Diesel Pickup Sales Are Revving Up: Study

PUTC_OneTon_Group_ThreeTrucks_ES_05 II

By Jim Travers

Diesel engines long have been popular with heavy-duty pickup truck buyers, thanks to their abundant torque for towing and hauling, better fuel economy and extended cruising range compared to their gasoline counterparts, as well as greater residual values for resale. As diesels become more widely available in light-duty pickups, those sales are likely to rise for many of the same reasons.

A recent study by the Diesel Technology Forum found that diesel sales are holding their own in all types of passenger vehicles, despite recent emissions issues with Volkswagen and other manufacturers. Currently diesel engines account for about 3 percent of passenger vehicle sales and around 13 percent for pickups. According to the study, more than 6.6 million diesel pickups on the road in 2017, the model-year the study used.

"Hands down, diesel pickups offer some of the best value for consumers," said Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, in a statement. "On top of gaining 20 percent to 35 percent more torque and towing power, diesel pickups can go an extra 150 miles per tank of fuel, and can save owners an average of 200 gallons of fuel per year. We calculated these benefits out across the full pickup truck segment, and if every full-size pickup truck in America used diesel fuel, we'd save more than 500 million gallons of fuel each year — the same as if 15 percent of all cars in the U.S. switched entirely to electric power."

No Longer Just a Heavy-Duty Option

F-150 Diesel 4 II

Until recently, virtually all diesel pickup sales were limited to heavy-duty models (also known as three-quarter and one -tons), where the lion's share of all brands are sold with diesel powertrains. With Ford, for example, the percentage of F-250 and F-350 pickups sold with diesel power is a whopping 72 percent, according to a company spokesperson.

Now that the Ford F-150 — which has been the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. for decades — is available with a 3.0-liter V-6 turbo-diesel producing 250 horsepower and 440 pounds-feet of torque, Ford is likely to see more diesels rolling off dealer lots. Especially since the F-150's newest power plant is also notable for its 30 mpg EPA highway fuel mileage rating.

Not to be left behind, Chevrolet is joining the fray for 2019 with a new 3.0-liter turbo-diesel Silverado 1500. And Ram, which was first with a smaller turbo-diesel in light-duty pickups, is finishing up certification of its EcoDiesel engine for the all-new 2019 Ram 1500.

Van and SUV Diesels

The Diesel Technology Forum study also found diesels are growing in popularity with van buyers. With the Ford Transit Connect compact vans joining full-size diesel models from Ford and Ram, commercial vans make up the fastest-growing category of diesel sales. Last year saw a sales increase of more than 44 percent, translating to about 5 percent of all domestic van sales.

RM015_019PM copy II

SUV buyers also are getting more choices as domestic manufacturers have joined their European counterparts with new diesel versions of the Chevrolet Equinox and Jeep Wrangler. With their greater torque capability at lower engine rpm, diesels are a natural for rock crawling and other types of off-roading.

As you weigh all the new diesel choices, keep in mind that there are some drawbacks: Not only will you pay a premium for a diesel engine, regularly scheduled maintenance is likely to be higher than with a gasoline engine and the fuel can be, depending on where you live, more expensive as well. And even with wide availability nationwide, diesel fuel is only available at about half of all gasoline stations.

Cars.com photo by Evan Sears; Manufacturer images


F-150 Diesel 6 II



From the nonpartisan LA Times

As global warming continues, Rump wants to burn fossil fuels with an arsonist's glee

Here’s some disquieting, if unsurprising, news: The world is nowhere near where it needs to be if we are to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. That’s the gist of a report to be delivered this week in South Korea by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an independent body providing scientific analysis on climate change. According to early details given to the Guardian newspaper, the report warns that barring drastic and near-immediate changes in how the world creates energy, uses transportation and grows food, we will fall short of the 2015 Paris agreement goal of limiting the global temperature rise to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above what it was in pre-industrial times. Currently, the global temperature is nearly 1 degree Celsius above the pre-industrial benchmark.

