New Diesel Pickups an uneconomical choice?

[Ncostello]

Somebody explain the economic benefits of new diesels. Not so much the Dodge's... but rather the Ford 6. 4 and Duramax LLM's.



Who'd pay this kind of money versus the lower fuel economy, expensive fuel, excessive and expensive maint, and the terrible terrible terrible reliability?



What's going on out there? So sombody tell me why people are willing to pay so much for so little.



Has the big HP numbers come at such a high cost to reliability and repairs?



Who would ever consider a used 6. 0L Ford with a wiped out turbo? Or a 6. 6L Duramax with ruined injectors?



Do people really have that much money to spend on trucks? And for what advantage?



Those who tow very heavy loads all the time need not respond. I know you guys use your trucks to earn a living and have to have the power. But not everyone who owns a $40K Powerstroke does this. Yet they still sell.



I personally think that new diesel technology and real world reliability/affordability has finally met at a crossroads. It all looks good on the computer and the simulated 100,000 miles tests. But the real world isn't working out so well.



Whats Ford GM and Dodge going to do when people start to abandon the diesels they are now offering? What then?

 

[rbattelle]

So sombody tell me why people are willing to pay so much for so little.

Marketing. Or blind loyalty.



Except those who either earn a living with them or own something that only a diesel can tow.



The financial case for the diesel has all but evaporated. The EPA killed it. I see many more Ford, Chevy, and Dodge 3/4 and 1-ton gassers around these days.



Diesel fuel is easier to make than gasoline, fuel cells, batteries, hydrogen, or any of a variety of other "exotic" fuels. Unfortunately, it costs more than most of those other fuels.



You'll know the end is near when you see the return of the spark-ignition class 8 truck.



Ryan

 

[DBentley]

Most of us that buy diesels new are buying them cause we like the motor. And as long as we can afford to do so than we will buy em. It is getting to be an expensive hobby driving a fullsized truck. I have had a 3/4 ton 4x4 for work and play for 25 years now and its hard to think this may be my last if fuel keeps rising and mpg keeps going down.

 

[MA2LA]

Its is tough out there now. I'm actually thinking of getting another compact pick up to do some of the stupid running around i have to do. Is just crazy that diesel fuel is 50 cents more a gallon. I have considered a jeep j10 short bed with a 4bt witch might get 24mpg if i was lucky. or try to find a nice little oil burner to put in a Comanche. but in reality a good running 4. 0 gets great mileage so why bother. Other aspects are the cost of good tires and maintaining these things .

 

[Soot4Life]

Yet the European market is flush with diesel offerings and adding more every year. Granted, they are not generally large pickup style trucks we are used to seeing but diesels are definately selling there big time. They have great plans for diesels in the States but we'll have to wait and see if Uncle Sam doesn't screw that up and make them jump through too many hoops to sell them here.

 

[brods]

Kind of been down this road before, lol. see this 11 pager https://www.turbodieselregister.com...sion-discussions/181232-diesel-not-worth.html

Yet the European market is flush with diesel offerings and adding more every year. Granted, they are not generally large pickup style trucks we are used to seeing but diesels are definately selling there big time. .....

Thats because their governments give them incentives to buy diesels. When crude oil is refined you get both diesel and gasoline, along with other products. Europe's diesel vs gasoline consumption is so lopsided toward diesel that they have excess gasoline, which we buy!



The worldwide trend toward diesels will only increase the overall demand for diesel fuel and drive the price even higher. If one doesn't think the world market effects us, then please explain why the biodiesel plant I've done some work at, right here in the good old USA, is selling the bio overseas!



Everybody loves to blame the EPA... . I don't know about anyone else, but I like to breathe. I want my kids to be able to breathe when they are old. Propose something better than the EPA's plan or kindly quit your *****ing

 

[FourBarR]

My truck has been paid for a long time and I have recovered the extra cost of the cummins. with the high cost of diesel and the extra cost (6500. 00)for the cummins,I would not be buying another diesel.

