Sad day....
#21
Sad day....
Part of the popularity of diesles is driven by fuel being much lower than gasoline over there. In the US emission standards for diesels are now so strict that many of the european brands have had great difficulty meeting standards, while keeping any sort of reliability.
Diesels are inherently low in hydrocarbon emissions and better from a greenhouse gas standard. What they do produce, though, sulfur and particulate carbon (soot) is visible and smells. Although this contributes to smog, I think most folks think of dsl engines as dirtier than they really are.
Diesels are inherently low in hydrocarbon emissions and better from a greenhouse gas standard. What they do produce, though, sulfur and particulate carbon (soot) is visible and smells. Although this contributes to smog, I think most folks think of dsl engines as dirtier than they really are.
#22
Sad day....
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: olyguy12
For some reason I have to much time on my hands occasionally. I've searched car and truck ads for the 80s and they show gas mileage just as good if not better than current models. I had an 85 Dodge Charger that got over 30 MPG. Around 35 if you went the speed limit of 55. Today a Chevy Colbalt is listed at just over 30 MPG. What has gotten better with 20 years of technology? The cars are 800 pounds heavier, 20% more horse power and just as poor handling. The poor quality GM 350 diesel engine got nearly 30 MPG. the Mid 90s Dodge diesels got mid 20s with the Cummins. Today we are at high teens. We are some what responsible for this problem. Hell we are the problem. We, the consumer, keep buying bigger and better. And bigger is not always better. We are horse power hungery and can't get off the drug. These new pickups with 600+ lbft of torque and 350 HP match a semi tractor of 1980 vintage. Except the pickups don't have the brakes to handle the weight they can pull. Gas pickups aren't any better. My 77 Jeep J20 got 14 MPG. The 94 F-150 with a 302 got 14 MPG. The 2000 GMC with 4.8L 5 speed got 16-18 MPG and the present 2000 F-150 with a 5.4 gets 12-16 MPG.
I don't see anyone beating down the doors of dealerships yet requesting low horse power/high mileage cars and trucks. I would like to but I can't afford a new car anymore as the gas prices are to high. My current car is an 03 Cavalier that was totaled and rebuild. It gets 28-30 in town and low 30s on the highway. What I really don't understand is why Chrysler, and I would assume both Ford and GM sell all their vehicles in Europe with Diesel engines. All Jeeps are Diesel in England but none are left in the states. GM recently bought the engine company that Jeep used to make the 2.8L Liberty engines. They make several different size engines for the European market. I hope they will start to market some in the states also. A 3 cylinder turbo diesel in a Cobalt size chassis would push 50 MPG. VW has been doing this for years and own the US market.
</end quote></div>
Well said!!
I'd like to comment about the quality of the fuel (gas or diesel) at stations now though--- do you really think we are getting as good/refined gasoline as we did 10 years ago? 20 years ago? I think the technology is keeping the mileage where it is on gas vehicles... if we had the more refined fuel we had even 10 years ago, we'd have more fuel efficient cars... but then the oil companies couldn't pump out as much gas at the refinery in a day.
Bottom line... if you have more fuel efficient vehicles (for example diesel consumption is down 4% from last year at this time), then the oil companies will raise prices... so really... they still get your money.
argh.... anyone to help validate (or invalidate) the point on less refined gas?
For some reason I have to much time on my hands occasionally. I've searched car and truck ads for the 80s and they show gas mileage just as good if not better than current models. I had an 85 Dodge Charger that got over 30 MPG. Around 35 if you went the speed limit of 55. Today a Chevy Colbalt is listed at just over 30 MPG. What has gotten better with 20 years of technology? The cars are 800 pounds heavier, 20% more horse power and just as poor handling. The poor quality GM 350 diesel engine got nearly 30 MPG. the Mid 90s Dodge diesels got mid 20s with the Cummins. Today we are at high teens. We are some what responsible for this problem. Hell we are the problem. We, the consumer, keep buying bigger and better. And bigger is not always better. We are horse power hungery and can't get off the drug. These new pickups with 600+ lbft of torque and 350 HP match a semi tractor of 1980 vintage. Except the pickups don't have the brakes to handle the weight they can pull. Gas pickups aren't any better. My 77 Jeep J20 got 14 MPG. The 94 F-150 with a 302 got 14 MPG. The 2000 GMC with 4.8L 5 speed got 16-18 MPG and the present 2000 F-150 with a 5.4 gets 12-16 MPG.
I don't see anyone beating down the doors of dealerships yet requesting low horse power/high mileage cars and trucks. I would like to but I can't afford a new car anymore as the gas prices are to high. My current car is an 03 Cavalier that was totaled and rebuild. It gets 28-30 in town and low 30s on the highway. What I really don't understand is why Chrysler, and I would assume both Ford and GM sell all their vehicles in Europe with Diesel engines. All Jeeps are Diesel in England but none are left in the states. GM recently bought the engine company that Jeep used to make the 2.8L Liberty engines. They make several different size engines for the European market. I hope they will start to market some in the states also. A 3 cylinder turbo diesel in a Cobalt size chassis would push 50 MPG. VW has been doing this for years and own the US market.
</end quote></div>
Well said!!
I'd like to comment about the quality of the fuel (gas or diesel) at stations now though--- do you really think we are getting as good/refined gasoline as we did 10 years ago? 20 years ago? I think the technology is keeping the mileage where it is on gas vehicles... if we had the more refined fuel we had even 10 years ago, we'd have more fuel efficient cars... but then the oil companies couldn't pump out as much gas at the refinery in a day.
Bottom line... if you have more fuel efficient vehicles (for example diesel consumption is down 4% from last year at this time), then the oil companies will raise prices... so really... they still get your money.
argh.... anyone to help validate (or invalidate) the point on less refined gas?
#23
Sad day....
Today's gas has oxygenator additives and ethanol, neither of which do much for fuel efficiency. Of course diesel fuel just went from low sulfur to ultra-low sulfur... and I'm sure the sulfur doesn't just voluntarily jump out of the fuel for free.
I think fuel quality is as good as it has ever been when it comes to contamination, but the formulation has more to do with emissions than it does with performance or mileage.
I think fuel quality is as good as it has ever been when it comes to contamination, but the formulation has more to do with emissions than it does with performance or mileage.
#24
Sad day....
i believe the engines are more efficient than years past.they have to up the horsepower to offset the emissions.we used to have a 72' impala 190hp 350ci it could dog a 88 302 thunderbird.alot of the problem is in the gearing. older models had gearing from 2.73 to 4.11.most of the racers put 3.73 to 4.11 in the rear end for performance not fuel mileage.if you look at the gears in the trucks today they're in the 3.50 to 4.11 range. if you tow or haul alot thats what you want and need.if you have the knowledge and time you can change the gearing. a 300+hp 4to6 speed trans and put a 3.08 gear in it should bring up the mileage in the high 20's maybe low to mid 30's.the power will still be there a friend of mine had a '73 chevy k5 blazer 350 4speed with a granny gear with a 3.08 rear end it could 4-wheel with the rest of them.on the interstate it it would turn about 2000rpm's at 65mph.my wife's 03 neon turns 3000rpm at 70mph. the fuel standards are probably better than before but they put alot more junk in the fuel than before
#26
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)