RE: RE: Jeep Liberty

From: Pindell, Tim P (TPindell@otterbein.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 11:39:47 EST


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
> Michael Maskalans
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:47 AM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: Re: DML: RE: Jeep Liberty
>
>
> droo wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:39:32 -0500, Michael Maskalans
> > <dml@tepidcola.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If I can burn a quart of diesel to go the same distance
> that it takes
> >> a half gallon of gasoline, how is the diesel "dirtier"?
> >>
> >> Just because you can occasionally see the exhaust doesn't
> make it worse.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes it does. Soot is what makes smoke visible and soot is
> very dirty
> > stuff.
>
> Physically dirty perhaps but don't ignore that soot does
> something that other emissions don't - fall back to the ground.
>
> > That applies to all fires. Thick black smoke coming from your fire
> > place means you aren't getting a complete burn and you are
> putting out
> > alot of particulate pollution. Diesel is getting cleaner but it is
> > still not as clean as gasoline. I poked around and found this link:
> >
> http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.ht
> > m
>
> UCS are actually whackos in my opinion - but I don't have the
> time to go digging for people who agree with my argument, I'd
> rather go get some fresh seafood while I'm still in reach of
> San Fran. But in any case my car is not going to give me
> Black Lung Disease. Where were the stats on more lung cancer
> and worse air quality in Europe that should follow their
> claims about the soot issues?
>
> Oh well... I should also point out that their refining stats
> are comparing to MTBE re-gas. MTBE is a carcinogen that
> California forced their refineries to use instead of ethonal.
> It's fine when burned, but leaks into groundwater and is far
> worse than the fuel that goes along with it. maybe I'll find
> an in-date (Tier-II is here, so is ULSD. MTBE is thankfully
> gone) article at some point.
>
>
> --
> +-- Mike Maskalans ---------------- Rochester, NY ----------+
> | '98 Dakota CC, SAS on 40s '84 RamCharger 4x4, plow truck |
> | '02 Jetta TDI 5sp, daily '97 Intrepid, not on the road |
> +-------------------- <http://mike.tepidcola.com/trucks/> --+
>

I understand why people are reluctant to adopt diesels, so I generally
don't give anybody much static about it. I was one of them until a few
years ago, and I'm still pretty much an eco-freak. Use it as a teachable
moment and tell them about your great experience with your late-model
VW. Your positive, real-world experience has made me a bit more
comfortable with the idea of buying a VW. Sadly, very few people as a
percentage of the driving public have daily access to a modern,
reliable, and efficient diesel.

Understandably, diesel technology likely has an uphill battle to gain
wide acceptance. I think it's a safe bet to say that the vast majority
of diesels are commercial/industrial (maybe including heavy pickups),
and in that role, they are probably designed more for torque output
without much regard to emissions. Also, early automotive diesels (for
example Oldsmobiles and Mercedes 240/300Ds) that people may have noticed
were like an elderly relative: cranky, noisy, stinky and smoky. Being
produced decades ago, they didn't have the benefit of current
technology. It's a tough battle when folks see those as daily examples.
(Personally, I rather enjoy the smell and clatter of a diesel.) With
modern technology, ULSD, particulate traps and, in some cases, urea
injection, I think small-but-powerful turbocharged diesels can make some
inroads and prove to be clean, reliable, and economical. There is a
small, but growing market for them, and I include myself. The Liberty
CRD sold over 11,000 units when DC planned on only about 5000. (I can
probably dig up the reference again if anyone wants it.)

It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of emissions,
gas vs. diesel, on a grams/kWh basis, but I haven't refined my intertube
search enough to find one yet. That research has to be available
somewhere.

When Deb and I find a daily driver that we both like, we'll probably put
one more small, efficient diesel on the road as an example that one can
be clean and economical, but powerful at the same time. (But that new
Hemi 300 that we drove a few months ago was pure SWEETNESS.)

Tim
 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2008 - 18:47:21 EST