That means trouble. Glaciers already are melting. The shrinking ice cap could mean an ice-free Arctic in the summertime by the end of the century, a reduction that many scientists believe fuels a feedback loop: The less ice there is, the more solar energy the Arctic absorbs, increasing the water temperature and reducing the amount of ice still farther. That phenomenon, experts warn, will likely skew the path of the jet stream with profound climate impacts across the northern hemisphere.

Worse, the melting of glaciers raises the level of the ocean (melting Arctic ice doesn’t do that since the cap floats on the sea). The ice sheet covering Greenland has been melting at an increasing rate since 2003, a function, scientists believe, of a change in wind patterns. Summer winds used to bring cold Arctic air over Greenland in the summer; in 2003, the pattern shifted and since then warm southern air has moved across the massive island, speeding up glacier melt. The current rate of global ice melt will raise the seas by 2 feet over the next 80 years, according to a report earlier this year.

What will all this mean for man and the planet on which he resides? Without a massive global effort to change how we create energy, we can expect worse droughts. Stronger storms. More flooding. In short, extreme weather will become even more extreme, with dramatic potential impacts on the inhabitability of large sections of the world. Low-lying ocean islands will be covered by the sea. Coastal zones worldwide will be forced into retreat. Species will disappear, food chains will become disrupted, wars over water and space and human migration will break out. The more scientists delve into the warming phenomenon, the more they learn — and the more they are surprised by — how fast it’s happening and how much worse the repercussions will be if we go on as we have been.

Under the Paris climate pact, world leaders committed to limiting the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees above the pre-industrial era, but with an aspiration to limit it to 1.5 degrees.

Even the Rump administration, which wants to burn fossil fuels with an arsonist’s glee, has acknowledged the impacts of climate change in official reports, though it defies and occasionally denies the science of climate change in formal policies and statements. Remember, President Rump wants to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement, which would make us the only — only — country in the world to not be a part of it. Yet a pending draft report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defending Rump’s desire to freeze fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks predicts that global temperatures will rise by 4 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Incongruously, the report argues that since the world is baking anyway, higher emissions from cars and light trucks won’t make much difference. And the Pentagon recognizes that rising seas threaten military bases, particularly naval installations, around the globe. But the administration seeks to make the problems worse rather than take steps to combat them.

Humanity is spinning pell-mell toward self-inflicted disaster, and the largest economy in the world — the country with the second highest industrial output — has official policies to ignore it. Indeed, the U.S. plans to add to the problem for the sake of short-term energy sector financial gains. Whether Rump’s policies are bred of ignorance or cynicism, they push the nation — and the planet — into ever-more dangerous territory.

The Times Editorial Board

The Times' editorial board, in consultation with the publisher, determines the editorial positions of the organization. The editorial board opines on the important issues of the day – exhorting, explaining, deploring, mourning, applauding or championing, as the case may be. The board, which operates separately from the newsroom, proceeds on the presumption that serious, non-partisan, intellectually honest engagement with the world is a requirement of good citizenship.

The FAKE Jeff S

When commenters cut & paste this sort of "B.S." into a field reserved for TRUCK comments, it is disrespectful to the other commenters.

When pretentious people use the ID of a legitimate commenter like Jeff to post garbage like this, it's indicative of a soul with a complete lack of regard for the rights of others.

The FAKE papajim.

OZ, the fake commenter. What a waste of human flesh!

I don't know why papajim keeps bringing up Australian posters.

He must be jealous.

Biggie, the OTHER oz. What a waste of a human mind!

Are you spinning and tr0lling again!

So Mr UAW, you were given a link to the LATines piece

Also, papadim, interpret what was written, don't put spin on it and tr0ll like a loser.

Before you answer research and read what a person writes and don't try and take this out of context again.

Remember, this issue is what started your papadumbass multi posts.

