Unleaded petrol mixed with Diesel in a Chrysler 2.5CRD

We'll meet before the Status Quo concert in Cardiff this afternoon.

Huw who is going to rock all over the world tonight.

(and "...harmful over a long period.") That's what I was getting at. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I was well aware it was your wife. However, if you keep referring to it as a petrol tank, you're likely to make the same mistake. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I know you're being facestious, but ironically, that's the sad part of it. If the automakers were to try it, they would in fact use cheap plastic or pot metal like they did on certain engine gears and sprockets back in the 60's (on the Vega I believe it was) - basically a materials experiment run at the consumer's expense. That is the whole problem. Precisely *because* it would be a system that should last a lifetime with absolutely no problem, they would think they could make it as cheaply as possible - ala the GM gasoline V-8 converted to diesel.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

That wouldn't work - it relies on human attention. You'd have to poke-a-yoke it (Japanese term - not sure how to spell it).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Bingo! :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

In message , Ted Mittelstaedt writes

I agree it's hard to believe but have a look at these two reports, dated February 2004 and August 2005 respectively. The February one refers to both petrol into diesel and diesel into petrol mis-fuelling

Extract: 'The AA Motoring Trust says the confusion affects an estimated

120,000 drivers a year who then face a clean-up and repair bill of up to £3,000 - collectively that means millions of pounds'

Extract: 'The problem is seriously disabling about 155,000 diesel cars a year. The RAC attended 50,000 cases last year, the Automobile Association 44,000 and Green Flag more than 6,000; UK plc suffered

54,000 company diesel car misfuelling incidents''

It's more to do with the return from the pump filling the tank with swarf. Although by the time you've replaced pump, lines, injectors, tank & filters the cost of starting the engine & not starting the engine are beginning to look similar. & why you can't filter the swarf is a good question, if the filter lets through particles big enough to wreck the engine then filling up on a dusty day or near a steelworks will destroy the vehicle.

The message from Peter contains these words:

I wonder how many of them are repeat offenders?

IF running 3 miles on a 5:1 dilution of diesel to gasoline can ruin an engine, then the engine was designed by MORONS and isn't worthy to be on the road anyway.

If it were mine, I'd drain and flush the tank and hope for the best. And if damage occured, I'd never buy another common-rail diesel again in my lifetime.

"Land of the free", huh?

No.

And I'm sure the owner doesn't give a rat's ass about you peoples' pointless opinions on the value or aesthetics of his car either. Got anything useful to contribute?

Well, it doesn't look good for HONDA diesels if the above is true, but in my mind "Honda" and "diesel" should never be in the same sentence anyway. In general, common-rail diesels may be a bit more delicate than a proper diesel should be, but I imagine that will be rectified as the technology advances. I can't imagine Cat, Detroit Diesel, and Cummins (all of whom are now selling common-rail engines) letting their reputations get to sullied by sensitive engines regardless of what other manufacturers will tolerate.

What looks worse is fuel prices right now- in my area diesel is about $.50/gallon MORE expensive than mid-grade unleaded :-/

Steve ( snipped-for-privacy@spam.thanks) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's an American car.

But I think you'll find most common rail diesels are like that - I guess that it's actually not quite as easy as you think to produce a pump that can reliably produce 25,000psi?

In message , Steve writes

Have to say that it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect users to run the car on the fuel it is designed for. I suppose the alternative to designed by morons is designed for them.

Oh I wish I was as happy and humerous as you, maybe I'd not have lived this long.

Ahhh you're in the US.

Explains your last post - you probably think the Pontiac Aztec is good looking too

My sense of humor is fine, and my blood pressure is 115/80. I'm having a good ol' laugh at people who are so uptight and puckered that they have to pick on the style of the car instead of answer the question. ESPEICALLY when the car in question isn't even a PT Cruiser! :-p

The real question is the European engine in that American car. The Cummins in the Dodge Ram is a known quantity, but I don't know very much about whatever they shove in the European minivans and PT and how fragile it is or is not. Mercedes diesels are as good as the big American industrial diesel engines, so if its a corporate cousin I'd imagine its pretty stout.

Cummins, EMD, Caterpillar, and General Electric don't seem to have much trouble doing it in big diesels. The question is does it scale down to

2-liter class engines very well.