Momentum Builds for More Diesels

Cummins Vanguard_V8 II

If you are a diesel fan, you'll love this news.

According to USA Today, some experts are predicting that one in four SUVs sold in the U.S. by 2018 will have a turbo-diesel under the hood. Those same experts are predicting as many as 10 percent of all vehicles will be bought with a diesel. These are huge number shifts, especially when you consider that just a few years ago it was only high-end luxury German sedans that offered the option.

Of course, nowhere are the expectations higher for a diesel powertrain's potential than in the midsize and half-ton pickup truck segments. Nissan just announced it will partner with Cummins to offer a turbo-diesel 5.0-liter V-8 in the next-generation Titan. Chrysler will offer the new VM Motori EcoDiesel in the Ram 1500. Ford will have a Baby PowerStroke ready in the coming full-size Transit van that could easily fit inside a new F-150. And GM's new Colorado and Canyon pickup trucks reportedly will offer a small turbo-diesels when they roll off the production lines in Thailand. According to Automotive News, GM's executive chief engineer for full-size and midsize pickups thinks there's potential, but offering too many choices could be just as bad as offering too few.

Whether or not these new turbo-diesel powertrains will succeed is anyone's guess. There's no question the better torque, better fuel economy and lower lifetime costs are huge benefits, but diesel fuel is still pricey (in most places around the country it costs more than premium gas), the engine options are significant and diesel is not as available as gas.

Still, the biggest hurdles may not be consumer driven. Diesel is not recognized by the government as an "alternative fuel," so companies producing and selling diesel engines do not qualify for subsidies like electric, hydrogen or hybrid technologies do. If that changes, we could see the costs for diesel fuel and diesel engine technology drop considerably.

We predict that as people recognize the strengths of diesel engines and fuel, and as more people get a chance to experience their torquey powertrains, the numbers could grow faster than predicted. And when the first company to sell a decent diesel hybrid in the U.S. succeeds, the momentum will build even faster. Of course, when we have more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road — thereby reducing tax revenues for city, state and federal governments — you can bet government will find another way to squeeze money from our transportation cost savings.

Colorado in Thailand plant II



Bring them on! This is what a lot of us have been clamoring for.
The article stated that diesel fuel is not readily available as in the Midwest it's at 95% or more of the fuel stations around here and almost 100% at any station along the Interstate highways.
Bio-diesel is big here in farm country. I run it all the time and have not had a issue with it.

Just as Big Al from Oz predicted. Big Al you were right on spot about the future of diesels in America.

About time. I've been waiting for more diesel options for years. I'm still waiting for a new diesel full size SUV (Expedition/Suburban).

The new diesels are great, much cleaner, smoother, and quieter than they used to be, and about twice as powerful for a given displacement. We've got a few Ford 6.7Ls and they've been excellent. Much better than our old 7.3's with their stupid high pressure oil pump and camshaft position sensor.

I would love diesel engines if they weren't so dang expensive. Often considered them but a cost-benefit analysis almost always tells me to get a gas engine. Only worth the extra cost if you drive way more than average or you tow heavy loads regularly. I love the idea of a small diesel in a small or half-ton pickup. I think they will sell well since most people don't have a clue how to do a cost-benefit analysis. They will buy them because it feels good to get better mileage or because they are cool, not because they actually save money in most situations. I hope I can eventually get a steal on a used one.

It's a great notion, but I strongly doubt we'll be seeing a diesel pickup in every driveway.

The fact is, diesel powertrains are pricey. Unless an automaker inflates the costs of the gas engines offered in the same line-up, consumers will be asked to pay $4-5k more for a diesel than a gas...and that's where the math falls apart.

If you pay $4k more for the engine, AND you pay more for the fuel (diesel is more expensive than gas in most places in the USA), AND you pay more for fuel filters, air filters, oil changes, DEF, etc., you better get great gas mileage.

Yet EPA fuel economy ratings are anything but reliable, and as many EcoBoost owners have learned, paying more for more MPG isn't always a good idea.