You are one full of $hit individual.

There are too many of you to respond to individually. On second thought I bet you've heard psychiatric professionals say those very words to you. But I digress.

Making reference to a lame LA Times editorial is hardly an act of speaking truth to power, sir. Ever since the billionaire Mr Soon-Shiong bought the control of the Times it has become a far left globalist rag. Today it is simply a political instrument and a money-losing proposition. Similar to the case of CNN being owned by a huge corporation that does not care if it loses money as long as it's liberal. Or the Washington Post and being owned by the guy who founded Amazon.

Why would you (or anybody else with half a brain) care about the political whims of these men? You chose to cut & paste a document without any specific attribution, nor did you mention that the US has ALREADY withdrawn from the stupid Paris accord. None of the Paris agreement's signers actually committed to ANY action apart for posing for some pictures.

Get a life dude. Go change your oil. Assuming you know how.

The world is full of losers except for myself who is a marter from God. I was sent here to breath common sense into those who were born out smarts.


Words fail to express it.

In closing?

Best in class

I think the best Diesel engine and Trany it's the duramax ,

There are too many of you to respond to individually.
Posted by: papajim | Sep 30, 2018 5:17:10 PM

You've just been pranked by BAFO

Not pranked.

I've been hammering him on this for a long time. He's learned not to get too riled up because it just seems to make him look even more marginal than he already is.

Papajim says: did you say Global Warming? Ozone hole? Greenhouse gas? Been drinking the leftist, globalist koolaide again?
I think you've been sniffing too many fumes with your head up the presidential t rump

@mr moose

So you're a comedian.

@Mr Moose

While you were taking your ego for a walk today, the POTUS was putting the finishing touches on an all new trade deal to replace the awful NAFTA.

Promises made, promises kept.

T-R-U-M-P for president in 2020!

Papajim, You're the best. Makes me feel sad for the rest. Nobody does politics and current events on putc half as good as you. 😀

Coming from you that means a lot. I saw you and SBJ do a show at the Ambassador Theater back in 1974. Wow.

As they say, once you go diesel you will never go back-so true...

Litre for litre turbo gas engines have more torque than diesel engines. Case in point is the Turbo Santa Fe from Kia, same for the Turbo engines in the F150. And if the turbo gas does not beat the diesel in peak torque they are very close but have a huge advantage in torque curve and HP. The article is wrong to say they have an advantage with more torque. This is social stigma at work. Even a guy like Mark Williams is drinking the Kool-Aid, so knowledgeable about vehicles yet wrong. And low end torque has also been defeated by gas turbo engines, some coming in with peak torque at 1350 RPM.

Now moving to the electric comment that you save the same amount of fuel by switching to electric or switching to diesel. What a moronic statement. Talk about advantages of torque yet electric destroys diesel in the torque wars and then say electric saves the same amount of fuel burned as diesel. My gawd the FUD likes to run wild.

The entire US electrical grid can be powered by solar energy. The square area of solar panels required to power the entire US grid is 4.5 million square hectares. Texas alone is 70 million hectares so you need 6.4% of texas to power the entire country. If each state used 0.12% of their square footage the entire electrical grid can be run on solar alone which is 0 fuel burned. Mark Williams, I realize you stated a diesel expert stated and then you went on with the false facts but please vet articles and stop writing FUD about electric drive. Terrible article Mark Williams.

The entire US electrical grid can be powered by solar energy.


We could power the entire US on the wind from butterfly wings but that might not be practical. Whatever is done has to be effective, number one---and it has to be practical. We can't ask an entire generation (or two) of Americans to go through another decade of silly promises regarding energy. The current path with natural gas and synthetics is easily good for 100 years. Please realize that solar has some nice features but does not represent anything close to a global solution.

They have some good points but just the name Diesel Technology Forum makes me question how objective they are. Whether the engines are gas or diesel I foresee the growth 5 years from now to be in electric or electrically assisted drives.

papa, all your comments on the stupidity on here, and you are now involved in the high jack of this thread. Can we please get back to diesel being the new norm?

