Mason As usual your logic is everything but. Diesels don’t need to make horsepower to make torque you wit. That’s why they can survive many times longer than SI gasoline engines and do more work in the process. Diesel produces and maintains more torque at lower rpm. For a gas engine to pull a 100k lb load it would have to be in the 1000 HP range and would have to rev at 2 to 3 times that of a diesel just to stay in its power range.

1. Nissan Towing Guide 2018

It’s got way more to do with just fuel economy, although that is another perk. DenverMike “You guys should all pool your resources and build a gas powered engine to sell to the HD manufacturers. Since you could build them cheaper than a diesel engine, you’ll have a gold mine” With turbo charging a V10 or 6.4 Hemi, who knows? I know they get the job done in current, naturally aspirated form.

Welcome to our towing guide section. Here, you’ll find all our towing guides going back to 1999 in. 2017 Tow Guide: 2016 Tow Guide 2015 Tow Guide.

They have to rev more and do drink more fuel, but with a true cost analysis, diesel versions of Ram and Ford medium duty trucks, fall behind gasoline versions. That’s really the bottom line, not racing to the top of the hill to see who’s fastest.

Especially not in commercial HD trucks. And we don’t know the long term longevity of current diesels, nor how much more lubricating cetane will be removed in the future from diesel fuel. All the additives and diesel fuel conditioners aren’t exactly cheap. But you never want to put yourself into a position where you’re faced with the rebuild of a diesel engine. A set of injectors alone, around $3,000. Mason Yep, the same engines that share over 85% of their hard parts with diesel engines.

And guess what, they still produce less power and return worse fuel mileage. Drivers hate them because throttle response is crap due to the distance the fuel/air mixture has to travel from the throttle plate to combustion and mechanics hate them because service requirements have increased. The ONLY saving grace is the low fuel prices, and once the price aligns with demand natural gas engines will once again have the same popularity they did 20 years ago.

CNG/LPG fueled engines have ZERO performance advantages over diesel. LouBC @Drzhivago138 – Agreed. I buy pickups because of the versatility related to cargo. I’m much more interested in what goes into the box than what I tow behind it. Ram had said the average 1/2 ton buyer tows no more than 5k and GM said the HD buyer tows no more than 10k. That would indicate that Nissan is targeting the “light duty” 3/4 ton buyer. The problem with a 1,500 – 2,000 cargo rating is the fact that tongue weight or pin weight sucks up cargo ratings.

TFL truck did a test with a gooseneck trailer and had to deliberately load the trailer tail heavy and legally could carry only 2 occupants. The Titan XD may be overbuilt for its ratings but then again any 3/4 ton used for similar towing is also overbuilt. Nissan is targeting the buyer that wants a diesel pickup but 99% of the time doesn’t really need one hence the down-rated tow/haul specs yielding a better empty ride.

Personally, the pickups I have owned have rarely ever been totally empty. If I want the extra headaches of a diesel engine I’ll easily put up with a ride penalty for a more capable 3/4 HD truck. Drzhivago138 Actually, I’d be more interested in the Heavy-Duty Payload Package because (semi-ironically) the provisions made to give it maximum payload (heavier springs, thicker frame, etc.) also give it a towing capacity matching or possibly even exceeding the Max Trailer Tow Package. When we had our ’98 F-250 LD, it was used more for towing than hauling (esp. Since the bed was 6.5′), and I’d do the same with my dream pickup: towing my equally-nonexistent dream camper.

Or maybe I’d actually use the payload to its full-capacity, and get a slide-in to recreate Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley. Stuki The XD is almost purpose built for the fairly large (by diesel pickup standards) market of retired RVers with a fifth wheel in the 9-12000lb range. They tow relatively heavy for long distance, don’t share car enthusiasts fascination with redlining from dawn ’til dusk, and aren’t particularly interested in being blown off the highway midway through the Dakotas, despite their sail of a 5er. But then they get to a destination, unhook, and use their truck as a stand alone vehicle for anywhere from a few days to an entire season.

