 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / November 2006Diesel 1/2 ton announced
Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the 2008 or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has taken so long. And what are Dodge, GM, Toyota and Nissan doing about it? It seems like a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a diesel Dakota. > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the > 2008 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > diesel Dakota. According to the new issue of Diesel Power, there is a chance that Toyota will be releasing a 3/4 ton version of the Tundra, with a diesel in it. Though it is not in stone there is talk that they may use cat. > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the 2008 > or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has taken so > long. And what are Dodge, GM, Toyota and Nissan doing about it? It seems like > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > diesel Dakota. What is the purpose of a diesel 1/2 ton? People have been buying the diesels because they want the power to tow or haul heavy loads. 1/2 ton trucks don't need more power for the load they're designed to handle. Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. > Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country > diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and diesel engine of comparable power. That's simply not the case. The diesel can easily outperform a comparable gas engine by 50% in fuel economy, sometimes upwards of 90% (as evidence, a 310hp/450lb.ft. gas V10 gets about 10MPG, whereas a 305hp/555lb.ft. diesel I6 gets about 18MPG in the same vehicle - those are both empty, daily-commuter numbers) > You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and diesel > engine of comparable power. That's simply not the case. The diesel can > easily outperform a comparable gas engine by 50% in fuel economy, sometimes > upwards of 90% (as evidence, a 310hp/450lb.ft. gas V10 gets about 10MPG, > whereas a 305hp/555lb.ft. diesel I6 gets about 18MPG in the same vehicle - > those are both empty, daily-commuter numbers) I realize that but the payback isn't there. Diesel here is $.20 higher than regular gas. The diesel engine costs $5000+ more than the gas. People buy it for the power it puts out. It hasn't been a cost saver for many years. I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton unless its cost over a comparable gasser is under $1000. The Diesel costs more initially, but maintenance is less, it's going to last three or four times as many miles as the gas engine and of course there's the waaaaaaaaay better fuel economy. Plus you have to figure the diesel DC would put in a 1500 would probably be a four cylinder or a much smaller six with correspondingly better economy. >> You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and >> diesel engine of comparable power. That's simply not the case. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > many years. I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton unless its > cost over a comparable gasser is under $1000. >> You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and >> diesel engine of comparable power. That's simply not the case. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for many years. I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton > unless its cost over a comparable gasser is under $1000. You're correct, IMO. Diesel fuel costs more, the engine requires more expensive maint, and it costs more to buy. In routine driving it would take over 100K miles to break even. The only advantage to the current diesel is their towing ability. If you tow a lot - and I do mean a lot - it just doesn't pay. My Dakota gets 14mpg on mid grade fuel, 10-11 when towing my cobra on a flatbed trailer. I can squeeze 17-18 if I can travel the two lane blacktops and keep the speed under 65'ish. It's a pig. It drinks fuel like there's no tomorrow. It's still cheaper to own and drive than a diesel. Easier to park, too. However, I'm waiting for that to change. What we need is a small 4cyl turbo diesel for a light duty truck; like about 2.8-3.0L. Variable vane turbo like a Ford. 300-350 ft/lbs stock. 30mpg highway, 20mpg towing. 6 speed manual trans. And no more than $3K over base cost. Given those general parameters, I would seriously consider a new Dakota. Until that comes along, I'll keep my 360 until it dies. Then I'll rebuild it.  Signature.boB 2006 FXDI hot rod 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. > You're correct, IMO. Diesel fuel costs more, the engine requires more > expensive maint, and it costs more to buy. In routine driving it would > take over 100K miles to break even. The numbers don't support those assumptions. When you compare your gas Dakota to the available diesel-powered trucks, then yes - your operating costs are less, but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because you can't compare a 3/4-ton full-size truck to a Dakota. > The only advantage to the current diesel is their towing ability. If > you tow a lot - and I do mean a lot - it just doesn't pay. I've shown comparison between my two trucks many times... it certainly DOES pay, even though my gas V10 is lighter (2nd gen club cab vs 3rd gen quad cab) and better aerodynamically, my diesel is STILL cheaper to operate, whether hauling, towing, or shuttling me back and forth to work (which is by far it's primary duty). >> You're correct, IMO. Diesel fuel costs more, the engine requires more >>expensive maint, and it costs more to buy. In routine driving it would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > whether