French fry fuel

[suematteva]

Actually, some really good things with diesels will be happening soon. I have heard rumor that both GM and Diamler-Chrysler will be coming out with diesels for the the 1/2 tons, the smaller pick ups, at least one mini-van from Diamler-Chrysler, as well as a few smaller "economy" sized vehicles.

As far as common diesels in America, the only options we had were the full size pick-ups, the VW's, and the Jeep Liberty. Unfortunatley, the liberty diesel is dropped due to emissions requirements. To bad, it was a nice engine. I think they will be using something different in the near future. Same reason for the change over on the VW's (as mentioned earlier).

Honda is realy pushing a green diesel over in europe, hopefully it will make it's way here. It seems the fuel here in America was a big stumbling block. Now that we are changing over to ULSD (like europe has for some time now), we will see more and more diesels. In Europe, 50% of the vehicles on the road are diesels. I think it is like 1% or 2% in the states.

As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book. KD

I have been waiting for a freakin diesel half ton for at least 5 years and will jump on it when it comes out. I don't need 600 ft pounds worth of torque and a suspension that rattles your kidneys.

Give me an I5 diesel 1/2 ton that gets 30 mpg with 350 ft/pound of torque.

Exactly

Can't say it better...

 

[berlin]

"As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"

well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.

 

[saichele]

"As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"

well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.

Not unlike with gas engines, we're sacrificing efficiency (and thus using more oil) to gain on emissions. Europe went the other way, maxing efficiency but soft peddling emissions.

I wonder if you release less CO2/mile in an American car with lots of fancy controls getting 20MPG, or in a stripped [old] Mini or such getting 40MPG?

Steve

 

[suematteva]

"As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"

well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.

Is it all the same stuff they did to the over the road trucks? I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin

 

[kd460]

No spark plugs, no wires, no coil, gassers have egr's and cat convertors also. Bypass filters remove soot and egr byproducts, and mercedes is having excellent results with urea injection (piss). So the future is looking up.

You raise valid points, and it's a shame they add all this junk in the name of "environment". Modern oils are adapting and work well but people still want to use a 99 cent quart of oil. It amazes me when you consider the job that motor oil is supposed to do. Buy a good synthetic oil, use bypass filtration, and allot of those issues go away. The diesel engine has higher compression, so the block and head needs to be stronger, so the overall platform of the engine is more durable. The introduction of ULSD, and possibly biofuels may reduce the need for % of egr duty cycle. Who knows for sure. I don't think the manufaturer's do either.

I'm still sold on diesels, to each his own. KD

 

[begreen]

Not unlike with gas engines, we're sacrificing efficiency (and thus using more oil) to gain on emissions. Europe went the other way, maxing efficiency but soft peddling emissions.

I wonder if you release less CO2/mile in an American car with lots of fancy controls getting 20MPG, or in a stripped [old] Mini or such getting 40MPG?

Steve

This chart on Edmunds might help figure that out:

http://www.edmunds.com/media/advice....would.you.go.intro/fuel.economy.combined.pdf

 

[berlin]

"I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "

yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.

yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.

 

[Sandor]

"I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "

yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.

yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.

How are you saying that engines that are not sold yet are going to have "reduced durability and poorer fuel economy"?. These engines are not even available yet anywhere in the world. The 2008 Jetta is not on sale yet.

Granted, they are not as simple as the older (dirtier) models, but compare reliability and longevity of cars built in 2006 versus 1969, when the PCV valve was the only piece of emission equipment.

I have watched diesel mileage go down in the 3/4 ton and up trucks because of the escalating power delivered.

 

[saichele]

"I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "

yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.

yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.

How are you saying that engines that are not sold yet are going to have "reduced durability and poorer fuel economy"?. These engines are not even available yet anywhere in the world. The 2008 Jetta is not on sale yet.

Granted, they are not as simple as the older (dirtier) models, but compare reliability and longevity of cars built in 2006 versus 1969, when the PCV valve was the only piece of emission equipment.

I have watched diesel mileage go down in the 3/4 ton and up trucks because of the escalating power delivered.

