2018 GMC Terrain 1.6L turbo-diesel, Whaaaat?

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
This diesel 240 ft-lbs of torque on a CUV that only weighs 3,800 lbs isn't bad. ( I get 200 ft-lbs in my sister '18 Equinox, and its decent after the turbo lag, 1.5L gas engine.)
Diesels are best during hiway cruising as most of us know, and truckers know. MPG is awesome there, you can expect 37 to 43 MPG cruising easy.

I have the sister '18 Equinox, and the chassis (steering, handling) is very good, although the 1.5L turbo gasoline engine is weak. The gas engine is the choice for a lot of in-town driving, and not the greatest for highway trips (33 MPG on hiway trips, 24 MPG around town for my 1.5L turbo gasoline).
If you want lots of power, then the 2.0T gas engine is there.

For $9,000 off sticker, this is a good deal. Solid vehicle. A lot of Euro Opel German engineering inside. GM got rid of Opel in 2017, and most of the parts on these new Equinox/Terrains/Envisions come from Opel. http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-platforms/d2xx/

That thing will outrun any RAV4, Forester or CR-V.


Given weight versus power, I'd doubt that this mini-diesel engine would be able to keep up with any of these, much less outrun them.
Yeah, it may have massive torque, but it's horsepower that defines the amount of work an engine can do, not torque.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
This diesel 240 ft-lbs of torque on a CUV that only weighs 3,800 lbs isn't bad. ( I get 200 ft-lbs in my sister '18 Equinox, and its decent after the turbo lag, 1.5L gas engine.)
Diesels are best during hiway cruising as most of us know, and truckers know. MPG is awesome there, you can expect 37 to 43 MPG cruising easy.

I have the sister '18 Equinox, and the chassis (steering, handling) is very good, although the 1.5L turbo gasoline engine is weak. The gas engine is the choice for a lot of in-town driving, and not the greatest for highway trips (33 MPG on hiway trips, 24 MPG around town for my 1.5L turbo gasoline).
If you want lots of power, then the 2.0T gas engine is there.

For $9,000 off sticker, this is a good deal. Solid vehicle. A lot of Euro Opel German engineering inside. GM got rid of Opel in 2017, and most of the parts on these new Equinox/Terrains/Envisions come from Opel. http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-platforms/d2xx/

That thing will outrun any RAV4, Forester or CR-V.


Given weight versus power, I'd doubt that this mini-diesel engine would be able to keep up with any of these, much less outrun them.
Yeah, it may have massive torque, but it's horsepower that defines the amount of work an engine can do, not torque.

It would outrun them. Probably not 0-60, but than again, why that matters?
Torque is what matters in elasticity. 40-60mph, 40-80mph, 60-100mph.
For example, my Sienna has 266hp, 1 hp more than my previous car, BMW X5 35d and it is 600lbs lighter (although one could fit X5 into Sienna, which tells another issue SIenna has). But,Sienna has 246lb-ft at 4,500rpm while BMW had 425lb-ft at 1750. Not that BMW would run circle around Sienna, it would obliterate any SUV with more hp in traffic or hwy. 0-60? Not as fast, some 6.5sec, but once one passes 20mph, you would need V8, and one with a lot of grunt to catch up.
So, this little diesel would sweat out more serious hp than RAV4 or Forester with those hair dryers under the hood.
But to your point, is that why 18-wheelers have monumental torque but less hp than BMW M5 or average Ferrari? Hook up hypothetically that trailer to M5 and let's see how far it goes.

 

[LoneRanger]

If this GMC was for me, it'd already be in our garage now. I would have no problem taking it out once a week for a long drive just for the sake of driving it around because ... I'm weird that way. I also like weird things or could we say things done differently, so it does appeal to me for that factor. Remember, I managed a 2005 Volkswagen TDI that my late wife drove back in the day. Main take away's on that was get it out and run it hard for a while on weekends, and be sure to wear nitrile gloves for oil changes (rule for any diesel, used oil from diesels is like printer's ink...)

But it's for her and and she needs turn-key simple operating parameters for an engine, with no extra driving beyond her norm, to ensure regen cycles get completed and all that.

