Dakota Diesel?

Page 2 of 3  


LOL, that was good.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

V8: 235HP/330lb.ft. 12MPG mixed driving, 8MPG towing V10: 310HP/450lb.ft. 10MPG mixed driving, 6MPG towing I6: 305HP/555lb.ft. 19MPG mixed driving, 15MPG towing I6+: 650HP/1200lb.ft. 18MPG mixed driving, 15MPG towing
All of the above are on a 1-ton, DRW pickup - used for a combination of towing, hauling, and commuting. The V8 numbers are second-hand from several personal contacts (and since you mentioned 360, we're going with that engine). All other numbers are actual observed numbers first-hand. (The I6+ is the slightly-modified-over-stock engine that currently resides in my truck, thrown in just for power output comparison)
Let's say mid-grade fuel is $3.10, and diesel is $3.20 (while the V10 can run 87, I've found a tendency to ping, especially under load. The V8 is more susceptible to pinging, so IMO 89 is required). Over 1,000 miles, here's the fuel costs, assuming all commuting miles (ie. no load):
V8 - $258.33 V10 - $310.00 I6 - $168.42 I6+ - $177.78
Now let's look at 1,000 towing miles:
V8 - $387.5 V10 - $516.67 I6/I6+ - $213.34
There's a savings of $174.16 per 1,000 miles between the I6 and the V8 when towing, and almost $90 per 1,000 miles when commuting. Assuming an 80/20 utilization of the vehicle (80% of the time used for commuting), that's an average savings of $106.83 per 1,000 miles. That means in under 50,000 miles, the diesel option (at $5K) pays for itself. That's negating all other benefits as well (longevity, reliability, re-sale value, and better overall drivability).
My point in all this is simple: diesel power is a viable alternative for big and small vehicles alike. It's cheaper to operate, whether you're pulling 80K in a class 8 truck with a 14 liter engine, or commuting to work in a 2-door compact with a <2L engine, or anywhere in between.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok, so you are too amusing to let go....

Last I checked, my tailpipe is outside my truck, which is what I referred to. Clearly you do not read very well, if at all, what I say. Of course, the other option is that your tailpipe is INside your truck, which would explain a few things.

Gasoline smells about the same amount and sticks to your hand at least as well. Though God only knows WHY you would have either on your hand unless you are a Bhuddist Monk protesting a war.

Once again, you speak without thinking. The Liberty has a great towing/hauling capacity, and IT has a diesel option.

And if you think everyone buys one because they need to compensate for something, you might be the one who needs to compensate.

The low sulphur requirement went into effect almost 5 years ago. I can't remember buying fuel that did NOT have a label saying it was "low sulphur on road" diesel. Thus your rhetoric about increased price over sulphur regs is bullshit. The increase happened 5 years ago, if at all.

Justification, no matter how lame, is by its inherent definition "just." If it is just, it is fair, and is therefore.... reasonable and accepted. IOW, you just admitted that "no means no", and what I said is true.

More rubbish from you. the demand for diesel is at least what the demand from gasoline is, or haven't you noticed all the tractor trailers on the road?

Even when I have to pay for it, (and why would I get it for free?) it'll be about the same price if not lower than refined diesel. Further, it burns cleaner than gasoline, diesel or ethanol. Since you are so concerned with emissions, that should interest you.

Except that I've used facts and you have none. Care to try again?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I saw a couple of those monks do their thing a long time ago. Their mileage was horrible.
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

light it.. *eg*
Mac
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bro, I'm sure somebody would have lit them up.
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As are you maxi, as are you.

Sorry Maxi, but it appears that you are the one who cannot read clearly or just have a complete lack of comprehension.

Gasoline smells nothing like diesel and although stronger, it fades much more quickly. If some gas dribbles down the side of the vehicle or down the overflow, it evaporates quickly and the smell is gone, not so with diesel and I prefer the smell of gas to that of diesel although I prefer not to be exposed to either for any real lengh of time.

And how much more does it have than the gas engine version and what is the price difference.

I didn't say everyone Max but from what I see, the majority of people who own SUV's never use them for anything that a car couldn't do.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm Once again, you speak with your head up your ass.

Your constant spin is getting old.

LOL, how many commuters are driving those tractor trailers? The price is based on the current demand and right now, it is very low as far as commuters go and if that demand increases, so will the price and once again, you have saod nothing of value here.

It does interest me and if they get it right then I'm all for it but that time is not now. As far as being the same or lower price, once again, supply and demand will cure that, just like the record profits by the oil companies now. As for the free supplies, I was referring to the free used cooking oil that is currently available to make it.

Really, where???? Just because you spin and come out with complete and pure BS doesn't make it facts.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, so its a preference for bad smells that makes your decision. This could explain the attutide you have that your shit doesn't stink.

Don't know, don't care, it proves that your point about people not hauling loads with a midsize truck is complete bullshit.

The majority of SUV's aren't diesel trucks, thus mentioning any opinion based on the typical SUV is pointless, as we are not discussing SUV's.