It's still all moving in the wrong direction. bigger, heavier, more complex. A couple friends have 1950's and 1960's British sedans (Austin A40 Farina, Riley Imp, Mini), powered by the stock 'A' series motor (0.948L) and 3 or 4 on the floor - get high 30's (the A40 actually gets over 40 mpg) with an engine any idiot can work on, 40 or 50yrs after they were designed and built. Similar with a Beetle (original).

But now we load everything up with bloat, from airbags to A/C to ABS, power heated seats and CD players. Seen a new car w/o A/C recently? All that junk is weight, complexity, and cost. So it costs you up front, and it costs you every mile you drive it. And you need to plug into a computer to find anything that might be wrong with the engine.

Steve

 

[Sandor]

"I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "

yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.

yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.

How are you saying that engines that are not sold yet are going to have "reduced durability and poorer fuel economy"?. These engines are not even available yet anywhere in the world. The 2008 Jetta is not on sale yet.

Granted, they are not as simple as the older (dirtier) models, but compare reliability and longevity of cars built in 2006 versus 1969, when the PCV valve was the only piece of emission equipment.

I have watched diesel mileage go down in the 3/4 ton and up trucks because of the escalating power delivered.

It's still all moving in the wrong direction. bigger, heavier, more complex. A couple friends have 1950's and 1960's British sedans (Austin A40 Farina, Riley Imp, Mini), powered by the stock 'A' series motor (0.948L) and 3 or 4 on the floor - get high 30's (the A40 actually gets over 40 mpg) with an engine any idiot can work on, 40 or 50yrs after they were designed and built. Similar with a Beetle (original).

But now we load everything up with bloat, from airbags to A/C to ABS, power heated seats and CD players. Seen a new car w/o A/C recently? All that junk is weight, complexity, and cost. So it costs you up front, and it costs you every mile you drive it. And you need to plug into a computer to find anything that might be wrong with the engine.

Steve

I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.

 

[saichele]

Sandor said: I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.

Depends a bit on how you're measuring. Faults inthe first 100K miles, the Camry wins. Over a couple decades and a couple hundred K? The Camry probably has fewer faults but they're more expensive to fix, partly because more of them require a $60/hr mechanic. An A40 or Mini - pretty much anyone with two eyes, one ear, and most of their fingers can keep it going. And they don't just shut down when things aren't quite right. And remarkably, parts are cheap. Most new parts for my MGB are cheaper than for my Explorer, and way less than for the VW. Having driven a range of vehicles, the old ones have gotten me home (in one case sans radiator), whereas I've been stranded several times in 'modern' vehicles because of 1) burned ECM in an Astro, 2) spontaneous shutdown in a Ford E350, 3) some little switch fell off in the automatic in my parents Ranger, and 4) a disintegrating throwout bearing in an Isuzu Rodeo. (the last one's not quite fair, that could happen pretty much anywhere).

Steve

 

[Sandor]

Sandor said: I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.

Depends a bit on how you're measuring. Faults inthe first 100K miles, the Camry wins. Over a couple decades and a couple hundred K? The Camry probably has fewer faults but they're more expensive to fix, partly because more of them require a $60/hr mechanic. An A40 or Mini - pretty much anyone with two eyes, one ear, and most of their fingers can keep it going. And they don't just shut down when things aren't quite right. And remarkably, parts are cheap. Most new parts for my MGB are cheaper than for my Explorer, and way less than for the VW. Having driven a range of vehicles, the old ones have gotten me home (in one case sans radiator), whereas I've been stranded several times in 'modern' vehicles because of 1) burned ECM in an Astro, 2) spontaneous shutdown in a Ford E350, 3) some little switch fell off in the automatic in my parents Ranger, and 4) a disintegrating throwout bearing in an Isuzu Rodeo. (the last one's not quite fair, that could happen pretty much anywhere).

Steve

Steve, I know parts for the MGB are cheaper. I did a total restoration of the last metal bumper B. Yea, bottom control arms are 10 bucks a piece, and are stamp steel crap made in china. Almost EVERY part I bought for that thing was a knockoff made in China. The chap that came from England to buy it (MGB are long gone in Britain, rust!) was tickled to death for a 10k dollar BRG MGB.

