Liberty CRD
10-16-2004, 07:02 AM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
Hi Dave,
With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to weight.
> torque to weight maybe, but not power.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to weight.
> torque to weight maybe, but not power.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
10-16-2004, 07:17 AM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
10-16-2004, 07:17 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
10-16-2004, 07:17 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
torque to weight maybe, but not power.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Ted Azito" <larboard34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53da461.0410152254.3e28801a@posting.google.c om...
> > >
> > > If what you say is true, why is Jeep even making the CRD?
>
> Because it's not. Buying the VM engined Liberty might not be a good
> choice as an offroad vehicle, but because it uses less fuel it's the
> most socially responsible vehicle Jeep makes. If electronic engines
> were my forte, I'd have imported one of these from Italy or the UK a
> long time ago. Most of VM's engines have a hell for stout reputation
> and are sold in many different car brands in Europe.
>
> This is the same technology as the Duramax uses. The Duramax is the
> quietest running smoothest and least stinky diesel on the US road so
> far...but it's way too big for a Jeep. Half a Duramax, particularly
> with an aluminum block to match its heads, would be a really great
> engine.
>
> Common rail technology was invented by the Italians and it's become
> the dominant thing everywhere. Its only disadvantage is that like all
> the gas engines today it's electronic. Box goes, you walk home. The
> old diesels were fully mechanical. They would get you back electrics
> or no electrics. But their power was nothing like the new engines,
> which are beating gasoline for power to weight.
10-16-2004, 08:47 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
You are not figuring Power to Weight to Time. An 855 Cummins will run-judging
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
10-16-2004, 08:47 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
You are not figuring Power to Weight to Time. An 855 Cummins will run-judging
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
10-16-2004, 08:47 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
You are not figuring Power to Weight to Time. An 855 Cummins will run-judging
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
by genset ratings-at 300 hp for somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand
hours TBO.
An 828 hp Chevy 'Rat' "motor" will run at this power setting for...I don't
know but seriously doubt ten hours. Maybe not one. It will probably run at the
aforementioned 300 hp for a thousand.
When you start figuring the weight of the engine itself plus the fuel to run
it any given number of horsepower-hours, the Chevy looks quite poor indeed.
BSFC of a naturally aspirated two valve pushrod engine running at 2 hp/CID has
to be unbelievably bad, for one thing the engine has to be running very rich to
keep the exhaust valves from blowing out the ports as molten slag. Water
methanol injection could help but figure the cost of methanol and (it had best
be) DI or distilled water,to say nothing of weight and supply...
As an aside this 828 hp out of 454 cid is not respectable at all as current F1
engines are making more than that out of a third the displacement. On gasoline.
10-16-2004, 10:07 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
The biggest modern diesel I could find is the VW Phaeton, which puts
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
10-16-2004, 10:07 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
The biggest modern diesel I could find is the VW Phaeton, which puts
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
10-16-2004, 10:07 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Liberty CRD
The biggest modern diesel I could find is the VW Phaeton, which puts
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
out 553 lb/ft torque from about 360 ci, or 1.536 lb/ft per ci in a
production
car. The hot rod motor puts out 1.281 lb/ft or 83% of the VWs efficiency.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4170FFCC.B854E26D@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> With Horsepower comes torque such as this Chevy Rat motor with a
> respectable 828 horsepower at 7000 rpm and 692 lb-ft of torque at 5250
> rpm: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50660/ Where the diesel truck's
> engine wieghts twice as much, and only delivers half the horsepower and
> torque, but at a lower RPM: http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/Diesel.htm
> that's why we need eighteen speeds to go sixty miles and hour:
> http://www.----------.com/kenworth.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > I like diesels, but I cant think of one that beats petrol power to
weight.
> > torque to weight maybe, but not power.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
