Jump to content

Duramax Diesel vs. V6 Gas Engine - 100K Fuel Cost Comparo


Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

You should also factor in the extra cost of oil changes and the cost of DEF fluid for the diesel. With those factored in, the gasoline engines are always going to cost less to run and maintain than the diesel engines.

I can say this much, DEF is an expense but not much of one. At least in my diesel Cruze, I have put 6k miles on it so far and the DEF level is still good and it is only a 5 gallon tank. Around here I can get DEF for $2.30 a gallon.

 

I guess if you put the miles on then you might need to add DEF more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am not so sure that the OEM's are gouging on pricing on diesels over gassers. It does take more to make a wet sleeved, high compression, variable geometry turbocharged motor like the 2.8L than a bored out block, naturally aspirated gasser gasping for air. The bearing composition and metallurgy alone is different. And when one factors the cost of the mandated SCR and DPF units, it is understandable the price difference. Just go down and price a replacement SCR or DPF unit for any diesel vehicle and be ready for sticker shock.

 

DEF is inconsequential. I can get DEF at the Mack Truck dealership shop near me for $1.89 a gallon. For the little 2.8L in the Colorado, I would probably spend more on windshield washer fluid than DEF over it's life.

 

Basing the decision on mpg alone is myopic at best. While there is not that big of a diesel to gas pricing difference now, those of us that remember more than just the last year of our life remember when diesel hit well over $5 a gallon average across the country a few years ago. Most times, over $1 more expensive than gas. To get a diesel in one of these pickups is going to be a novelty to some, something to stroke their ego for others, but realistic folks who have a real need for a diesel will get them and those that don't actually need it would be better served by sticking with gas.

 

I am not sure about this 2.8L offering, but my 2.8L VM diesel in a 2006 Jeep Liberty, of which that motor is strikingly similar to the Dmax 2.8L, held 6.5 qts. It went 11,000 miles between oil changes. Can anyone truly argue that oil changes will cost more for this motor than the gasser version? Maybe a few bucks over time, but hardly worth considering.

 

Got to admit, I am motivated to take a closer look at the diesel Colorado. Maybe in time I will consider pulling the trigger and getting one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read my post, I did mention the extra cost for transmissions on the 2500s. It still doesn't justify the price premium. Maybe it does not work for you & to be clear, am not a fan of the pricing. But 6.6 Dmax is not for getting groceries. Those who work trucks that need them have to justify the cost or opt for the gas variant.

 

The mfr's always shoot themselves in the foot on this. They price the diesel option high enough so as to prevent sales hitting numbers that would provide the economies of scale that would even further lower costs. Huh? They purposely sell less?

 

All the EPA stuff they do with diesels they have to do with gas as well, so that doesn't factor in like you might think. It's like they are purposely trying to prevent diesel sales. Maybe that's the goal? When was the last time you had to have your DPF baked or purchase DEF for a gasser? From the fuel to air intake, through the cylinders & out the exhaust is completely different.

 

The actual parts they need for things like DEF, noise reduction etc. actually only add maybe $50-100 in manufacturing and assembly costs, along with another $100 or so in design and engineering. Another $50-100 in extra material costs for heavier engine parts etc. Any of the mfg's will hire you tomorrow if you can hit their emissions requirements for $300 per vehicle.

High volume engines cost a surprisingly low amount to manufacture and assemble.

The V6 gas will likely cost about the same as the 4 cyl diesel to build, assuming similar production numbers, yet the oil burner is $3750 more.....marketing and gouging.

Keep in mind that they didn't develop a whole new engine from scratch for the Canyon/Colo twins. They already had it in use everywhere else in the world. They just had to do some relatively minor changes for our market.

I know it is imported & much of the r&d can be shared with a global platform. Am unsure what changes may have been made for ulsd here vs what other countries require in terms of fuel they may run. That also matters on the emission equipment used along with tuning etc. http://wardsauto.com/plants-production/thai-duramax-diesels-bound-north-america

 

Class 8 is not really comparable to this, due to low volumes, different requirements etc. Class 8 is comparable in terms of shear cost due in large part, the EPA. That tech has trickled down from the class 8's down to mid size p/u's. But from turbos to cac, specific coolers, 29,000 psi fuel delivery systems at link above, the emissions items are not just something that is a can in the exhaust for diesels.

