www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums TDIFAQ Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2014 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You



Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI News/Tech

TDI News/Tech This Forum is for the posting of TDI news related items.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 23rd, 2012, 18:37   #916
atc98002
Veteran Member
 
atc98002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjclow View Post
I'm not sure what qualifies as "a lot" but Dodge does not offer a V-6. Chevy only offers it in their base work truck that some dealers won't sell unless you need it for your trade. Ford offers 2 V-6s but they don't really get any better mileage than their smaller V-8. I know Ford is pushing the ECO-6 but from the people I know who have them, they say the difference in mileage will never make up for the difference in sticker price.
That surprised me that Dodge doesn't have the V6 any longer, but it figures. The V6 in my 2005 1500 doesn't have a lot of power, and doesn't do particularly well in economy either. I haven't seen better than 17mpg, and I see their small V8 is rated at 20. Why not have a more powerful engine if it burns less gas as well?

That said, I'd still prefer the Amarok TDI.
__________________
2011 Tiguan SEL with everything: Mine!
07 2.5 Beetle: Oldest Daughter
10 Routan: Youngest daughter needs a three row!
09 Jetta TDI: got the son-in-law in a VW now
atc98002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 19:55   #917
julces79
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: bolingbrook, il
TDI(s): 03 jetta tdi
Default why not in USA?

http://www.vw.com.mx/es/models/amaro...hline_4x4.html
diesel 2.0L (inyeccion directa) common rail
6 speed manual 4x4
2 turbocompressor in serie
163 hp
295 tq
12km/lt city
15km/1lt highway
julces79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2012, 22:54   #918
greengeeker
 
greengeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cambridge, MN
Fuel Economy: 42.2/50.0/58.1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjclow View Post
they say the difference in mileage will never make up for the difference in sticker price.
If one drives 20k a year, it will take 6.5 years to recover the $2400 premium over the 5.0L.

If you change trim, the payback is different. For instance the above numbers are for an XLT trim, if you go with a higher trim FX4 the premium is ~$1000 making the payback much shorter.

Anyway you spin it I'd rather have a TDI Amarok.
__________________
- Nick -
02 Jetta TDI 228k (42.2/50.3/58.1 MPG) // 01 Eurovan 24V (don't ask) // 00 TDI Ranger (39MPG)
How to Post Pics - How to Search
TDIclub trusted mechanic in Minnesota - PM me MY CALENDAR

Last edited by greengeeker; March 25th, 2012 at 23:01.
greengeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 07:03   #919
blaz
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario Canada
TDI(s): 05 Passat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjclow View Post
Ford offers 2 V-6s but they don't really get any better mileage than their smaller V-8. I know Ford is pushing the ECO-6 but from the people I know who have them, they say the difference in mileage will never make up for the difference in sticker price.
Quote:
If one drives 20k a year, it will take 6.5 years to recover the $2400 premium over the 5.0L.
If you change trim, the payback is different. For instance the above numbers are for an XLT trim, if you go with a higher trim FX4 the premium is ~$1000 making the payback much shorter.
Yes, the Ecoboost was a $1K upgrade in my 2011 F150 FX2.
People buy the F150's 3.5L V6 Ecoboost BiTurbo primarily for the low end torque which is quite a bit better than Ford's 5L V8. It's the F150's tow/haul engine, and is close as you can get to a diesel with similar low-end torque in a full size pick-up.
The mpg is respectable, but not as good as a diesel with equivalent low-end torque would be. But then, an equivalent diesel would probably be ~3-4K more expensive (Toaureg TDI for example). Which could take even longer to pay back.
__________________
2005 VW Passat Wagen TDI dechained, 39mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Chev Cruze Eco (Turbo) 41mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost (Bi-Turbo), 20mpgUS non-Winter-Towing
blaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 08:07   #920
TDIMeister
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

For applications that are called to operate under predominantly high-load such as heavy towing, the Ecoboost, indeed any gasoline engine, will not show a big improvement over a conventional gasoline engine. One reason is that downsizing, as is what Ecoboost is in concept, benefits primarily light load operation. The second is that while operating at full load, almost all gasoline engines operate rich of stoichiometric to keep temperatures (particularly of the exhaust valves and turbocharger turbine) in check.