Yeah papa, please get off your high horse and talk real truck stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I foresee the growth 5 years from now to be in electric or electrically assisted drives...Posted by: Walt | Oct 1, 2018


By all means you should be buying Ford stock.

That is their vision too. Today Ford is less than 10 bucks a share. For someone like you that's a once in a lifetime chance! I'm not being sarcastic.

Ford wants to be the big banana in electric and self driving cars. Tell me what you think.

high horse


My horse is fresh out of rehab. He ain't been high in weeks.


You want to debate with people on this site but your posts often betray an inability to clearly express the ideas you have. Such as the last one.

They have some good points but just the name Diesel Technology Forum makes me question how objective they are. Whether the engines are gas or diesel I foresee the growth 5 years from now to be in electric or electrically assisted drives.

Posted by: Walt | Oct 1, 2018 8:08:16 AM



It's like asking your favorite salesman why you should buy a truck from him.

Not exactly an unbiased review.

papajim, corrupt? this just in, the 2 "ladies" who cornered Senator Jeff Flake in the elevator work for George Soros, they were paid to do that. Look it up....then figure out why the security people let these 2 ladies thru and then stood there an watched...talk about corrupt government...

most people who thinks Diesels do not stink, are probably the same people who say ciggerettes to do stink and they are puffing away...


why do you care. Please make it clear.

If I want to smoke my Lucky Strikes, why do you care? Ditto for vehicle exhaust---why do you care?

Torque and Mileage are the features for diesel.
Electric surpasses both those features IF one doesn't have to go more than 250 miles in a day. With respect to average person that works just fine.
With respect to Tesla today: it might the best news day ever for Electric.
Am I biased toward Electric? I might be since I live so close and have watched this phenomenon evolve over 10 years.
Global warming a hoax or not: I think the genie is out of the bottle with respect to electric, and the demand seems to show an inflexion point. Solar, wind infrastructure may not be in place today, but if Ca has anything to say about it, the trend of electric may now have enough momentum to drive all that infrastructure investment.
Bias yes: I see peoples swagger when they drive in their Tesla's. I'm no early adopter, and am not yet in line for my electric, but things seem to be a changing.

Papa, I knew you would not admit to high jacking this thread, go on a gov site if you want to talk politics, this is pickup truck site.

I was hoping you would not take offense, but you did anyway.

The others are hijacking. Papa is just responding. There is one guy in Australia who hates the United States that is posting most of the libtard political comments under various names.

The others are hijacking. Papa is just responding. There is one guy in Australia who hates the United States that is posting most of the libtard political comments under various names.

Posted by: Chris | Oct 1, 2018 11:07:07 AM


So he should stay on topic and not "respond".

The fact is papa wants to talk politics here or he wouldn't. He also wants to stir some of these topics and contradicts himself in the name of argument's sake.

Arguing to hear yourself argue gets no air time with me.

Stop hijacking this thread and get on topic PapaJoke

True that was the fake Jeff S but I don't entirely disagree. Any plan to get entirely away from fossil fuel will take a long long time probably most of us will not be around to see it. We have to have better and less expensive battery technology and the infrastructure to support electrified vehicles. At the present direct injection and turbo charging along with more hybrid systems will go a long way toward meeting any clean air standards. Even a diesel would benefit from a hybrid system. If you would have told most people 30 or 40 years ago that a half ton pickup could get 20 mpgs and that you could get 40 to 50 mpgs out of a hybrid car they would not have believed it. I don't think we have reached the peak efficiency with ICE yet.

@Robert Ryan--I would like to know more about the newer diesels in Europe.

Stop hijacking this thread and get on topic PapaJoke

Posted by: Brick | Oct 1, 2018 12:52:43 PM

You do realize that because you post under so many different user names you have no credibility.

