Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-08-2009, 01:36 PM   #15
Rivet Master<br><img src="/ugala/forums/images/5rivet.gif">
 
CanoeStream's Avatar

 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
St. Cloud , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,279
Images: 19
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
Not sure when "low sulfur" diesel was introduced...buit I believe ULTRA Low Sulfur diesel (ULSD) was dated 1/1/2008...and it took some time to get it into the distribution system...along with much stricter emission rules.

Now I believe 2010 has newer MORE restrictive emission rules...not sure if the ULSD also changes to an Ultra Ultra Low Sulfur diesel UULSD?) for 2010???
Europe has approximately an 8ppm standard and that's just not going to happen here. The U.S. deliberately decided to go no lower than 15ppm (ULSD) and it took quite a lot to buck up and not give way to oil company grousing -- the same companies in a lobbying effort who turned diesel-gas price differentials upside down about three years ago.

I bought my 2006 while still in the LSD 200ppm standard. ULSD became mandated partway thru the 2007 model year -- approximately February or March 2007 IIRC. And there it is going to stay.

Before the latest recession chop blocked car and truck sales, GM & Toyota were well along in development of 1/2-ton truck diesels. You'd have to see truck sales and at the pump prices trend upward before this is revived. At about the same time Ford turned its back on its longtime diesel Navistar source and took that in-house. And Ford was developing a 4.4L diesel -- also stillborn by the recession. Isuzu and others build plenty of medium to small diesels. You will see more diesel options given an invigorated market ... a couple years away at best.
__________________

__________________
Bob

5 meter Langford Nahanni

CanoeStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 01:43 PM   #16
Rivet Master<br><img src="/ugala/forums/images/5rivet.gif">
 
CanoeStream's Avatar

 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
St. Cloud , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,279
Images: 19
Blog Entries: 3
rbr - there may be better sources of info but I found this after a brief search: Baja Highways. It doesn't appear to have been updated recently and doesn't say a thing about ppm sulfur levels.

Also:
ULSD... cant find it and do i have to run it on LMM? - Page 2 - Diesel Place
Low sulfur ultra low question - Diesel Place

Mebbe your SO wants to fly to Cabo?
__________________

__________________
Bob

5 meter Langford Nahanni

CanoeStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 03:15 PM   #17
Full Timers/Diesel power.
 
Mike Leary's Avatar
 
1983 31' Airstream310
Cactus Hug , Arizona
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,540
Images: 11
Ours runs fine on low sulfur, we sure change fuel filters a lot more than we did fifteen years ago; co-incidence?
__________________
"A settled wisdom, plus the itch to be elsewhere"
Mike Leary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:39 PM   #18
4 Rivet Member
 
1971 29' Ambassador
Leonardtown , Maryland
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 262
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
Is yours a pre-ULSD (ultra low sulpher diesel) engine?...change was implemented January 2008 I believe...with USLD engines arriving some weeks/months after 1/1/08. Many seem to like some of the earlier diesel engines for MPG and less maintenance...ie; pre-ULSD engines.

I think the issue is the USLD engines MPG and the coming 2010 even tougher pollution standards.

From most of what I read the new (USLD) and the coming 2010 newer engine have issues with MPG, pollution equipment, UREA required, cost and engine heat. Not heard much that the new 2010 engines will be any better?...maybe worse?

Your 2007 may well be a pre-USLD "keeper"?

Tom R
It is a 6.7 which was delivered mid year of 2007 (July). It is the ULSF unit. I ordered it as soon as it was avaliable. This unit meets the 2010 requirements. It uses a Particulate Filter (Catalytic converter).

It is also very quiet and comes with an exhaust brake standard.
__________________
_________________

Rebee - WBCCI #1325
2002 Classic Ltd 30'
2007 Dodge 2500, 6.7 Cummins
Rebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 08:00 AM   #19
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
Also posted in another thread....

just traded an '07 1/2 ton GMC pickup (5.3L gas) for an '08 3/4 ton GMC Duramax Diesel 4X4. Took a short trip to New Mexico to pickup a small trailer (17 footer), and AVERAGED 14.9 MPG on the entire trip. The best mileage running empty was 16.8, and the worst pulling the little trailer was 13.6. This is actual mileage dividing miles driven by gallons used, not by the dashboard computer, which by the way, agrees.

This stuipid thing gets WORSE fuel mileage than my 1/2 ton gas truck did.

So, let's see now.....the fuel is about 20 cents a gallon more expensive, and it gets worse mileage????

Sorry folks, I just don't see any savings here. On the contrary, it will cost more to drive this Diesel. The only good thing is, it does have lots more power.
__________________
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 10:28 AM   #20
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
just traded an '07 1/2 ton GMC pickup (5.3L gas) for an '08 3/4 ton GMC Duramax Diesel 4X4. Took a short trip to New Mexico to pickup a small trailer (17 footer), and AVERAGED 14.9 MPG on the entire trip. The best mileage running empty was 16.8, and the worst pulling the little trailer was 13.6. This is actual mileage dividing miles driven by gallons used, not by the dashboard computer, which by the way, agrees.

