Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
07-05-2004, 11:15 AM
#11
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)
07-05-2004, 11:15 AM
#12
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)
07-05-2004, 11:15 AM
#13
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)
07-05-2004, 02:47 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E8F223.BFBA5629@***.net>...
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
07-05-2004, 02:47 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E8F223.BFBA5629@***.net>...
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
07-05-2004, 02:47 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E8F223.BFBA5629@***.net>...
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
07-05-2004, 02:47 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Violation Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<40E8F223.BFBA5629@***.net>...
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
> 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/
Bill has a mental defect. The EPA does not differentiate its engine
standards "because they're small" . VWs TDi is cleaner than the
Cummins ISB, Ford PowerStroke, or even the GM Isuzu Duramax. He
doesn't have to like diesel engines, but he can't kick them out of the
newsgroup. As long as we are not SPAMMING or posting gratuitously
libelous or seditious messages, we have a right to state our opinions.
Who died and made this failed gas station owner the net czar???
07-05-2004, 03:24 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
"Jo Bo" <jromas@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4adGc.2421$0Q1.455@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
07-05-2004, 03:24 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
"Jo Bo" <jromas@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4adGc.2421$0Q1.455@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
07-05-2004, 03:24 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
"Jo Bo" <jromas@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4adGc.2421$0Q1.455@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
> 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.
I'm in favor of ULSD, in fact, I think the Army has the right idea:
JP-8. It's #1 ULSD with the freeze point and some other heavy metals
tightly controlled.
