Dodge 1500 Diesel

[Tims]

When was the last time you were in Europe 85? Price of a liter of gas in Germany is 1.632 Euro vs. 1.392 Euro for diesel. The rest of Europe is similar, nothing like the US so yup, diesel makes sense for them. Pretty sure you don't even need a calculator to figure it out. Oh and by the way, international engine of the year is a 3 cylinder DI gas turbo motor, praised for it's power, efficiency, and cost over in Europe, not diesel, so things are starting to change over there as well as .

I will be in Winterbach, Germany next month for business and will try and get a repair bill copy of my buddies BMW 5 series diesel for you but I think I will skip the calculator question unless you want to argue about fuel prices in Europe as well.

http://www.fuel-prices-europe.info/

[Hammertime]

I don't know that nobody asked the question (about a powerful engine in a half ton)... gm puts the 6.2L gasser in the half tons right?

If Nissan and Toyota really wanted to distinguish themselves, they'd put that powerful diesel in a SUV... a long long open gap in the market.

Yep, got one.

[85 Barefoot]

When was the last time you were in Europe 85? Price of a liter of gas in Germany is 1.632 Euro vs. 1.392 Euro for diesel. The rest of Europe is similar, nothing like the US so yup, diesel makes sense for them. Pretty sure you don't even need a calculator to figure it out. Oh and by the way, international engine of the year is a 3 cylinder DI gas turbo motor, praised for it's power, efficiency, and cost over in Europe, not diesel, so things are starting to change over there as well as .

I will be in Winterbach, Germany next month for business and will try and get a repair bill copy of my buddies BMW 5 series diesel for you but I think I will skip the calculator question unless you want to argue about fuel prices in Europe as well.

http://www.fuel-prices-europe.info/

3 months ago, but my point is not so much as to comparability of JUST fuel prices. As I've already shown, the difference here is about only 15% anyway. The other points that you and ruffdog brought up were maintenance as well as longevity, citing significantly higher maintenance and longevity was no longer an advantage. Price of gas and petrol differs all over the world and is but one component of my response regarding the rest of the world's significant more use of diesel than the US.

Edited September 26, 2013 by 85 Barefoot

[shawndoggy]

I guess the rest of the world who pays significantly more for gas and diesel are just idiots then and they lack math skills. Next time you see a European ask them why they can't use a calculator and explain that they're better off running petrol in their Peugeots.

A diesel jetta is a far cry from a half ton truck. Different focus, different purpose. Or... maybe not. You are sold on the half ton economy truck (same reason euro cars have diesels) while most american truck owners see diesel as a super-torque-towing powerplant. The challenge dodge.... errr "Ram".... will face is convincing american truck buyers that they are thinking of it the wrong way.

[nyryan2001]

85's numbers are even more favorable when you intruduce towing. Big time.

Also, diesel's city mileage doesn't dip as low comparatively as gas correct?

[85 Barefoot]

A diesel jetta is a far cry from a half ton truck. Different focus, different purpose. Or... maybe not. You are sold on the half ton economy truck (same reason euro cars have diesels) while most american truck owners see diesel as a super-torque-towing powerplant. The challenge dodge.... errr "Ram".... will face is convincing american truck buyers that they are thinking of it the wrong way.

I'm not sold on it at all. I haven't even driven one. What got me into this was the suggestion that Dodge missed the boat because the engine they used was a lawnmower engine and I had the temerity to suggest that a "man's size" diesel in a half ton makes less sense for people who would be looking for a truck like this (economy and comfort-minded). Then, I had to defend myself from people arguing that aside from the performance, the diesel offering did not make financial sense, which for many people, absolutely does. For all? Of course not. Truck could be a dud, I'm not sold on it, I'm sold on the prospect of a $3,000 diesel offering in a truck that is a comfortable ride and great economy will appeal to more people than a 5.0 diesel or a comparable gasser with lower MPGs.

Edited September 26, 2013 by 85 Barefoot

[Hammertime]

It looks like it's too close to make any sense for me to switch.

2014 Dodge diesel: 240 HP/420 lb-ft torque

2012 GMC 6.2 gasser: 403 HP/417 lb-ft torque

2014 GMC 6.2 gasser: 420 HP/450 lb-ft torque

Based on diesel prices and the delta on the maintenance, the numbers wouldn't add up for me.

