Grizz wrote: Put it in a Dakota.
They don't make Dakotas anymore. It costs as much to make one as it does to make a full size, but theyhave to charge less for the smaller truck, so theri margins go away. Which is why it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you'd like a mid-size truck instead.
That's also why there won't be a Ranger replacement. The F150 costs the same to make but makes more of a profit.
yamaha wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Dodge has always had the best diesel engine. But it's strapped into a Ram. That's what holds me back. Same here.Nah, I don't even think the cummins is a particularly good engine, let alone the "best" I can't wait to see more brodozers losing wheels and blowing up their engines this weekend though. Yay truck pulls, FWIW, I go to watch the old school gassers.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard someone say the cummins isn't a good engine.
I still have my 95 half ton ram. Thing refuses to die.
Chris_V wrote:Grizz wrote: Put it in a Dakota.They don't make Dakotas anymore. It costs as much to make one as it does to make a full size, but theyhave to charge less for the smaller truck, so theri margins go away. Which is why it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you'd like a mid-size truck instead. That's also why there won't be a Ranger replacement. The F150 costs the same to make but makes more of a profit.
I remember reading years ago that the most profitable US car was the Dodge Durango. It was a Dakota with a leather-lined hat. So there is some benefit to the little trucks, and a certain volume for the platform.
I think part of the reason you won't see Rangers and Dakotas is spelled "Tacoma". Regardless of the inevitable rust comments, it's eaten the Ranger's lunch. Of course, the F150 sells as many units in two months as the Taco does in a year...
So, will these be in the workhorse contractor models, or only the every-option-box-ticked trucks?
Keith Tanner wrote:Chris_V wrote:I remember reading years ago that the most profitable US car was the Dodge Durango. It was a Dakota with a leather-lined hat. So there is some benefit to the little trucks, and a certain volume for the platform. I think part of the reason you won't see Rangers and Dakotas is spelled "Tacoma". Regardless of the inevitable rust comments, it's eaten the Ranger's lunch. Of course, the F150 sells as many units in two months as the Taco does in a year...Grizz wrote: Put it in a Dakota.They don't make Dakotas anymore. It costs as much to make one as it does to make a full size, but theyhave to charge less for the smaller truck, so theri margins go away. Which is why it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you'd like a mid-size truck instead. That's also why there won't be a Ranger replacement. The F150 costs the same to make but makes more of a profit.
I don't know about the whole Ranger/Dakota/Tacoma comparison.....if manufacturers thought like that there would be no Ridgeline, Titan, Tundra either.
Keith Tanner wrote: I think part of the reason you won't see Rangers and Dakotas is spelled "Tacoma". Regardless of the inevitable rust comments, it's eaten the Ranger's lunch. Of course, the F150 sells as many units in two months as the Taco does in a year...
Not round here, the number of Rangers and Daks beat Tacos by like 5 to 1.
I'm basing that on published sales figures, not "what I noticed today" 
In reply to Cotton:
Depends upon your dealings with them.....Mine was completely negative with the company themselves being complete pricks about the problem.
The only thing I can say that is "nice" about the truck applications is they can make a bit of power for less money than the others.
mtn wrote:Tom Suddard wrote: No manual, no care.Nah, for towing I want an auto.
To each his own; I hate towing with autos. No engine braking and always the wrong gear. It is easier with an auto, though. I guess what I'm saying is it should be a choice, as it has basically been from the invention of the automatic to a few years ago.
Grizz wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: I think part of the reason you won't see Rangers and Dakotas is spelled "Tacoma". Regardless of the inevitable rust comments, it's eaten the Ranger's lunch. Of course, the F150 sells as many units in two months as the Taco does in a year...Not round here, the number of Rangers and Daks beat Tacos by like 5 to 1.
The only time I ever see Tacomas is when I'm out of state.
Keith Tanner wrote: I'm basing that on published sales figures, not "what I noticed today"
Well then you're doing it wrong.
Vm motori? No thanks. I'd rather have the clap.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: I can help with that
Tom Suddard wrote:mtn wrote:To each his own; I hate towing with autos. No engine braking and always the wrong gear. It is easier with an auto, though. I guess what I'm saying is it should be a choice, as it has basically been from the invention of the automatic to a few years ago.Tom Suddard wrote: No manual, no care.Nah, for towing I want an auto.
I really wish the Disco came to the states with a stick... the auto is a good one, but i miss shifting
Tom Suddard wrote: No manual, no care.
I thought that... and bought a manual Cummins... how was I to know the manuals they put behind the Cummins is worse than the automatics? Granted, it did have better shifter precision than my E30... and shorter throws...