It’s a sizable market, and one with some money to spare. With EPA regs making all half tons lighter (a la F150), hence more prone to trailer wagging the truck; competition in dually space making HDs ever more like class 8 rigs; and more and more boomers retiring; the space Nissan is angling for, either is, or will become, a very reasonable place to be. Don’t be surprised if the Big3 splits their SRW and Dually, or 3/4 vs 1 ton, drivelines and chassis over time either. 1000 ft-lb and enough radiator to cool an office building in Phoenix, isn’t really the optimal way to spec any SRW 2500. I’m bummed out it’s maxed out at 1200lb on the bumper, but supposedly “noone” bumper tows that much anymore, as all the bigger RVs are 5ers now.

And bigger horse trailers are goosenecks. While the softer, 1/2 ton plush, suspension makes more weight on the bumper less than ideal. Jagboi I would regard the 04-09 XJ’s as the ones to buy. Generally, they have had excellent reliability, S/C or not. The S/C cars have a Mercedes transmission, N/A is a 6 speed ZF.

I specifically would not buy a 2000-03 X308 because of the 5 speed ZF trans, they have a high failure rate unless the fluid is changed, and ZF designed it as “sealed for life”. It’s difficult to change the fluid, and it’s a special fluid at something like $40/litre. If you do get a 00-03 make sure the timing chain tensioners are the latest type and the water pump has been replaced.

Originals were a plastic impeller and can separate from the shaft. Later ones were metal. Jagboi The first generation 4.0 V8’s had problems with timing chain tensioners.

Originally they were plastic, the later versions were metal. Those metal ones need to be retrofitted otherwise the engine is a time bomb. All 4.2’s have the metal tensioners, it’s only the 4.0’s that are a problem. Similarly, the 4.0’s used plastic water pump impellers, an updated version is metal. Ditto thermostat housings. Once that is fixed, there are no major problems with the X308, outside of the trans, so if you like the styling get one with those things done, or budget to have them done.

Lots written about it on various Jag forums. The supercharged cars used a different trans, it’s only the N/A cars that are troublesome. BMW used the same trans and has similar issues. The fluid can be changed, needs to be Esso LT71141 fluid (or equal). Since there is no dipstick, you need a computer connection to tell you when it’s full and has to be in a specific temp range to do it. A good Jaguar independent should be able to do it no problem. I personally prefer the X350, as it still has the classic XJ style, but has aluminium body and the 4.2.

Only reasonably common failures I have heard of is some of the air suspension parts (leaks down overnight), but they are not expensive to fix. Mason Obviously it takes many years to accumulate anything close to a million miles. The point is, if you can put together an effective and reliable running gear the TCO MAY just be low enough to sway people into keeping their trucks on the road rather than spending $50k+ on a new one. So far Dodge/RAM has been successful in that where Ford and GM have failed. And FYI, the heart of RAM trucks have essentially gone unchanged since 07.5.

Maybe some trim and infotainment crap, along with a much improved emissions and a true MD auto trans, other than that they are much the same. This is one area that FCA has left largely alone. DenverMike They’re million mile Dodge trucks, not Rams. They’re tons more collectible than other older, pre emissions Ford and Chevy diesels. But what they’re really “collecting” is the Cummins, much more so than the truck it came wrapped in. There’s a reason Cummins diesels are popular conversions for Fords and Chevys.

Except a Dodge truck converted to a Ford 7.3 or Power Stroke or Chevy 6.2 diesel, would be a rare bird indeed. But love an older diesel truck and keep it on the road long enough, the miles just keep on racking up. There’s just more to love about older Dodge trucks, vs all other, as long as there’s an older Cummins under the hood. Point is you may not want the 2017 Ram/Cummins, 300,000+ miles from now. Or any current truck.

Mason I own both and disagree. I love the simplicity of my 98 but my 13 is better built and stronger in every way. The 6.7 is more capable and will last every bit as long as the 5.9 regardless of Internet myth. I know of several high mileage trucks in my area alone.

They’re real work horses. The 68RFE and the Aisin are light years ahead of the 47RE. You would be lucky to get 100k out of a factory 47RE, the 68 and Aisin are consistently doubling and tripling that mileage behind 1.5 times the torque. Not to mention more gears, better shift logic, and an exhaust brake. The AAM axles are a better design than the Dana axles. The 9.25 has a high pinion with reverse cut gears.