 

[Ncostello]

At least I see I'm not out in left field on this. Its to the point the OEM's have made it mentally impossible for me to own one of these new trucks. I simply would be ill if I signed my name on a loan for one. But what's the benefit to me Ford Dodge and GM??? Reliability? Fuel Economy? Longevity? Not hardly.



I'd simply have a nervous breakdown if Ford had to lift the cab and pull the motor in my brand new SuperDuty that cost as much as they do. At $50,000... I'm thinking luxury cars that park themselves and heads up display navigation systems. Not my truck being torn apart by somebody and being down for 2 weeks waiting for backordered parts. Meanwhile the payments keep being made and I've got no truck. Nothing for $800/month. Nothing.



Limp mode, 3 turbos replaced, fuel flooding the crankcase, injectors failing one at a time over a short period, head gaskets blowing, ECM's needing flashed each week, no start, flames shooting out the exhaust, romp idles, runaway engines, overheats, coolant losses, egr failures, rear seal leaks, warped heads etc etc etc etc. Plus you can't even see the engines or get to anything even if you knew what the problem was.



And this whole DPF concept is going to be a failure in my opinion... as if it already isn't. EGR's cause enough problems. These things are twice as bad. Its going to be a joke in the end. And its going to drive away customers. The DPF has officially ruined the diesel. A filter that filters all the exhaust over the life of the engine and requires no maintenance. Only the government could have come up with that idea. I just don't see how anybody could have ever been duped into thinking thats going to work.



I already know of one company who has cancelled their lease of 20 new Duramax LLM trucks because their field construction superintendents are in limp mode all the time because their trucks idle sometimes. But these are jobsites in the middle of nowhere in Canada during winter. How can they not? They struck a deal to accept all new trucks with 6. 0 gassers. They have an excellent shop but those guys don't have a chance with the Duramax problems. Not even a chance.



I guess my theme is this: Emission constraints coupled with the economy (fuel costs included) have crossed paths with the ability of engineers and scientists to produce a diesel pickup thats affordable and reliable and buildable. Technology has out paced the diesel internal combustion engine and has choked it off and shut it off. They are simply too complicated and too complex to be reliable. 21st century technology applied to an age old engine concept. Its reached the end I think. Diesels can only burn so clean... and they keep pushing farther and faster each year. What next? Zero emissions diesel trucks that expel water out the tailpipe? Just a PVC 4" water drain out the back?



I'm done ranting now . I guess I just love diesel pickups. I've always been a truck person. Thats just me. I don't golf, fish or belong to the Elks Lodge. I like trucks. Now its just so darn hard to like any of them.



Brods... I'm not *****ing. I'm telling it like it is. The diesel IC engine cannot be made to meet emissions requirements for the future. So why do they keep trying and selling them for more and more? Diesel from crude is exploding and burning. Whats clean about that? I'm not against clean diesels or clean air. But the fact is they can't make one with science, physics and chemistry as we know it in our galaxy. The ability to clean up diesel exhaust and make it reliable and controllable has been surpassed. And to me... diesel is from crude oil. Soysel is from beans. I don't like soyburgers either. Hamburgers are from cows. Where are the spaceships we were promised in 1950???

 

[obert]

You'll know the end is near when you see the return of the spark-ignition class 8 truck.



Ryan

Too late! C7500 Chevy/GMC can be upfitted to class 8 (barely), and is available with a big block gasser. Around here you see alot of C4500 4-door trucks from landscaper outfits and such. Alot of them have gas engines. The company purchaser gets a bonus for buying these because he saved big $$ onthe purchase plus gas costs less. Forget the engine will burn twice the fuel and last 1/2 as long, but upfront numbers make the gasser a popular choice.

Everybody loves to blame the EPA... . I don't know about anyone else, but I like to breathe. I want my kids to be able to breathe when they are old. Propose something better than the EPA's plan or kindly quit your *****ing

Carefull... . Save solid carbon particulate matter, there is little that comes off a well tuned diesel exhaust that you wouldn't be breathing in anyway. Alot of it is CO2, which is what YOU exhaust, too.