I don't care about them putting a diesel in a 1/2 ton truck... a van, on the other hand... or even better... a Grand Caravan...
Grizz wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: I can help with that
Umm. That was just a phase in college and tere was all this Zima involved.
Ian F wrote:Tom Suddard wrote: No manual, no care.I thought that... and bought a manual Cummins... how was I to know the manuals they put behind the Cummins is worse than the automatics? Granted, it did have better shifter precision than my E30... and shorter throws... I don't care about them putting a diesel in a 1/2 ton truck... a van, on the other hand... or even better... a Grand Caravan...
A van would be perfect. I think you would see a lot being outfitted for delivery service
Interesting.
A state-of-the-art Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system also reduces emissions. It incorporates a unique Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system that, unlike competitive systems, alerts the driver to low DEF levels while also allowing the engine to maintain full power. Other features include: • An insulated DEF tank with heated lines mitigates the effects of cold-weather operation • A passive cooling system (one that does not require engine coolant) for the DEF injector • Exhaust-system refinements to improve the utilization of DEF for NOx reduction while also mitigating harmful DEF crystalline build-up • An exhaust-system design that requires less energy from the engine to achieve optimal emissions conversion temperatures • An exhaust-system strategy that reduces soot output while also improving fuel economy and meeting emissions standards The DEF tank holds eight gallons of fluid. Duty cycle determines refills, but the average interval is about 10,000 miles. DEF is commonly available fuel stations and is also offered by Mopar, Chrysler Group’s dealer network and and Cummins dealers and distributors. The standard engine oil cooler, when the EcoDiesel is used with 5W30 synthetic oil, contributes to a 10,000-mile oil-change interval. The use of B-20 biodiesel is validated and approved for the new 3.0-liter EcoDiesel.
In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid:
My office next door neighbor has a Sprinter that uses DEF. He HATES the stuff. He's supposed to get up to 10k miles out of a tank and usually gets 3k. For him it works out to about 3 cents a mile on top of the fuel costs. Then again, as many times as that thing has been in the shop, it could be he just hates the van.
It took a bunch of years for manufacturers to figure out the emissions on gas engines. I think I wait until they figure them out on the diesels before I get too excited about a new one of them.
Toyman01 wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: My office next door neighbor has a Sprinter that uses DEF. He HATES the stuff. He's supposed to get up to 10k miles out of a tank and usually gets 3k. For him it works out to about 3 cents a mile on top of the fuel costs. Then again, as many times as that thing has been in the shop, it could be he just hates the van. It took a bunch of years for manufacturers to figure out the emissions on gas engines. I think I wait until they figure them out on the diesels before I get too excited about a new one of them.
Yeah, I'm just not excited for another expensive fluid I would have to buy for my vehicle.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:Toyman01 wrote: In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: My office next door neighbor has a Sprinter that uses DEF. He HATES the stuff. He's supposed to get up to 10k miles out of a tank and usually gets 3k. For him it works out to about 3 cents a mile on top of the fuel costs. Then again, as many times as that thing has been in the shop, it could be he just hates the van. It took a bunch of years for manufacturers to figure out the emissions on gas engines. I think I wait until they figure them out on the diesels before I get too excited about a new one of them.Yeah, I'm just not excited for another expensive fluid I would have to buy for my vehicle.
Def is ammonia. Just pee in the tank.
Strizzo wrote:logdog wrote:what will keep me from even considering this is the fact that its a dodge, err, RAM and i've not known anyone that has had a good experience with one in 1/2 ton in the last two decades.Strizzo wrote: put it in a jeep, and people will be lined up down the street yelling "shut up and take my money!"Everybody said the same thing about putting a diesel in a half ton. It will be interesting to see if they vote with their wallets.
Weird, I don't know anyone who disliked their dodge 1/2 ton; including me. I've ordered two in the last ten years and a Dakota before that. I liked them fine.
I like this fine also but I don't think I would be interested in a first year model.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Yeah, I'm just not excited for another expensive fluid I would have to buy for my vehicle.
Expensive? It's like $6/gal...
http://www.zorotools.com/g/Automotive%20Fluids%20-%20AIR%20SHIELD/00097752/
Not saying I love the idea... but it doesn't seem that bad.
I have to say I do appreciate that my 2010 Cummins doesn't take DEF. It's just one more thing I don't have to deal with. But I wouldn't consider it to be any more of a chore than keeping the windshield washer tank full in a Canadian winter. It's easy stuff to find if the signs in the fuel stops are any indication.
You'll need to log in to post.
