56 replies to this topic

[billharr]

Only if you tow heavy, and a lot do I think a diesel makes any since. 

 

• $5,000 or more to add a diesel to current truck.
• Have to buy diesel exhaust fluid, extra cost over gas
• Fuel cost more.

Just does not pencil out for most people.

[Foy]

As a diesel owner for 11 years next week, I am in position to offer a few observations, most of which echo those already offered:

 

• You must drive hundreds of thousands of miles for the new truck price difference for a diesel to get paid back from overall fuel cost savings.  That was somewhat less the case when I bought mine (a used 2002 F350 7.3 liter diesel) in May 2004 since diesel was still 20-25 cents per gallon less expensive than regular unleaded gasoline then, but surely the much higher per-gallon cost of diesel fuel today moves the payback point way, way back.   In short, you'll get a diesel for reasons NOT including overall fuel economy, unless you figure on keeping it for many years and driving lots and lots of miles.

 

• Oil changes are rather more expensive.  Even doing my own, as I've always done, it's hard to finish an oil and filter job for much less than $100.  The filter holds 2 quarts of oil and runs $15-20 and she takes about 13 qts of Rotella T-6 15W-50 synthetic @ at least $27/gallon.

 

• Fuel filters are a crucial fuel economy item and they're expensive at $25-40 each.  Replacing them can be a bit of a PITN, depending on make and model.  Mine is on the top of the engine where a carbeurator/intake manifold would be and you've got to also clean out trash from the bottom of the bowl in which the filter sits.  Reassembly with the O-rings properly seated is crucial, else you have the spectre of a diesel fuel volcano once you crank her back up.  Ask me how I know.

 

• These later model diesels need the urea tank (the exhaust gas modifier) refilled every so often, but I believe the difficulty and expense of doing so is slight.

 

• It's very nice to have zero maintenance/repair issues with a gasser's ignition system. 

 

• It's very nice to have a load of torque.  As the saying goes "You buy horsepower, but you drive torque".  It is incredible to be able to accelerate while driving uphill on the Interstate, heavily laden, when the need arises.  The engine's compression also makes a good engine brake by gearing down at the top of the pass or just by holding it down in a lower gear for long trail downhill segments.  So, driveability is generally very good.

 

• All of that torque can be a two-edged sword if you're of the inclination to get happy with the skinny pedal.  All makes and models are prone to drivetrain carnage caused by too much pressure on the accelerator at the wrong time.  Heavy-duty automatic transmissions are very expensive to repair or replace.  Ditto rear gears. 

 

All in all, I'm very happy with my old Ford diesel.  It is, hands down, the best truck I've ever owned, and I've driven nothing but trucks, truck-based SUVs, and Suburbans since 1973.  I certainly wish the fuel prices compared to gasoline would return to the position they were in during 2004, but I don't have any regrets that those "lines crossed".  It is essentially the only truck which can do everything I want it to do:  Tow a heavy load on one trip and get 20 mpg on another trip, both in the same week and with seating for 5 on each trip. 

 

Foy

[Bill D]

Good points Foy, all things to consider.

I think the biggest difference is the fact that we are now talking about a 2015 2.8L diesel vs. a 2002 7.3L diesel in a 1 ton.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Good points Foy, all things to consider.
I think the biggest difference is the fact that we are now talking about a 2015 2.8L diesel vs. a 2002 7.3L diesel in a 1 ton.

It's still going to take a very long time to hit the break even point with a diesel. When I bought my 2000/7.3, it made sense from both a cost to run, as well as the pulling power. I still have and really like that truck.

On my F350/6.7, I don't know if I will ever hit that break even point. That said, it's sure nice to have the power to accelerate on the climbs with the FWC and Airstream.

[Bigfoot]

There is always much discussion about diesel payback. That generally occurs between 3 to 5 years according to studies. What is often overlooked is that the diesel will last longer under heavy loads and resale value will be higher. Oil changes may be more expensive but are also less frequent, so that's a wash. 

 

The bugaboo with modern diesels is the complex emission systems (EGR, DEF, DPR, etc.) which are completely computer controlled and have had reliability problems, something you don't want in the backcountry. As emission requirements become even tighter the small diesel may prove to be impractical--the head of Fiat-Chrysler said as much last year. No diesel is going to be a game changer and they will never account for more than a small fraction of light truck sales in the U.S. 

