.7 cummins run better than ever and a 5 mpg gain.


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 22, 2013)

Kevin* said:


> 5 mpg gain.


Which is probably better for overall emissions and efficiency than all that smog gear was anyways!


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 22, 2013)

Kevin* said:


> I just took that smog stuff off my '08 ram and that 6.7 cummins run better than ever and a 5 mpg gain.


 
This same story is often repeated with the ford powerstrokes from the same era. Some genius decided to put a soot filter on the exhaust pipe. Seriously, a big honking filter that has to have fuel dumped into it on occasion to burn off the soot.

The old 6.2 and other non turbo diesels were super gutless. Like 140 HP gutless and with weak three speed auto trannies or 4 speed manuals. There were a few years in the history of diesels that you could get lots of turbo power, high mpg, little or no emissions junk, and dependable but it was just too good to last.


----------



## Shadow&Flame (Aug 22, 2013)

I am still patiently waiting for my 'true' compact 4x4 diesel truck....


----------



## Kevin* (Aug 23, 2013)

Shadow&Flame said:


> I am still patiently waiting for my 'true' compact 4x4 diesel truck....


You could buy the ford ranger if you have a friend in mexico. My aunt has a vacation home there and if I didn't need a heavy truck thats what I would get.


----------



## Shadow&Flame (Aug 23, 2013)

Kevin* said:


> You could buy the ford ranger if you have a friend in mexico. My aunt has a vacation home there and if I didn't need a heavy truck thats what I would get.


 
I have thought about doing something like that, but wonder about not being able to get it licensed here.  Don't have anyone in Mexico anyway....
I did have...my best friend married a Mexican girl.  He died of Cancer at 35yrs old...


----------



## Foragefarmer (Aug 23, 2013)

Shadow&Flame said:


> I have thought about doing something like that, but wonder about not being able to get it licensed here. Don't have anyone in Mexico anyway....
> I did have...my best friend married a Mexican girl. He died of Cancer at 35yrs old...


 

The truck needs to be 25+ years old. It is then considered a "classic" and then doesn't have to meet Gov. safety or emissions standards. I know someone who just imported a Land Rover Defender Turbo Diesel from Italy that is an 1986 and road legal.
There are companies that are importing low milage diesel Toyota Hilux and Land Cruisers as well as others but they are not cheap when you consider they are 25 years old or older.


----------



## charly (Aug 23, 2013)

Stephen in SoKY said:


> I'm waiting for the VW Rabbit Pickup to come back.......without all the anti-smog crap we have to contend with these days. I had a 1985 Jetta diesel that was just about perfect.


I had a VW diesel pickup,, what a handy vehicle that was.... I'm waiting to see what the new diesel Dodge and Nissian get for real fuel mileage. Just made a 5 hour trip from Schoharie, NY to Saco, Maine with my 2004  one ton Dodge diesel..5 spd, std. 23.8 mpg on the overhead trip gauge and used only a 1/4 tank. Took the back way as well, lots of hills..


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 23, 2013)

charly said:


> with my 2004 one ton Dodge diesel..5 spd, std. 23.8 mpg on the overhead trip gauge and used only a 1/4 tank. Took the back way as well, lots of hills..


 
They still make 5 speeds? I thought they were all 6.


----------



## charly (Aug 23, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> They still make 5 speeds? I thought they were all 6.


Yup, mine is a 5 speed, final drive is the same as the 6 speed, just gave you some more range on the gears going up..


----------



## charly (Aug 23, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> They still make 5 speeds? I thought they were all 6.


I'll tell you a real funny story,,, We bought a used 81 diesel rabbit.. Shifter knob top had no really good visible numbers.. After the wife driving the car for two years, one day while I was driving the car I said to my wife that a friend that drove us to our line clearing job doing tree work had a diesel Jetta with a 5 speed.. I then pushed in the clutch and at the same time said 5th would be right here,,,, and there it was!!  Here with no numbers I figured we had a 4 speed as you could barely see anything... Wow did we laugh.. Neither one of us ever tried for 5 th gear.. They had made 4 and 5 speeds back then..


----------



## Ashful (Aug 23, 2013)

charly said:


> Yup, mine is a 5 speed, final drive is the same as the 6 speed, just gave you some more range on the gears going up..