[Tims]

Check your math then. Hemi get 14/20...diesel will get 20/27

Let's assume 16 and 23, fair? Assuming 15,000 miles a year thats 937 gallons on the hemi, 652 on the diesel. Assuming $3.50 and 4.00, that's $3,279.50 on the hemi annual fuel expense and $2,608 on the diesel. That's more than $600/year savings. It's a $3,000 upgrade at RETAIL. That's pays for itself in less than five years even DISREGARDING residual value. As to maintenance, don't forget that the HEMI requires 30k mi spark plug changes (2 plugs per cylinder) which is more than $400 at my dealer. So, by 100,000 miles your up to $1,200 in SPARK PLUGS. The DEF is cheap, DPF lifespan is at that this time unknown, so concluding that maintenance is more expensive on the diesel is at best, premature.

After owning 4 different diesels over the last 12 years, I do not agree with your assumptions. But perhaps the new Fiat powered Dodge will part the sea. Sort of hope it does, as I really do love oil burners.

[Tims]

I'm not sold on it at all. I haven't even driven one. What got me into this was the suggestion that Dodge missed the boat because the engine they used was a lawnmower engine and I had the temerity to suggest that a "man's size" diesel in a half ton makes less sense for people who would be looking for a truck like this (economy and comfort-minded). Then, I had to defend myself from people arguing that aside from the performance, the diesel offering did not make financial sense, which for many people, absolutely does. For all? Of course not. Truck could be a dud, I'm not sold on it, I'm sold on the prospect of a $3,000 diesel offering in a truck that is a comfortable ride and great economy will appeal to more people than a 5.0 diesel or a comparable gasser with lower MPGs.

Can I ask why you think the 5.0 Cummins will get such worse economy? Please don't tell me you are making this assumption because of displacement only.

[85 Barefoot]

It looks like it's too close to make any sense for me to switch.

2014 Dodge diesel: 240 HP/420 lb-ft torque

2012 GMC 6.2 gasser: 403 HP/417 lb-ft torque

2014 GMC 6.2 gasser: 420 HP/450 lb-ft torque

Based on diesel prices and the delta on the maintenance, the numbers wouldn't add up for me.

and for most they won't...I highly doubt dodge expects this to be an oft-selected engine. It's a niche, no doubt, doesn;t mean it doesn't have its justifications for some.

[85 Barefoot]

After owning 4 different diesels over the last 12 years, I do not agree with your assumptions. But perhaps the new Fiat powered Dodge will part the sea. Sort of hope it does, as I really do love oil burners.

What assumptions did I make? MPG of 23? Gas and diesel prices? Do I need to walk outside and take a picture of a pump? Is that what you mean?

[85 Barefoot]

Can I ask why you think the 5.0 Cummins will get such worse economy? Please don't tell me you are making this assumption because of displacement only.

For one, yes, I think displacement is a large part of it (you have previously contended you thought it would get 1 mpg worse than a 3.0, I WOULD dispute that purely on displacement grounds) but I also think Dodge has done their homework when it comes to extracting every last drop from their powerplants with the shutters, air suspension, the goofy alternator thing, etc. While no one has seen the new Titan, I don't think it would come within 1 mpg of the Dodge even using the 3.0. Add to that that regardless of consumption, the 5.0 will undoubtedly be more expensive to produce since 1) its simply bigger and raw materials cost more 2) its being designed for the nissan from scratch (running with old ram design for the 5.0) and 3) has to be sourced in America, so it will likely be, in my humble prediction, a much more expensive upgrade than 3k. So, it will be a more expensive upgrade, will undoubtedly consume more fuel in a package that will not likely be as aero as the Ram, I think all that adds up to a conclusion that the 3.0 will be received better than would a similar 5.0. Of course, Nissan and Toyota are going to sell plenty from their loyal buyers, but stealing from EB or GM 6.2 buyers? I'm not seeing it given higher price or american truck buyers who would just prefer a "real" truck with a diesel.

