Do you really need that diesel truck?

[kaisen]

There have been a lot of threads in the past about which diesel truck to buy, or what it's like to live with them. Quite a few Pelicans own them, or wish they owned them. I get it, a lot of us have hobbies or activities that would benefit from their capabilities.... towing car trailers comes to mind. Many extole the fantastic fuel economy. Others praise their longevity or other mechanical fortitude.

I've owned (and still own) several diesel trucks over the years, all of the big-three offerings. Duallies and single rears. Extended cabs and Crew cabs. All have been 4x4's, living in the snow belt. I've also owned gasoline powered 3/4 ton trucks and SUVs, and gasoline powered mid and full size SUVs. I've towed cars and other trailers with all of them. I've put over 200K miles on these trucks with trailers on.

I've also gone to hundreds of hours of school (with engineers from Ford, GM, and Dodge) several times, to learn about the capabilities and capacities... how to decipher the ratings, and how to match needs with applications. GAWR, GVWR, GCWR, axle ratios, transmission ratios, torque, horsepower, power bands, tires, body lengths and wheelbases, towing methods, load placements, etc, etc.

Why is my background important? Because I'll be challenged for what I'm about to say:


I don't think most of us need that big diesel truck we think we want.


Twenty years ago, 1993, marked the infancy of turbo diesel pickups.
GM had the new 6.5L Detroit: 180 hp and 360 ft-lb
Dodge had the 5.9L Cummins: 160 hp and 400 ft-lb
Ford had the 7.3L Navistar: 190 hp and 388 ft-lb

Ten years ago, 2003, was a very good year
GM had the newish 6.6L Duramax: 235 hp and 500 ft-lb
Dodge still had the 5.9L Cummins: 250 hp and 460 ft-lb
Ford had an updated 7.3L Powerstroke: 250 hp and 505 ft-lb

Today, 2013, is the result of a decade of power wars:
GM 6.6L Duramax: 395 hp and 765 ft-lb
Ram 6.7L Cummins: 350 hp and 800 ft-lb
Ford 6.7L Powerstroke: 400 hp and 800 ft-lb

Diesel trucks have doubled horsepower and torque in twenty years

Today, checking the diesel option on a new truck will cost $8,395 for the Duramax/Allison, $8,295 for the Cummins, and $6,460 for the Powerstroke.

These are the premiums over the standard V8 gasoline motors:
GM 6.0L Vortec: 360 hp and 380 ft-lb
Ram 5.7L Hemi: 383 hp and 400 ft-lb
Ford 6.2L: 385 hp and 405 ft-lb

Note that all of these gas motors are more powerful than their 1993 Turbo Diesel counterparts.

Yet we are towing and carrying the same loads as we did in 1993
Every single new GAS 3/4 ton pickup, in any configuration, is rated to tow more than 10,000 pounds
The vast majority of us tow under 8,000 pounds.

My 27ft travel trailer with super slide, not a lightweight version, weighs 6000 pounds dry and has a 8400 lb GVWR
My 26ft enclosed steel-frame aluminum-skin car trailer with V-nose weighs 3900 pounds and has a 10000 lb GVWR
My 20ft open car trailer with wood deck weighs 2300 pounds and has a 7000 lb GVWR

In other words, every single trailer I would pull (which represents 99% of you too) is under 10,000 pounds, which could be pulled by ANY new 3/4 ton gasser.

Now, I've had both gassers and diesels. For those of you who think there are vast differences in fuel economy, it just hasn't been my experience. Back to back, these gas-powered trucks with 6 speed automatics will get about 9.5 mpg towing my travel trailer, versus about 11.5 mpg with the diesels. Empty (and why would you?) the gassers get about 15 mpg versus about 17 with the diesels. The difference, in my experience, is 10-20%.

Trouble is, diesel fuel costs more. The latest EIA report (8/20) reports that the national averages for gasoline at $3.744 and diesel at $4.026.... about $0.28 per gallon or about 8% more. It's typically more in the winter with the added costs of blended diesel fuels.

For the sake of easy math, let's just assume that diesel is 10% more than gasoline over the course of a year ($3.75 G vs $4.13 D), and that a diesel truck gets 20% better fuel economy than a gasser (10 mpg G vs 12 mpg D). And we'll use the Ford's diesel premium (by FAR the cheapest) at $6,460.

If you drove 15,000 miles per year (the high national average) you'd spend $5625 in gasoline versus $5163 in diesel fuel. That saves you $462 annually. Let's just round that up to $500, and round the Ford's diesel option down to $6000......

It still takes 12 years or 180,000 miles to pay for the diesel

If this math were presented regarding a hybrid, range-extended EV, or pure EV I *guarantee* Pelicans would crucify anyone who'd argue it. I've read it here dozens of times. Have you read the VOLT threads?!?

Yet when it comes to diesels we're willing to flip-flop the logic to make ourselves feel better. Political statement? Does our hard-wired caveman instincts make us justify the biggest tool for the job?

