Pickups with 31 mpg

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

It's the Cummins 5L V8 - a compromise between the excessively large (6.7L V8) engines in the heavy-duty pickups and the less powerful and smaller (2.8L to 3.2L, 4 to 6 cylinder) engines in the commercial vans and other light-duty pickups (Ram and Colorado). This is a much bigger engine in a bigger and heavier truck than the Colorado (or Ram 1500), so I don't expect fuel consumption miracles.

I was told by a local mechanic to shy away from the Nissan diesel . His worry was that the Nissan front end was not built to take the added torque and weight of the heavier 5 ltr diesel engine and that Nissan had no plans to upgrade the front end . According. to the mechanic Ram and GM are using smaller diesel engines to avoid these issues. Is there any truth to this or is he just expressing his opinion ?

[AK snowbiker]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I was told by a local mechanic to shy away from the Nissan diesel . His worry was that the Nissan front end was not built to take the added torque and weight of the heavier 5 ltr diesel engine and that Nissan had no plans to upgrade the front end . According. to the mechanic Ram and GM are using smaller diesel engines to avoid these issues. Is there any truth to this or is he just expressing his opinion ?

Probably some truth to that. I have a 3rd generation Ram with the 5.9 common rail. I did have to have the front end rebuilt after our most recent trip up the Cassiar at 60,000 miles. But I think hauling our previous truck camper which weighed in wet at around 4000 pounds had something to do with that. I have friends that have 300,000 – 500,000 miles on the 5.9 liter with no mechanical issues. Scott
Scott & Lori

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I was told by a local mechanic to shy away from the Nissan diesel . His worry was that the Nissan front end was not built to take the added torque and weight of the heavier 5 ltr diesel engine and that Nissan had no plans to upgrade the front end . According. to the mechanic Ram and GM are using smaller diesel engines to avoid these issues. Is there any truth to this or is he just expressing his opinion ?

It's a new generation of the Titan, with the diesel available only in the "XD" version which is described by Nissan and every published report I've seen as stronger to handle heavier loads (including the engine). This guy may be rights, but what makes him think that "Nissan had no plans to upgrade the front end"?

Also, the engine output torque is irrelevant to the chassis. The transmission output torque reaction is handled by the frame, not the front suspension... so yes, the frame is a concern with any high-powered engine, but this engine has a bit less power capability than current gasoline engine in a Titan.

On the other hand, the weight of a 5L V8 Cummins diesel is a valid concern - a friend of mine who repairs pickup trucks says that he gets a lot of Ford SuperDuty owners with front-end problems (and big Power Stroke engines on top of them), and although the version for Nissan is lighter the commercial-duty ISV5.0 weighs 800 pounds. For comparison, the commercial-duty version of the ISB6.7 (also by Cummins, used in Ram heavy-duty trucks) weighs 1150 pounds and the Maxxforce7 (current commercial-duty version of the previous generation of Power Stroke engines used in Ford SuperDuty trucks) weighs 1225 pounds... both dry. So it's 2/3 of the weight of what the heavier pickups are carrying, but still heavier than the 490-pound Ram EcoDiesel 3.0 V6 (a.k.a. L630). Let's hope Nissan handles it properly.

[AK snowbiker]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

It's a new generation of the Titan, with the diesel available only in the "XD" version which is described by Nissan and every published report I've seen as stronger to handle heavier loads (including the engine). This guy may be rights, but what makes him think that "Nissan had no plans to upgrade the front end"?

Also, the engine output torque is irrelevant to the chassis. The transmission output torque reaction is handled by the frame, not the front suspension... so yes, the frame is a concern with any high-powered engine, but this engine has a bit less power capability than current gasoline engine in a Titan.

On the other hand, the weight of a 5L V8 Cummins diesel is a valid concern - a friend of mine who repairs pickup trucks says that he gets a lot of Ford SuperDuty owners with front-end problems (and big Power Stroke engines on top of them), and although the version for Nissan is lighter the commercial-duty ISV5.0 weighs 800 pounds. For comparison, the commercial-duty version of the ISB6.7 (also by Cummins, used in Ram heavy-duty trucks) weighs 1150 pounds and the Maxxforce7 (current commercial-duty version of the previous generation of Power Stroke engines used in Ford SuperDuty trucks) weighs 1225 pounds... both dry. So it's 2/3 of the weight of what the heavier pickups are carrying, but still heavier than the 490-pound Ram EcoDiesel 3.0 V6 (a.k.a. L630). Let's hope Nissan handles it properly.

I think that all of the big three heavy duties can have premature front end wear, due to the weight of the engines, the loads they haul and the types of roads they drive. My neighbor has a semi-remote home down a seventy mile stretch of road that can be quite bad during certain times of the year. His truck, a Duramax is three years newer than mine and he is on his third front end. Scott

Scott & Lori

[Tford]

Funny to stumble on this topic, as I eagerly await the new Titan XD rollout. Been driving nothing but diesels (on my 3rd Dodge Cummins, a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and an 03 VW Golf that still gets +48mpg) and wouldn't mind trading down to this "5/8" ton as it is being touted. The diesel version is released first with a completely different front end and frame from the gas versions to follow. Combine that with the heavier duty Aisin 6 sped tranny and it might be the perfect size for what I need to tow antique car trailers and hopefully my new 5.0 TA. The only question now is whether the spouse will let go of her Jeep and I'll lose the Dodge! Yeah, I know there are several gas vehicles that would suffice, but once you get that oil burning in your blood, it's hard to quit!

