Ted Azito

"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.

Wblane

I was just asking an honest question. I had always heard diesel engines had
better low-end torque and got better MPG than similar gas engines. All I wanted
to know was whether it was true or not. I remember the huge flame war a while
back but these two issues weren't addressed by anyone in that flame war.

>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)


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Wblane

I was just asking an honest question. I had always heard diesel engines had
better low-end torque and got better MPG than similar gas engines. All I wanted
to know was whether it was true or not. I remember the huge flame war a while
back but these two issues weren't addressed by anyone in that flame war.

>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)


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Wblane

I was just asking an honest question. I had always heard diesel engines had
better low-end torque and got better MPG than similar gas engines. All I wanted
to know was whether it was true or not. I remember the huge flame war a while
back but these two issues weren't addressed by anyone in that flame war.

>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)


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Wblane

I was just asking an honest question. I had always heard diesel engines had
better low-end torque and got better MPG than similar gas engines. All I wanted
to know was whether it was true or not. I remember the huge flame war a while
back but these two issues weren't addressed by anyone in that flame war.

>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)


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

HarryS

The Liberty will Be offering a Diesel in 05

http://www.jeep.com/crd/index.html?c...ome&type=promo

--
HarryS
JAFGBR
JAFTJO
"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/
>
> 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)

HarryS

The Liberty will Be offering a Diesel in 05

http://www.jeep.com/crd/index.html?c...ome&type=promo

--
HarryS
JAFGBR
JAFTJO
"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/
>
> 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)

HarryS

The Liberty will Be offering a Diesel in 05

http://www.jeep.com/crd/index.html?c...ome&type=promo

--
HarryS
JAFGBR
JAFTJO
"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/
>
> 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)

HarryS

The Liberty will Be offering a Diesel in 05

http://www.jeep.com/crd/index.html?c...ome&type=promo

--
HarryS
JAFGBR
JAFTJO
"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/
>
> 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)

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

The Cherokee (Liberty) is has been diesel in Europe:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/news/2002_11/renegade/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

HarryS wrote:
>
> The Liberty will Be offering a Diesel in 05
>
> http://www.jeep.com/crd/index.html?c...ome&type=promo
>
> --
> HarryS
> JAFGBR
> JAFTJO