hauling, towing, or shuttling me back and forth to work (which is by > far it's primary duty). Well, we're comparing two different things, so I guess I should have qualified that statement a little. My fault. They're going to introduce a light duty truck with a light duty diesel - or so the rumor goes. So I was comparing my light duty truck to the current crop of available diesels - all heavy duty with large diesel engines. So, let me (maybe more clearly) state that a big diesel doesn't make economic sense compared to a light duty gas truck in light duty use. Compared to another heavy duty truck with a V10 gas engine, you're right; I agree with you. I only do a little bit of towing, probably less than 1,500 miles a year, and less than 5,000#. But I drive 15,000 miles a year. For me to step up to a diesel would cost me about $10K in initial purchase cost, based on KBB prices. I can buy a lot of gasoline for $10K. I'm afraid to even calculate the cost of a brand new truck. YEs, a well cared for diesel should easily last 200K miles. But what about the rest of the truck? I'm not that confident. Signature.boB 2006 FXDI hot rod 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. > I've shown comparison between my two trucks many times... it certainly DOES > pay, even though my gas V10 You are comparing a V10 3/4 ton to a Diesel 3/4 ton. The V10 guzzles gas. My 2004 Hemi Durango 4x4 averages 20mpg highway with the A/C on. Not bad for a vehicle with a base weight of 5200lbs. my 318 powered half ton wasn't any better than my v10 powered 3/4. the only 1/2 ton we ever owned that was close to fuel efficiency of what my diesel is unloaded was my old d100 with the 225. but were talking unloaded numbers here. put a trailer behind them just about any trailer and the diesel pulls away from the d100 easy. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > >> I've shown comparison between my two trucks many times... it certainly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My 2004 Hemi Durango 4x4 averages 20mpg highway with the A/C on. Not bad > for a vehicle with a base weight of 5200lbs. > my 318 powered half ton wasn't any better than my v10 powered 3/4. I got better mpg with my 360 1/2 ton than my 318 1/2 ton. A few friends that have the V10 tell me they are lucky to get 10 or 11mpg city with it. I got better than that with both the 318 and 360. >> my 318 powered half ton wasn't any better than my v10 powered 3/4. > > I got better mpg with my 360 1/2 ton than my 318 1/2 ton. A few friends > that have the V10 tell me they are lucky to get 10 or 11mpg city with it. > I got better than that with both the 318 and 360. yea what 11 or 12? don't really count does it? at least that's what I was getting. and yes 10 ~ 11 in the 488 v10 to and from work is about right. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. I've been reading this newsgroup for a long while, and have got some really insightful help from a lot of people ... but I have been reading this thread, an here's the 85% solution to everyone's mileage woes, GET YOUR FOOT OUT OF IT. Driving 65+ MPH is nuts, pulling a trailer at those speeds is INSANE. I think we really all have to reconsider the saying "I can't drive 55", and actually start doing it, take an extra 15 minutes to get to work, or whatever. The savings are quite noticeable ... I routinely used to check my mileage routinely (haven't with my Dodge), but when I owned my GMC 8.1L 6-speed manual, I got between 17-18 MPG hwy, and on one trip, 21 MPG solo! later,peace -Derek > I realize that but the payback isn't there. Diesel here is $.20 higher > than regular gas. The diesel engine costs $5000+ more than the gas. > People buy it for the power it puts out. It hasn't been a cost saver for > many years. Okay.... let's say, $2.299 for gasoline, and $2.499 for diesel. In the 10MPG gas engine, we spend about $11,500 for fuel to go 50,000 miles. We spend $6,940 for diesel to go the same 50,000 miles. We saved the cost of the engine right there (or very close - $4,560). In the next 50,000 miles, you save another $4,500 - which stays in your pocket instead of going to the oil companies. > I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton unless its cost over a > comparable gasser is under $1000. People are getting 15-16MPG with the Hemi in the 1500's... if a diesel option could get them 25MPG, that's $7,184 for gasoline, vs. $5,000 for diesel over 50,000 miles. So even if the engine's a $2,000 option, it easily pays for itself. Your analysis would probably explain why light diesel vehicles are prevalent all over Europe and much of the rest of the world. Bill >> I realize that but the payback isn't there. Diesel here is $.20 higher >> than regular gas. The diesel engine costs $5000+ more than the gas. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > diesel over 50,000 miles. So even if the engine's a $2,000 option, it > easily pays for itself. > Your analysis would probably explain why light diesel vehicles > are prevalent all over Europe and much of the rest of the world. Diesels there are not a huge premium to buy as they are here. Also they don't have the EPA rules against them. Tom, You're just confusing them with facts, ya know. ;) SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> I realize that but the payback isn't there. Diesel here is $.20 higher >> than regular gas. The diesel engine costs $5000+ more than the gas. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > diesel over 50,000 miles. So even if the engine's a $2,000 option, it > easily pays for itself. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > People are getting 15-16MPG with the Hemi in the 1500's... if a diesel > option could get them 25MPG, that's $7,184 for gasoline, vs. $5,000 for > diesel over 50,000 miles. So even if the engine's a $2,000 option, it > easily pays for itself. Name a diesel engine that puts out the same or greater power than the Hemi that gets 25mpg in a Dodge 1/2 ton size and weight vehicle and costs less than $2000 more than the Hemi. I agree, if they could do that it would sell. Nobody has even come close so far. I disagree both my diesels are paying for themselves in fuel savings the liberty especially. my wife's liberty is putting out 160 hp and 300 ft lbs of torque in a 4 cyl. and she's seeing 28 mpg with her driving style (lead foot) on the interstate to and from work everyday. driving the same commute she fills up once every week and a half when in the 360 powered Durango she was filling up every 3rd trip (not day trip to or from) basically she was filling the Durango every other day. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > >> You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > many years. I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton unless its > cost over a comparable gasser is under $1000. > I disagree both my diesels are paying for themselves in fuel savings the > liberty especially. my wife's liberty is putting out 160 hp and 300 ft lbs > of torque in a 4 cyl. The reviews of the diesel liberty all suggest its a dog. Considerably less performance than the gasser. Whats the EPA difference between the liberty gasser and the diesel? >> I disagree both my diesels are paying for themselves in fuel savings the >> liberty especially. my wife's liberty is putting out 160 hp and 300 ft [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > less performance than the gasser. Whats the EPA difference between the > liberty gasser and the diesel? epa sticker claims 25/30 witch is pretty close to what she is seeing in real world. the gasser wasn't that good by epa sticker but don't remember exactly. the truck is no dog, runs strong! slight turbo lag on hard accel I mean if your sitting still and just stomp to the floor you will notice it. but if you just pull off normal the lag isn't noticeable. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country > diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. My gal drives a VW Jetta TDI (diesel). She says that she gets 45 mpg. The same car with a less powerful gas engine gets 30 mpg ... at best. My current truck, 2004 Ram 2500, QC, 4x4, CRD (diesel) get's 19 hwy, 16 city. My prior truck, 2002 Ram 1500, QC, 4x4, 360 cid, got 12 hwy, 10 city, going downhill, with a tailwind and the engine shut off. Craig C. >> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the >> 2008 or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country > diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. Miles: People have bought stuff they don't "need" for years. A classic example is bottled water. A case can be made however for the economics of a light duty diesel. Mike In spite of the lousy performance due to underpowered engines, most COMPACT diesel cars sold well and gave great fuel mileage. How about a Rampage with a good turbo diesel? Now, for the average guy hopping from yard sale to yard sale, that would be darn near perfect. The Oldsmobile Diesel V-8, otoh, was just a dumb idea that got worse. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >>> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the >>> 2008 or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Mike SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The Oldsmobile Diesel V-8, otoh, was just a dumb idea that got worse. Is that the one that was not a Diesel design from the ground up but rather a converted gasser? The one that resulted in class-action lawsuits when they failed rather early? Or was that a Ford product? > The Oldsmobile Diesel V-8, otoh, was just a dumb idea that got worse. that was an example of what happens when you try to take a gas motor and make it into a diesel. you gotta build any engine from the crank up to work with the fuel you intend to feed it. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. >> >>>> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Mike Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (01-Nov-06 12:32 PM): >> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for >> the 2008 or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country > diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. I'm out of the country so I might be off base with this, but my first though was the availability of biofuel for diesels (including the possibility of make-your-own). A biodiesel pump opened up at my parent's usual gas station in June, so I'm guessing there's more opening up here and there. Can't remember if it was cheaper than diesel though... jmc Bryan Foust, a past member of the group and gone far to long, was working on homemade biodiesel and the results were looking quite good about the time he left. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) > Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (01-Nov-06 12:32 PM): >>> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > jmc SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Bryan Foust, a past member of the group and gone far to long, was working > on homemade biodiesel and the results were looking quite good about the > time he left. Hmmm.... long-time NG participant.... starts mixing up large quantities of volatile liquids... suddenly doesn't post anymore. Uh-oh... >> Bryan Foust, a past member of the group and gone far to long, was working >> on homemade biodiesel and the results were looking quite good about the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Uh-oh... Hmm, There was that huge explosion last year in the oil refineries of Texas City. Signature--Scott Hendryx-- MIANDERSON SAID "also you're totally being suckered on the BC game. FSU will cover.... >What is the purpose of a diesel 1/2 ton? People have been buying the >diesels because they want the power to tow or haul heavy loads. 