Nobody tells papajim what to respond to or not to respond to. So far nobody has refuted anything he said, not even Jeff S's favorite liberal rag, the LA Times.

Diesel engines are a dying breed. This is from a guy that put 300,000 mi on a Duramax. 25 years from now, there is likely to be no diesel engines except in the construction, industrial and marine industries. Why? Battery R&D technology is out diesel engine R&D by probably 1000 to 1. Then there is Ethanol Injected engines and LNG engine R&D. https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/man-energy-solutions-unveils-me-lgip-dual-fuel-lpg-engine/


Even Ford a decade ago began R&D work on ethanol injected "Bobcat" engines. This is the technology of the future because it's cleaner, the State of California and it's powerful economy demands it, and it's "Made or grown in the USA."

Even Ford a decade ago began R&D work on ethanol injected "Bobcat" engines. This is the technology of the future because it's cleaner, the State of California and it's powerful economy demands it, and it's "Made or grown in the USA."
Posted by: nlp | Oct 2, 2018


Actually, ethanol only works when gasoline prices are at the high end of their price range. The rest of the time using ethanol as a motor fuel, or blended with gasoline, is too expensive compared to the benefit of having it.

We are only a few years away from oil&gas refiners producing liquid fuels cheaply derived from natural gas. This is the future of ICE in the US. Cheap, clean and abundant. Not ethanol.

Jeff S is a narcissist. That's why his posts are so long and he is usually wrong about everything.

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 29,
I think youve been snifing exhaust emisions way too long..it damaged your brain
Nothing coming out of exhaust is healthy in any way,on the contrary,,its poison that kills over 7 milion people each year..
My next truck will be Electric and if GM dont build it they wont survive much longer

Posted by: Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA | Sep 29, 2018 4:59:52 PM

Electric vehicles pollute as much as gasoline or diesel. Charging batteries burns fossil fuel. Vast amounts of energy are used excavating, transporting and processing lithium for batteries. The giant mines leave huge holes where nothing grows or lives. The batteries are made with vast amounts of oil derived materials. Plus you are sitting in a huge electromagnetic cancer causing field when driving.

I would not think of telling papajim what to do but papajim does tell others what to do and seems to put down anyone who has a different opinion. I don't think papajim has to worry about electrified vehicles because he will be long since dead before they become a mainstay but then I will be as well. Just remember papajim that the Earth is flat, the Moon landing was staged in the Mohave Desert, and if man were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Science is fake and that there are no more inventions and no more advances in technology and science especially since science is fake.

@Rick--Do you believe that there are no other sources of energy besides fossil fuel? Do you think that in 50 or 100 years that they will still be mainly fossil fuel. We need fossil fuel now but it is not out of the realm of possibilities that further development in solar, wind, geothermal energy will be a larger part of our energy. If we as a country had a real energy program we would develop nuclear energy further to be safer and more widely used. Did you know that the US has more uranium than any other place on the Earth and that we export most of it. Atomic energy is much more efficient than coal and even natural gas. As for fossil fuels why do we flare off methane gas since it is abundant. Every waste water treatment plant and land fill generates a lot of methane gas. If you add all the alternate sources with the current fossil fuel you have plenty of sources of energy. it will take many lifetimes to transition away from fossil fuel but if you do nothing then it will never happen. Additionally scientists are working on longer lasting and more affordable battery technology. The only way battery technology will get better is to use it and to continually improve it. Unlike some I believe in science and technology

I think the best Diesel engine and Trany it's the duramax ,

Posted by: Miath | Sep 30, 2018 5:52:35 PM

You can think that but the stone cold truth is Cummins is the engine chebby and furd use after their diesel is done. P.S. Cummins is rated a@ 100,000 more miles than a Power joke and Maxi pad engines. Cummins is known world wide for their diesel engines. From Fire trucks to Mack trucks Cummins is the name in Diesel.

The comments to this entry are closed.