Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread: Is there no one building a Titan Diesel?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    7
    IdaSHO, I did check my numbers... I pulled my data from here http://https://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/17RV&TT_Ford_SuperDtyPU_r2_Sep29.pdf Fords trailer and towing guide, specifically the truck camper section that lists the maximun cargo weights. The numbers given are based on a 150lb passenger in each available seating position. The numbers given in the Fleet guide are raw payload numbers. I stand by the values I posted. I will agree though, that payload is directly tied to trim level and options installed. For any OEM, the best payload will be a gas base trim, 2wd short wheelbase model. My take on all of this is that the best place to identify payload is really the door sticker of a particular model.

    For comparisons sake, my 17 CCSB XD 5.0 SV trim has a door sticker payload rating of 1850lbs. My co-worker just purchased a 17 CCSB F250 6.7 XLT trim and his door sticker payload rating is 1929lbs. Granted he does have more options than I do.

    Here’s one for ya! My 82 Vanagon has a GVWR of 5292lbs. With its stripped down interior it weighed in at 3152lbs, giving me a payload of 2140lbs. It only has 48hp though and is nowhere near as comfortable to drive as the XD.
    Last edited by Osmo79; 11-07-2017 at 12:10 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Idaho
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmo79 View Post
    The numbers given are based on a 150lb passenger in each available seating position. The numbers given in the Fleet guide are raw payload numbers. .
    Fare enough

    So what are the payload ratings for the XD with 150lb passenger in each available seating position?


    At least play the numbers apples to apples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmo79 View Post
    My take on all of this is that the best place to identify payload is really the door sticker of a particular model.
    That would be incorrect as well.

    The ONLY way to find your actual payload is to weigh the truck, then subtract that weight from the max GVWR


    MFGs placing payload ratings on the truck is more marketing than anything.

    Payload is a simply math problem. GVWR - Curb weight = payload

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    349
    Who cares, 300# payload difference is not likely the reason people arent building a XD

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Monticello, IL
    Posts
    5
    I'd be interested in hearing why folks aren't checking out the Canyon/Colorado with the baby Duramax when shopping around, is it the size or...?

    Honestly, I didn't consider these initially when I was looking either as I assumed that because they were mid-size then their towing and payload would be quite a bit less than a 1/2-ton, specifically was thinking compared to a Ram 1500 ED. After researching the Ram 1500 ED and seeing how many problems they were having I decided to continue my search, that's when I discovered the Canyon/Colorado actually have higher payload and tow ratings than a Ram 1500 ED Crew Cab 4x4 (Was specifically looking at the Laramie) and they get better fuel economy than the Ram ED as well.

    So, now there's a GMC Canyon CCLB Duramax 4x4 parked in the garage and I love this thing. I had no need for a physically larger 1/2 ton and this smaller truck is a pleasure to drive everywhere, not a pain to park or cruise on the freeway.

    After removing the Ram ED from my list I reconsidered the Titan XD for about a minute before I remembered it didn't get very good fuel economy, which was one of the main reasons for going with one of the smaller diesel trucks. The Titan XD with the 5.0 Cummins doesn't seem to get any better fuel economy than a 3/4-ton Ram with the 6.7L.

    Anyway, I find all of these diesel builds interesting and hope nobody has any major issues. I'm sure the Titan will improve as time goes on, everyone has to start somewhere and the 2007+ diesels were no different when they first came out and then the teething issues with the DEF systems. I think the XD seems to be more problematic since they're late to the game, if Nissan had that engine when the other trucks just started using DEF then it would probably be on-par. On the other hand, you'd think Cummins would have this figured out by now.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    1,335
    Quote Originally Posted by DRAX View Post
    I'd be interested in hearing why folks aren't checking out the Canyon/Colorado with the baby Duramax when shopping around, is it the size or...?

    Honestly, I didn't consider these initially when I was looking either as I assumed that because they were mid-size then their towing and payload would be quite a bit less than a 1/2-ton, specifically was thinking compared to a Ram 1500 ED. After researching the Ram 1500 ED and seeing how many problems they were having I decided to continue my search, that's when I discovered the Canyon/Colorado actually have higher payload and tow ratings than a Ram 1500 ED Crew Cab 4x4 (Was specifically looking at the Laramie) and they get better fuel economy than the Ram ED as well.

    So, now there's a GMC Canyon CCLB Duramax 4x4 parked in the garage and I love this thing.
    For the record, the 2.8l baby duramax is essentially a VM Motori with a Duramax badge on it; it was designed by the same company that designs and builds the 3.0l v6 ecodiesel. To be fair, the ecodiesel did seem to have some early teething issues, though it seems the later versions have seen improvements. The 2.8l inline 4 seems to have a solid track record behind it and I think it was smart on GM's part to incorporate that engine into the Colorado/Canyon lineup.

