[NoStopN]

Good grief, the 4.5L Babymax is the automotive equivalent of The Walking Dead. The article only brings it up to remind readers that GM gave up on the idea even before they tested the market. Ford did the same for North America, but it's 4.4L V8 TD lives on other continents. Even Cummins, who planned to partner with Chrysler, found a new partner when the ChryCo bankruptcy allowed them to cancel the Cummins contract. Ram may be having a problem with supply, but the demand is still there. Nissan will try to get into the mix & Ford already has their 3.2L I5 engine certified for the Transit & would be able to be added to the F150 quickly. If GM wants a dog in this fight at all, the Colorado/Canyon TD can't get here soon enough.

 

[Amphibian]

The 4.5L turbodiesel, depending on updates, should absolutely make its way into the GM trucks. By that I'm also including the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL. Depending on the take rate, the Escalade might even benefit from it. A V-8 diesel would still provide exceptional fuel economy with fantastic performance, especially if they paired it with the 8AT as well (not sure if they will though). The thing is, you can make a good case for a diesel I-4, V-6, and V-8. GM can offer multiple diesels if the market goes that way. But GM has to go ahead and do this. GM went ahead years ago with cylinder-deactivation, and since then Ford has turned to fewer cylinders with turbocharging and Chrysler has implemented a diesel. GM needs their next move.

 

[optiongm]

Now that Ram has proven a market for smaller diesel I'm sure GM and Ford will respond with their own diesels. But GM and Ford have to build a diesel that commercial truck buyers want. Ram builds more towards personal trucks...

Ram Eco diesel has
Payload of 1620lbs
Towing of 9200lbs

Ram NA V6 has
Payload of 1910lbs
Towing of 7450lbs

This is not a truck diesel engine.......payload is way to low.....

 

[69project]

To me, this is COMMON SENSE.

How could GM NOT see this coming?

The Silverado and Sierra should've LAUNCHED with optional diesel powertrains.

Oh I don't know, GM's experience with diesels in cars in the early 1980's was a disaster so memories are long. They put diesels in 1/2 tons back then too with limited take rates. GM has always been on the conservative when it comes to these decisions. When this decision should have been made I am betting the price of diesel was through the roof so the economic case may have not been there during the post BK days when resources were constrained. I am happy they have gone from "this is a dead issue" to "we are considering it". Maybe the 2016 or 2017's will have them and in spades.

 

[jpd80]

Ram diesel sales would be lucky to be 2,000/mth, I'm not so sure about claims by Ram that
those sales will increase from the current 10% to 20% of total 1500 sales.

Sure Ford and GM could compete but let's take GM for a second:
- give the silverado 5.3 an 8-speed auto and you could see fuel economy jump to 25 mpg,
a brilliant result that would impact around 75-80% of GM's half ton truck buyers.

Similarly, Ford's new lightened '15 F150, set to go forth and do battle with 2.7 Ecoboost,
an engine guaranteed to shake up any notions of F Truck buyers considering a diesel.
I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in
all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.

 

[mchicha]

Steve Kiefer, General Motors' vice president of global powertrain needs to have a fire lit under his bum, why should Buick run around with Chevrolet Engines or Cadillac? Yes, I can see a justification for gearboxes in common, but Engines? This guy needs to style up.

 

[ZR2BlaZeR2]

I really don't see the benefit of a diesel compared to the new 5.3 and 6.2. For eco or must-be-the-best-mpg people, then I get it why the Ram diesel is selling. Great for them. But around here in the NE, diesel fuel is $1.00 more than regular per gallon. So for my crude math, it is no benefit.
Pre-low sulfer diesel, this Ram diesel would be a game changer, cause diesel was $1.00 less a gallon. Maybe that's why GM scraped it.

The benefit is the giant chrome DIESEL badge they'll get to stick on the fender. Then all the coal rollers with more money than brains will eat them up. Just like Ford's EcoBoost.

Do you know how many idiots I've had to listen to blab about how badass EcoBoost was compared to GM's V8 when they debuted? Facts and numbers don't matter here.

Its a perception thing that GM is struggling with. RAM or Ford aren't giving their customers anything better or worse than GM, it just really looks that way from 30,000 feet when somebody shows some guts and try something new.

 

[osbornk]

Ummmm are you confusing cars with trucks? Never heard of the Duramax?

You must be a young whippersnapper. When the 350 diesel was put in the GM pickups, the people here in the coalfields bought them by the boatloads. The mineworkers were familiar with diesels because they used and drove them hauling coal every day. It wasn't long before they were on tow trucks or broken down beside the roads or at garages and they were without transportation. Keep in mine, this was when the warranty was 12 months or 12,000 miles. The cost of constantly repairing the blown head gaskets and injector pumps was a hugh expense that led to many being repossessed. Some people sold them if they weren't repossessed or converted them to gas. That made them avoid the Duramax when it became available. Many avoided all diesels and still do. They live by "Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me."

