Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
@IamZardoz: They're just not available here, but the rest of the world has been enjoying them for years. Because every jackass who wants a truck just buys something oversized, instead of a truck they could actually use. So it doesn't make any sense for companies to put a diesel in anything smaller than a 3/4 ton.
If you really want a small diesel truck, it's time to start rooting for Mahindra.
@elwood: I'm pretty sure it's all about emissions. GM used to offer half-ton diesel pickups and SUVs up until the early '90s (but not in California, obviously), but as soon as federal regs started tightening on sub-8500lbs. GVW vehicles, it was game over. At least, that's how it seemed to go down.
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
It's is very difficult to try and get diesels to pass the new EPA 2010 emission regulations. Not only do you have to have a DPF, but you have to have an electronic EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculator), and a place to store a Urea tank. All of these components have electronic sensors, that run off the engine management computer system.
That said, did you know that Caterpillar Engine will no longer offer a highway specific engine after 2009? They could not clean up their engine to meet the new standards, and Navistar is trying to get a one year waver from the EPA for their Durastar Truck Engines, because it looks like they won't meet the standards either.
Way to go guys! How come when it's time to tighten belts, the bean-counters are given free rein to "save" as much money as they can in the short term with predictably disastrous results in the long term. How about instead of axing this fine engine, they get rid of something that really needs to go? Like about 2/3 of the bean counters, maybe?
This is frowned upon for touchy-feely sensitivity reasons, but I've always been a big fan of lining up a group that needs to be thinned, and (figuratively) shooting the non-performers. This often causes the more motivated team members to "encourage" the marginal performers who are left to step it up and often makes the smaller team more productive after downsizing.
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
speaking as a 'bean counter' and a former SAE member I'll say that cuts are usually made my the marketing and production types. Us finance peeps just give the options.
GM has to conserve cash, if they don't do that they'll be bankrupt. Unfortunately for them that means that they have to stop something.
Stop this - an engine for pickups and light trucks - vehicles that aren't selling; or stop something else. This is a nice engine that doesn't have a large enough market to support the costs in a short enough time.
While your lining up folks (figuratively) start with the marketing types that put all their eggs in the SUV basket.
@ursa: I figure marketing types are going to hell anyway, and there aren't enough of them that are worth the fair market value of their constituent elements to make shooting them (even not figuratively) worth the price of the bullets in the long run. I realize that bean counters are nothing more than an easy target for the ire of those of us who see a decidedly dysfunctional system slowly grinding to a halt under the weight of multiple levels of bad decisions made in an environment that doesn't foster the good communication needed to keep such a behemoth moving. Low-hanging fruit and all that. As much as I detest marketing types, you can't hold them solely responsible either, as a fuck-up of this magnitude requires the participation of many different departments.
I do agree that GM could make much better use of a smaller diesel right now, and that this is probably better suited to a 1 ton truck than a half-ton, but if you're not making what people think they want to buy, you're not going to sell enough vehicles to stay afloat.
Also- FWIW, I don't think bankruptcy would necessarily be a bad thing for GM. There are obviously some fundamental flaws in the current system, and if the guv'mint keeps giving them money, those issues will never be addressed and failure will only be postponed.
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
They dropped the development effort on the 4.5l Diesel to peruse their core business...2+liter 4 cylinder engines making < 100hp. And people wonder why they're failing...
@Bumpy: I've been told that GM is failing because they're not building the cars they want to buy. But then you're telling me they're making wimpy 4-cyl engines. And then Toyota is apparantly the cars people want to buy, and they've got a lot of wimpy 4 cyl engines.
@BLS: Right. 2.2l 4cyl making 140hp is a brute. Crappy build quality + crappy engines + $30/hr idiots assembling cars = FAIL. I'm not making some sort of random off the cuff statement here. These are just the facts. Look at GM stock and tell me I'm wrong.
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was starred
Mike the Dog is sitting by the door with a pair of cow slippers, and a very sad face. was unstarred
The only "downfall" to this engine was it wasn't going to be overbuilt the way the big D-maxes are. You get an engine capable of 1000 ft-lbs stock, although it is "only" set up for 660 or so. That is great for those interested in tuning, but it drove unnecessary costs for everyone else.
The 4.5 was designed around the amount of torque it will make, not "could." I would have thought the pricing to be much more competitive with the gas engines, but with much better performance, both towing and milage.
I wonder how much of this has to do with all of the bullshit regulations being placed on diesels in the coming years. The DPF destroys all value of newer rigs, until you remove it.
@rlj676-Carbon Footprint Size - Clownshoe: I didn't realize they were putting DPFs on truck engines...I thought that was only on cars due to a "truck loophole" in the regs.
As cool as it is, I can't help but think that all the guys I see in lifted Duramax trucks with dual 3" pipes spewing black smoke at idle aren't exactly helping diesel's mainstream acceptance. But it's still cool.
@rlj676-Carbon Footprint Size - Clownshoe: Good luck trying to remove the DPF. There are electronic sensors attached to the system, along with small fuel lines to help "keep the temperature up" when you have to do a manual regeneration. Here's an image of a DPF:
And, here's one with the sensors connected.
Good luck trying to get your new electronically controlled Turbo Diesel to run without the DPF.
Haha, well, you better tell that to the thousands of guys out there with NO DPF, and a simple reflash of the ECM.