A reverse cut high pinion gear in the front is stronger for a couple reasons, the biggest is that the pinion head is pulled into the ring gear under load. The Dana 60 is exact opposite. DenverMike Simplicity makes you money, complexity costs you money. That plus emissions that all but spoil the fun. We can only speculate what (costs) owners of newer trucks with put up with, on the way to a million miles. Million mile engines may be a thing of the past anyway. Lack of diesel fuel lubricity could be a huge factor.

One needed rebuild of the diesel engine and you may walk away. With gasoline engines in heavy duty pickups, you know they’ll be cheap to rebuild, once or twice, if you insist on a million miles. You can push anything to a million miles, if it doesn’t drive you crazy or spend way more than its worth along the way. 1st you have to love the thing. Mason All I can tell you is people are still making money with them. A thousand dollar DPF every couple hundred thousand miles isn’t a deal breaker like a lot of guys make it out to be. Especially when the service intervals have literally doubled Oil from 7500 miles to 15k and fuel filters at 30k.

Transmission service intervals have also doubled. Just those things alone add up into the thousands over the course of even a half a million miles. Then you factor in big money parts like diffs and transmissions that are lasting longer between rebuilds than they were 20 years ago. Truck maintenance is the least of most guys worries that hotshot anyhow.

The cost of insurance and registration have gone through the roof. Keeps already slim profit margins at a minimum.

I don’t know of any million mile 6.7’s yet but there are plenty at half a million and lots at 300,000 (I see em for sale all the time). The 6.7 has issues with emission equipment from time to time but overall they seem pretty good. My neighbor is a service manager at a heavy truck dealer about 2011 he was going nut fixing DPF and EGR problems on almost new trucks (less then 100k miles) It has since gotten better but he still ends up fixing alot of them. He says the basic engines still seem fine and has seen several with lots of miles but they were more expensive to get there then they used to be. Big Al From 'Murica Look, I love me some Fords. I own a 2.7 ecoboost F150 and absolutely love it. But “Diesel Reliability” and Ford do not go hand in hand.

I have heard the current crop is OK, but those 6.0 Powerstroke have turned a generation of buyers off like the GM 350 Diesel. They were terrible and truck buyers, especially diesel buyers have long memories.

Having said that my neighbor pulls a giant 5th wheel with a 6.7 King Ranch that is a great truck. My 2.7 has no issue with my 5000 pound rig though. SCE to AUX @87 Morgan: Case #1: My friend’s 2014 3.0 Ecodiesel visited the shop 8 times in 12 months, including once when it was flat-bedded for a non-start situation. The dealer was unable to reliably fix it. He had a plethora of fuel system and sensor issues, and finally traded it for a Tacoma.

Case #2: Edmunds’ long-term tester had its entire fuel replaced: But they still liked the vehicle. I stand corrected on the “Fiat-sourced” comment. 87 Morgan You have touched on the ‘rub’. Which is more cost effective and/or liveable? Tow your living quarters with a large truck: conceivably you have to buy both the tow rig and the camper. Or Buy a motorhome (gasser to keep the cost down) and an enclosed trailer that fits your car and some gear. Kinda like towing your garage or storage shed.

When you are at your destination you drive comfortably and not in some bro-dozer truck. Mo’ho stays parked until it is time to go home. Both will guzzle fuel, gasser mo’ho or your 3/4 ton pulling a 5th wheel, so the mpg argument is out the window IMHO. Mason A motorhomes biggest advantage is it is legal for passengers to roam about the back, stretch their legs, use the rest room, etc.

Doing so in a 5th wheel is legal in a handful of states but in most it is not. Aside from that I believe it is more about personal preference. You can buy a comparably equipped and sized 5th wheel or TT for significantly less than a motorhome, so as long as one has a use/need for a truck it is generally a cheaper route with less maintenance.

Motorhomes are nice but the bigger units can be a real PIA to manuever, especially with a trailer hooked to the back. If you get into the pushers maintenance really becomes a chore, although most that can afford them pawn any wrenching off on a mechanic. My aunt and uncle own one with an 8.3 Cummins and I have been roped into enough PM work to be happy to own a 5th wheel.