1/2 ton >trucks don't need more power for the load they're designed to handle. > >Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country >diesel is priced close to what premium gas is. A couple of reasons I see for a 1/2 ton truck with a small diesel is torque and towing capacity, fuel mileage and longevity of the engine. I have a 318 Dakota which is a gas hog. I could see a small diesel in my truck getting double the mileage I currently get. > A couple of reasons I see for a 1/2 ton truck with a small diesel is torque > and towing capacity, fuel mileage and longevity of the engine. I have a 318 > Dakota which is a gas hog. I could see a small diesel in my truck > getting double the mileage I currently get. More than the engine needs to be changed to increase tow capacity in a 1/2 ton. Especially so with the Dakota. I had a Ram 1500 QC 4x4 with the 318. It was way under powered to tow much. The 360 performed much better. The Hemi even better and higher mpg too. > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the 2008 > or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has taken so > long. And what are Dodge, GM, Toyota and Nissan doing about it? It seems like > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > diesel Dakota. I'll believe it when I see it. There's been rumors of a small diesel for years. So far, the EPA has managed to prevent it. Signature.boB 2006 FXDI hot rod 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. > > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the 2008 > > or 2009 model year. All I can say is it's about time and what has taken so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll believe it when I see it. There's been rumors of a > small diesel for years. So far, the EPA has managed to prevent it. GM sold Diesel half ton pickups for years. Al If you're meaning the gutless 350 Diesel, it was "Diesel" by name and squirrel cage in power. One of the dumbest things GM ever did, similar to putting 9" drum brakes on the GTO in 64. SignatureBudd Cochran John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams) >> > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the > 2008 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Al SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > If you're meaning the gutless 350 Diesel, it was "Diesel" by name and > squirrel cage in power. The 350 was a converted gas engine. It was not the best, but GM did bring us a long way in starting a cold Diesel. The 6.2 was a real Detroit Diesel. And, you could get it in a half ton, van, Suburban or Blazer. Wasn't very powerful, but it started and delivered very good fuel mileage. Al And one of DC`s dumbest is putting 9" drum brakes on on a 5.2 Dakota 4x4. Lots of power to get it going but try to stop it with a full load! Which can be MORE carry capacity then ram 1500 with HD package BUT YOU GET REAL brakes with that or 1500. I vote yes for the crd diesel dakota too, the liberty crd is a real stump puller untill its wound up. > One of the dumbest things GM ever did, similar to putting 9" drum brakes > on the GTO in 64. You do know that drum brakes have more surface area than disk, right. Pleas tell me how many big rigs use disk brakes. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > And one of DC`s dumbest is putting 9" drum brakes on on a 5.2 Dakota 4x4. > Lots of power to get it going but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > One of the dumbest things GM ever did, similar to putting 9" drum brakes > > on the GTO in 64. Hi TBone, Friction is independent of area. There's a lot more to disk v drum than just area. Big rigs with drums have a much larger heat dissipation area for relatively long slow stopping. Dave > You do know that drum brakes have more surface area than disk, right. Pleas > tell me how many big rigs use disk brakes. > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the > 2008 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > diesel Dakota. First of all, if you want a real truck, why buy a 1/2 ton. A half ton won't hold sh.t, much less carry my groceries from the store. BLAAA, I say "sh.t on the 1/2 tons" Only stoopid pukes would consider buying one. Signature--Scott Hendryx-- MIANDERSON SAID "also you're totally being suckered on the BC game. FSU will cover.... >> Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the >> 2008 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BLAAA, I say "sh.t on the 1/2 tons" Only stoopid pukes would consider > buying one. The you must own a few of them >First of all, if you want a real truck, why buy a 1/2 ton. A half ton won't >hold sh.t, much less carry my groceries from the store. > >BLAAA, I say "sh.t on the 1/2 tons" Only stoopid pukes would consider buying >one. I can see you don't have an opinion on this issue. According to your logic I guess the only trucks on the road should be semi's. Why buy a 3/4 ton when you could get a 1 ton? And why get a 1 ton when you could get a 1 1/2 or 2 ton. I believe there is a large market for 1/2 ton trucks with small diesels in them. > I can see you don't have an opinion on this issue. According to your logic I > guess the only trucks on the road should be semi's. Why buy a 3/4 ton when you > could get a 1 ton? And why get a 1 ton when