late model diesel pickups
- Thread starter Donald
- Start date
- Status
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I know the 2016 Nissan Titan Diesel is considered a half-ton, but how close is it to being a 3/4 ton truck?
I'm not sure how good the Nissan Titan is. It never got the amazing reputation that the Datsun 720, 1986.5 Hardbody, or 1997 Frontier got.
It might have impressive towing capability, but it only means something if the payload capacity is such to take advantage of it. I haven't looked up numbers, but I am confident that no Titan is going to come near the payload capacity of my 3/4 ton. Even with two people, full at 36 gallons of fuel, and a couple of hundred lb of other stuff in the back, I still have 2300 lb of available payload capacity.
I know the 2016 Nissan Titan Diesel is considered a half-ton, but how close is it to being a 3/4 ton truck?
I'm not sure how good the Nissan Titan is. It never got the amazing reputation that the Datsun 720, 1986.5 Hardbody, or 1997 Frontier got.
It might have impressive towing capability, but it only means something if the payload capacity is such to take advantage of it. I haven't looked up numbers, but I am confident that no Titan is going to come near the payload capacity of my 3/4 ton. Even with two people, full at 36 gallons of fuel, and a couple of hundred lb of other stuff in the back, I still have 2300 lb of available payload capacity.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I know the 2016 Nissan Titan Diesel is considered a half-ton, but how close is it to being a 3/4 ton truck?
I'm not sure how good the Nissan Titan is. It never got the amazing reputation that the Datsun 720, 1986.5 Hardbody, or 1997 Frontier got.
It might have impressive towing capability, but it only means something if the payload capacity is such to take advantage of it. I haven't looked up numbers, but I am confident that no Titan is going to come near the payload capacity of my 3/4 ton. Even with two people, full at 36 gallons of fuel, and a couple of hundred lb of other stuff in the back, I still have 2300 lb of available payload capacity.
The Titan XD diesel has a payload equivalent to Ford/Chevrolet gas half-tons. First post here-
http://www.titanxdforum.com/forum/177-20...ompetitors.html
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I know the 2016 Nissan Titan Diesel is considered a half-ton, but how close is it to being a 3/4 ton truck?
I'm not sure how good the Nissan Titan is. It never got the amazing reputation that the Datsun 720, 1986.5 Hardbody, or 1997 Frontier got.
It might have impressive towing capability, but it only means something if the payload capacity is such to take advantage of it. I haven't looked up numbers, but I am confident that no Titan is going to come near the payload capacity of my 3/4 ton. Even with two people, full at 36 gallons of fuel, and a couple of hundred lb of other stuff in the back, I still have 2300 lb of available payload capacity.
The Titan XD diesel has a payload equivalent to Ford/Chevrolet gas half-tons. First post here-
http://www.titanxdforum.com/forum/177-20...ompetitors.html
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
There is no cost benefit other than torque if the payload is the same.
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
There is no cost benefit other than torque if the payload is the same.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
Sure, "if" the emissions gear fails, it's a big expense, but it's not a given that it "will" actually occur. Maybe it's an issue with US built diesels, but it's not something we see here, and every second vehicle in my state is diesel powered. I get that petrol is insanely cheap in the US, so imagine if you were paying 3 times more than you do now, and diesel fuel was slightly less expensive than petrol... That might swing things in favour of diesel engines. Different strokes for different folks obviously
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
Sure, "if" the emissions gear fails, it's a big expense, but it's not a given that it "will" actually occur. Maybe it's an issue with US built diesels, but it's not something we see here, and every second vehicle in my state is diesel powered. I get that petrol is insanely cheap in the US, so imagine if you were paying 3 times more than you do now, and diesel fuel was slightly less expensive than petrol... That might swing things in favour of diesel engines. Different strokes for different folks obviously
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
Yeah, there's clearly a vast difference in the price of fuel between Aus and the US, and I guess that influences choices greatly. At the prices they pay, I'd have a big-block commuter car too!
As long as things stay the way they are, diesel still makes a lot of sense here...
As long as things stay the way they are, diesel still makes a lot of sense here...
Originally Posted By: hpb
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
Sure, "if" the emissions gear fails, it's a big expense, but it's not a given that it "will" actually occur. Maybe it's an issue with US built diesels, but it's not something we see here, and every second vehicle in my state is diesel powered. I get that petrol is insanely cheap in the US, so imagine if you were paying 3 times more than you do now, and diesel fuel was slightly less expensive than petrol... That might swing things in favour of diesel engines. Different strokes for different folks obviously
It is, in fact, a given that the emission gear WILL fail. The chance it will happen is-exactly-one hundred percent. The only question is when. As a bonus, the new emission engines burn more fuel.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hpb
That's a fair comparo, I generally respect John Cadogan's opinion. I wonder if the outcome would be different now that there's a new Navara, HiLux and Triton, and the Ford/Mazda twins have had an update?
