If GM wants this to work they better knock out some high 20mpg. With the price of diesel today you would need 25+mpg to offset the cost up front for the diesel option. Look at Jeep, they now no longer offer their diesel in the liberty.
- I just don't think that john Q citizen is ready to accept the little diesel that could. People still think they are dirty little smog makers. But as emmisions tighten people will come around and notice the benifit of diesel. I just think that GM is about 5yrs to early.

I disagree. I bet people would buy a half ton diesel over a 3/4 ton diesel if they don't need the bigger truck. I doubt most people would get out of a civic and into a 1/2 ton diesel just because though. I do see lots of people in business suits driving ultra clean f-250/350's going back and forth to work. Those are going to be the people who would buy a 1/2 ton diesel.

Slap an extra 5k on the sticker and get same MPG as gas. Gas here in Atlanta is $2.89/gal Diesel is $3.30+. And with the release of the new hybrid Tahoe and soon the 1500's. I just think GM is a few years early, that is all. I think it is a great idea, but this is not europe and diesel's are still getting a bad rap.

If GM wants this to work they better knock out some high 20mpg. With the price of diesel today you would need 25+mpg to offset the cost up front for the diesel option. Look at Jeep, they now no longer offer their diesel in the liberty.
- I just don't think that john Q citizen is ready to accept the little diesel that could. People still think they are dirty little smog makers. But as emmisions tighten people will come around and notice the benifit of diesel. I just think that GM is about 5yrs to early.
Jeep discontinued the diesel due to the new regulations imposed on automakers for the coming year. The EPA has lost it's mind with the hoops they are making auto makers jump through.

The EPA is gonna make it so I can't afford to drive to work.

I'm gonna have to move overseas and run high sulfur diesel with no catalytic and use a fuel treatment made from baby seals.

A diesel in a 1/2 ton is exactly what I'm looking for. The 4.5 should make the balance between power and economy reasonable.

People, the common public, that drive trucks need a vehicle that is able to haul or tow occasionally. The weight and cost of a 3/4 ton diesel or the mileage and under powered gasser are the only options now. The average person that tows is pulling their speed boat, snowmobiles or other toys. If they are hauling its a load of home improvement materials from depot, menards, or lowes.

The cost of the diesel verses the mileage of a comparable HP gasser over the long term is a no brainer, 4.5 wins. If you compare a the cost / mileage of a V6 gasser your argument is valid, if your never need tow.

If GM doen't foobar the marketing, or torpedo the vehilce launch with quality issues, the 4.5 should be a big hit.

I will gladly pay more to have a truck that PULLS a load.
Gas engines suck for power and will not return the same mpg's as a Diesel when pulling or empty!

With the number of 3/4 ton Duramax trucks I see that have never had anything in the bed, or pulled a trailer I bet a 4.5 1500 would sell like hot cakes.:D.

I also see lots of the 3/4 ton diesels being used to pull 5ooo pound our less boats, those guys would switch to a 1500 with a 4.5 in a heart beat to gain the 8 mpg or so better it offers over the 6.6TD.

It would pull my boat fine, not my RV though.

But I would get a Tahoe or Yukon for the wife with the 4.5TD.

Jeep discontinued the diesel due to the new regulations imposed on automakers for the coming year. The EPA has lost it's mind with the hoops they are making auto makers jump through.

Thats correct, it was epa regulations that killed the CRD liberty. I would also add that the problems with the EGR and tranny didn't help, But IT DEFINATELY WAS NOT LACK OF DEMAND. The fact is that Diam/Chry forcasted sales around five thousand units but actual production exceeded over TEN thousand units. THE DEMAND IS THERE!!!!

With the number of 3/4 ton Duramax trucks I see that have never had anything in the bed, or pulled a trailer I bet a 4.5 1500 would sell like hot cakes.:D.

I also see lots of the 3/4 ton diesels being used to pull 5ooo pound our less boats, those guys would switch to a 1500 with a 4.5 in a heart beat to gain the 8 mpg or so better it offers over the 6.6TD.

It would pull my boat fine, not my RV though.

But I would get a Tahoe or Yukon for the wife with the 4.5TD.


Couldn't agree more, but why would chevrolet want there $25k truck to compete with there $40k truck?

Couldn't agree more, but why would chevrolet want there $25k truck to compete with there $40k truck?

Think more of the big picture.... they sell more 1500's than 2500 and 3500 combind. Many of the 1500s go to building co, pumbing co and so on. They buy the work truck...19K gas, but if diesel was available most would switch for better mpg and longer life, diesel work truck 24K

Last is EPA regs...mpg standards must go up.....diesel in 1500 hepls gm here big time if it get 26~30 mpg

ya look at some of the guys on here that are getting 20 or so mpg out of the 6.6 the way the smaller engine is i don't see why they couldn't improve mpg by a big margin

I can get 20 out of my 6.6,

I would think the 4.5 in a 1500 would be at 30+.

as I said in another post the 4.5 in a 1500 wt package would be the truck to have if you own a business, the 4.5 could be the nail in the coffin for gas v8's in the united states.

I'm thinking that a truck with the same hp/tq specs as my 6000# LB7, but weighing a couple thousand pounds less ought to be a lot of fun to drive.

It all depends on how they market it, really. If all they spout is about it being high-torque, low weight, and go on about the new technology used in the engine, they probably won't sell many more than they do in the 2500 and 3500 (though this may not be true for the Suburbans). But, if they start saying how much more efficient, cleaner, and quieter they are, in addition to the other stuff, we'll see a lot of new converts. Unfortunately when most people think diesel they think about dump trucks blowing black smoke into the air, and since the environmentalist movement is felt everywhere you turn nowadays, that's something GM needs to separate themselves from.

does everyone forget the 1500 that GM sold from like 1984 till 1998 that had a diesel in them? the 1993-99 half ton 6.5L diesels are everywhere, this 4.5 is going to kick ass, i for one am going to be buyin one, as long as i can get it in a 4x4 reg cab short box. i realy hope they bring that option back!!

i dont recall ever seeing a half ton diesel

The best thing GM could do is put it in the SUV's as well. Look at the popularity of the Liberty diesel. Jeep sold over 11,000 vehicles in the short run it had, so there is a market for a decently priced SUV. And most decent 6.5 Subs are bought quickly, I know I've been looking. :(

Build it and they will come. I'll be in line to pick up a Suburban.

i dont recall ever seeing a half ton dieselMaybe you didnt notice them, because from the outside the only difference is the bumper, it has two holes in it for more airflow. There are lots of 6.2s and 6.5 running around. Starting in the 80s sometime and running up until 98 or 99 I think.

i dont recall ever seeing a half ton diesel

Have a look in my garage one of the many 1/2T Diesel GMs; my 98 K1500 has been hopped up a bit, to be somewhat stronger than the average 1/2T GM, and my 98 Burb is a C1500 even though it has all the 2500 running gear

The Liberty CRD sold very well. They built a couple of thousand more than planned. The EPA killed the Jeep. Before you go out and buy one, the dealer support is worse than horrible on these. My CRD spent 3 months in the shop and it still wasn't right. Sold it and moved on.

If GM can make a light truck matched to the engine, they will have a winner. That means good MPG and plenty of power to zip around in traffic. They need to embrace bio fuel compatibility because that's what people are going to run in whether GM likes it or not. They seem to be on the Flex fuel bandwagon, biodiesel shouldn't be that hard to accept. Jeep/Dodge peg the limit at 5% and will void your warranty for any concentration higher.

GM made a 1/2 ton pickup with the 6.2 diesel, saw several, brother had one. Don't forget the 6.2 Blazer and Suburban. My 83 Blazer got 23-25 MPG Hwy and had almost enough power around town. A Banks turbo would have fixed that. I had the Blazer for 5 years before I gave it to my brother. The body rotted out and he put the engine and tranny in a 1/2 ton diesel pick up and drove it for another 5 years.

I did not understand the whole point of the Jeep Liberty CRD. It got about mid 20's on the HIGHWAY... That is sad for a small SUV with a 6 cylinder diesel. My 4200lb V8 powered(gasoline) Caprice could get over 25mpg on the highway. In my opinion, that diesel Jeep Liberty was basically a waste of money as far as fuel economy went.

I'm one of the guys that can get away with a 1500 diesel. I'd get it just for the fun of diesel and the supposed better longevity and economy. The HD is way overkill for me 90% of the time but in late 02 when I bought the only Crew Cab option was the 2500 HD with a 6.0/8.1L with a 4.10 axle(read 12-14mpg) vs the duramax with 16-20mpg, it was a no brainer. Now with diesel so much more, it'd be a harder choice considering the truck sits 6 months a year and I'm only averaging 15,000 a year on it.

I'd sell my HD in a hearbeat for a fair price if offered to me, because I know i will be in this setup(whether suburban or p/u) when it comes available.

I'm one of the guys that can get away with a 1500 diesel. I'd get it just for the fun of diesel and the supposed better longevity and economy. The HD is way overkill for me 90% of the time but in late 02 when I bought the only Crew Cab option was the 2500 HD with a 6.0/8.1L with a 4.10 axle(read 12-14mpg) vs the duramax with 16-20mpg, it was a no brainer. Now with diesel so much more, it'd be a harder choice considering the truck sits 6 months a year and I'm only averaging 15,000 a year on it.

