Late model Class C Toyota RVs overseas

[zero]

I was looking at some specs of various newer RVs built on Toyota truck platforms overseas.

I was surprised to see a 2006 Winnebago 4WD turbo-diesel.

The Matilda series - made in Australia seem to surpass the Sunrader design. All are one -piece fiberglass, i.e. no seam horizontal "motor-boat" seam.

Fuel mileage to the turbo diesels is claimed to be 10-12 liters per 100 Kms. I.e. - 20-22 MPG in the USA.

[linda s]

Dodge is apparently coming out with a 3.0 liter turbo diesel engine soon. Calling it the Eco diesel. Have no figures on what it will hold yet though

Linda S

[Derek up North]

AFAIK, Winnebago (Australia) has NOTHING to do with Winnebago (USA).

Dode will more than likely be supplying engines from VM Motori.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_Motori

"In January 2011, VM Motori launched its brand new engine 3.0L V6. With 241 HP and 550 N·m (410 lb·ft) the A630 is among the best diesel engines in its class. As result of the collaboration with Fiat Powertrain Technologies the engine features the Multijet2 technology for improved performance, fuel economy and NVH. The first applications of the 3.0L V6 are the 2011 Grand Cherokee and the 2012 Lancia Thema."

Diesels in Dodges and Jeeps have been available for years. Elsewhere!

[linda s]

Wonder if that's the same diesel 3.0 they are going to be putting in the Ram 1500. Makes sense since Chrysler is a Fiat company now

Linda S

[Derek up North]

Makes even more sense since VM Motori is a FIAT company too.

[zero]

Diesels in Dodges and Jeeps have been available for years. Elsewhere!

Been available for years in the USA also. Jeep offered a diesel back the 1961 to 1968 in the CJ5 and CJ6.. It was at first a 192 cubic inch Perkins four cylinder diesel with 62 horsepower. Check Motors also offered it as an option in 1968.The later Perkins used in Jeeps and Checkers were 236 cubic inches. Same engine as used in MF180 Massey Ferguson farm tractors. Dodge offered its first lilght-duty diesel in a 1/2 ton full size pickup trucks in 1978. It was a Mitsubishi 6 cylinder diesel. Jeep kept on offering diesels, off and on until the present. None have ever sold well. There have been many small diesels offered in the USA and none ever had big sales. VWs were and are probably the ones that did the best.

[Derek up North]

Not surprising that tractor engines weren't well received in cars and trucks.

[Derek up North]

In case you want to roll your own:

http://vpizza.org/~jmeehan/toyotadiesel/

[zero]

Not surprising that tractor engines weren't well received in cars and trucks.

I'd rather had a time-proven tractor engine then some piece of junk like the 4.3 and 5.7 liter Oldmobile diesels from the 70s.

Great Britain has tractor-engines in fleets of taxi cabs for years with an an excellent record of durability.

When Dodge came out with the 5.9 Cummins diesel in pickup trucks - they were very popular and still are. One of the best diesel trucks ever sold in the USA and still going strong. 5.9 is also a "tractor engine." I have a 5.9 in my Case backhoe-wheel-loader.

Usually the only functional difference between a "car or truck" diesel and a "tractor" diesel is the tractor diesel has a longer stroke and is built more for torque then horsepower at higher RPMs. The Cummins 5.9 "tractor engine" was one of the first long-stroke, high-torque diesels to be put into a small truck.

[Derek up North]

To me, the 'functional difference' between a tractor diesel and an acceptable car diesel is that you have a hard time telling that you're driving a diesel. Except at the gas pump. A friend of mine went to Britain and rented a Ford Focus. He initially thought the fuel gauge wasn't working but finally it went down enough to justify stopping to buy petrol. It was only then that he discovered he'd actually been driving a diesel. No smell, noise or performance difference to indicate it. And this is a car guy, too .

JD, I realize you're 'old school' (so am I, to a certain extent), but to anywhere outside of North America, 192 cubic inches is NOT considered a small engine.

[zero]

To me, the 'functional difference' between a tractor diesel and an acceptable car diesel is that you have a hard time telling that you're driving a diesel. Except at the gas pump. A friend of mine went to Britain and rented a Ford Focus. He initially thought the fuel gauge wasn't working but finally it went down enough to justify stopping to buy petrol. It was only then that he discovered he'd actually been driving a diesel. No smell, noise or performance difference to indicate it. And this is a car guy, too .

JD, I realize you're 'old school' (so am I, to a certain extent), but to anywhere outside of North America, 192 cubic inches is NOT considered a small engine.

192 cubic inches isn't "small" here in the USA either - now adays. But in 1960 for a US car or truck, it certainly was. I went with my dad to buy his first "economy" car in 1959. A Ford with their "Mileage Maker Six" at 223 cubic inches which was considered tiny at that time. 1959 was the "break-though"year for US economy cars with a Studebaker Lark and a 160 c.i. six.. In 1960 Ford introduced the little Falcon with a 144 c.i. six. Plymouth came out with a Valiant powered by a 170 c.i. six. In 1961 Pontiac offered a 4 cylinder Tempest with 194 cubic inches. along with an aluminum 215 cubic inch V8 in other models. Technically the first mainstream US "economy" car was the 1950 Nash-Rambler with a 195 cubic inch six. It was "re-introduced" in 1958 as the Ramber American. Note I said "mainstream." There were many other odd-balls. I had a Nash Metropolitan with a tiny 73 cubic inch British Austin engine.

Considering that any diesel engine has less horsepower and torque then an equally bore and stroked and aspirated gas engine - a 192 diesel is roughly equivalent to a 150-160 cubic inch gas engine.

There have been many great diesel vehicles offered in the US and so far - none have been great sellers. That because the collective US populus is fairly ignorant in regard to compression-ignition. That includes users and mechanics.

Now - the push is on to make diesels not smell, sound, emit, or run like traditional diesels. And - diesel fuel at the pump no longer behaves like traditional diesel fuel. All is different. Ultra-low diesel has less lube, less BTU energy and behaves differently in extreme cold. Yet fuel mileage has not changed very much. My 1981 Chevette diesel gets 45-47 MPG. My 92 VW Jetta gets 48-50 MPG. My 1992 Dodge diesel truck - with 4WD, extended cab, etc. gets 20 MPG.

So yeah - new rigs start, run and sound like gas engines and cost a fortune. I fail to see any overall gain. Back in the 80s - if I wanted a diesel truck it was a $2000 option package. My 3/4 ton 1983 diesel 4WD Chevy was $8800 for the truck and $2000 extra for the diesel package. Now? A new equivalent that gets the same basic empty highway mileage is over $40,000. Maybe over $50,000 depending on options.

I don't know what your friend was driving in Britain or what sort of MPGs he/she was getting in US gallons. There is nothing "magical" I am aware of overseas - that if driven in the US on a US highway gets much more then what we already have - in regard to what people would be willing to buy.