Whenever diesels are discussed on this forum, there's always mention of the "huge" maintenance costs in comparison to petrol engines. My experience over the years is that there's virtually no difference. Can anyone elaborate on what extra costs they've incurred with their diesel?
Well, until the advent of the newer emissions stuff, diesels were very cost effective choices. With DPF's and SCR units, the dynamics have changed. Replacing one of these setups can be a serious wallet buster. Sure, one can delete all of that stuff, but now the warranty is shot and it costs a hefty amount to delete. Not like one can just pull the stuff off. All in all, comparing the new diesels to the gassers, gas is going to be lower overall cost. There might be a break even somewhere over 100,000 miles with a diesel, but have not seen any appreciable evidence of that. Especially since DPF's and SCR's are going to start having failures soon at that point. When diesel is necessary for work needing to be done, it has a cost benefit ratio that is tolerable. But just to have a diesel because it is a diesel, the cost isn't worth it to me.
Sure, "if" the emissions gear fails, it's a big expense, but it's not a given that it "will" actually occur. Maybe it's an issue with US built diesels, but it's not something we see here, and every second vehicle in my state is diesel powered. I get that petrol is insanely cheap in the US, so imagine if you were paying 3 times more than you do now, and diesel fuel was slightly less expensive than petrol... That might swing things in favour of diesel engines. Different strokes for different folks obviously
It is, in fact, a given that the emission gear WILL fail. The chance it will happen is-exactly-one hundred percent. The only question is when. As a bonus, the new emission engines burn more fuel.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
I know the shuttle bus company I worked for, after three catastrophically-bad 6.0 Fords, is going with gas power for all their new shuttles. They only have three diesels left...one Chevy C5500 (2006), one Chevy 4500 van (2009), and one International (2007). Everything else is gas, usually Fords.
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
I know the shuttle bus company I worked for, after three catastrophically-bad 6.0 Fords, is going with gas power for all their new shuttles. They only have three diesels left...one Chevy C5500 (2006), one Chevy 4500 van (2009), and one International (2007). Everything else is gas, usually Fords.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
Here's an article about gas vs diesel from my county that may give some insight here.
Diesels built their excellent rep a long time ago. Those were a far cry from the modern emission laden high output stuff we have today. If in 2003 you had bought a 7.3 Powerstroke you'd probably be getting good low cost service from it today too. If you bought the 6.0 that ate injectors like Terry Francona pops Doublebubble,not so much. None of the new pickup truck diesels have a long track record.
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
Here's an article about gas vs diesel from my county that may give some insight here.
Diesels built their excellent rep a long time ago. Those were a far cry from the modern emission laden high output stuff we have today. If in 2003 you had bought a 7.3 Powerstroke you'd probably be getting good low cost service from it today too. If you bought the 6.0 that ate injectors like Terry Francona pops Doublebubble,not so much. None of the new pickup truck diesels have a long track record.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CKN
There is no cost benefit other than torque if the payload is the same.
What I meant by cost benefit, is that there are some applications, primarily commercial, that make going diesel a better option. For the average user, it is harder to quantify. Take a pickup being used to transport RV's to dealers from the factory. Weights will vary with different trailers as will terrain. Going diesel is the logical choice and has a cost benefit. For what I use my 3/4 ton for, mostly hauling as opposed to towing, diesel doesn't have a cost benefit so I have a gasser.
One thing that gets overlooked regarding the emissions stuff is that EGT's will typically be higher, primarily due to higher exhaust pressures, which put more stress on the turbo(s) and the cooling system is more taxed to cool EGR. Most VG turbos in modern diesels are water cooled to try and negate that somewhat, but it is still a problem. A lot of commercial diesels are plagued with turbo problems as well as EGR cooler issues, and it all centers on the demands on them from the downstream emissions stuff. And while a new turbo for my 12.7L pre-emission Detroit is around $700, the newer turbos on the emission laden engines get in to some very wallet busting levels of thousands of dollars. And from what I have read from others that have had turbo issues on their pickups, turbos prices are in the stratosphere as well.
There is no cost benefit other than torque if the payload is the same.
What I meant by cost benefit, is that there are some applications, primarily commercial, that make going diesel a better option. For the average user, it is harder to quantify. Take a pickup being used to transport RV's to dealers from the factory. Weights will vary with different trailers as will terrain. Going diesel is the logical choice and has a cost benefit. For what I use my 3/4 ton for, mostly hauling as opposed to towing, diesel doesn't have a cost benefit so I have a gasser.
