Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel Option Likely

NJCRD · **Posted:** Thu May 12, 2011 11:34 pm

Rumor also had Dodge using a small Cummins in their 1500 series for 2011...
Never happened.
Rumor had Toyota Tundra with a diesel for 2010.. that never happened.
After being a test mule for Chrysler with a poorly engineered vehichle, under rated ball joints, brakes, etc, etc. I'll never buy another Jeep.
With the new emssions requirements for 2013 it will be a true disaster for all diesels. Cummins will be forced to comply with using urea, just a shame.

NJCRD · **Posted:** Thu May 12, 2011 11:34 pm

Rumor also had Dodge using a small Cummins in their 1500 series for 2011...
Never happened.
Rumor had Toyota Tundra with a diesel for 2010.. that never happened.
After being a test mule for Chrysler with a poorly engineered vehichle, under rated ball joints, brakes, etc, etc. I'll never buy another Jeep.
With the new emssions requirements for 2013 it will be a true disaster for all diesels. Cummins will be forced to comply with using urea, just a shame.

boilermaker2 · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2011 8:41 am

geordi wrote:

The rumor mill ALWAYS sets the release date as (currentMY + 2) so that the sheeple will continue to pay attention to any and all press releases and advertising. This has a dual purpose:
1: To keep the sheeple busy being inundated by that manufacturer's marketing, so they might not have enough time to read material from a competitor, thus enhancing brand loyalty.
2: Hopefully during the ensuing period of marketing drivel (while the manufacturer may or may not be building what they hinted at) the sheep needs a new vehicle, and being inundated with marketing drivel (see reason #1) they might buy a different vehicle from that manufacturer.

Want proof of this theory? Look to Ford and GM, and their continuous pledges about offering a diesel in the smallest midsize trucks in their lineups. (Not the Canyon / Ranger size, the 1500 / F150 size) There is NO good reason why a truck that size can't have our engine or a similar one, yet the manufacturers continue to promise and dither and deliver NOTHING.

Geordi, I agree with you on points 1 & 2. However, I'm not certain Ford will be messing with diesel anymore. When they can make a V6 gasser be a truck while gettin 22-23 Hwy, I'm not sure sure they need to or should even want...especially if they can squeeze a little more out of it. This is the first vehicle produced since our Jeep that can do what I want it to do and still get good mileage (except for the WK CRD). Jeeps paid for so it will be driven until it dies :dead:

, the Eco Boost F150 will likely replace it unless it turns into an Eco Bust.

Boiler

onthehunt · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2011 2:24 pm

I found this on another board. I don't agree with everything but for the most part, it's correct.

Lets look at the Diesel proposition and I think you'll understand why Ford dropped it. First, I don't think it would ever get 25 MPG in a 1/2 ton, unless it was a 4 cyl 180 Horsepower Diesel, and although that would do the job fine, Americans wouldn't accept that. So the engine would likely be a 300 Horsepower 400 torque V6 Diesel that got the same economy as Ecoboost.

But just for arguement, lets say they did magically get 25 MPG highway. You own one for 80,000 miles.

80,000/ 25 mpg = 3200 gallon, times 3.331 per gallon (national average) = $10,659.20 in fuel

Compared to Ecoboost at 21 MPG
80,000/ 21 MPG = 3809.5 gallons times 3.07per gallon = $11,695.17

So the "magic 25 MPG" diesel would save you $1,035.97 in fuel. Now lets look deeper. For my speculation Oil, the capacity of the diesel will be much larger (oil change intervol will be simmilar based on 6.7L Power Stroke vs EcoBoost intervols). So lets say its 7,000 mile oil changes. EcoBoost takes 6 quarts of oil vs lets say 12 for the Diesel (most 3/4 tons take 15-17, so lets say 12 to be slighly less since its a V6). So in 10 Oil changes you'd be buying 60 more quarts, O'Reilly has store brand oil on special for $2.99 per quart so you're talking another $179.40 in oil.

Also the Ecoboost takes a Fl-500S OIl filter (O'Reily lists it for $7.99), a new Power Stroke takes a Fl-2051 (O'Reily $23.99) so now the Diesel adds another $160 in oil filter costs.

This drops our savings to $696.57 (1,035.97 -179.40 -$160)

Now lets look at Fuel Filters. Lets assume the diesel requires one every other oil change like the Power Stroke does. A FD-46.15 sells for 62.99 (again Oreilly), so now we've got another $$314.95 in added expense for the Diesel. This drags our savings down to $381.62. For some you can stop here, but for those of us in the north we have an additional factor. Cold weather. Blended diesel fuel will drop that economy drastically, and we also have to add fuel additive to prevent gelling, this will easily shoot the $381.62 in fuel savings. Also if this engine is to get economy and meet emmisions it will likely have DEF injection (look at economy gains of 2010 Ford or GM engines compared to 2011 due to urea)

Now lets assume that you didn't have to buy any additive and stayed where fuel didn't get blended so you saved the $400, do you really think you'll be able to buy the Diesel option for $400 more than an EcoBoost. Considering a 3/4 ton Diesel is $7800 over a 6.2L, even if you 1/2 that, its safe to say the Diesl would be $3900 (and I seriously doubt that would cover it with the cost of DPF system and Urea injection, I'd bet on $5000 or more).

Now tell me how a Diesel 1/2 ton will save me money?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

Also- on resale

I also predict (but admitedly this is educated guess) that this will be getting worse. We're seeing used diesels getting harder and harder to sell and banks are no longer eager to finance high mileage diesels. The high cost of repairs is making it much harder to sell older trucks than it was a few years ago. I don't care what brand of truck, the repairs on a Diesel cost exponentially more than the same repair on a gas engine. This is hurting the high mileage stuff now, but it will start a trickle down effect

papaindigo · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2011 3:48 pm

My crystal ball is not all that good but the offical mpg ratings on the 2011 Ford EcoBoost are 16 city/22 hwy which I don't find particularly impressive having owned a 1993 D-250 Cummins that consistently provided 18+ city and 24-25 hwy on an old tech (no brain for GDE types to work on) engine although I'll admit it had the 3.54 rear end not the 4.10 but it also had, don't ask me why probably what was in the parts box when the truck hit that part of the line, the extra weight of a single tire 1-ton rear axle/suspension/brakes. That engine rated at 160 hp and 400 ft/lbs torque and Dodge had no problem selling them. 18 years later I don't see why a lighter 4-cylinder turbo diesel with a good 6-speed automatic couldn't be made that would match those hp/torque specs and easily reach in the neighborhood of 25-30 mpg and I'd bet on the high end of that range in a 1/2 ton truck. IMHO truck's mpg across the industry have (insert "s" word not allowed) for decades when compared to cars and manufactures have consistently limited trucks to older engine tech when compared to cars.

Now whether such and engine/tranny combo would make economic sense to build for the US market or pass today's rather extreme US clean air standards so as to be a product that could be sold in the US; that's an entirely different question and I wouldn't bet on a positive answer until the powers that be finally discover that truely renewable source biodiesel is likely more feasible in the long run than wasting food stocks on making the delightful ethanol that I'm currently shoveling out of my outboard motor.

Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel Option Likely

Who is online