I'd sell my HD in a hearbeat for a fair price if offered to me, because I know i will be in this setup(whether suburban or p/u) when it comes available.

I'm with you on this one. I know the HD was more than what I needed most of the time but it gets better mpg than my 03' 1/2 ton when it was stock and it will last 3 times longer too!
I will be seriously looking at one of these when they come out.

I think there is a real maket for the 4.5. I for one would be buying one if it is proven itself after a year or 2 of production. Shortbox single cab 4.5 duramax 4x4 now that thing will sell like hot cakes. probably 30 mpg and not much work to get to the 12's oh yeah, then change tunes and pull the boat or travel trailer on the weekends.

I did not understand the whole point of the Jeep Liberty CRD. It got about mid 20's on the HIGHWAY... That is sad for a small SUV with a 6 cylinder diesel. My 4200lb V8 powered(gasoline) Caprice could get over 25mpg on the highway. In my opinion, that diesel Jeep Liberty was basically a waste of money as far as fuel economy went.

From what I've read on other fourms, the CRD libby generally gets ~30mpg hwy and low-mid twenties in town. BTW, its a 2.8L 4cyl disesel. The real advantage of the CRD/liberty is that it still can tow several thousand pounds whereas its comparative sized competition (Escape/RAV4/CRV) can't tow squat. I would agree that strictly from a fuel savings standpoint it was a bit of a tough sell, but I think it was so popular because of two other reasons. First, peeps just wanted/prefer a diesel engine and second the tree hugging dirt worshipers bought it because they could use biofuels. just my 2cents

i dont recall ever seeing a half ton diesel
6.2 L diesel from GM came out not for towing....but for economy...it was in half tons, K-5 blasers and Subs:D

I'm one of the guys that can get away with a 1500 diesel. I'd get it just for the fun of diesel and the supposed better longevity and economy. The HD is way overkill for me 90% of the time but in late 02 when I bought the only Crew Cab option was the 2500 HD with a 6.0/8.1L with a 4.10 axle(read 12-14mpg) vs the duramax with 16-20mpg, it was a no brainer. Now with diesel so much more, it'd be a harder choice considering the truck sits 6 months a year and I'm only averaging 15,000 a year on it.

I'd sell my HD in a hearbeat for a fair price if offered to me, because I know i will be in this setup(whether suburban or p/u) when it comes available.

X2!! I would buy one in a heartbeat. Don't really need an HD, could tow all I wanted or needed with a 1500. Bring it on GM.

I think the issue for GM is upping their fleet fuel economy. This new D-Max gives them this on the 1/2 tons and the Burbs, T'hos, Humers, etc.

I suspect if Hillary wins, we will shortly see mandated 30+ MPG requirements on pickups and SUV's then expect GM to ONLY offer a diesel version. Look for regulations making you prove that you need a heavier truck before you can buy 2500 - 3500 trucks. Laugh if you want to folks but the Envirowacks will get their way with the Dems.

Ford, Toyota, Dodge will ALL be in trouble... mark my words.

I suspect if Hillary wins, we will shortly see mandated 30+ MPG requirements on pickups and SUV's then expect GM to ONLY offer a diesel version. Look for regulations making you prove that you need a heavier truck before you can buy 2500 - 3500 trucks.

Is this your thoughts, or are there rumours of this happening? A bit of a communistic approach if you ask me.

I'd be willing to say if/when GM builds it,,,they won't be able to build them fast enough. When I was in the dealership, I bet 70% of the Duramaxs we sold were never bought because the customer needed a heavy, powerful truck to drag a trailer all day with. Most went to kids who "wanted a diesel because they sound cool and blow black smoke" and they still lived w/ their parents or to wealther folks who wanted to fit in w/ all their diesel drivin' buds at the boat ramp. The power of a diesel is nice when towing a trailer,,, but a lot of times a 1/2 ton would be plenty of truck, provide a better ride and w/ the 4.5 could provide much better torque and economy for less money then a heavier duty 3/4.

From what I've read on other fourms, the CRD libby generally gets ~30mpg hwy and low-mid twenties in town. BTW, its a 2.8L 4cyl disesel. The real advantage of the CRD/liberty is that it still can tow several thousand pounds whereas its comparative sized competition (Escape/RAV4/CRV) can't tow squat. I would agree that strictly from a fuel savings standpoint it was a bit of a tough sell, but I think it was so popular because of two other reasons. First, peeps just wanted/prefer a diesel engine and second the tree hugging dirt worshipers bought it because they could use biofuels. just my 2cents


Up here Jeep has a diesel option for the Grand Cherokee. It is rated at 24 MPG town and 31 MPG Highway (Imp. Gallons)

I had one pull up behind me at the diesel pump, and I had to do a double-take, they are extremely quiet.

http://www.bc4x4.com/features/2007/gc-crd/

I can't wait to see the new diesel GM is putting out!:D

For some reason I always thought the Jeep Liberty CRD was an inline six. I remember it having impressive torque but the EPA rated highway fuel economy was something like 26 or 27mpg. It being a 4 banger should be all the more reason it should have gotten better fuel economy. The 3.0L diesel Jeep has in the new Grand Cherokee only has an EPA rated 18mpg city and 23mpg highway on a two wheel drive model.

6.2 L diesel from GM came out not for towing....but for economy...it was in half tons, K-5 blasers and Subs:D

this is why it was never in the 90's bodystyle. Which is what I was refering to.

Could explian why we never worked on this mystery truck at the dealer

I'm sorry. I do recall a couple of K-5's up to 97 or so with 6.5's, but no 6.2's. I think the 6.2's were for the military.

I'm sorry. I do recall a couple of K-5's up to 97 or so with 6.5's, but no 6.2's. I think the 6.2's were for the military.
I think the 6.2 was discontinued sometime in '93, which is when GM started offering the 6.5 also in either turbo or N/A form. So, in '93 you actually had three diesel options in some of the GM trucks. The 6.2 had pretty decent fuel economy, but my father and someone else I know had the 6.2 in their work trucks and they were decent workhorses in my opinion also.

I think there is a real maket for the 4.5. I for one would be buying one if it is proven itself after a year or 2 of production. Shortbox single cab 4.5 duramax 4x4 now that thing will sell like hot cakes. probably 30 mpg and not much work to get to the 12's oh yeah, then change tunes and pull the boat or travel trailer on the weekends.

Like you said after a year or 2. Now if everyone takes that point of view do you really think GM will put it out on year 3?
-MPG are going to be the key to this idea working. That is the only issue here.
-We all know the idea is a great one, but if it does not knock out 26+mpg then it will fail. You figure in upkeep(filters and oil) and fuel cost, GM will have to best the gasser by at least 5-8mpg.
-And durability is not an issue as much now that GM is offering 100Kmi starting with the 07's

I would have bought the 1/2 ton diesel. It was actually what I wanted. I got the 2500 because it was the smallest thing I could get in a diesel. I bought the GMC cause it was quieter and had more power than the dodge's (and ford well, there fords, I needed something at least halfway dependable). I am happy with my choice but had there been a 1/2 ton Sierra with a Duramax that's what I would have with.

I disagree. I bet people would buy a half ton diesel over a 3/4 ton diesel if they don't need the bigger truck. I doubt most people would get out of a civic and into a 1/2 ton diesel just because though. I do see lots of people in business suits driving ultra clean f-250/350's going back and forth to work. Those are going to be the people who would buy a 1/2 ton diesel.

Absolutely, I would pick a half ton over a 3/4 ton given a choice. The 5er I tow kinda makes it a moot point, but I think GM needs to put a smaller diesel in a 1/2 ton before the Japanese do and steal the market. And a small diesel in the Tahoe and Suburban. AND AUTOTRAC!!

Make it a hybrid and they're way ahead of the game....

[quote=B_Lake;2189351]The Liberty CRD sold very well. They built a couple of thousand more than planned. The EPA killed the Jeep. Before you go out and buy one, the dealer support is worse than horrible on these. My CRD spent 3 months in the shop and it still wasn't right. Sold it and moved on.

Chrysler only came out with a diesel because of Mercedes-Benz. As usual, they were still a Jeep/Chrysler brand and goofed it up.

Those of us who have had Mercedes diesels for years could not believe that MB wanted anything to do with Chrysler. Chrysler/Jeep dealers advertised the Daimler connection, the Mercedes-Benz dealers wanted nothing to do with it.

Couldn't agree more, but why would chevrolet want there $25k truck to compete with there $40k truck?

You can't buy a nicely equipped gasser today for $25K. I'm betting that the price of a 1500 with a diesel will be in the 36-38K range, which puts it right up there with the 2500 price wise.