Once again you forgot that ALL diesel engines and fuel manufacturers had a conference on the issue in 2001 and resolved to implement the changes necessary ahead of schedule. Perhaps if you scrolled down that same page, you'd know this already.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2001/January/Day-18/a01a.pdf
This is found via a link on the page you posted. If you look carefully at the top of page two (just after the title page) on the right hand column, it quotes the date the rule becomes effective, which is March 19th of 2001. You'll also note at the bottom of the second column, the anticipated rise in price for low sulphur diesel fuel was about $.05 per gallon, not exactly the staggering amount you make it out to be.
Again, I'll state that all fuel that I've pumped has been of the low sulphur on road variety as far back as I remember. Since I own a 2000 Ram, a good 80% of the fuel I've burned is of the low sulphur blend.

Sadly, that was an explanation of your spin.

Right, you've said nothing of value, since you've declined to acknowledge the existance of huge fleets of trucks driven much farther at much lesser rates of economy burning diesel fuel. IOW, the demand IS there, you just don't wish to accept it, since it would blow your entire theory.

They have "got it right", there are many people burning it, and at least a few companies looking to start mass production of biodiesel.

Ahh yes, the typical "I don't wanna know the truth" excuses.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

here i can answer that one. the price differance was only about 3k (im fairly sure of that one.) and here's the towing specs (properly equipped) for the engine/trans combonations
2.8l turbo diesel 5 speed 545rfe 5000lbs gtwr 3.7l v6 4 speed 42rle 5000lbs gtwr 3.7l v6 6 speed manual trans 3500lbs gtwr
note: the diesel engine options price was masked by the other option costs on the gasoline vehicles on the lot. i cant imagine what else other than crome accents you could get on one other than what my wife has. but there was a 3.7l 4 speed auto next to hers on the lot that cost more and didnt have the towing group.
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Chris, do you have the curb weight difference of one with the crd and one without. Or was the 260 pounds that difference?
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that was the wieght differance between the 4wd liberty CRD and the 4wd 3.7l v6. thats exactly how i figured that. base curb weight on those two vehicles sould be simmularly equipped vehicles, so the added weight should be only the diesel engine stuff. (my assumption anyways)
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
". Odor

Your sniffer ain't workin' too good.
HD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, it just works differently in Maxworld :-)
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"HoDad" < snipped-for-privacy@juno.com> wrote in message news:z7z3g.25$ snipped-for-privacy@fe06.lga...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I take it then, Tbone, that you've got nothing to say on the facts that you neglected to look at on the site you provided?
This is just one more case of you being wrong and failing to admit it.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did look and as usual, you got it wrong. While the rule itself may have been brought into effect, the steps within the rule have dates of there own as to when they need to be implemented. Since this document was itself written in 2001, unless they had a crystal ball, there was no way for them to know the current oil situation which makes there estimate of little to no cost increase completely invalid, which follows along the same lines of most of your arguments including this one, completely worthless. Perhaps you might want to look at both Cummins and CAT to see the changes they have planned for 2007 due to these rule changes that you seem to think have already occurred, LOL!

No Max, it is simply a case of learning from my past mistakes and one of them is arguing with you since you are way to much of a pussy to ever admit to error of any kind. I was not wrong here as the rule itself sets times for various things to take effect and nothing at all will happen until the rule itself becomes effective so by definition, the rule HAS to be put into effect at the same time if not before any of it's regulations can be but there is none that says all its regulations take effect at the time the rule is effective. Sorry Max, but you can add another one to your loss column.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, thats why in 2001, all the major diesel manufacturers and the fuel companies had a big conference and decided what they needed to do to be compliant EARLY.

Again, wrong. Since the increase was not expressed in any finite figures, it would be hard to determine exactly how much of the recent increses had anything to do with the new "ultra low" sulphur requirements. One thing is sure, the "low sulphur" requirements of 2001 certainly had NOTHING to do with the latest increase in fuel prices, nor with any to come, despite your claims.

Perhaps you might want to read about the requirements before you make any silly claims. Cummins says on their website that they are compliant with the changes that took place last year (you did know about those, right?) and the changes you seem to think are destined for 2007 are in place as of October of 2006. There is yet another teir to be put in place in 2010. Thus, all this happyhorseshit you keep talking about has been phased in since 2001, with no radicla increase in price.

Why admit error when clearly you were wrong? You claimed that diesel in a Dakota would be a terrible thing. it isn't. You were shown proof by several people. In the end, it came down to your NOSE telling you it smelled bad. No matter what you claim, your NOSE isn't an expert on diesel engines or fuel requirements.

Incorrect. All you need do is visit Cummins Engine's website and take a look at the press releases from 2003-2005 and you'll see that they are WAY ahead of the changes you are so concerned about.

Well, I guess you need to take a closer look at how things happened, since ALL diesel manufacturers (both engine and fuel) worked to beat the deadlines set by the regs.

Not until you post proof. I've posted mine, and shown you where a whole archive of proof exists, time for you to go read.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A properly set up diesel, running low sulphur fuel, doesn't smell too bad, but even a TDI with our sulphurized fuel makes its presence known, particularly when accellerating. Not nearly as obnoxious as the older diesels, for sure.
Fuel mileage on the oil-burners is ALWAYS better than the gasoline version of the same vehicle, but with the exception of the TDI it will also have significantly poorer performance for the same engine size. The old Turbo Jettas were pretty acceptable on the highway after you got them wound up, while the normally aspirated version was a DOG. ***
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:08:01 -0400, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

The one that impressed me was the 4-banged TD that Mitsubitsi used to put in their "mighty max" pickup... I would have bought that truck just for the engine if they were available in a 2wd truck.. Mac
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ive gotta ask the same as max here..... why not a diesel?
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.