 

Funny story on the VW!  I'll say that I'm not a fan of these 6 speeds.  If they had kept 5th were it always was, and made the 6th a higher ratio gear, I'd have been much happier.  I didn't need more middle gears to hunt between first and top gear.

Now, my 6-speed truck screams 3000+ RPM, just like my old 5-speed truck, going down the highway at any civilized speed.  Stupid.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 23, 2013)

charly said:


> I'll tell you a real funny story,,, We bought a used 81 diesel rabbit.. Shifter knob top had no really good visible numbers.. After the wife driving the car for two year, one day while I was driving the car I said to my wife that a friend that drove us to our line clearing job doing tree work had a diesel Jetta with a 5 speed.. I then pushed in the clutch and at the same time said 5th would be right here,,,, and there it was!!  Here with no numbers I figured we had a 4 speed as you could barely see anything... Wow did we laugh.. Neither one of us ever tried for 5 th gear.. They had made 4 and 5 speeds back then..


 
Oh yes, I had a VW 5 speed from 1980. Complete with the push down to get to reverse. Though I knew it was a 5 speed on that golfball dimpled shift knob. Mine was a scirroco


----------



## charly (Aug 23, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> Oh yes, I had a VW 5 speed from 1980. Complete with the push down to get to reverse. Though I knew it was a 5 speed on that golfball dimpled shift knob. Mine was a scirroco


They were good cars except for head gaskets,, and got great mileage. I think we paid 500 dollars for a 6 year old diesel Rabbit.. The good old days, and diesel was cheap! Found out later that new head bolts and a re torque after running the motor kept the head gaskets from leaking... I even bought the dial indicator for the pump , locking plate for the cam and the pump pin lock, all for under 200 dollars... Life was simple back then...


----------



## basod (Aug 23, 2013)

Hopefully someone out there is listening but the reason I've figured a 1/2T "eco" diesel hasn't hit the states is cost and emissions.
I looked at the chevy website today and a duramax/Allison option is 7200+1200.
They plan on introducing a Cruz diesel with 42mpg highway(could be 55+ with the right mosfets and tinkering ) the pictures of the little diesel vs the duramax scream complicated.


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 23, 2013)

basod said:


> They plan on introducing a Cruz diesel with 42mpg highway(


 
These are on the road NOW. I followed one on my motorcycle merging onto the freeway and it accelerated very well. Look for the little green emblem on the trunk lid.


----------



## charly (Aug 23, 2013)

basod said:


> Hopefully someone out there is listening but the reason I've figured a 1/2T "eco" diesel hasn't hit the states is cost and emissions.
> I looked at the chevy website today and a duramax/Allison option is 7200+1200.
> They plan on introducing a Cruz diesel with 42mpg highway(could be 55+ with the right mosfets and tinkering ) the pictures of the little diesel vs the duramax scream complicated.


I'm betting it will be near a 40 thousand dollar car too.


----------



## RSNovi (Aug 23, 2013)

I think I read the Ram diesel is a $3k option.  I wish Ford would join the game with a diesel or even Chevy.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 23, 2013)

RSNovi said:


> I think I read the Ram diesel is a $3k option.  I wish Ford would join the game with a diesel or even Chevy.


In 3/4 ton, diesel is an $7995 option, even with downgrade from auto to manual trans.


----------



## RSNovi (Aug 23, 2013)

RSNovi said:


> I think I read the Ram diesel is a $3k option. I wish Ford would join the game with a diesel or even Chevy.


 
Sorry, I should have specified Ram 1500.


----------



## Kevin* (Aug 23, 2013)

RSNovi said:


> Sorry, I should have specified Ram 1500.


Ford did but their market research said the market didn't want it. They will finish r&d soon I bet to compete if they start loosing sales.


----------



## basod (Aug 25, 2013)

GM had a 1/2T diesel project in the works prior to the bankruptcy -a lot of money in R&D sitting on the shelf right now.



Highbeam said:


> These are on the road NOW. I followed one on my motorcycle merging onto the freeway and it accelerated very well. Look for the little green emblem on the trunk lid.