GM build half-ton diesels from 82-98. they used the 6.2 till mid 93 then started out with the 6.5. and yes you could get the 82-87 trucks in a short bed 4x4 diesel. VERY rare but they made them. also you could get the 6.5 in a two door Tahoe,check my garage out. Same wheel base as a 4x4 short box, just a tahoe.
I loved haveing a small truck/tahoe with a diesel in it for getting around the city when i was in school, you get great mpg, they are super easy to park, and everyone looks at the truck when your stoped at a light cuz they have never seen anything like it.
I just hope that GM dosen't snuff the guys that want reg cab short bed trucks. cuz i realy don't need anything bigger. and im sure as hell not driving and S-10/ colorado!!
that is unless they shoe horn the 4.5 in to that,lol

And i agree with the guys that say that they would have got a half-ton diesel but could only get the 2500HD. i use my Duramax for work, but i realy only need to haul around 1100lbs in my bed from job to job. a half ton diesel would be great for this, but if i put that muck in a gas half-ton, i couldn't see it lasting that long. And im a GM mechanic, there half ton gassers shouldn't be used for work haulin 24/7, the trannys just arn't that great.

You can't buy a nicely equipped gasser today for $25K. I'm betting that the price of a 1500 with a diesel will be in the 36-38K range, which puts it right up there with the 2500 price wise.
I think that is another big reason some people don't go with a half ton even though that might be all they really need. Just for the heck of it I priced out a half ton in the same configuration as the heavy duty I wanted one time and the difference in price was not that great. Obviously the price difference between a diesel heavy duty and a gasser half ton is larger than comparing gasser to gasser, but I think it is a good point that a diesel half ton and a diesel heavy duty probably will not be too far apart in price. I would not call them rare since I do see them from time to time, but think about how many half tons were sold in the 80's and 90's with the diesel. If it was a big hit GM would have most likely continued a diesel in the '99 half tons instead of putting the diesel in the heavy duty market only. I think in order for this 4.5 Duramax to be a big hit, is for it to offer very impressive fuel economy figures as mentioned already.

You can't buy a nicely equipped gasser today for $25K. I'm betting that the price of a 1500 with a diesel will be in the 36-38K range, which puts it right up there with the 2500 price wise.

no it doesn't, you can spec out a 1500 for about $18,000, It has been posted the 4.5 will cost $5200 that makes it $23,200

The chepest 2500 with the 6.6 is $33,300 that is a $10,000 difference.

how do you come up with 36-38K for a 1500?

GM build half-ton diesels from 82-98. they used the 6.2 till mid 93 then started out with the 6.5. and yes you could get the 82-87 trucks in a short bed 4x4 diesel. VERY rare but they made them. also you could get the 6.5 in a two door Tahoe,check my garage out. Same wheel base as a 4x4 short box, just a tahoe.
I loved haveing a small truck/tahoe with a diesel in it for getting around the city when i was in school, you get great mpg, they are super easy to park, and everyone looks at the truck when your stoped at a light cuz they have never seen anything like it.
I just hope that GM dosen't snuff the guys that want reg cab short bed trucks. cuz i realy don't need anything bigger. and im sure as hell not driving and S-10/ colorado!!
that is unless they shoe horn the 4.5 in to that,lol

And i agree with the guys that say that they would have got a half-ton diesel but could only get the 2500HD. i use my Duramax for work, but i realy only need to haul around 1100lbs in my bed from job to job. a half ton diesel would be great for this, but if i put that muck in a gas half-ton, i couldn't see it lasting that long. And im a GM mechanic, there half ton gassers shouldn't be used for work haulin 24/7, the trannys just arn't that great.

Don't forget the 350 ( 5.7L Olds ) diesel, Born in the late 70's and lived until the early 80's when the 6.2L came to be.

I agree, hopefully a RC/SB 4x4 is available. That would rock!! I will be in the market for a new(er) vehicle by the time this comes out, so I will give one a test drive.

hopefully the new engine works out for gm. personally i love my 2500 even if it is overkill and more than what I need i feel much safer in it.

i had one of the 6.5's in a 1995 half ton.....got 20mpg highway.... extended cab 4x4 plenty of power (not Dmax power obvioulsy) because it was a half ton and as already said the only difference was the bumper.

Fuel economy is only have of the equation. It should still get better resale, which makes the investment more, but the return will be more requardless of miles driven.

no it doesn't, you can spec out a 1500 for about $18,000, It has been posted the 4.5 will cost $5200 that makes it $23,200

The chepest 2500 with the 6.6 is $33,300 that is a $10,000 difference.

how do you come up with 36-38K for a 1500?


Try again. Base price for a 1500 gasser reg cab WT is 18K. I mentioned a comparably equipped truck, not a stripped down plain-jane WT. For the hell of it, I priced a 2WD 1500 gasser 5.3 equipped the same as my truck (2LT) and surprise... $35K. :rolleyes:
http://www.chevrolet.com/byo/buildSummary.cv;jsessionid=Y0GYYUXUIMJZACQN1EBCCZQ KBXMQKIMO?selectedOptions=PDF&selectedOptions=PCW&selectedOptions=PCY&selectedOptions=GT4&selectedOptions=LMG&selectedOptions=K05&selectedOptions=UQA&fromPage=Option&inValidOptions=&modelDesignator=CC10543&pvc=81002&exteriorColor=Black+&colorOptions=41U%5E193%5EA95&styleId=Crew+Cab+Short+Box+LT2&interiorColorId=193&make=Chevrolet&seatTypeId=A95&model=Silverado&cabSize=Crew+Cab&regularOptions=PDF%5EPCW%5EPCY%5EGT4%5EK05%5ELMG%5 EUQA&modelId=109&wheelBaseId=0&cabSizeId=3&exteriorColorId=41U&y=14&boxSizeId=30&x=66&year=2008&driveType=2WD+Drive&interiorColor=Ebony+Custom+Leather-appointed+&subModelId=316&boxSize=Short+Box&cabSizeLength=2&makeId=001&subModel=1500&style=Crew+Cab+Short+Box+LT2&zip=33596&boxSizeLength=2&wheelBaseLength=0&driveTypeId=7&vehicleModel=%2Fimages%2Fgmbp%2F13001%2Fvehicle%2F 2008%2Fmed%2F316_8555.gif&driveTypeLength=2&x=31&y=0

There is a lot of potential for this 4.5L to get some good fuel economy number, thanks in part to the transmission it will be bolted to, the 6L90E. I get 20-22 MPG on the highway with my '99 Suburban 4x4 with a 6.5 and 4.10 gears. The 4 speeds and 4.10s really hurt my highway fuel economy - not that they are bad numbers, but they could be better if I had say 3.43s and a 6 speed with a tall overdrive to keep the RPM's down to about 1,200 on the highway. With just those changes, I would bet I could get high 20's with my truck. The new Suburban is much more aerodynamic than mine, and with the smaller displacement 4.5L engine and lighter weight in a 1/2 ton chassis (mine is a 3/4 ton), I think high 20's on the highway is certainly attainable with the new 4.5L and 6L90E.

And as others have mentioned, the initial premium for the diesel option is almost always fully recovered at resale. I know I certainly paid a lot more for my used Suburban as a diesel than for the same truck with a gas engine. About the same amount more as what the diesel option cost new.

Don't forget the 350 ( 5.7L Olds ) diesel, Born in the late 70's and lived until the early 80's when the 6.2L came to be.

I agree, hopefully a RC/SB 4x4 is available. That would rock!! I will be in the market for a new(er) vehicle by the time this comes out, so I will give one a test drive.


I'll call you on that "don't forget" and raise you an international variant.

GM made a short-stroke variant of the Olds 350 diesel for sale in New Zealand. It was something like 3.8 liters. You could take all the fixes
for the 5.7 and apply them to the New Zealand motor -- gaskets,
injector pump, ARP studs, etc -- and the result was a totally bulletproof
small displacement V8 diesel.

Not many were sold because by then the public hated them.

Does anybody recall the Diesel Chevette? You could get them at auction
for about $50 in the mid 1980s. Yet another small diesel from GM that
went nowhere.

GM will sell the chit out of the "heavy" half ton pickups. Almost half the size of a 6.6 duramax and the same hp numbers as previous duramax's. Not to mention the guys that can tune them with efilive. And i know we can get some mpg's out of those little 4.5's

GM would put 3/4 axles behind the 4.5's right?? :(

If i get some stuff paid off ill be in the market for the 4.5's for sure

Does anybody recall the Diesel Chevette? You could get them at auction
for about $50 in the mid 1980s. Yet another small diesel from GM that
went nowhere.

I think the Chevette went nowhere because it was a crappy little car. The engine in it was dependable but gutless (non-turbo) Isuzu engine. IMHO, the diesel was the high point of that car.

I don't think any past diesel disaster story is relevant to the engines to come. The climate is different in every way. The mood for change, the technology, the availability of fuel, etc.
Diesel is likely to move in from the high end this time. They will eclipse gasoline performance. I highly doubt we will ever see a NA Diesel introduced, we now know better...

I'll call you on that "don't forget" and raise you an international variant.

GM made a short-stroke variant of the Olds 350 diesel for sale in New Zealand. It was something like 3.8 liters. You could take all the fixes
for the 5.7 and apply them to the New Zealand motor -- gaskets,
injector pump, ARP studs, etc -- and the result was a totally bulletproof
small displacement V8 diesel.

