No Diesel variant in North America

[Triple Seven]

As I've alluded to elsewhere, I am quite frustrated with Ineos' decision, not to bring the Diesel variant to North America. It would seem to me, the the increased torque available with the Diesel, would be perfect for this vehicle. Of course, there are a number of benefits to having a Diesel engine and it hasn't gone un-noticed that the Diesel has been used in all of the PR and Demo videos that they've shown. In addition, Chrysler, recognizing that there is a strong market for a Diesel version of the Jeep Wrangler, has recently made that variant available.

Diesel vs. Gasoline: Everything You Need to Know (caranddriver.com)

Perhaps someone could put my mind at ease, by telling me why the Gas/Petrol version will be just as good, or better than the Diesel, for the North American market. 

 

[Pk2abilene]

The gas engine will definitely be more reliable.     The emission systems on American diesels greatly decrease reliability.    My F350 made it to 90k miles before the system had to either be deleted or replaced.  Replacement would have been 6 grand.  It had several trips to the dealer getting to that 90k miles for various sensors, def pump, def heater, etc.  My wife’s diesel ranger rover sport was in the shop every couple months for sensor problems.   It made it to 60k miles before the entire system had to be replaced to the tune of 6 grand.   There wasn’t a delete option for the rover. A month after replacing the whole system it was in the shop again for an emissions sensor.    Sold it after that.    If the grenadier is marketing itself as a reliable, simple vehicle that can function for decades the diesel would be counterproductive.  

 

[Triple Seven]

Thanks… What you’re saying makes a lot of sense. Clearly, in order to meet the U.S. EPA requirements, there would likely be a plethora of sensors and ‘gizmos’, which among other things, would likely make the diesel variant more expensive, as it has with the Jeep.I’ve attached a YouTube video, in which a Chrysler/Mopar mechanic goes over the Jeep Diesel and discusses the pros and cons…What I remember most, was his concern about the multitude of sensors, (and the cost of replacement), that needed to be incorporated into the design, in order to make everything legal.

Engine discussion begins at approximately 7:30, while the Diesel exhaust sensor, etc. discussion begins at about 15:50.

https://youtu.be/MIxHP3F5Q6g

 

[stickshifter]

I posted some this in your other thread on Contacting Ineos:

Excluding heavy duty trucks that are used for heavy towing, I don't think the market case for diesels in the U.S. is very good. Forced induction gas engines now provide a lot of the driving characteristics that people enjoy in diesels (low end grunt in particular), without the hassle of DEF, and the complicated emissions systems in modern diesels. Sadly, (1) diesels have become expensive to purchase (Ineos looks like it will buck that trend in Australia, where the gas and diesel are going to be priced the same), (2) expensive to maintain, (3) less reliable - with a fairly high rate of problems with the emissions systems, and (4) there are other little issues, like dirtier fuel (fueling gloves?), and less availability of fuel in some places. Often, a failure in the emissions can either shut the vehicle down or put it into limp-mode. Its really cold where I live (-5 to -30 F most mornings for 2-3 months). This is anecdotal, of course, but the three guys I know who own a Jeep 3.0 Ecodiesel have had the DEF pump fail (it needs to pump DEF out of the lines upon vehicle shut-down, so the lines don't freeze). When the DEF lines freeze, the vehicle is useless. Maybe they had a production problem that is now resolved - I don't know. Older diesels were dirty, unfortunately, but ran forever. My two buddies with pre-DEF 5.9 I6 Cummins love their trucks, and will never give them up. I know a couple of people who have deleted the emissions systems from their modern diesels, and they love their trucks, but I'm not condoning that...

Of course, diesels still get better mileage than gas engines, and so provide better range (on the same size tank), but that seems to be the only really significant advantage (albeit an important one).

With regard to the Jeep Ecodiesel (since you mention it in your comments): in addition to DEF system problems, these engines are also getting too hot under load. This is a problem of packaging, not the engine itself. The space in the engine bay is not large enough in the Jeep Wrangler / Gladiator to properly cool the Ecodiesel, and when towing uphill, or simply driving up long grades in very hot weather, the engine cuts power to prevent overheating. You should check out this video from "Casey" about problems with the Ecodiesel. Note that Casey is a huge Jeep fan. I think he makes a living making Jeep videos, and he regularly posts videos from overlanding trips with other hardcore Jeepers who have a channel called "The Story Till Now". These guys are also hardcore Jeepers, and have had the same overheating problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOrht9_7ww

 

[Triple Seven]

Thanks...I've been following these, (and other) guys on YouTube, but I hadn't seen this one!

