Chris Galvin wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/25/pf/autos/diesels/
>
> Not that I expect this to change a closed mind.

Diesel has got significantly cleaner in the last 20 years and it
generates less greenhouse gases than gasoline, but with respect to
particulates and nitrogen oxides (smog) it is still 4-5 times dirtier
than today's worst gas burner.

If you have an open mind, the Union of Concerned Scientists lay out the
diesel issues rather well:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...fm?pageID=1307
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...cfm?pageID=230

As for Bill, an otherwise vocal opponent of greenies and lefty enviros,
I suspect that the true source of his disdain for the diesel engine is
not so much pollution as it is that it was invented by a Paris-born
Bavarian. ;)

Steve

 

>You know, my full size Thunderbird gets thirty miles to the gallon

Yeah right..

>you have any idea how environmental hazardous their batteries are,

Batteries can be safely recycled.. The damage caused by spent
hydrocarbons is not so easily eliminated..

>That'll buy a lot of gas!

And please keep up that thought.. After all many foreigners are
making a killing off of people with that attitude. And I'd like to
take this opportunity to speak as one of them and thank you for
it..it's been paying off handsomely :)

 

>You know, my full size Thunderbird gets thirty miles to the gallon

Yeah right..

>you have any idea how environmental hazardous their batteries are,

Batteries can be safely recycled.. The damage caused by spent
hydrocarbons is not so easily eliminated..

>That'll buy a lot of gas!

And please keep up that thought.. After all many foreigners are
making a killing off of people with that attitude. And I'd like to
take this opportunity to speak as one of them and thank you for
it..it's been paying off handsomely :)

 

>You know, my full size Thunderbird gets thirty miles to the gallon

Yeah right..

>you have any idea how environmental hazardous their batteries are,

Batteries can be safely recycled.. The damage caused by spent
hydrocarbons is not so easily eliminated..

>That'll buy a lot of gas!

And please keep up that thought.. After all many foreigners are
making a killing off of people with that attitude. And I'd like to
take this opportunity to speak as one of them and thank you for
it..it's been paying off handsomely :)

 

>You know, my full size Thunderbird gets thirty miles to the gallon

Yeah right..

>you have any idea how environmental hazardous their batteries are,

Batteries can be safely recycled.. The damage caused by spent
hydrocarbons is not so easily eliminated..

>That'll buy a lot of gas!

And please keep up that thought.. After all many foreigners are
making a killing off of people with that attitude. And I'd like to
take this opportunity to speak as one of them and thank you for
it..it's been paying off handsomely :)

 

It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
problem with your car?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bill wrote:
>
> You can't seriously belive your "real jeep" would be able to meet the
> same fuel economy\emissions requirements as a new vehicle of today..
>
> Despite having your foot stuck where you keep putting it...

 

It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
problem with your car?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bill wrote:
>
> You can't seriously belive your "real jeep" would be able to meet the
> same fuel economy\emissions requirements as a new vehicle of today..
>
> Despite having your foot stuck where you keep putting it...

 

It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
problem with your car?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bill wrote:
>
> You can't seriously belive your "real jeep" would be able to meet the
> same fuel economy\emissions requirements as a new vehicle of today..
>
> Despite having your foot stuck where you keep putting it...

 

It's not going to pass the visual, but at full operating
temperature, retard the spark a little to keep the burning fuel in the
combustion chamber longer and of course stick a catalytic convert on and
watch it do it's job turning carbon monoxide (CO) unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into harmless water. Sure I'd be
cleaner than any new car test. You're so interested must mean you see a
problem with your car?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bill wrote:
>
> You can't seriously belive your "real jeep" would be able to meet the
> same fuel economy\emissions requirements as a new vehicle of today..
>
> Despite having your foot stuck where you keep putting it...

 

It'll never happen GI. Physically impossible.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Chris Galvin wrote:
>
> Bill,
> I'm not defending hybrid vehicles, I think they are only moving the
> emmissions from the exhaust pipe of the car to the power station. My only
> point is that diesel vehicles are better environmentally than petrol ones
> because of their fuel efficiency. There particulate emmissions used to be
> worse but that is solved now; I'm talking about the latest diesel cars. I
> dont have time to search for something you find acceptable, just read the
> latest American Scientific.
> Chris.