DPM
Top Post Dawg
Amarok IS big. Much more imposing than L200, Hi-lux, etc.
maybe so but next GEN silverado is LOSING 500pds. Next Gen 2.0 liter will gain (hopefully) at least 30HP and more torque. the torque will be close to my CURRENT 5.3liter V8. so let's assume they can get it down to low 4000pds....that is only 1000 pds more than my Golf. I think there is a HUGE market for work trucks and basic trucks with the 2.0 liter. No it wont beat the Denali at the lights but I would be willing it would be very adequate and give great highway mileage and good torque for pulling, towing...etc....Full size wants the V6 TDI like in the TOUAREG.
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.maybe so but next GEN silverado is LOSING 500pds. Next Gen 2.0 liter will gain (hopefully) at least 30HP and more torque. the torque will be close to my CURRENT 5.3liter V8. so let's assume they can get it down to low 4000pds....that is only 1000 pds more than my Golf. I think there is a HUGE market for work trucks and basic trucks with the 2.0 liter. No it wont beat the Denali at the lights but I would be willing it would be very adequate and give great highway mileage and good torque for pulling, towing...etc....
So true.maybe VW is listening? if VW wants to sell 800K vehicles in NA they HAVE to bring a truck.....all over canada and USA you see 150s, Rams and Silverados. Do the VW excutives have their eyes closed when they visit NA?? Why could they not build them in NA ?? it's a new world....nothing should be off the table.
The 2.2L Ford/PSA is available in pretty much anything, including a few surprises...The new Ford Ranger for example:
2.2L Duratorq Turbo Diesel (265 Torque 33mpg)
German_1er_diesel, all of your posts that show all of the awesome diesels we will never see in the US, make me want to cry I love defenders!The 2.2L Ford/PSA is available in pretty much anything, including a few surprises...
Hey...we're suffering here in Canada too.I am so sick of not having the same choice/options in vehicles as other countries all over the world have!
A quad cab Amarok 2.0 TDI Manual would be the perfect vehicle for me, but the only way I will ever be able to get one would be to move out of the country.
It pisses me off to no end that even US auto manufactures produce great vehicles with small efficient diesel engines, then don't offer them to the US.....
Saw one in the Everglades, FL a couple of months back. Guy said a lot of the repair parts come from rusted out ones up in Canada.Remember those awesome SR5 4WD pickups from the 80's? Nice primitive and tough trucks with solid differential on front and back? Remember those?
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.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.
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?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.
If one drives 20k a year, it will take 6.5 years to recover the $2400 premium over the 5.0L.they say the difference in mileage will never make up for the difference in sticker price.
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.
Yes, the Ecoboost was a $1K upgrade in my 2011 F150 FX2.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.
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.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.
How much gain are chrysler getting with cylinder deactivation?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.
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.A full-time workhorse truck is still best powered by Diesel.
"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.The misnomer engine (ie the ecoboost 3.5) generally gets 1 mpg better then the 5.0. Power is about the same.
Have you factored in higher resale value of the diesel?If one drives 20k a year, it will take 6.5 years to recover the $2400 premium over the 5.0L.
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.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.
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.Yet Ford does not offer the 3.5 in their Super Duty line ---- but does the 6.2. Why is that?
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.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.
...
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.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.