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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:34:15 GMT, email@example.com (Electrician)
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.
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?
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:11:07 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Electrician)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.