USA Cummins & Nissan join forces

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Nissan Navara Forum

Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RLI

RLI

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Coffs Harbour
G, day folks,

I found this interesting news article below whilst researching the Nissan Titan. I hope Nissan Australia seriously thinks about importing this truck to Australia.

By Mark Kleis

Renowned diesel engine developer and producer Cummins, Nissan Motor Company and the Department of Energy have teamed up to create a working prototype half-ton pickup powered by a four-cylinder turbocharged diesel that may reshape the pickup market for North America.

The special project was recently announced at the Department of Energy’s 2011 Merit Review, held in Washington, D.C.. As explained at the event, the DoE is providing $15 million of the $30 million being allocated to the project, which so far has produced promising results as outlined by Pickup Trucks.

Officially, the project started last September, but it is possible Cummins had already put some time into their newest small diesel (or borrowed much of the design from its existing offerings from other market), as Nissan already has a fully functional prototype in testing, featuring the 2.8-liter inline-four engine.

The engine is producing torque in the realms of 350 to 400lb-ft based on dyno testing, but horsepower figures were not yet released. Pickup Trucks points out, however, that Cummins has both a 2.8-liter and a 3.8-liter turbo diesel in European markets, with the larger variant producing just 170 horsepower to go along with a more substantial 450 lb-ft of torque.

Should the horsepower rating coming in 20 percent lower than the comparable 3.8-liter unit already in service (350 torque represents a 20 percent drop from 443), horsepower could be in the neighbourhood of 133. Even with a very healthy 350 lb-ft of torque, a horsepower rating of just 133 could prove to be insufficient for many Americans, even if the fuel economy is substantially higher.

How much higher, you ask? The DoE says it is aiming for a combined rating of 30 miles per gallon, which suggests highway fuel economy in the mid to high30s – effectively doubling the dismal 17(2WD)/18(4WD) highway rating of the 5.6-liter gas-powered Titan currently for sale. Given the fact that the EPA is calling for a 30 mpg rating for light-duty trucks and SUVs by 2016, this engine may just fit the bill.

To achieve such a substantial gain in fuel economy, Cummins used a series of new technologies to boost efficiency. One such technology was the implementation of diesel exhaust fluid to help remove nitrous oxide from exhaust fumes. This technology is already being put to use in the latest offerings from Ford and GM, albeit in heavy-duty applications. Cummins also outlined a NOx passive storage system which would store NOx produced during cold starts, later releasing it once the emissions system was up to running temperature.

It also just so happens that the next-generation Titan is due to arrive around 2016, which means Nissan and Cummins may be working on more than a government project, but a possible prototype for a future production vehicle. So far, neither party has confirmed production plans for the Cummins diesel in a future Titan truck.

Regards,

RLI
:tazzy:
 
RLI said:
Renowned diesel engine developer and producer Cummins, Nissan Motor Company and the Department of Energy have teamed up to create a working prototype half-ton pickup powered by a four-cylinder turbocharged diesel that may reshape the pickup market for North America.
Click to expand...

Just right for the missus grocery shopping.
Otherwise, WTF!
 
There's a detail in there that we didn't cover in our conversation earlier, Paul - and I hate it.

Friggin' AdBlue!!!

That's "diesel exhaust fluid". It's not fuel. It's yet another fluid that you have to carry around and it is consumed at a rate of something like 3 to 5% of the amount of diesel fuel consumed.

The bloody stuff is corrosive, it's basically urea (piss) in demineralised water and it's supposed to remove NOx from the exhaust. It requires a special tank and fittings so it doesn't corrode anything.

Enough trucks use it in Australia already that you can find AdBlue bowsers at some truck ports. State Transit buses also use AdBlue.

That's horseshit. I change my mind, Paul - during the conversation it was looking appealing, having a vehicle like that. Now, forget it - give me the Renault V6 diesel any day, even with its heat problems and the stupid "Oh let's stick the turbocharger on top of the V, instead of using two slightly smaller turbos!!!".

For anyone interested, NOx (nitrogen oxides, primarily just NO and NO2 which form nitric acid when combined with water - rain) is not the greatest thing to have in the atmosphere but it's only produced at higher temperatures. Admittedly, Nissan (Renault) managed to squeeze as much power out of the little 2.5L engines by running them as hot as they could - so we're probably contributing to the global NOx production a little more than others.

No, I'm not about to borrow some lube on my way to visit Bobby Brown, I'm just explaining things. If you want a more in-depth look at it, here's some links: the system to remove NOx from the exhaust is called Selective Catalytic Reduction and a small article on AdBlue can be found here.
 
So now we are to fear DPFs and AdBlue, I'll never buy another new car incase they develop some other technology to be scared of. Too bad for all those Mazda drivers getting around in there soccer mum cars that have been running both since 2007. Wonder how many Mazda forums are filled with people scared of change and getting new engines because technology failed them.
 