Hate to pass it up, but have to. We're looking at Terrains w/ the 1.5 GDI turbo now.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
If this GMC was for me, it'd already be in our garage now. I would have no problem taking it out once a week for a long drive just for the sake of driving it around because ... I'm weird that way. I also like weird things or could we say things done differently, so it does appeal to me for that factor. Remember, I managed a 2005 Volkswagen TDI that my late wife drove back in the day. Main take away's on that was get it out and run it hard for a while on weekends, and be sure to wear nitrile gloves for oil changes (rule for any diesel, used oil from diesels is like printer's ink...)


And when you pump diesel!

 

[fdcg27]

Sounds good, but car engines have a rev range that diesel rigs don't as well as transmissions to make that range useful. Wanna try running any Ferrari or BMW near its power peak all day every day with an all-up weight of 80,000 pounds? Those engines wouldn't long survive. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't equate a big rig diesel with a light duty rig.
This little diesel is going to have to turn some revs to make decent power, turbo or no, so it won't be able to keep up with any decent gas engine CUV.
Low power is low power whether supplied by a diesel or a gas engine.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Hate to pass it up, but have to. We're looking at Terrains w/ the 1.5 GDI turbo now.
Transaction prices are +$3,000 higher for a Terrain compared to an Equinox (AWD, 1.5T), although the Terrain has the 9-speed auto tranny, and the Equinox has the 6-speed.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Sounds good, but car engines have a rev range that diesel rigs don't as well as transmissions to make that range useful. Wanna try running any Ferrari or BMW near its power peak all day every day with an all-up weight of 80,000 pounds? Those engines wouldn't long survive. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't equate a big rig diesel with a light duty rig.
This little diesel is going to have to turn some revs to make decent power, turbo or no, so it won't be able to keep up with any decent gas engine CUV.
Low power is low power whether supplied by a diesel or a gas engine.


Hummm... this small GM diesel reaches 240 lb-ft peak tq @ 1700rpm I think. Or 2000, forget which.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Sounds good, but car engines have a rev range that diesel rigs don't as well as transmissions to make that range useful. Wanna try running any Ferrari or BMW near its power peak all day every day with an all-up weight of 80,000 pounds? Those engines wouldn't long survive. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't equate a big rig diesel with a light duty rig.
This little diesel is going to have to turn some revs to make decent power, turbo or no, so it won't be able to keep up with any decent gas engine CUV.
Low power is low power whether supplied by a diesel or a gas engine.

WHAT? Turbo or no? I thought this is serious conversation.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Sounds good, but car engines have a rev range that diesel rigs don't as well as transmissions to make that range useful.
This little diesel is going to have to turn some revs to make decent power, turbo or no, so it won't be able to keep up with any decent gas engine CUV.
Low power is low power whether supplied by a diesel or a gas engine.


It seems like light-duty car diesels are bolted up to the same transmission as a gasser - but the bigger ones get use with a HD unit that has low but close gearing to keep the engine within its power band. I've been passed riding up a bike up a big hill hearing a Mercedes 240/300D or a VW TDI wail just close to redline, but an PSD/Cummins/Duramax would traverse that easily.

 

[fdcg27]

Boys, I've gotten into standing start stop light drags with Dodge Cummins turbodiesels while driving one of our old stick Accords.
Guess who won, although I had to rev the Hondas hard in the first couple of gears to do it, but the old Honda fours loved that anyway.
I can recall passing some country boy with his girl in a Ford Powestroke on an uphill section of interstate in our old 130 bhp '97 Accord coupe.
I never even had to shift down from fifth and there was nothing the guy in the Ford could do to stop me, although he tried.
Had he been winning, I could have easily gone down to third and waved bye-bye.
Power to weight ratio means everything as does having an effective ratio at hand.
We've owned diesels and while I liked them they were never what I would consider overly strong, torque or no.

 

[DoubleWasp]

My Cummins Rams do not rev any higher than stock, but you're not getting within 20 carlengths of either one with a 4 cylinder Accord.

It's in the tune, not the revs.