 

Again, am not a fan of the costs & do not mean any offense with the post. I wish diesels were the same cost or within a few dollars of a gas variant. But when you look at the entire scope of things you begin to understand that is not going to be the case.

If mfg's could meet emissions requirements with diesel at the same(or similar) cost as gas with improved fuel economy, they would have far more offerings in the market place.

The CAFE standards on new cars/trucks is continually upping the fuel mileage requirement for fleet avg's by mfg http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economyalong with green house gases, carbon etc.

Then after all of that fun, you still have to factor in warranty & liabilities.

 

It is amazing with all the hoops mfg's have to jump through that they even produce anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you read my post, I did mention the extra cost for transmissions on the 2500s. It still doesn't justify the price premium. Maybe it does not work for you & to be clear, am not a fan of the pricing. But 6.6 Dmax is not for getting groceries. Those who work trucks that need them have to justify the cost or opt for the gas variant.

 

The mfr's always shoot themselves in the foot on this. They price the diesel option high enough so as to prevent sales hitting numbers that would provide the economies of scale that would even further lower costs. Huh? They purposely sell less?

 

All the EPA stuff they do with diesels they have to do with gas as well, so that doesn't factor in like you might think. It's like they are purposely trying to prevent diesel sales. Maybe that's the goal? When was the last time you had to have your DPF baked or purchase DEF for a gasser? From the fuel to air intake, through the cylinders & out the exhaust is completely different.

 

The actual parts they need for things like DEF, noise reduction etc. actually only add maybe $50-100 in manufacturing and assembly costs, along with another $100 or so in design and engineering. Another $50-100 in extra material costs for heavier engine parts etc. Any of the mfg's will hire you tomorrow if you can hit their emissions requirements for $300 per vehicle.

High volume engines cost a surprisingly low amount to manufacture and assemble.

The V6 gas will likely cost about the same as the 4 cyl diesel to build, assuming similar production numbers, yet the oil burner is $3750 more.....marketing and gouging.

Keep in mind that they didn't develop a whole new engine from scratch for the Canyon/Colo twins. They already had it in use everywhere else in the world. They just had to do some relatively minor changes for our market.

I know it is imported & much of the r&d can be shared with a global platform. Am unsure what changes may have been made for ulsd here vs what other countries require in terms of fuel they may run. That also matters on the emission equipment used along with tuning etc. http://wardsauto.com/plants-production/thai-duramax-diesels-bound-north-america

 

Class 8 is not really comparable to this, due to low volumes, different requirements etc. Class 8 is comparable in terms of shear cost due in large part, the EPA. That tech has trickled down from the class 8's down to mid size p/u's. But from turbos to cac, specific coolers, 29,000 psi fuel delivery systems at link above, the emissions items are not just something that is a can in the exhaust for diesels.

 

Again, am not a fan of the costs & do not mean any offense with the post. I wish diesels were the same cost or within a few dollars of a gas variant. But when you look at the entire scope of things you begin to understand that is not going to be the case.

If mfg's could meet emissions requirements with diesel at the same(or similar) cost as gas with improved fuel economy, they would have far more offerings in the market place.

The CAFE standards on new cars/trucks is continually upping the fuel mileage requirement for fleet avg's by mfg http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economyalong with green house gases, carbon etc.

Then after all of that fun, you still have to factor in warranty & liabilities.

 

It is amazing with all the hoops mfg's have to jump through that they even produce anything.

 

As I mentioned and showed in my post, there are extra costs for Diesel, just not near the difference that the mfr's are pricing them at. I never said or even implied that a 2500 should be a grocery getter. Not sure where you drew that from.

You're still missing the main point. The costs the mfrs are bearing with regard to diesel emissions and extra manufacturing costs do not come close to the (excessive)premium they charge for the engines. I've worked in manufacturing in many different capacities and have a good understanding how economies of scale factor into what the end costs are for things.

