[igotzzoom]

If I had to predict a diesel for the K2XX, I think it would probably be a 3.5L V-6 with around 285 hp/485 lb-ft. That would give it a pretty decisive power edge over the EcoDiesel, but combined with an 8-speed trans, should deliver competitive fuel economy. It will be interesting to see what's finally announced.

 

[KingElvis]

You got a Ram right, what shape are your wheelwells?


ef·fem·i·nate (adjective)

Having or showing qualities that are considered more suited to women than to men : not manly

We're talking about the pickup, not the driver. But in any case you are covered. Thank God and Chevrolet, not necessarily in that order. ;-)

((and with this auspicious 5000th post, I have become supercharged and CTS-V worthy - ALL HAIL LS9))

 

[CJH]

Even with some residual value added back in, still does not have a payback.

I am about 50/50 City/Highway, I am currently running 18-19MPG combined on my 2014 Silverado. Looking at the Dodge it is about 6MPG better, running the numbers with a $0.40 difference in Gas vs Diesel right now by me (yes this changes with fuel price fluctuation, but I needed a starting point for comparison) and 12K miles a year:

12,000Miles / 18MPG * $3.00 = $2000/yr in fuel on my current silverado
12,000Miles / 24MPG * $3.40 = $1700/yr in fuel for a Diesel

Cost for package is $4000 adder at $300/yr savings = 13yr 4mo return for investment of additional $4000. Higher resale will help, but if you selll at 13yr, it will not be more than a couple hundred, and if you sell too early you will still loose.

I know you can play with number, make assumptions about fuel prices, resale, etc, but I needed a comparison point. Don't get me wrong, I would love a Diesel, but at the current up charge, fuel economy is not a valid reason for me.

Its a fair comparison, but there are some flaws. First its not a $4k premium, that only over the base v6, its a $3k premium over the Hemi, which is what you would compare it to and is most comparable to your truck. Secondly, the EPA under rates diesel mileage by over 10%, approximately. Thirdly, the average working age person drives over 15k miles per year. I think your $0.40 premium for diesel is fair.

So if you take those numbers into account, its a much shorter payback:
15,000Miles / 18MPG * $3.00 = $2499.90 Silvy gas
15,000Miles / (24MPG + 10%=26.4MPG) * $3.40 = $1931.80 Ram diesel

Which would mean a fuel savings of $568.1 per year or a 5.2 year buy back @ $3k. You could argue even further that most people get 10% less than the EPA rating on gas (even more if there is an ethanol mandate in your state) and it shrinks that buy back even further. Or if you put on more miles, or tow.......you get the drift.

The point being, everybody's situation is different. The numbers may not work for you, but they very well could work for someone else, so it really makes no sense to judge it based on one example.

 

[Twinpeaksr]

The point being, everybody's situation is different. The numbers may not work for you, but they very well could work for someone else, so it really makes no sense to judge it based on one example.

That is the point, I would love a diesel, but buying it for fuel savings in not true for me.

The numbers I used were what I drive, depending on where you are located they will vary, about 50% of people I know put about 12K on a year, 50% are 15Kish numbers. I also have a 2005 Colorado with 85K on it, so with that few miles, it would be even worse.

The EPA numbers are another problem altogether. They were designed to compare vehicles side to side, but people somehow expect to achieve them overlooking how you drive is not taken into consideration. I don't want to debate accuracy of the EPA numbers, but they are hard to gauge, and comparing t Diesel to Gas, even worse.

I am impressed though that my Silverado is beating the EPA estimates (I know, I just said they have issues, but we compare anyways because everyone else does it). My estimate on the RAM was also generous to account for the screwy EPA numbers, the combined rating is 22 vs Silverado at 18, I should have probably used 22, but as you have pointed out, we can make the numbers look however we want to support our opinion (though I am not sure why I used 24, probably OCD about having them have common divisors).

If I could get a Diesel with comparable Power to the 5.3, I would be willing to pay up to $2000 more for it, $3-4K is a bit much for me, but I can't speak for everyone.

 

[member12]

While the Colorado diesel will be nice, a 60% conquest rate is alarming.

It may certainly be time to offer a diesel engine in all of GM's full-sized trucks - Suburban, Yukon, and Escalade included.

Can you imagine the profit margin on the RAM diesel option?

I couldn't agree more.

