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

An attempt to clean diesel pollution:
http://www.hjs.com/hjs_englisch/aktuelles12.htm

"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> https://www.wviz.org/features/0519saf_future_car.asp
> http://pbshawaii.org/index_home_file...4/saf_cars.pdf
>
> > I hope everyone gets a chance to watch "future car" that was on
> > last night on Public Broadcasting Station, narrated by Allan Alda, he
> > gets an honest opinion from all the hybrid prototype manufacturers,
> > diesel will always be too dirty for California, even with it's gigantic
> > after burner catalytic converter. The gasoline engine, battery,
> > generator, motor, hybrids that in reality get about 35 of their 60 MPG
> > advertised. The Hydrogen internal combustion engine storage tank is far
> > too explosive. Storage battery, just changes the place where the
> > pollution was generated. Daimler is working on an platform that
> > chemically turns hydrogen into electricity without storage batteries to
> > drive electric motors, which is twenty years away, until then the
> > contentious is gasoline is the most efficient, cleanest fuel available.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

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

An attempt to clean diesel pollution:
http://www.hjs.com/hjs_englisch/aktuelles12.htm

"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> https://www.wviz.org/features/0519saf_future_car.asp
> http://pbshawaii.org/index_home_file...4/saf_cars.pdf
>
> > I hope everyone gets a chance to watch "future car" that was on
> > last night on Public Broadcasting Station, narrated by Allan Alda, he
> > gets an honest opinion from all the hybrid prototype manufacturers,
> > diesel will always be too dirty for California, even with it's gigantic
> > after burner catalytic converter. The gasoline engine, battery,
> > generator, motor, hybrids that in reality get about 35 of their 60 MPG
> > advertised. The Hydrogen internal combustion engine storage tank is far
> > too explosive. Storage battery, just changes the place where the
> > pollution was generated. Daimler is working on an platform that
> > chemically turns hydrogen into electricity without storage batteries to
> > drive electric motors, which is twenty years away, until then the
> > contentious is gasoline is the most efficient, cleanest fuel available.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

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

An attempt to clean diesel pollution:
http://www.hjs.com/hjs_englisch/aktuelles12.htm

"L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
>
> https://www.wviz.org/features/0519saf_future_car.asp
> http://pbshawaii.org/index_home_file...4/saf_cars.pdf
>
> > I hope everyone gets a chance to watch "future car" that was on
> > last night on Public Broadcasting Station, narrated by Allan Alda, he
> > gets an honest opinion from all the hybrid prototype manufacturers,
> > diesel will always be too dirty for California, even with it's gigantic
> > after burner catalytic converter. The gasoline engine, battery,
> > generator, motor, hybrids that in reality get about 35 of their 60 MPG
> > advertised. The Hydrogen internal combustion engine storage tank is far
> > too explosive. Storage battery, just changes the place where the
> > pollution was generated. Daimler is working on an platform that
> > chemically turns hydrogen into electricity without storage batteries to
> > drive electric motors, which is twenty years away, until then the
> > contentious is gasoline is the most efficient, cleanest fuel available.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

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

"doesn't mean that mine smokes" Lets see a picture of your bumper.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Calman wrote:
>
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
> at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
> 25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
> economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
> based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
> their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
> to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
> like your Jeep.
> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
> that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
> 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
> or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
> miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
> injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
> blower might work.
> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

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

"doesn't mean that mine smokes" Lets see a picture of your bumper.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Calman wrote:
>
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
> at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
> 25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
> economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
> based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
> their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
> to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
> like your Jeep.
> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
> that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
> 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
> or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
> miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
> injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
> blower might work.
> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

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

"doesn't mean that mine smokes" Lets see a picture of your bumper.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Calman wrote:
>
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
> at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
> 25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
> economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
> based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
> their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
> to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
> like your Jeep.
> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
> that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
> 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
> or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
> miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
> injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
> blower might work.
> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

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

"doesn't mean that mine smokes" Lets see a picture of your bumper.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Calman wrote:
>
> You may have worked on some of them, and apparently failed to figure them
> out, but that doesn't mean that mine smokes. Even if it did, a little smoke
> at 50 MPG would still produce less pollutants than transparent exhaust at
> 25MPG. Still, I could care less about emissions, I have it because it is an
> economical vehicle. Your logic is flawed, your hatred of these vehicles is
> based upon a 'feeling', rather than facts. Most of these vehicles lived out
> their engineered lifespan, or died of poor maintenance. They were not meant
> to last this long, and had flaws, any company's cheapest vehicle does, just
> like your Jeep.
> Your first post states that a diesel Jeep would be a bad idea. Do you think
> that Mercedes Benz doesn't know how to build a good diesel? My smokey little
> 1963, 190DC returned 38-40 MPG , and still ran, without ever having the head
> or pan removed, when I sent it to the boneyard for burning oil at 874,000
> miles. I would welcome a small displacement, Mercedes designed, direct
> injected diesel in a Jeep. Turbo would be a mistake, but a VW Corrado style
> blower might work.
> That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.
> --
> Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California

Will Honea

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:10:39 UTC "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote:

> > That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<
>
> Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
> 1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
> only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
> clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
> power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
> for the country!

Speaking for myself and a large number of Vietnam vetrans, nothing
could be too low for that bitch - any mention should be considered a
compliment.

--
Will Honea

Will Honea

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:10:39 UTC "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote:

> > That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<
>
> Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
> 1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
> only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
> clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
> power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
> for the country!

Speaking for myself and a large number of Vietnam vetrans, nothing
could be too low for that bitch - any mention should be considered a
compliment.

--
Will Honea

Will Honea

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:10:39 UTC "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote:

> > That Fonda crack was low. Shame on you.<
>
> Take it as you will. May I remind you that Jane Fonda's appearance in the
> 1979 movie "The China Syndrome", in which she drove a diesel Rabbit, not
> only fooled thousnds of politically correct consumers into buying those
> clattering, smoke belching road-turtles, she also helped destroy the nuclear
> power industry in the USA. 25+ years later, neither appear to have been good
> for the country!

Speaking for myself and a large number of Vietnam vetrans, nothing
could be too low for that bitch - any mention should be considered a
compliment.

--
Will Honea