EPA has unjustly pinched the diesel industry, for reasons that I can only inmagine are political in motive. They set unpresidently strict standards, engine mfg's have re-invented the emission wheel time and time again, but with every exhaust requirement met a new one appears on the horizon, it's never good enough. And the slap in the face is all this "clean" BS has resulted in reduced engine output (eficiency) and substantially increased feul use. The latter causes more harm than the supposed good of the modern tail pipe. I'm no conspiratist, but somebody, somewhere(probly in washington) has an agenda against the diesel engine in America. It IS happening, and the EPA is the vehicle to carry it out.

 

[obert]

Ncostello, my long post let you sneak in behind me.



Good post, but I dont think in reality that diesel's are obsolete(ref yer last paragraph). Quite the opposite, i say. Diesels large and small are better in every way, the rest of the world knows this, hell 40 years ago WE knew this. It just seems the enviro-nazi's have a different plan. By in large, today, people are stupid, and follow like lemmings whatever propaganda is presented. They want to get rid of those dirty, stinky, drippy, smokey, noisey old oily diesel engines.

 

[brods]

Diesels put out lots of NOx emissions too. And looking at if differently, one could say the EPA was negligent in waiting so long to seriously regulate diesel emissions. Europe has strict diesel emissions standards too, yet they manage to make and sell diesels.



Obert, as far as US citizens being stupid lemmings..... so we are being played for fools? You make some big claims, so why not back them up with some proof? Please point to the specific sections restricting diesel emissions that are faulty, use sound science to explain why and then propose changes that would still achieve the same level of air quality.



Doom and gloom, it's the same concerns as in the 70's all over again. No one was happy in the 70's either, but look where cars have wound up. So the auto and truck makers have to sharpen their pencils and do some work. Diesels will get there... eventually.

 

[klenger]

I think Cummins will get it right in the next year or so. I hope so. As to Ford and IH, ... I'm not so optomistic. Don't know about GM. I was looking at Class A motor homes and was surprised at how many of them are Ford V10s or Chevy 8. 1L. You can't get into a diesel pusher for less than $150,000 low end.



I was trying to see if I could spec a 3500 SRW with a hemi that would meet my needs. Can't be done towing a 10K+ 5er with any comfort zone left. What ever happened to the Dodge 6. 1L Hemi? It seems line Dodge put all their HD options into the Cummins, and now with the problems with diesel fuel and emisssions, they don't have a workhorse gasser to offer. I think consider a Dodge gasser for my next truck if they offered something better than the 5. 7L. Can't bring myself to even look at a Ford or Chevy, even with a gasser.

 

[Ncostello]

Europe. I convinced my mom to purchase a new VW Golf in 2005. She drives 150 miles per day. 40+ MPG. Great car. No problems ever with it. VW didn't offer it in 2007. Nor do they now unless I'm wrong. What happened to that technology and high MPG? Was it too sensible?

 

[Grizzly]

Lets not push the panic button yet. I strongly believe that the economy and fuel prices will get better, just not sure when. In the mean time I use my Toyota Avalon as my daily driver, however since it can't pull my 5th wheel, I'll keep the Dodge Cummins. Besides, I'll never go back to a Furd gasser.

 

[wxman]

... Please point to the specific sections restricting diesel emissions that are faulty, use sound science to explain why and then propose changes that would still achieve the same level of air quality... .

Hope I’m not stepping on Obert’s toes here, but as an air quality forecaster and someone who’s been involved in the air quality field in some aspect for nearly 25 years, I’m inclined to try to tackle this one.



In fact, there are some major faults with the latest on-road emission regs (in my opinion), the major one being their (EPA's) fixation with NOx emissions. Have you ever heard of the “weekend ozone effect”? This occurs when lower ozone precursors (ozone is the primary constituent of “smog”) on weekends result in HIGHER ambient levels of ozone. This has been observed for dozens of years, especially in California. It now appears that the main reason for this rise in ozone levels on weekends is the very large decrease in NOx emissions (relative to a smaller decrease in NMHC and CO emissions), mostly due to a large decrease in diesel truck traffic on weekends. Here are several links about the weekend ozone effect:





http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2002/session5/2002_deer_lawson.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeffect/envair_wspa_com.pdf

http://www.raqc.org/ozone/Workshop/October 2, 2002/Doug Lawson.PDF

Biodiesel Magazine

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2005/session2/2005_deer_lawson.pdf