Basically, I think Nissan and Ram deserve a ton of credit for jumping on the diesel bandwagon, and I also think the bandwagon is now very close to full. GM's diesel Colorado should encapsulate the market. Unless diesel half-ton sales really show signs of staying strong, it's hard to imagine Ford, GM, or Toyota offering any additional diesels. The segment of buyers who will spend money for marginal fuel economy gains is small.

The Expedition and F150 needs the 4.4L V8 diesel with hydraulic hybrid.

What these "experts" are predicting is doubtful. The new 3.0L Ecodiesel has 240Hp/420Tq and adds $3000 over the Hemi and will get mid-20s and will require the urea solution etc to meet emissions requirements. Compare it to the EB which has 120Hp more and the same torque, only add a few hundred $$$ to the sticker, runs on 87 octane and has simple maintenance costs. Do the math, you will pick up 3-4 MPG tops but will require a fuel that is ~$.40/gallon more expensive, the motor price will be several thousand dollars more expensive and the maintenance costs will be higher on the diesel. The break even point on this motor will be somewhere north of 10 years and 300,000 miles, by that time the Mopar body that contains it will have rusted away twice.

Go ahead and keep preaching about how foolish it is not to offer something that will never pay itself off. The rest of us will mention something about a fool and their money...

It's not a simple a cost vs. payoff equation for everyone. An extra 5mpg goes a long way on a 120lt tank. If you're looking for range then it's a great choice. I'm not really clamouring for a 3.0 or Ecoboost truck but I can definitely see the benefit of the diesel.

Besides, some people just like diesels. It's just another choice, nobody's holding a gun to your head.

I think that a diesel option is great especially in areas where the price of diesel is at par gas (a couple of cents + or - where I live). The price of the DEF shouldn't be a big deal and it lasts an oil change, so you are not constantly adding it. The cost of maintenance should be close to the same. The big benefit is on resale. Take a look at a full size truck, SUV, or car with a diesel and without (you get your $$ back there).

Yes, I paid more up front for the diesel engine but look at the prices of used diesel vehicles. I'll get most of that premium price back at trade-in time.

We have diesel because we need it. We tow a heavy load regularly, being fulltime rv'ers.

The 2007 Ram with the 6.7L Cummins diesel now has 103k miles and has been trouble-free so far. Still doesn't use any oil between changes. It's far quieter than the older diesels. And, with the desmogged diesel, the tailpipe, still original, is cleaner than those with gas engines.

My only warning to potential buyers is don't spill diesel on your clothes when you are filling the tank.


What is the picture of at the bottom?

PS: The TITAN CUMMINS is the most exciting news...

I'd probably be more inclined to get a midsize truck with a diesel than a fullsize. The Colorado has me interested.

I agree, The Titan 300HP/500+ Ft/Lb of torque is the most exiting news. Everyone one should go in that direction. I'm a FORD Man but when that Titan comes out i,ll be looking at it!!!

Im loving all the news and buzz around small trubodiesels. This can only be good for the end consumer. I am a devout believer in the small turbo diesel religion.

Im also loving all the 3.5l EcoBoost kids getting all antsy about being early adopters of a technology that's going to end up being a one hit wonder if these diesel catch on (and you know it so quit pretending).

If this can be adopted across a wide range of vehicles the premium will drop, diesel will become more refined and lower cost due to increased marketplace, and dont get me started on long term reliability of your all aluminum biturbo dual overhead cam V6 vs a small diesel. Sure it will put a smile on your face, but I do not believe for even one second that an ecoboost will go toe to toe with a good modern turbodiesel in the reliability department, its just no happening. That and whereas a gas biturbo V6 may get great mileage in an EPA lab, I dont know of a single person getting much better than 16mpg avg with their EB in the real word. Diesels (and Im not talking about the giant dinosaurs rolling around in the HD trucks, more on that in a second), just flat out get better mileage than an equivalent gas engine even when used hard. I struggle to get my wife's Jetta TDI to average less than 25mpg even when I drive it hard. If I am being nice it regularly touches 40+. Having driven similar types of gasoline powered cars, my experience is it doesnt take much to drop into the teens on gas mileage if you use the fun pedal too much. So even abusing my TDI, I still get better mileage than some gas cars are even rated for for their Highway mileage, if we can get this to trucks, people will see the light.

