North America and Diesel Engines

[Pac987]

Why doesn’t North America use more diesel engines? (I’ve never been to Mexico, so I’m not sure if they do. I’m mainly speaking about US and Canada).

The global platform Ranger exclusively uses diesel motors in Australia, UK, Thailand, The Philippines, etc.

I could be wrong and maybe I am but is North America shying away from diesel because it’s trying to be “cleaner” by using gasoline? Most of the countries in the world use diesel. So what’s the point of us trying to be “cleaner”? That’s an awful lot of other countries with diesel vehicles on the road.

Also, if Ford or other manufacturers for that matter used the same engines globally I would imagine prices would be cheaper for the initial vehicle cost, as well as parts for future maintenance.

Again, I could be wrong but just wanted to voice my thoughts/confusion on the lack of diesel vehicles here.

Sponsored

 

[Scole31]

I believe this is regulated from our good ole pals at the EPA!
( please correct if wrong)

 

[Ranger#5?]

There’s no advantage and multiple negatives choosing diesel for private vehicles IMO. The retail prices at gas stations are constantly manipulated to take advantage of consumers. Your hands stink after every time you touch the nozzle to fill up- needing to rely on disposable gloves is ludicrous and they really don’t work well for fuels and chemicals. You have the constant added expense of adding DEF to your tank, water separating filters, more expensive oil changes, etc.

You also need to keep them running while out of the vehicle on many occasions to avoid damaging wear during repetitive startup cycles. Also we know many manufacturers fudge emissions and MPG numbers with stealth SW which is dishonest, illegal and a deal breaker for many. Should I go on?

Even the supposed advantage of more torque for towing has been negated by modern turbocharged gas engines in trucks. I do see the point of them in long haul trucks and farm applications, but makes no sense at all for consumer daily driving vehicles

as always YMMV

 

[LuckyMonkey7]

There’s no advantage and multiple negatives choosing diesel for private vehicles IMO. The retail prices at gas stations are constantly manipulated to take advantage of consumers. Your hands stink after every time you touch the nozzle to fill up- needing to rely on disposable gloves is ludicrous and they really don’t work well for fuels and chemicals. You have the constant added expense of adding DEF to your tank, water separating filters, more expensive oil changes, etc.

You also need to keep them running while out of the vehicle on many occasions to avoid damaging wear during repetitive startup cycles. Also we know many manufacturers fudge emissions and MPG numbers with stealth SW which is dishonest, illegal and a deal breaker for many. Should I go on?

Even the supposed advantage of more torque for towing has been negated by modern turbocharged gas engines in trucks. I do see the point of them in long haul trucks and farm applications, but makes no sense at all for consumer daily driving vehicles

as always YMMV

Never had to use gloves nor needed them.

Diesels existed before def and were better then. Once deleted many vehicles see more power and better gas (diesel? lets just say fuel) mileage.

They've never fudged emissions or mpg numbers, they met the testing criteria same as every other vehicle that did. Outside of the testing criteria conditions, it became a better product for the consumer, which is admirable.

Nope. I've yet to see a gasoline powered engine in a modern truck reach 1000+ ft lbs of torque. See the F150 vs F250 vs F250 diesel.

F150 3.5TT 375/470
F250 7.3NA 430/485
F250 diesel 475/1050



I have no idea why the US doesn't get more diesel engines, probably because the epa makes life difficult and expensive to produce them. People see the sticker shock of diesel being more expensive even when they get significantly better fuel mileage and longevity.

 

[BigDamnHeroes]

They've never fudged emissions or mpg numbers, they met the testing criteria same as every other vehicle that did. Outside of the testing criteria conditions, it became a better product for the consumer, which is admirable.

VW would like a word...

business-34324772

 

[Pac987]

Out of all the videos I’ve watched on the new gen Ranger none of them have had DEF fill up tank next to the diesel fill.

 

[LuckyMonkey7]

VW would like a word...

business-34324772

"When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode."

So they passed the test. Nothing there says they didn't meet EPAs testing requirements.

 

[Deleted member 6764]

"When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode."

So they passed the test. Nothing there says they didn't meet EPAs testing requirements.

I am not expressing personal opinion here, just what happened. But the software put the vehicles in that mode to meet the EPA requirements only during a test, not in real world conditions. They weren't only required to meet the standards during a test. That is why they had a multi $billion settlement and there were arrests and prison time.