A full-time workhorse truck is still best powered by Diesel.
__________________

TDIMeister's German-imported 1998 Audi A4 Avant TDI quattro

Are you receiving unwelcome sales solicitations or inappropriate, harassing messages in your PM? You can report them by pressing the image on the top right of the message in a similar way as reporting inappropriate posts.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 08:54   #921
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
 
thebigarniedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fail Command (Central Ohio)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaz View Post
Yes, the Ecoboost was a $1K upgrade in my 2011 F150 FX2.
People buy the F150's 3.5L V6 Ecoboost BiTurbo primarily for the low end torque which is quite a bit better than Ford's 5L V8. It's the F150's tow/haul engine, and is close as you can get to a diesel with similar low-end torque in a full size pick-up.
The mpg is respectable, but not as good as a diesel with equivalent low-end torque would be. But then, an equivalent diesel would probably be ~3-4K more expensive (Toaureg TDI for example). Which could take even longer to pay back.
The misnomer engine (ie the ecoboost 3.5) generally gets 1 mpg better then the 5.0. Power is about the same. The added complexity of the 3.5 undoubtedly will be trouble down the road for those choosing that route. What I am saying is that the 3.5 is a solution looking for a problem in the F150. What Ford should have done is utilized the smaller ecoboost engine (ie the 2.0, 4 cylinder turbo engine) from the explorer into the F150. The problem is of course ...... towing.
__________________
I do not support policies that increase the cost of energy, since those policies unfairly and disproportionately increase the cost of food, clothing and necessities on the poor. Welcome to critical Thinking 101.
OCD TDICLUB MEMBER # 1
thebigarniedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 10:10   #922
TDIMeister
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

That's going in the more extreme direction of a solution in search of a problem. IMNSHO Chrysler has a better approach (for the specific case of a gasser truck engine if one must) of a V8 with cylinder deactivation. A normally-aspirated HEMI with direct injection, very high compression ratio and cylinder deactivation would be very good.
__________________

TDIMeister's German-imported 1998 Audi A4 Avant TDI quattro

Are you receiving unwelcome sales solicitations or inappropriate, harassing messages in your PM? You can report them by pressing the image on the top right of the message in a similar way as reporting inappropriate posts.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 12:27   #923
m1ketdi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leam
TDI(s): Leon BKD
Fuel Economy: 50+mpg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIMeister View Post
That's going in the more extreme direction of a solution in search of a problem. IMNSHO Chrysler has a better approach (for the specific case of a gasser truck engine if one must) of a V8 with cylinder deactivation. A normally-aspirated HEMI with direct injection, very high compression ratio and cylinder deactivation would be very good.
How much gain are chrysler getting with cylinder deactivation?
m1ketdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 12:39   #924
kjclow
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Fuel Economy: 55 max / 44 avg on beetle ~37 on JSW
Default

IIRC, they were saying a 10 - 15% increase in highway mpg. Doesn't sound like much until you consider going from 18 mpg to 20 mpg on a 30 gallon tank. If they would offer a diesel engine in the 1500/150 line, maybe they could get the highway mileage at least up to 25, maybe as high as 30? Imagine doing almost 1000 miles on a tank of fuel!
__________________
2010 silver/black JSW TDI with DSG, 2011 red Golf TDI with dsg, 2003 red/gray Passat 1.8l gasser
kjclow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2012, 13:16   #925
blaz
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario Canada
TDI(s): 05 Passat
Default

Quote:
A full-time workhorse truck is still best powered by Diesel.
Sure. But they only exist in NA in the big truck categories (F250, F350), way more than most of us need. And way more expensive.
In the normal truck (F150) sizes, Ford's ecoboost provides more of the low end torque needed for hauling and towing than any V8, including the gas-guzzling 6.2L V8.
Quote:
The misnomer engine (ie the ecoboost 3.5) generally gets 1 mpg better then the 5.0. Power is about the same.
"Power is about the same"? What most truck owners want is torque at the low end (<3000 rpm) where most of the work is done. Look at Ford's tow capacity and payload charts. The Ecoboost is always rated higher than the 5L V8.
Better, look at the torque curves. Here's Ford's comparison of the Ecoboost with competing engines: Ecoboost vs the world
and here's Ford's comparison of the new 5L V8 with competing engines:
5L V8 vs the world
THe Ecoboost has way more low-end torque than the 5L. And just for kicks, here's Ford's comparison of their 6.2L V8:
6.2L V8 vs the world
The Ecoboost matches or beats the torque of even the big V8s at lower rpms.
These are Ford's graphs so maybe take them with a grain of salt when looking at their competitors engines. But they should be good for comparing the Ford line-up.
Will the Ecoboost be reliable in the long run? Who knows, but it's no more complicated VW TDI's with direct injection and turbos. And although diesels are famous for high mileage, you sometimes have to spend a lot of money to get them there (Passat's Balance Shaft, CR hi pressure fuel pump).
The Ecoboost will never match a diesel in fuel efficiency. But it is available, and AFAIK it provides the best low-end torque for normal sized trucks.
__________________
2005 VW Passat Wagen TDI dechained, 39mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Chev Cruze Eco (Turbo) 41mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost (Bi-Turbo), 20mpgUS non-Winter-Towing
blaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2012, 01:15   #926
UTAH
Veteran Member
 
UTAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City/Las Vegas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greengeeker View Post
If one drives 20k a year, it will take 6.5 years to recover the $2400 premium over the 5.0L.
Have you factored in higher resale value of the diesel?

Bill
UTAH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2012, 08:28   #927
thebigarniedog
Master of the Obvious
 
thebigarniedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fail Command (Central Ohio)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaz View Post
Sure. But they only exist in NA in the big truck categories (F250, F350), way more than most of us need. And way more expensive.
In the normal truck (F150) sizes, Ford's ecoboost provides more of the low end torque needed for hauling and towing than any V8, including the gas-guzzling 6.2L V8.

"Power is about the same"? What most truck owners want is torque at the low end (<3000 rpm) where most of the work is done. Look at Ford's tow capacity and payload charts. The Ecoboost is always rated higher than the 5L V8.
Better, look at the torque curves. Here's Ford's comparison of the Ecoboost with competing engines: Ecoboost vs the world
and here's Ford's comparison of the new 5L V8 with competing engines:
5L V8 vs the world
THe Ecoboost has way more low-end torque than the 5L. And just for kicks, here's Ford's comparison of their 6.2L V8:
6.2L V8 vs the world
The Ecoboost matches or beats the torque of even the big V8s at lower rpms.
These are Ford's graphs so maybe take them with a grain of salt when looking at their competitors engines. But they should be good for comparing the Ford line-up.
Will the Ecoboost be reliable in the long run? Who knows, but it's no more complicated VW TDI's with direct injection and turbos. And although diesels are famous for high mileage, you sometimes have to spend a lot of money to get them there (Passat's Balance Shaft, CR hi pressure fuel pump).
The Ecoboost will never match a diesel in fuel efficiency. But it is available, and AFAIK it provides the best low-end torque for normal sized trucks.
Yet Ford does not offer the 3.5 in their Super Duty line ---- but does the 6.2. Why is that? Ford is the one that "titled" this engine (ie the 3.5) the "ecoboost". Essentially, this engine returns a whole 1 mpg more then the 5.0. I would invite you to check out Fuelly for some real world numbers on this engine vs the 5.0.

Without turning this into a debate on the the 3.5 vs. the world, some other issues:

1. The towing mpg for the 3.5 sucks;
2. Adding complexity for the sake of adding complexity in a Ford is not a good thing long term;
3. The consensus appears to be that the 3.5 is already tuned to it's max from the factory. Ford is aggressively screening this engine for aftermarket tunes. The 5.0 has upside tuning potential.
4. The difference in max tow is minor.
5. Ford's normally apsirated v6 gets better mpg then the 3.5.

The point of using the 2.0 ecoboost is to improve the mpg of a vehicle that is otherwise relegated to the mid teens over-all driving. It fails due to the lack of towing potential (Ford admits the same). Ford's calling their 3.5 engine "ecoboost" does not accomplish this goal, since the mpg sucks in everday driving and sucks harder when towing. My global point (walking through the gasser facts to get there) is that there is no substitute for a properly sized diesel --- to which has yet to occur in any pickup truck.

What is worse is that Ford (and others) have so spread out the price points on their pickup trucks, that they have no incentive to cut into their profits to get to that point where a 3.5L Tdi works (entry level 2wd f150 starts at $20(k); any 4wd f150 starts at $30(k); the upper price range of a F150 is north of $50(K), which amounts to mainly options and status; any diesel offering using an oversized diesel engine (F250 up) minimum price of $40(k)).