 

The other disadvantage of diesel is weight (motor plus emission systems) which decreases payload and loads the front end. The Ram 1500 frame had to be reinforced to carry its 3L diesel, and yet some models have a payload under 1000 lbs. That said, the Ram 1500 diesel is an amazing and responsive tow vehicle, partly due to the outstanding 8-speed transmission. It's just not great for hauling a big slide-in camper, and I think the 2.8L will be similar. 

[MANXMAN]

 

The other disadvantage of diesel is weight (motor plus emission systems) which decreases payload and loads the front end. The Ram 1500 frame had to be reinforced to carry its 3L diesel, and yet some models have a payload under 1000 lbs. That said, the Ram 1500 diesel is an amazing and responsive tow vehicle, partly due to the outstanding 8-speed transmission. It's just not great for hauling a big slide-in camper, and I think the 2.8L will be similar. 

 

This is the problem with the Dodge. Low payload with the diesel. The most popular 1/2 ton truck configuration is a crew cab with a 6 foot box. In that configuration the Ram 1500 diesel has a maximum payload of 1270 lbs and that requires 3.92 rear axle ratio to get that. 

The upgrade cost for the diesel engine option here is $6400. 

 

In comparison, the same crew cab 6 ft box in a 2015 Ford F150 has a payload of 2660 lbs. Almost 1400 lbs more payload than the Dodge. I can't ever see getting enough mileage difference to come close to the outlay of the $6400 and have to give up more than half of the payload capacity on top of that. Not practical for camper hauling at all.

 

For GM to have a game changer with their diesel they would have to have at least equal payload as the gas engine delivers and a small upgrade charge for the diesel. Can't see that happening. 

[kmcintyre]

I think there are a few things to consider.  Payload for sure as we are all talking about campers.  The other though, is the torque.  I would put up a diesel against (almost) any gas truck going up a hill.  Loaded or not.  Gas trucks don't have the torque or mileage.  Of course, if you can't carry a camper, it really doesn't matter but given I can put a FWC Eagle on a Dakota (or others in Tacomas, etc.) it's doable.  If you want a 9' camper with shower, toilet, etc. I agree, you need a full size truck with a full size engine but there are options there too.  I'd pay the extra $'s to have the torque and mileage (if I could afford any new truck) all things being equal (price won't be).

[Foy]

 

There is always much discussion about diesel payback. That generally occurs between 3 to 5 years according to studies. What is often overlooked is that the diesel will last longer under heavy loads and resale value will be higher. Oil changes may be more expensive but are also less frequent, so that's a wash. 

 

 

Yes, my comment about hundreds of thousands of miles needed to reach a payback point is related to purely fuel costs (consumption and price per gallon differentials).   Certainly the reduced depreciation factor (holding their value better) comes into play for those who don't keep their trucks for long, and factoring in the reduced depreciation factor as a monetary return over and above per-mile fuel costs.  That factor also diminishes with time as we consider those who prefer to buy new and keep for a long time.

 

Foy

[MANXMAN]

I think there are a few things to consider.  Payload for sure as we are all talking about campers.  The other though, is the torque.  I would put up a diesel against (almost) any gas truck going up a hill.  Loaded or not.  Gas trucks don't have the torque or mileage.  Of course, if you can't carry a camper, it really doesn't matter but given I can put a FWC Eagle on a Dakota (or others in Tacomas, etc.) it's doable.  If you want a 9' camper with shower, toilet, etc. I agree, you need a full size truck with a full size engine but there are options there too.  I'd pay the extra $'s to have the torque and mileage (if I could afford any new truck) all things being equal (price won't be).

Gas engines are improving at a fairly fast rate and are able to do more work (torque) while still offering decent MPG when unloaded. 

 

This video surprised me. I would never have thought the Dodge diesel would get beaten by the 2.7 litre turbo V6 in the Ford in an uphill towing contest and by such a wide margin.

[kmcintyre]

Ok, that's pretty impressive but did you see the part where they said what axle ratio they had?  Not sure how that translates but certainly would help the Ram off the line and hurt at high speeds.  I always take these tests with a grain of salt.  Did they say what the mpg is and how long the engines last?  I guess I'm a diesel fan and I'd have to see long term results.  I haven't seen where Ford is stating what their trucks are getting mpg wise yet and it's about marketing.