you could get a 1 1/2 or 2 ton. > I believe there is a large market for 1/2 ton trucks with small diesels in > them. The market for 6-cyl 1/2 tons is rather small. They're often bought stripped and used by construction firms to carry a tool box etc. to construction sites. They need the bed to carry somewhat bulky but not all that heavy equipment etc. >The market for 6-cyl 1/2 tons is rather small. They're often bought >stripped and used by construction firms to carry a tool box etc. to >construction sites. They need the bed to carry somewhat bulky but not >all that heavy equipment etc. Why buy a 6 cylinder 1/2 ton when you can get a 1/4 ton cheaper and get better gas mileage? I would agree the market for 6 cylinder 1/2 tons is small. But if it had a small 6 cylinder diesel in it that would be a different story. > Why buy a 6 cylinder 1/2 ton when you can get a 1/4 ton cheaper and get better > gas mileage? Who makes a 1/4 ton truck? So called mini-trucks such as Toyota or Nissan are still 1/2 ton and not any cheaper. >> I can see you don't have an opinion on this issue. According to your >> logic I guess the only trucks on the road should be semi's. Why buy a 3/4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > construction sites. They need the bed to carry somewhat bulky but not all > that heavy equipment etc. I agree. I don't see the need. > First of all, if you want a real truck, why buy a 1/2 ton. A half ton won't > hold sh.t, much less carry my groceries from the store. > > BLAAA, I say "sh.t on the 1/2 tons" Only stoopid pukes would consider buying > one. Why buy more of a truck than one needs? My 1/2 ton Dodge did everything I needed it for. I now have a 2004 Hemi Durango which does great. Sure I could have bought a 3/4 ton Suburban but why? Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in it vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! Yes the outright (read initial) expense for a diesel is more, but if you look at the long run, long term pricing of it, a diesel is cheaper. I have a 25 gallon tack and at 2.05 a gallon and a 325 mile range in the city, I have to fill up at least once a week. I know a diesel would get better mileage then that. I am spending about 50 buck per oil change right now and that is doing it every 5k running full synthetic oil. Tom, do you change oil that often, I am sure the price is close? Also, though a 1/2 may not have the load capacity of a larger truck, a diesel would make more sense if you use the truck for any type of moving, hauling, traveling, etc... BTW, also of note in the new issue of DieselPower, Cummins is playing with two new engines, a V-6 and a V-8, both considerably lighter then the I6. Hmmm, a 1/2 diesel sounds a little more realistic with something like that. > Ford has announced they will offer a diesel option in the F-150 for the > 2008 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > diesel Dakota. > Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in it > vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have a 25 gallon tack and at 2.05 a gallon and a 325 mile range in the > city, I have to fill up at least once a week. Diesel here in MA is $2.63@gal reg gas is $2.11 I know a diesel would get better > mileage then that. I am spending about 50 buck per oil change right now > and that is doing it every 5k running full synthetic oil. Tom, do you > change oil that often, I am sure the price is close? Also, though a 1/2 > may not have the load capacity of a larger truck, a diesel would make more > sense if you use the truck for any type of moving, hauling, traveling, > etc... How much does a 1/2 ton get used to capacity either loaded or towing? I'd bet not often. I can't see the benefit of a diesel in one. >> Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in >> it vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How much does a 1/2 ton get used to capacity either loaded or towing? I'd > bet not often. I can't see the benefit of a diesel in one. I guess this depends on the person >>> Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in >>> it vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I guess this depends on the person It sure does. Hey! While I have your attention thanks for the advice on the gps went with the garmin and it is super. >>>> Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in >>>> it vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Hey! While I have your attention thanks for the advice on the gps went > with the garmin and it is super. Glad to have helped man.. > Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in it > vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > a diesel 1/2 ton is long overdue and is a no brainer. I personally want a > > diesel Dakota. > Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in it > vice a gasser. Hell, I have a half ton and WISH I could convert it! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >Back in the early 80's Dodge did offer a half ton truck with a diesel. If I remember correctly is was a 6 cylinder supplied by Nissan. I drove one of these truck and found it a bit sluggish, but the fellow that owned it was extremely happy with the fuel economy. Does anyone know more about this package? >> Comparing a 1/2 ton to a 1/2 ton truck, I would rather have a diesel in >> it [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >owned it was extremely happy with the fuel economy. Does anyone know >> >more about this package? 1978 and '79 were the years. The 6 cylinder Diesel was a Mitsubishi. It was underpowered, not turbo charged and sold poorly, around 2500 units IIRC. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.