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.
You're right. But a good engineer also allows some margin in any design for the fact that bad/dumb things happen. I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to expect failure if we were talking about a 50% or greater concentration of gasoline. But less than 20%? Gimme a break. ANY engine should survive that briefly (not continuously operated that way), and any gasoline engine should survive that much diesel in its fuel.
And it isn't just moronic owners. Delivery tank truck drivers have been known to put the wrong fuel in storage tanks, you know.
Steve ( snipped-for-privacy@spam.thanks) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Absolutely. But why should the engine have been designed with a very different philosophy from the rest of the damn thing?
Do they use the same fuel pressures? Do they have the same space concerns over the pumps?
Common Rail is virtually universal in car diseasel lumps, right down to
600cc. But all are susceptible to mis-fuelling.
Even if I were sick enough to like the Aztek, that hardly has any bearing on the fuel system of a diesel minivan.
Yeah, I like the PT Cruiser, so what? And I like the Mini too, hate the new Beetle, don't care for '59 Cadillacs, but love the 1960 Chrysler
300F. You know what opinions are like.... everyone's got one and theirs always stinks worse than your own.
No. A small amount harmful over a long period, a large amount harmful over a short period.
The message from "Tim S Kemp" contains these words:
Looks like an '87 Astra that's been squished a bit.
Well given they're using the same fuel system suppliers they'll have the same issues. Not that CAT supply much common rail gear.
Thirded.
I don't want to go through each bollock point in turn, but the most ball achingly (to me) bad ones are...
The "warm up" time that old diesels had, and new ones don't, being due to some sort of integrated start up procedure. WTF? It's because new common rails don't need glow plugs unless it's really cold.
Unlocking the doors will cause damage to the main pump. Not if it's driven by the engine it won't. At worst you'll cause the riser pump to activate, and circulate the mixed fuels around a bit.
"Petrol removes the pump case hardening". Noooo. Lack of lubrication can cause wear, but petrol won't magically dissolve metal.
Pete.
I don't think it's uptight and puckered - it's just a random comment. Nowt wrong with that.
I've seen blue and yellow for diesel.
That's my point. I don't think it IS designed with a different philosophy.. I suspect the engine is plenty rugged and tough enough to survive 20% gasoline.
Unfortunately, that article reads like a whole lot of the nonsense published in the "automotive press" these days. Old diesel engines "warm up" time eliminated by incorporating it into "normal starting procedures" indeed! This doofus doesn't even understand the difference between indirect-injection (prechamber/glow-plug) and direct-injection (turn the key and start it) diesels, let alone the subtlties of common-rail.
Daniel J. Stern (dastern@127.0.0.1) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Indeed.
Which is why PSA don't sell HDi diseasels in some markets, because the fuel has insufficient lubricity. Australia is (or certainly was) a fine example.
Daniel J. Stern (dastern@127.0.0.1) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Exactly. It's a fairly cheap car for it's size, with poor residuals.
But as a point of order - the OP didn't specify what Chrysler it was, just a 2.5CRD. It's probably a Voyager or Grand Voyager, going by numbers on the road. The PR Cruiser sells mainly on it's looks over here. Luckily, few blind people drive, so it's a bit of a rarity on our roads.
Besides, the PT Cruiser CRD we get is a 2.2.
Guy King ( snipped-for-privacy@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Have you seen the convertible? It just gets worse...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.