Not many were sold because by then the public hated them.

Does anybody recall the Diesel Chevette? You could get them at auction
for about $50 in the mid 1980s. Yet another small diesel from GM that
went nowhere.

My grandmother had a Buick Riviera that had the diesel in it before they bought it, and someone blew it up and put a regular 350 in it, it was funny cause we think they kept the oil pan from the diesel on it, cause the dang thing held like 11 quarts of oil, hahaha

My grandmother had a Buick Riviera that had the diesel in it before they bought it, and someone blew it up and put a regular 350 in it, it was funny cause we think they kept the oil pan from the diesel on it, cause the dang thing held like 11 quarts of oil, hahaha

Probably a 350 Olds Gasser.

Probably a 350 Olds Gasser.

What the engine that was put in it? It could have been, who knows how screwed up dealers were. The engine was supposedly brand new when they bought it, because it was traded in with a blown up diesel.

What the engine that was put in it? It could have been, who knows how screwed up dealers were. The engine was supposedly brand new when they bought it, because it was traded in with a blown up diesel.

Yeah, because I don't think the 350 chev would bolt up to the 350 Diesel bell housing, since it was a gas conversion, they would have used 350 Olds gasser. Nothing wrong with that. I think the Olds stuff is way better than the Chev any day.

Gotcha that makes more sense! :D

Yeah, because I don't think the 350 chev would bolt up to the 350 Diesel bell housing, since it was a gas conversion, they would have used 350 Olds gasser. Nothing wrong with that. I think the Olds stuff is way better than the Chev any day.

two things i had a diesel chevette i sold it at 240000miles no problems drivetrain related and highway milage was 51mpg if they offered it again i would buy it just for milage purposes.
second not to go off subject but go to vw site for prototypes they have one two seater that has a 1.? liter diesel getting 100mpg yes i said it 100 the other one looks like a saltflat racer made to be a car thats getting 285mpg 1.?liter the technoligy is there but what is stopping them?i just cant imagine getting that kind of milage but if they did they probaly would raise diesel fuel to 10.00 dollars a gallon to make up for less fuel being used.

wow unbelievable the mileage these cars can get.

yes its hard to believe thats why i said the site vw says it.i did see on the speed channel also that a formula 1 car with a diesel also his average mph was 140 and he got 100plus mpg while doing it i forget the exact mpg but it was over 100 though.

yes its hard to believe thats why i said the site vw says it.i did see on the speed channel also that a formula 1 car with a diesel also his average mph was 140 and he got 100plus mpg while doing it i forget the exact mpg but it was over 100 though.


How long did it take to get to 140MPH?:D

sorry i did not read all the pages, i skimmed throught them, but i read somewhere that there expecting the 4.5 to get at least 28mpg

How long did it take to get to 140MPH?:D

haha, easy race to win too. When that vw comes up to pass just mash the brake pedal while he is behind you, should take him a while to catch back up :D

Id be happy with 28mpg, small chip and you would get about 30mpg??

going to have some hard decisions to make next fall, does the wife get a new Camaro or a diesel Suburban?

I read that the new 4.5 will not be a huge upgrade price like the 6.6 due to the fact that the way it is manufactured, it will be more of an economical upgrade than the 6.6.

For some reason I always thought the Jeep Liberty CRD was an inline six. I remember it having impressive torque but the EPA rated highway fuel economy was something like 26 or 27mpg. It being a 4 banger should be all the more reason it should have gotten better fuel economy. The 3.0L diesel Jeep has in the new Grand Cherokee only has an EPA rated 18mpg city and 23mpg highway on a two wheel drive model.

Yes, the mileage improvement was not enough to offset the diesel option cost.

If Jeep did drop the diesel Liberty due to emissions, I'm puzzled why the Cherokee didn't get the axe.

Diesel Liberties on the used market aren't doing what is traditional for a limited production discontinued model in demand. Their price is falling just like the gas models if not faster.

To make the low-end diesel market take off, we need the price of diesel to go back to less than regular gasoline first. Whatever savings you get in fuel mileage, you pay back at the pump today.

If you want super-high mileage, you must drop the weight of the vehicles. Nothing else has a bigger effect. But the Federal gov't is demanding that cars get heavier every year by mandating more content, and legal issues will keep most lightweight cars off the market for the foreseeable future.

A 2000lb 4 seat diesel car should get about 65-75 mpg hwy with a 60hp engine. But Americans wouldn't buy them, nor would the government allow them to be built or protect them from lawsuits.

Does anyone remember the Chevy Sprint or the Toyota Starlet? This were 4 seat cars that exceeded 50mpg hwy with CARBURATORS. Fuel injection would bring that up 10% or more, and CR diesel power would go 20% more than that. So that 70mpg claim is not a number pulled out of a hat, it's based on current and past mass-production technology.

So the technology exists for super-high mileage cars and it has for over 20 years. But as long as we demand all cars weigh 3000lb or more (and climbing), we are not likely to see it in this generation.

The weight is not a problem unless you keep accelerating and decelerating heavily a lot. It's the wind drag that to overcome takes the most power and thus fuel.

Anyway, do they build these Suburbans with solid axles? That's something I'd definitely want --- as well as a manual transmission.

If Jeep did drop the diesel Liberty due to emissions, I'm puzzled why the Cherokee didn't get the axe.

Simple, the 2.8 in the liberty is made by VM Motori and the 3.0 in the GC is made by Mercedes Benz. Since MB had already made that engine emissions compliant for the E class, it was no problem to put it into the GC. The 3.0 is also found in the M & G class SUV's and a de-tuned version in the sprinter van.

I'm still not convinced. Automakers are funny like that. I know quite a few people that own the new 2007 chev with the 5.3 and some with the 6.0 VortecMax and they all do about 26mpg (CAN) thats about 21 (US)... thats pretty good. I get 16 (US) with mine... mind you it's lifted. I also know quite a few people that own GM's, Ford's and dodge's with diesels and all do about 22 to 24mpg (CAN). Now with the price of fuel now being very high as it is.. and want people to by them they better make it very fuel efficient. I think arroung 30mpg (CAN) would offset for the high fuel price. I can understand that it might be more expensive than the gasser.... but make it more interesting for people to own one over the gas version.

your saying the diesels get worse milage than the gassers?

I don't think the price of diesel compared to the price of gas justifies the purchase of a diesel, here in florida diesel runs about $.40 more than regular unleaded.

No, everything being equal, a diesel will get about 20% better fuel economy. There is more energy stored in it, it has no throttle, has direct injection, and very high compression. All these factors add up. The best "apple to apple" example would be the 8.1 gas engine vs the 6.6 Dmax. Weight, engine output, transmission are all about the same. The Dmax will get 15-20mpg hwy unladen, and the 8.1 will get 12-15mpg.

So yes, if diesel is 13% more than gasoline, the 7% cost savings left over takes you 3 times longer to recoup your extra sticker price than it would if the price was the same.

When I bought our blue truck, I did the math and it said 100,000mi was the break even point. So that would be adjusted up to 300,000mi and be past the trade in point.

your saying the diesels get worse milage than the gassers?

I don't think the price of diesel compared to the price of gas justifies the purchase of a diesel, here in florida diesel runs about $.40 more than regular unleaded.

Don't forget about resale value. a Dmax truck will fetch thousands more than a gasser.

A clarification on Jeep Liberty demise.

If in fact the diesel Jeep Liberty was a profitable venture for Jeep, they would have figured out a way to make it pass smog. The technology exists, or you can buy it. The Cherokee is proof.

A clarification on Jeep Liberty demise.

If in fact the diesel Jeep Liberty was a profitable venture for Jeep, they would have figured out a way to make it pass smog. The technology exists, or you can buy it. The Cherokee is proof.

I believe it was was profitable for pre 07 emission standards. However, my understanding is that it was essentially offered as a way for Diam/Chyr to test the waters for demand of light diesel vehicle. I know it was not profitable to update that engine to meet emissions for 07 only. The Liberty was completely redesigned for the 08 model year and the diesel was not planned to be available for that platform (nitro clone) .

No, everything being equal, a diesel will get about 20% better fuel economy. There is more energy stored in it, it has no throttle, has direct injection, and very high compression. All these factors add up. The best "apple to apple" example would be the 8.1 gas engine vs the 6.6 Dmax. Weight, engine output, transmission are all about the same. The Dmax will get 15-20mpg hwy unladen, and the 8.1 will get 12-15mpg.

So yes, if diesel is 13% more than gasoline, the 7% cost savings left over takes you 3 times longer to recoup your extra sticker price than it would if the price was the same.

When I bought our blue truck, I did the math and it said 100,000mi was the break even point. So that would be adjusted up to 300,000mi and be past the trade in point.

I could not agree more. But lets say you would go to the dealer and there is brand new 1/2 tonne gas and 1/2 tonne diesel. The 5.3 is 35K and the diesel 40K, and you know the diesel is always more than gas. Which one would you buy? If the 4.5 gets a good 5 more mpg that the 5.3, than yes over time it will make up for the price diffence. I just think that the average person who always buys gassers will possible not get it. I know that diesel trucks are worth is, but I just hope that GM makes it interesting for people to buy the 4.5 over the 5.3.

