snuffy
Senior Member
yeah that test looks good,but if one were to do that for lets say 50,000miles that little 2.7 turbo will be toast ...
Why?snuffy said:yeah that test looks good,but if one were to do that for lets say 50,000miles that little 2.7 turbo will be toast ...
Freebird said: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.
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.Freebird said:...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......
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.Jollyrogers said:obviously not a new diesel owner. clean diesel w/ def is not at the end of its lifespan.
I concur!Bigfoot said:The is a glimmer of hope in non-petroleum fuel sources but the basic engine technology is old and needs rethinking.
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.Advmoto18 said: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.
Not sure what your point might be.Freebird said: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.