Why not a 4 Cyl diesel in a light truck

[patdaly]

Other than the obligatory "people had a bad experience with GM", is there a technical reason we do not have a single manufacturer that builds a typical 1/2 ton pickup with a decent diesel? If they can get them to pass automotive emissions ( Volkswagen, Mercedes, and now Jeep ), why not a decent 1/2 ton PU? I know GM's association with Isuzu would let them use the beautiful little diesel they make, and Dodge's contracts with Cummins would make the ISB 3.9/3.3 a natural. It would appear to me as if both of these tough as nails diesels would offer at least 35 MPG, with more than acceptable performance. Couple that with 300,000 mile plus durability and I would think fleets, contractors, etc. would buy them in great numbers.

Comments?

 

[Prototyper]

I have to agree that most car buyers in the US want a stink-free exhaust coming from their beloved set of wheels. I can sympathize with those who hate a garage full of unburned diesel particulates. However, the idea of great fuel mileage at all costs has not become a hot topic with most Americans. It is, however, a big topic in Asia where fuel is dispensed in liters and is cherished at the same level as potable water. Toyota, for example, produced a 4 cyl turbo diesel truck for the US market in the mid-eighties and sold some. Apparently not enough to continue offering a diesel in their trucks after 1985. That was their market test. Fast forward to today, it appears that most men in the US with an IQ above room temperature love the turbo diesels. There would be a lot more on the road if the cost of a diesel option would come down. The diesel engine tuners, i.e. Banks, has turned a lot of heads. I think a new level of increased gas prices will finally bring on more cost effective and more broader diesel options. Personally, biodiesel is the answere. Several of us engineers have been transesterificating for years and we are now free of the middle-east stranglehold.

 

[hippopie]

i think there is a huge market for smaller sized diesel engines... and the fact that all major manufacturers sell them in every country except the us is proof. i have heard that they do not wish to go thru all the paperwork to sell them here... up till now there was no need. gas proces were low (compared to other countries on the other side of the pond), the economy was up and everyone was making enough money to fill their tanks. now we have high oil prices and people are scramblin to look for alternitives. i personally am starting to work with biodiesel and am looking to put a cimmins 4bt in my 93 4x4 sc ranger. the 4.0l engine i have in there now is starting to go at 220k and i am looking to the future. if and when i convert to the diesel i will post.

my question for now is the tranny... what to use?? i've been looking through alot of sights and am finding nothing about what to use. seems like folks that are converting are using a gm tranny a gm/chevy rig. any ford trannys that are getting used are adapted to the tranny that goes with the f250/350. so any help or insight would be helpful. not alot about the ranger tranny....

thanks in advance

 

[Rob45]

You know of course that Ford put a 4 cyl T-K (Mazda) Diesel in the Ranger pickup back in the early '80s'?
Naturally aspirated with indirect-injection, it wouldn't pull the hat off your head, but got great fuel economy.

And cruise-control was simple: you just put a brick on the fuel pedal, and if you encountered any traffic, you could slow it WAY down by just turning on the air-conditioning...
Sales were essentially zero, so when the initial contract for engines expired, that option disappeared.

That's probably what was originally in the Ranger that d22 reports now has a Perkins.

At the same time, much development work was done on putting a turbocharged variant of this engine in Ford's Aerostar compact van, but this program too was cancelled when we realized just how effectively GM's terrible diesels had poisoned the market in North America.

And speaking of Perkins: we put a Perkins 4-cylinder in a full-size pickup at Ford back in the mid-'70s, but my boss outran it in a 100-yard footrace, so the program was literally laughed out of existence.

Since nobody else seems to have answered your question, Greg, as to where our Rangers are made, I will:
right here in the U.S., buddy.

 

[GregLocock]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that the champion of free trade has heavy import tarriffs on light trucks.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Rob45]

It's also worth noting that nobody actually PAYS those import duties, since all the exporting countries ship so-called "incomplete" vehicles to our shores: e.g., chassis on one boat, pickup beds on another, with "final assembly" occurring on the dock.
So it can't be reasonably argued that these so-called duties have been any kind of barrier to competing in this market.

Unlike the situation with cars, where almost anyone (except of course the French) made better cars than we did in the '70s and early '80s, the majority of truck imports varied from marginally to wildly unsuitable for the American *truck* market. Where they shown was in the market for cheap cars, but the import trucks were ALWAYS substantially out-sold by the American-made trucks.

To get back to the original topic: none of the Japanese makers even tried to bring us a Diesel-powered truck.
Ford brought them to market and served only to prove that the consumer didn't want them.