KraftyPg said:
So now we are to fear DPFs and AdBlue, I'll never buy another new car incase they develop some other technology to be scared of. Too bad for all those Mazda drivers getting around in there soccer mum cars that have been running both since 2007. Wonder how many Mazda forums are filled with people scared of change and getting new engines because technology failed them.
Click to expand...

Krafty what Mazda,s run dpf and ad blue
 
I can't confirm or deny the bits in the CX5 I was just reading a story the other day about the CX7 and its bits and pieces. Of which the only complaint people had was that Mazda claimed the AdBlue was good for 20,000ks (3% usage I think it was) but only changeable by them at something like $15 a litre where as Mobil truck stops were selling it for about $3 a litre or something.
 
When they legislate the use of AdBlue, you'll see two things: first, a monopoly** on the product by oil companies, and second a price gouge *cough* hike suitably large enough to allow the oil companies' senior executives to tack on another squillion to their bonus payments.

** This monopoly will be argued for by the oil companies because "they're the most experienced at handling AdBlue" (it's piss in water, so I guess that's right). The government will have suitable amounts of cash transferred quietly to them (personally) by the oil companies to make sure the monopoly is legislated. Then, Coles and Woolworths will bulk up their instore prices some more "down down - the only thing going down is the shoppers' bank balance" and offer it at a shopper's discount rate of $12 per litre (if you buy $30 or more of overpriced items in-store).
 
Geez talk about black and white do you do political forecasting too or do you just read and quote the newspaper?

Urea it maybe but its still a bit more than piss and water, unlike the piss and vinegar that gets spread around forums on a regular basis.
 
i read the other day nissan gonna start building merc engines in one there american factories that has spare capacity
 
Considering that Coles suggest only about 8 or 10 of their truck stops nationally currently offer AdBlue for trucks and most small diesels will go 20,000 ks without topping up and its done as a part of servicing the servos abilities to monopolise a product they do not have full control over seems a bit of a jump.
 
20,000km ... at 6LPHK (small diesel) that's 1200 litres of diesel and at 3% consumption of AdBlue, it means they have a 36 litre tank for AdBlue.

And they top it up during a service?

I can't see that lasting forever, or being in every diesel. For God's sake, they neglected the spare tyre in the Econetic, just to save the weight so they can bring the economy below 4LPHK. If the government mandates the installation of SCR systems, they won't want to fit 20-30 litre tanks into the vehicle.

That's a reasonably moot point in the vehicles we're talking about, which are supposed to get 30mpg (which is about 9.4LPHK). They'd need AdBlue tanks of about 56.6L - say 60L - and that's gotta fit somewhere, and it weighs too.

That being the case, you can almost imagine that there'll eventually be a new bowser just for this stuff available at the car outlets as well.
 
Your consumption figures are not correct for all engines, the CX7 has about a 15 litre tank which they have tested to go beyond 20,000ks that is why it is scheduled at 20,000. Typically the dealers wanted to keep the job in house as they were able to charge $15 a litre for the stuff but obviously people figured out how to top the stuff up for themselves at the few bucks servos sell it for.

Just like DPF's which are now used in so many city only cars (the exact cars the experts said shouldnt get them) AdBlue is the unknown factor that people hear one bad thing about and get scared. As someone who has on more than one occasion suggested that one can't make comments on the use of 2T in diesel maybe you should apply the same theory to AdBlue and get an engine that runs it before you make silly accusations about how bad it is, how far it goes or how the world will change because of its use.
 
KraftyPg said:
Your consumption figures are not correct for all engines, the CX7 has about a 15 litre tank which they have tested to go beyond 20,000ks that is why it is scheduled at 20,000. Typically the dealers wanted to keep the job in house as they were able to charge $15 a litre for the stuff but obviously people figured out how to top the stuff up for themselves at the few bucks servos sell it for.

Just like DPF's which are now used in so many city only cars (the exact cars the experts said shouldnt get them) AdBlue is the unknown factor that people hear one bad thing about and get scared. As someone who has on more than one occasion suggested that one can't make comments on the use of 2T in diesel maybe you should apply the same theory to AdBlue and get an engine that runs it before you make silly accusations about how bad it is, how far it goes or how the world will change because of its use.
Click to expand...

I'm basing my figures on what's provided in this thread. 20,000km (stated by you in this post) @ 6LPHK which is being generous and under-estimating the usage mean they'll use 6 * 20000/100 = 1200 litres of diesel over that distance. In that same post you mention that AdBlue is consumed at 3% and other sources I've read confirm it's between 3% and 5% of diesel consumed. 3% of 1200 = 36 which is the figure I got the last time. If my figures are wrong, your figures are wrong (because I based mine off yours) which means we're both talking shit. As for the new engines, I used the same calculation method.

As for HOW it runs - I am not making any comments on HOW it goes. I've got an issue about carrying 36 litres of piss in water around, but if the law says so, then it'll have to be done. As for how the world will change, I think I might have been unclear with my message.

I was trying to convey that if lots of manufacturers pick up the AdBlue (which they'll do if it's mandated by legislation) then AdBlue is probably going to become more common at fuel stations.

How on earth do you get "silly accusations about how bad it is" from that?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top