I hadn't been keeping up with the release date, just knew of the plan to introduce sometime this year.  Looks like a diesel Cruze comes in ~$27k hard to tell what trim package it comes in
Might be GM dipping their toe in the water which is easier with an engine that has been running in Europe for several years now.
Something tells me a reasonable sized/priced diesel in a 1/2T with mid 20's MPG would sell like hot cakes


----------



## JustWood (Aug 25, 2013)

Ford is coming out with a 5 cylinder 3.2 powerstroke next year. I believe it will only be available in vans.


----------



## basod (Aug 25, 2013)

JustWood said:


> Ford is coming out with a 5 cylinder 3.2 powerstroke next year. *I believe it will only be available in vans*.


Ford's "One Plan"  - bring strangely designed vehicles to every continent .  GM is following their lead, except the new Colorado/Canyon will be slightly reshaped for the NA market


----------



## pybyr (Aug 25, 2013)

What I'd drool over would be a six cylinder, in-line, long stroke (small bore, long crankshaft throw- for lots of torque) 4 liter (240 CI) turbo diesel. Inline sixes, though largely forgotten these days (except for the Cummins/ Dodge and lots of big highway trucks) are inherently balanced, smoother than any other engine design, and with a long stroke, very torquey- and the inline layout makes it possible to have a turbo without an unmanageable mess of intake and exhaust piping to and fro over top of, behind, and around a V-bank engine.  I'd like sort of a little brother to the Cummins TD.  And I'd have nothing against electronics as long as it's kept as simple as feasible (which can be done, it's just that the manufacturers don't seem to want to bother).


----------



## ewdudley (Aug 25, 2013)

pybyr said:


> ... Inline sixes, though largely forgotten these days (except for the Cummins/ Dodge and lots of big highway trucks) are inherently balanced, smoother than any other engine design, and with a long stroke, very torquey- and the inline layout makes it possible to have a turbo without an unmanageable mess of intake and exhaust piping to and fro over top of, behind, and around a V-bank engine.


Or a three-cylinder even, if you're really, really determined:

http://www.farmshow.com/view_articles.php?a_id=87


----------



## RSNovi (Aug 25, 2013)

I think a big reason why there are so many complicated electronics is because of the emission standards.


----------



## charly (Aug 25, 2013)

pybyr said:


> What I'd drool over would be a six cylinder, in-line, long stroke (small bore, long crankshaft throw- for lots of torque) 4 liter (240 CI) turbo diesel. Inline sixes, though largely forgotten these days (except for the Cummins/ Dodge and lots of big highway trucks) are inherently balanced, smoother than any other engine design, and with a long stroke, very torquey- and the inline layout makes it possible to have a turbo without an unmanageable mess of intake and exhaust piping to and fro over top of, behind, and around a V-bank engine. I'd like sort of a little brother to the Cummins TD. And I'd have nothing against electronics as long as it's kept as simple as feasible (which can be done, it's just that the manufacturers don't seem to want to bother).


I love my straight 6BT Cummins diesel.  2004 starting to rust, but will try to keep her alive... 147,000 miles,, like new...for a diesel.. 24mpg highway, 1 ton, 5 spd,, I love every minute behind the wheel.. An awesome truck to drive, especially having a standard.. I just feather through the gears..


----------



## Machria (Aug 27, 2013)

Stephen in SoKY said:


> I'm waiting for the VW Rabbit Pickup to come back.......without all the anti-smog crap we have to contend with these days. I had a 1985 Jetta diesel that was just about perfect.


 
EXACTLY!

I had a 1978 VW Rabbit, with a Diesel in it. BEST CAR I have ever owned, by far! It got 52 MPG. Yes, FIFTY TWO MILES PER GALLON of diesel fuel, which in the early 80's cost about 65 CENTS per gallon! The fuel tanks was 10 gallons, which meant a FULL tank of fuel was under $7 (yes, you read correctly, less than 7 dollars!). And for 7 gardamn dollars I would travel 500 miles! *FIVE HUNDRED MILES for SEVEN DOLLARS!* I was in college at the time, and my school was exactly 225 miles from my home on Long Island. So $7 would get me a round trip to and from school. I would take 3 other passengers AND their baggage, and charge $30 each for the round trip which was bargain for them. Meanwhile, I had a profit of $83, read: BEER money for the next few weeks (hey, Schlitz was 99 cents a sixpack back then!) before I made a run home again. That Rabbit had 250k miles on it, when an old girlfiend of mine wrecked it. It was still running perfect, and looked perfect, probably good for another 100k if it hadn't been wrecked.

