If GM made a DIESEL half-ton Silverado/Tahoe/Suburban, would you?...

[Kaisen]

Why did GM choose to make it a V8?

Instead of what? A V6? A four cylinder? A straight six? I'm sure they choose the V8 for packaging efficiency and strength

Why did Cummins choose a 5.0L V8 diesel? Nissan gets it next year for the Titan, and Toyota is nibbling on the idea

 

[haven]

It's interesting that the red-white-and-blue manufacturers are staying out of the diesel SUV game, while the European manufacturers are all in. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and VW all offer 3.0L turbodiesels in their large SUVs. The engines produce 400-425 ft-lb or torque, and are EPA rated to deliver 25-29 mpg highway. In a few cases, the diesel option is priced less than the gas V8 with similar power.

 

[Kaisen]

It's interesting that the red-white-and-blue manufacturers are staying out of the diesel SUV game, while the European manufacturers are all in. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and VW all offer 3.0L turbodiesels in their large SUVs. The engines produce 400-425 ft-lb or torque, and are EPA rated to deliver 25-29 mpg highway. In a few cases, the diesel option is priced less than the gas V8 with similar power.

Jeep is no longer red-white-and-blue? Their 3.0L V6 turbodiesel in the Grand Cherokee is impressive.

As you're all aware, that motor is made by VM Motori which is owned equally by Fiat and GM. So if GM wanted, that same 3.0L V6 turbodiesel could find its way into a GM truck or SUV. I think it would be the perfect powertrain for a Lambda variant (Acadia / Traverse / Enclave). But for some reason they don't believe there is a business case for diesel. We're seeing it in this poll: 61% say 'NO' to diesel.

The Europeans, however, will sell a large percentage of their SUV/CUVs with diesel powertrains in Europe. Taxes have a lot to do with it, as does the general acceptance of diesels (i.e. number of buyers). If they are already selling them in other parts of the world, bringing them here isn't a big deal. The money is sunk.

 

[Barry822]

CNG vehicles have their own sets of problems, like any new type of widely used fuel source. When we got our two CNG buses we had to retrofit two bays so they could park in the building. Which included explosion proof electrial switches, lighting, and outlets. Had to install a separate air make up unit incase of a leak. And now we pay 2 people 40hrs a week each to wash and fuel the 2 buses. Normally 4 or 5 people look after 230 buses each day. If we could fuel on site it would be much better. But they dont want to spend that kind of money yet.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

 

[Larry]

CNG vehicles have their own sets of problems, like any new type of widely used fuel source. When we got our two CNG buses we had to retrofit two bays so they could park in the building. Which included explosion proof electrial switches, lighting, and outlets. Had to install a separate air make up unit incase of a leak. And now we pay 2 people 40hrs a week each to wash and fuel the 2 buses. Normally 4 or 5 people look after 230 buses each day. If we could fuel on site it would be much better. But they dont want to spend that kind of money yet.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, storage and service bays have to be retrofitted for gaseous fuels which is especially challenging in Canada. My company built over a thousand propane powered 4.8 and 6.0L vehicle for UPS Canada where most of our GM dealers could not service them inside their buildings because of providential and insurance regulations. Then as it turned out each Canadian Providence thinks they are their own country with entirely different regulations everywhere. It was a challenge to set up the service network in each Providence but wasn’t horrible or horribly expensive. Most fleets looking at alternative fuel already have the infrastructure and facility upgrade costs figured into their purchase decision. In the end, the facility upgrade investment is still a low cost of entry to the alternative fuel world. In many cases, the facility upgrade can be rolled into the cost of the vehicles or picked up by tax breaks, grants, etc.

 

[Barry822]

Ya for Edmonton Transit we are running the 2 CNG buses as a pilot project. So some things they are willing to spend money on. Others they are not. With the fuel tanks on the roof they dont fit through our drive through wash rack. So that means one person has to hand wash a 40foot long 9foot high bus. Not bad right now. But it will be horrible this winter. Fuelling is another huge hurdle. It takes 2-3hrs to "quick" fill each bus. Other cities have a slow fuelling system that fills all the buses at the same time overnight. But only having two buses they didn't want to spend the money. Im not against CNG but it sure does cost a fortune for all the infrastructure when we have to park inside.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2

 

[Redpim1]

I'm gonna say no. I despise V configured Diesel engines and automatic transmissions. Now if it was a Cummins 4bt with a nv5600 six speed manual AAM 9.25 high pinion solid front axle and a corporate/14 bolt semi float rear (in other words AAM 9.25 semi float low pinion) in a base package truck I'd be game. Good fuel mileage, proven, and reliable as they come.

I would not care who's body was on it if they built it I'd buy one.

 

[rkj__]

I'm gonna say no. I despise V configured Diesel engines and automatic transmissions. Now if it was a Cummins 4bt with a nv5600 six speed manual AAM 9.25 high pinion solid front axle and a corporate/14 bolt semi float rear (in other words AAM 9.25 semi float low pinion) in a base package truck I'd be game. Good fuel mileage, proven, and reliable as they come.

I would not care who's body was on it if they built it I'd buy one.

Nice wish list, but that will never ever ever happen. Like, ever.

