I had a 1984 Escort diesel. It had a 2.0L Mazda diesel with 5 speed manual tranny. It had more power than gasoline Escorts of that era, and got 53 MPG. Wish i still had that car now with the rising gas prices.
I wish I had it as well! It takes us a while in this country to get wise to the technology that is already out there. It takes three dollar a gallon fuel prices to get us to embrace it. The last time fuel prices went up many more smaller vehicles were being seen on the road.
Bring on the new diesels!
__________________
86 E350
Kubota small farm tractor
(need a bigger one to run a Back Hoe)
The same reason they're putting in a six speed transmission. Because Toyota is coming out with a diesel Tundra soon. Ford and Chevy are scarred ****less right now and I can't blame them.
But also it give you more flexibility in concern to fuel types. A diesel can run on petroleum based diesel, bio-diesel, vegetable oil, etc. Right now diesel here in socal is anywhere from $309/gallon to $359 per gallon. Vegetable oil is only $2.24 / gallon. Just a thought.
The same reason they're putting in a six speed transmission. Because Toyota is coming out with a diesel Tundra soon. Ford and Chevy are scarred ****less right now and I can't blame them.
But also it give you more flexibility in concern to fuel types. A diesel can run on petroleum based diesel, bio-diesel, vegetable oil, etc. Right now diesel here in socal is anywhere from $309/gallon to $359 per gallon. Vegetable oil is only $2.24 / gallon. Just a thought.
S. Clegane
Nice thought, but if the new F150 diesel is anything like the 6.0L and 6.4L you wont be able to run anything but ULSD. I think the EPA and auto makers are getting into bed with the oil companies making it impossible to run bio-diesel and kill it when its just starting to take off.
Absolutely. But biodiesel contains no sulpher , making it the ultimate ULSD.
Why do the manufactuers state no more than B5?
I have heard one claim of an 08 that ran B99 and seized up after 200 miles. The article is posted in the Ford vs competition forum. That article stated that it was an injector failure that hydro locked the engine.
A number of reasons... one is that its hard to control the quality of biodiesel.
That case you stated... has pretty much been rejected. Ford gives you a full tank (of 100% diesel) when you purchase.
How could B99 be in the tank after only 200 miles???
A number of reasons... one is that its hard to control the quality of biodiesel.
That case you stated... has pretty much been rejected. Ford gives you a full tank (of 100% diesel) when you purchase.
How could B99 be in the tank after only 200 miles???
I never knew you got a full tank when you purchase new. Ive never had the pleasure of buying new and probably never will. My Excursion I bought used was on empty with the "walk soon light" on when I drove off the lot.
I can see the quality thing being a problem if you home brew your own bio. But arent there a few commercial places that you can buy it?
I had a 1984 Escort diesel. It had a 2.0L Mazda diesel with 5 speed manual tranny. It had more power than gasoline Escorts of that era, and got 53 MPG. Wish i still had that car now with the rising gas prices.
The Mazda diesel had about 30HP LESS than the gasser of that era....it shook like a paint mixer and was slower than ANY car I had ever driven. I ended up buying the gasser Escort to commute the 150 miles a day to my first job out of the AF.
People like to say that GM ruined the diesel passenger car market....I think that's only partly true. While the converted GM gas motors had a horrible reliability record, all diesels of that ere were terribly sluggish, loud and stinky....INCLUDING turbo diesels.
My current VW TDI is a great improvement over past oil burners but I still CRINGE when stomping on it trying to merge......Of course now that diesel is cheaper than RUL, I'm a farkin' genious for hanging on to this car...LOL!!
Fred (Big350) has assured me that the diesels slated for the F-150 are incredibly smooth and responsive. I believe him......HOWEVER, while diesels are popular in Super Duties I believe people who buy 1/2 tons are a tad more picky (much like car owners) when it comes to NVH. So IMHO, an F-150 diesel had better drive very much like its gasser brother to be accepted.
I jumped on the diesel band wagon last year buying the VW and an '81 Mercedes Benz 300SD....I was going to save the world and start running WVO in the Benz and maybe making Bio for the VW.
Sold the Benz (for a profit) after a few months......just couldn't handle the driving experience. And concerning the VW, like already mentioned, current manufacturers are very stringent about the quality of diesel being used.
I did think that diesel was the answer to our dependence on foreign crude...but I've softened my stance for a variety of reasons.
So, why would people want a diesel in a 1/2 ton?
