Titan Cummins Diesel option axed for 2020

[ib516]

No more diesel in the Titan.Link

[ShinerBock]

I paid $50k out the door on my fully loaded Laramie 2500 CTD. MSRP was almost $65k

[fx2tom]

When I bought my 2016 Titan XD 5.0 SL 4x4 I paid $42k OTD. I could not have picked up a fully loaded one from the Big 3 comparable equipped at the time. They were all $50k+ before TT&L so I believe it. I used the hell out of it before selling it when my employer handed me a $48k Tundra. Titan XD was a far better truck than the Tundra for the money. It worked perfectly for my 8,300 lb fully loaded trailer. Would a 6.7l or 6.6l worked even better? Sure, but I wasn't spending the extra money and similar to demiles I was pushing 21 MPG day to day empty. I also didn't mind the looks.

[js9234]

Very highly doubt that.

demiles wrote:
My 16 has been problem free for 3 years now and I have no complaints. I bought it to work so it’s almost always hauling or towing something and it’s not a daily commuter. The reason I bought it is because it was cheap, 6k less than a big three gasser comparably equipped The 21 mpg highway empty makes me more likely to drive it.

[Durb]

The 5 liter Cummins is used in the Tiffin Breeze Class A Motorhome.

[IdaD]

demiles wrote:
My 16 has been problem free for 3 years now and I have no complaints. I bought it to work so it’s almost always hauling or towing something and it’s not a daily commuter. The reason I bought it is because it was cheap, 6k less than a big three gasser comparably equipped. The 21 mpg highway empty makes me more likely to drive it.

What was your out the door price before tax and title?

[Groover]

noteven wrote:
Our on highway rep from Cummins told me the 5.0 automotive V8 engine was designed for Dodge 1500 series trucks and vans prior to the formation of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

From what I heard Dodge/Ram walked out on it when they saw that the fuel economy numbers were not going to be much of an improvement over the more powerful 6.7.

[Groover]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
SOOOOO, where will the Cummins land???

Cummins just picked up a new customer for the 6.7 that will probably buy more than replace the loss from the Nissan. I doubt that they were making money on the 5.0 anyway with the low volumes that it had.

The old tractor engine just keeps going

[demiles]

My 16 has been problem free for 3 years now and I have no complaints. I bought it to work so it’s almost always hauling or towing something and it’s not a daily commuter. The reason I bought it is because it was cheap, 6k less than a big three gasser comparably equipped. The 21 mpg highway empty makes me more likely to drive it.

[ksss]

FishOnOne wrote:
Not surprised that the "C" badge on the fender couldn't save this truck... And the Ram Ecodiesel better get their act together or they'll be next.

Link

A lot of mistakes were made both by Nissan and Cummins. Toyota was initially interested in this same motor. They ended that conversation rather quickly after the Nissan release. As others have said, and many forecasted including me that the mileage and capability don't pencil out. If you want to get 16 mpg you can get that in an HD/SD of the big three and have twice the power and capability. No question that is one ugly pickup. The roll out was not exactly problem free on the Cummins side of the equation.

[wowens79]

When they first announced it, I thought it would be about perfect to tow my 8000 lb TT. Then when it came out, it was ugly, expensive, reports of poor gas mileage. Novel idea, but poor execution.

[FishOnOne]

Not surprised that the "C" badge on the fender couldn't save this truck... And the Ram Ecodiesel better get their act together or they'll be next.

Link

[thomasmnile]

rjstractor wrote:

thomasmnile wrote:
Cummins may even have an uphill fight in the medium duty arena. I recall reading a fire apparatus manufacturer, was either Pierce or E ONE, is offering the Ford 6.7 L diesel in a custom pumper as an alternative to the Cummins engine options offered. Is the Ford engine less complex or less trouble prone from an emissions standpoint. Cost savings over a comparable displacement Cummins inline 6?

It's Pierce that is using the 6.7 PSD, and it did catch me by surprise a little. The ISB Cummins hasn't been really been used much in fire apparatus in recent years (at least not by Pierce) and time will tell if the 6.7 PSD works out. It may work out well for departments that want a lower cost apparatus in an area where they don't have a lot of hills. To be honest, one of these motors in a municipal fire pumper is a little like putting a Chrysler Pentastar V6 in a Ram 2500. Good power on paper, but way down on torque compared with more conventional offerings.

As far as cost, while I haven't talked to a Pierce engineer in a couple of years, I imagine the Ford package comes "pre-engineered" in terms of transmission (supplied by Ford), and emission systems. Rousch also has a big part of the engineering for that engine application. For any given engine application in fire apparatus, the apparatus manufacturer must do all the applicable engineering to use that motor, which is time consuming and expensive, especially with modern emission systems. Having the package ready to drop in probably saves them a lot of money compared with sourcing the 6.7 ISB from Cummins, mating it to an Allison transmission and engineering an emission system. Again, this is mostly conjecture on my part. Sorry for getting a "little in the weeds". 🙂

No sweat, 32 years of my life was spent in the fire service. Great job and good times. :B

[rjstractor]

thomasmnile wrote:
Cummins may even have an uphill fight in the medium duty arena. I recall reading a fire apparatus manufacturer, was either Pierce or E ONE, is offering the Ford 6.7 L diesel in a custom pumper as an alternative to the Cummins engine options offered. Is the Ford engine less complex or less trouble prone from an emissions standpoint. Cost savings over a comparable displacement Cummins inline 6?

It's Pierce that is using the 6.7 PSD, and it did catch me by surprise a little. The ISB Cummins hasn't been really been used much in fire apparatus in recent years (at least not by Pierce) and time will tell if the 6.7 PSD works out. It may work out well for departments that want a lower cost apparatus in an area where they don't have a lot of hills. To be honest, one of these motors in a municipal fire pumper is a little like putting a Chrysler Pentastar V6 in a Ram 2500. Good power on paper, but way down on torque compared with more conventional offerings.

As far as cost, while I haven't talked to a Pierce engineer in a couple of years, I imagine the Ford package comes "pre-engineered" in terms of transmission (supplied by Ford), and emission systems. Rousch also has a big part of the engineering for that engine application. For any given engine application in fire apparatus, the apparatus manufacturer must do all the applicable engineering to use that motor, which is time consuming and expensive, especially with modern emission systems. Having the package ready to drop in probably saves them a lot of money compared with sourcing the 6.7 ISB from Cummins, mating it to an Allison transmission and engineering an emission system. Again, this is mostly conjecture on my part. Sorry for getting a "little in the weeds". 🙂

[N-Trouble]

Wow that didnt last long. Wonder what it will mean for resale for current owners.

I still to this day dont get the sub-3/4 ton diesel market. It will always be a niche market

[thomasmnile]

Shiner, I looked up the application on Pierce's website. The 6.7/Torq-Shift power train combo is apparently available on the Saber chassis which is an entry level custom chassis. The engine is rated for 330 HP, 725 lb/ft of torque. The adaptation was engineered for Pierce by Ford and Roush. What I wonder is the truck is spec'd with a 1500 gpm pump. Wonder how the engine will do running it, believe the pump is single stage.