 

The Mfrs could very well be pricing them high to limit production. It doesn't make sense on the surface, but when you understand CAFE standards and EPA regs, it could make perfect sense. If not, then they just need a kick in the ****

Volkswagen has sold diesels for decades and never charged near the premium for the TDI in the Golf or Jetta that GM is wanting for the 2.8 Duramax.

Class 8 can only spread costs over a small number of units- 10 or 20,000 or so, so they are much higher per unit when changes are made. Not really comparable to the 6 and sometimes 7 figure number of units that passenger vehicles have. Much of the Diesel development for smaller vehicles has been done in Europe and Japan, not via Class 8, although some of that has filtered down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go down and price a replacement turbo for any of the small diesels being put in pickups and SUV's. Again, price a SCR or DPF replacement unit for them as well. The major inflated cost spreads have primarily revolved around the emissions requirements for diesels compared to gas vehicles. All it takes is pricing parts to figure out why the price spread between gas and diesel.

 

And let's all be fair in our analysis of things. A large portion of diesel pickups do nothing spectacular that a gasser version couldn't do just as well and at a lower cost. There is some sort of testosterone thing going on why many buy a diesel vs gas version. Kinda like why so many use the term "turbo diesel" as if there is a current production non turbo diesel on the market. Every diesel offered in a auto or truck for the last several years has only been turbocharged. There just seems to be some sort of machismo thing going on to proclaim that someone has a "turbo diesel". I drive a commercial semi and have a birdseye view of many, many pickups running up and down the road over the 10 states I operate in over the course of 130,000 miles a year. A large chunk of diesel powered pickups don't have 5th wheels or goosenecks in them, and exhibit no evidence that they do anything but being used as a daily driver. Don't see much more than a rail to rail tool box in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not believe all you anti Colorado diesel guys on here ! Well i got a answer for you, don't buy one, but stop trying to talk the people that do like and want one, to not buy a diesel by putting out all this negative bull sh-t . :bs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go down and price a replacement turbo for any of the small diesels being put in pickups and SUV's. Again, price a SCR or DPF replacement unit for them as well. The major inflated cost spreads have primarily revolved around the emissions requirements for diesels compared to gas vehicles. All it takes is pricing parts to figure out why the price spread between gas and diesel.

 

And let's all be fair in our analysis of things. A large portion of diesel pickups do nothing spectacular that a gasser version couldn't do just as well and at a lower cost. There is some sort of testosterone thing going on why many buy a diesel vs gas version. Kinda like why so many use the term "turbo diesel" as if there is a current production non turbo diesel on the market. Every diesel offered in a auto or truck for the last several years has only been turbocharged. There just seems to be some sort of machismo thing going on to proclaim that someone has a "turbo diesel". I drive a commercial semi and have a birdseye view of many, many pickups running up and down the road over the 10 states I operate in over the course of 130,000 miles a year. A large chunk of diesel powered pickups don't have 5th wheels or goosenecks in them, and exhibit no evidence that they do anything but being used as a daily driver. Don't see much more than a rail to rail tool box in them.

You do realize the parts you are mentioning only cost a very small fraction to manufacture compared to the price you're being quoted? Bend over, buddy...

The average high production part has a manufacturing cost of about 10% of its final selling price....in many cases it's less than 5%.

Higher production small Diesel engines for smaller vehicles don't actually cost that much to manufacture and install. They sure do cost at the dealer though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you rant at me, go price the components yourself and quote here what you find out. The emission components and compliance alone has added an average $10,000 to the price of commercial heavy trucks. That is more than documented and confirmed across the transportation industry. For a Colorado diesel to have a premium of a few grand is not out of line on the economy of scale with what has gone on in commercial trucking sector. And the same volume low pricing thing does not apply, in that we are not talking about components that are identical to both gas and diesel platforms. And the diesel Colorado production numbers are and will be substantially less which eats into any suggested low cost per component pricing.

 

Of course, you are always welcome to pay for a new SCR or DPF unit for me when I need it since you can get them at such greatly deflated pricing than I can find. Did do a little scrounging around on the net and saw some discussions on pricing for DPF replacement unit for a VW at around $2700. Seems to fit with the increased pricing on the Colorado diesels. That didn't even include an SCR unit, which is similar in price.