Edited September 26, 2013 by 85 Barefoot

[Lance B. Johnson]

I'm not sold on it at all. I haven't even driven one. What got me into this was the suggestion that Dodge missed the boat because the engine they used was a lawnmower engine and I had the temerity to suggest that a "man's size" diesel in a half ton makes less sense for people who would be looking for a truck like this (economy and comfort-minded). Then, I had to defend myself from people arguing that aside from the performance, the diesel offering did not make financial sense, which for many people, absolutely does. For all? Of course not. Truck could be a dud, I'm not sold on it, I'm sold on the prospect of a $3,000 diesel offering in a truck that is a comfortable ride and great economy will appeal to more people than a 5.0 diesel or a comparable gasser with lower MPGs.

I would in every sense pass on the dodge half ton diesel. The Nissan 5.0 makes much more sense to me. I think your wrong about the appeal and it will very much come down to the Cummins VS Fiat debate. Fiat will lose every time.

And then theres the power/torque VS fuel economy thing. I would say 90 percent of truck buyers would choose power/torque over a mile or two per gallon.

All that said, as EB continues to prove its reliability, I say that is the way to go. I assume this is why Ford scrapped the plans for a 1/2 ton diesel in favor of the EB.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Ruffdog

[85 Barefoot]

Can I ask why you think the 5.0 Cummins will get such worse economy? Please don't tell me you are making this assumption because of displacement only.

Also, this helped:

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#axzz2g10FkRD6

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

Interestingly the head of Ram trucks said: "But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy" (of course, the 5.0 was originally designed for Ram)

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10olkC7

Follow us: @AutomobileMag on Twitter | AutomobileMag on Facebook

[Tims]

What assumptions did I make? MPG of 23? Gas and diesel prices? Do I need to walk outside and take a picture of a pump? Is that what you mean?

What assumptions did I make? MPG of 23? Gas and diesel prices? Do I need to walk outside and take a picture of a pump? Is that what you mean?

Man. You have to install spark plugs every 30K on that Hemi? Should have bought an Eco. My discussion with you started with the Ecoboost vs the Ram Diesel and you moved it to the Hemi. Thats fine; I agree that the new Ram Diesel makes better financial sense than a 2013 Hemi without the 8 speed or stop/start technology assuming that the engine is a gem and performs as marketed.

[jk13]

1) its simply bigger and raw materials cost more 2) its being designed from scratch (as scratch as Cummins gets) and 3) has to be sourced in America, so it will likely be, in my humble prediction, a much more expensive upgrade than 3k. .

1) True

2) Don't forget that Cummins engine was designed for the Ram/Titan joint project the was killed when Fiat bought in. So if Ram didn't pay for R&D during the development phase I'm sure Cummins won't be shy about raising the HD diesel pricing to Ram for leaving them in the lurch on that motor.

3) Sadly probably also true.

[85 Barefoot]

I would in every sense pass on the dodge half ton diesel. The Nissan 5.0 makes much more sense to me. I think your wrong about the appeal and it will very much come down to the Cummins VS Fiat debate. Fiat will lose every time.

And then theres the power/torque VS fuel economy thing. I would say 90 percent of truck buyers would choose power/torque over a mile or two per gallon.

All that said, as EB continues to prove its reliability, I say that is the way to go. I assume this is why Ford scrapped the plans for a 1/2 ton diesel in favor of the EB.

Wait until the pricing on the Nissan comes out and see if you feel the same way. Gonna be way more than 3k upgrade with worse economy. More power, sure. Why anyone needs more than 420 feet of torque given inherent limitations in halfton platform evades me, however, that makes the world interesting. I'm glad so many people buy fords actually. Keeps me in the best looking truck in town with no competition

[85 Barefoot]

Man. You have to install spark plugs every 30K on that Hemi? Should have bought an Eco. My discussion with you started with the Ecoboost vs the Ram Diesel and you moved it to the Hemi. Thats fine; I agree that the new Ram Diesel makes better financial sense than a 2013 Hemi without the 8 speed or stop/start technology assuming that the engine is a gem and performs as marketed.

I moved it to the HEMI because the conversation of what makes financial sense needed the hemi to be compared to. As it is, people buy the EB, paying more for it (over the HEMI) based on what makes financial sense. So, HEMI an integral part of the natural progression of the conversation. Same "eco-analysis" that people do comparing EB to hemi people will do when comparing hemi and EB to diesel...nissan included, and everyone can come to their own conclusion based on their needs.