 

[evelrod]

Rob, I don't know about the import status of Japanese diesel pickups, but I did have the use of a "mini truck" in Ft. Worth about thirty years ago...inline six cylinder diesel...great fuel mileage...not much power...fairly quite...terribly uncomfortable and rough riding...all that and I don't remember if it was a Toyota or a Datsun! Old age, I guess.
The truck bed deal is for real...Worked on the new automated paint line at the Toyota facility in Paramount in the 80's...beds came in unpainted and left ready to mount without any human hands touching them! Pretty slick.

Rod

 

[patdaly]

So we can all agree a tiny, underpowered mini pickup didnt sell. Neither did the tiny underpowered Chevette diesel.

Stepping into the next century now, take the VW TDI diesel and stick it in the Colorado. Still think it would not sell?

 

[safetydan]

I think there might be a small niche market for a Colorado with a diesel in it, but it would be very small (probably the people who have posted on this thread). VW has done a great job getting good diesel engines into the American market, but they haven't taken off like gang-busters. Americans still think of the old dirty, smelly diesels they see rumbling down the highway in the front of a dump truck when they look under the hood. I don't mean to be the thorn in everyone's side here, but until gas prices get rediculously high (over $5/gallon) effective changes in consumer demand simply aren't going to happen. Our jobs as engineers are to design machines which provide what the customer demands in the most efficient way possible. Normally when it comes to dictating what the customer wants, the only way we can succeed is to be the customer base.

 

[evelrod]

Well, at least WE are on the same page...that and five bucks will get you a "coffee" at Starbucks!

All of the regulars in the forum have heard me say for several years that $5 gas will be the turning point---Well, lads...I'm not so sure any longer. I just bought 85 gallons last weekend for the motorhome at $3.299 per gallon and twenty gallons of Sunoco 110 at $4.89 per (wow, race fuel is looking pretty cheap)...watched every station along the way PACKED with SUV's, pickups, sports cars, etc.---I just marveled at the "normalcy" of the entire weekend (Moss Mtrs. British Extravaganza at Buttonwillow Raceway Park with ~300 entries). I am not at all sure that five bucks will do it. At least not in California. I have been retired for many years and I am much more concerned with the overall increase in cost of "goods" as it relates to transportation cost---read that 'fuel surcharge'---now becoming common around here. I guess it won't be $5 but closer to $10 that will do it. Amazing--- I could not have conceived of five dollar fuel ten years ago and, now I am actually budgeting for it (might as well be prepared, hey?).

Bottom line? Would I buy a mid sized pickup with a small diesel engine? You bet! We are just, perhaps, a little ahead of the curve...we won't be alone...

Well, sorry for the vent...Feel better now. Gotta go fill up Nash Metropolitan 'cause it still gets 40 mpg...Hey, gotta economize where ever I can!!! (as I hear cackling laughter from over my shoulder as I post this...as said by another Rodney, "I just don't get no respect"!

Rod

 

[swall]

Ran across a website of a company that puts the Duramax diesel into the Hummer H2. 22mpg is claimed.

http://www.stallioncustoms.com

 

[evelrod]

Annnnd, how do y'all justify spending some 80 g's to get a "claimed" 22 mpg. I am laughing out loud as I have a neighbor that drives a new Rolls and pumps his own gas at the discount station...

Ten bucks a gallon? Yeah, sounds about right. We will all make the guy that drives the Hummer or Rolls rich enough that, at least, HE can afford it.

Rod

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, I think $200-300 a barrel is when things will get 'interesting' in the USA. That'd be around $10/US gallon, or just a little more than they currently pay in the UK, where diesels have finally taken off.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[okeng]

Just ran across this old thread and thought I'd throw out another idea for an engine swap.

I've been casually polling the UPS/FEDEX etc drivers who are all running the Dodge/Freightliner Sprinter vans. They all say they are getting over 20mpg, and can run 75 on the freeway. Both are extremely good attributes for a 9-foot-tall box.

The engine in there is a 2.3 liter mercedes turbo diesel.

Anyone done any work with that engine? Seems like it would be ideal in a 1/2 or 3/4-ton pickup. Might even be a natural in the mid-size Dodge Dakota.

If I might prophesy: Dodge will offer this in 2008.

Most people I know are addicted to their 250hp + pickups, and whine endlessly if they have to shift down more than twice on a trip through Colorado pulling a 10,000 pound trailer. I'm in the minority--I'd be happy with a 25mpg truck even if the dumb thing wouldn't go over about 75mph. I've got motorcycles to satisfy my horsepower addiction.