 

But even then, it wouldn't stop me from getting a diesel Colorado if I could justify it. I don't like the cost spread either. But I am also a businessperson who has dealt with auto assembly production component supply transportation for decades and I am keenly aware of how costs lay out regarding components and volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you rant at me, go price the components yourself and quote here what you find out. The emission components and compliance alone has added an average $10,000 to the price of commercial heavy trucks. That is more than documented and confirmed across the transportation industry. For a Colorado diesel to have a premium of a few grand is not out of line on the economy of scale with what has gone on in commercial trucking sector. And the same volume low pricing thing does not apply, in that we are not talking about components that are identical to both gas and diesel platforms. And the diesel Colorado production numbers are and will be substantially less which eats into any suggested low cost per component pricing.

 

Of course, you are always welcome to pay for a new SCR or DPF unit for me when I need it since you can get them at such greatly deflated pricing than I can find. Did do a little scrounging around on the net and saw some discussions on pricing for DPF replacement unit for a VW at around $2700. Seems to fit with the increased pricing on the Colorado diesels. That didn't even include an SCR unit, which is similar in price.

 

But even then, it wouldn't stop me from getting a diesel Colorado if I could justify it. I don't like the cost spread either. But I am also a businessperson who has dealt with auto assembly production component supply transportation for decades and I am keenly aware of how costs lay out regarding components and volume.

No one's ranting at you. However your response doesn't make any sense with what I posted- I'm trying to show you actual costs of production, but you appear to be stuck on retail price and cant seem to distinguish the 2 from each other. There is a huge price gap between the 2.

I never claimed, or implied that I can get them for manufactured cost - not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.......?????? I have to bend over and pay the same retail pricing as everyone else. I was trying to demonstrate in this thread that it doesn't cost GM $3750 include a diesel in these trucks, but rather only a few hundred $$$. Keep in mind, when you check the 2.8l diesel box when buying, they are 'replacing' another expensive engine with it, namely the (complex) V6, which has a manufacturing cost very close to that of the 2.8 diesel.

The pricing structure is setup as if they are actually selling you both a V6 and the 2.8. But you only get to keep one.

Think about it.

 

It's the same as when you buy a full size with either the 4.8(now discontinued), 5.3, 6.0 or 6.2. All these engines cost literally within a few dollars of each other to manufacture, but they charge a whole lot more at retail to give you the 6.0 or 6.2 vs a 5.3 or 4.8. It's all a game.

 

This has nothing to do with class 8 trucks either. They're a whole different ball of wax. They just are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be stuck on the class 8 stuff. I was just saying that, on an economy of scale, the up charge is similar, obviously with the heavy diesel components costing more. But then they engines do to. the up charge of the 2.8 is following the same ratio curve as the heavy diesels when it comes to the emissions requirements of DPF and SCR. The V6 gets to avoid that cost altogether.

 

It is a not quite and apples to apples comparison in relating the small block V8's in comparing the V6 to the I4 2.8L. All of the small block V8's are using the same blocks and many of the same components. There is nothing interchangeable about the V6 and the I4. And as much as it doesn't seem so, it is more costly to make a wet sleeved motor like the 2.8L than it is just to bore and polish a cast block like the V6. And unlike the V8's using many of the same components, the I4 is it's own critter with nothing interchangeable. So the discount on volume for the components for the motor are not as pronounced as they are for the V6's or V8's. Lower volume equates to lack of high volume pricing and subsequent higher production cost.

 

Also, the 3.6 V6 in the Colorado is the universal V6 thrown in a wide range of the vehicle lineup from GM. They have a very high volume of production and costs can be evenly spread among many platforms. The I-4 2.8L has one platform right now. All production costs of that motor are limited to the Colorado/Canyon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cowpie, you are indeed missing beejay's entire point. You continue to say "go and price a replacement for x unit". Well of course that price is going to be off the charts because it is retail. You can price anything for a gasoline engine and it too would be off the charts. If you took every single part of a car and priced it at retail, a Cruz would cost you $150k!!! I was looking at a car a month back that was a turbo gasoline. Complaints from people about the car were that the turbo is almost always going to go at a given mileage number and that the repair was like $3k. This wasn't even for a diesel either.