 

[sydtron]

I don't think putting a diesel in the GM LD trucks would be as easy as some think. First, the 4.5 is old technology and I don't think it would be competitive with the newer generation engines. I think it would suffer when compared to newer engines with a lack of power and/or poor fuel mileage.

The 4.5L old tech? Hardly, it was probably being designed for a 2010-2012 launch, complete with Tier IV and Euro 6 in mind. The only problem with it is that mileage wouldn't have been impressive versus the EcoDiesel because the it has 1.5 times the displacement and cylinders. It would probably be at least as fast as the new 5.3L gasser and tow better than the 6.2L, all while likely putting up EPA mileage of around 25 hwy. I wouldn't worry about comparing it to other engines because there are no other engines like it in the segment; the new 2.7 EcoBoost will probably come close for power and fuel economy, but lack the towing and high-load durability chops. If GM really wanted to build this thing, they should have made some light-duty commercial agreements to increase build demand; Cummins is doing this now with their 5.0L V8.

Yes, and we all know how long it takes to do these things. I hope GM has foreseen these problems and have been working on them for some time . Dusting off the 4.5 diesel does not make sense to me. They should have been improving that engine all along. I can not understand GM making a commitment to something and spending a large amount of money, then just put it on the shelf. That not a good way to run a company.

It was more about truck sales tanking at the time and GM not having the capital required to tool up production. I would say that isn't a bad way to run a company (why outlay capital that could be used on other profitable projects on an engine you think you will lose money on with every sale?), but it is a shame the design work was already done; improving it all along would be a waste of money too, as it is not generating any revenue. I'd love to see this engine in production, but it just doesn't seem to have a large enough niche to seriously impact CAFE or the bottom line.

 

[DGA]

Same story as always, GM is considering doing something with their #1 selling and earning product. Are their resources stretched too thin, not sure what to do, not sure what direction to go in, plainly don't care? It's almost amusing to see what the competition is doing to good old GM in the truck segment. While Ram and Ford make trucks that people are clamoring for, GM makes half baked sticker and wheel packages.

 

[jpd80]

Steve Kiefer, General Motors' vice president of global powertrain needs to have a fire lit under his bum, why should Buick run around with Chevrolet Engines or Cadillac? Yes, I can see a justification for gearboxes in common, but Engines? This guy needs to style up.

Once you go away from corporate engines used across the board, your scales of economy on components and calibration development and reliability testing goes out the window,
What should be possible is unique calibrations of those corporate engines to extract character and features that should become hallmarks of the respective brands. Get the basic design of the engines right and everything flows from there.

 

[jpd80]

On topic, GM recently sold its stake in VM Motori for a relative pittance... what did GM know to make such a decision, were they stupid or is there something better on offer?
Does GM need a diesel half ton or does it have its own "Ecoboost" strategy or even next generation AFM technology that makes diesel options less attractive by swinging the fuel economy balance back to gasoline?

 

[NoStopN]

The 4.5L turbodiesel, depending on updates, should absolutely make its way into the GM trucks. By that I'm also including the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL. Depending on the take rate, the Escalade might even benefit from it. A V-8 diesel would still provide exceptional fuel economy with fantastic performance, especially if they paired it with the 8AT as well (not sure if they will though). The thing is, you can make a good case for a diesel I-4, V-6, and V-8. GM can offer multiple diesels if the market goes that way. But GM has to go ahead and do this. GM went ahead years ago with cylinder-deactivation, and since then Ford has turned to fewer cylinders with turbocharging and Chrysler has implemented a diesel. GM needs their next move.

I was ready to jump on a half-ton before the BK when GM planned to build the 4.5L. But, the 4.5 would now have to be retuned at the very least to get every little MPG out of it. But, then they risk the perception that they don't know how to build a diesel because it would be weaker than some other diesel engines of similar size. GM should have been planning on a V6 diesel after bankruptcy. We've actually had a discussion about the ColoCanyon's 2.8L 4-cylinder TD being used in the half-tons. Based on the torque ratings of the 4-cylinder compared to the middle-'90s 6.5L V8 half-ton TDs, a 6 or 8-speed transmission could make up for the displacement difference, but there actually isn't a big difference in HP/TQ. But, GM is positioning the ColoCanyon as a response to the Ram EcoDiesel. Both are positioned for people who don't work their trucks very hard, but want decent grunt when they do need to work them. Otherwise, they are just treated as tall cars & the TD is a more FE option.

I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.