I said equivalent earlier because people always use the HD trucks as the example when they gripe about the cost of a diesel over gas (I am plenty guilty of this) but you are comparing two completely different animals. Even the 8.1 vortec didnt hold a candle to the LB7's and LBY/LBZ's it ran alongside with, and that was a good stout modern gas engine, and boy was it thirsty. If an mfg put out a gasoline motor that actually competed with a diesel on power and towing ability the MPG gap would be significantly worse and the gas engine would cost a lot more than it does currently. The ecoboost is 800-1000 more and it just barely outperforms the 5.0l NA V8, now imagine something that competed with the 6.7l diesel and you would get pretty close to the 8k they charge for that and wayyyy worse mileage even if driven politely. As a contrast the Ram ecodiesel and the cummins 5.0 are designed to compare more with the gasoline engines already offered while getting better economy. The monsters they put in the HD trucks are designed to outpull and work longer and harder than the gas engines offered in the same trucks. They serve two different purposes people.

Diesels are not the answer anymore. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago but now it's not.

I don't care what anyone says. They're loud, they're smelly and diesel is nearly 60 cents more a gallon where I live.
I have a neighbor in my cul de sac with a ram with a diesel and it's very loud. Everytime he drives by the dogs go berserk thinking it's UPS. Even the little bee-bop VW diesels make an annoying popcorn maker racket.

Speaking of UPS, they're phasing out a lot of their diesels I noticed. Going to plug in hybrids. That is what I'm interested in. I'm looking to save money on operation and ownership costs not spend more of it.

Not only is the diesel more expensive so are the trucks which means insurance is also going to be more expensive and and the annual property taxes we pay on vehicles will be more expensive too.

Pretty sad that 5 years after we say the first onset of $5 a gallon gas here, the automakers have completely failed to innovate and give us an alternative. They said "You'll drive what we give you. You don't have to like it."

Am I missing something? The economy is still in bad shape and we're having a terrible year.

There was a study done that showed all diesels had a positive cost/benefit ratio. Resale, fuel costs, maitenance etc all showed a payback for diesel engines over their equivalent gas powered counterpart. Interestingly enough, the Cummins Ram HD without DEF had the poorest cost/benefit ratio.
Here is the study:

Total cost of ownership:
3 yrs - $67.00
5 yrs - $587.00
3 yrs - 1,395.00
5 yrs - 763.00
3 yrs - 3,673.00
5 yrs - 1,720.00
3 yrs - 2,720
5 yrs - 2,613

- Even Ford with its 6.0/6.4 problems still has a cost benefit.
- The difference between GMC and Chev was interesting.
- Ram with the "simple" I-6 no DEF had the poorest return on investment.

I should mention that those are savings not added costs - my bad.

Diesels are loud?

Not anymore. And even when they were, that was half of the draw to them. That diesel clatter makes for a much more enjoyable experience.

Diesels stink?

Not anymore. They actually have cleaner tailpipe emissions than a gas engine.

Diesel fuel costs more?

Yes, but you get significantly better fuel economy which evens the overall cost of ownership.

Diesels ARE the way of the future, and some peeps need to do a little research. Reading is good for you. Experience is even better.

@WXMan: As long as they're left Factory Stock, you're absolutely right. However, where I live in Ceciltucky, I don't think I've seen more than three diesel trucks LEFT factory stock. Sure, they sound neat; but nearly every one of them blows more black smoke than a city bus.

