Heavy Duty Titan On The Way!

[niceun]

Originally Posted by eightballsidepocket

I'm pretty sure that Titans will be running with Cummin's power, and will also benefit from the 390 h.p. 410 ft/lbs torque 5.7 liter Hemi too. This even trumps the Tundra 5.7 V8 numbers. All this with pushrods and a less expensive engine to build.

Not knocking the Endeavor V8. It's a beaut, but economics says........if you can get the power, and pay less and still have reliability..........you go in that direction. Never the less the Endeavor will and still has it's place as a great P.U. engine.

>It's actually the Endurance 5.6 V8.
>Benefit? No. Maybe sabotage, but not benefit.

[eightballsidepocket]

Originally Posted by niceun

>It's actually the Endurance 5.6 V8.
>Benefit? No. Maybe sabotage, but not benefit.

Sorry........just a temporary brain fart.

[madahajimoto]

1500 minum for most for a GTR per month??? almost 5.20 a gallon for Diesel?? Wtf is Nissan thinking??? I get 5-6 miles per gallon in my truck, bta i haul 40 tons a day. If these diesel trucks get a wopping 30 mpgs a gallon with the average weight of titan kissing 2.5 tons, then this is news to me.

[cknisser77]

kick ***! lets go tow some ****

[Brons2]

Originally Posted by eightballsidepocket

So expect these smaller displacement 1/2 ton diesels to be hitting the 30's in MPG's..........

Nonsense. The MB 3.0 CDI is rated at 23 mpg highway in the Jeep Grand Cherokee and of course in the MB products. I think the ML version is rated at 24 and the GL version at 23.

You're not going to see any 4.5 liter V8 diesels getting 30 mpg.

[eightballsidepocket]

Originally Posted by Brons2

Nonsense. The MB 3.0 CDI is rated at 23 mpg highway in the Jeep Grand Cherokee and of course in the MB products. I think the ML version is rated at 24 and the GL version at 23.

You're not going to see any 4.5 liter V8 diesels getting 30 mpg.

Then you'll have to explain to all the pre 07 5.9 Dodge Cummins owners why they get 22-24 MPG with 3.73 rear ends and automatic trannies!

Just check out an of the RV/towing forums or the diesel forums, and 5,000+ lb. Pickups getting in the low to almost mid 20's MPG's is not uncommon running unloaded, 55-60 mph, on the flat with little or know headwind.

So why couldn't a smaller displacement diesel, with a lighter weight P.U. truck body do better than that and be closer to 30 Mpg's.

These diesels that get in the low to almost mid 20's mpg, will also knock off close to 15 Mpgs while towing upwards of 9,000 lbs of travel trailer.

That particular diesel in the Jeep was not known for frugal fuel mileage. You can find write-ups all over the forums on the dismal diesel mileage of that particular motor.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford are all going to be springing onto the public, 1/2 ton P.U.'s with lower displacement diesels, that are going to be getting much better fuel mileage than their gasser equivalents. Dodge is ong with 4.x liter V8 by Cummins, Ford I believe is going with an inhouse diesel design and not Navstar/International, and GM is doing a baby Duramax. I think one of the engines will be a V6 oil burner.

Your skepticism is based on the Jeep Diesel, and nothing else.

Again if heavy 3/4-1 ton P.U.'s with diesels cranking out over 300 H.P. and over 600 ft/lbs. of torque can get 23-24 mpg diesel running unloaded at 55-60 mph., how can your logic reject smaller displacement diesels in lighter P.U.'s getting well above those mileage figures?!
******
I'm also commenting from personal experience with a Cummins powered P.U...........and not "Here Say"!

[Brons2]

Your argument is predicated on driving 55-60. Driving 55-60 mph unloaded?? That is not a suitable speed for getting anywhere. And here in Texas you're likely to get rear ended driving that speed on open Interstates.

I am ok driving 100 km/h (62 mph) in my current vehicle (Kia Rondo) when I'm going less than 50 miles, and it yields excellent fuel economy (26.11 on my last tank with a mix of 62 mph highway driving and 2.2 mile short commutes to and from work).

I would probably be ok driving that slow as far as San Antonio, which is only 75 miles away. I-35 is a minimum of 3 lanes wide each direction all the way there so I would feel a little more safe doing it.

