Diesel truck fans take note

I don't see rust being a buying factor for me, cause I generally keep my vehicles clean. My taco has 225k with minimal rust (also have a 4 cylinder 4wd cause of less maintenance) and my 01 f350 has little rust. It's really about how you maintain them

 

just another fanboy article that manipulates numbers into what they want it to be.

bottom line, GM is selling 85% of build capacity twins. Toyota is selling 78% of build capacity Tacomas. But none of that even matters. If people think that GM thought they would outsell everyone in the mid-size truck section those people should give up on life. In 2015 GM didnt even build as many of the twins, as Tacoma's sold in 2014 (if thats not proof that GM didnt expect to outsell, then I dont know what is). Now, it may end up being the goal. But you cant knock off the giant in your 1st year.

 

Hellcat Challenger has a clear performance benefit over the V6 Challenger. Not the case with the pickup diesel. In fact, the Colorado diesel, losing some 10 hp compared to the foreign-market version thanks to the US-spec emissions equipment, makes less power than the Colorado 4 cyl gas engine, so acceleration is slower.

 

Where do you get the build capacity info? The GM twins production line is shared with the Express/Savanna vans. The Tacoma line is shared with the Tundra. What would "100% build capacity" mean?

 

I hope you're just playing dumb but that was just meant to show that people will pay more for something they want. I WANT a small diesel Tacoma, not for outright acceleration but not downshifting on the slightest hill would be nice. Diesels in a commuter/basic tasks (what I use my Tacoma for) vehicle would be more preferable than a gasoline V6. Some, including you, may feel different, hence why I'd like the option of a diesel. I'll gladly pay the extra for it.

 

just a quick internet search will give you these numbers...

Toyota's monthly capacity is about 17,500 Tacoma's.
GM's capacity is about 9,500 on the twins.

And I did my math wrong. Its 72% of build capacity for Tacomas. Not 78.

But still nevertheless pointless in every argument possible.

 

And you live in.........

 

Northern va, but have been in areas with salt a lot and it's honestly a matter of just spraying the shit off your car and not letting it sit

 

We live in two different worlds . You cannot " spray the shit off" as salt here gets thrown into areas you can't reach with a car wash. Up into the door drain holes where it runs down along the windows and inside body frame members. In areas like ours and Canada, we need to actually treat the frame and body panels yearly to prevent rust. My relatives form Penn to Georgia have no problems with rust egardless of what they do. Northern states and Canada are a totally different ball game. Many places have salt covered roads for the entire winter.

 

Either you are misinformed or you just don't have a clue about how underpowered these small diesels are.

Power, not torque, gives acceleration, whether off the line or in-gear. Good power level at lower rpms gives good driveability. On a gasoline engine, good power at lower rpms typically means good torque, so most people associate "low-end torque" with good driveability. This association is false with the small diesels.

The Toyota 1GD-FTV 2.8L diesel in the 2016 Hilux makes just 174 hp at 3400 rpm. With US emissions equipment, that will be choked down to about 164 hp, or about 131 hp at the wheels with typical 20% driveline losses.

The 3rd gen V6 makes 140 hp at the wheels at 3400 rpm: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/2016-tacoma-dyno-time.410608/page-6#post-11611150

This means the Toyota diesel is weaker than the 2GR-FKS at lower rpms. Whereas with the V6 you can at least downshift and get more power, the diesel would just run out of
steam and remain sluggish.

I've driven the predecessor 1KD-FTV engine (161 hp @ 3400 rpm) and it's a pig. Stepping on it mean a lot of turbo whistling but not much movement. All the torque (295 lb-ft @ 1600-2800 rpm) didn't make a damn difference.

 

How about you list some reliable sources rather than shooting off with a "quick internet search"? This site, for example, shows the combined capacity the TMMTX and TMMBC plants to be about 312,000 trucks in 2015. http://www.examiner.com/article/toyota-plans-to-build-more-tacoma-trucks-2016-to-meet-surging-demand Production numbers amounted to 316,000 trucks in 2015, which means the plants were running at 101% capacity. Increasing Tacoma production 2015 would have required cutting back Tundra production, and vice versa. Only by mid 2016 can we expect Toyota's production capacity to rise to 350,000 trucks per year.