AEI - Short Publications

http://www.alabamapolicy.org/PDFs/EnvIndicators.pdf

EPA Rule Is Making Ozone Smog Worse - by Joel Schwartz - The Heartland Institute

View News

http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/Stedman Presentation at DEER 2006.pdf





Interestingly, EPA has acknowledged this phenomenon in several of their technical support documents:





“…It should be noted, however, that the potential exists for a few localized areas to actually experience slight increases in ozone concentrations as a result of NOx emission reductions. …” (page 119)



EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd-hwy/1997frm/hwy-ria.pdf (this supports the reg that is currently imposing such strict limits on our diesel pickup trucks)





“…When NOx levels are relatively high and VOC levels relatively low, NOx forms inorganic nitrates (i. e. , particles) but relatively little ozone. Such conditions are called “VOC-limited. ” Under these conditions, VOC reductions are effective in reducing ozone, but NOx reductions can actually increase local ozone under certain circumstances…. ” (page 33/231)



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007





“…Under these conditions [VOC-limited], VOC reductions are effective in reducing ozone, but NOx reductions can actually increase local ozone under certain circumstances. Even in VOC-limited urban areas, NOx reductions are not expected to increase ozone levels if the NOx reductions are sufficiently large. … “ (page 2-41[42/114])



http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420d07001chp2.pdf





“…In urban areas with a high population concentration, ozone is often VOC-limited….

…Due to the complex photochemistry of ozone production, NOx emissions lead to both the formation and destruction of ozone…The terms “NOx disbenefits” or “ozone disbenefits” refer to the ozone increases that can result from NOx emission reductions in these localized areas…. ”



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ozoneriachapter2.pdf (pp 2-1 - 2-2)





EPA justifies the “increases in ozone in localized area” by suggesting an overall decrease in ozone will occur in most locations. In the first place, this is dubious since BASED ON MY OWN STUDIES, there is no evidence of any decreases in weekend ozone levels despite the fact that I live in an area that’s supposed to be “NOx limited”. Secondly, even if that was true, making air quality WORSE for poor inner-city residents does not seem like an effective policy to me.



In my opinion, EPA should craft regulations to discourage GASOLINE vehicles and ENCOURAGE diesels if better air quality is truly the goal.



Firstly, GASOLINE appears to be a much larger component of ambient PM2. 5 than diesel in most locations (North Front Range Air Quality Study; Eugene Kim, Philip K. Hopke; “Source Apportionment of Fine Particles in Washington, DC, Utilizing Temperature-Resolved Carbon Fractions. ” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 54, July 2004, Pages 773-785; : Alan W. Gertler, “Diesel vs. gasoline emissions: Does PM from diesel or gasoline vehicles dominate in the US?” Atmospheric Environment, Volume 39, Issue 13, April 2005, Pages 2349-2355)





#ad




http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2007/poster3/deer07_lawson.pdf slide #2 - note this is ambient diesel PM2. 5 from ALL diesel sources - on-road and off-road.



Secondly, gasoline vehicles are BY FAR the largest sources of ambient NMHC (50% to as much as 80% in urban areas! - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2002/session5/2002_deer_fujita.pdf, slide #16; Steven G. Brown, Anna Frankel and Hilary R. Hafner; “Source apportionment of VOCs in the Los Angeles area using positive matrix factorization”. Atmospheric Environment, Volume 41, Issue 2, January 2007, Pages 227-237; John G. Watson, Judith C. Chow and Eric M. Fujita; “Review of volatile organic compound source apportionment by chemical mass balance. ” Atmospheric Environment, Volume 35, Issue 9, March 2001, Pages 1567-1584).



CO from gasoline vehicles also makes up an overwhelming proportion of CO in urban areas (up to 95% per EPA - http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd01/summary.pdf, EPA Hazard Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust (page 43)).



If these regs wind up driving everyone back to gasoline vehicles, air quality will suffer in my opinion.

 

[rbattelle]

WOW! Well, I'd say the award for this thread has to go to wxman! Great post. Bravo!