What KILLS me about all this is, we are now 40 GARDAMN years later and we can't buy a frukin car that gets 30 MPG! We can send 6 guys up to space, let them live up their for 6 months with no extra fuel or food.....       We can send a dune buggy up to mars, and drive it around via remote control taking pictures and video all while doing science lab projects ON MARS sending all the data back to earth millions and millions of miles away!

BUT your telling me we can't make a simple CAR that gets the same or better fuel economy that my 4 door hatchback got in 1978? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

This just KILLS me!


----------



## charly (Aug 27, 2013)

Machria said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> I had a 1978 VW Rabbit, with a Diesel in it. BEST CAR I have ever owned, by far! It got 52 MPG. Yes, FIFTY TWO MILES PER GALLON of diesel fuel, which in the early 80's cost about 65 CENTS per gallon! The fuel tanks was 10 gallons, which meant a FULL tank oif fuel was under $7 (yes, you read correctly, less than 7 dollars!). And for 7 gardamn dollars I would travel 500 miles! *FIVE HUNDRED MILES for SEVEN DOLLARS!* I was in college at the time, and my school was exactly 225 miles from my home on Long Island. So $7 would get me a round trip to and from school. I would take 3 other passengers from the ride board, and $30 each for the round trip, a bargain for them. Meanwhile, I had a profit of $83, read: BEER money for the next few weeks (hey, Schlitz was 99 cents a sixpack back then!) before I made a run home again. That Rabbit had 250k miles on it, when an old girlfiend of mine wrecked it. It was still running perfect, and looked perfect, probably good for another 100k.
> 
> ...


They don't want to make a car that good again! We'd have money to spend on other things besides fuel,,, guess that would be a bad thing as maybe it would turn the economy around! Now we wouldn't want that to happen would we ! With the price of fuel now we would need a diesel Rabbit that would get 250 plus miles to a gallon to get back to those days! Pretty sad! Whole thing is a big rip off!


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Aug 27, 2013)

Machria said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> I had a 1978 VW Rabbit, with a Diesel in it. BEST CAR I have ever owned, by far! It got 52 MPG. Yes, FIFTY TWO MILES PER GALLON of diesel fuel, which in the early 80's cost about 65 CENTS per gallon! The fuel tanks was 10 gallons, which meant a FULL tank of fuel was under $7 (yes, you read correctly, less than 7 dollars!). And for 7 gardamn dollars I would travel 500 miles! *FIVE HUNDRED MILES for SEVEN DOLLARS!* I was in college at the time, and my school was exactly 225 miles from my home on Long Island. So $7 would get me a round trip to and from school. I would take 3 other passengers AND their baggage, and charge $30 each for the round trip which was bargain for them. Meanwhile, I had a profit of $83, read: BEER money for the next few weeks (hey, Schlitz was 99 cents a sixpack back then!) before I made a run home again. That Rabbit had 250k miles on it, when an old girlfiend of mine wrecked it. It was still running perfect, and looked perfect, probably good for another 100k if it hadn't been wrecked.
> 
> ...


 


My little Jetta (Somewhat heavier) got 50 regardless of how I drove it. In the city, A/C on, no problem. It did NOT belch black smoke either. It had quite adequate acceleration and was solid & comfortable as well. I did have one advantage on fuel: My family farmed and kept tanks/electric pumps of off road diesel............

Want the same Rabbit/Jetta/Passat that we used to have brand new? Just head south of the border. I'm so glad the border stops all those perceived nasty emissions and prevents their entry into the United States.

ETA: Grab a new pair of Stihls while you're down there. They'll still adequately oil their bars and the mufflers will still be open enough to let them run. Need a 660 here in the States? A 440 will be more than enough if bought down there.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 27, 2013)

charly said:


> They don't want to make a car that good again! We'd have money to spend on other things besides fuel,,, guess that would be a bad thing as maybe it would turn the economy around! Now we wouldn't want that to happen would we !


 
No... we don't. Rather than complaining about a system you can't fix... learn to use it to your advantage.

