Diesel 1/2 ton announced

According to the new issue of Diesel Power, there is a chance that Toyota will be releasing a 3/4 ton version of the Tundra, with a diesel in it. Though it is not in stone there is talk that they may use cat.

What is the purpose of a diesel 1/2 ton? People have been buying the diesels because they want the power to tow or haul heavy loads. 1/2 ton trucks don't need more power for the load they're designed to handle.

Saving on fuel costs isn't an issue today since in most of the country diesel is priced close to what premium gas is.

You're making the assumption that the MPG is equal between a gas and diesel engine of comparable power. That's simply not the case. The diesel can easily outperform a comparable gas engine by 50% in fuel economy, sometimes upwards of 90% (as evidence, a 310hp/450lb.ft. gas V10 gets about 10MPG, whereas a 305hp/555lb.ft. diesel I6 gets about 18MPG in the same vehicle - those are both empty, daily-commuter numbers)

I'll believe it when I see it. There's been rumors of a small diesel for years. So far, the EPA has managed to prevent it.

My gal drives a VW Jetta TDI (diesel). She says that she gets 45 mpg. The same car with a less powerful gas engine gets 30 mpg ... at best.

My current truck, 2004 Ram 2500, QC, 4x4, CRD (diesel) get's 19 hwy, 16 city.

My prior truck, 2002 Ram 1500, QC, 4x4, 360 cid, got 12 hwy, 10 city, going downhill, with a tailwind and the engine shut off.

Craig C.

I realize that but the payback isn't there. Diesel here is $.20 higher than regular gas. The diesel engine costs $5000+ more than the gas. People buy it for the power it puts out. It hasn't been a cost saver for many years. I just do not see a use for a diesel in a 1/2 ton unless its cost over a comparable gasser is under $1000.

You're correct, IMO. Diesel fuel costs more, the engine requires more expensive maint, and it costs more to buy. In routine driving it would take over 100K miles to break even. The only advantage to the current diesel is their towing ability. If you tow a lot - and I do mean a lot - it just doesn't pay. My Dakota gets 14mpg on mid grade fuel, 10-11 when towing my cobra on a flatbed trailer. I can squeeze 17-18 if I can travel the two lane blacktops and keep the speed under 65'ish. It's a pig. It drinks fuel like there's no tomorrow. It's still cheaper to own and drive than a diesel. Easier to park, too. However, I'm waiting for that to change. What we need is a small 4cyl turbo diesel for a light duty truck; like about

2.8-3.0L. Variable vane turbo like a Ford. 300-350 ft/lbs stock. 30mpg highway, 20mpg towing. 6 speed manual trans. And no more than $3K over base cost. Given those general parameters, I would seriously consider a new Dakota. Until that comes along, I'll keep my 360 until it dies. Then I'll rebuild it.

Okay.... let's say, $2.299 for gasoline, and $2.499 for diesel. In the

10MPG gas engine, we spend about $11,500 for fuel to go 50,000 miles. We spend $6,940 for diesel to go the same 50,000 miles. We saved the cost of the engine right there (or very close - $4,560). In the next 50,000 miles, you save another $4,500 - which stays in your pocket instead of going to the oil companies.

People are getting 15-16MPG with the Hemi in the 1500's... if a diesel option could get them 25MPG, that's $7,184 for gasoline, vs. $5,000 for diesel over 50,000 miles. So even if the engine's a $2,000 option, it easily pays for itself.

The numbers don't support those assumptions. When you compare your gas Dakota to the available diesel-powered trucks, then yes - your operating costs are less, but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because you can't compare a 3/4-ton full-size truck to a Dakota.

I've shown comparison between my two trucks many times... it certainly DOES pay, even though my gas V10 is lighter (2nd gen club cab vs 3rd gen quad cab) and better aerodynamically, my diesel is STILL cheaper to operate, whether hauling, towing, or shuttling me back and forth to work (which is by far it's primary duty).

GM sold Diesel half ton pickups for years.

Al

Miles:

People have bought stuff they don't "need" for years. A classic example is bottled water. A case can be made however for the economics of a light duty diesel.

Mike

I'm out of the country so I might be off base with this, but my first though was the availability of biofuel for diesels (including the possibility of make-your-own). A biodiesel pump opened up at my parent's usual gas station in June, so I'm guessing there's more opening up here and there. Can't remember if it was cheaper than diesel though...

jmc

Your analysis would probably explain why light diesel vehicles are prevalent all over Europe and much of the rest of the world.

Bill

Tom,

You're just confusing them with facts, ya know. ;)

If you're meaning the gutless 350 Diesel, it was "Diesel" by name and squirrel cage in power.

One of the dumbest things GM ever did, similar to putting 9" drum brakes on the GTO in 64.

In spite of the lousy performance due to underpowered engines, most COMPACT diesel cars sold well and gave great fuel mileage.

How about a Rampage with a good turbo diesel? Now, for the average guy hopping from yard sale to yard sale, that would be darn near perfect.

The Oldsmobile Diesel V-8, otoh, was just a dumb idea that got worse.

Bryan Foust, a past member of the group and gone far to long, was working on homemade biodiesel and the results were looking quite good about the time he left.

The 350 was a converted gas engine. It was not the best, but GM did bring us a long way in starting a cold Diesel. The 6.2 was a real Detroit Diesel. And, you could get it in a half ton, van, Suburban or Blazer. Wasn't very powerful, but it started and delivered very good fuel mileage.

Al