Land Rover's Diesel Engine Would Be at Home in a Pickup

PUTC_Diesel_560 2 II

By G.R. Whale

Thirty years ago, ending its run as a rear-wheel-drive midsize sedan, the Buick Grand National was so potent some of the automotive press thought it was a great engine looking for a chassis. After driving a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover powered by Land Rover's new 3.0-liter V-6 Td6, I can't help thinking this would make a great luxury pickup truck engine, capable of fending off the current diesel offerings from Mercedes-Benz (Bluetec), Ram (EcoDiesel) and GM (baby Duramax).

The roots of this diesel go back to 1999 and Ford's Dagenham Diesel Centre in England. It was developed as part of a joint venture with PSA Peugeot Citroën and was nicknamed Lion (not a coincidence given Peugeot's logo has incorporated a lion since 1905). The Td6 evolved from a 2.7-liter V-6 block that was later bored 3 millimeters and stroked 2 millimeters to create the redesigned 3.0-liter 24-valve V-6 we have today.

With common-rail injection and a single turbo under the driver's-side rear corner wedge, the 60-degree V-6 is rated at 254 horsepower and produces 440 pounds-feet of torque at 1,750 rpm — just a bit higher than Ram's EcoDiesel. Charge cooling is air-to-water, the cams are belt driven and this is the first Rover stateside with no belt-driven cooling fan, meaning there's a lot of room ahead of the engine in its current applications, similar to a full-size pickup engine bay.

Performance is what you'd expect when driving a heavy Range Rover (our test unit weighed just less than 5,500 pounds, or more than a Ford F-150 SuperCrew 4x4), but it did have us thinking it might have a zero-to-60-mph time in the mid-seven-second range. And the way Land Rover tuned it for wide-open-throttle runs from a standstill, the turbo boost didn't come on as violently as we've experienced in other vehicles; however, it's strong enough to spin the mud out of the tires while retaining the appropriate degree of decorum.

RR-TD6_pickup_560 II

EPA-rated fuel economy for the diesel engine when packaged with the Range Rover is 22/29/25 mpg city/highway/combined. Even with four or five passengers onboard, we got close to 30 mpg on the highway, while city driving work netted us 21 mpg. Along with good fuel economy, the Td6 exhibited an effortless, strong-pulling low-rpm nature that we found impressive. By comparison, the same Range Rover with the less expensive supercharged gas V-6 engine delivers about the same torque at twice the rpm (checking the diesel box bumps up the cost by $1,500). We'd rather have our torque as low as possible.

Yes, we know this is a Range Rover, and they tend to be among the quietest vehicles with their thick windows, heavily sound-proofed aluminum bodies and adjustable air-bag suspensions, but this engine is a standout feature. As quiet as it is, the starter sounds classic Rover. At low engine speeds it can offer a bit of clatter and be loud. At midlevel revs the light clatter is gone. Even during our most enthusiastic romps, we never saw more than 4,100 rpm on the throttle.

If Ford needed a pickup powertrain that delivers better economy and pulling power than the twin-turbo 2.7-liter EcoBoost and didn't want to spend the money on a hybrid to make better fuel economy, this little beast would work pretty well. And if they're smart and want to keep a low floor for cabin room, the Expedition and Navigator teams will jump on it too.

Cars.com illustration and composite by Paul Dolan (above); Manufacturer's engine images (below)

 

Range Rover TD6 engine[4] II

 

Comments

Only a $1,500 option? The Ram and Colorado diesels are $3,000 + option.... sounds like a good option for someone , if they could build them in quantity

Is this thing coming our way? This engine in a Defender 110,
British Racing Green, all the bells and whistles, etc would no
doubt give Jeep major heartburn.

Or, better yet, a Jeep Wrangler 4 door with the Motori
meatball diesel all decked out ala Land Rover in a balls out
head to head showdown....hmmmmm both equipped with a
6spd manual, 3:73 rear, that terrific shade of green, winner
take all cage match. Forget towing. Thats why they invented
3/4 ton pickups. These are real off road ground pounders.

They're almost too nice to get dirty. Just park one in your
driveway and start popping a bunch of cold ones just
looking at it. Make my day.....


@Dave
It's only a $1500 option, because it's against a supercharged V6. If you compare to a naturally aspirated V6, it would probably be about $3000

Jalopnik says "Did I mention I love it?"

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2016-range-rover-diesel-the-ultimate-suv-finally-has-t-1727842288

It´s rumoured to come in the F-150 in 2016 as a 2017 YM.