<--- started acquiring Exxon stock in 2002...


----------



## Machria (Aug 27, 2013)

Joful said:


> No... we don't. Rather than complaining about a system you can't fix... learn to use it to your advantage.
> 
> <--- started acquiring Exxon stock in 2002...


 
SELL IT!    Exxon and the rest of the oil companies will all be bankrupt in short order when the "new fuel" that is about to be invented comes out.  SELL SELL SELL!


Personally, I have no haitred for large oil companies as most poeple do.  I have hatred for the American CAR companies!   They should be ashamed of themselves for what they did to America, Americans, the American reputation, and our economy and job problems over the last 30 years.  The only people worse than them are the Wall street bonus jack-arses!   

If Ford, GM and Chrystler would have spent some of the TRILLIONS they pocketed over that time period back into R&D, we would likely not be driving at all, we would all be flying around in computerized flying PODS that do not crash, and travel from NY to LA in 15 minutes!


----------



## Flatbedford (Aug 28, 2013)

I came to this late and didn't read all three pages, but I'd like to add that I would like to have one of those "baby" 400 pounds of torque engines in a 3/4 ton truck. about the same power as the V10 in my F250 with much better mileage would be awesome! Especially if I could get it with a 6spd manual trans. Who the hell needs 800+ pounds of torque in a light truck anyway?


----------



## Foragefarmer (Aug 28, 2013)

Machria said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> I had a 1978 VW Rabbit, with a Diesel in it. BEST CAR I have ever owned, by far! It got 52 MPG. Yes, FIFTY TWO MILES PER GALLON of diesel fuel, which in the early 80's cost about 65 CENTS per gallon! The fuel tanks was 10 gallons, which meant a FULL tank of fuel was under $7 (yes, you read correctly, less than 7 dollars!). And for 7 gardamn dollars I would travel 500 miles! *FIVE HUNDRED MILES for SEVEN DOLLARS!* I was in college at the time, and my school was exactly 225 miles from my home on Long Island. So $7 would get me a round trip to and from school. I would take 3 other passengers AND their baggage, and charge $30 each for the round trip which was bargain for them. Meanwhile, I had a profit of $83, read: BEER money for the next few weeks (hey, Schlitz was 99 cents a sixpack back then!) before I made a run home again. That Rabbit had 250k miles on it, when an old girlfiend of mine wrecked it. It was still running perfect, and looked perfect, probably good for another 100k if it hadn't been wrecked.
> 
> ...


 

The VW Polo in Europe gets over 70 MPG with the diesel engine in it.

Three things in no particular order, EPA, Big Oil, Congress.


----------



## fox9988 (Aug 28, 2013)

Flatbedford said:


> Who the hell needs 800+ pounds of torque in a light truck anyway?


Those wanting to gross 37,600 lbs(2014 Cummins)


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 28, 2013)

fox9988 said:


> Those wanting to gross 37,600 lbs(2014 Cummins)


You need a CDL to drive that (when loaded that heavy) if I understand the laws correctly.  Well over the 26,000 lb threshold.  

Not really sure I want to be that heavy driving a pickup.


----------



## lukem (Aug 29, 2013)

fox9988 said:


> Those wanting to gross 37,600 lbs(2014 Cummins)


 

You wouldn't catch me at almost 40k in a pickup, ever.  That's got stupid written all over it.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 29, 2013)

Machria said:


> SELL IT! Exxon and the rest of the oil companies will all be bankrupt in short order when the "new fuel" that is about to be invented comes out. SELL SELL SELL!


 

Someday, sure... but not yet.  This one's still on the way up, probably a few more years.


----------



## Flatbedford (Aug 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> You wouldn't catch me at almost 40k in a pickup, ever. That's got stupid written all over it


 
That's my point. Total overkill for light truck. Makes them too expensive, too heavy, and now too thirsty. It seems lots of the fleet buyers are going back to the gassers in light trucks now. Too much of a premium price for the oil burners and not much efficiency advantage any more.


----------



## lukem (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm more than half tempted to buy a high mileage F150 and have a 4BT and manual transmission dropped in.  A friend of mine is a mechanic and has done a couple like that...and a couple Ram "shorties" (6BT in a half ton short bed...FUN!).  