It depends on what your choice of performance is. If you want a relatively fast moving truck for commuting, the EB should be fine (325 HP/375 Lb.-ft.). If you want something that will haul a good sized boat to the lake once or twice a month, the ED might be better (240 HP/420 lb.-ft.). Ford might have a compelling package if diesel fuel remains higher than gasoline. The only thing that I still hang up on is that diesel vehicles get much closer to the upper end of the EPA mileage ratings than most gas engined vehicles, which hover more toward the lower end of the ratings. So, a realistic 25 for the Ram looks better on paper than a realistic 20 from the 2.7L F150.

 

[WoodieLongRoof]

The "magic" of the Diesel Ram is its stellar mpg rating and near-10,000 lb tow rating. From 3.0L. And is apparently VERY efficient in the real world.

What will the 4.5L BabyMax return for economy? Any better than the 4.3L V6-gas? And no doubt it will out-tow, theoretically, the Ram. But, as a 1500 shopper, who needs-expects more than 10,000 lb tow ratings when shopping for a fuel-conscious pick-em-up?

I was a HUGE proponent of the BabyMax, as conceived-described back in '08. But it's NOT '08 anymore...

 

[mileageman]

Ram diesel sales would be lucky to be 2,000/mth, I'm not so sure about claims by Ram that
those sales will increase from the current 10% to 20% of total 1500 sales.

Sure Ford and GM could compete but let's take GM for a second:
- give the silverado 5.3 an 8-speed auto and you could see fuel economy jump to 25 mpg,
a brilliant result that would impact around 75-80% of GM's half ton truck buyers.

Similarly, Ford's new lightened '15 F150, set to go forth and do battle with 2.7 Ecoboost,
an engine guaranteed to shake up any notions of F Truck buyers considering a diesel.
I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in
all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.

I don't think you're going to see a small turbo'd gas engine come anywhere close to a small turbodiesel *at least* until low sulfur gas is standard in the United States. Lean burning can't be done very well with current gas setups and that is a major source of gain for diesels.

Even then throttle less gas engines still need a lot of improvement, and the low non boosted CR might only be able to be addressed by water or water/methanol injection. Still, people are wiling to load DEF into their diesels now as a second required fluid, I could see people also be willing to add water/methanol into turbo/gas engines as a second fluid.

I know that nobody is going to build one but I would love to see what a 3.0L-3.3L pushrod V6 single turbo water injected setup could do. Give it an 8 speed and dump the torque converter for an electric motor and make a mild hybrid out of it and you would have a (probably) epic fuel economy engine.

 

[spd98]

GM has zero excuse for not being the first to market with a half ton diesel.

 

[sydtron]

The 4.5L turbodiesel, depending on updates, should absolutely make its way into the GM trucks. By that I'm also including the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL. Depending on the take rate, the Escalade might even benefit from it. A V-8 diesel would still provide exceptional fuel economy with fantastic performance, especially if they paired it with the 8AT as well (not sure if they will though). The thing is, you can make a good case for a diesel I-4, V-6, and V-8. GM can offer multiple diesels if the market goes that way. But GM has to go ahead and do this. GM went ahead years ago with cylinder-deactivation, and since then Ford has turned to fewer cylinders with turbocharging and Chrysler has implemented a diesel. GM needs their next move.

I feel the same way, this engine makes more sense in the K2XX SUVs than it does in the trucks. If they still sold like they did 10 years ago, dropping the 4.5L in their would be a no brainer - your take rate wouldn't have to break single digits to make production profitable. Unfortunately things are a bit different now, GM could really use a V6 diesel though.

Now that Ram has proven a market for smaller diesel I'm sure GM and Ford will respond with their own diesels. But GM and Ford have to build a diesel that commercial truck buyers want. Ram builds more towards personal trucks...

Ram Eco diesel has
Payload of 1620lbs
Towing of 9200lbs

Ram NA V6 has
Payload of 1910lbs
Towing of 7450lbs

This is not a truck diesel engine.......payload is way to low.....

Depends on what you call a "truck engine", but I agree. The Eco Diesel, while not "highest tow-rating champ!", gives you almost as much capabilities as the V8 (for the few times it may be needed) but with fuel economy noticably exceeding the V6. The 4.5 Duramax would be much more a workhorse than that, probably even better versus the new 6.2L, but unfortunately probably not beat the 5.3L's CAFE by a significant amount. The 4.5L targets a market with a heavier duty cycle, and I'm sure a lot of those buyers skip over 1/2 tons and go right to the HD truck market. Probably a great engine, but a tougher "this or that" against sell with GM's current gas options.

Ram diesel sales would be lucky to be 2,000/mth, I'm not so sure about claims by Ram that those sales will increase from the current 10% to 20% of total 1500 sales.

Sure Ford and GM could compete but let's take GM for a second:
- give the silverado 5.3 an 8-speed auto and you could see fuel economy jump to 25 mpg, a brilliant result that would impact around 75-80% of GM's half ton truck buyers.