It will be a hit in several models of cars and trucks.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/17/ford-f150-jaguar-land-rover-diesel-spy-shots/

" Ford could just be trying to keep up with the competition by offering a light-duty diesel pickup."

This will be in the 2017 F-150, with the Fordolet 10 speed.

Actually an old engine, but would be good in the F150. Newer tripe of Diesels in the Amarok, Nissan NP300( Renault Diesel)

I think this would be a welcomed change to the F150. There are still those out there that would love a diesel in a 1/2 ton. It will also give the EcoFiat some good competition. The only thing I really do not like is it using a timing belt. Belts are fine till they break. Chains can too but belts are more prone to it. Once it breaks say good bye to the valves, pistons, and maybe the long block. Let's face it, there is a select few that actually perform regular maintenance. Belt replacement would be key.

Can't wait to hear Ford's excuse when they put a Chinese owned diesel in their truck.

whats wrong with the Gbody Chassis? Man I wish they would build those STILL today. I absolutely LOVE my Grand National and I have a Grand Prix to boot. that 231 buick motor cracks me up, always has...... sounds like garbage starting up, idles like shitake but with a chip, adjustable waste gate, auburn rear with factory 3.42's and a built trans a new Vette has no chance against it as a mid 11's car. that little freak show buick accidentally created 30 years ago adding the intercooler to make a completely "fake" 235 hp is something car enthusiasts as myself still covet to this very day! suggesting it needs a different platform to me is crazy unless were talking that they should have installed it into more vehicles lol...... 89 TTA and then done.

I think it's a good idea. I want to see what GM is rolling out this year. I heard they have a 1500 diesel ready to go. Release of info will be fall.

Land Rover and Ford should get together and put a V-6 Td6 in a F150. It would be great a match made in heaven of a European company that makes lemons and a Mexican company that makes lemons. Perfect!

Last study I looked at the Land Rover had 220 problems per 100 vehicles. For perspective, Lexus had only 71 problems per 100 vehicles. And we know most of Lexus’s problems stemmed from the owner’s manual font size being too small....lol

It gets worse. While most brands were separated by one or two problems per 100 vehicles, Land Rover was 30 problems behind the next-worst brand. That means Land Rover would have to trim 30 problems per 100 vehicles – or nearly half of Lexus’s entire score – in order to become second worst.

On reliability Land Rover typically ends up in one of three places: dead last, near last, or not included because the sample size wasn’t large enough. One year, they had 344 problems per 100 vehicles.

What a Military Grade POS....should match up well with a Ford...lol

I told you ford doesn't know to make small diesel.This one was made by PSA GROUP for them.

@ Hemi lol : I agree, those grand nationals were way cool. I replaced a turbo on one and later I rebuilt the cylinder heads on a high mileage unit. Both those vehicles required a test drive following the repairs and yes they were quick.

Ditto on the quality concerns.

Britain decided back in the 1980s that none of their auto companies should be allowed to fail. Sound familiar?

So British taxpayers supported their auto industry for years in spite of horrible quality issues and a general decline in manufacturing there. British auto execs received huge bonuses and assembly line workers got the shaft.

Today their entire shipbuilding industry is gone--poof! Facilities that took hundreds of years and untold billions of dollars (and lives) to build are now boarded up and rusting away while unemployed young men lay around and watch TV. Most of the same conditions exist in their steel industry and autos.

Sound familiar?

I wonder March 2016 Truck sales report in April. If the 4 GM truck line will be beat Ford only 1 truck line?

I hope Ford gets off the pot and offers some smaller displacement diesels in both the half ton and Ranger.

I hope Ford gets off the pot and offers some smaller displacement diesels in both the half ton and Ranger.
Posted by: ken | Mar 10, 2016 6:47:49 PM

I would have to be on pot before considering a Ford smaller displacement diesels in both the half ton and Ranger.

VM Motori has a 270 HP / 440 lb-ft version of their engine too. Ram and Jeep just need to use it.

The JLR product roadmap from some year ago indicated that the Defender line would include a mid-size and full-size pickups, a part of the SUV's.

I don't think the pure Range Rover monocoque construction would be suitable for a pickup truck, Land Rover has to use something like the actual Discovery 4 (LR4) design that could be good for both the SUV and pickup versions.

They have several engines already certified for the US, the 2.0 I4 and 3.0 V6 diesels, and the 3.0 V6 and 5.0 V8 supercharged gas engines. The supercharged 5.0 V8 is probably overkill, but they could use the normally aspirated version with cylinder deactivation.