I


----------



## Flatbedford (Aug 29, 2013)

I know of a guy that put one in a '70 F250 4x4 and he reported nearly 30 mpg!


----------



## basod (Aug 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> I'm more than half tempted to buy a high mileage F150 and have a 4BT and manual transmission dropped in. A friend of mine is a mechanic and has done a couple like that...and a couple Ram "shorties" (6BT in a half ton short bed...FUN!).
> 
> I


I've seen a 6BT Cummins in an early 90's Silverado.
Someday when I build my dream shop Ole Blue may drink diesel


----------



## JustWood (Aug 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> You wouldn't catch me at almost 40k in a pickup, ever. That's got stupid written all over it.


Agreed,,,, you'd be hard pressed to ever axle the weight correctly to go down the road legally and if you did the trailer and load would whip you like a red headed step chilld


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 29, 2013)

JustWood said:


> Agreed,,,, you'd be hard pressed to ever axle the weight correctly to go down the road legally and if you did the trailer and load would whip you like a red headed step chilld


30K+ on hydraulic/electric brakes (even if the trailer is elec over hyd, still hairy.....) No F'n thank you very much. For what it would likely cost to maintain a 1 ton running that kind of weight I'd think a medium duty or bigger would be cheaper to run.

I've been called crazy, I also have never shied away from loading a truck heavy but let's not get stupid.


----------



## curtis (Aug 30, 2013)

I just got done reading the car and driver review of the 2014 Chevy silverado with the 5.3 thats rated for 22mpg hwy. They ran the chevy, ford, and dodge through a bunch of different tests and said they averaged 13mpg. Now granted they werent going down the road with the cruise set on 50mph. But still, my 92 dodge with over 300K miles gets better than 13mpg when im plowing with it in the winter. For me to go out and spend 40-50K on a truck it would have to get awsome mileage and not rust out in 4 years. I would rather find a super clean low mileage first gen cummins for 10-15K and have a truck 10 times better than any new one. You guys are talking about getting a diesel that dosent have complicated electronics on it? Forget it! Not going to happen, Im a diesel mechanic and theres almost nothing you can do with these vehicles without first pluging in a laptop and running tests on the pcm. They are nothing like the old mechanical 6BT or 4BT diesels that i have in my dodge. Parts for them are super expensive and usually require quite a bit of labor just to replace them. The only good thing about the new diesel trucks is that the usually have a nice 5-6 yr 100k mile warranty.


----------



## Machria (Aug 30, 2013)

Yikes!    I have a pair of Yanmar 6LPA's in my boat, simple, efficient workhorses.   They just LOVE to run.  Wish I could put one of those in a truck.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 31, 2013)

pybyr said:


> What I'd drool over would be a six cylinder, in-line, long stroke (small bore, long crankshaft throw- for lots of torque) 4 liter (240 CI) turbo diesel. Inline sixes, though largely forgotten these days (except for the Cummins/ Dodge and lots of big highway trucks) are inherently balanced, smoother than any other engine design, and with a long stroke, very torquey- and the inline layout makes it possible to have a turbo without an unmanageable mess of intake and exhaust piping to and fro over top of, behind, and around a V-bank engine. I'd like sort of a little brother to the Cummins TD. And I'd have nothing against electronics as long as it's kept as simple as feasible (which can be done, it's just that the manufacturers don't seem to want to bother).


 
Agreed on all counts.  The problem is the American consumer - for the average hillrod "V8" sounds a lot better than "straight 6" despite the latter's proven track record as a superior work engine in both gas and diesel engines.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 31, 2013)

RSNovi said:


> I think a big reason why there are so many complicated electronics is because of the emission standards.


 
WINNER! WINNER! CHICKEN DINNER!


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 31, 2013)

fox9988 said:


> Those wanting to gross 37,600 lbs(2014 Cummins)


 

Pass


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 31, 2013)

Bigg_Redd said:


> Agreed on all counts.  The problem is the American consumer - for the average hillrod "V8" sounds a lot better than "straight 6" despite the latter's proven track record as a superior work engine in both gas and diesel engines.


I can think of exactly ONE inline six engine that approaches the work capacity of my big block V8.   And it needs diesel fuel and a turbocharger to do it. 

