Diesel engine for 200 series in USA

[Pskhaat]

...the diesel Cruisers would be left alone sitting on US sales lots.

Speculation on both our parts. We'll never know and we have no sales figures to show one way or the other.

...you end up with a petrol that's trying to be as good as a diesel

That's really the nail for the hammer: gassers trying to be tow and off-hwy friendly where diesel fills the requirements.

It doesn't matter what you are doing, pulling, where the torque and/or HP curve is...the 5.7L blasts the crap out of the TD in every way except mileage.

Look at the curves, it doesn't have torque rise and the little it does is WAY high in revs. This is fine for the highway and ubiquitous desert rats where you and I both live. Shotts, I have to assume you've driven a proper diesel off-road?

 

[tempestv8]

There's probably no point debating a moot point. Fact is, diesel SUVs, for the most part, are unavailable in the United States. This is, of course, by design because it would otherwise be driven by market choices, and in which case, it wouldn't be a unanimous win with gasoline/unleaded. Why do I know this?

Because the countries with the cheapest fuel in the world like the Middle East still have diesel sales of their SUVs offerings, and Toyota do offer both power plants in those countries. American buyers are just locked out of that choice.

I have both a 4.6 litre V8 gas Land Rover and a 4.5 litre V8 twin turbo LandCruiser and I know which one is more fun for wheeling - the petrol machine wins hands down. It's the "fun machine" but it's got no driving range due to the ferocious fuel consumption whilst in low range.

For towing purposes and general "lazy" grunt, the Toyota LandCruiser just has it in spades. It makes for an awesome long distance tourer, and towing machine. And the sweet V8 exhaust note and general refinement of the diesel engine just makes it a really luxurious ride, compared to the Land Rover, which itself, isn't such a bad thing.

I could have purchased the diesel variant of the Land Rover, but it was slow, noisy and the NVH would drive me insane. The Land Cruiser's diesel motor is fast, smooth, and has a delicious syrupy rumble out of the tailpipe at full noise. Can't really pass that up!

 

[JBHorne]

Why doesn't someone just get me a 4.5L twin turbo diesel LC and I'll compare the two and tell you which one I like better!

End of debate!

Now who has the cash to get me one???

 

[Carl L]

It doesn't matter what you are doing, pulling, where the torque and/or HP curve is...the 5.7L blasts the crap out of the TD in every way except mileage. Over here diesel costs more which wipes that one postive right out. Then the kicker...it doesn't stink when it's running.

1. Diesel in CA is cheaper than 87-pig swill
2. The gas engine is faster (380>280) and is a little better for off-roading (increased weight, less linear power delivery) but it does NOT tow easier than the 4.5TD (torque graphs, common sense). You sound like someone with zero experience with diesels (they don't "stink" anymore and haven't for years) but one hell of a lot of experience arguing on internet forums.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

WOW! I just discovered another reason no new car buyer in the US would pick the TD over the 5.7. My god...listen to the exhaust on the TD (about half way through the video).

One test drive would take the customer from Toyota over to the Escalade dealer.

YouTube - toyota land cruiser 100 105 series

 

[96r50]

... You sound like someone with zero experience with diesels (they don't "stink" anymore and haven't for years) but one hell of a lot of experience arguing on internet forums.

You catch on quick

WOW! I just discovered another reason no new car buyer in the US would pick the TD over the 5.7. My god...listen to the exhaust on the TD (about half way through the video).

One test drive would take the customer from Toyota over to the Escalade dealer.

YouTube - toyota land cruiser 100 105 series

Wow, a video of an older model truck with a different engine, with a potentially modified/non-stock exhaust, recorded on a basic handycam. Yessir folks, that right there is definite evidence that Toyota's 5.7L is way better than their V8 turbo diesel

If you are that easily swayed by a video, I can only wonder how many infomercial products you own

 

[Pskhaat]

Sigh

I've never heard anyone even the poorest or the richest ever talk about new car exhaust noise unless maybe you're buying an M3 or a muscle at Barret Jackson (but those kind of buyers are fringe buyers anyway, right?).

I think Shotts is a closet diesel junky, probably has an old 300TD Wagon he's stuck away in his garage...just pulling our chain the whole time.

You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"? Parfaits are delicious.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I think Shotts is a closet diesel junky, probably has an old 300TD Wagon he's stuck away in his garage...just pulling our chain the whole time.

NOPE! I'm a "anti-torque" junky!

I prefer my torque-less Rx8 and my son's torque-less S2000 over V8 muscle cars. These two "sing" from 6000-9000 RPM. No thanks to the Mustang GT "burble".

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Here's a bone to you dieselholics.

Was just reading Motor Trend's comparo of the new Ford F250 and Dodge 2500.

They show acceleration fig's unloaded and with a 2000-pound load.

From 0-30 both trucks do 2.9 sec unloaded AND loaded. That shows bottom end! WOW!

0-40 is within 0.3 sec's.

0-60 the numbers start spreading. The Ford is 0.9 higher loaded and the Dodge 1.6 sec higher. From there up the gap continues to widen though the Ford's numbers are still close.

0-80 are 14.6 vs 16.5

Dodge is 14.4 vs 18.5

Dodge is quicker empty and MUCH slower with the 2000-lb load. Interesting reading!

TUNDRA 5.7L? 0-80 is a mere 11.2 seconds...3+ seconds faster though a smaller truck...not a fair comparison.

