56 replies to this topic

[Squatch]

Perspective in the rear view mirror:
There were some great diesel HIGH efficiency engines back in the early 80s coming out of Europe.
The 5 cylinder Audi diesel (I owned one-'81 *Audi 5000) is a good example. 40 mpg road milage in a full sized sedan at good+ speeds. Since then, new engines had to be keep being developed by all manufacturers to accommodate all the many various emissions regulation changes. Of course efficiency took a hit.
In the big cities, the stringent emmission regulations/changes likely make sense, but those of us in the rural wide open spaces (low percentage of sales) suffer all the consequences with really none of the benefits.
That's life......




*Rest of the story...
The Audi built drive train (engine, std 5 speed trans, transaxle) was superb. The rest of the car was crap. Go figure. (Audi outsourced heavily then, a lot to GM Europe)
Had the car about 150k mi, I couldn't keep the car around the drivetrain functioning because too many of the misc. (expensive) parts became unavailable, and there were too few in the wrecking yards as part donors.

 

 

I had an '80 Audi 5000 diesel. It was a wonderful car. Mine was the year prior to the turbo. Normally asperated. Slow around town and the gears spacing in the 5 spd was a mess. Slow around town but on the road it cruised at 85 getting 45mpg. it started fine in cold weather and the AC made frost inside the car it got so cold. I put 200k on mine. Very comfortable and handled nicely. I did have a huge problem with expensive electrical switchs falling apart and such. I traded it on an '86 Ford Ranger with a turbo diesel. Great motor (I think Mitusbishi made) but the truck was junk. I drove down the street and parts fell off. No support from Ford at all on these trucks. Most dealers didn't even know the diesel existed. 

 

By the mid '80s the small diesel boom was over. GM had tried to make a diesel out of the SBC and it was a dismal failure. It was the nail in the coffin for auto diesels in the US except in light trucks. The one exception was VW. They never gave up and now they make some of the best.

[Bigfoot]

...In the big cities, the stringent emmission regulations/changes likely make sense, but those of us in the rural wide open spaces (low percentage of sales) suffer all the consequences with really none of the benefits.
That's life......

 

Benefits of not polluting are just as valid in the country. Untreated diesel exhaust is a carcinogen and a contributor to greenhouse gases. To be sure the exhaust will affect more people in the city but even those in the country are at risk.

 

Although more diesel competition in the light pickup market seems like a good thing, I think the technology is near the end of its life span. I doubt that it will have much market success before the manufacturers have to look towards more efficient power sources. 

[Jollyrogers]

obviously not a new diesel owner. clean diesel w/ def is not at the end of its lifespan.

[Bigfoot]

obviously not a new diesel owner. clean diesel w/ def is not at the end of its lifespan.

 

I beg to differ. The complex and expensive emission systems are about as good as they can get and do not figure to meet future requirements. Even Fiat-Chrysler head Marchionne mentioned the doubtful future of diesel. The is a glimmer of hope in non-petroleum fuel sources but the basic engine technology is old and needs rethinking. 

[Advmoto18]

The is a glimmer of hope in non-petroleum fuel sources but the basic engine technology is old and needs rethinking. 

 

I concur!

 

While not a conspiracy advocate...

 

With all the technology inventions and advancements we've witnessed since 1970, I find it inconprehensible that a economical, efficient alternative to fossil fuels is not being mass produced.

 

Leads one to believe if the petroleum industry and big automobile manufacturers haven't locked up such innovations in their vaults!

 

Just look at the 2014 Global Fortune 500 list and the top 50 companies and how many of those companies either directly or indirectly reley upon fossil fuels for generating revenue.

 

While many in the US and EU may be concerned about emissions and green house gases, most of the developing and emerging market countries of the world could care less.

Edited by Advmoto18, 30 May 2015 - 11:17 AM.

[Bigfoot]

I concur!

 

While not a conspiracy advocate...

 

With all the technology inventions and advancements we've witnessed since 1970, I find it inconprehensible that a economical, efficient alternative to fossil fuels is not being mass produced.

 

Leads one to believe if the petroleum industry and big automobile manufacturers haven't locked up such innovations in their vaults!

 

Just look at the 2014 Global Fortune 500 list and the top 50 companies and how many of those companies either directly or indirectly reley upon fossil fuels for generating revenue.

 

While many in the US and EU may be concerned about emissions and green house gases, most of the developing and emerging market countries of the world could care less.

 

There have been many documentaries on the power grabs and political influence of the oil industry. Roughly one in five jobs in the U.S. is related to cars, so keeping the demand for oil as high as possible benefits the industry's near-term objectives. Maybe the increased attention to heavy truck diesel pollution will encourage alternative fuels, although I doubt it. 

 

I wouldn't say that developing economies could care less about health and climate change, rather they lack the flexibility to do much about it. It's complicated, of course, and the developed countries don't always set a good example. Resource exploitation--often by foreign companies--supports developing countries. A vicious cycle. 

[Freebird]

When I said "rural", I was referring to VERY low numbers of vehicles per square area.
Obviously cities are considerably! vehicle "denser" than open space rural.
Think farmland rural, not suburbs "rural".
If the whole planet (tillable part) was covered by a people density at today's farmland numbers, dilution of pollution would make pollution's effects negligible.
Also mass production of all the fun toys/vehicles/electronics would not exist either, since mass production requires masses of consumers.

[Bigfoot]

When I said "rural", I was referring to VERY low numbers of vehicles per square area.
Obviously cities are considerably! vehicle "denser" than open space rural.
Think farmland rural, not suburbs "rural".
If the whole planet (tillable part) was covered by a people density at today's farmland numbers, dilution of pollution would make pollution's effects negligible.
Also mass production of all the fun toys/vehicles/electronics would not exist either, since mass production requires masses of consumers.

 

Not sure what your point might be.

 

Fewer people? Yes, that would help many problems but then we would not likely be having this discussion about modern vehicles. 

 

Fewer cars and trucks in cities? Yes, that would help greatly but we have to get over car dependency first. Note that per capita rural residents drive--and die--more than people in cities. 

 

Less pollution from farmland? It depends. Modern farming, especially factory farms and livestock, can be major polluters. Traditional, small scale farming has much to recommend it but must work in harmony with nearby cities to be viable, and that includes air pollution. The many diesel farm vehicles are polluters and should be part of the solution. 

 

The 2.8L diesel will have to meet the latest EPA regs. If that is an annoyance to rural residents because they don't think the rules apply to them, tough. 

[buckland]

Here is the Duramax... I have one too...with an Eagle (formally a Taco owner). The diesel is amazing. great mpg and tons of torque. Needed air bags and I am putting on a sway bar. This photo is from FWCJH. on their Instagram site.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[buckland]

Here's my new set up.

 

Attached Thumbnails

•