In 1993 the biggest baddest one-ton dually pickup truck on the market (gas or diesel) made 230 hp and 400 ft-lb torque. And it towed the same trailers we tow today. In fact many are still on the road today, towing travel trailers and race car trailers all across the country. They do the job. But yet a new Ford with 150 more horsepower , two more gears (6 vs 4), and a broader powerband somehow isn't suited?!? It will do the job just fine.

If you want your mind blown, check out the new V6 EcoBoost. Look at its power ratings. Look at its fuel economy ratings. Look at its towing capacity. Look at its price compared to a Powerstroke F250. Then tell me how you need a diesel.

And GM's competitor to the EcoBoost is just around the corner... so before you use the "resale" arguement, think of how these will affect the used diesel market.

YMMV

[widebody911]

disclaimer: I have no need or desire to buy a diesel truck, but I usually find your threads interesting

I think people like the look/sound/feel/smell/idea of the diesel truck, and convince themselves that they "need" it. There's a guy at my work with a Dodge diesel and he doesn't even own a trailer of any sort.

[johnsjmc]

I fell for a diesel some yrs ago I thought it would pay off with higher mileage,longer life etc. Full size diesels for people not needing them are an image thing. like horsepower behind a water ski boat. I learned to ski behind 35 hp ,today that,s almost a trolling motor.
Today I have a 2012 f150 reg cab shortbox. I might buy a 4 cyl diesel truck if they made one though.

[vash]

need? is a strong word.

this a Porsche group..i think alot of us subcribe to "want". i certainly dont need the 911 in my life.

i could get by in life with a bus pass and a bicycle..but last time i checked..the bus-pass forum was debating the merits of plastic versus paper bags..

[jyl]

Just a spectator here, but as a spectator I must say I dislike the one Dodge diesel P/U on my block because it is so freaking noisy. A sharp clattering note like its pretending to be a big rig. As bad as a straight pipe Harley. The guy never tows anything, at least I've never seen him do so in six years of living on the same block.

[motion]

The guys at the track always give me a hard time for pulling my 22' loaded with 9 bikes with my F150. Its like they think I have a small dick or something. Joke's on them

[wdfifteen]

I agree, for many, if not most, diesel pickup owners it's a lifestyle statement (like a Porsche or a Harley etc). The people I know who really need one can't afford one.

[911boost]

I have responded to posts like this in the past, and I know your feelings are strong on this Eric, but I don't plan on getting dragged down into this....

I enjoy having the turbocharged power of my older powerstroke for pulling my 11,000 pound (max wieght) camper.

Bill

[vash]

Originally Posted by motion

The guys at the track always give me a hard time for pulling my 22' loaded with 9 bikes with my F150. Its like they think I have a small dick or something. Joke's on them

this thread is really about overkill, no

a 22 foot trailer with 9 bikes inside is the new diesel!

[myamoto1]

I think the "need" comes from today's driving habits. Do I need a mini-van with 250 HP? Absolutely! If I want a chance in he11 of stepping out into freeway traffic and not getting smeared by some SUV or truck - I need all 250 of those ponies to do that. I think the same goes for trucks (those who are actually hauling something). You need the HP and torque to get the vehicle and its load up to speed much faster today, than you did 20 years ago.

[dlockhart]

It is nearing time to replace my 01 F350 crew cab long box powerstroke. The midwest winters are taking their toll on the sheet metal. Loaded up with bikes and bodies and a 24' trailer it has hauled us all over the place. I'm looking at moving up to a small toter as the price of a pickup is getting silly and the fuel economy is not much better than a toter and all the comforts that come with it. I wish they would have put fuel economy ahead of HP#s in the new pickups. I have fast bikes, I don't need a fast truck, just a solid work horse.

[Christien]

I'd wager 90% of people who buy a high-horsepower vehicle, whether that be PU truck, SUV or sports car, rarely if ever make use of the power available. You know better than anyone that people buy car on emotion, not logic. I'm just thankful that these monster trucks are more fuel efficient and less polluting than their 20-year-old counterparts. Most people around here drive their PU trucks like sports cars - hammering the gas pedal at a green light and flying down the highway at the speed of sound.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Christien

I'm just thankful that these monster trucks are more fuel efficient and less polluting than their 20-year-old counterparts.

More powerful, yes!

More fuel efficient?!? No way. Once they went direct injection with variable nozzle turbos, they were as efficient as they've been. Esp with the 5 and 6 speed automatics. Now it's all about injecting more fuel to make more power (no way around that) so the injectors are a little less efficient now, esp at lower flow rates.

Add the regeneration and other emissions related strains on fuel economy and it's clear that a 2006 diesel pickup will get significantly better fuel economy than a 2013 diesel pickup. They pollute less at some expense in fuel economy, and a huge expense in purchase price.

[Seahawk]

I've been going through the same math yet again.

