Why doesn't Ford bring diesel Rangers to the US?

[Jimmeh]

For some reason, this thread makes me ask a simple question:

When they start making fuel out of our poop, will we get paid for taking a dump?

Not sure how popular a poop fueled car would be. It might stink. I'd swap a poop engine in my Ranger, though. Before I head to work, just take a big nasty dump in the "gas" tank (pun intended).

 

[Rulebreaker]

"if we let everyone use diesel the prices will go up" .... everyone uses gas but diesel is more expensive... it costs less to refine than gas and diesel is availible to the public right now. i'd say of 1 out of 15 personal vehicles I see now is a diesel... that dosen't make much sense.

I've been driving the same diesel for 8 years and diesel used to be cheaper than gas till they went low sulfur. That's when it jumped .70 a gallon putting it over gas. The low sulfur in my opinion is junk at least for an older engine. I never plugged my truck in till I got a tank of this new crap. Now I can't unplug it. RB

 

[ducarngr]

If you have a pre-2007 diesel of any kind, you better use a ULSD supplement in your tank.

There is no way around using ULSD, if you want to see more diesel passenger cars on the road. Sulfur in the exhaust is far worse than what gasoline engines put out.

That being said, I think all trucks and SUVs -- even light duty -- should be diesel. The old 80's rangers had 60-80hp but had no problem pulling class 3. The lower emissions should end the bitching about them esp with clean diesel technologies (CRD and particulate reduction/urea injection)

Today's european/UK rangers have about 150 hp, and I bet they pull and ride a lot better as well. A 150 hp turbodiesel engine would probably have over 225-250 ft/lbs of torque.

 

[Jason]

Look at the Sprinter vans. They are all diesel, get 24 mpg ACTUAL MIXED when loaded, and are pretty darn clean burning. My work has a few and you cannot even smell them when they idle.

 

[bobbywalter]

Look at the Sprinter vans. They are all diesel, get 24 mpg ACTUAL MIXED when loaded, and are pretty darn clean burning. My work has a few and you cannot even smell them when they idle.

yeah i still get in trouble over those.


frieghtliners been around like 13 years and the big 3 still stick it up our asses. thats the stuff that makes me really wonder wtf is the deal.


those older units can get 30 mpg light. thats alot more then my minivan. in the end that old technology was getting 28-30 mpg in one of those huge heavy ass retarded looking criters.

really pisses me off to no end.

 

[inferno94]

The OP mentioned the 2.5 engine but I know in Mazda Australia there is a 3L turbo diesel putting down a hair under 300ftlbs

http://www.mazda.com.au/Models/Current%20models/BT-50.aspx

 

[tempforce]

they could put a diesel in a ranger now by adding a paticulate filter to the exhaust of the eu or south american engines. they could take it off thier f150 v-6 thats comming out next year.
i'm keeping my '83' diesel ranger until ford decides to provide me a reason to buy a new truck.
35-38 mpg hiway.
25-30 mpg town.

230,000 miles and doesn't burn engine oil between changes.

using wvo in second fuel tank for trips over 4 miles.

 

[ducarngr]

My Ranger has the Mitsubishi 4d55T engine (2.3L turbo) and I found out the 4D56CRD is being used in current Mitsubishi Tritons/Stradas in most of the world -- it's a common rail diesel with turbo intercooler. Same bolt pattern. I think I may be spending some money to get one here.

They make 140 hp and 230 ftlbs versus 85 hp and 145 ftlbs for my regular turbo with distributor injection.

230,000 miles and doesn't burn engine oil between changes.

using wvo in second fuel tank for trips over 4 miles.

what oil do you use?

did you make the WVO kit or did you buy it?

 

[1pokeyRanger]

I heard on the radio that Ford has admitted not to bring over any diesel vehicles right now from oversees due to the "Green Trend". That being regardless of emmissions %'s, or readings - the public perception is when you see a diesel vehicle smoke - it's bad , so the vehicle must be bad.
The only thing the MFG's are pimpin right now is hybrid's and thier survival. There is so much the pub could learn from diesel but it's a tough sell right now much less the black eye from the 70's & 80's.

 

[bobbywalter]

they could put a diesel in a ranger now by adding a paticulate filter to the exhaust of the eu or south american engines. they could take it off thier f150 v-6 thats comming out next year.
i'm keeping my '83' diesel ranger until ford decides to provide me a reason to buy a new truck.
35-38 mpg hiway.
25-30 mpg town.

230,000 miles and doesn't burn engine oil between changes.

using wvo in second fuel tank for trips over 4 miles.

the later platform trucks were running the 4.4 v8's, not the 6's....

did they change the plan again?

 

[ducarngr]

I heard on the radio that Ford has admitted not to bring over any diesel vehicles right now from oversees due to the "Green Trend". That being regardless of emmissions %'s, or readings - the public perception is when you see a diesel vehicle smoke - it's bad , so the vehicle must be bad.
The only thing the MFG's are pimpin right now is hybrid's and thier survival. There is so much the pub could learn from diesel but it's a tough sell right now much less the black eye from the 70's & 80's.

modern diesels do not make soot like you are referring to. check out VW's new Jetta (09). Zero soot from the tailpipe.

They do it by using a tailpipe filter or by "urea injection" which breaks the soot down.

Adding a particulate filter to the Ranger truck would take about 30 minutes. The only downside is you have to change the filter. Urea injection requires refilling a tank.

If Ford said that it was due to tailpipe soot, then that person is a moron.

CARB regulations permit practically zero soot from diesels now, which is why the new VW and BMW are the only passenger cars with diesel (since no car company will sell and exclude California).

Of course, now what do I do with my "EAT MY SOOT" sticker?

 

[dirtsquirt]

The answer to why ford does not bring diesel rangers to north americia is simple!!!


It would sink the sales of the flag ship! Super Duties trucks. sales of the $60,000 trucks would drop faster then hail stones, in a thunder storm.

 

[1pokeyRanger]

My 2005 F350 diesel still shows enough soot from acceleration to make the huggers cringe.

 

[thegoat4]

Hell, I want a diesel ranger bad enough I'll probably buy a new Cummins ISB4e engine and build a truck around it when the time comes. About the same price as a new truck, just lots of extra work.

 

[Will]

The reason is, it wouldn't be profitable. We have been on the verge of having a light diesel for years, but something always comes up. This isn't an easy market to build an engine for. Even the VW diesel left it for a couple years. They were sold on credits as well--you get credit for being under the limit in one area, so you can exceed it in another.

The diesels will have to meet the same standards as the gassers. The diesels need soot filters. The diesel's fuel costs more. Caterpillar is out of the truck market because they can't meet emissions for HD vehicles. That should tell you something. This isn't Europe or South America or Australia.