Diesel yotas

A guy over the touareg forums had 200k miles on his v10 touareg just with regular maintenance and no problems. He deleted the dpf, blanked the egr and had a tune though.

 

I know multiple people with Touaregs. They have lots of little electrical issues that tend to pop up like most VW products. Otherwise they are a very nice vehicle. Actually most of the people I know that have one are fresh off the boat from Holland and prefer the gas model. I've never asked them why though but I'm guessing it's becuase it costs less.

I doubt you would be able to do a dpf and emissions equipment delete on a Tacoma if it came with a Diesel without a lot of work. Toyota locks up their ECUs tight and you need a tune to delete either of those items and not cause huge issues. Tuning risks also voiding the warranty which isn't something most people want to do on a 40k plus truck. In my experience tuning a diesel that was designed with the emissions equipment in place can cause all sorts of issues and when they happen you are SOL in most cases with the original manufacturer.

 

I agree with you but is not the technology that is the problem. Is the builder. How well is he testing before he install it on a car.
I recently returned from a trip in Europe where I rented a RAV 4 for two weeks. I had the choice between 2.0 diesel and 2.4 diesel.
I took the 2.0 and I average 5 l / 100 kilometer and this was all in small rural roads and over the mountain where the engine was working pretty hard most of the time. I consider this from Toyota - excellent performance.
Toyota makes a new 2.8 diesel engine for the rest of the world and is green enough for USA , because it meets Euro6. I wish that was an option in the new Tacoma regardless of the cost.
When about diesel vs gas ?? if I could replace the Tundra V8 with the VW 3.0 L Diesel legally and practically ??? I would do it tomorrow.

 

You would do it based on driving a RAV diesel for a few short hours? The emissions requirements aren't the same here as in Europe. If they were the same then you would see the Toyota diesel over here already. Lots of Diesels in Europe have different power ratings over here. It's not really a comparison at all.

TBH I don't care which fuel my truck burns. I'm not going to pay a primium though for a Diesel with all of the potential costly issues I mentioned which may come up before I see any cost savings from the better MPGs. It just seems doesn't make sense to do so.

 

All the semi trucks my dads company runs all have engines that were made before they put alot of the modern emissions stuff on. Heck they even bought a brand new truck, with no motor or tranny, just so they could put an older motor in without the emissions stuff. even a 1 mpg increase can save a ton a money when driving hundreds of thousands of miles a year. There main reason though was because less stuff can break and have to be fixed/maintenance.

 

I would do it based on my experience with the newer diesel engines.
2012 VW touareg with 60k that I traded for a 2014 TDI with 10K .

It seams that we care so much about the cost and we forget that a car should be fun to drive also. My last Tacoma I installed over $10 k in accessories (supercharger, suspension, changed differential ratio etc) with the scope of making it more powerful and able to do what I want.
At the end I replace it with a Tundra. Yes , is better but still not happy.
I know that there is no perfect world and I should compromise but if the reliability of a diesel is your concern then take a look at all the diesel Hilux that Toyota have around the world.

In my opinion if you work your truck the way a truck is meant to ?? diesel would be a better choice. Thats all .

 

Lol. I bet you a pile of money I work my truck a lot more than you do

Again, the diesel Hilux doesn't use an engine that is compliant with US emissions. So that means nothing to me. Strap on urea injection and a more stringent DPF to that Hilux engine and who knows what the reliability will be like.

I work in agriculture. Both my trucks are gas. If I wanted performance like you talk about, I'd drive a 3.5 L Ecoboost which can be tuned for over 600 HP without much effort or modification. Since I don't think I need a truck that behaves like a sports car though I just drive a typical gas V8 work truck. To be honest the diesel version of my Ram 2500 isn't anything like a sports car or a Toureg lol, which kind of makes me laugh at your comparisons. The mpg savings of the Diesel wouldn't cover the additional costs of going up to the Cummins, and since I rarely tow more than a few K, the gas job truck I have works just great for my purposes.

Take a look around. Diesel trucks are bought for their towing mileage. If a truck is just doing field work and the company does any math, the truck they work hard will be a gas engine vehicle. The cost of keeping up a Diesel and it's markup off the bat don't make sense for a work vehicle unless it is towing often.

 

Lol, I can't tell if you guys are arguing or not. This whole topic is *very* subjective.

As mentioned before, if Toyota was looking for an "edge" in the mid sized truck market, they might introduce the diesel. The new 2.8l may pass the newest US emissions tests (& remember CARB has their own tests as well), but the engine still needs to be certified & go through the testing process which costs money. The Tacoma is an important vehicle for Toyota, Toyota isn't going to to risk putting a diesel into it until they intro a diesel in a car they don't care about.

So, Toyota, the current Sequoia doesn't sell, can you put a diesel in it for us to *try* out?

 

you forgot though that those hilux's dont have all the emissions equipment on them. It will come when they will be able to meet the performance of older diesel with newer greener ones.

 

Subjective is absolutely right. That's why I never made a geneal statement about which fuel type is best. It all depends on how you will use the truck, how long you keep the truck, and how reliable the truck is. Right now Diesel reliability has fallen off a bit which throws a kink into the cost benefits diesels have long term. It doesn't mean diesel doesn't have other advantages or applications where it works out better than gas, like towing where the high torque output of a diesel at very low rpms is extremely favorable. I just don't see a Diesel engine in a newer truck doing anything for me right now until it can prove its reliability over time to pay back the highet investment.

Oh, and I would never buy a Diesel for performance or track times. Gas turbo engines blow the snot out of Diesel in those applications. Just check out the track times of a Cayenne gas versus the diesel. Gas stomps all over the diesel.