    The 5.0l v8 cummins, though only recently produced, was actually part of a v8 diesel concept that was originally designed for a DOE program and the Ram 1500 back in 2007-2008. The recession hit, and Ram got bought up by another company (Fiat) and decided to go with a different engine for their 1500; I don't know if the change of ownership had anything to do with that decision, but the Cummins people seemed pretty shocked when Ram backed away from the v8 diesel concept. I honestly think it's mediocre fuel efficiency has less to do with the engine itself and more to do with the Titan XD's size and weight...that thing comes to within a few hundred lbs of the traditional 3/4 ton's and has pretty similar exterior dimensions. Short of downsizing the engine, there is only so much you can do to improve the fuel efficiency with trucks of that size and weight.
    2011 4Runner Trail: Stock (Hopefully this changes soon)

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Monticello, IL
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
    For the record, the 2.8l baby duramax is essentially a VM Motori with a Duramax badge on it; it was designed by the same company that designs and builds the 3.0l v6 ecodiesel. To be fair, the ecodiesel did seem to have some early teething issues, though it seems the later versions have seen improvements. The 2.8l inline 4 seems to have a solid track record behind it and I think it was smart on GM's part to incorporate that engine into the Colorado/Canyon lineup.
    Yeah, the 2.8L DMAX is an interesting engine. It's based on the VMM engine but GM has made changes to it and GM builds it themselves in Thailand. It has solenoid injectors instead of the typical piezo injectors of other modern diesels, I think they made some other changes but am blanking.

    The VMM 3.0 in the Ram 1500 hopefully has the oil cooler issue sorted out, but as of the 2016 model year it was still a problem as the one I looked at with 35k miles on it had very obvious signs of the failed oil cooler due to oil in the coolant expansion tank. The last thing I wanted to have to do was worry about the oil cooler letting go after the 3/36 warranty was up (FCA is only covering it under the 3/36 warrant since the oil cooler isn't covered by the powertrain warranty), nor did I want to have to hack the oil cooler system and install an aftermarket oil cooler. So between that and the lower payload/tow capacity I just didn't see any reason to keep it on the short list (and I'm a Mopar guy in general).

    The 5.0l v8 cummins, though only recently produced, was actually part of a v8 diesel concept that was originally designed for a DOE program and the Ram 1500 back in 2007-2008. The recession hit, and Ram got bought up by another company (Fiat) and decided to go with a different engine for their 1500; I don't know if the change of ownership had anything to do with that decision, but the Cummins people seemed pretty shocked when Ram backed away from the v8 diesel concept. I honestly think it's mediocre fuel efficiency has less to do with the engine itself and more to do with the Titan XD's size and weight...that thing comes to within a few hundred lbs of the traditional 3/4 ton's and has pretty similar exterior dimensions. Short of downsizing the engine, there is only so much you can do to improve the fuel efficiency with trucks of that size and weight.
    Yup, I remember all that.

    A crew cab XD with the Cummins comes in at just over 7,000lb, which is right where a Ram 2500 Crew Cab with the Cummins comes in. Thing is, though, that bigger, more powerful 6.7L Cummins has equal or slightly better fuel economy than the smaller, less-powerful 5.0 Cummins. Sure, weight is part of it but that is less of a factor once rolling at a steady speed. I would expect that 5.0 Cummins to get noticeably better fuel economy, but it doesn't. The fuel economy of these trucks actually does have a lot to do with the engines themselves and the emissions equipment/tune. Doing the deletes and a delete tune that didn't add much in terms of power took my 2007.5 6.7L from a freeway average of 18MPG up to 24MPG and that was in California, not the Midwest. Around town, my fuel economy went from 9.9MPG up to 16MPG. That's a 6MPG improvement across the board.

    The bottomline is that Nissan/Cummins really could be doing better in the fuel economy department with the XD, but are likely doing the best they can while meeting all the emissions requirements.

    P.S. A Ram 1500 ED Crew Cab 4x4 comes in at around 1,000lb less than an XD or Ram 2500, both with the Cummins, and is able to get nearly 30MPG on the freeway bone stock with the VMM 3.0 V6. Of course, that VMM 3.0 makes a bit less HP and torque than either of them.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    1,335
    Quote Originally Posted by DRAX View Post
    The bottomline is that Nissan/Cummins really could be doing better in the fuel economy department with the XD, but are likely doing the best they can while meeting all the emissions requirements.
    Inline 6 diesel's have tended to return better fuel economy over comparable v8 diesels. The 6.7L Cummins has been reported as getting as high 22-23mpg highway, even with stock emissions (the later SCR-equipped variants tend to return better fuel economy over the earlier versions).

    That said, the 5.0l v8 Cummins weighs less than the 6.7l, returns lower HP and torque. So in theory, it should return better fuel economy #'s. But it's powering a pickup that has nearly the same weight and dimensions as a 3/4 ton. Rolling mass plays a role in fuel economy and so does aerodynamics. Cummins actually did a study on fuel efficiency (more geared towards Semi trucks, but there is some relevance to pickup's): https://cumminsengines.com/uploads/d...el_economy.pdf

    They found that at highway speeds, tires (rolling mass) and aerodynamics have an increasing effect on fuel efficiency. The 5.0l v8 Cummins is powering a truck that is rotating pretty much the same sized tires as a 3/4 ton and has the same aerodynamic footprint as one. Therefore, there won't be much of a difference in mpg #'s between an XD diesel and a regular 3/4 ton.

    I'm not saying the 5.0 Cummins has no room for improvement; I'm sure that it does. But it's unrealistic to expect better mpg from it, at least not in that Nissan platform.
    2011 4Runner Trail: Stock (Hopefully this changes soon)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •