Covers come off new VW Amarok one-tonne truck

[kjclow]

Originally Posted by blaz

Well they do sell a lot of full size pickups with V6 gas engines, so I guess there's a market for a big truck with a wimpy engine.

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.

[atc98002]

Originally Posted by kjclow

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.

[julces79]

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

[greengeeker]

Originally Posted by kjclow

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.

[blaz]

Originally Posted by kjclow

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.

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.

[TDIMeister]

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.

[thebigarniedog]

Originally Posted by blaz

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.

[TDIMeister]

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.

[m1ketdi]

Originally Posted by TDIMeister

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?

[kjclow]

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!

[blaz]

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.

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.

[UTAH]

Originally Posted by greengeeker

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

[thebigarniedog]

Originally Posted by blaz

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......

[blaz]

Originally Posted by thebigarniedog

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.

Originally Posted by thebigarniedog

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.

Originally Posted by thebigarniedog

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.

[blaz]

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.