This stuipid thing gets WORSE fuel mileage than my 1/2 ton gas truck did.

So, let's see now.....the fuel is about 20 cents a gallon more expensive, and it gets worse mileage????

Sorry folks, I just don't see any savings here. On the contrary, it will cost more to drive this Diesel. The only good thing is, it does have lots more power.
Seems to be what you hear more and more on the diesel truck sites. I do believe that the new and "newer...2010" pollution rules have greatly diminished the benfits of a diesel pick up...other than strong torque...which if you pull on the very heavy side may still lead you to a diesel.

Tom R
__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:29 AM   #21
Rivet Master
 
mutcth's Avatar

 
2007 23' Safari SE
Central , Connecticut
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
This stuipid thing gets WORSE fuel mileage than my 1/2 ton gas truck did.
I'm not sure its apples to oranges though - there are more variables than the diesel engine.

Comparing four-wheel-drive crew cabs, the 3/4-ton GM diesel weighs 1500 lbs more than the 1/2-ton gasser.

Supposedly GM is freeing up some of the government money it just got to push through some backlogged product development projects. I'd be surprised if their light-truck diesel (which is almost done) wouldn't be on that list.

Got to say, I welcome the new technologies in diesels. They're cleaner, quieter, and smoother. The difference in driving a late-90s Cummins-equipped Dodge and a 2007 (I've spent a good amount of time in both) is night and day.

Tom
__________________
mutcth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:37 AM   #22
Rivet Master<br><img src="/ugala/forums/images/5rivet.gif">
 
CanoeStream's Avatar

 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
St. Cloud , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,279
Images: 19
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR View Post
I do believe that the new and "newer...2010" pollution rules have greatly diminished the benfits of a diesel pick up...other than strong torque...which if you pull on the very heavy side may still lead you to a diesel.
Tom, there is nearly nothing new about 2010 requirements as pertains to the current status of diesel trucks. Or 2009. Or 2008. This is seat of the pants and I may be off in some moderate ways. You can really get into it if you delve into dieselstop.com (Ford) or dieselplace.com (GM). Other background at Ultra-low sulfur diesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a general timeline is that the govt decided in 2002 to move to lower sulfur diesels. There were particulate goals set in there somewhere too. Pickup trucks at the time had diesel engines in the 225-275 HP range. Truck manufacturers started making changes based on the govt timeline & goals. I know that my 2006 had a 3rd generation engine based on phasing in of emission requirements -- and my 2006 was built for 200ppm or less sulfur (so-called LSD).

The govt required that all diesel-selling stations transition to having ULSD available starting Autumn 2006 but I believe the drop-dead date was about Feb-Mar 2007. That transition was accompanied by the 2007 model year 4th gen engines that could burn nothing but ULSD ... or risk more frequent, costly repairs.

Where did the mileage go? There probably was extra hardware put on the engines to comply with emissions requirements; that would subtract some power to operate. But I'm going to point instead at a fictitional Jesse Ventura character battling Predator in a careening, hopped up Hummer. Remember the mess the auto companies got themselves into by judging "what the buying public wants?" We were supposed to want suburban assault vehicles that could compete with our SO's Lexus SUV. It prolly wasn't necessary but they upped many engines in Gen 3 to 300HP. Gen 4? They added a second stage to turbos and upped HP significantly again! You can currently get your GM Duramax with 365 freakin' HP. Wish I was a teenager all over again... The unnecessary increase in HP is where the mileage went -- you'll about never need 365 HP in 99.9% of towing situations. Is that more than a lot of OTR trucks? And thus a HD 1/2-ton chassis with a midsized diesel would really appeal to me towing a 25' Safari. C'mon Detroit! Or Alabama... Or Mississippi... wherever automotive headquarters will be in 5 years.

So yes, I don't get anywhere near the old-time mentioned 20 mpg while towing. The very best towing mileage I've gotten under very rigorous control was 16.5 mpg (55mph, no acceleration to keep speed on hills between here and Duluth. I'd never have the patience to keep that up on a long drive). My usual towing mileage in a mix of driving at 65mph is around 14.7 mpg. Cruise control will kill another 1-2 mpg depending on how hilly it is (never use it except on flat). My old Nissan Titan would rarely get 11 mpg towing and would drop below 10 mpg if I wasn't careful. But my Duramax did get 19.5mpg average not towing on a recent 2600 mile trip with average highway speed probably just under 75mph. I'm a happy camper.

The amazing companion to my Duramax is the smartest transmission in the world - the Allison. We did a trip to Glacier & Waterton Lakes in Canada this fall. On any descent I could set my speed in Tow-Haul mode and it just wouldn't speed up. Try that in a gasoline powered truck.