I read that the new 4.5 will not be a huge upgrade price like the 6.6 due to the fact that the way it is manufactured, it will be more of an economical upgrade than the 6.6.
I agree that GM certainly intends to make the new 4.5L a less expensive upgrade than the 6.6L will be by that time.

But as it stands now, both need urea-injection to meet the third (and hopefully final) phase of stricter emissions regs, which were implemented in three-year steps (2007, 2007 & 2010).

IIRC, the price increase for the LMM over the LBZ was somewhere around $2,100 @ MSRP. With the introduction of the LMM, the invoice/MSRP ratio went up to the same as all the other options (it had been a significantly lower ratio on the LBZ as a part of the PDN package), so for those who base what they pay on invoice price, that made it even worse.

Don't be too surprised if the 2010 regs cause another big jump in prices, causing the 4.5L price premium to be surprisingly high.

The weight is not a problem unless you keep accelerating and decelerating heavily a lot. It's the wind drag that to overcome takes the most power and thus fuel.
Rolling resistance increases roughly proportional to weight.
This is because the frictional load on all the rotating bearings (mainly the wheel bearings) goes up with increasing weight.

This is easy to verify by doing coast-down tests of the same vehicle with and without a heavy load.

Wheel alignment (toe-in), tire size, inflation pressure, tread compound & design also affect rolling resistance. This is why some vehicles seem to get better mileage than other similar vehicles (though driving style makes a big difference too).

Most of today's cars require "roughly" similar horsepower to overcome aero drag as to overcome rolling resistance at "normal" highway speed. But since aerodynamic drag increases more than in proportion to speed, this changes drastically at higher speeds.

your saying the diesels get worse milage than the gassers?

I don't think the price of diesel compared to the price of gas justifies the purchase of a diesel, here in florida diesel runs about $.40 more than regular unleaded.

I was referring to post #71

Fuel cost is not the only factor to think about. Oil and fuel filters alone add to the cost of ownership. Cost of oil and the amount (8-10qts) vs. 6qts. And if the price of fuel filters are comparable to the 6.6l then again extra cost.
-And like I said before GM now offers 100k on the new vehicles so to the general public(non-diesel) owners. What would be the sale point.
-And why does everyone say the 2500HD is over kill???
-Also what about the Hybrid 1500 due out next year??
-Mark my words the only vehicle(s) this motor will survive in for more then 2 yrs will be the Suburben(sp) and the H2.

There is one word that everyone is forgetting:

CAFE.

GM wants to increase CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Problem is, the 1/2 ton trucks and SUV's that are big sellers are stuck at 20mpg. They can go Hybrid, but that means they must spend more on undercoating since they are rusting sitting on the dealer's lots.:D

Ultimate CAFE weapon will be a composite body, aluminum frame SUV, with a diesel hybrid powerplant. You are talking a $75,000 Escalade with 360HP that get 18 city and 26mpg highway. GM could do it next year if wanted to. They have all the technology available and in production.

you change the oil 3 times in a gasser for every time you change the oil in a diesel.

GM needs diesels to meet the EPA(not sure if it is them forcing the averages) mandated average fuel economy numbers. As Mcrat said these big vehicles are what pays the bills.

I am not sure if the recent talk about mandated 35mpg will happen but that leads me to believe they also need the diesels in cars. Much tougher to meet costs goals in cars.

I guess one could argue that they better be a car company rather than a truck company...but they are not going to walk away from the SUV segement.

My thought is that if they can get their 1/2 ton and 3/4-1ton diesels to have some key common parts...injectors/IP...maybe they can start reducing the cost of the diesel option due to increase unit production.

As far as oil changes etc that is a wash. They key issue is the longevity of the high dollar items: injectors/IP plus the additional cost and discipline of newbie owners changing the fuel filters.

I would've bought a half-ton diesel over the 3/4 ton. I pull a boat occasionally. A half-ton more than fits the bill for that.

Fuel cost is not the only factor to think about. Oil and fuel filters alone add to the cost of ownership. Cost of oil and the amount (8-10qts) vs. 6qts. And if the price of fuel filters are comparable to the 6.6l then again extra cost.

I would rather replace a fuel filter on a DMAX than a GM gasser. You know how much they cost? And do you know where they are? In the tank. Not cheap to replace.

Once you break it in, switching to synthetic oil will extend oil change intervals. 3000/5000 intervals are a myth.

1 gallon of regular as I am typing this is $4.73/CAD gallon ( $3.90 /US gallon. ) And diesel comes in at $4.59/CAD gallon. ( $3.79/US gallon. )

Buying a 1500 Diesel makes complete sense. They will sell a ton of them.

Ultimate CAFE weapon will be a composite body, aluminum frame SUV, with a diesel hybrid powerplant. You are talking a $75,000 Escalade with 360HP that get 18 city and 26mpg highway. GM could do it next year if wanted to. They have all the technology available and in production.
The ultimate CAFE "weapon" will be a pure electric car, the kind that is recharged from the grid rather than from an on-board engine-driven generator.

The huge advantage electric motors will always have over any internal combustion engine is the over five-fold improvement in energy conversion efficiency. Where internal combustion engines waste over 80% of the fuel as heat, electric motors convert over 80% into mechanical energy. An all-electric drivetrain is also far simpler, and would require comparatively little maintenance. There Powerful hub motors similar to those already used for bicycles http://www.electricrider.com/crystalyte/phoenix.htm are being developed for automotive applications. While they have the problem of increasing unsprung weight a lot, they have no gears or other moving parts except the motor rotor itself, which is directly connected to the wheel, producing very quiet propulsion.

By the time the 35mpg standard hits in 2020
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=123978
(as of the last draft I saw, CAFE doesn't go up in interim steps before 2020), pure electric cars will have significant market share IF the cost of the batteries comes down.

The latest lithium chemistries have pretty much solved the problems with limited range and limited peak power output. Even the the number of recharge cycles has gone up substantially, to well over 1,000. http://www.electricrider.com/batteries/eonyx.htm

If a pack in an electric car can achieve 200 miles per charge (about the usable range of a typical car 30-35 years ago: 12mpg with a 20 gal. tank), and at least 1,000 recharge cycles, that's 200,000 miles, which is far longer than most people keep their cars.

Next year, an even newer type of lithium battery will begin shipping that will improve the number of recharge cycles even further, to more than 2,000, and perhaps most importantly it has finally overcome one of the main stumbling blocks to long-distance travel on electric power alone: fast recharge time. These newest lithium chemistries can be recharged to over 80% in less than six minutes with very high charge efficiency (very little energy wasted as heat during charging).

Moreover, every gas station in the country (along with a lot of other places) has the ability to offer recharging for at least one vehicle at a time without much investment in their infrastructure.

Recent improvements to "conventional" lithium batteries will make hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, etc. dead end technologies, as long as the battery costs comes down with increasing volume.

you change the oil 3 times in a gasser for every time you change the oil in a diesel.

3 to 1 interval, are you nuts??? My '07 Tahoe about 6-8k interval, about the same as my LBZ. But you don't need 10qts of oil in a gasser, the filters and the oil cost more in a diesel also. And you forgot about the fuel filters.

-I am all for the little diesel, I am looking for a reason to buy another H2. All I am saying is that the maintenance on a diesel is more frequent and also a bigger hit to the pocket book.
-The point of the topic here is getting non-diesel owners to buy the small diesel in the 1/2 ton. People these days do their homework and if you factor in fuel cost, maintenance cost, and upfront cost of the diesel option....In a 1/2 ton it is just not worth it.
-People who buy the LD truck do not haul or tow on a daily basis, they are just that..light duty. So the diesel will never pay for itself, towing the jet ski, or ski boat for a weekend, or camping gear and family for a trip. Would I pay the extra 5-6k for the diesel in a 1/2 ton..hell no!
-I would however buy one in the Tahoe, Suburban, or H2.

I would rather replace a fuel filter on a DMAX than a GM gasser. You know how much they cost? And do you know where they are? In the tank. Not cheap to replace.

Once you break it in, switching to synthetic oil will extend oil change intervals. 3000/5000 intervals are a myth.

1 gallon of regular as I am typing this is $4.73/CAD gallon ( $3.90 /US gallon. ) And diesel comes in at $4.59/CAD gallon. ( $3.79/US gallon. )

Buying a 1500 Diesel makes complete sense. They will sell a ton of them.


First of all how often would you change the fuel filter in a gasser? Unless you get something in the tank to plug it..never. My diesel every 10kmi.
-Oil change interval on my Tahoe gasser vs. My Dmax both get the 5k-7.5k interval. and the Dmax takes more oil and at a greater cost.
-Diesel here in the US(Atlanta) is $3.30/gal and Unled reg is $2.89/gal. So not worth it down here.
-As far as sales go, I think the SUV market will sell better then the 1500, if offered.

3 to 1 interval, are you nuts??? My '07 Tahoe about 6-8k interval, about the same as my LBZ. But you don't need 10qts of oil in a gasser, the filters and the oil cost more in a diesel also. And you forgot about the fuel filters.