Tow rating?? Nah....1/2 tons are already maxed out. Any more capacity and transmissions, brakes, diffs will all have to be Super Duty size (kinda like the new Tundra)
Economy?? Maybe. Fred says less than a $3,000 option for an F-150 diesel....I still have my doubts considering just the regeneration smog crap added $2,000 to the PSD. But it's hard to declare a winner here, it all depends on fuel costs, miles driven etc...
Longevity?? I guess it depends on your useage. Gassers go 200,000+ miles now.........more than enough for me considering my '01 SD has less than 70,000 miles. But realize a set of PSD injectors are about the same cost as a gasser long block.
So if a 6 speed gasser gets 20MPG, has 400HP and 400 pound feet of torque (using Toy's numbers which Ford had better meet ot beat!!) are you willing to spend another $3,000-$5,000 to get an extra 5 MPG???
It better be one heck of a motor for me to even consider it.
The Mazda diesel had about 30HP LESS than the gasser of that era....it shook like a paint mixer and was slower than ANY car I had ever driven. I ended up buying the gasser Escort to commute the 150 miles a day to my first job out of the AF.
People like to say that GM ruined the diesel passenger car market....I think that's only partly true. While the converted GM gas motors had a horrible reliability record, all diesels of that ere were terribly sluggish, loud and stinky....INCLUDING turbo diesels.
Please name the sluggish, loud and stinky turbo diesels from that era?
__________________
Powerstroking Seven T444Es, one VT365 and one 6.0. Also four DT466s, one DT360 and a Mercedes MBE906.
I'm doing my part to reduce food imports, control rising food costs and help feed the children, my trucks run on 100% petroleum diesel. What are you doing?
Please name the sluggish, loud and stinky turbo diesels from that era?
a quick search on google turned up this article on Wikipedia on GM diesels (or was your point that they weren't turbo?):
The history of Diesel engines at General Motors has not been positive. In the face of the 1970s 'gas crisis', GM turned to Diesel power for economic benefit, directing the Oldsmobile division to develop a V6 and two V8 engines, to be shared with all divisions.
These Diesel engines were designed to fit into the engine bays of gasoline powered automobiles, but despite popular belief, they were not "converted" gasoline engines. Oldsmobile's diesel engines, the 5.7 L LF9 and 4.3 L LF7 V8s and 4.3 L LT6/LT7/LS2 V6, were notoriously unreliable, particularly in the earliest versions, though reliability had improved by the early 1980s with the advent of the DX block, along with better fuel filtering and water separators.By the early 80's,the 5.7L diesel was a fairly reliable engine with the introduction of the rollerized camshaft/roller lifter combination and had many improved enhancements that the late 70's 5.7L diesel engines did not have.Many of the reliability issues these engines developed were a combination of faults not just related to design. Many of these engines suffered major malfunctions from poor quality fuel, mechanics not properly trained in diesel repair, and even improper owner service and maintenance. Although over one million were sold between 1978 and 1985, the failure rate of GM's engines ruined the reputation of Diesel engines not just built by GM, but overall in the United States market. Eventually, a class action lawsuit resulted in an arbitration system under the supervision of the Federal Trade Commission where consumers could claim 80% of the original cost of the engine in the event of a failure.
The Oldsmobile 5.7 liter engines experienced a wide gamut of malfunctions.One of the common failures was with crankshaft bearings.This was frequently attributed to owners and maintainers running the engines on SG rated oil (intended for gasoline engines), versus CD oil (intended for Diesel engines).This prompted GM to introduce the DX block which then allowed extended oil change intervals to 5000 miles.D block engines required frequent oil change intervals because of the friction created between the typical flat tappet camshaft and hydraulic lifters.When the oil change interval was ignored,excessive wear was placed upon the camshaft and lifters.In 1981 when the DX block was introduced,the rollerized camshaft and roller lifters did away with any possibility of worn camshaft lobes because of reduced friction.These engines also suffered from blown head gaskets, warped heads, bad injector pumps, and bad injectors. The beginnings of these problems can be attributed to poor quality diesel fuel that may have contained water or other contaminants. These materials would damage the inside of the injector pump, and then eventually clog injectors. If water was injected into the engine, it could cause a "hydrolock" which would blow head gaskets and bend valves because water cannot be compressed. This was the reason GM equipped later cars with water detectors and double filtration systems on their vehicles.