All that being said.. I challenge any gasser TV in the middle lane to keep up with me as I come down the entrance ramp on a freeway. In the sweetspot of 3000 rpm or so I can out-accelerate most every tow combination on the road. Now... just why would I need an extra 65 HP? Why do I need 300 HP? Mileage goes out the tailpipe -- always has, always will.
__________________
Bob

5 meter Langford Nahanni

CanoeStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:55 AM   #23
Rivet Master
 
Road Ruler's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
St. Catharines , South Western Ontario
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,364
Images: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanoeStream View Post

All that being said.. I challenge any gasser TV in the middle lane to keep up with me as I come down the entrance ramp on a freeway. In the sweetspot of 3000 rpm or so I can out-accelerate most every tow combination on the road.
Well I don't know about going down hill but going up hill we travel in the center lane and have passed a number of slower moving vehicles. Note powered by a 6/gasser.



__________________
Airstreams..... The best towing trailers on the planet!
Road Ruler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:06 PM   #24
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanoeStream View Post
Tom, there is nearly nothing new about 2010 requirements as pertains to the current status of diesel trucks. Or 2009. Or 2008. This is seat of the pants and I may be off in some moderate ways. You can really get into it if you delve into dieselstop.com (Ford) or dieselplace.com (GM). Other background at Ultra-low sulfur diesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought there was a new particulate? requirement coming in 2010 and that we are getting new diesel engines from Ford and GM to meet the new rules...with UREA "filters" (Chrysler aleady meets the new (2010) requirements?). Perhaps I am off base?

I do participate on the two diesel site you reference...just not too often.

My point was not that a diesel did not have more power and may be more fun to tow with...or race up the center lane ...just that the diesel advantage has diminished greatly...particularly the MPG advantage. Also, many do not look forward to the UREA issue...along with the current "re-gen" requirement. And then there is the initial cost factor which has gotten pretty dear.

Still...sure would like to have one...tempted to reach back to a used GM LBZ 2007 1/2 Classic...which preceded the ULSD engine...most problems were worked out of that version of the Duramax pre-ULSD. Tom
__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 07:29 PM   #25
Full Timers/Diesel power.
 
Mike Leary's Avatar
 
1983 31' Airstream310
Cactus Hug , Arizona
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,540
Images: 11
If I had to re-power my Isuzu/GMC Turbo 470 transmission, I'd do the Duramax combo.
__________________
"A settled wisdom, plus the itch to be elsewhere"
Mike Leary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 08:50 PM   #26
Liquid Cooled
 
RedSHED's Avatar
 
2014 16' Sport
Columbus , Indiana
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 485
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutcth View Post
...
Supposedly GM is freeing up some of the government money it just got to push through some backlogged product development projects. I'd be surprised if their light-truck diesel (which is almost done) wouldn't be on that list.
...
Read in the SAE rag today that GM has axed the small D-Max, apparently for good. Their concern appeared to be around the cost of certification vs the size of the market.
Same journal had an article on Ford's continuing development of the 6.7L Nav replacement, but nothing on the Dodge diesel.
__________________
RedSHED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 07:36 AM   #27
4 Rivet Member
 
1971 29' Ambassador
Leonardtown , Maryland
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 262
Images: 3
Back to comparing oranges and oranges. Some things to remember when comparing fuel economey in different vehicles is rear end ratios and tires.

I ordered my truck so I could get the smaller gears (3.73). Everything I saw on the dealer lots had the 4.11 gear sets. The taller gears will keep the engine on the top of the power curve but will also burn a lot more fuel. The 4.11 rear is good for jack rabitt starts and towing very heavy equipment. It was not needed to pull my A/S.

My tires are street all weather tires. The tread pattern is not what I would call aggressive. I have used them to move my trailer in muddy conditions but only in low 4wd and very slowly. I do not consider them good for a lot of "off road" events. The more agressive the tire tread the more fuel it takes to roll them on the road.
__________________
_________________

Rebee - WBCCI #1325
2002 Classic Ltd 30'
2007 Dodge 2500, 6.7 Cummins
Rebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 07:45 AM   #28
Rivet Master
 
mutcth's Avatar

 
2007 23' Safari SE
Central , Connecticut
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSHED View Post
Read in the SAE rag today that GM has axed the small D-Max, apparently for good. Their concern appeared to be around the cost of certification vs the size of the market.
Good grief. They couldn't have figured that out before spending millions in development costs? To be fair, the big drop in the pickup market probably shifted expectations a lot.

I guess I'll shelve my diesel Avalanche dreams for good...

Tom
__________________

__________________
mutcth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM's New Duramax Diesel Engine Streamer1 Tow Vehicles 6 01-14-2008 12:20 PM
Diesel Engine Braking guy99 Mechanics Corner - Engines, Transmission & More... 5 02-10-2006 02:42 PM
2.7l I5 Turbo Diesel Engine Info Majiklegs Airstream Motorhome Forums 3 01-05-2006 12:00 AM
Diesel engine and alternator LKappenman Airstream Motorhome Forums 12 08-16-2004 12:07 PM
1981 Isuzu Diesel Engine jpurdy Mechanics Corner - Engines, Transmission & More... 10 11-30-2002 11:14 AM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.