Boidiesel is a renewable resource as long as the algea will produce the petro slime and the sun keeps shining to keep the algea growing...... So why we aren't pushing diesel tech is a mystery.

@ Jeremiah Soltis
The picture on the bottom appears to be a global Colorado being painted in their Thai factory.

@Jason the diesels will become more and more popular. It nice to be nostalgic and romance over the past. But while you look at the past to often, you are neglecting your future.

I've been saying we had nearly the same motor vehicle history unfold here. You 'ain't goin' stop it from occurring.

Once these new diesels hit the street there will be many that say, what have we been doing for the past 20 years.

Companies like Cummins will come on line with some better products. This is what I would love to see occur, the US become competitive with global products and not be insular.

I would like to see Cummins take on VM with the light diesels, that is where the money in the future is.

@Jeff S
Within a decade it will be possible to have over 50% of your SUV/pickup/light commercial fleet with small diesels. As you get more and more of these engines costs will reduce.

Bring them on...we need torquey engines with good MPG.

I monitored the MPG in my Tundra 4.6 4x4 down to a mulch yard and then over similar roads to my daughter's house last Friday with 2 yards of mulch in the bed.So what is that..maybe 1500 lbs maybe less? Not a really big load, but a significant mileage difference. And the mileage starts out low to begin with.

Diesels have some great features, like the torque comes in really low in the rpm band. And the resale is great.

I've actually never understood the appeal of having a $50-60k vehicle that sounds like you put river rocks into a paint shaker, billows black smoke like a locomotive, and stinks to high heaven from the fuel being turned up. I can see putting on an intake and exhaust to open it up a little, maybe even a generic tune to strip off factory BS but the whole EFI live crowd turning off pilot injection to make it rattle like an old 12v cummins, making it lope like a farm tractor and blow clouds of thick black smoke... I'll pass.

Then the same people sit around and gripe like a bunch of pre-teens when yet one more federal regulation from the fun police gets passed down and makes a diesel that much more expensive to own and operate. As if that Prius driver you just rolled coal all over doesn't have their state and federal lawmakers' office number or the local Sierra club on speed dial to call and gripe about those smokey loud obnoxious pickup trucks.

I do think it is odd that once someone brings up a 3-4 k price premium on a diesel, it all turns into a discussion about return on investment, cost of fuel, noise etc. No one seems to balk at the extra cost of a Ford 6.2 or Chev 6.2. Even Ford's EB3.5 diesel killer(sarcasm) costs extra. We've just seen a few stories on 10-15k engine mods. Any return on investment on that stuff?
For most, cost of ownership does not enter into the picture. 1/2 of us wouldn't own a pickup if we took a long hard look at that equation.

I will stick with the gas engine. I had one diesel and the cost of owning did not justify for the extra torque and horsepower.

"No one seems to balk at the extra cost of a Ford 6.2"

Yes, they do. It doesn't sell becaues it's a waste of money and you can't find them on the lot anymore.

@Jeremiah -- Probably should have put a caption in there. The bottom photo in the story is taken from the Thailand plant that builds the new Colorado they sell overseas. In that region, they do offer two diesel engines. We should reiterate, that no official announcement has been made by GM as to whether or not a small turbodiesel will be offered when the 2015 Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon debut.

Hmm, so a little V6 diesel in the Ram, a baby powerstroke in a F150 maybe and the Nissan gets a 5.0 V* diesel? Yeah, right on Go Nissan!

That should say 5.0 V8

The ecoboost premium is relatively small so cost-benefit is less important. People buy the ecoboost because it doesn't cost a lot mroe, is faster, and gets the same or better mileage for those that aren't towing with it all the time. And those opting for the 6.2 ford probably just need or want the extra power. Has nothing to do with saving money. Since diesels aren't usually much more fun to drive and are much more expensive they better save you money or there's no point in buying one.

