I'd consider trading my 3rd gen for....

Here's a modern Ranger parked behind a Raptor for size comparison, taken from here

 

Diesels don't have a throttle, so they are very efficient even at low load conditions. Gas engines are most efficient at wide open throttle (thermodynamic efficiency, i.e. shaft power from chemical energy in fuel), but incur significant throttle losses at part load conditions.

It's possible to build a diesel cycle engine that runs on gasoline (giving you the best benefits of each), but real-world issues (lubrication, emissions, etc) have made it impractical to date.

 

Remember to though that you are thinking about Diesel versus gas comparisons on 3/4 tons. There you have 300 HP/350 ftlbs torque gassers going up against 300 HP/800 ftlbs torque diesels. That's equivilent HP with a massive gain in torque for the diesel.

On the mid size trucks we are comparing 275 HP/270 ftlbs torque gassers to 180 HP/300 ftlbs torque diesels. It's not the same comparison or feeling.

 

That's what I like about the diesel, I don't have to go to wide open throttle to get to peak torque.

 

Neither do you on a modern boosted gas engine. Peak torque on the Ecoboost is at ~2000 rpm

 

BTW I'm not saying either fuel is superior here, I'm just saying both have their place and honestly it's a tough argument to invest in Diesel engines for small vehicles right now from the corporate side.

 

Peak torque is around 3000-3500rpm for the ecoboost which is not bad, but most diesels comes in at 1800 to 2200 rpm, which is a big difference and still can't compete fuel mileage wise with a diesel. I know I am dreaming lol, Toyota should have the v6 option and replace their 4 cylinder gas option with a 4 cylinder diesel. They don't see the advantage right now because they own the market with gas versions, but that could change.

 

On Ford cars it's that high, on the trucks it's anywhere from 2000-2500 rpm depending on what model.

Diesel fuel efficiency has nothing to do with RPM. It has to do with Diesel having more energy per litre than gas. The Diesel burn cycle is also more efficient, mostly because it's a slower combustion with a longer energy pulse. Actually, the only reason Diesels look so shitty now adays to companies is the emission system which has a heavy penalty to both cost and fuel efficiency.

 

If Nissan follows through with this I'm sure Toyota will say umm

 

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/
RPM absolutely plays a factor in efficiency, you can not tell me you would get better mpg running in 4th at 70mph than in 6th at 70mph. In part, diesel gets good mpg because the rpms are right around where it gets peak torque.

 

Exactly, which I am hearing they probably will next year in the redesign.

 

Ya and the GM twins already have it

 

The original prototype came out in 2012 and Nissan still hasn't built it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Plus check out Titan sales. Lots of people here thought the Titan XD would really carve out a market. So far it hasn't. It's too in between for people I think. Just personal opinion there.

 

Toyota please....I don't want a GM Twin or frontier lol.

 

Yes, I haven't even seen one of their Titan XD's on the road.

 

The GM twins are getting 30 mpg or better on the highway and they have all the emission stuff on them.

 

I always wanted diesel in small truck for the range. But with the complexity of modern diesels I am not so sure. I'd be happy enough if the truck had optional secondary gas tank.

 

The 87 was mine and the 88 was my dads. Dad finally traded for the 89 Ranger in a two car swap for his 88 and a 1955 Chevy. The 93 I didn't buy until I owned my first house 9 years ago and I traded that for the 2004 to have the extended cab room. And my dad bought the 95 a few years back for a run around Home Depot truck.

I'm 36 years old so all those Rangers came in the last 18ish years. All of them were great.

 

Probably cause who can stand to look at the front of it.

 

Couldn't agree more. Saw one on the highway the other day. It's uglier than shooting your self in the foot. If you haven't seen one, lucky you.