 

Because I've done the research months ago. Didn't feel like doing it all over again. Plus, I honestly dont care, and think its a mute point in any argument. If people find it out for themselves they tend to learn more. - The more you know. Reading Rainbow

 

Either you are misinformed or you just don't have a clue about how underpowered these small diesels are.

Nope, perfectly informed. Have never stated nor would I expect a small diesel to be more powerful than the gasoline V6 but it would have it's power in an RPM range I'd prefer. For the record, my wife has a '13 TDI Jetta and I have an Ecodiesel Ram at work.

Power, not torque, gives acceleration, whether off the line or in-gear. Good power level at lower rpms gives good driveability. On a gasoline engine, good power at lower rpms typically means good torque, so most people associate "low-end torque" with good driveability. This association is false with the small diesels.

You seem to think horsepower and torque are two completely different values but they are actually directly related to each other. HP=Tq x rpm/5252. Any "power" you feel is torque. Horsepower is just an arbitrary measurement of that torque based on RPM.

The Toyota 1GD-FTV 2.8L diesel in the 2016 Hilux makes just 174 hp at 3400 rpm. With US emissions equipment, that will be choked down to about 164 hp, or about 131 hp at the wheels with typical 20% driveline losses.

The 3rd gen V6 makes 140 hp at the wheels at 3400 rpm: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/2016-tacoma-dyno-time.410608/page-6#post-11611150

This means the Toyota diesel is weaker than the 2GR-FKS at lower rpms. Whereas with the V6 you can at least downshift and get more power, the diesel would just run out of
steam and remain sluggish.

First, 3,400rpm isn't low RPMs. I'm under that WAY more than above it. Low RPM is idle to 2,500rpm or so IMO because that's where I spend a majority of my time. And the 1GD will perform better at those RPMs while returning better MPG.

I've driven the predecessor 1KD-FTV engine (161 hp @ 3400 rpm) and it's a pig. Stepping on it mean a lot of turbo whistling but not much movement. All the torque (295 lb-ft @ 1600-2800 rpm) didn't make a damn difference.

That's a real interesting story, but no matter how you shake it, that "pig" you drove makes more torque (and as a result, horsepower) at 1,600-2,800rpm than the 3.5 or 4.0 V6. It just so happens that is also the RPM range I drive in most, so that's where I would prefer my power to be. I do agree that the gas engine will have more power if you rev it higher but that's not something I want to do to access my power all the time. Just preference and why I'd like one to be optional. Not sure why you'd be unhappy to see the option as long as you could still have your gas engine. We can both be happy.

 

+1 on the 7.3. Mines a 1997, the good year

 

Great movie!

 

1 more thing to add. Diesel's don't rev as high so comparing the rpm's of a diesel to those of a gas engine is comparing apples to oranges. Diesels like to run in the 2000 rpm range because that's where peak torque is. Gas engines have to run much higher to see peak torque. If you compare a diesel at 3400 rpms (well over peak torque) to a gas engine at 3400 (close to peak torque) of course the gas engine is going to look better. I want to qualify this by saying this is for a typical gas and diesel engine, not specific to the Toyota diesel and v-6.

I would love a diesel option IF AND ONLY IF we could somehow do away with DEF and DPF (which I heard the big diesel engine manufacturers have that technology but need to figure out how to make it affordable...fingers crossed)

 

Yep, I think that was a case of Cherry-picking information to suit the argument.

And having always had older diesels, I was very wary of the emissions of the newer ones too. However, I have found that it's not nearly as big a deal as I was original told. Still, I'd like to see it go away some day if possible.

 

That emissions stuff isn't a huge deal, but it does sap some power and is VERY expensive to replace should something go wrong. My brother works for a freightliner dealership as their head mechanic and hates the new emissions stuff with a passion. If a truck doesn't go through a proper regen cycle it can kill the DPF, and replacing the DPF is a several thousand dollar fix. It's just frustrating there isn't a better option available for making diesels clean. I don't mind the DEF that much, but the thought of a DPF scares me.

 

I'm happy with my VQ40DE & 6spd.

Quiet, powerful, reliable, efficient and a nice exhaust note. 19.93mpg on my last fill. Lots of torque from 1750rpm on, no issues towing or driving up grades.

What's important is a brand new truck like mine is $28k. The $45k for a diesel GM with the same options outweighs the benefits for me.

 

This

Not to mention all the emissions crap that new diesels have pushing buyers away because all the stuff to make them "efficient" makes them a lot less efficient.