http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/15/g...the-hummer-h2/

 

if there is nothing else out by then and i have the money, i sure as heck am going to buy one, the H2 that is.

 

Wow, thats not a knockout punch but it damn sure is gonna stagger the competition.

 

UPDATE: Pickuptruck.com's Mike Levine has learned from GM that despite sharing its name with the older 6.6L Duramax diesel that was developed in partnership with Isuzu, the new 4.5L Duramax was developed completely in-house by GM.

Remember the last time GM developed their own in-house diesel? The diesel market hasn't recovered yet.

 

yea, but how many years ago was that?

 

Diesel is the future, sportsfans.....And I ain't just saying that cause I got a 7.3L psd either.......

 

Isn't Ford gonna do the same thing once they drop Navistar ?

 

The diesel market would have easily recovered had it not been for the 6.0 powerjoke

 

I almost agree(d) with you.........jumped in with both feet last year buying 2 oil burning cars (even though I really don't like their driving dynamics)....but with the EPA doing their magic, and the inability for most manufacturers to allow any bio blend greater than 5%, I've softened my stance a tad.

 

First off, concerning 8800+ GVW, diesels have more than "recovered" making up over 70% of the market.

Secondly, I've written a few times; GM was NOT by themselves responsible for Americas non-acceptance of diesel cars.

ALL diesel cars, turbo or not, during the GM 5.7 years were sluggish, filthy, slow, noisey JUNK.

There were Turbo BMW's in Lincolns.

Nissan Maximas

Peugot turbos

VW

I'm probably forgetting a few.

America didn't accept them then and unless gas doubles or more, Americans will have a hard accepting them now. (concerning cars)

I am content with our Jetta TDI, but there is not a day that goes by where I am not thinking of selling and buying an economical gasser.

 

I don't agree that others were responsible for the collapse of the light duty diesel market in the early 80 to mid 80s. The heavy duty diesel market was never impacted by the GM disaster. I dealt with automobiles every day and people were more than willing to accept the shortcomings of the typical diesel of the day in exchange for the much better fuel economy. The death of the diesel in the American market was because of the flood of 350 diesels from GM.

Most of them were in higher end GM cars and pickups. Everybody knew someone that had a major engine problem (head gaskets and injector pumps usually) and they became scared of anything diesel. Mercedes even abandoned the American market due to poor sales after they had sold their very reliable diesel here for many years. I had a Chevy Celebrity company car with the 4.3 diesel in it and the engine never gave me any problems (but everything else on the car broke) but the company had a very difficult time selling it.

When I got the car, the diesels was selling for about $2,000 over retail book and by the time it was time to sell it, they were selling for about $2,000-3,000 under book. I don't recall any of the diesel engines of the day being unreliable except for the 350 GM.

ps. You forgot some. Isuzu engines powered Isusu vehicles, Chevettes, Luvs and S-10s among others. Mazda engines powered Mazdas, Rangers, Escorts and others. The Mazda powered vehicles ran pretty good but the Isuzu powered vehicles were very underpowered and sluggish like the Vws were.

 

Good job on the extended list!!

The fact that there WERE reliable diesels on the market is what leads me to believe America didn't buy 'em cause we just didn't like 'em......not because the GM diesels sucked.

You're right, there were people who would put up with the
idiosyncrasies(sp??) but obviously not enough to offer them as a viable option.

And I will disagree on the Mazda powered diesels (at least the Escort) I actually test drove one when I bought my early '80's Escort.....there was no way I could live with that car on ANY level; power, NVH, smell etc....

In fact, I curse my TDI nearly every time I drive it in the city...ESPECIALLY during hot days.....while a lot of the things I dislike about diesels has been ironed out with the VW, that turbo lag when trying to merge is down right annoying!!!

But then I take it on a 100MPH near 40MPG road trip and I can forgive a lot!

The fuel economy argument is always a heated debate.....even with just a $1,100 difference between Jettas, it will take nearly 70,000 miles to recoup that.
The reason I bought the VW was I anticipated a high resale (something I rarely see in my Fords) and sure enough, I still could sell this 1 year old car for near sticker.


My personal feeling is that the same people that must have a diesel in their 3/4 ton trucks are NOT the same people who buy 1/2 ton trucks.

Thses new diesels in the LD trucks had better be very gasser like IMHO.

 

The GM diesel did kill the sales of the reliable diesels. Most people were unfamiliar with diesels and they hear or knew of someone that had a very expensive car or truck with a diesel that broke or saw it on the side of the road and figured the problem was it being a diesel and didn't consider what kind it was. I worked in the coal fields at the time a lot of people bought diesels because the coal trucks had them and they were dependable. Almost all were GM because there were no foreign dealers in the area.

The Mazda engines were good when compared to the competition. The diesel Chevettes and Rabbits topped hills at a walking pace. The early Escort gassers ran poorly as did almost all small cars of the era.

If you based the purchase of a diesel solely on fuel mileage, you would be disappointed. Without the high resale, you would never recover the additional cost (not counting the aggravation of having a diesel). I got so sick of the mess on the back of my diesel Celebrity when it got dirty, the smell on my hands when I refueled, the jelling of the diesel when it was very cold(when I forgot or didn't use anti-gel) and the really nasty oil when I did the more frequent oil changes.

 

"I got so sick of the mess on the back of my diesel Celebrity when it got dirty, the smell on my hands when I refueled, the jelling of the diesel when it was very cold(when I forgot or didn't use anti-gel) and the really nasty oil when I did the more frequent oil changes."

LOL!!!......I think even though you and I disagree on GM's part in why diesels didn't work here; your above quote kind of supports my reasoning.


I remember differently, had an Escort with an HO 1.6 (100HP WooHOOO) AND an early EXP..........both were rev-happy, reliable cars. The EXP had the TRX suspension and I thought it also handled decent at the time....Broke a timing belt on the EXP....thank God for non-interference motors!!!



The TDI is the only car I've EVER bought with fore-thought. Usually I am an impulse buyer. And while I would have a hard time justifying $6,400 extra for a PSD, $1,100 for the TDI made fiscal sense.

 

my friend drives a 89 diesel jetta, gets mid 40's mpg. thing only has 50 horsepower. to each there own