Similarly, Ford's new lightened '15 F150, set to go forth and do battle with 2.7 Ecoboost, an engine guaranteed to shake up any notions of F Truck buyers considering a diesel. I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.

The 8-speed bringing the 5.3L 25 mpg is a pipedream, I think we will be lucky if they get 1 mpg higher on the hwy or even 1 mpg combined. But that is a much better and cheaper solution that would affect every truck sold, not just a potential small take of diesels. Along the same thinking, going with an Aluminum body like Ford would affect every truck and is likely a better investment. Not to say GM isn't looking to compete directly with Ford and Ram, but it's all about the CAFE going forward and those things are more important to that end than an optional diesel.

My take, the 2.7 EcoBoost won't match the 3.0L ED on fuel economy (I'd guess 2-3 mpg off on the hwy ratings), we already know it doesn't quite match on towing (8500 lbs versus 9200 lbs), but will probably be a bit faster at WOT. It will be an interesting proposition and is a good experiment on how much change truck buyers will accept!

 

[DGA]

The 2.8L diesel in a 1/2 ton could do really well even if it has lower Hp and Tq than the 3.0L in the Ram...if got better fuel economy numbers, that is. Which is very doable. Only thing that it would have going against it is that the numbers for the same engine in the Colorado/Canyon would be better, towing, efficiency, acceleration etc. It would really be up to GM advertising to spin this right though, which at the moment I'm doubtful they can do...

 

[AMERICA 123]

In a sense, there are basically three major groupings you can place all LD diesel PTs into.

One of them is currently a European specialty more or less. Let's just call it what it is "high performance".

Anyway, a 4.0 /4.5 DM in the forms most likely to be brought would not in a net sense end up suffering in comparison to any other TD Pick Up / SUV.


The only real question within is about with what transmissions......... / ATs

And that in turn would necessarily feedback and determine some things about the DM itself.


If they stuck with the lower output per cube but more cubes to work with approach ..... it might be surprising what they could come up with using even 'just' the right kind of 6sp AT -

And yes, the right kind of 8sp AT is obviously also of interest - furthermore, perhaps both could be as well.


Especially if different states of tune are provided for.


Timing in so many ways is but one of the many externals that really matters.

And yes, they have, for no good reason wasted years of it already with regard to something like this.


The other thing about a DM V8 is where else it could be of possible interest.

That space on a first pass, is much bigger and imo better, than many realize.



Anyway, two off the wall examples will follow just to stretch the thinking -

Hang on gotta' see if I can find the one -

Damn.... no great video......... well this will suffice for now.

4,134 cc V8 TD ( Much older ( but updated eh, twice as needed ) - base architecture by many years than the DM 4.5 )

Approx. 382 - 385 Hp

627 pd ft pf torque from 2,000 to 2750 rpm.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives...orsche-Cayenne-Diesel-S-facelift-2014-review/

http://www.pistonheads.com/roadtests/doc.asp?c=105&i=29686

Driven briskly plus plus, capable of about double the mpg of the Cayenne S gasser twin turbo V8.


And for those who just hafta' mess with the beast ........

From over a year and half ago...... and with regard to the earlier configuration

Keep in mind, that globally Cayenne has been accounting for approx. 51 - 55 % of Porsche sales and ..... 80 % of those have been with one diesel or the other once available .....


2. ) All changed up from 2008 / 2009 ..... and the firm is still in process basically.

Able to take advantage of many of the better forms of bio diesel.

Two or three other states of tune available.

DM 6.6 v8 TD.......

http://www.tridentsportscars.com/

 

[jpd80]

The 8-speed bringing the 5.3L 25 mpg is a pipedream, I think we will be lucky if they get 1 mpg higher on the hwy or even 1 mpg combined. But that is a much better and cheaper solution that would affect every truck sold, not just a potential small take of diesels. Along the same thinking, going with an Aluminum body like Ford would affect every truck and is likely a better investment. Not to say GM isn't looking to compete directly with Ford and Ram, but it's all about the CAFE going forward and those things are more important to that end than an optional diesel.

My take, the 2.7 EcoBoost won't match the 3.0L ED on fuel economy (I'd guess 2-3 mpg off on the hwy ratings), we already know it doesn't quite match on towing (8500 lbs versus 9200 lbs), but will probably be a bit faster at WOT. It will be an interesting proposition and is a good experiment on how much change truck buyers will accept!

Most sensible owners don't buy a truck to tow on the max. and if we're brutally honest most of them are
glorified shopping trolleys. What will be interesting is that both sets of buyers will be able to compare the
features of both trucks, I'm willing to bet that Ecoboost satisfies most F150 buyers who were thinking of
switching to a Ram diesel and that's all that really matters,

No one is really trying to convince genuine diesel buyers to switch back to Ecoboost.