-I am all for the little diesel, I am looking for a reason to buy another H2. All I am saying is that the maintenance on a diesel is more frequent and also a bigger hit to the pocket book.
-The point of the topic here is getting non-diesel owners to buy the small diesel in the 1/2 ton. People these days do their homework and if you factor in fuel cost, maintenance cost, and upfront cost of the diesel option....In a 1/2 ton it is just not worth it.
-People who buy the LD truck do not haul or tow on a daily basis, they are just that..light duty. So the diesel will never pay for itself, towing the jet ski, or ski boat for a weekend, or camping gear and family for a trip. Would I pay the extra 5-6k for the diesel in a 1/2 ton..hell no!
-I would however buy one in the Tahoe, Suburban, or H2.


If its 5-6K more for a diesel it probably won't sell great if its 3-4 it will sell.

I think you might underestimate the demand for this engine. I have hung out on bass fishing message boards for quite some time and the demand on those sites seems very high for a half ton diesel, because most of them reallize they don't need a 3/4 ton to tow a bass boat, but most want improved power (at least a little) and fuel economy over their gassers.

Actually the buzz on those sites drove me to this one.

First of all how often would you change the fuel filter in a gasser? Unless you get something in the tank to plug it..never. My diesel every 10kmi.


That is based on the assumption that everyone buys new and trades before warranty expires. Not everyone buys new, and not everyone trades every 3 or 4 years. Some of us buy used, and keep them a long time, and that is when buying the diesel will pay off. The maintenance costs are lower over a longer period. And some people who buy new also keep them for a longer period of time.

Fuel filter on our Corvette when bad at about 10k miles. It was about $100, got gasoline in my eyes, and took 2 hours to replace.

If theyd ont need tons of emissiom junk to meet 2010 specs i might buy one

I just want to know how GM is going to market this to the non-diesel crowd. What they really need to do is push this to the Fleet buyers, I just don't think that the light-truck or auto market buyers are willing to fork over the extra money for a diesel. For some reason the diesel engine still has this perception of being dirty. What needs to happen is with all these "green" advertisements they need to mention "clean diesels" and not just e85, hybrid, and electric cars. The gas burning public is not up to speed to buy a diesel, and this lack of marketing I think is going to hurt what is a great idea by GM.
-I just think that this idea is about 2-3 years to early. To get a mass market buy in.

I just want to know how GM is going to market this to the non-diesel crowd.

Lets see, way more HP & Torque & better mileage than an equal sized gasser, so why not buy diesel.

What they really need to do is push this to the Fleet buyers, I just don't think that the light-truck or auto market buyers are willing to fork over the extra money for a diesel. For some reason the diesel engine still has this perception of being dirty. What needs to happen is with all these "green" advertisements they need to mention "clean diesels" and not just e85, hybrid, and electric cars. The gas burning public is not up to speed to buy a diesel, and this lack of marketing I think is going to hurt what is a great idea by GM.

No, they would rather add needless options like DVD players, 25" rims, than add a diesel.


-I just think that this idea is about 2-3 years to early. To get a mass market buy in.

Why is it that they have to wait for someone else to do it first? Why can't the re-introduce it to the market??



....

I just want to know how GM is going to market this to the non-diesel crowd. What they really need to do is push this to the Fleet buyers, I just don't think that the light-truck or auto market buyers are willing to fork over the extra money for a diesel. For some reason the diesel engine still has this perception of being dirty. What needs to happen is with all these "green" advertisements they need to mention "clean diesels" and not just e85, hybrid, and electric cars. The gas burning public is not up to speed to buy a diesel, and this lack of marketing I think is going to hurt what is a great idea by GM.
-I just think that this idea is about 2-3 years to early. To get a mass market buy in.

IMHO, I think your assessment is a few years behind the times. I think people are finally catching on.

In 2005-2006 Jeep forcasted sales of ~5,000 units with the CRD diesel engine. Actual sales were well over 10,000 units. Many who bought it were not diesel enthusiasts, but were tree hugging dirt worshipers who think they're really green for running b20 LOL.

A quick look in the car ads this morning shows that VW tdi's are selling at a noticeable premium compared to their gas counterparts. In fact all of VW's specials EXCLUDE the tdi..... meaning they have no problem selling them.

Granted the numbers are small, but I still think these are decent indicators of the potential for diesel sales.

And even is my assessment is off and you're correct, its still a good year and a half before the 4.5 is released ........ thats still quite a bit of time to get the message out.

I do agree with you 110% that clean diesel should be far more prominent in green advertisements.

.......A quick look in the car ads this morning shows that VW tdi's are selling at a noticeable premium compared to their gas counterparts. In fact all of VW's specials EXCLUDE the tdi..... meaning they have no problem selling them. A note on that, the VW, Mercedes Benz, and other import crowd are really no different then us, they are used to diesels, so this technology is nothing new. Look over to europe and note that almost every model of vehicle on the road has a diesel option. So this does not suprise me.

And even is my assessment is off and you're correct, its still a good year and a half before the 4.5 is released ........ thats still quite a bit of time to get the message out. If this is true, then there should not be a real issue. That is if the price of diesel is not over $5/gal by then.

I do agree with you 110% that clean diesel should be far more prominent in green advertisements.

t

Williambos,
You keep talking about milage, but here in the US we are talking a beating on fuel prices. The average is $0.30-0.50/gal more. So unless you best the gasser by 5-10mpg it is going to hurt sales.

And careful with the DVD, and over size wheel issue. Plenty of us are running 20+" wheels, so that really has nothing to do with it.

As torqueofthetown said, if this design is held back for another 2yrs then there will be no porblem with sales. They will sell some yes, just not huge numbers like everyone thinks.

And as far as HP/TQ do you really think they will build a small diesel with the same/close to the 6.6l Dmax, you are way off. I would be suprised if the production model is 300hp/500tq. If #'s are the same as the 6.6l why continue to build the big one????? So unless this is the new replacement for the current Dmax, the predicted #'s for the new motor are way high.

Williambos,
You keep talking about milage, but here in the US we are talking a beating on fuel prices. The average is $0.30-0.50/gal more. So unless you best the gasser by 5-10mpg it is going to hurt sales.

And we aren't?? We are at almost $5 a gallon in both cases, and it won't be getting cheaper.

And careful with the DVD, and over size wheel issue. Plenty of us are running 20+" wheels, so that really has nothing to do with it.

Better you than me, you ever price a set of snow tires that size?? Sure it does, if you have the choice of a $10,000 interior upgrade, or a diesel, need mileage, but can only afford one, which one would you buy?? Diesel hands down!!

As torqueofthetown said, if this design is held back for another 2yrs then there will be no porblem with sales. They will sell some yes, just not huge numbers like everyone thinks.

Right, but if they release their now, it will be a well proven design and have loyal followers by the time everyone else has one. In this day and age, living inside the box could spell trouble, taking a small risk could be a big pay off.
And as far as HP/TQ do you really think they will build a small diesel with the same/close to the 6.6l Dmax, you are way off. I would be suprised if the production model is 300hp/500tq. If #'s are the same as the 6.6l why continue to build the big one????? So unless this is the new replacement for the current Dmax, the predicted #'s for the new motor are way high.

The LMM is 360/660. And a new DMAX is on the way for 2010. ( rumoured ) Why do you find it so hard to believe that they are not getting 300/520 from the 4.5L? 1500's are not getting lighter, in fact they are heavier with higher GVWR, so why build them under powered. This is not 1980 anymore, they have the technology, and are using it.





......

Will I agree with you, people that buy and keep for a long time will see the benefit of having the 4.5. Personally, I expect a 2010 or 2011 4.5 1500 Sierra to be the last one I buy. We drive around 15,000 a year and a light duty is all we need. I look for the better mileage of a diesel and the long life. I would love to get a 4 door SLT with the diesel. Then a Tahoe the next year. If I hit the lottery.

I look for the better mileage of a diesel and the long life. I would love to get a 4 door SLT with the diesel.

That makes 2 of us. As nice as the extra jam the 6.6L has to offer, all I need is a 4.5L

I can't wait, bring it on GM!!

Couldn't agree more, but why would chevrolet want there $25k truck to compete with there $40k truck?


It all goes into the same purse.

The ultimate CAFE "weapon" will be a pure electric car, the kind that is recharged from the grid rather than from an on-board engine-driven generator.

The huge advantage electric motors will always have over any internal combustion engine is the over five-fold improvement in energy conversion efficiency. Where internal combustion engines waste over 80% of the fuel as heat, electric motors convert over 80% into mechanical energy. An all-electric drivetrain is also far simpler, and would require comparatively little maintenance. There Powerful hub motors similar to those already used for bicycles http://www.electricrider.com/crystalyte/phoenix.htm are being developed for automotive applications. While they have the problem of increasing unsprung weight a lot, they have no gears or other moving parts except the motor rotor itself, which is directly connected to the wheel, producing very quiet propulsion.