 

[pagemaster]

Yessir folks, that right there is definite evidence that Toyota's 5.7L is way better than their V8 turbo diesel

Nobody is arguing that the 4.5 is not a fine engine, in fact it is better than both the 4.6 iforce and 4.7iforce which is still used. But when compared to the 5.7, the 5.7 wins hands down in almost every category except MPG.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

From Truck Trend:

"As luck would have it, a visit to the Emerald Isle presented an opportunity to test drive the new 2010 Range Rover Sport HSE turbodiesel, an engine we don't expect to see in the U.S. any time soon."

 

[96r50]

Here's a bone to you dieselholics.

Was just reading Motor Trend's comparo of the new Ford F250 and Dodge 2500.

They show acceleration fig's unloaded and with a 2000-pound load.

From 0-30 both trucks do 2.9 sec unloaded AND loaded. That shows bottom end! WOW!

0-40 is within 0.3 sec's.

0-60 the numbers start spreading. The Ford is 0.9 higher loaded and the Dodge 1.6 sec higher. From there up the gap continues to widen though the Ford's numbers are still close.

0-80 are 14.6 vs 16.5

Dodge is 14.4 vs 18.5

Dodge is quicker empty and MUCH slower with the 2000-lb load. Interesting reading!

TUNDRA 5.7L? 0-80 is a mere 11.2 seconds...3+ seconds faster though a smaller truck...not a fair comparison.

And the Tundra 5.7L loaded with the 2000lbs? Not a real comparison until you have all the relevant numbers, and even then it's apples to oranges.

Nobody is arguing that the 4.5 is not a fine engine, in fact it is better than both the 4.6 iforce and 4.7iforce which is still used. But when compared to the 5.7, the 5.7 wins hands down in almost every category except MPG.

I'm not arguing it one way or another. I was sarcastically pointing out that Shotts' argument had no basis in fact. A homevideo of a modified truck with an much older and different diesel engine making a lot of exhaust noise has no bearing on the debate of the 5.7L vs the 4.5TD.

Having driven a variety of 5.7L Tundras I agree that the 5.7 is a beast. I would like the option of a diesel in it and the LC though. Audi offers a 4.2L V8 (350hp, 325ftlbs) as well as a 3.0L V6 TDI (225hp, 406ftlbs) in the Q7, so why not in a Toyota?

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

And the Tundra 5.7L loaded with the 2000lbs? Not a real comparison until you have all the relevant numbers, and even then it's apples to oranges.

I might not a been clear.

Unloaded and relevent:

0-80 MPH

14.6 Ford
14.4 Dodge
11.2 5.7L Tundra

Loaded? They tested the Tundra pulling a 7500lb trailer but not 2000-lb payload like in Truck Trend. I'd have to think that if you strapped 7500-lbs behind all three that those huge turbo-diesels would take the Tundra. A 4.5L TD Toyota...no frickin' way!

The Ford is 390 HP and 735 on the torque.

 

[Pskhaat]

Who the F cares about a near-full-size truck hauling ass to 80mph unless you're a wannbe driver of an backyard-budget trophy truck with a bad front lift, primed paint on the flared glass fenders, 14" wide tires, and a No Fear sticker on the rear window. Seriously?

 

[Dougal]

Who the F cares about a near-full-size truck hauling ass to 80mph unless you're a wannbe driver of an backyard-budget trophy truck with a bad front lift, primed paint on the flared glass fenders, 14" wide tires, and a No Fear sticker on the rear window. Seriously?

Well said.
I also find it ridiculous how many people are soo worried about 0-60 times. I haven't seen a landcruiser in a street-light drag yet.

Have you noticed the emoticon named shotts? Might clear up a few things.

 

[pagemaster]

I would like the option of a diesel in it and the LC though. Audi offers a 4.2L V8 (350hp, 325ftlbs) as well as a 3.0L V6 TDI (225hp, 406ftlbs) in the Q7, so why not in a Toyota?

If I am correct, the diesel Audis and Merc GL's sell for less than the top line V8 gas engines. They are also slow as hell compared to the gas models in things like merging, passing and basic acceleration.

A Land Cruiser diesel will likely top the 5.7 MSRP which will never fly. Sure, there will be few owner who purchase the diesel but everyone will be flocking to the 5.7 because it is that good of an engine.

The 4.5 is a good engine but it is not good enough for the NA market

 

[Dougal]

If I am correct, the diesel Audis and Merc GL's sell for less than the top line V8 gas engines. They are also slow as hell compared to the gas models in things like merging, passing and basic acceleration.

No, you're completely incorrect. I've driven Audi's 3.0 V6 diesel, it's my current all time favourite engine

A Land Cruiser diesel will likely top the 5.7 MSRP which will never fly. Sure, there will be few owner who purchase the diesel but everyone will be flocking to the 5.7 because it is that good of an engine.

The 4.5 is a good engine but it is not good enough for the NA market

Nope. The difference in price between the 4.5 diesel and the 5.7 lexus is larger than the price gap between the 5.7 lexus and 5.7 landcruiser.
Which points to the 4.5 diesel being cheaper than the 5.7.

Yawn, not good enough for the US market where people drive camrys.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Give up Pagemaster.

 

[IslandTimes]

I test drove a diesel 2010 Q7 a couple months ago and personally found the diesel engine to be extremely lacking when compared to the 5.7

Course there's a big difference between the two engines, especially being from different companies and all.

 

[pagemaster]

No, you're completely incorrect. I've driven Audi's 3.0 V6 diesel, it's my current all time favourite engine



Nope. The difference in price between the 4.5 diesel and the 5.7 lexus is larger than the price gap between the 5.7 lexus and 5.7 landcruiser.
Which points to the 4.5 diesel being cheaper than the 5.7.

Yawn, not good enough for the US market where people drive camrys.

Have you driven the 5.7 Land Cruiser? Not the LX, the LC