Dakota Diesel

Page 1 of 3  
I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put into the Sprinter Van. I figure it'll give me as good or better
performance (particularly towing capacity) than the old 3.9 liter v6 but with mileage in the upper 20's.
Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gill Bentry wrote:

Typo above: Sprinter has a 2.7 liter engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...

A couple of months ago I sent a letter to Dodge, Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Nissan asking for information on when they would be offering a 1/2 ton truck with a diesel engine option. Nissan didn't respond at all and the others responded with almost identical wording that said they had no 'immediate' plans to offer a diesel engine in their 1/2 ton trucks but they would 'listen' to what their customers wanted. When I posted their response on this website the general opinion was that the manufacturers are afraid to offer a diesel 1/2 ton as they would last a lot longer than a gas engine and would hurt their most profitable market. I'll be watching your post to see what folks think of your idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Electrician wrote:

Thanks for the reply... the replies from the manufacturers is very interesting, and anticipated. I also had the thought that it would hurt their gas engine sales. That, plus they got us by the short hairs if we want to buy a stock diesel: Either buy a monster truck or forget about it. I really don't need a truck with a 160 inch wheelbase and 650 foot/lbs of torque.
I'm not much of a mechanic: I can change oil and do minor work but an engine swap and probable transmission adapter is way over my head. What I'm going to do is, look into local shops that do custom engine work and get some price quotes. I figure it would be worth doing even if it cost 6 or 7 grand.
The thing that I like about the Dak diesel concept is, it's a truck thats very efficient, very nimble and can actually be used like a TRUCK. With the right transmission and rear axle my "concept" truck will probably get around 30mpg and tow over 5000 lbs.
Anyway, I'll post any updates on here as they come up. I'm in no big hurry to get this done.
-GB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The fly in the ointment here is new NOx regs that is going to make diesel a lot less atractive and expensive to package plus rising fuel prices as they pass on costs for removing sulpher from fuel by next fall. I look for diesel to average 25 to 50 cents more a gallon than gass then and to average 75 cent to a dollar more during winter when heating oil demand increases so what are you really saving when fuel costs more and so does engine??? If they were going to put a diesel in a 1/2 ton they should have 5 years ago when regs were looser but those days are gone. BTW, they are not picking on diesels per say but they are VERY big NOx generators that have slipped through the reg cracks in the past and the crack is being sealed in 08 and they are going to have to start complying with NOx emissions like gas engines have for over 30 years now. (one diesel P/U makes about as much NOx as 5 to 7 gas trucks because it was not regulated in the past but that is ending finally. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced that the 4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel but if I can't have one then I don't want to continue to support the ragheads.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What makes you think that owning a diesel will not be supporting the ragheads?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nc.rr.com says...

Better miles per gallon and the option of using bio-diesel which is already being sold in my area. As is E85.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The more time passes...the more I'm headed to bio myself with my next truck. Cost about 70 cents/gallon to make. Already thinking of a larger tank system to make larger batches. Taking a little bit of time once a month...to save a ton of duggets is looking better and better all the time.
--
------------------------------------------
Laszlo Almasi
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Carolina Watercraft Works wrote:

It costs me about $1.00 per gallon to make. The biggest single production cost for me is buying methanol at $3.50 a gallon. That doesn't include my time, electricity, reduction in mpg, fuel burned collecting and drying w.v.o., wash water, etc. Making biodiesel isn't exactly hard to do but it isn't as simple as some lead you to believe. It is very worthwhile, but it isn't ideal for everyone. If you think of it as anything more than a hobby it becomes work.
--
Ken


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you some king of racist?
What exactly is a "raghead"?
You get loopier all the time SnoIdiot.
--
"I am such a Stinky Fat Matter" - Why bother?

The Odiferous Fat Matter
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A 'raghead' is an idiot who wears a rag on his head. hence the name. An alternative term is towelhead. It depends on whether they wear a bathroom towel or just a common garage rag on their head as to whether they are properly called raghead or towelhead. There is nothing 'racist' about it, it's just an accurate description of what the moron chooses to wear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:34:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@xo.com (Electrician) wrote:

Tell you what, this may ruffle a few feathers but I think flex fuel is a better choice here because you will be able to run several kinds of fuel mixtures with no problem (0 to 85% alchol and new P-series fuels when they start to appear in a few years. With diesel it is just diesel. Yes there is biodiesel but "bio" is bad on NOx emissions too (worse than with pure diesel) so its long term impact my be very limited starting in 08. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

What are the horsepower implications of running E85 versus E15? My understanding is the E85 has a higher octane rating but has lower overall energy content. So E85 will produce lower miles per gallan but what about towing horsepower and torque?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:11:07 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@xo.com (Electrician) wrote:

In theory as long as the ECM properly controls spark timing and mixture, there should be no power loss with E85 (actaully a slight possible power gain) but since it has less BTU energy per gallon you will have to burn more of it to get same power. A plus of E85 is because it has much higher octane, the engine is able to extract a bit more of the avaible BTU's in fuel because it does not have to retard the spark like it does with 87 octane so the MPG loss is not quite as bad as it could be and the 85% alchol in E85 greatly cools the intake mixture (a lot more than gas does) which results in a denser air/fuel mixture and a bit more expansion on ignition and resulting energy to harness. Honest the future may lie in cars fueled by 100% methyl alchol which can be easily made from coal but since Big Oil does not control coal it is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. If they were to do this they could build cars with 12 or 13 to one CR that would make great power and get near same MPG because of the effiecency gains from the higher CR ratios. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

Yes, biodiesel does produce slightly higher NOx emissions. But the trade-off is that it's much, much cleaner burning overall than #2 diesel fuel. NOx is only one small part of the emissions from diesel engines.
http://www.veggiepower.org.uk/page940a.htm http://www.planetfuels.co.uk/emissions /
--
Ken


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Cleaner burning with suspended particularits and CO but no less CO2 and more NOx and a trade of slightly lower CO for higher NOx is not a good trade because NOx has more reaching effect than CO. Nothing to brag about here at all. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it (nor does the EPA), but you may think what you want.
Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.
Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.
--
Ken


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually the EPA agrees that diesels are a REALLY big problem with emissions (bigger than gas vehicles) hence the rule change that take effect in 2008. For year the escaped restrictions on NOx and such but the loop hole is now being closed. Diesle are really bad on polution and some may quote low PPM emissions from them but the problem is the volume of emission the produce because they move a LOT of air through them and the low PPM translate to very high lbs per mile numbers when volume of air is factored in. Started in 2008 they will have to comply to emisson weight per mile and detyriot is still scrambling to meet NOx restrictions because diesels are BIG NOx generators by nature and the last thing you need is a fuel that produces even more NOx (even a small amount extra) when dealing with NOx restrictions. Had NOx restrictions been in place long ago (like they have been for gas ones for over 25 years) you would not seen the wide spread usage of them today in light trucks. Detroit exploited the loop hole in the past. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.