Well, no. Electric MOTORS and internal combustion ENGINES really don't have any relative efficiencies. That motor works by being fed energy while an engine burns fuel. Somewhere up the pipe that motor has had a fuel conversion take place. To small a percentage of the grids electricity comes from a non-fuel. Wind, solar, and hydro. Nuclear is the most efficient a far as fuel goes. Oh, hydrogen is not a fuel, not a positive net one at least. Either is corn...

Theoretically, an engine in a hybrid with even a close efficiency as the power plant producing the pure-electrics energy will be a better choice for wide ranging areas. Carry the fuel and the range goes up and the weight goes down, big picture efficiency goes up. Pure electrics make little sense outside a small city car. Both need to share the market, but I don't see pure electrics satisfying my needs, like a heater!

As has been said in this thread, the knowledge is there. Most people are too short sited in their economic choices, our cars, our houses, well, everything. Waste is still traded for profit. Low up front investment outweighs a 10+ years payoff. Pay monthly while the mega buck alternative is a one time cost - most take the monthly installments for life...The technology will trickle in, but the marketers will figure out how to make it in a monthly fee...

What is the start sell date again?

Gonna be a hard sell when diesel is 30-40 cents more than PREMIUM gas. Oil companies are going to kill diesel technology.

Well, no. Electric MOTORS and internal combustion ENGINES really don't have any relative efficiencies.
Wrong. Their relative efficiencies were correctly stated in my previous post.

Your post indicates a flawed understanding of the difference between the two energy sources: the chemical potential energy in a fuel (which is converted into heat energy by combustion), and the electrical energy stored in a battery.

If you compare the total efficiency from the source raw material to vehicle propulsion (sometimes called 'from well to wheel'), that is, compare the production of the chemical potential energy (fuel) to the production of electricity, you will find that electric drive systems still have a huge efficiency advantage because internal combustion engines waste so much of the energy in the fuel as heat.

Even electricity produced from the only prominent petroleum source (natural gas), which is done in combined cycle plants @ 55% efficiency, if converted into mechanical energy (propulsion) @ 80% efficiency in electric vehicles has a significant advantage in overall efficiency over burning fuel in internal combustion engines, though not as great as some other alternative forms of electricity production.

Moreover, electric generation can be, and is, accomplished from sources more readily available here in the U.S. than petroleum, namely coal, hydro or nuclear, the last of which is the only one with a potential for the exponential growth needed to reduce US dependence on imported petroleum.

Nuclear is the most efficient a far as fuel goes.
Only from the standpoint of energy per unit mass, but that's only because nuclear fission splits an atomic bond rather than releasing chemical potential energy as does burning a fuel. As far as "fuel efficiency," current nuclear plants only utilize about 1% of the available energy in their nuclear fuel (as heat), and they convert a relatively low percentage of that heat into electrical energy (mainly because the operate at a relatively low temperature). There was an advanced nuclear reactor design that drastically improved on that (and would also have solved the nuclear waste disposal problem, for less than has already been spent on the still unused Yucca Mountain Repository), but the Clinton administration killed it in 1994. Incidentally, two democrats who vigorously opposed continuation of that program would later run for president: Al Gore & John Kerry.

Oh, hydrogen is not a fuel, not a positive net one at least. Either is corn...
Current commercial hydrogen production is from natural gas and is a big net energy loser. Hydrogen production from water via electrolysis is an even worse net energy loser. The only possible natural source of hydrogen is in the form of Methane Hydrates, large quantities of which exist in the sea floor in some deep ocean waters. The recovery and commercial exploitation of that difficult to reach resource would (theoretically) produce large amounts of both methane (natural gas) and hydrogen.

Current U.S. ethanol production from corn is slightly net positive, about 30% if you can believe the agencies promoting its use. Ethanol production from sugarcane (e.g. Brazil) is about eight time better.

Also, the waste heat from fuel-fired electric power generation plants can be recovered and utilized far more easily than the waste heat from thousands of motor vehicle engines. Though still uncommon in most of the U.S. today, waste heat from power plants can be (and is being) used at a municipal level for water heating and space heating in cold climates. This pushes the overall fuel utilization efficiency even higher.

Gonna be a hard sell when diesel is 30-40 cents more than PREMIUM gas. Oil companies are going to kill diesel technology.

At the moment the refineries that pump out diesel are also busy pumping out home heating fuel. Wait until summer comes back around. I suspect we'll see diesel similarly priced, if not cheaper, than regular unleaded.

Will I agree with you, people that buy and keep for a long time will see the benefit of having the 4.5. Personally, I expect a 2010 or 2011 4.5 1500 Sierra to be the last one I buy. We drive around 15,000 a year and a light duty is all we need. I look for the better mileage of a diesel and the long life. I would love to get a 4 door SLT with the diesel. Then a Tahoe the next year. If I hit the lottery.



I have a 2.7L common rail 5 cylinder turbo Diesel Sprinter Van, and it has towing power despite its small motor...I have towed 6000K with no issues, and over 10,000 total weight, with no problems, smaller can do big tasks too!!!!

I think we will develop more in this category size in time....

I would love to put my wife in a 4.5 tahoe or burban. I still love my big truck!!!!! I think there are a lot of guys are there that are like me,,,,,,,I don't care how much I have to pay for diesel or gas........that doesn't waver my decesion on vehicle purchase......I will buy whatever looks good, performs well and what will last,,,, I don't care how how much it cost as long as i like it!!!!!! I bought my wife a Saab 9-5 Aero for the same price I could have bought a honda, but the Saab is a lot nicer and has way more power.............but still gets 30+ miles a gallon. I wanted a tahoe but she didn't want to pay for the gas ( boo hoo ). I'll be damned if she doesn't get 4.5 tahoe when they come out!!!!!!!!!!! Then it will be easy to justify the purchase....

It all goes into the same purse.

Right now if you want a diesel in a truck you have to buy a $40k 2500
Why would they want to sell you a $25k truck?

There are alot of people who just want a diesel but don't need it and buy a 2500.

Chevrolet would lose this market to the $25k 1500,

if they combine the 4.5 with a bunch of options or only include it in the ltz package that will put the price around $40k, would you pay the same for a 1500 with a 4.5 as a 2500 with the 6.6?

if they don't combine it with options or packages then you could get a 1500 with the 4.5 for about $25k, then the problem is all the people that buy the $40k 2500 just to get a diesel will be buying the $25k 1500, and chevrolet will lose $15k on each 1500 sold.

Either way I don't see gm gaining alot from this, Ford and dodge are both also coming out with smaller iesels for the 1/2 ton trucks, so there not gonna sway many customers from them.

I only see onething they could do to gain somthing from this.

[quote=WilliamBos;2221388]
I would rather replace a fuel filter on a DMAX than a GM gasser. You know how much they cost? And do you know where they are? In the tank. Not cheap to replace.[quote]

Wrong. The fuel PUMP is in the tank, not the filter. The filter is in-line canister type and on the drivers side inner frame rail. Very EASY to get to, just a bitch to swap out, because you are going to get Gas-O-Mean on ya.

Write that down.

Either way I don't see gm gaining alot from this, Ford and dodge are both also coming out with smaller iesels for the 1/2 ton trucks, so there not gonna sway many customers from them.

If GM doesn't come out with the 4.5L in the 1/2 ton truck they stand to loose all the customers who only bought the 2500 because of the diesel and are eager to buy a 1/2 ton diesel to the Ford or Dodge 4.xL diesel 1/2 tons. A $25k sale instead of a $40k sale is better than no sale.

Diesel Prices will dictate engine sizes, just like it has in Europe with $6.00 and counting per gallon.
If it was $6.00 per gallon over here as well, than if you do not need 6.6L, and a 4.5L is available, one will have an easy decision to make, a no brainer.....trust me there WILL BE A MARKET for small diesels.

If we here in North America do not reduce our petroleum dependency by conserving, we live to regret it!

[quote=WilliamBos;2221388]
I would rather replace a fuel filter on a DMAX than a GM gasser. You know how much they cost? And do you know where they are? In the tank. Not cheap to replace.[quote]

Wrong. The fuel PUMP is in the tank, not the filter. The filter is in-line canister type and on the drivers side inner frame rail. Very EASY to get to, just a bitch to swap out, because you are going to get Gas-O-Mean on ya.

Write that down.

I am not totally sure thats correct, I know mine is on the frame rail but was told they put them in the tank on the 05+ ones.....but I am unsure.

[quote=WilliamBos;2221388]
I would rather replace a fuel filter on a DMAX than a GM gasser. You know how much they cost? And do you know where they are? In the tank. Not cheap to replace.[quote]

Wrong. The fuel PUMP is in the tank, not the filter. The filter is in-line canister type and on the drivers side inner frame rail. Very EASY to get to, just a bitch to swap out, because you are going to get Gas-O-Mean on ya.

Write that down.

Supercop8100,
Your statement about an easily servicelable gasoline filter being on the frame rail is correct for vehicles up to year 2003. However, beginning in year 2004 GM (as well as most other manufacturers) made the gasoline fuel filter a non-serviceleable item for almost every gasoline car and truck by moving it to inside the fuel tank. The reason for this undesirable change had something to do with manufacturers having to pass a new EPA evaporative emission test.