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=Triple Seven userid=8864359 postid=1331680437]Thanks...I've been following these, (and other) guys on YouTube, but I hadn't seen this one![/QUOTE]

These guys are pretty straight shooters, and they are real Jeep guys, so they are not looking to bash the brand. The Gladiator forum is also full of complaints about the Ecodiesel going into reduced power mode in response to heat. Its always hard to know what percent of people are having trouble just from reading complaints on a forum, but it seems pretty clear that there is a design problem. Hopefully Jeep comes up with a fix, because I'd like to see that platform be successful (the diesel-powered Gladiator, that is).

 

[Triple Seven]

I guess I’d watched that video before, but just watched it again for good measure…Definitely an eye opener and a reason to think twice about the ‘new’ Diesels.

 

[DenisM]

I guess it depends on your "needs".
Years ago I was doing some consulting for a multi-dealership Toyota franchise here in the Land Down-under.
The dealer principal told me that a recent detailed analysis they'd conducted from their extensive service records of 500+ Land Cruiser 200 series over ten years, they had calculated  that the Total Ownership Costs V8 petrol version  over 100,000 km (60,000 miles) were several thousand dollars LESS than for the comparable diesel V8 ...taking account of fuel use, service costs, spare parts etc. They were advising their clients to opt for the petrol engine.... The 200 series diesel V8 however is overwhelmingly the preferred option nevertheless and ultimately Toyota dropped the petrol version from the range.

While I currently enjoy my small capacity (by comparison)  turbo charged common rail diesel "soft SUV, I'm seriously thinking about ordering the petrol version of the Grenadier when it becomes available. The diesel requirement for "Ad Blue", complex emission sensors , particulate filters..., complex injectors, expensive high pressure fuel pumps and their "no tolerance" for anything but pristine fuel... wondering if the petrol version might be the better bet like in Toyota land
I would really appreciate others' thoughts on this...

 

[Triple Seven]

Thanks for your insight…

 

[Spjnr]

Completey agree Denis. I think the days of reliable bulletproof no fuss diesels are unfortunately behind us. My only reservation with the petrol version is its towing mannerisms. I'd need to drive one first to find out, but I can't stand the high revving sensation when towing 3.5 tons up an incline, 5k to 6k rpm and whatnot, just not good. 

Everywhere else, the petrol actually makes far more sense. No adblu, peppier driving probably, cheaper to maintain, less emissions BS.

 

[Paachi]

I had posted this in another thread as well..but my 2 cents as someone with an old school diesel (1997 Mercedes OM606 turbo with an IDI engine) are
We (and I) love to romanticize diesels. They are forbidden fruit here in United States. They are great in terms of stump pulling torque and better economy and ergo better range. However, in the modern context of emissions, DEF etc. I simply can’t see the allure. I will take a modern gasoline engine over diesel. The petrol engines are less fussy, produce good power for on road driving (which is 75% of our driving anyway) and with a properly matched turbo and transmission..produce enough low end power. Old diesels are almost tractors but dont have that much power..the moment you add modern stuff like common rail, DEF (for emissions), etc., to extract power and better MPG the reliability just goes out the window. Look at the Jeep forums on peoples feedback on the diesels. On the other hand look at the venerable 4Runner. Its been used in tough situations and it comes with a simple normally aspirated 4.0 petrol. Damn near bullet proof.

The cons of petrol IMHO are

1. If not geared properly then are gutless in low revs
2. Can get very thirsty in off road scenarios, especially with a lot of torque work and idling. This is single-handedly where a diesel shines for me
3. The fuel is less smelly but much more volatile. So transporting it or using it for heating the cabin etc., requires a lot of care or potentially cannot be done at all
4. Since its thirsty it also gives less range/ tank which is a very crucial factor To quote Scott Brady : In most places of the world, the first vehicle to access it is a motorcycle/ moped. And they run on petrol.

 

[Triple Seven]

GAS or DIESEL - What's BETTER to DRIVE AROUND THE WORLD OVERLAND?

https://youtu.be/YoxdojIpiGY

 

[stickshifter]

Completey agree Denis. I think the days of reliable bulletproof no fuss diesels are unfortunately behind us. My only reservation with the petrol version is its towing mannerisms. I'd need to drive one first to find out, but I can't stand the high revving sensation when towing 3.5 tons up an incline, 5k to 6k rpm and whatnot, just not good. 

Everywhere else, the petrol actually makes far more sense. No adblu, peppier driving probably, cheaper to maintain, less emissions BS.

Diesels certainly make their power at much lower rpms than petrol engines, which makes towing much less stressful with a diesel. However, all these new (-ish) turbo-charged petrol engines make power at much lower rpms than naturally aspirated petrol engines. They almost replicate the towing experience with a diesel. I did say "almost" - without question, diesels remain superior for towing. In general, naturally aspirated V6 petrol engines are horrible to tow with (typically not much power, and the power that does exist, doesn't kick in until you are over 3500 rpms). In contrast, the Ford 3.5 liter turbo-charged V6 makes power almost immediately, and tows like a champ. I would guess that the 3.0 diesel in the Grenadier will tow a bit better than the 3.0 petrol, but I think the petrol engine will do just fine.

