- #698 of 1492
-
tuff choice !
by mrsixpack
-
Jan 02, 2009 (7:34 pm)
-
|
I'm not sure I would buy a diesel today. When you look at the added cost at the dealer and the added cost at the pumps and even most insurance companies charge more for diesels...................so not sure I would buy a new diesel today !
84' Ford F250HD < Diesel ! 87' Ford Escort < Diesel !
|
- #699 of 1492
-
Re: tuff choice ! [mrsixpack]
by ruking1
-
Jan 02, 2009 (7:48 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: mrsixpack (Jan 02, 2009 7:34 pm)
Indeed it has never really been about using less fuel, it has been really about talking about using less fuel.
Lots of folks get on their high horses about so called "gas sucking" SUV's. This of course would be a difficult case to make if those same diesel twin turbo suv's got 30-35 mpg !!! Indeed loads of folks with the (one of the best "small compact economy car") Civic do NOT get 35 mpg !!!
|
- #700 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [gagrice]
by boaz47
-
Jan 02, 2009 (7:53 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 02, 2009 3:45 pm)
I don't remember the 84 that well. Was it set up to run on diesel 1 or 2?
|
- #701 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [boaz47]
by gagrice
-
Jan 02, 2009 (9:12 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 02, 2009 7:53 pm)
Any diesel engine will run on number one or number 2 diesel. Number one diesel is basically kerosene or Jet fuel. It has a much lower freezing temperature. Most Northern stations mix #1 with #2 in the winter to prevent gelling. Number one does not yield as good a mileage. I don't think that Toyota ever imported the diesel Land Cruiser into the USA. Canada seems to have a lot of them and they come on eBay from time to time. Along with diesel Land Rovers.
Modern diesel engines such as the new Mercedes and VW will need low sulfur diesel. Otherwise it will clog up the emissions very quickly.
|
- #702 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [gagrice]
by boaz47
-
Jan 02, 2009 (9:25 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 02, 2009 9:12 pm)
The only ones I ever saw were in Kenya and whatever they were running on belched black smoke like a destroyer escort. But they seemed to run forever. I should post a picture of a gas station we stopped at in Kenya. The woman owner came out and hand cranked 25 gallons of diesel into our Toyota Mini Van. They had diesel mini vans made by just about everyone.
|
- #703 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [boaz47]
by gagrice
-
Jan 03, 2009 (5:47 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 02, 2009 9:25 pm)
Diesel that we used to get had a what ever PPM sulfur content of the crude it was distilled from. California limited the sulfur content in diesel sold here in about 1990. Even that was 130 PPM. Off road diesel is still higher content sulfur. With ULSD 15 PPM diesel you will not see that black soot, even in a vehicle without any particulate trap. The sulfur did not hurt the old diesel engines. Some countries still allow diesel up to 2000 PPM such as Russia and China. With 500 PPM in the major cities. There is an ongoing argument that ULSD does not properly lubricate older diesel engines. Adding 5% -20% biodiesel will take care of the lubrication and cut our use of foreign oil.
Diesel engines are much more adaptable to a variety of fuels and alternative fuels, than gasoline engines.
|
- #704 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [gagrice]
by boaz47
-
Jan 03, 2009 (8:18 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 03, 2009 5:47 am)
You know I seem to remember back in 63 or so Chrysler had a turbine car that would run on just about anything that would burn.
|
- #705 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [boaz47]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 03, 2009 (10:36 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 03, 2009 8:18 am)
Did you know that the first diesel engine ran on palm oil?
|
- #706 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [Mr_Shiftright]
by ruking1
-
Jan 03, 2009 (12:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 03, 2009 10:36 am)
Actually when you go back into the history the "evolution" of both the diesel and the WASTE (RUG to PUG ) products makes a lot of sense. Diesel from barrels of oil has been and remains the "money" products. If you (EPA) dispose of either product; that action (epa approved disposal) inexorably drives up the cost of the remaining product. So it makes all the sense to have a balanced population of both RUG to PUG and so called oil burners (min of 23%) . It makes no sense in the pantheon of how the foreign oil dependency conundrum is framed to:
1. continue to EXPORT D2, while charging the RUG to PUG users .50 to $1.00 per gal to do so.
2. continue to import 60% foreign barrels of oil to meet an artifically created a min of 23% spike in RUG to PUG.
2. artificially limit passenger diesel D2 to less than 1% when the natural product mix from a barrel of oil is (EIA.GOV data) 46% RUG to PUG and D2 23.4. %
4.. The problem is structurally not solvable, (cut foreign importation of barrels of oil) if we continue down the path we have chosen.
|
- #707 of 1492
-
Re: Apropos of nothing in particular [Mr_Shiftright]
by yankabilly
-
Jan 04, 2009 (11:15 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 03, 2009 10:36 am)
Did you know that a bio company in Cal. has made a diesel fuel that burns 90% cleaner then reg. diesel and it does not JELL. But they are being force to make the factory in BRAZIL not in the UNITED STATES. WHY?
The auto manufactors could make a 3-4 cylinder for cars that get 45mph to put in cars but they dont what to that other 10% can be put through a hepper filter just like on one of the Mercades cross overs. They are in the back pockets of the oil company. Just like Ford with the tire problem, they new the tires had a problem and did nothing about it untill they got caught.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