Now, if you want to tell them "good luck" getting warranty work, than you are right. Otherwise, it is pretty simple to remove the DPF and very commonly done. On the LMM D-Maxes with DPF, you may only get 14 mpg, without, you can see 18-19 (I don't believe the claims of people getting better).
@rlj676-Carbon Footprint Size - Clownshoe: @nitroram33 misses PolaЯ: Well yea, good luck on any warranty work..... Also, good luck in any state that requires inspection, and emission testing every year or every other year. It seems to be a lot of work to re-install all that hardware, re-flash, inspect, then remove and re-flash again. Doesn't seem to be worth it.
If the US EPA keeps tightening the emission levels, there will only be wheezing small engines available anyway. And if you are thinking about keeping older iron, just watch out for the pending scrapping rules that will soon be upon us.... It's happening across the pond right now.
@UDMan: Georgia requires emission testing in metro areas. However ALL diesels are exempt. The 84 K-10 that I had was born as a diesel, but got a gas 350 somewhere along the way. The VIN said diesel, so no emissions testing! There is no check to see if the vehicle is still diesel.
@JCWhitless - I'm totally Re-Starded: There goes my plan to drop it into a late '70s/early '80s GM B- or C-body that was born with an Olds 350 diesel. (Converting a gas one to diesel is verboten if you want to keep it street legal here in CARB-occupied territory.)
And what did Nibbles do to the preview button? Do I even want to know?
I had been thinking a small V6 or V8 diesel would be the killer app for most pickups once the mpg hit 25+. In a fleet, that's a huge improvement over 18 or 20.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
If you really want a small diesel truck, it's time to start rooting for Mahindra.
03/11/09
03/11/09
* here CGI = "Compacted Graphite Iron", not Pixar animation or desktop computers...
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
That said, did you know that Caterpillar Engine will no longer offer a highway specific engine after 2009? They could not clean up their engine to meet the new standards, and Navistar is trying to get a one year waver from the EPA for their Durastar Truck Engines, because it looks like they won't meet the standards either.
03/11/09
This is frowned upon for touchy-feely sensitivity reasons, but I've always been a big fan of lining up a group that needs to be thinned, and (figuratively) shooting the non-performers. This often causes the more motivated team members to "encourage" the marginal performers who are left to step it up and often makes the smaller team more productive after downsizing.
03/11/09
Hey, Pete! I understand why there's no edit button, but can we please have our preview button back? It makes proofreading a whole lot easier...
03/11/09
speaking as a 'bean counter' and a former SAE member I'll say that cuts are usually made my the marketing and production types. Us finance peeps just give the options.
GM has to conserve cash, if they don't do that they'll be bankrupt. Unfortunately for them that means that they have to stop something.
Stop this - an engine for pickups and light trucks - vehicles that aren't selling; or stop something else. This is a nice engine that doesn't have a large enough market to support the costs in a short enough time.
While your lining up folks (figuratively) start with the marketing types that put all their eggs in the SUV basket.
The don't need a 4.5L, they need a 2.8L diesel.
03/11/09
I do agree that GM could make much better use of a smaller diesel right now, and that this is probably better suited to a 1 ton truck than a half-ton, but if you're not making what people think they want to buy, you're not going to sell enough vehicles to stay afloat.
Also- FWIW, I don't think bankruptcy would necessarily be a bad thing for GM. There are obviously some fundamental flaws in the current system, and if the guv'mint keeps giving them money, those issues will never be addressed and failure will only be postponed.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
This comment is sarcastic.
03/11/09
It's too early to be so confused.
03/11/09
FWIW the new Cobalt SS is bad ass, and powerful.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
At least us engine-nerds can still drool over the BMW 4.4L TT with the turbos in the valley. Wacky Germans.
03/11/09
The only "downfall" to this engine was it wasn't going to be overbuilt the way the big D-maxes are. You get an engine capable of 1000 ft-lbs stock, although it is "only" set up for 660 or so. That is great for those interested in tuning, but it drove unnecessary costs for everyone else.
The 4.5 was designed around the amount of torque it will make, not "could." I would have thought the pricing to be much more competitive with the gas engines, but with much better performance, both towing and milage.
I wonder how much of this has to do with all of the bullshit regulations being placed on diesels in the coming years. The DPF destroys all value of newer rigs, until you remove it.
03/11/09
As cool as it is, I can't help but think that all the guys I see in lifted Duramax trucks with dual 3" pipes spewing black smoke at idle aren't exactly helping diesel's mainstream acceptance. But it's still cool.
03/11/09
And, here's one with the sensors connected.
Good luck trying to get your new electronically controlled Turbo Diesel to run without the DPF.
03/11/09
Haha, well, you better tell that to the thousands of guys out there with NO DPF, and a simple reflash of the ECM.
Now, if you want to tell them "good luck" getting warranty work, than you are right. Otherwise, it is pretty simple to remove the DPF and very commonly done. On the LMM D-Maxes with DPF, you may only get 14 mpg, without, you can see 18-19 (I don't believe the claims of people getting better).
03/11/09
If the US EPA keeps tightening the emission levels, there will only be wheezing small engines available anyway. And if you are thinking about keeping older iron, just watch out for the pending scrapping rules that will soon be upon us.... It's happening across the pond right now.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
And what did Nibbles do to the preview button? Do I even want to know?
03/11/09