Europe is a diesel economy and we're not. Diesel consumption in this country is a drop in the bucket that's why they refine 25% diesel and 25% gas and we don't. I can see where people complain about more diesels making the price of fuel go up. But at some point in that rising demand the "greedy" oil companies can't fail to notice the higher profits/demands of and for diesel fuel. I'd think they'd increase production to capture more of that money which should bring the price down or at the very least stabalise it. So long term the more diesels the better, bring em on.

 

A bit off subject,but the 09 Durango is going to have a Hemi-Hybrid version.

 

The 2010 Ram is supposed to get the same engine...

 

As always I see the GM diesels were blasted. No one seems able to understand that they were the result of the fuel crisis of the 1970's. The 6.2 was more fuel efficient than Chevy's V6 of the same period. Also if you will recall power went down on everything during that period so the 6.2 was on a par with the 350 V8. They were never intended to be torque monsters. I still have a 1996 Chevy truck brochure, it lists the 6.5TD as second only to the 7.4 (454 ci gasser). It out performed everything else in Chevy's lineup.

The engine was intended to conform to Chevy/GM V8 engine theory: Anywhere a small block can go a big block can go. This enabled Chevy/GM to offer these engines in 1/2 tons. A medium duty truck engine would not have worked. There is a guy on the web with a 6.5TD in a Vette. It is an extremely popular engine for conversions for all the same reasons any other Chevy engine is.

To the primary issue: When diesel pickups came out heavy truck operators didn't whine about increased competition for fuel. They bought pickups. The market as well as the engines themselves has changed drastically since the last attempt at dieselization. All of those things gas drivers did not like about diesels - sluggish, rough idle, smelly fuel and exhaust, hard starting etc no longer exist. Why do you think AUDI has been kicking tush on the circuit with it's 12 cylinder TDI's? To prime the pump for increased diesel offerings. To show people that a diesel can not only run with but dominate some of the most exotic cars in the world. The AUDI's are so dominant that Peugeot is entering the race series with a diesel.

The new engines are as smooth as a gas engine with comparable power and acceleration. Just as in the past when GM introduced it's first small diesels for economy reasons, economy is the overriding force with increased performance as a bonus. The market has come full circle.

Fuel will remain high into the future for global market reasons. Not the oil companies ripping us off. The world has changed. Thirty years ago China and India were minor players in the global energy markets. Now they are both on fire, especially China. They need all of the energy they can get. They have the money and are willing to pay for it. China and India are out of the bottle. The first and second largest populations on earth. How can we put them back in? We can't. The Chinese economy is booming. Millionaires are being created daily. There are also a lot of third world nations trying to electrify their countries and expand transportation systems. All of this takes energy, primarily oil.

Fuel in some parts of Europe is already at $8 per gallon and diesel is the overwhelming choice of power. Diesel will capture a significant portion of the U.S. market even though it costs more. Once people do the math and discover their operational costs will be less because the diesel will go much further on a single gallon.

These new engines will not carry a massive uprate charge. Remember, you all bought medium duty diesels in light duty trucks - a unique market. I would not be surprised if manufacturers rebate out the uprate charge to get the new diesels out there. CAFE standards as well as emission standards have changed. The diesel is the easiest way to meet them. From the way the 2010 regs read, if you were to lock yourself in the garage with a new diesel engine running, it might be difficult to kill yourself. The new gas engines will not be that clean.

Long term a non-fossil fuel source is the solution. Almost without question if it can be perfected at a reasonable price it will be the hydrogen fuel cell.

 

Diesel Used to cost less. As a matter of fact it seems like it only started costing more when I bought my 03.

 

Doctor Detroit-- please accept my thanks for an excellent post! Very well written and raises very valid and salient points.

 

GM's diesels of the late 70's were converted gas engines. They were an attempt at a quick bandaid for the fuel crunch using components that were never intended for the kind of compression ratio diesels need. Head gaskets, narrow main & rod bearings, mechanical fuel injection(poor electronics), and no turbo. The diesel does not appraoch it's potential without turbocharging/intercooling and electronic controls. I would love to see a four cylinder Cummins for the 1500s.

 

I agree good post. That should be linked to every whining "conspiracy theory big oil price gouging" thread that comes up.

 

That would be yes. The first engine GM brought out, the 5.7 liter, was a quick conversion of a gas block. GM wanted to get in the game ahead of the competition. I remember those engines were not even rated to tow.

