Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
09-21-2004, 05:27 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
that's true of most professional users.
This -------he's a nutter, is he?
less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
that's true of most professional users.
This -------he's a nutter, is he?
09-21-2004, 05:48 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Steelgtr62 wrote:
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
09-21-2004, 05:48 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Steelgtr62 wrote:
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
09-21-2004, 05:48 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Steelgtr62 wrote:
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
>
>
Depends on the day. ;-)
He has tons of good info and some easy buttons to push like lots of
folks here. Some folks only seem to post here to push his buttons
unfortunately.
Diesel isn't very common in North America. No pollution standards for
it and 'really' high emissions fuel itself haven't made it popular with
a lot of folks. Even the sulfur content they get away with in the
Canadian gasoline is a crime, literally in other places.
Diesel trucks off road are heavy, noisy, smelly and dirty.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
09-21-2004, 05:57 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
09-21-2004, 05:57 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
09-21-2004, 05:57 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
*are* old and dirty.
The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
lb/ft
@ 3500 rpm.
However, for what I do, the I6 has plenty of torque and has the advantage of
simplicity. I suspect the BMW engine wouldn't do too well submerged,
although doubtless it could be waterproofed.
Particulates and sulphur is the problem with diesels - from 1st Jan our fuel
will be
<50ppm sulphur (US diesel is ~ 340 ppm). Some cars (Mercedes and Peugeot)
are
coming out now with particulate emission filters (PAFs) which should help.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steelgtr62" <steelgtr62@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040921172751.27979.00001156@mb-m02.aol.com...
> The Diesel pollutes less, because the total volume of long term emissions
is
> less. Remember HC and CO turn into CO2.
>
> Diesel is the only power source I would even look at for off road
> transportation (rather than screwing around) use. Torque, reliability,
> simplicity and safety all favor Diesel, to say nothing of fuel burn. I
think
> that's true of most professional users.
>
> This -------he's a nutter, is he?
09-21-2004, 06:09 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Ok, we'll leave the old guy alone.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.
09-21-2004, 06:09 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Ok, we'll leave the old guy alone.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.
09-21-2004, 06:09 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Ok, we'll leave the old guy alone.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.
But diesel isn't scarce: all medium and heavy trucks, most school buses, all
highway buses, all construction equipment, most generator sets, and any
equipment on a airport all run diesel.
Only small vehicles with diesel engines are uncommon. North America is the
only place where this seems so.
So, I figured, swapping a diesel engine into a readily available vehicle would
be good.
We'll have to see, but it looks like the four cylinder Isuzu they use in rail
reefer packages and in skid steer loaders is what I want. I need to get a
bellhousing made and a flywheel drilled for a small block Chevy clutch.