Sure a small block or even a straight six (love me an inline btw) can make similar power but lifespan is limited and the big block will just keep pulling.  Latest inline six (gas that is)in trucks that I'm aware of is the GM 4.2l.  Never made it into a pickup unfortunately but was a sweet runner for the Envoy/Trailblazer crowd.  I drive the 5 cyl version daily in my Canyon.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 31, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> I can think of exactly ONE inline six engine that approaches the work capacity of my big block V8. And it needs diesel fuel and a turbocharger to do it.
> 
> Sure a small block or even a straight six (love me an inline btw) can make similar power but lifespan is limited and the big block will just keep pulling. Latest inline six (gas that is)in trucks that I'm aware of is the GM 4.2l. Never made it into a pickup unfortunately but was a sweet runner for the Envoy/Trailblazer crowd. I drive the 5 cyl version daily in my Canyon.


 
Hmmmm. . . . IMO, the best gasoline powered work engine is the Ford 300-6.  It makes decent (but not great) power and it is as durable and reliable as an anvil.  The old Ford 218 was the same way.  The Dodge slant 6, same story.


----------



## MasterMech (Aug 31, 2013)

Bigg_Redd said:


> Hmmmm. . . . IMO, the best gasoline powered work engine is the Ford 300-6.  It makes decent (but not great) power and it is as durable and reliable as an anvil.  The old Ford 218 was the same way.  The Dodge slant 6, same story.


Agreed on the reliability but its matched by the big-block Chevy and the BB will haul circles around any of those engines.  I've seen a slant six powering a stationary generator for a small estate.  Ran on propane, thought that was pretty neat.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Aug 31, 2013)

Matched, eh?  In this we disagree.


----------



## Machria (Sep 1, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> I can think of exactly ONE inline six engine that approaches the work capacity of my big block V8. And it needs diesel fuel and a turbocharger to do it.


 
Yep, the Yanmar 6LPA-STP!     Inline 6 turbo that drinks diesel.  Workhorse!


----------



## Huntindog1 (Sep 1, 2013)

I think you guys will like the fuel economy of the new Cummins. 
You can have your power and fuel economy.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 1, 2013)

When GM was getting the new 4.5L ready for the 1/2 ton in 2008 they were claiming 300HP 8 Cy and high 20s to 30 MPG. Well of course the bottom dropped out of the truck market GM went bankrupt and the 4.5 is still on the shelf waiting to be dusted off. The Duramax HD 3/4 ton is rated 400HP is quite a bear,gets decent MPG numbers, but overkill for many PU truck owners. There is
a market for a light duty PU diesel. Just how much well see when dodge brings it out.


----------



## RSNovi (Sep 1, 2013)

If the Dodge can get 26 mpg or above on the highway I am go to get one.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 1, 2013)

RSNovi said:


> If the Dodge can get 26 mpg or above on the highway I am go to get one.


Guy at a filling station told me he was gettin high 20swith his old in line 6cy cummins (dont remember the year. I heard that in a few places.
Id be interested in ANY pickup of ANY size that could approach 30MPG I think there was an izuzu or toyota some foreign diesel that did in the 80s


----------



## Foragefarmer (Sep 1, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Guy at a filling station told me he was gettin high 20swith his old in line 6cy cummins (dont remember the year. I heard that in a few places.
> Id be interested in ANY pickup of ANY size that could approach 30MPG I think there was an izuzu or toyota some foreign diesel that did in the 80s



The VW Rabbit Pickup with a 1.6 liter diesel engine got 45 MPG. More realistically it was the upper 30s. Toyota had a diesel till the mid 80s that got in the 30s as a 4x4 but was not a good seller. Other than that I can't remember. That Rabbit was a dog and had rust problems from what I remember.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 1, 2013)

Foragefarmer said:


> The VW Rabbit Pickup with a 1.6 liter diesel engine got 45 MPG. More realistically it was the upper 30s. Toyota had a diesel till the mid 80s that got in the 30s as a 4x4 but was not a good seller. Other than that I can't remember. That Rabbit was a dog and had rust problems from what I remember.


I just missed a deal on one of those 80s toyota diesels. Not sure if i was lucky or unlucky to have missed the deal.


