I'm sure its maybe been brought up as comparison, but recently I was browsing BMW's website and once again am impressed with how the Europeans have adopted diesels.

The BMW X5 is 5225lb curb weight vehicel in diesel trim. It's engine is a 3.0L straight 6. It makes 265HP and 425lb.ft. of torque. It hauls A$$ at 0-60 in 6.9 and tops out at 130mph. Best of all, 26mpg highway...and the personal write-ups and reviews indicate people are easily seeing 25-29 depending on their driving style on the highway.

Now I know that my first F150 was a 2000 model year and I was STOKED that it had 260 HP out of the box. The truck probably weighed right in there at the 5500lb mark. My current 2006 F150Lariat-SCrew weighs in around 5600 (I believe that's what the scale was reading before it got filled with a ton of coal).

So I guess my point I'm trying to make is this: there is no reason a V6 diesel of similar displacement can not be built by Ford to provide similar performance as the BMW. Practically every F150 owner out there would be happy with that type of power and gas mileage. Getting 26mpg is roughly a 45% increase over what most of us see on the highway with our 5.4's.

I hope someday my small displacement diesel dream comes true.

Oh, and best of all, the BMW diesel option is roughly a $3700 option...gotta love it.

 

Probably a F150 diesel won't equate an x5 d given the better aerodynamics on the SUV, but also the engine would not be tuned to be as peppy.
US carmakers should just start using diesels and maybe diesel-hybrids. My parents, who live in Europe, have a '97 BMW 525tds and get 42mpg on average (but it only has 150hp..but plenty quick). With my 05 F350 i can get 20-21mpg freeway if i stay around 65mph and drive it easy

maybe ford should just buy small diesel engines from BMW....a Ford Flex with that engine would just be awesome, and i would be buying one in an heartbeat

 

The Range Rover diesel is a 3.8 liter V8 designed and built by Ford for Range Rover and out performs the BMW X5 diesel. Go figure.

 

The Beemers diesels are much acclaimed and excellent car engines, which the X5 really is. I just dont think the engine will stand up well coping with heavy tasks as a work truck may ask of it. Sure you see em tow caravans/boats over hollidays but everyday?

 

Sure why not? Peak torque comes on early, and there is plenty of horsepower for 1/2 ton or smaller truck needs. All you would need is a cooling system that was up to the task.

 

Pretty easy to add a little displacement, reduce the tune a bit and swap in HD parts for any that would be in question. However, I doubt there is much in the way of weak link parts in a BMW engine to begin with....

 

Having worked for a BMW dealer for a few years before starting railroading, I can simply say that Bavarian Motor Works takes the "Motor" part of their name extremely seriously. They make those engines to run at high speeds all day long, every day or in other words high loads on the engine. The only weak link I can think of for towing with a BMW diesel motor like I said would be the cooling system. Since BMW rightfully expects a lot of airflow when their engine is working hard (due to high speeds) the frontal area devoted to radiator space is too small for dealing with lower volumes of air flow and sustained high loads like for towing. There's a reason radiators on trucks are a lot larger than on cars after all.

 

I bet it has a lot to do with our governments regulations changing all the time. I bet GM-Ford-Cummins have them built (on paper) but don't want to invest further with the regs changing all the time. I'm pretty sure GM had a plant near Buffalo ready to go on their 4.5L D but pulled the plug on it the last minute, probably again because of government regulations in the marketplace(s) problems. Plus diesel fuel has gone up and down a lot too. From my standpoint, I blame the governement, as usual.

 

If you guys like the X5's Diesel, you'll love this one:
Audi Q7 V12 TDI Revealed

Audi should really consider producing a truck;Luxury+500hp+1100tqs=fun.

 

"
Issuance of Common Stock, Preferred Stock and Warrants
On July 10, 2009 we issued the following securities to the UST, Canada GEN Investment Corporation (formerly 7176384 Canada Inc.), a corporation organized under the laws of Canada (Canada Holdings), the New VEBA and MLC:
UST (United States Treasury)


<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table> Canada Holdings

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table> New VEBA

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="2%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="3%">•</td> <td valign="top" width="1%"></td> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
General Motors Co. - Investor Relations - SEC Filings



Well the government owns them now. Last I heard was that the 4.5 was scrapped to save money, and redirect resources to fuel cells.

 

All diesels in the US are hamstrung. For instance the 2.0tdi by VW makes 170 bhp in Europe and gets 55mpg while in the US it makes just 140bhp and returns 45mpg.

We also don't get BMWs 302bhp 443lb/ft 3.0 TT tune or the VW 5.0 V10 TDI in 350bhp tune (in fact, it's no longer available).

To correct some misinformation in this thread- the Audi V12 is 737lb/ft and the Range Rover V8 TD is a 3.6 not a 3.8 and, while a very good engine, is not quite as accomplished as the BMW 3.0tt but is mighty close to the single turbo 3.0.

I could go on all day about the euro diesels but that could get boring

 

20-21mpg, really? The best I can get out of my 06 F350 (with 6.0) is 17 at 65 MPG. I have been averaging 15 for mixed driving. I only got 10 pulling my 31' travel trailer. I was hoping for more like 20 hwy, and 12-13 towing (which is what the 7.3 is supposed to get).

Did you delete the EGR on your truck?

Other mods?

Thanks,
Jay

 

I have an:
- air/raid intake (Which shouldn't make much of a difference)
- 4inch Magnaflow exhaust
-Camper Shell
-i still also have the ContiTrac 275/70 R18..which might be worth 1-2 mpg if not more compared to really aggressive A/T tires

 

My truck is as follows

• Airaid intake
• Stock exhaust
• Cab-height fiberglass cap.
• General-tire highway tread 265/70R17 -- this is a very non-agressive tread tire that is next thing to a "highway-rib" tire that I got for MPG and low noise.

 

Thats a good one, my 7.3 gets 10 mpg on the highway, unloaded.

My 6.0 gets 21 doin 65 and 19 doin 75