OK then bend over

@beebe - I look at cost/benefit if their is a huge difference in price. That has stopped me from buying any HD diesel but a 3-4k premium when there is a premium for the EB 3.5 or a 6.2 (Ford or GM) would make me more likely to pick a diesel.
If one looked at Ford, the prices in an XLT supercrew over a base 3.7:
5.0 = 1,000
3.5 = 2,095
6.2 = 5,470
GMC (2013 Crew) base engine 4.8
5.3 = 825
6.2 = 2,020
Ram - for some odd reason, I couldn't get their site to spit out prices for the different engines but according to PUTC, the Ecodiesel is supposed to be 2,850 more than the 5.7.

That puts it in within striking distance of the price range of the EB 3.5 and well under the over priced Ford 6.2.
It is over the 6.2 Chevy but will generate much better mpg when compared to any of the premium gas engines.
The EB 3.5 gets good mpg empty depending on how you drive it. 2 camps have formed around that motor. Both camps like the power and one camp says mpg is as bad as any V8 and the other camp says it gets great empty mpg. I know guys who fall into both categories.

I personally would not get a diesel right now since I spend a lot of time covering short distances and 1/2 the year in cold weather. That kind of driving would be brutal on a diesel, especially one with regen cycles.

The Ram Ecodiesel (VM Motori 3.0) will be a decent engine and I bet that the Cummins 5.0 V8 will be a beast.

@Beebe - I forgot to add that if I had to replace my truck in the next year, I'd most likely consider a Chevy/GM with a 5.3. The power is up over the previous 5.3 and gets the best MPG of the bunch. Once the newbie gremlins are worked out of it and the novelty of a new truck wears off, discounts will be offered and will make the GM a good buy.
I have "trust" issues in relation to Ram and I'll let someone else test the 8 speed and air ride. One can get a Ram without the air ride or 8 speed but it makes no sense to stay with the 6 speed. That is another point - Ram charges an extra 1,000 for those 2 extra cogs.

The claim that the ecoboost does not command much of a "premium" and therefore have a "less important" cost-benefit analysis, while stating that diesel does are either ignorant or out of their minds.

Truecar pricing for an F150 SCREW FX4 will cost you an additional $1095 to move from the 5.0 V8 to the 3.5L ecoboost (and that is for the 2013, I would not be surprised to see that jump a bit for 2014).

Since Ram is taking forever to release a 1500 with the ecodiesel, the best we can do is look to the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and for argument's sake assume that the Ram upgrade pricing will be similar. Truecar pricing for a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland will cost you an additional $1805 to move from the 5.7L Hemi V8 to the 3.0L ecodiesel.

That results in a grand total of $710 difference to go with an ecodiesel over an ecoboost. We haven't seen the ecodiesel's real world fuel economy yet, but dollars to dimes says it *thoroughly* trounces the ecoboost.

In other words, if the ecoboost is "close enough" in price to the V8 to not need a roi calculation, then so is the ecodiesel. If you want to try to compare across manufacturers which is the better buy you will have to save $710 in fuel, and be content with the lower (significantly) power output of the ecodiesel to break even.

Also, to do the calculation for going from the Hemi to the ecodiesel. Around here at a local Hess Regular is $3.46 and Diesel is $3.83. That is a difference of about 11% (if you compare against 89 octane as is recommended this spread is even less). The V8 Hemi in a 2014 Grand Cherokee 4x4 is rated 14/20 by the EPA. The Ecodiesel is rated 21/28 in the same vehicle. That is a fuel economy improvement of *AT LEAST* 40% across the board. And that is assuming they hit the EPA numbers, which the diesel is *much* more likely to do. So you do the math. A total upcharge of $1805 over the hemi. Fuel costs 11% more (probably less than this). Vehicle gets 40% better fuel economy (probably more than this). At 10K highway miles per year the ecodiesel would consume 10,000/28 = 357 gallons of fuel, at today's price of $3.83/gallon the total cost would be $1368. The Hemi at 10K highway miles per year would consume 10,000/20 = 500 gallons of fuel. And at today's price of $3.46 that would come to $1730 per year on fuel, for a difference of $1730-$1368 = $362. At a cost of $1805 it would take $1805/$362 = ~5 years to pay for itself in fuel savings alone. AND that is with biasing the numbers away from the ecodiesel, the reality would probably be a faster payback.

