2018 Diesel

Sure, trust the study done 4 years ago on VW's that can't pass emissions.

May as well start comparing apples and oranges now.

The fuelly numbers are average. As in the average of drivers, town and highway, etc etc. That difference does not pay back until you get past the 100,000 mile mark. It's not worth it unless you are going to keep that truck that long and you get there without mechanical issues.

Plus, unlike the diesel car versus gas car argument the Colorado performs like shit... again because it actually conforms to emissions... or did you not notice how Audi pulled the Diesel from the S4 this year because they can't get the numbers where they need to be for performance.

 

From the people I know the 2.4 L Ecoboost, 3.2 L Powerstroke, and 2.7 L Ecoboost have all been trialed in the Ranger. They're already doing street testing in Michigan.

Trust me, Ford will not be using a new or unproven design in the Ranger. The top engine will be one, or likely two, of those options. It won't cost Ford anything to stick a Diesel in their for 5% more sales to guys like @BlueT because they already have it up to North American emissions standards. That's right, the 3.2 L passes current and upcoming Diesel emissions standards. There are no exemptions for Vans. Likely the determining factor for whether they put a Diesel engine in the Ranger will be how the Diesel Colorado sells. If it drags it's ass like it's been doing it won't be an option.

Ford brought the 3.2 L over for the Transit because they wanted to steal the market away from the Sprinter... which has a Diesel option. They've succeeded BTW. The Transit is #1 in the market. Ford is good at doing that. Watch what happens when the Ranger comes out. The Tacoma will lose the top spot by 2020. People will change because the Ecoboost Ranger will be much better performance wise, close to what people expect, and post nearly the same gas mileage as the F150 posts.

 

So there's a bunch of guys on here that say they "didn't buy their Tacoma for performance" and "I don't need to go fast"...etc.

Then there's the loaded canyon diesel 4x4 which in gas form weighs in a few hundred more than a Tacoma, then a diesel version is even heavier. That adds up to less than 1 second slower 0-60 time vs the Tacoma and the " performance" isn't good enough?

Interesting.

 

Check the real world Colorado testing. TFL truck and several others had trouble getting the Colorado under 10 seconds. My SUPERCHARGED Tacoma does that in under 7. So does my stock V8 Ford.

It matters for passing, merging, etc etc. I live in an area with a lot of undivided highways and short merge lanes. The Colorado "slow bro" edition wouldn't work for me.

What would be interesting to see is what time the Colorado would get if they removed the emissions equipment and tuned it. Sadly, there would go any hope of GM helping you when the truck falls apart at 50K.

 

Here yeah go, check out the video around 11:50 for the Colorado at the same altitude I'm at:

http://www.tfltruck.com/2016/02/maniacal-mashup-ford-f-150-5-0l-v8-vs-gmc-canyon-2-8l-duramax-video/

It's sad... like first gen Kia Rio or 1980's Toyota Tercel sad... It's not about going fast it's about being able to get into traffic safely.

The Tacoma in another video of theirs at altitude was posting right around 8 seconds for 0-60 mph times. That's over 2 seconds of difference. Not close. Just watch the Colorado launch. It's sad in so many ways. So much noise, so little get up and go. I hope I'm wrong when they get one here locally this week and I go for a test drive but I'm guessing it will feel like a brick.

If you watch the whole video you'll see the Ford I own, basically since mine is top end XLT and the video is bottom end Lariat, as well. Actually I own one and have one on lease for business use. I get 20 mpg out of my V8 F150's. Plus I only paid $41K for the one I bought... CANADIAN. That's right, it would of been under $35K American for my truck. The Colorado up here is over 40K with discount and the Diesel.

 

http://www.torquenews.com/1083/2016...s-chevy-colorado-diesel-fuel-costs-comparison

Even if you doubled the difference in MPG to 7 over the 3.5 that math assumes... you'd still fall short of paying off the price difference after 100K.

BTW for the people who think I'm hating on Diesel I'm not. I simply do care either way and I don't see a glaring reason to switch. Maybe if things were like VW had it and GM cheated enough to make their truck get over 30 mpg average... but not the way things are now.

 

No matter how you cut it a diesel will get 30% better mileage than a comparable gas engine one reason it's a compression ignition engine and there is more energy in a gallon of diesel than there is in gasoline. Hands down a gas engine will beat it at the drag strip because of it's high end revs but when it comes to low end torque there is no comparison that is why all big trucks are diesel and geared to take advantage of that there highway speed and RPM torque match. Most people by a wide margin do not need a diesel for them it is not cost effective the pay back just is not there. Would I have bought a diesel Tacoma? Yes I would have but I tow and run them close to 300K + maybe even more with the diesel I don't need a new truck every year or every 10 for that matter my last one was 14 years old.
.