[85 Barefoot]

1) True

2) Don't forget that Cummins engine was designed for the Ram/Titan joint project the was killed when Fiat bought in. So if Ram didn't pay for R&D during the development phase I'm sure Cummins won't be shy about raising the HD diesel pricing to Ram for leaving them in the lurch on that motor.

3) Sadly probably also true.

2) correct and I posted the article thereon and amended as that is correct...still, its not as if they simply pulled it off the rack and hit the replicator button for the nissan.

[Lance B. Johnson]

I looked it up the hemi does require plug changes every 30k when practically EVERY other manufacture is over 100k now. Minor oversight on my part but holy bejesus. I had to change plugs every 30k in my 1967 mustang

My Titan is 107K interval and I can change them in less than 30 min? Total cost 40 bucks for spark plugs.

[Lance B. Johnson]

Wait until the pricing on the Nissan comes out and see if you feel the same way. Gonna be way more than 3k upgrade with worse economy. More power, sure. Why anyone needs more than 420 feet of torque given inherent limitations in halfton platform evades me, however, that makes the world interesting. I'm glad so many people buy fords actually. Keeps me in the best looking truck in town with no competition

Oh pleeeeaaaase. That design was used up forever ago.

But who am I to argue, Nissan needed an update a long time ago as well. But this is why I bought one.....I got it cheap.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Ruffdog

[Tims]

Also, this helped:

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#axzz2g10FkRD6

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

Interestingly the head of Ram trucks said: "But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy" (of course, the 5.0 was originally designed for Ram)

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10olkC7

Follow us: @AutomobileMag on Twitter | AutomobileMag on Facebook

You have no idea what Nissan is going to do from a transmission and aero standpoint. I will totally eat crow by missing mileage estimate by 1mpg. You think the head of Ram is going to say the truth with Giuseppe standing right behind him. "Well we really wanted the Cummins, but my dumb a** boss is making me put a Fiat in it instead to keep the engine plant in Italy busy.

[85 Barefoot]

Of course, I was kidding. that said, this is my first Chrysler product, I took nonstop ribbing from my chevy buddies, and 4 years later 60k on the ticker it has never had a hiccup. In fact, I haven't even changed plugs ...just oil

[85 Barefoot]

You have no idea what Nissan is going to do from a transmission and aero standpoint. I will totally eat crow by missing mileage estimate by 1mpg. You think the head of Ram is going to say the truth with Giuseppe standing right behind him. "Well we really wanted the Cummins, but my dumb a** boss is making me put a Fiat in it instead to keep the engine plant in Italy busy.

So your guess is that the 5.0 will be within 1 mpg? mized? city? hwy? EPA? real world?

And nope, I have no idea, I do know they have their work cut out. They going to use a CVT in a diesel? That going to hold up? I only know like 2 people with Murano CVT major issues. They going to use more than 8 speeds? Heck chrysler already putting a 9 speed in the cherokee...will that come to the ram? maybe...I cna postulate that Nissan unlikley to drop in a 10 speed, yes?

[Lance B. Johnson]

Also, this helped:

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#axzz2g10FkRD6

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

While not yet officially EPA rated, Head of engineering at Ram Trucks, Mike Cairns, says he expects the Ram EcoDiesel to reach at least 26 mpg highway.

“Our simulations were showing 23 to 24 mpg for [the 5.0-liter engine],” Cairns told us last week at the 2014 Ram Trucks press introduction in Westlake Village, California. “We love Cummins,” he continued.”The 6.7-liter is by far the best in its class. But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy.”

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10bfBUZ

Interestingly the head of Ram trucks said: "But the 5.0 is not optimized well for fuel economy" (of course, the 5.0 was originally designed for Ram)

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/cummins-diesel-engine-slated-for-2015-nissan-titan-originally-meant-for-ram-247211.html#ixzz2g10olkC7

Follow us: @AutomobileMag on Twitter | AutomobileMag on Facebook

One thing for certain, and no one can argue this, the numbers that the corporate peeps are spewing to the press WON'T be accurate. That goes for any manufacturer.