Now whether or not the 2.8L rumored to go into the Colorado, or the 5.0 Cummins that is going into the Titan will be similar is anyone's bet. But as it stands, if the Ram pricing is similar to the Cherokee pricing, the ecodiesel will probably do *very* well.

You misunderstood me and then insulted me for no good reason.

"ignorant out of their minds"? Hold your horses. I'm just saying that those who buy an ecoboost usually buy it because they love the way it drives while still getting decent mileage. People don't buy the ecoboost to save money, but they do buy a diesel to save money. I don't know anybody that bought an ecoboost over a 5.0 because they think it is saving them money. I hear people brag about the good gas mileage, but mostly I hear how powerful and fun it is to drive. The added performance alone is worth the cost for most people so they don't CARE much if it costs more. But in my experience a diesel is not any more fun to drive than a comparable gas engine. So if you're going to buy it then it better save you money or there's no point. You see what I'm saying? That's all I'm saying. I pretty much agree with everything else you said. If the ecodiesel really only costs slightly more that's great. As far as I know pricing hasn't been released on the ecodiesel in the ram. So if it is only slightly more expensive then that's great. But saying I am ignorant out of my mind because I don't know about the pricing on a brand new engine that isn't even available yet is not really fair. I'm sure if it only has $1,000 premium it will be worth the cost in the long run. I was just responding to Lou's comment about why me make a big deal about return on investment with a diesel vs. gas but not so much when it comes to the ecoboost vs. 5.0

For the record I DO own a 3/4 ton diesel. I use it for my business (farming) and obviously I decided it was worth the cost. I was mostly thinking small cars (volkswagen jetta) when I made my first comment about how I almost find gas vehicles to be more cost-effective. My whole premise was that they are too dang expensive. If they can actually make the ecodiesel reasonably more expensive than gas, then maybe it will be worth it. I just assumed it would be a 4-5k premium as I am used to which would not pay for itself very easily. I recall reading an article stating that it could be as much as a $5,000 premium for the ecodiesel.

It's $3000 over the price of the Hemi.

This might be the case at the moment in the US, but once diesels becomes more popular people will buy a small diesel pickup because it is diesel.

I have read so much about the cost of gas vs diesel on this site and the reality is people are spending more and more on pickups. Why? For additional features.

Why would you buy a large V8 when a V6 will give better economy and be cheaper? The same logic will apply to diesel. People will still have decent towing and economy with diesel. Whereas a V8 will give decent towing and acceleration. Diesel will eventually win out with large vehicles as the performance will be adequate for most.

Diesel will be an additional feature worth spending extra on.

This site has a number of V8 gas diehards who will always put down diesel using any excuse, but the mainstream who buy pickups probably don't even know PUTC exists.

Another thing. You are comparing two engine 5.7 hemi which is old and outdated and is inefficient with a brand new diesel which is very efficient. and you say the payback will be 5 years or less. What if instead of releasing a diesel they developed a gas engine that gets significantly better gas mileage than the 5.7 like chevy did with their trucks? You can do the math if you want to but it's not worth it to me to figure out right now. But I'm sure it would make the payback time a lot longer for the diesel. Maybe it works for ram since they have such a terribly inefficient engine to compare it to (my 09 ram 5.7 gets 14 mpg not towing which is about the same as my 3/4 ton ford driving the same roads). You realize that Ford is planning to improve fuel economy 15 to 20 percent with their trucks next year? What will the payback time be then?