[AK snowbiker]

Originally Posted by Tford

Funny to stumble on this topic, as I eagerly await the new Titan XD rollout. Been driving nothing but diesels (on my 3rd Dodge Cummins, a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and an 03 VW Golf that still gets +48mpg) and wouldn't mind trading down to this "5/8" ton as it is being touted. The diesel version is released first with a completely different front end and frame from the gas versions to follow. Combine that with the heavier duty Aisin 6 sped tranny and it might be the perfect size for what I need to tow antique car trailers and hopefully my new 5.0 TA. The only question now is whether the spouse will let go of her Jeep and I'll lose the Dodge! Yeah, I know there are several gas vehicles that would suffice, but once you get that oil burning in your blood, it's hard to quit!

Yeah, I know what you mean. I figure I have years yet to figure it out. The only time I drive the truck is hauling the 5th wheel or for home project stuff. Maybe Tesla will be in the running when the 5.9 wears out. Scott

Scott & Lori

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Tford

Funny to stumble on this topic, as I eagerly await the new Titan XD rollout.
... and wouldn't mind trading down to this "5/8" ton as it is being touted. The diesel version is released first with a completely different front end and frame from the gas versions to follow.

I'd call it a "heavy half ton"... just like an F-150. The F-150 is actually available with higher payload and towing capacity for comparable cab and box configurations than the Titan XD.

I just talked to a Nissan sales rep yesterday who said they they have had a Titan XD demonstrator visit at their dealership, and expected actual production units to start arriving in January.

Given what Nissan has done with their other "F-Alpha Architecture" models (original Titan, current Frontier, XTerra, previous Pathfinder, NV 2500/3500) , I expect that "completely different front end and frame" means the same basic design and hard point locations, with any or all components different due to sizing and strength to match the application... and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Tford

Funny to stumble on this topic, as I eagerly await the new Titan XD rollout.
... it might be the perfect size for what I need to tow antique car trailers and hopefully my new 5.0 TA.

The Titan XD has a bed-floor hitch (ball only) as a factory-integrated feature. With one of the fifth-wheel hitches that anchor to a bed-mount ball (such as the B&W Companion or Andersen Ultimate 5th Wheel Connection) it could be the "lightest" and most fuel-efficient route to a manufactuer-approved fifth-wheel rig (and the car trailers can be pulled with a ball in either conventional or gooseneck format)...

... but it will still weigh three tons and is not going to get 31 mpg under any conditions.

[PGDriver]

My truck got 9.3 per 100 KM, that's 30.32 MPG Imperial, that's pretty close isn't it?

Cheers
Doug

[gbaglo]

Who uses Imperial?
Not even England, me thinks.

[padlin]

Doug, what did you get when towing?

[cpaharley2008]

I'm confused?? If the best was 9.3 and the average was 14.8 why be best??

[gbaglo]

We measure in number of litres required per 100 kilometers ( kilometres ), so using fewer litres is better.

For Americans, and this spell check ( not cheque ), that is "liters".

[Jim Bennett]

14.8 litres/100kms = 19.1 miles/gal = 15.9 miles/gal (American)

9.3 litres/100kms = 30.4 miles/gal = 25.3miles/gal (American)

[PGDriver]

Originally Posted by padlin

Doug, what did you get when towing?

Drove from southern Alberta to Chilliwack (Escape) then up to Prince George BC then home and averaged 17.2 Imp. on that trip.

2015 GMC Sierra, 6.2, 8 speed, crew cab 4 X 4

Cheers
Doug

[cpaharley2008]

I see now, less fuel is being consumed....per distance, totally opposite of mpg down here

[cpaharley2008]

Here is a link to a recent Titan XD review where several flaws are mentioned (1) for the price of an XD a 3/4 ton truck is better and (2) no diesel brake
2016 Nissan Titan XD Review - AutoGuide.com News

[Steve Clark]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

14.8 litres/100kms = 19.1 miles/gal = 15.9 miles/gal (American)

9.3 litres/100kms = 30.4 miles/gal = 25.3miles/gal (American)

All these numbers makes my head hurt......must be too much pole dancing

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by PGDriver

My truck got 9.3 per 100 KM, that's 30.32 MPG Imperial, that's pretty close isn't it?

5/6 of the way there!

Originally Posted by gbaglo

Who uses Imperial?
Not even England, me thinks.

I've never understood why someone who has purchased fuel in litres and measured distance with an odometer in kilometres would then convert both of those numbers to an antiquated system of units to calculate miles per imperial gallon, but lots do.

Although the UK went metric decades ago, as did Canada, they are highly obstinate (and anti-European continent in some cases) and both speeds in miles/hour and fuel economy in (imp)MPG. Example - a UK fuel economy website.

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

14.8 litres/100kms = 19.1 miles/gal = 15.9 miles/gal (American)

9.3 litres/100kms = 30.4 miles/gal = 25.3miles/gal (American)

Yes, but maybe it is more clear to build the "imperial" or "US" right into the units:

• 14.8 litres/100kms = 19.1 miles/ImpGal = 15.9 miles/USgal
• 9.3 litres/100kms = 30.4 miles/ImpGal = 25.3miles/USgal

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

Here is a link to a recent Titan XD review where several flaws are mentioned
...
no diesel brake

The article said no diesel exhaust brake. Since a diesel doesn't have a throttle, engine braking isn't very effective unless something else holds back airflow through the engine.

Exhaust brakes are the usual light-duty diesel substitute for the more effective but problematically loud compression-release brake (or "Jake Brake"). Lots of light-duty diesel vehicles are missing the exhaust brake, but they all have a turbocharger (or two) and if it is the variable-geometry type then it can be used to some extent as an exhaust brake. The article said that the downhill speed control system "works well", so the engine must still be capable of useful engine braking, maybe using the turbo.

I don't know if either the Ram's EcoDiesel or the Colorado/Canyon's Duramax have an exhaust brake (I'm sure they don't have compression-release brakes).