Land Rover used to sell pickups internationally.

I'd like to see the 4.4 diesel in the F150. I'd gladly give up some MPG's for the extra pulling power.

If Ford wants better mileage, upgrade from the ZF 6hp 6 speed derived transmission, to the Ford-GM 10 speed with a much taller axle ratio: 3.15 for 4x2, 3.31 for 4x4.

"We'd rather have our torque as low as possible."
Torque is not power. That supercharged V6 will blow the diesel out of the water, and has no turbocharger latency.

@papa jim
Their Automobile industry has arisen from the grave and make more vehicles than France

Ford owns Land Rover so this engine would and probably will go into the 2017 F150. Why are you showing a GMC in these graphics?

Ram is cute whining about outsourcing diesel production... EVERYTHING Chrysler is outsourced from Fiat and the ONLY thing proven worth buying Fiat outsourced to Cummings. And when they need money for all their bad decisions they outsource that to another foreign partner until literally no one wants them and then they outsource the financing to get owned by another foreign company from the US Taxpayer...

EVERYONE outsources... only a few outsource their entire company/revenue stream... only 1 does it over and over at an ever decreasing value. Currently they call themselves FCA... and yes just like when Diamler and Cerebris were in charge when you pronounce the name the "Chrysler" in it is still silent.

Mr Right, Ford sold LR to Tata a long time ago. Ford UK did develop and build that engine though.

@ Mr Right, Ford does not own Land Rover. They sold it off to TATA Motors years ago along with Jaguar..

It will be interesting to see which of the LION Series TDI's (V6 or V8) Ford will put in the F150?? Personally, I think Ford will opt for the 4.4 V8 TDI engine (built by Ford in Mexico for Land Rover) as this will help them fight the Nissan Titan XD for power and FE in the 150/1500 Class of truck and also boost their FE numbers to comply with CAFE requirements.

I think that FCA views Chrysler as extremely important, they have given Chrysler brands top priority, what is bringing down FCA are the Fiat brands. The problem was the crisis in Europe, VW artificially low leasing rates in Europe, then Brazil (wherd Fiat has +20% of the market) entered recession and finally China slowing down (which is important for brands like Ferrari, Maserati and Alfa). But the crisis in Europe is over and VW has lost credibility and facing huge fines, Fiat could return to profitability.

FCA has bought VM Motori, so that's not really outsourcing. Chrysler has a licence from ZF and those gearboxes are built internally. The Cummins I6 RAM uses was initially co-developed by Cummins and Iveco, they should built an Iveco derived I6 and maybe licence the Cummins name.

One of the problems with Chrysler is that the Dodge and Chrysler sedans aren't selling well, in the other segments they are doing good. Maybe it's the fallout from low quality ratings. They have replaced the quality manager, time will tell.

Ford sold everything to focus on Ford and Lincoln. GM has the scale. FCA is a work in progress.

About the Td6 engine, Ford should definitely offer it in the F-150.

I was referring to 1999 situation with smalll diesel engines in europe, when I still had 1.9 TDi with variable turbo geometry from VW, not recent one.
I will be more clear next time.

@George
"The Cummins I6 RAM uses was initially co-developed by Cummins and Iveco, they should built an Iveco derived I6 and maybe licence the Cummins name."

Maybe stick with the Cummins version that is produced for RAM.
IVECO uses it's 6.7 " Tector" engine for the IVECO Eurocargo( think Ford F750) and CASE tractors.
It has a very good 560hp " Cursor" developed in cooperation with UD Trucks, Japan, that it uses in CASE Tractors and it's HDT Trucks

George - Iveco has an I-6 almost the same as the Cummins engine. So why licence the name? I'd bet that Ram HD sales would fall off a cliff if Cummins got the boot.

12.9-liter PACCAR MX-13 engine would be great in the GM half ton truck..

You might need to beef up the suspension and a new front clip,but it would be a barn burner 2,000 ft lbs torque 600 hp..that will do the job ! Bet it would get 40 mpg as it has so much torque off ,just driving off idle would be up to speed..

What diesel in a F150? Ford clowns came out in full force and said it's not worth it when Ram came out with a diesel half ton. LMBO!!!!!

But Ford was right! The diesel option is not worth it, or maybe it is, because that's up to the market, but as far as offering a diesel in every configuration, for people who buy vehicles for transportation or for fleet businesses who buy them to make money, they are not worth it. And this is coming from someone who loves well-designed diesels like the Lion.