 

You haven't owned a modern diesel then. Try running them past 5 years and 100k. The injectors alone will scare you out of one.

As for the 30% better mileage, again, that just isn't the case with modern emissions standards. The Diesels are literally handicapped now.

 

Also a gas V8 half ton will out tow the Colorado handily... for less money after rebates. Hence the reason I say if you need towing then the Diesel Colorado is not the magical solution for you.

 

Both our TDi's regularly get over 40% great MPG's than their gas counterparts, but we did not see diesel prices drop nearly as much as gas did, so the differential narrows. I still see diesel as a "performance option" due to the fun factor of driving one in certain conditions. I know many will see that as ridiculous, but no more ridiculous to me than spending $4K+ on a Tacoma Tech Package, which does not alter the objective performance at all.

 

Just like the fb page ..

 

Personal experience has shown me other wise. Yes some engines have had issues from poor design and yes they have been hobbled to some extent by regulations. In 1968 the EPA mandated strict emission standards for
passenger cars every one thought the world as they knew it was going to end yes the early cars sucked but look at them now half again the mileage and cleaner air, small engines making the power of big blocks. The same thing is going on with the diesels every year they get a bit better immense HP, torque and far cleaner air. VW is the only one I know of that has had serious injector issues but not any more.

 

/This\
no gasoline engine can match that efficiency, and if for those that drive on long highway runs or city that efficiency goes up even further.
And if somebody drives diesel like diesel, even F350 power stroke can get the similar MPG as Tacoma.

Thats why Diesels are popular in Europe. Cities are densely populated, and in traffic gas engine burns tons of fuel unnecessarily.
once you do a math, price of diesel engine is nothing compare to what you spend on fuel.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. I'm curious what I'm doing wrong here...
I drive 12,000 miles per year, but lets round that up to 15,000 to be conservative.

So 15,000 miles per year on gas tacoma averaging 18 mpg (my average after 5,000 miles) at current average of $2.00 per gallon. So 15,000mi / 18mpg x $2.00 = $1,667 per year on fuel.

15,000 miles per year on diesel, lets say Colorado averaging and let's go even the max epa estimate of 30 mpg, at current local price of $2.50 per gallon. So 15,000mi / 30mpg x $2.50 = $1,250 per year on fuel.

That's a yearly savings of $417 on fuel. But the diesel option for the Colorado costs $3,750 more. So $3,750 / $417 = 9 years to break even. Then factor in the added maintenance costs and it's more like 12+ years. Over those 12 years, that would put a total mileage of 180,000 miles on the truck before I even break even.

Now, since I plan on owning my truck for 200,000 miles or more, yes I would end up saving money had I gone with a diesel. However, it is a very long time before one can even break even.

 

Your Diesel doesn't conform to emissions though... I agree that if VW's were legal Diesels could be a whole different story.

 

Check the fuelly numbers. Just no.

In europe the fuel costs are insane. Under those conditions it's the long term fuel cost advantage of Diesels higher mpg's that matters, not the pollution.

 

Your math is right...

However...

DEEZUL!


LOL.

Seriously though your math is right. It doesn't make sense financially or for towing to own a Colorado small diesel. If you buy one you are buying it because you like the range or the feel of the Diesel. Other than that other trucks are a better choice.

 

Diesel motors are just buying time until the EPA makes then unusuable. Power to size rotary motors are amazing too but the nemesis of happines had to keep passing new regulations that made them pointless.

I can't say I never thought about putting a diesel motor in my taco if/when my 2tr dies but then I realized a skyline running awd made more sense

 

You use diesel price that is 25% more that gasoline than complain its not enough saving.

You also think you can get good mileage on cheapest fuel, good luck on that.

Simple if any of the crap posted here by some had any merit, millions of people around the globe would not run diesel.
Never mind that, majority of City busses, and vehicles are powered by Diesel with exception few cities that have full CNG installation.
And the first industry to switch to gasoline trucks would be OTR truckers.
Clearly Diesel is better since all those people run diesel engine. So you can post whatever poor formulated math calculations you want...

In the meantime in real world......

This is Diesel \/


This is Diesel\/


And that is a fact ..

 

This is a fact of life in my part of the county. Diesel is more expensive than even premium gasoline.