What most truck owners want is a good mix of power, towing, fuel efficiency and price. The market, as it exists now, does not offer such a beast. While one person may want to look at towing as the most important feature of a truck, others may pick price or fuel efficiency as the most important. Stated differently, there is probably not a real world application for a zero - sixty mph towing a 9000 pound sled as the sole determinative factor in buying a truck, especially when I see most f150s 4wd not even being used to tow. Just an opinion......
__________________
I do not support policies that increase the cost of energy, since those policies unfairly and disproportionately increase the cost of food, clothing and necessities on the poor. Welcome to critical Thinking 101.
OCD TDICLUB MEMBER # 1
thebigarniedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2012, 09:59   #928
blaz
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario Canada
TDI(s): 05 Passat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigarniedog View Post
Yet Ford does not offer the 3.5 in their Super Duty line ---- but does the 6.2. Why is that?
For the extra heavy duty loads of the F250 and above, the 6.2L V8 or the diesel are proven and are more robust than the Ecoboost. They're certainly heavier with more cast iron. But obviously you pay for that capacity and robustness, initially and ongoing.
So Ford thinks the Ecoboost fits within the F150's lower tow/haul limits. What's the problem? It still has exceptional low-end torque.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigarniedog View Post
Ford is the one that "titled" this engine (ie the 3.5) the "ecoboost". Essentially, this engine returns a whole 1 mpg more then the 5.0. I would invite you to check out Fuelly for some real world numbers on this engine vs the 5.0.
...
1. The towing mpg for the 3.5 sucks;
...
Ford's calling their 3.5 engine "ecoboost" does not accomplish this goal, since the mpg sucks in everday driving and sucks harder when towing.
...
I have an Ecoboost and carefully record my fuel mileage. Over ~6000km towing, I'm getting the same mileage as our previous truck, a Tacoma 4L V6. With a 5000# load (inc. upright TT), mileage is ~12.0 mpgUS. But with about twice the low-end torque of the Tacoma, our trips are much easier.
I rarely use it other than towing, but so far am getting 18.6 mpgUS "around town" and up to ~23mpgUS steady on the hwy.
But you can get a lot worse mileage if you stomp on it. The power reserves are there, and if you use them unnecessarily you will pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigarniedog View Post
My global point (walking through the gasser facts to get there) is that there is no substitute for a properly sized diesel --- to which has yet to occur in any pickup truck.
Well, we can agree on that at least. I've repeatedly said that the Ecoboost's mileage will not match an equivalent diesel. But it does have similar low-end torque.
And since there's no diesel available for an F150 sized truck, and if you want that low-end torque, go for the Ecoboost. If you don't want all the low-end torque, do the 5L V8 or even go down to the 3.7L V6. Seems simple to me.
Not all of us are willing to wait (or pay) for the perfect diesel pickup.
__________________
2005 VW Passat Wagen TDI dechained, 39mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Chev Cruze Eco (Turbo) 41mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost (Bi-Turbo), 20mpgUS non-Winter-Towing
blaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2012, 06:32   #929
blaz
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario Canada
TDI(s): 05 Passat
Default

Just noticed on the vw.uk site how different the mileage on the Euro Circuit is for the 2L I4 BiTDI in the Amarok, versus the V6 TDI (245PS) in the Touareg.

Amarok Touareg
Urban 9.7 8.5 L/100km
Hwy 7.0 6.6 L/100km

My explanation: The Touareg has the 8-spd auto, while the Amarok only a 6sp manual and a final gear ratio to allow it to tow/haul more. Maybe aerodynamics too? Both vehicles are off-road capable ...

But I was surprised. Generally expect worse mileage with more powerful engines, and didn't realize how much other factors can turn that on it's head.
__________________
2005 VW Passat Wagen TDI dechained, 39mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Chev Cruze Eco (Turbo) 41mpgUS non-Winter
2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost (Bi-Turbo), 20mpgUS non-Winter-Towing

Last edited by blaz; April 6th, 2012 at 06:35.
blaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2012, 07:04   #930
German_1er_diesel
Veteran Member
 
German_1er_diesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bad Oldesloe
TDI(s): BMW 118d
Default

The Amarok is a lot larger than a Touareg. The Amarok is available with the 8-speed auto and it's then rated at 9.8 l/100km city and 7.0 l/100km hwy (8.6/6.8 with start/stop)
__________________
BMW 118d hatchback
German_1er_diesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1982 Volkswagen Rabbit Pickup coletraim00 TDI Cars for Sale/Wanted 6 May 29th, 2012 10:34
Volkswagen Pickup to have 2.0 TDI powerplant jettafock General VW Discussion 23 May 6th, 2009 17:46
Volkswagen Pickup Video K5ING General VW Discussion 17 December 14th, 2008 16:42
Volkswagen Jetta Pickup K5ING General VW Discussion 14 July 30th, 2008 06:03
Volkswagen Taro pickup vwestlife General VW Discussion 8 April 5th, 2006 05:40


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 13:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2014
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2013, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22642 seconds with 12 queries
[Output: 146.98 Kb. compressed to 124.89 Kb. by saving 22.08 Kb. (15.03%)]