 

[BigDamnHeroes]

"When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out of this test mode."

So they passed the test. Nothing there says they didn't meet EPAs testing requirements.

They cheated to pass the test.. and you don't see that as an issue? Especially after your claim that they never fudged emissions...

 

[LuckyMonkey7]

They cheated to pass the test.. and you don't see that as an issue? Especially after your claim that they never fudged emissions...

They didn't fudge the numbers. The emissions numbers were reported as what they were during the test, the same as every other vehicle.

There isn't a way to cheat the test. The car doesn't affect the sensors the test uses.

Do vehicles run the exact same fuel/spark/timing tables in ALL conditions? Or do they adjust based on conditions? That is exactly what they did, adjust to the conditions.

 

[pyates999]

Diesel engines have their advantages & place in society but due to EPA regulations they are more expensive to manufacture. So much so that Caterpillar doesn’t manufacture over the road engines any longer. For a major producer such as Cat to step away from such a huge market says a lot about the challenges placed upon manufacturers by the government & EPA regulations.

 

[Ranger#5?]

Never had to use gloves nor needed them.

Diesels existed before def and were better then. Once deleted many vehicles see more power and better gas (diesel? lets just say fuel) mileage.

They've never fudged emissions or mpg numbers, they met the testing criteria same as every other vehicle that did. Outside of the testing criteria conditions, it became a better product for the consumer, which is admirable.

Nope. I've yet to see a gasoline powered engine in a modern truck reach 1000+ ft lbs of torque. See the F150 vs F250 vs F250 diesel.

F150 3.5TT 375/470
F250 7.3NA 430/485
F250 diesel 475/1050



I have no idea why the US doesn't get more diesel engines, probably because the epa makes life difficult and expensive to produce them. People see the sticker shock of diesel being more expensive even when they get significantly better fuel mileage and longevity.

nice dodge and redirect. Back on topic, how about comparing a mid size North America Ranger standard 2.3 against a ROW smallest diesel offered? The whole point of exploiting/promoting the turbo motors is getting comparable towing and load capacities vs. alternatives available at the time. Speaking of which, new GM twins went exclusively to 4 cyl gas turbos now and dropped diesel option. Maybe they know something you don't?

 

[BigDamnHeroes]

They didn't fudge the numbers. The emissions numbers were reported as what they were during the test, the same as every other vehicle.

There isn't a way to cheat the test. The car doesn't affect the sensors the test uses.

Do vehicles run the exact same fuel/spark/timing tables in ALL conditions? Or do they adjust based on conditions? That is exactly what they did, adjust to the conditions.

Wow... that's a whole other level of ignoring what happened. If they didn't cheat the test why did VW say "we cheated the test"?

The "test" mode passed the test.. outside of the test mode.. the engines emitted 40x the EPA limit on nitrogen oxide pollutants.

If they didn't cheat the test... why were they sued by various governments (including the US).For Fraud, including Germany individually suing 5 executives involved in the decision to cheat the test?

If they didn't cheat the test... why is there a $10 billion settlement with the FTC around the fraud? and a $5 billion one with the DOJ?

 

[Ranger#5?]

Diesel engines have their advantages & place in society but due to EPA regulations they are more expensive to manufacture. So much so that Caterpillar doesn’t manufacture over the road engines any longer. For a major producer such as Cat to step away from such a huge market says a lot about the challenges placed upon manufacturers by the government & EPA regulations.

also, more expensive to own and operate as daily drivers in real world conditions as I detailed a few factors in earlier post. Gotta wonder why CA started phasing out diesel trucks several years ago already...

Remember, as CA goes, so goes the rest of the country and they are leading the charge against ALL ICE propulsion methods and fuels. Coming to a theater near you

 

[LuckyMonkey7]

nice dodge and redirect. Back on topic, how about comparing a mid size North America Ranger standard 2.3 against a ROW smallest diesel offered? The whole point of exploiting/promoting the turbo motors is getting comparable towing and load capacities vs. alternatives available at the time. Speaking of which, new GM twins went exclusively to 4 cyl gas turbos now and dropped diesel option. Maybe they know something you don't?

ROW ranger diesel 2.0TT
246/369
US ranger 2.3T
270/310

Which one would be better at towing?

Maybe the added price of their diesel option was too great, plus the extra cost of fuel and maintenance. Manufacturers build what sells, and start cutting out things that don't sell well.

Sponsored