When I bought this farm I had a 1990 Toyota truck with a four cylinder R22. I bought a utility trailer sized to the towing capacity of the Toyot and managed to work the farm well with that rig for five years.

I bought a Tacoma in 1999 to replace the older truck, which I gave to my Dad.

Same trailer.

My rationale was that is was far cheaper for me to either rent a truck or hire someone when I needed the extra towing capacity, which was a few time a year, mostly farm equipment to get sold or repaired. After a few years trading favors with guys with big trucks solved all towing issues.

We then sifted a bit, adding horses to the farm, and a horse trailer, two horse bumper pull.

So, I looked at the options. Everyone told me to get a diesel. So I looked at all the big three. This was in 2004 (2005 model year).

The price difference between that an an F150 with all he towing capacity I needed for the set up I had was simply too much. I went with the F150 with the large motor, towing package, trans cooler, etc.

It now has 115000 miles on it, 15K of which I was towing something (I keep track).

I am, however, doing the math again. I still own horses, but we've added a dump trailer, a 22ft flat bed, etc. All are still within the F150's capacity, but the truck doesn't pull them well at weight.

I like metrics so I assign weighted criteria to the tasks the truck will do. The key metric for me was distances involved in the tows: The dump trailer is always a local get (rock, gravel, mulch, etc.) so I can manage two trips if needed. The 22ft'er is mostly local ops, with a few long hauls. For the long hauls, the weight is much less on the trailer so that is not an issue.

The horse trailer is easy. Tracks like a dream.

So, should I get another truck (in debate) it will be an F150 or a Chevy.

[Christien]

Originally Posted by kaisen

More powerful, yes!

More fuel efficient?!? No way. Once they went direct injection with variable nozzle turbos, they were as efficient as they've been. Esp with the 5 and 6 speed automatics. Now it's all about injecting more fuel to make more power (no way around that) so the injectors are a little less efficient now, esp at lower flow rates.

Add the regeneration and other emissions related strains on fuel economy and it's clear that a 2006 diesel pickup will get significantly better fuel economy than a 2013 diesel pickup. They pollute less at some expense in fuel economy, and a huge expense in purchase price.

Really? That's disappointing. Because what that says to me is that a significant portion of vehicular fuel consumption and emissions are due to a bunch of guys trying to prove their manliness. And before anyone jumps all over me pointing out the fact that I drive a very fuel-inefficient and polluting 40 year old car, the big 3 are selling some 2 million trucks a year - that's a lot more F150s that longhoods on the road.

[MJHanna]

Not arguing with your math years ago when we bought our first 1 ton dually we went with the V 10 vs. a diesel because of the payback cost. IF you’re looking for used, then the premium for the diesel comes down quickly. If you’re trying to pull safely when you do the math a lot of people are exceeding the trucks capacities with the load they are hauling. I’ll bet most have never taken their truck and loaded trailer to a weight scale to find out if it’s OK. There is a lot more involved in picking the correct truck than HP/ torque/ fuel if you’re trying to tow safely.

[Dantilla]

I've always disliked diesels, but am considering one for next time around.

My current 2001 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4 gets about 14 mpg max on the highway, thanks to 4:10 axles.

A buddy has a similar vintage Dodge diesel, and gets 24 mpg on the highway.

Instead of the weight of the front drive train, I may be able to get by with a 2-wheel drive if it is equipped with a Detroit Locker in the rear, and the torque of a diesel so there is no need for low range.

The Chevy has over 200,000 miles, but still runs as new, so there will be no changes for a while. But next time, I may buy my first diesel ever. Used, of course.....

[vash]

who is gonna start the "do you really need a 4x4" thread?

nobody is gonna argue with Kaisen's knowledge of all things automotive..i wouldnt..ever.

but i try not to focus too much thought on someone else's shopping and spending criteria.

i wanted a diesel BAD!! almost bought one..but i thought about car payments..and ditched the idea. i got my tacoma used, paid cash..it is a 4x4..do i NEED 4x4..no..have i used it? lots..but only because i went somewhere i needed it..every place had a 2wd route. i got it because i wanted it..i romanticized the idea of needing it. same as i did for the diesel.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I went with the F150 with the large motor, towing package, trans cooler, etc. It now has 115000 miles on it, 15K of which I was towing something (I keep track).

2005 was the first year of the 5.4L 3V V8, quite powerful at 300hp and 365 ft-lb torque, and backed by a 4 speed automatic.

Today, a V6 EcoBoost makes 65 more horsepower and 55 more ft-lb torque, yet gets 3 mpg better around town (partially thanks to two more gears in the transmission). And it tows a whole lot more than your 2005.


Matt likes his, maybe just wait a few minutes and he'll sell it to you

[VINMAN]

I try not to get involved with " why do you drive what you drive" threads, Im the last to criticize or tell someone what they should own or drive. But just to say as far as mileage, new diesels suck compared to the older ones. As far as the way people drive P/Us, one of the problems I see is the fact that the modern p/u is built more like a car than like a truck.