9.7 seconds 0-60 is pretty much exactly what either of your 4 cylinder Accords would tick off, so what are you complaining about?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Boys, I've gotten into standing start stop light drags with Dodge Cummins turbodiesels while driving one of our old stick Accords.
Guess who won, although I had to rev the Hondas hard in the first couple of gears to do it, but the old Honda fours loved that anyway.
I can recall passing some country boy with his girl in a Ford Powestroke on an uphill section of interstate in our old 130 bhp '97 Accord coupe.
I never even had to shift down from fifth and there was nothing the guy in the Ford could do to stop me, although he tried.
Had he been winning, I could have easily gone down to third and waved bye-bye.
Power to weight ratio means everything as does having an effective ratio at hand.
We've owned diesels and while I liked them they were never what I would consider overly strong, torque or no.

Went from GMC and Toyota and Subaru to Honda with stick shift and Dodge and Ford pick ups.
One cannot make this up.
As for ownership, highly doubt you paid attention.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
My Cummins Rams do not rev any higher than stock, but you're not getting within 20 carlengths of either one with a 4 cylinder Accord.

It's in the tune, not the revs.

9.7 seconds 0-60 is pretty much exactly what either of your 4 cylinder Accords would tick off, so what are you complaining about?

Of course it is not getting nowhere close. VW Jetta with 2.0ltr 140hp diesel would obliterate that Accord.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Boys, I've gotten into standing start stop light drags with Dodge Cummins turbodiesels while driving one of our old stick Accords.
Guess who won, although I had to rev the Hondas hard in the first couple of gears to do it, but the old Honda fours loved that anyway.
I can recall passing some country boy with his girl in a Ford Powestroke on an uphill section of interstate in our old 130 bhp '97 Accord coupe.
I never even had to shift down from fifth and there was nothing the guy in the Ford could do to stop me, although he tried.
Had he been winning, I could have easily gone down to third and waved bye-bye.
Power to weight ratio means everything as does having an effective ratio at hand.
We've owned diesels and while I liked them they were never what I would consider overly strong, torque or no.


Was the Country boy driving a non-turbo IDI? The 6.0L Powerstroke was 325HP and 570lb-ft when bone stock and had a 0-60 of around 10 seconds and ran low 17's in the 1/4, both of which are about dead-even with your old Accord. On a hill, with 4x the torque, and a turbo, he should have been able to walk you. A quick tune on the 6.0L had it pushing 800lb-ft and >400HP, the 7.3, which yielded similar 0-60 and 1/4-mile numbers, responded similarly to basic tunes. A lot of these trucks work surprisingly well, and it doesn't take a lot to make them reasonably quick for how much they weigh.

Heck, even my wife's former EcoDiesel has a claimed 0-60 of 9 seconds and could run high 16's

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
A lot of these trucks work surprisingly well, and it doesn't take a lot to make them reasonably quick for how much they weigh.

Heck, even my wife's former EcoDiesel has a claimed 0-60 of 9 seconds and could run high 16's

That's not bad for a 3.0L diesel mill in a truck - you can do quite a bit with deleting emissions control and some coding but keeping that power on the ground(and not rolling coal) is another thing.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
My Cummins Rams do not rev any higher than stock, but you're not getting within 20 carlengths of either one with a 4 cylinder Accord.

It's in the tune, not the revs.

9.7 seconds 0-60 is pretty much exactly what either of your 4 cylinder Accords would tick off, so what are you complaining about?


Not sure where you're getting your numbers from since a '99 VTEC 5 spd ran 0-60 in eight seconds flat in contemporary road tests.
The car also had very useful ratios in that you could exceed sixty in second and ninety in third.
Sorry, but these diesel machines aren't nearly as strong on the road as some would like to believe.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
My Cummins Rams do not rev any higher than stock, but you're not getting within 20 carlengths of either one with a 4 cylinder Accord.

It's in the tune, not the revs.

9.7 seconds 0-60 is pretty much exactly what either of your 4 cylinder Accords would tick off, so what are you complaining about?

Of course it is not getting nowhere close. VW Jetta with 2.0ltr 140hp diesel would obliterate that Accord.


Yeah, if you pulled a plug wire or two off the Accord, one of these VW smokers probably would be able to pass it.
As I pointed out above, the acceleration figures claimed by the poster you quote are absurd.
I doubt that you have more experience in miles or in different machines owned than do I, so get over yourself.