One thing that gets overlooked regarding the emissions stuff is that EGT's will typically be higher, primarily due to higher exhaust pressures, which put more stress on the turbo(s) and the cooling system is more taxed to cool EGR. Most VG turbos in modern diesels are water cooled to try and negate that somewhat, but it is still a problem. A lot of commercial diesels are plagued with turbo problems as well as EGR cooler issues, and it all centers on the demands on them from the downstream emissions stuff. And while a new turbo for my 12.7L pre-emission Detroit is around $700, the newer turbos on the emission laden engines get in to some very wallet busting levels of thousands of dollars. And from what I have read from others that have had turbo issues on their pickups, turbos prices are in the stratosphere as well.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
One thing that gets overlooked regarding the emissions stuff is that EGT's will typically be higher, primarily due to higher exhaust pressures, which put more stress on the turbo(s) and the cooling system is more taxed to cool EGR. Most VG turbos in modern diesels are water cooled to try and negate that somewhat, but it is still a problem. A lot of commercial diesels are plagued with turbo problems as well as EGR cooler issues, and it all centers on the demands on them from the downstream emissions stuff.
Which makes one wonder why synthetics are not specified in such situations. I am running synblend in my PSD now, but I have also seen some 1200-1400°F EGTs which gives me a little pause when thinking about conventional oils.
One thing that gets overlooked regarding the emissions stuff is that EGT's will typically be higher, primarily due to higher exhaust pressures, which put more stress on the turbo(s) and the cooling system is more taxed to cool EGR. Most VG turbos in modern diesels are water cooled to try and negate that somewhat, but it is still a problem. A lot of commercial diesels are plagued with turbo problems as well as EGR cooler issues, and it all centers on the demands on them from the downstream emissions stuff.
Which makes one wonder why synthetics are not specified in such situations. I am running synblend in my PSD now, but I have also seen some 1200-1400°F EGTs which gives me a little pause when thinking about conventional oils.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
As a bonus, the new emission engines burn more fuel.
They do? I have managed a best MPG of 23.2 so far in my PSD with a 6.7L. So you are saying the pre-2007 Ford PSDs were substantially better than that?
As a bonus, the new emission engines burn more fuel.
They do? I have managed a best MPG of 23.2 so far in my PSD with a 6.7L. So you are saying the pre-2007 Ford PSDs were substantially better than that?
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Shannow
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
Here's an article about gas vs diesel from my county that may give some insight here.
Diesels built their excellent rep a long time ago. Those were a far cry from the modern emission laden high output stuff we have today. If in 2003 you had bought a 7.3 Powerstroke you'd probably be getting good low cost service from it today too. If you bought the 6.0 that ate injectors like Terry Francona pops Doublebubble,not so much. None of the new pickup truck diesels have a long track record.
Interesting article, thanks. It seems the poor reliability of, dare I say it, the American diesels is a big part of the problem. Honestly, we just don't have any issues like those mentioned with our Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi and (Thai-built) Fords. The Ranger I currently drive at work is 22 months old and has done 125,000km, completely trouble free, nothing but scheduled services every 15,000km. This is the normal diesel engine experience here, as per Shannow's comments regarding his 13 year old Nissan.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
hpb, when I was over in the states the other year, I was astounded at the things that were running petrol...20 seat buses with V-10 badges etc.
I've had my Navara since new in 2003, and although it needs it's third set of glowplugs, has cost very very little to maintain...has averaged 9.5km/l ovr it's life, compared to friend with gasser trucks getting 7-7.5
Here's an article about gas vs diesel from my county that may give some insight here.
Diesels built their excellent rep a long time ago. Those were a far cry from the modern emission laden high output stuff we have today. If in 2003 you had bought a 7.3 Powerstroke you'd probably be getting good low cost service from it today too. If you bought the 6.0 that ate injectors like Terry Francona pops Doublebubble,not so much. None of the new pickup truck diesels have a long track record.
Interesting article, thanks. It seems the poor reliability of, dare I say it, the American diesels is a big part of the problem. Honestly, we just don't have any issues like those mentioned with our Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi and (Thai-built) Fords. The Ranger I currently drive at work is 22 months old and has done 125,000km, completely trouble free, nothing but scheduled services every 15,000km. This is the normal diesel engine experience here, as per Shannow's comments regarding his 13 year old Nissan.
The emission stuff is killing American diesels(and adding serious money to the sticker). Gas engines have been "perfected" enough they are largely immune to having nonsense stuffed everywhere and are going to go 200K miles pretty much trouble free. Hopefully the new round of CAFE doesn't screw them up too.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I suspect you also do not have the same emission standards! (Offhand, Euro standards are not as strict as US standards, especially on NOX.)
I suspect you are right!
I suspect you also do not have the same emission standards! (Offhand, Euro standards are not as strict as US standards, especially on NOX.)
I suspect you are right!
- Status