Different strokes for different folks. Tjh8402 @mason – you brought up an excellent point and one I didn’t think about. That is another reason my parents love the motorhome. They take groups of family and friends with them even on day trips, and the motorhome is a great, comfortable way to do it, especially since most of their group is getting older (going from 50’s to 80’s).

My parents went with a simple car dolley, so it’s very easy to unhook. Maintenance has been pricey (batteries and tires are killers), but they have found a couple of trustworthy handymen and even their independent auto mechanic who all do good work for a fair price for them. The depreciation is a killer though.

I think they paid $150k (give or take a few $10k) for theirs less than 10 years ago and it’s only worth $5-10k. It’s in fine shape, with recent remodeling done inside, but that’s just how the depreciation curve is on it. A well maintained used one should be a good value. You can pull some lightweight 5th wheels in the 29 and 30′ range but it would be the limit. Alot of the half ton towable 5th’s would work well. Some of the new ones run much lower pin weights. My inlaws weighs 8,000 lbs with 1,200 on the pin.

They pull it with a Tundra, they have looked at the Nissan but would prefer something with more payload. And I agree with Lou Nissan shot them selves in the foot with not at least offering a high payload option. It doesn’t matter much in the boat towing market or even the guys who pull their race cars and jeeps but the RV market has become very aware of payloads and overloading in recent years thanks to a few safety crusaders and CHP cracking down on overweight fifth wheels a few years ago.

Look on any RV towing forum and it will come out, I don’t think I have even seen it mentioned over at the boating sites. The really odd thing is the RV market is the fastest growing outdoor recreation that requires a truck and it seems short sighted that Nissan did not research it better. Gtemnykh Typical badge-obsessed Russian guy, lives in Brighton Beach (Russian part of Brooklyn). We were diagnosing but one of the car’s multitude of issues, namely it stalling out on off-ramps.

That ended up being a faulty MAF sensor, short term solution was to simply unplug it and let the car use the default map (not sure how cold starts will go though). Off the top of my head, the other things that were wrong: Massive valve cover gasket leak, smoke pouring out from under the hood Wheel bearing going bad, noisy struts (not terrible considering the mileage and NYC roads) Catalyst efficiency error (could possibly just need an O2 sensor) A litany of electronic faults including the adaptive headlights, parking sensors, brake wear sensor, something do to with the power seat module, and on and on.

A few interior bits were broken or cracked (wood trim on door panel, rear window visor latch). My honest opinion is that this thing should go in the junkyard as soon as the CPO warranty runs out. But good luck convincing this type of customer to buy something with a less ostentatious badge. To be fair, the engine and transmission seemed to work just fine and the car went down the road very well aside from the smoke pouring out from the hood and intermittent jerky/stalling engine due to the MAF. Gtemnykh This was in PA actually, I was visiting my bro preemptively changing lower balljoints out on the 4Runner(old ones with 20 years and 128k still felt totally fine). The car wasn’t CPO, he bought it at 60k miles 3 years ago (probably third owner after 2nd owner had it through CPO), and ran it up to 146k driving back and forth to NYC visiting a GF-now-wife.

Now, to a certain person, one that doesn’t mind wrenching and hunting down good prices on parts, one of these E70 X5s might be an okay fit. But you have to have that mindset with being okay with constantly having something on the docket to be fixed, and in the mean time driving around with it beeping and shouting error messages at you. For example, the temporary fix with the MAF of unplugging it, a new OEM one is a not-unreasonable $189 from AutohausAZ and is a quick 1 minute swap to replace. RHD I’m looking forward to the Jag article, too. I have towed a Volvo V70 on a tow dolly with my Volvo V70 on more than one occasion and a Honda Accord. You get a lot of stares when a car is towing another of the same model!

The maximum tow capacity is supposedly 3500 lbs other than slow acceleration and longer braking times (requiring planning ahead), there were no problems with my daily driver. Only slightly kidding, when owning old Jaguar, a truck for towing and a trailer are practically required accessories! 28-Cars-Later Alex, you noted mileage at around 5:15 in your video review but I don’t see it listed in the article. If this was a ploy to get viewers into the video, well played, but I feel some indication at the end of the written article would be helpful. Edit: I’m a fool, carry on. Additional: The reason I bring up mileage is Toyota is supposed to introduce a Cummins V8 to the Tundra for MY17 and I am mildly interested.