I'm not sure where folks are coming up with this $3000 uncharged for a diesel, because the only way that works is to click on just about every available option, active safety feature, and all the doors/seats you can get, then add on the diesel. Even then, it's closer to $4000.

But lets go the other way, since I just purchased an F150XL, standard cab with power glass & doors & cruise & chrome bumpers/aluminum wheels & a few other goodies with Ford's powerful & most economical engine; the 2.7 EB for less than $28K. With the engine costing me only a tick under $800. Now I wanted a diesel, but not the truck they wanted me to take to get one. If, however, I sucked it up and took that monster version, well appointed that I neither wanted or needed, the cheapest I could get a compact was $34K, and the cheapest I could get a full-size was $38.5K. So to me, a diesel cost an extra $10.5K.

That's the problem. The real price premium is not revealed, because the choice is so limited, but if the real uncharge were revealed, it would be more like $6-7K.

Dave the low price for the diesel may also be a reflection of the price of the SUV on the first place being as high as it is! Can anyone tell me why in the story, and that we all know it is Ford, with Range Rover, that built these nice diesel engines, but in this crazy story, there are GMC trucks used to illustrate?

V6 diesel is a no-brainer for F-150.

F-150 is Ford's cash cow. With the Lion V6 certified for US emissions already in Land Rovers, and CAFE fuel economy regulations growing more stringent every year, Ford will do what is needed to keep their 'franchise player' on top.

Keep in mind F-150 is lighter than Ram 1500 by alot, so gearing can be taller allowing 30 mpg highway which is a huge milestone for fullsize trucks.

This is Land Rover using a Ford engine, not Ford using a Land Rover engine. They'd be crazy not to.

I agree with sandmand4x4.

Many assume that Ford will not put a very economical, mid-utility diesel in the F150 just because they have invested so much in Ecoboost technology and/or because they have said that they are not going to do it. First of all, if Ford believes in Ecoboost as a primary method to offer power and economy in the same package, which they obviously do, that means they prefer smaller displacement and turbo charging to other methods such as electrification and cylinder deactivation, etc. And what they say in public or what they're tinkering with, such as announcing a hybrid for the future, may have little to do with their real efforts for mass production in the future.

Lets not forget how adamantly GM denied that they'd offer a light diesel in anything back about eight years ago. They claimed it didn't make sense. But I'd be willing to bet that at the very time they were denying it, they were planning it. They were simply feigning the competition.

Now it could be that Ford is faking it the other way...making the competition think they're going to offer the diesel just to get their competition to spend money, and then come out with something totally different that they think will outsell the others' diesels. We'll just have to wait and see how this spy game works out.

I don't think that Ford will go the route of offering the 4.4V8 PowerStroke, because, although there are some consumers out there that will buy a utility-leading diesel at any cost, it's more of a money maker for Ford to stay with something that's a little easier and cheaper to certify and to put the mpg champ label on the F150 with regards to a diesel. A V8 diesel could lead the lineup in torque, but the new version of the Ecoboost 3.5 will blow it away performance wise, and the people who buy diesels strictly for performance will opt for it, especially since it will be much cheaper. A 3-point-something-liter, six cylinder, mated to this aluminum bodied, more aero truck than the competition though, would offer truck buyers something that no gasser can right now in the 1/2-ton segment. And that's mpg at or about 30 with overall performance about where the small V8s were a decade ago. No. It's raw numbers won't match the old 4.6 V8, but due to driveline, drag coefficient, and weight improvements, it will have similar driving characteristics and about 9 more mpg than in those days.

One thing that could turn all of this on its head and put diesels way ahead in the game is a technological breakthrough with regards to certifying them for emissions. Right now, the cost of marketing a diesel in North America rivals that of hybrid technologies. But if you stand back and look; which technology stands the greatest chance of suddenly getting cheaper and more viable? that battery technology will get a break through that will make them cheaper and much better simultaneously? or that someone will figure out a way to use less expensive materials and less complicated systems to get diesels to burn clean?

I'd vote for the latter, but all the auto makers have to be ready to go either direction quickly. Diesel-power took a perception blow last year with VWs fiasco. It may be forgotten or something else may come out that would put the entire prospect of diesels in America to rest. The auto makers have to be ready for the unexpected and be ready to react so as not to be caught flat footed; especially in this most-important segment of the auto industry.

gregsfc - Who cares what Ford may do. Once thing is for certain they will build their vehicles in Mexico. That's what they'll do!

http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2015-ford-f-150-recalled-for-fire-risk.html

While a diesel would open up some more doors to get certain customers into a F150 I do not see a lot of practicality to it. But the onlyow thing we have to compare to is the ecofiat diesel. It does get great mileage but performance is very lackluster compared to todays gasoline engines. Now it would be on par with performance numbers 10 years ago. Even though towing is rated pretty high on the ecofiat, the reviews i have seen shows the ecofiat as really slow and struggles going up hills. Now if Ford is able to keep performance up and maintain good FE that would be appealing. But you still have the limits of modern diesels using DEF and possible issues with DPF cleanings using these trucks in a city traffic environment. Then the cost has to be there. There are extra cost involved in diesels today and not just the added cost of the option.

