Discussion in 'Vans' started by Allpar News System, Feb 14, 2013.
So you really are not in the market for a light duty truck anyway?
In the future, yes.
My summer one, is set up to pull a 5th wheel camper. I hate using that as a work truck. It's never been in the salt, tows perfectly.....i'll keep that one to the end.
But the work rig......really isn't sized right. 95% of the time it's nearly empty.....the other 5% isn't big enough to be efficient
It does about 22 mpg.....very good for what it is. The problem is the payback time for increased mpg VS cost of a bigger more efficient second rig.
A lot will depend on the economy.....if business picks up.....going with a smaller and adding a bigger truck[likely less then 10k a year so used would be much cheaper]may make sense.
Where fuel $$$, insurance costs goes adds to the variables......
The Scania 15L V8 makes it's peak power 100 RPM lower, and peak torque 200 RPM lower than the ISX15 - as I mentioned in my other post. More power, more torque, at a lower engine speed. The Scania V8 and the Cummins ISX 15 are both current, modern SCR equipped engines for heavy duty trucks of the same class.
Look at the current Cummins 6.7L and the 6.7L Power Stroke. Still no advantage to the I6.
Cummins 6.7: [email protected] 2800 RPM, [email protected] 1600 RPM
Ford 6.7L V8: [email protected] RPM, 800 [email protected] 1600 RPM
"Is that Scania smogable or even practical in size and weight at 15 liters?"
But by saying heavy duty, you answered the question.
Hardly practical to the discussion of light duty vehicles.
This is what you said: "An inline six inherently develops more torque than an equal displacement V". I found an example proving you wrong. Then you tried to invalidate my point by saying it doesn't apply to light duty vehicles, while at the same time ignoring my other light-duty diesel example which also proved your comment wrong.
Comments are supplied in the context of the subject matter.
The inline 6 does it more effeciently, less fuel.
The current Duramax and Power Stroke get better fuel economy than the current 6.7 Cummins. The old 12-Valve 5.9 Cummins and 7.3 Power Stroke (the 94-98 Trucks) got more or less the same fuel economy. The old GM 6.2/6.5 also achieved decent economy numbers as well.
The Scania V8s more or less get the same fuel economy as other I6 equivalents as well.
Basically, I was just trying to point out that there are a lot of variables to engine design, and that blanket statements such as "An I6 inherently has more torque than a V8 and gets better fuel economy" are not correct.
That's assuming one doesn't know the correct definition of inherently.
If we're done bickering here...I'm all for diesel education, but if we can try and keep it relevant to the subject at hand - which is the light-duty Ram 1500 diesel - that would be great.
I just want it to be so successful that they can not keep up on sales.
Much as I love the Hemi 8 speed idea I am holding off buy to buy the Ecodiesel as it will do a better job for my tow happy fuel economy useage goals.
BTW I enjoyed the diesel discussion including the 6.7s & 15 liters. I6 vs V8 has always sort of befuddled me.
$4500 extra if you want a VM 3.0L FOR A JEEP GC.
In perspective, about $2,000 more than a Hemi, for more torque and better mpg. I forget which mag ran the numbers, but they said the payback would be approx. 35,000 miles, or two years, using average, western US, driving habits.
That's been posted multiple times
For the record, the VM costs $4500 move than the Pentastar and $2000 more than a Hemi in a Grand Cherokee.
How many times can it be posted?
Well at least one more:
Hey guys the VM costs $4500!!!
Did you know Diesels are commonly more expensive?? Nooooooooo.
$4500 may be a heck of a premium, but for all intents and purposes, it's a specialty item. This is pretty much true across the board. They ARE more expensive AND they are specialty items, not currently consumed in quantities of the mainstream market. (Except where tractor trailers are concerned, and you are paying a lot for a lot of things, they put a TON of mileage on those things.).
I expect that they will easily sell everyone. If that happens, they may have to visit working with VM to up capacity. Once that happens, then they could make it more readily available across the board. Once that happens, perhaps the premium will go down. Someone else mentioned that VM has stated they can provide some 40k engines a year. Between the Ram and the GC, they will likely max that number out.
Hey guys!!! Hey guys. DID YOU SEE??? $4500 EXTRA FOR THE VM!!!! OMG OMG OMG
DID YOU KNOW DIESELS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE?? DID YOU KNOW THE CUMMINS IS $7800 EXTRA???
Duckie would LOVE that relaxed pace, he builds 40,000 Pentastars in about 10 days!
I don't know that it's any more relaxed at the VM plant... slower machines, perhaps, or flex lines sharing with other engines, etc... coupled with a much more complex design... and presumably only one line...
40k MORE than what they currently are building. Of course I have no idea what that is.
That is a hang up, if you don't build another plant, you only have access to what ever spare capacity is "layin' around". Sounds like 40k is that number.
And I figure, if they meet demand, plus some, that could open to the door to discussion of expansion.