But anywhere farther than that, and I'm going to be doing 70-75, if not 80. When I drove out from Austin to Whitefish, MT last year, I drove 10 mph over the speed limit the whole way there, which meant 85 mph in many of the western states. I made it in 2 and a half days. I got 32 mpg anyways with a high tank of 36, but this was with a hatchback and not what I am driving now.

A truck that gets 22-24 mpg on carefully controlled highway conditions is not that useful to me. I could get close to 20 with my Titan driving 65 and it cost a lot less than those diesel half tons will. But under normal conditions similar to what I described with my Rondo and it was 15 mpg. I wonder what those diesel half tons will do under normal driving conditions. Probably 21-22 tops, and in the teens around town.

[edit] oh yeah and I didn't even broach your statement of "little or no headwind"

I want a vehicle that will get 30 mpg highway day in and day out in normal driving conditions. It would probably take a Frontier sized vehicle with a 4cyl diesel.

[supertitan]

Nissan And Toyota To Build Hybrid Diesel Heavy Duty 2012. Joint Project.

[niceun]

Originally Posted by supertitan

Nissan And Toyota To Build Hybrid Diesel Heavy Duty 2012. Joint Project.

Info??

[connecting_rodd]

Originally Posted by eightballsidepocket

Then you'll have to explain to all the pre 07 5.9 Dodge Cummins owners why they get 22-24 MPG with 3.73 rear ends and automatic trannies!

Just check out an of the RV/towing forums or the diesel forums, and 5,000+ lb. Pickups getting in the low to almost mid 20's MPG's is not uncommon running unloaded, 55-60 mph, on the flat with little or know headwind.

So why couldn't a smaller displacement diesel, with a lighter weight P.U. truck body do better than that and be closer to 30 Mpg's.

These diesels that get in the low to almost mid 20's mpg, will also knock off close to 15 Mpgs while towing upwards of 9,000 lbs of travel trailer.

That particular diesel in the Jeep was not known for frugal fuel mileage. You can find write-ups all over the forums on the dismal diesel mileage of that particular motor.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford are all going to be springing onto the public, 1/2 ton P.U.'s with lower displacement diesels, that are going to be getting much better fuel mileage than their gasser equivalents. Dodge is ong with 4.x liter V8 by Cummins, Ford I believe is going with an inhouse diesel design and not Navstar/International, and GM is doing a baby Duramax. I think one of the engines will be a V6 oil burner.

Your skepticism is based on the Jeep Diesel, and nothing else.

Again if heavy 3/4-1 ton P.U.'s with diesels cranking out over 300 H.P. and over 600 ft/lbs. of torque can get 23-24 mpg diesel running unloaded at 55-60 mph., how can your logic reject smaller displacement diesels in lighter P.U.'s getting well above those mileage figures?!
******
I'm also commenting from personal experience with a Cummins powered P.U...........and not "Here Say"!

Actually most of the new HD diesel trucks are receiving very poor mileage. The ford powerstroke for example only makes about 15mpg unloaded with the cummins doing only moderately better. Of course it's a difficult subject to debate due to the fact that HD trucks don't publish their mileage. As was pointed out to you by some more enlightened members if you look at diesel suv's already out they are not getting mileage anywhere near the 30mpg level that you are speculating. Take for example the Jeep GC, the the liberty diesel, the vw diesel or many of the diesel suv's in europe. Keep in mind that a light duty diesel also needs to meet much stricter emission standards.

[eightballsidepocket]

Originally Posted by connecting_rodd

Actually most of the new HD diesel trucks are receiving very poor mileage. The ford powerstroke for example only makes about 15mpg unloaded with the cummins doing only moderately better. Of course it's a difficult subject to debate due to the fact that HD trucks don't publish their mileage. As was pointed out to you by some more enlightened members if you look at diesel suv's already out they are not getting mileage anywhere near the 30mpg level that you are speculating. Take for example the Jeep GC, the the liberty diesel, the vw diesel or many of the diesel suv's in europe. Keep in mind that a light duty diesel also needs to meet much stricter emission standards.

That low number may be close to correct for the 6.4 Powerstroke, but the new Blue Tec 6.7 Cummins diesel, they are doing around 19 mpg unloaded which is 3-4 gallons diesel lower than the pre-07's. The Duramax 6.6 is also very close to the 6.7 cummins in mileage.