 

The point is that the engine and other emission goodies on a mass scale at the manufacturer price level does not cost $4,000 more than a similar equipped gasoline setup. Mind you, we're not talking $4k total at the mfg level, we're talking $4k MORE. Part of that extra amount is no doubt because of the numbers being produced. However, if you offered the consumer the option of the diesel for a grand more or close to the same, they would be flying out of the lots. However,the government taxes diesel fuel higher, which at one time was because it didn't burn clean. If we are to catch up with the rest of the world so to speak, we need to make them more affordable and make the taxes paid less, not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the comments from non-diesel owners and gasser fans are entertaining:

Expensive oil changes? Expensive DEF?

Reliablility issues?

Getting broken constantly?

Using EPA numbers for gas vs diesel cost analysis?

 

The truck in my sig is my first diesel (just over nine years of ownership so far, fully expect it to keep it another 5-6 years given its reliability record and low repair costs to date), I maintain all my own vehicles (only farming out jobs I don't have $$$ tools for); so feel I can speak to gas vs diesel costs to run, reliability, and longevity with some objectivity. My diesel experience:

1) Oil changes are $50 (and thats with 10 quarts) and take 20 minutes, fuel filter $33 every 10K and 10 minutes of time, imo both non-factors for diesel vs. gas compared to other running costs. The DIC (driver information center, which has some driving style algorithms to calculate when you should change your oil) FINALLY comes on at 10K miles telling me I need to change it. Even so I change it every 5-7.5K just to be safe, its cheap insurance.

2) I don't have DEF, but at its low cost and ease of filing it - yet again for me it would be a non-factor for diesel vs. gas compared to other running costs.

3) There are several very high mileage LBZ 6.6L Dmax's out there, going way beyond what any current gasser would. Pretty bulletproof too (its only GM's crap fuel delivery system that has left me stranded three times, long since fixed via aftermarket parts). The "new" Dmax in the Colorado/Canyon has been around for several years and proven in some pretty tough environments, I would expect most all of the kinks have been worked out by now, and it too will enjoy great reliability. Time will tell though with this specific high altitude/cold climate/EPA'd version.

4) Dodge 1500 RAM diesel owners easily and regularly exceed EPA highway numbers (to the tune of 3-5mpg). I'd wait to find out real world Colorado/Canyon numbers before doing a real world gas vs diesel analysis, my bet is the initial cost difference will easlly be paid back if you do a lot of highway driving (especially loaded up).

 

If you keep a truck a long time, drive mostly highway miles, want to tow, or just plain love having lots of torque off the line (puts a grin on my face everytime)....imo get the diesel. Otherwise get gas and enjoy your savings. Enjoy whatever you get, and don't poo poo on others engine choices. Be thankful to have those choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2004 K2500HD Silverado LS, 95k miles, was stolen this year. I was real nervous about getting the right replacement valuation. Geico stepped up and sent me a check for $24K. The truck cost me new, $38K. At the time I wasn't sure I wanted to pay the diesel premium, but I was real disappointed with my '99 Silverado 5.3 gasser, new $26K, trade-in $10K. I drove that Duramax 11 years and had less depreciation. And, I was able to haul any 10,000# load over the hills at 65 mph on cruise control. That diesel NEVER saw the inside of a shop; I did oil changes, and brake pads. My replacement is a 2004 K2500HD Duramax LT with 230K miles. I pocketed the high-mileage difference and have gotten used to the fact that my 70 yo frame and drivetrain won't wear it out.

 

I'm pretty sure anybody will get a significant portion of the diesel premium back on resale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure anybody will get a significant portion of the diesel premium back on resale.

 

Oh man, good point I forgot all about that in my post above. Between resale and gas mileage the diesel pretty much wins every time. I bought my 2006 K2500HD new for $32.5k, and nine+ years later I am still getting offered $21-22k for it. That would be $1100 a year to have owned it. So much for the Dmax/Allison "upcharge" not getting payed back argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.