I had a girlfriend with one in a 98 Olds (Company car) and it was great. She broke an alternator bracket and once asked me to R&R the serpentine belt. Other than that she had tranny problems several times but the engine was perfect. She loved to drive and she had a company fuel card. Every weekend we took off. She never let me drive my truck. We put a lot of miles on that car and the engine was never a problem

You have to remember that a problem is determined on a percentage basis. A 10% failure rate would be huge. That would mean that out of 1,000,000 units 100,000 came back. That would be very costly for a manufacturer. However, on the flipside it also means that 900,000 units performed well. People never want to look at that side of the equation.

GM offered the 5.7 for about 5 years so we have to assume it wasn't that bad. However, it did not achieve all of it's specified goals. This is why GM turned to it's diesel division: Detroit Diesel Allison and asked them to design the 6.2 liter engine and later the 6.5 liter.

Let's go back to 1982 when the 6.2 was introduced. Every automotive diesel on the road from all manufacturers was mechanically injected. Almost every engine in Detroit Diesel's inventory was offered either naturally aspirated or turbocharged. I believe the Cummins NH 250 was still available. Further, at that time not one manufacturer was offering intercooling. Some, not all, heavy diesels and as I recall none of the medium duty diesels were JWAC'ed (Jacket Water Aftercooled).

As for 'poor electronics' where? There was no such thing in the early 1980's. During this time Detroit Diesel began development research on it's first 4 cycle engine. It was to be the replacement for it's 2 cycle highway engines. The writing was on the wall. Meeting future regs with 2 cycles would have been too difficult.

Detroit Diesel began testing DDEC on the end of the 92 Series run. In 1987 it introduced the FIRST fully electronic engine. There is no mechanical version of the Series 60.

The 6.2 and the 6.5 were actually state of the art at the time of their introduction. Was the Navistar 6.9 turbocharged? By the time the Cummins 5.9 was introduced in the Dodge all medium and heavy duty diesels had been turbocharged for some time.

GM offered the 6.2 and 6.5 for a total of 18 years. That does not sound like a dismal failure. Consider the Hummer, were the GM diesels that bad would the military have stayed with them for so many years?

You may not remember or know of the debate surrounding the Chrysler tank and it's radical new engine. The platform came very close to being rejected just on the basis of the engine. Early versions had big problems. We now know that tank as the M1A1 Abrams.

The GM diesels performed well for what they were. They were never intended to compete in the medium duty market. Ultimately GM had no choice but to get in the game, if you will. The light truck market being the most lucrative forced GM to change from a good little engine to a bigger, heavier, more capable engine the Dmax.

 

Early 6.9 Navistars naturally aspirated.

 

I had a 1978 Chevy half ton with one of the first 5.7 diesels. It loved to break down when ever I got more than 1k miles from home. The first engine ate a piston at 32k miles and the second engine did the same thing at 61k miles. I just figured that the maintenance manual should have said, "Don't bother to change the oil, just change the engine every 30k miles." There were some good things about that diesel. It got good mileage, and it sounded like an 18 wheeler. Problems were dependability obviously, and it was kind of a dog in performance. Some of the 5.7s might have been OK in cars, but they were pretty much a universal disaster in trucks. I knew several people who had the diesel pickups (my father was a dealer) and none of them lasted beyond 35 to 40k on the original engine and some much less. After my second engine blew up, I converted over to an Olds 350R gas engine (while on vacation, and in a friends garage in Washington) and put another 100k on the truck before I gave it to my gardener to take to Mexico. I think those early GM diesels "poisoned the well" for diesel engines in the US. As to whether diesels will be generally accepted here now in light vehicles, I think you have to look to Europe where gas prices have been much higher for many years. About 70% of all new vehicles sold in Europe are diesels. Now that our gas prices are catching up, Chrysler is betting that the same trend will happen here.

 

Including the 7.3L till 1994.

MikeyB

 

What you fail to realize is many states tax diesel at a higher rate than they tax gasoline...and the reasoning is obvious. Elected officials know if they raise the gasoline tax people will witch about it and make a stink. Ahhh, but if the diesel tax rate is raised, the number of people who will be affected will be less and they'll just deal with it. Of course, most times the extra cost just gets passed on to the consumer anyway, but atleast it isn't the elected official who is "to blame."

CT did just this and it wasn't enough, so the state added a "bulk shipment fee" to every tanker shipment of diesel, further increasing the cost of our fuel.

Brilliant!

 

Automotive, and light truck use account for less than 10 % of all diesel used, I for one would appreciate a durango with a 4 banger that got 35 -40 mpg. And those ranger and isuzu /luv pick-ups you were talking about being dead fish,are bringing pretty good money for 20 year old diesels on ebay as we speak. I say yes to a diesel in a jeep wrangler that would get 25-30 mpg. Until someone in this so called free market decides to build a couple more refineries,the only way diesel or gas is going is UP>