Dakota Diesel?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course, we could all just wait for this guy to show up then max and tbone can be buddies again! :)

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.

I have thought of putting the little brother to the Dodge Cummings 6BT, the

4 cycl version, 4BT. Without turbo charging it will do over 100hp and I think 300ft/lbs. It is VERY easy to get 250hp and in the 550ft/lbs range with adjustments and turbo. In fact, turbo 4bt's were put in those big walk thur vans(Lay's potatoe chips) with Turbo 400 trannys. I have one. I don't know the mileage they got, but they are very dependable. Case in point mine is a 1978 model, I just got it last year, and it stil runs well!

There are sites that put this engine into Durangos and get up to 30mpg. GOOD Luck with research! The engines were used in skid loaders as well. Most run about 5k for just the engine :(

OH, my thoughts....why use a Dakota or Fronteer type when mileage really doesn't vary. I thought the mileage would go up, but don't believe that now. Performance may increase a tad in the smaller truck. I wanted one for running around. My big truck is a pain to park..