Mercedes Benz 2.1L TD engine...

Discuss. I was reading truck trend (my dad bought it) on the throne the other day and noticed this.

2.1L TD engine, 190hp, 360lbft

Of course, it won't be offered in a Dodge Dakota or anything, because how could you possibly use a truck that gets 30mpg and can actually tow something? What is WRONG WITH MANUFACTURERS THAT WE CAN'T GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS?! I'd sell everything but the race car for a truck that could tow 8000-9000 pounds (2004 GMC cc 4x4 is rated at 8600 with only 330lbft @ a bajillion rpm) and I'd DD it if it got better mpg than a WRX.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

You used to be able to buy a compact truck with a diesel engine, they didn't sell very well then and they cost too much to make in such small numbers today due to strict emissions standards in the US.

Yeah, this is a combination of sales volumes & emissions standards, but I agree that it'd be great if some OEM would take a shot at this.

...you mean the TD Ford Ranger sold everywhere but here? I really would like to replace my Ranger with one, but alas I'm not allowed to have a compact pickup that gets 30+MPG while being able to tow 6000lbs...

Ford sold NON turbo diesel Rangers in the mid '80s (they used 2 different diesel engines), and Toyota and Nissan sold diesel powered trucks in the mid '80s, too. I think, but am not sure, that GM used a small diesel in S trucks for a year or 3.

Oddly, one of the diesels the Ranger used was a Mazda diesel, which Mazda DIDN'T use in their own trucks sold here.

I saw a diesel powered full-sized Blazer on my local CL awhile ago...makes you wonder why the "Big 3" don't offer diesel power in their biggest SUVS anymore (or do they?).

Both the Ranger and S10/S15 Diesels of the mid-80's used foreign-sourced engines. GM used Isuzu (not just in trucks, but also in the Chevette) and Ford used Mazda in both the Ranger and the Tempo.

It wasn't just the GM/Olds 350 Diesel that gave Diesels a bad rap in this country. All of the non-turbo Diesels were smelly, smoky, and downright slow.

Shame, really, that 25 years later, one can barely tell a modern Diesel from a gasser, but the old reputation still lingers.

EvanR wrote: Shame, really, that 25 years later, one can barely tell a modern Diesel from a gasser, but the old reputation still lingers.

Well, maybe you can't. But looking at the regulated emissions- it's really, really easy to tell the difference. Either the diesels are incredibly dirty, or they cost a WHOLE lot more money.

(and I use "incredibly" very loosely, there. in my relative world, it's a lot)

In reply to alfadriver:

Either way, I'd love to replace my Ranger with another compact (as they can be these days) pickup that fits in my garage, gets 30MPG, can haul 3000lbs in the bed or can tow 7000lbs, and I can park in a city parking deck no problem. I'd pay the premium...

Raze wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Either way, I'd love to replace my Ranger with another compact (as they can be these days) pickup that fits in my garage, gets 30MPG, can haul 3000lbs in the bed or can tow 7000lbs, and I can park in a city parking deck no problem. I'd pay the premium...

Realistically, if such a truck existed that could sell for a profit, there's more then enough market in the US to sell it. Easy. Better if you could pair it with an SUV that got 30mpg and could do similar work.

It's a very large $$ equation to make work.

Grand Cherokee is getting a 3.0-liter diesel in the very near future. That could be the beginning of some very good things.

i'm still holding my breath for a mahindra.

turning blue btw

In reply to alfadriver:

They're selling the new Ranger Diesel for around $25k which has all of the aforementioned capability, only problem is it's gone upsize to 90% of an F150...

Raze wrote: In reply to alfadriver: They're selling the new Ranger Diesel for around $25k which has all of the aforementioned capability, only problem is it's gone upsize to 90% of an F150...

Not here...

That's where the $25k goes up by $5-10k.

In reply to alfadriver:

I know it's a crying shame

DaveEstey wrote: Grand Cherokee is getting a 3.0-liter diesel in the very near future. That could be the beginning of some very good things.

The problem with the Cherokee is it is an SUV, not a truck. But other than that, it is perfect. At the same time, a quad cab ford/gm/dodge diesel of similiar era and mileage (which can tow more) almost gets the same mpg with a tuner.

I'm talking/wanting a FULLSIZE pickup that gets 30mpg. The 2.1L could deliver that. Also note that the 2.1L merc motor makes virtually identical power as the 3.0L in the GC.

EvanR wrote: Both the Ranger and S10/S15 Diesels of the mid-80's used foreign-sourced engines. GM used Isuzu (not just in trucks, but also in the Chevette) and Ford used Mazda in both the Ranger and the Tempo. It wasn't just the GM/Olds 350 Diesel that gave Diesels a bad rap in this country. All of the non-turbo Diesels were smelly, smoky, and downright slow. Shame, really, that 25 years later, one can barely tell a modern Diesel from a gasser, but the old reputation still lingers.

The Ranger also got a Mitsubishi diesel.