----------



## Machria (Sep 2, 2013)

Foragefarmer said:


> The VW Rabbit Pickup with a 1.6 liter diesel engine got 45 MPG. More realistically it was the upper 30s. Toyota had a diesel till the mid 80s that got in the 30s as a 4x4 but was not a good seller. Other than that I can't remember. That Rabbit was a dog and had rust problems from what I remember.



I don't remember the size of my VW Rabbit disel, but I do remember it being a 48hp motor.  Around town t he car was fine, not a jack-rabbit (pun intended!) off the line, but it was fine.  It was stick so that helped a lot.  If you were doing 60mph on the hwy, and came to a hill (with 3 or 4 people in the car, it would start to bog down.  BUT, it got 51-52 mpg.

I'd like to see them make a Mini Cooper S truck.


----------



## Foragefarmer (Sep 2, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I just missed a deal on one of those 80s toyota diesels. Not sure if i was lucky or unlucky to have missed the deal.



Unlucky in my book, they are really hard to find. They didn't sell because of cheap gas, they were more expensive, and 70 HP vs 97 HP for the 22r and 115 HP for the 22re. I keep my eye on CL and if I see one locally and have the money I will buy one. I was close about a year ago but just missed it.


----------



## pybyr (Sep 5, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> I can think of exactly ONE inline six engine that approaches the work capacity of my big block V8.   And it needs diesel fuel and a turbocharger to do it.
> 
> Sure a small block or even a straight six (love me an inline btw) can make similar power but lifespan is limited and the big block will just keep pulling.  Latest inline six (gas that is)in trucks that I'm aware of is the GM 4.2l.  Never made it into a pickup unfortunately but was a sweet runner for the Envoy/Trailblazer crowd.  I drive the 5 cyl version daily in my Canyon.


If the inline 6 wasn't a highly durable design it wouldn't be so prevalent- and it is prevalent- in the big over the road semis.  A V-8 has no durability advantage.  You're making comparisons between small displacement I-6s and big displacement V8s, which is apples to oranges. Remember, also, that when each of the domestic Big 3 offered I-6s, they were always built and set up as the entry level cheapskate engine- i.e with an unsophisticated 1 barrel carb and manifolds that were cheap and rugged but anything but free-flowing.  It's amazing how much they "woke up" if you changed some of that. A friend had a 64 Plymouth Valiant, back when that qualified as a beater not as a classic. We took that 225 Slant Six, put on a Clifford aluminum intake, Clifford headers (3+3 into glasspacks), a small Rochester Quadrajet carburetor, and moved both the static timing and the advance curve as aggressive as we could make it go without pinging on premium gas and WHOA did that thing haul, even at 225ci. This was early 1980s, and running worn snow tires in the back for traction (it was all about making it a cheap and ugly 'sleeper'), it'd leave factory V8 small block Camaros wheezing behind it off the line and up to about 40 mph.


----------



## pybyr (Sep 5, 2013)

MasterMech said:


> I drive the 5 cyl version daily in my Canyon.



I don't "get" any of the manufacturers' use of an I-5 or for that matter a V-10- I-6 is so smooth, that if you are going 5 in a row, better to go 6, and if you want a v, do a V-8 or a 60 degree V6, or if you have to go with a high cylinder count, a V12, which shares the I-6's inherent smoothness...


----------



## MasterMech (Sep 5, 2013)

pybyr said:


> If the inline 6 wasn't a highly durable design it wouldn't be so prevalent- and it is prevalent- in the big over the road semis.  A V-8 has no durability advantage.  You're making comparisons between small displacement I-6s and big displacement V8s, which is apples to oranges.



I was making comparisons amongst engines commonly found in _pickup trucks._. Not  passenger cars or OTR semi's. (Talk about apples and oranges.....) If the I6 is all that and a bag of chips, why is nearly every pickup on the road a V6 or a V8?  Inline engines outside of four-bangers are a rarity these days.  You would think there is plenty of room under the hood to fit an I6 in most full size pickups so why isn't happening more often?  With modern day fuel injection the plumbing would be dirt simple too.  There has to be a reason they are not offering an I6 in base model pickups...... 

Early 80s was a good time to go picking on V8 Camaros/Mustangs with sub-200hp V8s. [/quote]


----------