 

but regarding track times, the pull or torque of diesel is impressive...once the turbo spools up of course. My step moms passat is pretty impressive.

 

Stick that Passat up against a similar Audi twin turbo...

Diesel has weight issues in that the engine and internals are heavier than a gas. A diesel hybrid can compensate for this, but at the end of the day for pure performance it's hard to beat a light gas twin turbo engine.

 

well ya but if we are comparing apples to apple we need both to have twin turbos then

 

who was thinking that?

 

You are so wrong.
VW makes 2 liters gas and diesel. Both similiar displacements, and gasoline engine compared to diesel is a dog. Take it up the mountains and you constantly shift in gas engine, while diesel one can be on highest gear even on tall inclines, that's with the same manual transmissions.
If you you want to see diesel performance Google for diesel Audi Le Mans.

 

I wouldn't say he is so wrong, but with anything there is some exceptions

 

That's a turbo diesel compared to a regular gas engine. My statement concerned turbo engine versus turbo engine. Again, maybe you should read my comments before commenting yourself. I posted the 0-60 mph times for the Cayanne (which is a god damn touareg basically) before during a similar argument. Here they are again. Turbo versus turbo:

2013 Porsche Cayenne S Diesel V8 0-60 mph 5.3
2015 Porsche Cayenne Turbo 0-60 mph 4.2

Compare any Porsche, or other model, on the 0-60 site and you won't find a turbo diesel of similar displacement out pacing a gas turbo. It's all a matter of weight and mass in the engine. The gas spins up faster, hits it's power band faster, and that's it. Diesels are not optimal for race performance. Sure you can get great performance out of a Diesel, but not better performance than a similar displacement gas engine. If Diesel was better you'd see a Diesel in every exotic and performance car model, which is not the case. In the performance/track model, a car or cuv almost always comes with a gas engine.

Actually, getting back to Europe, the reason why a lot of cars in Europe have better Diesel engines than gas is strictly based on cost. Petrol is way more expensive than Diesel in Europe and companies don't charge much difference for the Diesel option. Usually the Diesel is a nice small efficient turbo diesel and the gas is a bit of a hog. Under those conditions of course most people will buy the Diesel. If we had those conditions over here, Diesel would be a no brainer.

 

Sure, there are always exceptions, but all you need to do is look at what track cars are running for fuel. The only Diesels on the track are Le Mans cars and that's because of the races length and weight constraints. Under those conditions a hybrid Diesel is extremely competitive. However in a race where top end speed and acceleration are key over a shorter distance, like most buyers would buy for a car they want to use on a legal track, you just don't see any Diesels being put into those cars. It's just not the right engine for the task.

If you are buying something to drive for fun, unless it's naturally aspirated gas versus turbo diesel, you really aren't doing yourself any favors other than mpg by buying the Diesel engine. At that point, you have to figure out in your situation if it pays to go diesel. For some, however they rationalize it, it will.

 

Wow, this went in a weird direction. . diesels have been popular for MPG (over gas) , reliability (except the 6.0 ford) and torque. Someone mentioned that the difference between 20 and 30mpg wasn't a big difference but it's HUGE. 50% huge. If it was 50 to 60mpg that 10 wouldn't be such a big deal but still 20%. Reliability for Toyota isn't much of an issue because for gas motors they last a long, long time and it is pretty much the brand reputation.

Diesels aren't all about towing and payload or they wouldn't be in Mercedes, VW, Audi, Porsche and BMW. Wow maybe it's just a German thing if not in large trucks and we all know they don't know anything about engineering...oh wait

As for the diesel cost too much to put in a vehicle in today's age with the smog bs I call bs. They have them in Kia's. KIA!!!..so much for the German theory.

Hopefully they slap one in the Tacoma and box the frame to support the extra weight and torque.

The whole turbo gas vs turbo diesel conversation is just silly because forced induction makes gas motors die sooner and diesels like it. FORD was smart in tricking the American public with something that every manufacturer has been doing overseas and putting a turbo on a smaller displacement for power and better mileage. Then they slap the name Eco on it and boom...marketing genius that will probably crap the bed soon enough.

My reason for the thread was what the engineer said in the video. He had no idea the demand was so strong. It's about the money and if they think they can sell enough to make more money they will. Hopefully they do.

 

Add up how long at average prices it will take to cover a 3K plus price difference of a diesel. Then maybe you'll see why I'm reluctant to jump on the diesel bandwagon. If we could have diesels without urea injection and with better injection systems I'd trust them more reliability wise, but we can't.

Look into European fuel prices and it's not hard to see why they prefer Diesel.

Ecoboost engines last just fine. We've had them at work from off the bat. Other than one motor that went bad we've had no problem getting 300 K km's out of those trucks. No, they are not Diesel efficient, but they do get 400 ftlbs of torque at 2000 rpms and that's just sick . Lead foots tend to get 16-17 mpg out of them, but without trying hard it's not difficult to get 18-19 mpg. I'm sure you could get 20 mpg in the new aluminum truck too considering my V8 2015 gets that. I'll be jumping the good ship Tacoma if Ford brings back the Ranger with an Ecoboost option. I'd also check out a Diesel if it was the mini powerstroke that's been successful in the Transit vans for a few years now. Like I've said, I don't care which fuel it is as long as I get decent performance without a huge crap shoot on reliability or several K markup. Unfortunately, I wouldn't buy anything Toyota brings here for a few years until it proves itself with the extra emissions equipment on it.