 

[Buliwyf]

Correct. Diesels only seem to make sense if you're towing or running huge tires or lots of highway miles. Normal usage favors gasoline in the US pretty heavy.
-
Of course the retards with the giant Cummins "C" sticker on their back window and the cloud of black smoke trailing them thicker than a large steam locomotives exhaust ain't helping us. Really good example to set for all the eco freaks. And pissing off regular non-eco weanies with that nonsense is even worse. Diesel pickup truck owners are pretty much screwed for the next 20 years thanks to those fools and the eco crazies they feed. What did they expect the EPA's response, to giant stinky black clouds coming from trucks, was going to be.
-
I haven't checked the laws lately. But diesel tuner shops and tuner truck owners might be on the hook for some mighty huge fines. And in this economy, cities are starting to look for some of that easy money. Not sure who's side I'm on. The "rolling coal" idiots have got it coming to them, IMO, for helping the EPA screw up our truck engine selection.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Nice wish list, but that will never ever ever happen. Like, ever.

Did you just quote a Taylor Swift song?

 

[Buliwyf]

"Annd We eeeeeeeeeeeeee, will never ever eever run BFG ATKo's again."

 

[3 DOGS]

Jeep is no longer red-white-and-blue? Their 3.0L V6 turbodiesel in the Grand Cherokee is impressive.

As you're all aware, that motor is made by VM Motori which is owned equally by Fiat and GM. So if GM wanted, that same 3.0L V6 turbodiesel could find its way into a GM truck or SUV. I think it would be the perfect powertrain for a Lambda variant (Acadia / Traverse / Enclave). But for some reason they don't believe there is a business case for diesel. We're seeing it in this poll: 61% say 'NO' to diesel.

Are we really seeing it here or is the poll skewed because the original post referenced GM? It seems several of the first posts were a "no" because of GM's IFS. Personally I don't see an issue especially since the GM 3/4 ton trucks seem to work fine (not looking to start a war of brands I'm just saying the IFS in 3/4 does work).
IDK but I'm excited for the Nissan CTD. I think there's a huge market in the 1/2 ton area for a diesel engine. Initially the will be high BUT as with anything else time and competition will, or should I say SHOULD, help to lower the mark up for a diesel option.
I'm not keen on the Dodge engine as it really doesn't offer much over the EcoBoost. I would have thought they'd come out swinging a better engine choice than the Fiat one.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Kaisen]

Are we really seeing it here or is the poll skewed because the original post referenced GM? It seems several of the first posts were a "no" because of GM's IFS. Personally I don't see an issue especially since the GM 3/4 ton trucks seem to work fine (not looking to start a war of brands I'm just saying the IFS in 3/4 does work).
IDK but I'm excited for the Nissan CTD. I think there's a huge market in the 1/2 ton area for a diesel engine. Initially the will be high BUT as with anything else time and competition will, or should I say SHOULD, help to lower the mark up for a diesel option.
I'm not keen on the Dodge engine as it really doesn't offer much over the EcoBoost. I would have thought they'd come out swinging a better engine choice than the Fiat one.
Just my thoughts.

Why would it matter? All half ton trucks have IFS. Every single one of them. Every brand. If you need a solid front axle, then you buy a 3/4 ton or bigger. This thread is about half tons, so I'm not sure why IFS plays a role in it. Moot point.

I suppose, however, that many people responding "NO" are saying they won't buy a GM, they'd prefer a different brand. Maybe Ford or Ram, to a lesser extent Toyota or Nissan. But there are some vocal GM haters that don't care, anything as long as it's not GM. It's by no means scientific.

The 3.0L V6 RAM EcoDiesel in the half ton makes 240 hp @ 3600 rpm and 420 lb-ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and they estimate 19 city mpg and 26 highway mpg
The 3.5L V6 FORD EcoBoost in the half ton makes 365 hp @ 5000 rpm and 420 lb-ft torque @ 2500 rpm, and the EPA rated 15 city mpg and 21 highway mpg

So the RAM has way less horsepower, the same torque but at lower rpm, and gets 20-25% better fuel economy (4-5 mpg) and the option costs about the same



The 5.0L Cummins V8 in the Nissan will be one to watch. With nearly as much horsepower as the EcoBoost but 100 more lb-ft torque, it will be a monster. But fuel economy might not be its strong suit, and it may not do any better than the EPA ratings of the EcoBoost and GM's 5.3L V8. We'll have to wait and see....

 

[Clutch]

We're seeing it in this poll: 61% say 'NO' to diesel..

Kinda funny, you got almost the exact opposite response from the Tacoma people.

Mileage would have to be around 30 to make me jump the gasser ship, and even then, I dunno... it comes down
to money (cost of ownership) in the end. Just with the up charge of a diesel engine over a stock gasser...would take 15 years
to recoup any "savings" in fuel. at least according to my fuzzy math. 15K miles/year, Gas V6 Taco @ 20 mpg/$3.40gal 91 octane, Diesel @ 25 mpg/$3.70gal (current lowest prices in Tucson) Diesel is about $330 fuel savings a year over gas. (is my math correct on that one?)

Say if a stock V6 Tacoma is $30K and a 4 Cylinder Diesel is $35K+, not to mention in AZ insurance and registration would be a touch more
over the gasser as it is based on the vehicle's value and not weight.

 

[7echo]

Kermit said-

'Kinda funny, you got almost the exact opposite response from the Tacoma people.'

I have been following both threads and noticed the same thing. I think it is partially explained by the almost 15K difference in cost. I wonder if this same poll was posted on a GM/Chevy truck site if the results would be similar or more like the Toyota poll.