But I guess once the wiring harness goes up in a cloud of white smoke, you can always run a hot-wire to the coil and bump start the car to get home. If you did not perish in the conflagration. MGB went out of business for reason. Well, all British manufacturers went out of business for a reason, unless rescued by Ford, BMW, China, etc.

Any manufacturer these days are very hesitant to put crap on the market, unlike GM and Ford in the 80's. Too competitive to do so. I expect first year glitches with any car, and new clean diesel technology included.

Would you rather be stuck in traffic for an hour in 95 degree heat with no A/C behind a 2007 Jetti Diesel and 2007 Dodge Cummins , or a 1975 240D Benz and 1969 396 Impala?

 

[saichele]

But I guess once the wiring harness goes up in a cloud of white smoke, you can always run a hot-wire to the coil and bump start the car to get home. If you did not perish in the conflagration. MGB went out of business for reason. Well, all British manufacturers went out of business for a reason, unless rescued by Ford, BMW, China, etc.

Jeez, you're not supposed to let the smoke leak out.

And there were quite a few reasons the Britich manufacturers went out of business, poor quality being only part of the equation. The two main others were inept management and recalcitrant unions, a trifecta it seems we might see again.

Any manufacturer these days are very hesitant to put crap on the market, unlike GM and Ford in the 80's. Too competitive to do so. I expect first year glitches with any car, and new clean diesel technology included.

Would you rather be stuck in traffic for an hour in 95 degree heat with no A/C behind a 2007 Jetti Diesel and 2007 Dodge Cummins , or a 1975 240D Benz and 1969 396 Impala?

Luckily, we don't have hour long traffic jams or 95 degree heat. This summer has pretty much sucked because we've been over 90 on 5 days. Last summer didn't hit 90.

I see your point (and perhaps your cloud). The issue I was addressing was not so much the cloud, although that's part of it, but the idea that the 74 240D is still out there. Hell, they're coming out of the woodwork here. Or my father-in-laws 1981 diesel rabbit. I just question 1) how long we're goingto be able to keep the fancy bits of new clockwork going, and in a slightly different vein 2) whether we're better off getting better mileage or scrubbing the emissions. We'd obviously use less oil getting better mileage, and i'm curious regarding the emissions side. Seems like less carbon in makes less carbon out, less gas in makes less of everything out, but I don't have any good numbers on the actual emissions.

Steve

 

[Sandor]

But I guess once the wiring harness goes up in a cloud of white smoke, you can always run a hot-wire to the coil and bump start the car to get home. If you did not perish in the conflagration. MGB went out of business for reason. Well, all British manufacturers went out of business for a reason, unless rescued by Ford, BMW, China, etc.

Jeez, you're not supposed to let the smoke leak out.

And there were quite a few reasons the Britich manufacturers went out of business, poor quality being only part of the equation. The two main others were inept management and recalcitrant unions, a trifecta it seems we might see again.

Any manufacturer these days are very hesitant to put crap on the market, unlike GM and Ford in the 80's. Too competitive to do so. I expect first year glitches with any car, and new clean diesel technology included.

Would you rather be stuck in traffic for an hour in 95 degree heat with no A/C behind a 2007 Jetti Diesel and 2007 Dodge Cummins , or a 1975 240D Benz and 1969 396 Impala?

Luckily, we don't have hour long traffic jams or 95 degree heat. This summer has pretty much sucked because we've been over 90 on 5 days. Last summer didn't hit 90.

I see your point (and perhaps your cloud). The issue I was addressing was not so much the cloud, although that's part of it, but the idea that the 74 240D is still out there. Hell, they're coming out of the woodwork here. Or my father-in-laws 1981 diesel rabbit. I just question 1) how long we're goingto be able to keep the fancy bits of new clockwork going, and in a slightly different vein 2) whether we're better off getting better mileage or scrubbing the emissions. We'd obviously use less oil getting better mileage, and i'm curious regarding the emissions side. Seems like less carbon in makes less carbon out, less gas in makes less of everything out, but I don't have any good numbers on the actual emissions.

Steve

I see your point, and I think you see mine.

Touche'