BTW, out here in cattle country, the dividing line between "pickup" and "toy pickup" is where you can install a flatbed and a hay-bale spike that will handle a 1700 lb round bale.

Jess

 

[evelrod]

You must have been reading over my shoulder, Jess. I was just going over the Jeep site...the 2.3 will be offered in the Cherokee and a smaller version (4 cyl) in the Liberty. By inferance in the Dakota by 08?

You keep an ear to the ground for this stuff, Pat. What do you hear?

Rod

 

[okeng]

That's good news.

I was kind of toying with the idea of hunting down an engine and swapping it into a fairly recent dodge pickup. Unfortunately, it's pretty far down the project list, particularly if I can't figure out a way to make money with it. I'm thinking engine swap kits are never big sellers--anyone that's up for doing engine swaps can usually just make their own parts.

Sure would be fun, though.

Jess

 

[patdaly]

Rod, they are officially out of production on the diesel Liberty, the MM variant would not pass 07 emissions. They did on the other hand sell a bunch of the 06's, so there is a business case tp put the BluTec version in after they get the Grand Cherokee going. I only hope they add a manual trans to the mix.

As for any other Mfgs, I keep preaching to my GM buddy, and sound advice keeps getting ignored.

Jess, look at the Cummins 4BT 3.9, it will drop in directly with 5.9 diesel parts, short of the motor mounts, which I believe are in a different place, so the frame mounts would have to be moved aft. The 4BT is a whale of an engine, and they stuffed it about anywhere and everywhere. They ( Cummins ) makes Dodge, GM, and small Ford adapters for both manual and automatic applications.

 

[okeng]

I do really like the 3.9 Cummins. We used them at my former place of employment in just about everything we manufactured, including things that didn't really need the horsepower--it was just such an economical engine in the quantities we were buying that we could put 80 hp into a machine that really only needed 60. The small hydrastat dozer we built had 80 horsepower versus the competition's 40. It was an excellent selling point. I think I may be able to buy a couple of dusted 3.9s for a cheap price from them, but neither are turbos, and I've never checked what it would take to convert it to the BTA config. I'm thinking that if I have to buy pistons anyway, I may be halfway there.

The continuous rating on the BTA3.9 is 125 hp, I think. Any idea how that would drive in a 1/2 ton pickup?

Jess

 

[patdaly]

Jess, mine is the 105 Hp rotary pump configuration, and I really suspect I am not getting too much boost, it really dosent matter too much, because it hauls the 3/4 ton 4X4 without any fuss. At the upper ranges where the boost would normally show, it remains quite linear in its acceleration.

I doubt you want to consider changing a 4B to turbo, as I believe everything is turbo specific from the crank up. They are still available in the boneyard for a reasonable price, delivery companies changed out tons of their trucks from gas to diesel, and many are coming on the market now. If you are serious, look at dovebid.com and look for the transportation sale, I believe they are up to the 11th one for Frito-Lay. They usually have hundreds of 4BT delivery vans, some are junk and go for 200 bucks, but even the nice ones usually dont bring 2 grand. There is usually 7-8 hundred bucks worth of scrap aluminum, so your cost is very minimal.

Finally, though they may be rated at 125 Hp in DOT configuration, check out the Marine config, 250 Hp is nothing for these babies to make in continuous use....

 

[okeng]

Pat, that's a great lead--I didn't know there were so many of those vans on the market.

When you say it hauls your 4x4 without fuss, do you mean it goes 75mph or 55 mph?

As I remember it, the 125 hp was the setup we looked at for a loader design--usually pretty close to the continuous rating. By comparison, I think the 6BTA was 175, and I've heard that they are reliable in pickups at over 275hp.

The box van donor would be way better than what I have been looking at since it would be set up for a proper GM transmission instead of a pump drive. What do you think is in most of those vans? Surely not the 700R4?

Thanks

 

[patdaly]

Jess, right now without the benefit of an overdrive, 65 MPH is topped out on the governor. I have been lax in changing the spring to wind her up to 3200 RPMs. In any event, she cranks right up to 65 MPH in what I would estimate about the same timeframe as a decent running 350 would. If I needed to, I could start from a dead stop in 4th gear, it has that much low end torque.

As for transmissions, the Autos were specially modified TH400's which were still problematic with the low end torque these things produce, and the SM465 4 speed, which the Queen Mary's engines couldn't grenade.

I don't want this thread red-flagged, so we probably need to take this one off list. If you want to get more specific about this deal, contact me at pat.daly@ {diespam}anchorglass.com