If one could crack 20 mpg on average in a truck that size and install aftermarket fuel tanks while having the availability of diesel torque (found 50 gal gas ones online), it might be worth a serious look, emissions stupidity notwithstanding. Gtemnykh Using a C-channel frame (as seen on many commercial trucks and Ford’s very own SuperDuty) and that flex that was upsetting folks allows for the use of a stiffer (ie higher load bearing) leaf pack in the rear suspension and avoid squat, while retaining an acceptably comfortable ride and saving weight. Yes Ford claims some obnoxiously high payload ratings, but I would be curious to see all the half-tons lined up in a now with 2000lb of gravel in the bed, and how they would look in terms of suspension sag. Short of the gen 1 Tacoma and gen 1 Tundra Dana Corp. Rust proofing debacle, I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that these C-channel frames are an issue in terms of durability or longevity. Ford made a video of the bed moving relative to the body due to the frame flex over an offset speedbump course and made a big stink out of it. I don’t see how any of that translates to a substantiated issue in the real world.

Elsewhere, John has made a big stink about Toyota trucks moving over to 5 lug wheel hubs (instead of 6 as they used to have). Same sort of foaming at the mouth about supposed issues with durability.

One need only to point out that the total strength of the new thicker 5 stud design is greater than that of the older, thinner 6 wheel studs. But don’t let engineering and numbers get in the way of a good rant. LouBC gtemnykh – that bed bounce video did make the Tundra look bad but in the real world I have never heard it to be an issue. I don’t know anyone who have had any issues with the Tundra. Typically Tundra buyers are not Toyota fanboys but guys totally pissed off at “domestic trucks”. I know a guy that had nightmare experiences with 2 Ram Cummins HD’s.

He bought a Tundra and beat the crap out of it. The only reason he did not get another one was that he needed more cargo capacity.

I won’t buy a Tundra but that has more to do with price i.e. They tend not to budge from MSRP and secondly, they do not offer me what I want in a pickup. Sigivald 120k units a year. That’s why Toyota “bothers” with the Tundra.

Nissan Towing Guide 2018

I think the question you meant is “why do people BUY the Tundra?” (Well, the only reason I can think of is “my old Toyota had no serious non-wear issues to 280kmi, and my Ford 5.4 blew up at 130kmi”. That’d make me think twice about another Ford when the SuperDuty finally wears out its new engine, eh? “Serious” truck buyers are a pretty small segment, honestly – and a new Tundra extended cab longbed is the same basic configuration as my ’07 SuperDuty, has more power and torque, and equally as much never-to-be-used tow capacity. I mean, I’d probably look at a Chevy before a Tundra, but the idea that they’re incapable seems baseless.). Depends on your part of the country for dealing I know several people here in the north east who paid less for a Tundra then the local dealers offered up on F150’s.

The bucking syndrome on the Tundra was subject to much debate they did issue a TSB for new bed mounts in 2010. I have driven my inlaws Tundra quite a bit and never noticed but most of the time it was loaded or had a cap on it. When they first got it I drove it unloaded on the highway to check it out and it was fine. I know the silverado I drove last year had a little annoying bed bounce unloaded at about 68 mph but nothing really annoying.

My inlaws Tundra is a 2009 they bought for hauling their camper. First a 5,000 lbs travel trailer and now an 8,000 lbs fifth wheel. I have towed the travel trailer with 3 people in the cab and a bed full of camping gear and a generator (cap on the truck) thru the hills of West Virginia pretty effortlessly. I will admit I haven’t driven a new F150 but I have driven the older one and plenty of super duties. I think for half tons my choice would be Ram (I have to look at my screen name) Toyota then a tie between Nissan and Chevy. LouBC @sirwired – an old outdated tradition.