Sadly, the Ford/Navistar/International 6.4 has been shown to be way down on mileage, H.P. and Torque to the Cummins 6.7 and Duramax 6.6 in recent dyno tests by magazines.

Ford knows they have a problem and have been recommending flashes that are supposed to increase the 6.4's mileage.

One dyo test showed the 6.4 close to 100 H.P. and 100 ft/lbs torque lower that the other two 07-08 Cummins/Duramax diesels!!

[ptgarcia]

Hate to brake it to you, but 1 in 100 of the newer Cummins and Duramax equipped trucks are getting 20+ mpg. Models from 5 yrs ago, yeah, but not the newer trucks, especially those equipped with a DPF. The 6.7L Cummins is getting nowhere near that, unfortunately.

On my '06 5.9 I could get 17-18 mpg on the highway when stock. With a few mods rolling on 37" A/Ts I'm down to 14-15 mpg when I baby it on the highway.

[eightballsidepocket]

Originally Posted by ptgarcia

Hate to brake it to you, but 1 in 100 of the newer Cummins and Duramax equipped trucks are getting 20+ mpg. Models from 5 yrs ago, yeah, but not the newer trucks, especially those equipped with a DPF. The 6.7L Cummins is getting nowhere near that, unfortunately.

On my '06 5.9 I could get 17-18 mpg on the highway when stock. With a few mods rolling on 37" A/Ts I'm down to 14-15 mpg when I baby it on the highway.

Not talking to a neophyte here fella.

I own a 2005 Dodge SLT Long Bed 2500, Cummins, 48RE Automatic, 4x2, 3.73 rear end........and it easily gets 22-24 Mpg's Diesel, at 55-60 MPH.

Maybe your mileage is at a higher speed.

When I added a bed height Snugtop Tonneau cover, the Mileage went up nearly 1 MPG!

My towing mileage is based on pulling a 9,000 lb.+ Komfort travel trailer, and when we set the Cruise Control at 55 mph, and set the tranny in Tow/haul, and are on the flat, without any measurable headwind we get a tad over 15 MPG. Diesel. That's both hand calculated and on the computer, as my computer fortunately dead on.

If you go on the towing and RV formus like Woodhalls, and Coast to Coast sponsored by Camping World you'll find that my mileage quotes are not unusual.

A heavy accellerator foot off the line from stops, and cruising at 65-75 MPG will definitely lower the mileage down to the low 20's or even high teens. Also figure about 1 MPG less if you have a 4x4.

My around town mileage empty with the cummins as about 16 MPG., which is again about what others get with the pre-07's.

I've found in most cases those that don't get around these mileage figures when posting their mileage on the forums, usuallly drive faster, hit the loud pedal harder from stops, and usually realize some gain when they start monitoring that previous habit and correcting for it.

The 07 and later Cummins are hitting high teens to almost 20 when driven empty, 3.73 rear end, and keeping their cruising speed down.

The amount of wind resistance above 55 MPG, increases in resistive force like squaring a number practically.

Takes a lot of H.P. to Ram a non aerodynamic vehicle through the air.

[ptgarcia]

Never said you were a neophyte, fella. And for every truck like yours I can show you 100 more that won't get 20 mpg. And if you believe what those guys on the towing sites say, well, maybe I'll retract that statement about not calling you a neophyte.

[eightballsidepocket]

Originally Posted by ptgarcia

Never said you were a neophyte, fella. And for every truck like yours I can show you 100 more that won't get 20 mpg. And if you believe what those guys on the towing sites say, well, maybe I'll retract that statement about not calling you a neophyte.

99 out of 100 got a lemon for fuel mileage....I assume? I doubt it.

Driving habits have a lot to do with fuel mileage. There aren't that many of us that set the cruise control at 55-60 mph and ride the right hand lane with our P.U.'s, even with the high price of gas and diesel. Since I do the above on a regular basis, I'm probably in the minority, but it works, and that's all that counts for me.

I see the majority of P.U.'s flying past me on the left cranking along at 65- 70+ all the time in California. I doubt they're getting my mileage, and maybe that's our 99 our of 100 that your mentioning about. Also many are running 4:10 rear ends too.