The Ford brand has had 92 recalls since 2009, substantially higher than the next highest brands — Chevrolet, at 70, and Toyota, at 68, a search of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database reveals. Of course, such a search doesn't take into account the severity of individual recalls or that the Ford nameplate is part of the larger Ford Motor. When recalls in its various divisions are added up, General Motors outpaces Ford on recalls overall

@beebe, " 5.7 hemi which is old and outdated and is inefficient "
Yet........ still smoking Ford and Chevy V8's and Turbo six. lol




@Hemi V8

The Hemi isn't smoking Ford EcoBoost lol, look at YouTube videos, the EcoBoost is faster. Yet gets better mpg and doesn't require mid-grade fuel for optimum fuel economy.


NO Glory


Thats's the cheesiest slogan by the way. Fits with Ram's Mike The Situation designed fake barbed wire Longhorn. (The name Longhorn was ripped off from Chevy).

I was going to buy a Hemi Ram because the Chrysler dealer is closer, but now that the 5.0L Cummins Titan puts out over 300 horses 550 lb ft. That's probably what i'm going to look for.

@BAF0 - Most of us on PUTC are the mainstream and represent what we hear on the street and from friends and neighbours. Now yourself and RR are totally removed from mainstream America. I'm right here and my money will definitely continue to buy new gas V8 trucks.

When an American like Jeff S claims they will buy a small diesel pickup in the future, that may or may not ever come true. If it does, it'll likely be a used truck after someone else bit the bullet on the diesel upgrade. This is why small trucks have such high resale value. Too many are waiting around for a good used one to pop up and not enough willing to step up to the plate on new truck. OEMs love this... The same will happen with light duty diesels.

Diesels are good for a narrow window of driving habits or commute. But even then, it takes years of driving for a payback on a big initial investment. But this assumes no diesel related issues along the way. Otherwise, diesels equal hybrids.

It's great that OEMs will offer this "alternative", but unless you need stump pulling torque or tow a horse trailer, you don't need a diesel. Now we're seeing gas engines as an alternative in Ford and Ram medium duty trucks, up to class 6 for the 1st time. That really says it all. Gas engines have steadily improved while diesel engines have devolved from something simple and bulletproof, with zero electronics, into an exotic German car headache.

I understand some people do want diesels because they've never had one and want something new, exotic or hipster, but it'll get old, fast enough. If I do lose money, over all and down the road by sticking to simple and bulletproof gas engines, it'll be worth every frack'n penny!

I love that I never have to think about my gas engines and can fill up anytime, anyplace and never have to sit there and wait for the one diesel/gas pump while no one is using any of the gas-only pumps. They always put the gas/diesel pumps closest to the entrance for big trucks with trailers. So guess which pump everyone always uses?

And I've never gotten used to the turbo lag when I need instant acceleration. Having lived with diesels all my life, gas engines are the ultimate in luxury.

Built in Thailand? I was under the impression that the Midsize trucks were supposed to be built at the Wentzville plant. The US specific styling requires additional stamping anyways.

@Mark Williams- GM officially announced this past Monday that the Colorado and Canyon will get a diesel option (they just didn't specify what diesel engine).

Neither Ford's 5.0 nor the ecoboost are particularly more fuel efficient than the Hemi that Ram currently uses. EPA numbers are:

F150 4x4 ecoboost: 15/21
F150 4x4 5.0L V8: 14/19
Ram 1500 4x4 5.7L: 13/19 (Ram's Website) or 14/20 (

All roughly equivalent. Real world it would seem that people with the ecoboost win out by 1-2 mpg over those with the V8s. I am not partial to the ecoboost myself, and would likely only consider one if I were living/traveling at altitude frequently. That said I am hoping that the ecoboost is stage 1 of an eventual implementation of Ford's Bobcat concept. If the Bobcat concept can be implemented as well as the prototypes indicated it will be a HUGE step forward in engine technology and would kick diesels out of the equation (at least for light duty trucks) very quickly.

At that point I would be hard pressed to buy anything but a Ford truck. Time will tell what the future plans are.