Ryan

 

[obert]

Yes, very good! My big beef with emisions reg's is why so much, so fast, with so much negative effect, on an engine that wasn't that bad to start with. Ok,... soot and sulphuric acid aren't missed . Maybe the fact diesels werent so caustic explains why this is all, what, 30 years after the auto industry.



As far as the lemming thing... Ford P/U marketing is a prime example. Outselling the competition with a diesel thats so good they reserve it only for those special pick up customers. None for the mid-ranges (which use the competition's P/U engine :-laf:-laf)



How 'bout CF light bulbs. EPA is changing their stance on how to use those (again) due to the HAZMAT situation involved if one breaks. There selling the heck out of em down at wally world, though.



There's a number of examples, most of what I can think of now, I'm not touchin' with a 10 foot pole outside political forum.



We're not alone here, though.

EPA handywork

More



On the other hand, we should be proud of the diesel machine. Blow after blow, still she rolls on, steadfast.

 

[brods]

Great post wxman. I saw your post over in the DPF thread and hoped you’d chime in this one.



It will take a while to look over all your links, in the mean time can you give us some cliff notes? So NOx levels drop over the weekends yet ground level ozone goes up in certain areas. Is the implication that reducing vehicle NOx will increase ground level ozone most everywhere, all the time? What about other pollutants? Are you proposing to drop the diesel regs in favor of stricter gas regs?

 

[raychem]

Europe. I convinced my mom to purchase a new VW Golf in 2005. She drives 150 miles per day. 40+ MPG. Great car. No problems ever with it. VW didn't offer it in 2007. Nor do they now unless I'm wrong. What happened to that technology and high MPG? Was it too sensible?

Ncostello, don't worry about VW. There new 200 hp common rail engine will be released for march or may of this year. I am looking forward to the jetta TDI. Also, many more car MFG are finally releasing diesel engine options!



Also this gas VS diesel debate has been over for a long time. Diesel wins hands down, easy of diagnoses, repair, maitence... . except for fuel filters LOL.



And yeah like every body here, 100 bucks a fill up is not fun but 600 plus HP and 18 mpg plus is something a gas engine will never match!



Richard

 

[wxman]

So NOx levels drop over the weekends yet ground level ozone goes up in certain areas.

brods - yes, NOx levels drop precipitously, typically about 50% in the studies conducted in California, on weekends compared to weekdays. Ozone levels conversely tend to rise significantly, about 50% higher on weekends.

Is the implication that reducing vehicle NOx will increase ground level ozone most everywhere, all the time?

Potentially. The relative reduction in NOx (and NMHC and CO) imposed by the latest round of emissions regulations will result in similar ambient reductions to what happened on weekends during those weekday/weekend ozone studies, which doesn't really bode well for residences in "VOC-limited" locations. ALL urban areas studied thus far have been shown to be "VOC-limited".

What about other pollutants? Are you proposing to drop the diesel regs in favor of stricter gas regs?

I agree with the University of Denver professor's recommendation:





"... My recommendation is that the 2010 mandatory NOx

emissions reductions should be postponed until the inevitable

HC emissions reductions bring ozone so far into compliance

that the disbenefits of NOx reduction will be unimportant. "



http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/Stedman Presentation at DEER 2006.pdf





There is no "VOC disbenefit" like there is a "NOx disbenefit", so it would seem more reasonable to reduce anthropogenic VOC (NMHC) emissions drastically more than NOx emissions.



The current regs (2010 HD regs) mandate a reduction to 0. 2 g/hp-hr for HD engines by 2010, down from 4. 0 g/hp-hr in 2003 (e. g. , my truck). That means that NOx will have been reduced by a factor of 20 by 2010 (and currently by the Ram 6. 7 Bluetec)!



Obviously, the 6. 7 Ram Bluetec proves that this reduction is technically feasible. The question now is this really improving air quality? These studies suggest they're not, and may actually make air quality much worse for some, not to mention the fuel economy penalty that's apparently seen with the 6. 7 Rams.



A slower "ratcheting down" of NOx emissions, with a more drastic reduction in NMHC/CO would be a more appropriate approach in my opinion.