Lets face it, there is a lot of development cost even if this engine is already in production to make it fit for the F150. You need to have a large enough customer base to opt for the F150 diesel to make the numbers work. With leasing as popular today due to high sticker cost they may not just sell that many to offset the cost.

People rave about the ecofiat selling X % but that number is low. Fiat truck sales are low and the fiat 1500 sales numbers are even lower. Sure it gets fiat good reviews in magazine articles but you do not see fiat trucks numbers really jump. They barely beat out GMC and fiat builds up to a class 4 trucks and GMC does not.

@Robert Ryan Dude!

How in the world did you read my comment about Britain's dying manufacturing scene and declare that all is well in the UK because they outperform the wheelchair-bound French economy?

Subtract wine and tourism from French commerce and you get very ugly numbers, as in Honduras or Paraguay kinds of numbers. We're talking Arkansas for God's sake!

100 years ago Britain was the captain of the world's seas, controlled international banking and had the outright political muscle to drag the US kicking and screaming into TWO world wars.

Today the British auto manufacturing economy is crap. Marx killed the nation that Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler couldn't beat.

why does the article say this would be a great LUXURY truck option. It would work just fine in a reg cab 8' bed worktruck too

@ Papa Jim

What killed Britain as super power is exactly the two world wars. They couldn't keep the empire, and the US grew more the three times in population since WWI, while Britain grew 50%, so they lost relevance.

That being said, the Brittany still pulls the strings in some Commonwealth countries, probably in the US too. So their relevance is more than what it looks like.

The British auto industry is not bad at all, but its mostly foreign owned. It's mostly a service oriented economy, and the UK does better then France, that has two big car companies, and at least as good as Germany, that arguably has the worlds best auto industry.

I think that if RAM has a 20% take rate for the EcoDiesel, Ford could have similar numbers with the Td6 engine which can help them compete with both the EcoDiesel and the diesel powered GM mid-size trucks.

@George. You're on.

So, why is it that Japan and Germany recovered economically from the horrendous conditions their people endured during and following WW2, but Britain did not?

In my earlier remark on this, I was trying to make a comparison between the experience in Britain sixty years ago and what the industrial US sees today.

@papa Jim,
I do not think so, having being in both countries, their Auto industries are expanding, . UK one has mainly Asian capital backing and expertise in the UK
French economy is somewhat more sound than you give it credit for. US Economy has major problems

@papa Jim,
This does sum it up rather well
"economy, and the UK does better then France, that has two big car companies, and at least as good as Germany, that arguably has the worlds best auto industrY"

think that if RAM has a 20% take rate for the EcoDiesel, Ford could have similar numbers with the Td6 engine which can help them compete with both the EcoDiesel and the diesel powered GM mid-size trucks.


Posted by: George | Mar 13, 2016 8:52:11 PM

If Ford had a 20% take rate that number would be considerably higher than Fiat. To match Fiat numbers Ford would have to sell a much lower percentage. Remember the percentage is based on the number of trucks sold. Fiat sell a lot less trucks than Ford so to match the actual number of trucks the percentages would be different.

@Robt Ryan you might be right--but answer a question for me please.

When was the last time that domestic capital was used to build an all new auto assembly plant in the British Isles? When was the last time foreign capital was used, apart from foreigners deploying assets in Britain under favorable (read: tax free, or subsidized) conditions?

the answer to the above questions will tell you a lot about Britain's economy. If, on the other hand, you are making reference to British firms building in the far east, you have not made your case.

@papa Jim,
Most organisations use capital from all over to build infrastructure, that includes, Toyota, GM and Ford. Most large Auto Corporations are multinational, not really national

@Robert Ryan,

I was hoping you could name the last time someone built an all new auto assembly plant in Britain, Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

The source of the capital was only relevant to my question because the government's friendly treatment of some well connected crony capitalist does not refute my point.

Your earlier comment about the supposed vitality of Britain's auto industry really was pretty ridiculous.



The comments to this entry are closed.