Dave Milne

cheers.
Dave

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q6chd.281308$wV.147761@attbi_s54...
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
>
>
>
> Dave Milne proclaimed:
> > Lon,
> >
> > wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so
I
> > can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by
traps (I
> > think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> > "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
> >
> >> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
> >> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
> >> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
> >> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
> >> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
> >> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
> >> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
> >> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
> >> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
> >> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
> >> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
> >> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
> >> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
> >> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dave Milne proclaimed:
> >>
> >>
> >>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> >>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> >>>the older diesels either.
> >>>
> >>>Dave Milne, Scotland
> >>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >>>
> >>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content
in
> >>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
> >>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck
your
> >>>>day....
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have
no
> >>>>problem if he is behind me.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

Dave Milne

cheers.
Dave

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q6chd.281308$wV.147761@attbi_s54...
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
>
>
>
> Dave Milne proclaimed:
> > Lon,
> >
> > wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so
I
> > can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by
traps (I
> > think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> > "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
> >
> >> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
> >> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
> >> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
> >> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
> >> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
> >> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
> >> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
> >> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
> >> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
> >> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
> >> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
> >> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
> >> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
> >> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dave Milne proclaimed:
> >>
> >>
> >>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> >>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> >>>the older diesels either.
> >>>
> >>>Dave Milne, Scotland
> >>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >>>
> >>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content
in
> >>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
> >>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck
your
> >>>>day....
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have
no
> >>>>problem if he is behind me.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

Dave Milne

cheers.
Dave

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q6chd.281308$wV.147761@attbi_s54...
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
>
>
>
> Dave Milne proclaimed:
> > Lon,
> >
> > wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so
I
> > can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by
traps (I
> > think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> > "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
> >
> >> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
> >> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
> >> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
> >> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
> >> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
> >> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
> >> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
> >> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
> >> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
> >> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
> >> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
> >> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
> >> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
> >> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dave Milne proclaimed:
> >>
> >>
> >>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> >>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> >>>the older diesels either.
> >>>
> >>>Dave Milne, Scotland
> >>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >>>
> >>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content
in
> >>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
> >>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck
your
> >>>>day....
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have
no
> >>>>problem if he is behind me.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

Peter Pontbriand

Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.

/Peter

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
>
> They are heavier than they look too.
>
> Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
>
> Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
of
> > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> >
> > What are the reasons?

Peter Pontbriand

Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.

/Peter

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
>
> They are heavier than they look too.
>
> Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
>
> Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
of
> > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> >
> > What are the reasons?

Peter Pontbriand

Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.

/Peter

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
>
> They are heavier than they look too.
>
> Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
>
> Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
of
> > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> >
> > What are the reasons?

Mike Romain

HA!

I got the paperwork to show my 'Nuttered' 258 blows 15 ppm HC and 0.16%
CO into the air.

Why don't you cough up your fancy 'injected and computerized all to
crap' numbers eh?

Mike

Peter Pontbriand wrote:
>
> Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
> Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
> I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.
>
> /Peter
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
> >
> > They are heavier than they look too.
> >
> > Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
> >
> > Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
> of
> > > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> > >
> > > What are the reasons?

Mike Romain

HA!

I got the paperwork to show my 'Nuttered' 258 blows 15 ppm HC and 0.16%
CO into the air.

Why don't you cough up your fancy 'injected and computerized all to
crap' numbers eh?

Mike

Peter Pontbriand wrote:
>
> Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
> Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
> I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.
>
> /Peter
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
> >
> > They are heavier than they look too.
> >
> > Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
> >
> > Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
> of
> > > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> > >
> > > What are the reasons?

Mike Romain

HA!

I got the paperwork to show my 'Nuttered' 258 blows 15 ppm HC and 0.16%
CO into the air.

Why don't you cough up your fancy 'injected and computerized all to
crap' numbers eh?

Mike

Peter Pontbriand wrote:
>
> Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
> Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I think
> I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.
>
> /Peter
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
> >
> > They are heavier than they look too.
> >
> > Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
> >
> > Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler regardless
> of
> > > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> > >
> > > What are the reasons?

Peter Pontbriand

Sorry Mike, my comment may have been more pointed than I meant it to be.
It's not just your rig either, most of the older carbureted Jeeps I wheel
with have a very strong raw gas smell coming from the tailpipe. To be
honest, being pretty light-informed as far as science is concerned, I've no
idea whether this odour is a "bad" emission or not, pollution-wise. It may
well be innocuous, and diesel exhaust may be far more objectionable in every
way. In fact, even some of the newer gas rigs with more in the way of
emission controls smell pretty bad to me in the same way when they are
starting up cold - my wife's ZJ for example has an awful raw gas smell. It
goes away once warmed up though.

It's just that my personal opinion is that following some gas rigs on the
trail is an unpleasantly oderiferous experience, so rejecting diesels as
"stinky" seems a bit contrived to me.

I can't share any numbers on my TJ because it's too new to have been tested,
although that particular grace period is about to expire. The aforementioned
ZJ (with a 360) was tested at 2 ppm HC (1 ppm at idle) and 0.00 CO%.

Don't you tune your carb specifically for the emissions tests, then change
it for your "25% seat-of-the-pants" boost after then tests are done? If so,
that may be why my ol' honker seems to think > 15 ppm.

Anyway, you've got me pretty convinced that diesels are a bad thing, at
least for around here. I just wanted to point out that gas engines can be
pretty "stinky" too ... at least to some of us.

/Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?


> HA!
>
> I got the paperwork to show my 'Nuttered' 258 blows 15 ppm HC and 0.16%
> CO into the air.
>
> Why don't you cough up your fancy 'injected and computerized all to
> crap' numbers eh?
>
> Mike
>
> Peter Pontbriand wrote:
> >
> > Ya know, all the unburned hydrocarbons spewing from the tailpipe of a
> > Nuttered 258 with no catcon doesn't smell all that great either ... I
think
> > I prefer the smell of diesel exhaust to be honest.
> >
> > /Peter
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:418401FB.3978BABB@sympatico.ca...
> > > It has the aerodynamics of a brick and two full axles.
> > >
> > > They are heavier than they look too.
> > >
> > > Basically the 6 and 4 get the same mileage, so would a diesel.
> > >
> > > Diesel also is way too stinky to have in a convertible Jeep.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >you are never going to get great mileage out of a Wrangler
regardless
> > of
> > > > >what engine you put in it, for obvious reasons.
> > > >
> > > > What are the reasons?