William Bos is correct that it can be expensive to fix a filter related problem on any 2004 or newer gasoline vehicle as it is in the tank. In many cases the filter is actually integrated into the fuel pump itself and you have to buy a new fuel pump if you have a problem. I have heard of some truck owners retro-fitting their own auxilary fuel filters in hopes of preventing future filter related problems.

A 40K dollar half ton is becoming the norm. I have looked at Tundra's and Vortec MAX 1500's an they are about 40k sticker.


18K will get you a Reg cab 2wd 4.3 work truck

25K will get you a 4.8 extended cab 2wd strippo

40K will get you a crew cab vortec max LT3

45k Will get you A Sierra Denali

45K will get you a LT2 Duramax


Off topic but WHY does Gm still have the 4l60e in the gmt 900's

That tranny sucks The ratios are so damn far apart 1st gear feels good and thats it. You can do like 80mph in second gear. There are at least two gears missing it just doesn't work when you have underpowered gasser

Wrong. Their relative efficiencies were correctly stated in my previous post.

Your post indicates a flawed understanding...

No flaw, a further perspective. You misread the subtleties of my post. To say the electric is 80% efficient and the engine is 80% waste is a misleading lie that you clarify better on the second round... 80% of 55% is NOT 80% as stated. I merely pointed ot that you left out the source of energy, now 55%, in your leading statement. Yes, heat is captured from many plants of all kinds, that is a bonus in the big picture. To spell out more I only hinted at, adiabatic engines are a known technology that will lend itself well to the almost stationary engine nature of a fuel carrying hybrid. Sorry, but this can approach that now 55+%, to feed that 80%.

Your 'from well to wheel' needs to include the input to produce the batteries, the continual weight penalty, and renew rate compared to that of a small engine and fuel tank.

Just saying you painted a little misleading...I believe maybe we're talking afficient not efficient.

No flaw, a further perspective. You misread the subtleties of my post. To say the electric is 80% efficient and the engine is 80% waste is a misleading lie that you clarify better on the second round... 80% of 55% is NOT 80% as stated. I merely pointed ot that you left out the source of energy, now 55%, in your leading statement. Yes, heat is captured from many plants of all kinds, that is a bonus in the big picture. To spell out more I only hinted at, adiabatic engines are a known technology that will lend itself well to the almost stationary engine nature of a fuel carrying hybrid. Sorry, but this can approach that now 55+%, to feed that 80%.

Your 'from well to wheel' needs to include the input to produce the batteries, the continual weight penalty, and renew rate compared to that of a small engine and fuel tank
"To say the electric is 80% efficient and the engine is 80% waste is a misleading lie"

It's not a lie, it's a fact.

Not only that, it is even an understatement. The best electric motors used in vehicle applications (direct hub drive) can easily achieve more than 80% overall efficiency (how much of the input power is converted into propulsion), having virtually no drivetrain loss.

In comparison, with automotive internal combustion engines, the overall average of how much of the energy in the fuel is converted into propulsion usually falls below 15%.

Electric motors operate closer to their optimum efficiency under a wider range of conditions than internal combustion engines. The newest Li-Ion batteries also have drastically improved charge efficiency compared to Nickel based batteries, which wasted up to a third of the input energy as heat in the charging process.

With all the overheating problems that have been discussed on this board, you'd think that the concept of internal combustion engines wasting a lot of fuel as heat would be an easy one to comprehend.

But it's obvious that you lack the technical background to comprehend the truth of my statements. Trying to make up for it by being argumentative doesn't help, either.

As an example, 85% (one type of powerplant) * 80% conversion efficiency is 44% total, which, even after taking charging efficiency into account is still more than double the typical internal combustion engine efficiency of less than 20% (an overall average is less than 15%).

If you want to treat the fuel source for internal combustion engines as if it is pumped by gravity pressure from overhead reservoirs that are automatically refilled by a "rainfall" consisting of gasoline & diesel fuel, then feel free.

That's about the only way you could justifiably include all steps in the production of electrical energy while ignoring all the steps in the extraction of crude oil, conversion to refined fuel and delivery to fueling stations, and pumping it into the ground and then into vehicle fuel tanks.

Since this thread is (ostensibly) about the upcoming 4.5L diesel, I will not bother posting on this subject again.

Funny that most people complain about the high cost of fuel, but some don't seem mind that they are turning well over three quarts out of each gallon of that fuel into heat, not propulsion.

If you (or anyone else) wants to believe that internal combustion engines DON'T waste most of the energy in the fuel as heat, feel free.

Oh well, a waste of time....

Your skipping right over it....

Never disagreed with the 15-20%, I did reference known adiabatic technologies, oh, maybe you missed that, or its meaning...

There is a difference between misstating and misleading.

My technical knowledge, oh boy...

Enjoy!

Don't forget the 350 ( 5.7L Olds ) diesel, Born in the late 70's and lived until the early 80's when the 6.2L came to be.


I bet I haven't seen an Olds diesel in 15 years. I was behind one last night driving home. I had no way of telling whether it was still a diesel or converted to gas though. (Hard to do at 65 mph in the dark.)

Yes, the mileage improvement was not enough to offset the diesel option cost.



The Liberty's design is a re-work of a 1940s military Jeep with all the bad aerodynamics, short wheelbase, etc.. Jeep (Read Chrysler) has milked that heritage and design for about 40 more years than it should have run.

Put that boxy aerodynamic nightmare out there and even a diesel can't help it in mpg. I read in a number of places that the real world mpg was more like 22 mpg max.

Does anybody recall the Diesel Chevette? You could get them at auction
for about $50 in the mid 1980s. Yet another small diesel from GM that
went nowhere.

Small diesel from Isuzu. Actually, not a bad little car, but suffered the same drawbacks of the normal Chevette, with the rear axle taking up most of the cargo space.

[quote=McRat;2219864]There is one word that everyone is forgetting:

CAFE.

GM wants to increase CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Problem is, the 1/2 ton trucks and SUV's that are big sellers are stuck at 20mpg. They can go Hybrid, but that means they must spend more on undercoating since they are rusting sitting on the dealer's lots.:D

[quote]

CAFE is different for cars and trucks. And the automakers do everything in their power to make all vehicles a light truck instead of a car. Our US government obviously has no interest in CAFE because they haven't updated in forever, and now they're FINALLY looking at 35 in the distant future. Make the cars and trucks equal in CAFE at 30 mpg - put the Hemi back in the museum where it belongs along with a few other gas suckers (most Ford & Dodge trucks along with the full size Nissans and Toyotas) and work from there. I'm not worried about my 5.3 in the Tahoe, because it can make the mileage (20-22 on the road is not unusual), but there are a lot of vehicles that aren't getting out of the low teens.

At the moment the refineries that pump out diesel are also busy pumping out home heating fuel. Wait until summer comes back around. I suspect we'll see diesel similarly priced, if not cheaper, than regular unleaded.

Don't believe that load of stuff - it never came up until about 10 years ago as an issue. There are less, not more, people burning home heating oil. Diesel people don't have the clout to get the prices down, and the truckers and other commercial interests just pass the cost on to the consumer. I've driven personal diesel vehicles since it was 19 cents a gallon.

i had a diesel chevette!!!! when i was in highschool. i picked it up for $50 bucks, it lasted a week, totally destroid it. rolled into a creek. one of those cars you buy just to beat on and kill it!!!!!!

Don't believe that load of stuff - it never came up until about 10 years ago as an issue. There are less, not more, people burning home heating oil. Diesel people don't have the clout to get the prices down, and the truckers and other commercial interests just pass the cost on to the consumer. I've driven personal diesel vehicles since it was 19 cents a gallon.

All I can say is just last summer, around here at least, diesel was ~$2.79/gallon while regular unleaded was hovering around $3.00. As winter approached, diesel started to climb to the levels it is now. Will it go down again next summer? Don't know. Time will tell... I hope.

The best truck I ever drove was my father's 1992 Chev 6.2L diesel 1/2T.
Thing went forever on a tank (30mpg+) and when it was sold it had over 500,000km that were all trouble free.

All I can say is just last summer, around here at least, diesel was ~$2.79/gallon while regular unleaded was hovering around $3.00. As winter approached, diesel started to climb to the levels it is now. Will it go down again next summer? Don't know. Time will tell... I hope.

No, it's chronic everywhere. Gas prices rise and fall, but diesel prices tend to go up and stay up. Right now, you'd think they were dying, FINALLY dropping about 3 weeks later a whopping 10 cents, only 50 cents above Premium.

My point was that they have started the refineries are to blame stuff about 10 or so years ago. I realize when they take crude oil that they have to select the products that can be made from it. But again, there are less heating oil consumers than 10 or 20 years ago AND those that are, have replaced their furnaces with more efficient ones. In our last house, we burned MAYBE 450 gallons a year total (running the burner for hot water all year). New homes rarely have oil, but have natural gas, propane, or electric.

No, we diesel consumers just put up with it, because we don't have the power of 95%+ of the car market with gas prices. When gas goes up, everyone yells about it. Notice which prices drop?