One reason why you never want the first model year of any new engine
design.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/21/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

Yeah, and if the government didn't have their noses into mechanical things,
that never would have happened. Blame the fukin treehuggers.

--
Steve Barker

YOU should be the one
controlling YOUR car.
Check out:
www.lightsout.org




"SnoMan" <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:08:29 -0400, David M <NOSPAM (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:

You know that we all breath the same air and diesels are very dirty
emissions wise in some regards and they have operated under a loop
hole in law that was recently closed and now they have to play by
rules simular to what gas engines have been playing by for over 30
years now. Do not blame the treehuggers for this if anything blame
detriot for exploiting the loop hole for many years and now that it is
closing they are going to have a lot of problems trying to keep those
engines compliant. Diesel are very big NOx generators by nature but
that will soon end and they also squeaked by on HC and other levels
for years with forced induction to make PPM appear lower but the
probem is that deluting the air flow may indeed reduce PPM it does not
reduce GPM (Gram Per Mile) and this new requiremt it going to cause
them a lot of problems in the future. The unfair edge that diesel have
is going away soon. See I can remember when gas engine had no emission
rules as I was driving then too and they had some awesome engines then
and wouls still have today if they had not be force into compliance in
70's. It is a classic kneejerk reaction to blame the tree huggers when
your "dirty" engine is finally made to comply with the emission
requirements that the gas fleet has been doing for years.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:22:56 -0400, David M <NOSPAM (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:


No I did not, you simply did not get the point. It is time to pay the
piper for diesel engines. The main reason they escaped compliance was
because the "excuse" that the fuel had too much sulpher in it which
would negate some emission controls. Well the sulpher is going to be
gone so there is no more excuses. (they started taking/phasing sulpher
out of gas in 1972 and it is long overdue for diesels)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

Some people you just can't reach, Dave.
You can't fix stupid.

Spdloader

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:23:33 -0400, David M <NOSPAM (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote:


Where did I say that??? BTW I do not even have a 30 year old chevy
either. I am just not blindly in love with oil burners. I have been
around them all my life and likely longer than you from farming and
other applications and I know their quirks and limitations plus what a
pain in the ass they can be in extremely cold weather (we used to use
a gas tractor to feed with in winter with because it would always
start without having to be plugged in and you never had to worry about
mixing fuel or the the fuel waxing or gelling either as I have seen it
turn to jelly in fuel filters at 25 to 30 below. They have their
merits but they are not a cure all as many promote and their owners
seem to be the most insecure at times and upset when you even suggest
that they are not as great as they claim them to be. Take away the NOx
generating boost from your engine it would struggle to move a load
from a stop or climb a hill. Add half that amount of boost to a
properly feed and built gas motor of the same size and it would walk
away from a oil burner so far it would be like it puts its brakes on.
BTW it was supercharged "gas" motors that you hate that won WW2 in the
air so they were successfully boosting them long before it was done to
a oil burner. The only reason that it is not in wide use today is
because of John Q Publics foundness for 87 octane which would be a
death sentence for a properly supercharged gas motor. To run a
supercharger with 87 octane you have to limit timing so severely that
no where near it potentail is obtained. I had a few freinds that
actually had suppercharged street rods in 70's and they were down
right scarey with the power they had and it the instant you cracked
the throttle too. BTW they tried diesel aircraft engines once but they
proved to be a big failure and was abandoned long ago. If they had
forced compliance on them long ago there would not be near as many of
them around today in SUV's. Do not take my word for it just watch what
happens with them in next several years. The future does not belong to
them. Also watch the price of the fuel for them because in a bad
winter it can exceed the price of gas by more than 1 dollar (it has
here) and when you factor in that and the option cost and
maintainance and so on you simply do not save any money with them at
all anymore either. (you are loosing money)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"SnoMan" <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote



You just can't seem to help yourself can ya? Is there a day that goes by
that you don't step on your dick in some ng?
Do yourself a favor and STFU!

Here's your new sig. Enjoy!

In article <0fq703dbqrs36atpjthc6abk8sl3bbqae2 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
SnoMan <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote:

Which month of which year?

Could be he was thinking of when you last changed your
underwear...

No, you're blindly in love with mid-grade gasoline burners.

What ever you say Moses.
(that's a guy from the Bible)

Could very well be for someone who has demonstrated limited
technical skills.

Interesting that you recognized your limitations and found a work
around. (whoda thunk?)

You're projecting...

Just couldn't stop yourself from hopping up on your NOx soapbox,
could ya?
Take away your hydrocarbon filled air conditioning system and
jacked ignition timing and you would just be another sweaty gas
powered Chevy driver struggling to move an empty truck out of its
own way.

The proof being; that's what Cummins, Caterpiller, IH, Perkins,
Allis Chalmers, Detroit Diesel, et.al. have been doing for
decades.
Not!

I wonder how many Allied deaths could be attributed to the
increased volatility of the (gasoline) fuel used? It certainly
was a factor in the number of dead and injured in Sherman tanks.

Sounds like a vast John Q Public conspiracy to me.
Quick, call Hillary!

You're really a Kindergarten teacher, aren't you?

I'll bet they were right tasty also.

Or, turbines were perfected to the point where they just plain
weren't necessary to begin with.

Two points here;
1) any increased compliance would simply have been met by earlier
application of new technologies, just like any other industry
faces.
2) A scofflaw such as yourself has no business mentioning
"compliance," to begin with.

If you told me that the sky was blue, I'd want independent proof.

And when you're proven wrong, you'll own up to that erroneous
statement just have you have(n't) done for so many others, right?

An issue for you because you don't know the difference between
price and value.

Maybe they don't like you anymore than we do.

Option cost sticks to the resale value.

Yeah, they just chew thru spark plugs, distributor caps, rotors,
ignition wires. Yup, Cummins could only hope to have as few
injector problems as GM has with their gasoline engines.

Explain how it is I could sell my 97 Ram 2500 4X4 Diesel for more
than I paid for it after owning it for a year?
(didn't "loose" any money)

SnoMan:

Europe has been moving to the diesel for years and America will follow.
Cleaner fuels such as biodiesel (made here in the good ol USA) will
gradually replace a good percentage of petroleum diesel, although not all,
especially in cold climates.

--
Pee Pee Firefighter

_\ _ /_
____|_|______ __________________________

"Pee Pee Phirephighter" <pp (AT) phirephighter (DOT) org> wrote in message