It is probably also worth pointing out that those EPA numbers are for the vehicles and not the engines. Right now the Ram has the advantage of an 8 spd transmission to help with its mileage rating. I also don't know if that rating uses active grille shutters, air suspension lowering the profile, etc. My guess would be that it does, but if so all of those adjustments+transmission are probably good for *at least* 1 mpg if not 2.

NC Dan, That's not official and not an announcement. It's still a rumor which was spread by AN and "3 people familiar with GM's plan who told AN." They claim it won't be until a year after the truck launches in the fall of 2014. So fall of 2015. As people always say around here I'll believe it when I see it.

Ok, in general I've stayed out of the conversation about price vs value of the different engine types and sizes. Of course, most of you already know I'm not of fan of "bigger is better" as well. However, I'd like to point out a few logical facts that have come up in this discussion which are receiving more emotional rebuttals than logical ones. In other words, you guys are so locked into your 'favorite brand' mindset that you've lost sight of what a truck should be compared to what they are.

1. Bigger IS Better: For those that have an absolute need for heavy hauling one way or another, an HD with a big diesel really is the better choice as a balance between power and economy. Just these last few days I've seen several HDs either hauling incredible loads of hay both on-board and on a 30-foot trailer at the same time as well as pulling 3 to 4-car haulers with everything from Corvettes to Suburbans on board. For these trucks they get the advantage of the huge torque of the engines with a slightly more aerodynamic form factor than a full-sized OTR tractor and as such get from 150% to 200% the mileage. This might not be significant when the load size is so limited compared to the typical car hauler, but when compared to a hauler carrying a light load (and we all do see those on occasion) then the more compact rig has the advantage.

2.) Smaller is not ALWAYS better: You Ford guys in particular keep crowing about how great the EcoBoost engine is, yet you conveniently ignore the two facts that A) You're almost forced to use High-Octane to realize the real power of the engine--usually at a cost of $0.25/gallon more than 87-Octane (which is only about $0.15 cheaper than diesel where I live) and B) the minute you put any significant load on that truck, the fuel mileage goes down the drain. In essence, an EcoBoost truck is at best only good for running empty, which is a complete waste of the truck's purpose. On the other hand...

3.) Smaller is better: Put that same EcoBoost engine into a smaller body (think 1990 Ranger) and you see both increased fuel economy over the full-sized F-150 AND because it's a light-duty truck which itself weighs as much as 1,000lbs lighter than the full-sized truck can carry a roughly-equivalent load by weight and still get better fuel mileage than that otherwise-equal F-150. (As so many of you have bothered to point out to me, a half-ton truck has a typical capacity of 1500 pounds, plus or minus--equating to two passengers and 1,000 pounds of cargo.) So a smaller body is more aerodynamic as well as physically lighter, meaning the loaded Ranger weighs only a little more than an empty F-150.) Of course, when the so-called mid-sized truck is effectively the same size as the full-sized truck, this latter point is effectively moot.

4.) Diesel is more powerful: Yes, certainly the diesel has more horsepower and more torque. When you really need carrying and towing capability, the diesel is the better choice. But ONLY if you really need it.

5.) Gasoline is more powerful: This too is true, but in a different way. Gasoline engines are much more responsive to throttle control--the pedal. When you need quick response for something like passing on a two-lane highway or getting to speed on the freeway ramps, the gasser is the better choice--but at a cost in both economy and overall power in equivalent-sized engines.

So really, most of these arguments (discounting the obvious fanboyisms) have their points, but only for specific purposes. Not everybody needs the same capabilities and to insist that "one size fits all" effectively forces compromise on everyone.

Small addendum to above to avoid confusion:

87 Octane gas where I live is about (I'm rounding numbers here) $3.50/gallon
89 Octane runs $3.65/gallon
93 Octane runs $3.95/gallon and
Diesel runs (get this) $3.68/gallon, only a few cents more than mid-grade gas. This, by the way, is a big difference from last year when diesel was running a minimum of 40 cents more than Regular and often a full 50 cents more.

The comments to this entry are closed.