The first number in the designation tends to be more accurate of their weight classification. At one time we had trucks like the F100, C/K1000 which were basically class 1 trucks. Currently most of the small trucks like Colorado and Tacoma are class 1. 1/2 tons i.e F150, Ram and GM 1500’s are class 2a. 3/4 tons are 2b.i.e. F250 and Ram GM 2500.

Class 3 are your one tons i.e 350/3500. Class 4 is your 450/4500’s. Weight ratings initially were upped by manufacturers to get out of having to comply with CAFE/Emissions ratings. Now they are a PR ploy.

Jagboi This kind of seems neither fish nor fowl. The payload capacity is very close to a basic F150, and the F150 weighs a lot less and will have better fuel economy. Obviously higher towing capacity than an F150, but then why not buy an F250/350 and have payload as well as towing capacity? The F250 4×4 has a lower curb weight too. The Titan gets worse fuel economy than an F150 for the people who haul stuff, and doesn’t have the torque of the Ford / Chev for the people who need to tow stuff. Seems either over or under built depending on the quality you want (haul vs tow).

Thinking about it, it actually sounds like a parts bin special kind of chassis/powertrain. They just threw together whatever they had, didn’t really matter if it was appropriate to the job or not.

Share. Facebook. Tweet.

Pinterest. Email For years, being a diehard Cummins diesel fan has meant aligning yourself with a - and stepping up to a full-blown heavy-duty truck. That’s all changed with introduction of the 2016 Nissan Titan XD, which has just made its debut at the. Redesigned from nose to tail, the new Titan (more on the “XD” nameplate in a moment) replaces a truck that hadn’t changed all that much since the model’s introduction in 2003. Its fresh, muscular styling is butch enough to hold its own against Detroit’s square-jawed offerings, and chances are good that you’ll be able to find a Titan that meets your needs, thanks to the head-spinning range of trims and configurations set to hit the market. The Titan XD is big and beefy and has the motors to back up its bold stance: a gasoline V8 and a V8 Cummins 5.0-liter turbodiesel. The diesel puts down 310 hp and 555 lb-ft of torque and it’s mated to a six-speed Aisin automatic transmission.

Sitting on a fully boxed ladder frame not shared with the Titan, the Titan XD borrows components and engineering expertise from. Equipped with the range-topping diesel, it’ll haul a payload of more than 2,000 pounds and tow more than 12,000 pounds (Nissan didn’t give us exact specifications). That’s more than most full-size trucks, though roughly equal to a two-wheel drive 6.2-liter V8-powered equipped with the most capable trailering package. Of course, the Titan XD can’t touch the 15-ton capacities of a properly equipped, which speaks to the staggering capabilities of today’s top-of-the line haulers. To paraphrase Nissan, the Titan XD is a heavy-duty truck - by the standards of 2003. And there’s supposedly a healthy demand for that sort of value proposition today.

Out of the roughly 2 million pickups sold each year in the U.S., Nissan claims, 75,000 of those sales represent buyers switching from a full-size truck to a heavy duty truck to gain some towing capacity. These buyers need a little more capacity than what’s offered in a full-sizer, but probably not as much as is afforded by a heavy-duty truck.

A similar number of buyers switch down from a heavy duty to a full-sizer, but they probably would prefer to retain some of the towing power they give up in the switch. That adds up 150,000 or so prospects right there.

Adding the Cummins nameplate to the mix won’t hurt the Titan’s chances, either. Though Nissan stressed that the truck wasn’t built around the Cummins motor, the hallowed diesel-maker has a dedicated following among fiercely loyal pickup buyers. While the Cummins badge does also adorn heavy-duty Rams, the Titan’s engine isn’t the commercial grade 850 lb-ft torque monster found in the Ram - simply put, it’s a different motor in a different truck targeted to a different sort of buyer. Beyond that motor, the Titan XD gets all the usual tech and luxury refinements buyers in the segment have come to expect. There are projector headlights and standard daytime running lights up front and LED taillights out back. The spray-lined bed retains its useful Utilitrak cargo strap-down system; it gains extra LED illumination and a tailgate designed to be easily and smoothly opened and shut with one hand (we tried it, and it works as advertised).

Also available is an in-bed gooseneck trailer hitch for those looking to take advantage of that 6-ton towing capacity.