I am sad not to get the better range of a diesel, but I have no qualms about buying the petrol engine. Modern diesels compared to petrol equivalents, have higher cost of purchase, higher cost of maintenance, are less reliable due to Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) and Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), and the cost of repairing emissions systems out of warranty is enormous.

 

[Patassa]

[QUOTE username=Triple Seven userid=8864359 postid=1331676508]As I've alluded to elsewhere, I am quite frustrated with Ineos' decision, not to bring the Diesel variant to North America. It would seem to me, the the increased torque available with the Diesel, would be perfect for this vehicle. Of course, there are a number of benefits to having a Diesel engine and it hasn't gone un-noticed that the Diesel has been used in all of the PR and Demo videos that they've shown. In addition, Chrysler, recognizing that there is a strong market for a Diesel version of the Jeep Wrangler, has recently made that variant available.

Diesel vs. Gasoline: Everything You Need to Know (caranddriver.com)

Perhaps someone could put my mind at ease, by telling me why the Gas/Petrol version will be just as good, or better than the Diesel, for the North American market. [/QUOTE]

No offense, but are diesels in the US seem to be a disaster. Ultra low sulphur diesel effectively removes the lubricant from the fuel that it's supposed to have, and it will continue to get more expensive to produce ULSD as regulations squeeze us. 

 

[Triple Seven]

None taken...Lots to learn here...

 

[PL1]

I asked the Diesel v. Petrol question at the 2B Tour in Seattle.
The answer from Greg was -- BMW [along with VW] was caught in the dieselgate saga and fined as a result for 'misleading' pollution and mpg numbers to favor diesels.  It's not over because there are new question about the adblu that's required in EU markets. 
As a result, BMW has taken it's diesel models off the road in Nth. America and the engine has to be re-certified by the EPA.  As a small manufacturer, Grenadier [Ineos Automotive] is not in a position to spend the millions and the time it takes to obtain EPA certification. 

I have also heard there are other issues with ULSD [low sulphur diesel] but that wasn't included in Greg's answer.
Switching gears, he did say the Hydrogen fuel cell option is about 5 years out and Grenadier are working with Hyundai & BMW on the engine.
Not the answer I was expecting, but that's the answer I got. 

 

[Triple Seven]

That’s a pretty good answer…It would seem then, that in order to have gone with a Diesel in NA, they likely would have had to have gone with a different engine manufacturer all together…One that had already met the EPA requirements. If they’d  started with a different engine manufacturer, that might have been possible, but not once they’d engineered for a BMW. 

 

[TnUplander]

I don't know where the reliability concerns come from.  Perhaps some of the diesels offered are having issues in the US but I've had no problems.  GMC is now offering an inline 6 3.0L diesel that is getting in the high 20s to low 30s on MPG.   I've talk to several who have it and no issues.   FORD and RAM both offer a V6, also a 3.0L.   These are in light trucks.

DEF is now a reality.  But its quite easy to find.   

I run an older (2009) V8 in a GMC 2500.  I've had no issues beyond what you might expect at 210K miles....one injector dropped, and I've replaced all the glow plugs.  Its gets about 18MPG on the interstate if I keep it under 75.   MPG has dropped a little after the 150K mile point.  I used to get 20.

I drive long distances on my trips.  If the recent video from down under showing fuel range is true to production specs (maybe it isn't?) then this vehicle isn't well suited to long trips unless you want to stop frequently for fuel.  Perhaps for the ardent 4-wheeler that's acceptable.   I use 4WD to get out of spots I didn't really mean to get into, or to get somewhere I really have to go.  I am not using it to prove what I can climb over or through.  Perhaps (truthfully) I am not the target customer.

I had a reservation and dropped it when they made decision not to bring a diesel to NA.  The I re-reserved thinking I'd keep my options open to see what they did.   But if the MPG is in the low teens as I now fear then my next vehicle will be a GMC 1500 AT-4 with the diesel.   I'll keep the 2500 for pulling and use the 1500 for my long trips with the bird dog.   But she really wants the Grenadier.  

 

[ADVAW8S]

Something to think about.  If you take the X7 or even the x5, they average 21 in city and 25 on highway.  Then say the engine was detuned reducing HP and adding a smother power range, you might expect the same MPG as the current BMW lineup

 

[TnUplander]

That would be nice.   Less than what a diesel should deliver, but far better than my fears.  Hope you are correct.