Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
no ignition system.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
no ignition system.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
You got to be trolling, otherwise you would know how dirty they
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
You got to be trolling, otherwise you would know how dirty they
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
You got to be trolling, otherwise you would know how dirty they
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
You got to be trolling, otherwise you would know how dirty they
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
are, and that's the reason only a couple of Volkswagen's dirty engine
are allowed to pollute, maybe because they're so small. but with any
luck they will be outlawed when they begin testing diesels next year:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Charokees were availble in the early 80's with a turbo diesel. Read up on VW's
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Charokees were availble in the early 80's with a turbo diesel. Read up on VW's
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Charokees were availble in the early 80's with a turbo diesel. Read up on VW's
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Charokees were availble in the early 80's with a turbo diesel. Read up on VW's
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
line of diesels. They meet all federal laws on emmissions. There will be a
problem meeting them with our current fuel in 2005. We're supposed to get low
sulpher fuel, like Europe, in 2006. That's if they don't give into the trucking
industry. Then ALL diesels, even the smoky ol Mack trucks, will be instantly
cleaner. America has a love affair with gasoline engines because of cheap gas.
What too many people don't realize there's sulpher in gasoline too.
Joe
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20040705012652.19192.00001183@mb-m06.aol.com...
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they
also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would
be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Are you being an *** on purpose?
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Wblane wrote:
>
> I had always thought Diesel engines had better low-end torque. Don't they also
> generally get better MPG than a similar gasoline engine? Another plus would be
> no ignition system.
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