Ram deserves these sales, and they are getting them. Their diesel motor is making quite the splash, and until someone answers them, they can charge a premium for that product.

 

[member12]

The 4.5 was developed to fit exactly into the space of a Chevy ohv V8. Hence the turbo between the cylinder banks. It was tested in the Trailblazer SUV at the time and was always intended to be light duty.

Would make a fantastic "entry level" diesel engine on the HD trucks and Express vans. Imagine a V8 gas motor or your choice of two diesel engines, one of which can be paired up to a standard GM automatic transmission - saving you money over the Allison.

 

[maxaccel]

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.

Why not use the same engines?
It takes BIG $$$ to design and develop new engines!
Those savings can go to the shareholders profits..GM is in business to make money not to have bunch of different divisions each with separate engines,,obviously some of the dudes here would bankrupt the company if you were in charge

 

[maxaccel]

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."

Duramax diesel has proven itself to be reliable many times over,,,Id take it over Cummins or Ford any day,,look at the results of HD testing at pickuptrucks.com and Dmax beats the competition in every category

 

[maxaccel]

That is the point, I would love a diesel, but buying it for fuel savings in not true for me.

The numbers I used were what I drive, depending on where you are located they will vary, about 50% of people I know put about 12K on a year, 50% are 15Kish numbers. I also have a 2005 Colorado with 85K on it, so with that few miles, it would be even worse.

The EPA numbers are another problem altogether. They were designed to compare vehicles side to side, but people somehow expect to achieve them overlooking how you drive is not taken into consideration. I don't want to debate accuracy of the EPA numbers, but they are hard to gauge, and comparing t Diesel to Gas, even worse.

I am impressed though that my Silverado is beating the EPA estimates (I know, I just said they have issues, but we compare anyways because everyone else does it). My estimate on the RAM was also generous to account for the screwy EPA numbers, the combined rating is 22 vs Silverado at 18, I should have probably used 22, but as you have pointed out, we can make the numbers look however we want to support our opinion (though I am not sure why I used 24, probably OCD about having them have common divisors).

If I could get a Diesel with comparable Power to the 5.3, I would be willing to pay up to $2000 more for it, $3-4K is a bit much for me, but I can't speak for everyone.

I don't care for diesels mostly bc it takes forever to warm up in winter,,I know people who go shopping in the store and leave their engines idling all the while,,hardly an efficient way to save on fuel!!

 

[Twinpeaksr]

I don't care for diesels mostly bc it takes forever to warm up in winter,,I know people who go shopping in the store and leave their engines idling all the while,,hardly an efficient way to save on fuel!!

As with any option, not everyone wants it. Modern Diesel does not have the problem when fueled right, but we are creatures of habit and this used to be the case (hence some continue to do so).

 

[usayjim2]

The list of 4 reasons people buy trucks does NOT give the biggest reason of all , that of reliability and customer satisfaction . Ford's yearly refinement of their basic design has been a huge factor in its acceptance and retention of its customers . Plus they innovate , I knew Ford was planning the lose about 700 lbs in weight over a year ago , it was no secret on the internet , Ford innovates , does not rest on its laurels . Ram is doing great things , the current model has attracted 60 % in conquest sales , that is huge . What is also remarkable , going back several years ago , their trucks were also rans , but they focussed on yearly refinement and quality and boy did that work , sales are now double digit increases . Plus being innovators , adding a small block diesel is really smart , but will it offer better economy , they are touting 40 mpg ? Will that materialize and be a big sales motivator , we must wait and see , but YES for sales , for sure . North of the 49th , fuel costs in this province are about the lowest but still over 4.00 gallon , so filling up these thirsty trucks can cost you over 160.-180.00 bucks minimum , for one fill up !!! GM is doing very well with its new truck lines but they do not appear to innovate but play the catch up game ,,, and are doing it well . However , I can visualize GM running around trying to tie up supplies of aluminum after Ford has secured probably the best sources/ lowest prices . Catch up can be such a bitch ! Finally , what happens when the innovators , Ford's aluminum light weight pick up hits the marketplace and RAM's new diesel , growing strong reputation and perhaps continued high conquest sales , gains more acceptance ? This is an exciting times for truck buyers as this three way competition will undoubtedly lower prices/ interest rates and freebies for the consumer , whats not to like ??