When a hapless owner took the vehicle in for repair, the mechanic would resurface the head, making it thinner, install a new head gasket, and then reuse the old, stretched-out fasteners. It would not be but a few thousand miles, and the vehicle was in the shop again for head gasket failure or a warped head.Nowadays high performance head bolt kits are available to do away with the problems the 5.7L diesel engines had such as the blown head gasket fiasco.Performance bolt fasteners when used within the 5.7L diesel will then make it a bulletproof,reliable design.The frustrated owner would frequently just get the shop to convert the engine to gasoline after a few repeated failures like this. As a side note, these diesel engine blocks were frequently sought by hot-rodders to build high-performance gasoline engines because of their extra heavy duty components which would withstand extreme horsepower.
Originally Posted by origcharger Please name the sluggish, loud and stinky turbo diesels from that era?
"a quick search on google turned up this article on Wikipedia on GM diesels (or was your point that they weren't turbo?):"
Yes, as I stated, Please name the sluggish, loud and stinky turbo diesels from that era?
I believe I have a pretty fair grasp of the non turbo ones.
__________________
Powerstroking Seven T444Es, one VT365 and one 6.0. Also four DT466s, one DT360 and a Mercedes MBE906.
I'm doing my part to reduce food imports, control rising food costs and help feed the children, my trucks run on 100% petroleum diesel. What are you doing?
Please name the sluggish, loud and stinky turbo diesels from that era?
Mercedes
Peugot(sp?)
BMW
Lincoln (BMW Turbo diesel)
And probably a few I've forgotten and they ALL paled in comparison to the gasser version in everything except MPG.
Like I said, after my failed experiment with the MB 300SD,(5 cylinder 3L turbo) I totally understand why the American consumer did not embrace diesels.....turbo or not.
Diesel Tech has come a long way concerning NVH and I actually can't complain too badly about our TDI.....even though at idle there is no question it's an oil burner. But turbo lag and slow revving is still a MAJOR complaint; just as it is on the PSD's I drive at work.
My personal favorite truck diesel right now is the Duramax....but I have not driven the 6.4 PSD or 6.7 Cummins yet.
Mercedes
Peugot(sp?)
BMW
Lincoln (BMW Turbo diesel)
And probably a few I've forgotten and they ALL paled in comparison to the gasser version in everything except MPG.
Like I said, after my failed experiment with the MB 300SD,(5 cylinder 3L turbo) I totally understand why the American consumer did not embrace diesels.....turbo or not.
Diesel Tech has come a long way concerning NVH and I actually can't complain too badly about our TDI.....even though at idle there is no question it's an oil burner. But turbo lag and slow revving is still a MAJOR complaint; just as it is on the PSD's I drive at work.
.
Ok, I wouldn't consider those turbo diesels to be major players in the market. Of course I am out here in corn country where GM and Ford pretty much had their way with the new vehicle market. The GM diesels really could have taken off here if GM could have worked out the reliability issues much earlier, the troublesome early ones absolutely killed the resale value to the point that one GM dealer told me in 1983 that "you would be better off with herpes than to own one."
__________________
Powerstroking Seven T444Es, one VT365 and one 6.0. Also four DT466s, one DT360 and a Mercedes MBE906.
I'm doing my part to reduce food imports, control rising food costs and help feed the children, my trucks run on 100% petroleum diesel. What are you doing?
Yeah I guess the the isuzu motor is supposed to be pretty good, if not that ballsy. At least it doesn't shoot fire out the tailpipe like a WWII era flame thrower( and the new 6.4L). Seems like they might want to take these things for a spin around the block before dropping them in a 50,000 dollar vehicle. Just a thought.
Ok, I wouldn't consider those turbo diesels to be major players in the market. Of course I am out here in corn country where GM and Ford pretty much had their way with the new vehicle market. The GM diesels really could have taken off here if GM could have worked out the reliability issues much earlier, the troublesome early ones absolutely killed the resale value to the point that one GM dealer told me in 1983 that "you would be better off with herpes than to own one."
My opinion is that American drivers have not taken to diesels in CARS because of the past choices available....1/2 ton pickups are borderline trucks at best when bought as 2nd and 3rd vehicles for the average suburbanite.
3/4 ton and up truck owners aren't as concerned with ride or NVH....they are either work vehicles or macho statements.
I look forward to trying a new diesel in an F-150.....but again, IMHO, it better be one smooth, quiet mother and not cost an arm and a leg....otherwise I predict lacklaster sales......just like all diesels in CARS have in the past.
Unfortunately, mine (or anyone elses) theories can not be proven for another year or two.
All bets are off, however, if the current price trend continues.....last week in LA, diesel was $.30 a gallon cheaper and currently in Vegas diesel is $.18 a gallon cheaper.
