Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

by kcnielsen on 2/12/2011, 4:24 pm

No kidding, right?

http://rvnewsservice.com/?p=504

by Sean on 2/13/2011, 7:02 am

Also more power and torque at lower RPM has to be good for the engine. One minus over here now is that Diesel is dearer to purchase than it used to be.
Sean

by Richard Mondavi on 2/13/2011, 11:36 am

I hope they didn't waste too much money on that study.

by schrowang on 2/13/2011, 6:58 pm

The efficiency of turbo charged diesel engines has been known for decades. There have been two problems in selling them to the public. First was the debacle a number of years ago with the engines that GM put in the Tornado and Cadillac. They were basically gasser engines refitted to run as diesels. Crappy blocks and heads caused many, many engine failures and they were pulled from the market within two years, but not before the public's opinion of diesels in autos was soured.

Secondly, the public consideres diesels to be "dirty" engines. Just look at all the soot coming from improperly tuned trucks. YUCK says the consumer and besides, they smell so awful and cost so much.

Not withstanding, I got better mileage on my 6.7L Cummins going back and forth to NC from NH than I did with my wife's 2011 6cyl Jeep Liberty on the same trip a week earlier. Jeep was 18 mpg and the Ram was 20 mpg.

Diesels run better, they run longer and they're a tougher engine all around. The Europeans have discovered this, but our pampered public and the auto companies that cater to them haven't.

by Mopar_Earl on 2/13/2011, 7:09 pm

schrowang wrote:The efficiency of turbo charged diesel engines has been known for decades. There have been two problems in selling them to the public. First was the debacle a number of years ago with the engines that GM put in the Tornado and Cadillac. They were basically gasser engines refitted to run as diesels. Crappy blocks and heads caused many, many engine failures and they were pulled from the market within two years, but not before the public's opinion of diesels in autos was soured.

Secondly, the public consideres diesels to be "dirty" engines. Just look at all the soot coming from improperly tuned trucks. YUCK says the consumer and besides, they smell so awful and cost so much.

Not withstanding, I got better mileage on my 6.7L Cummins going back and forth to NC from NH than I did with my wife's 2011 6cyl Jeep Liberty on the same trip a week earlier. Jeep was 18 mpg and the Ram was 20 mpg.

Diesels run better, they run longer and they're a tougher engine all around. The Europeans have discovered this, but our pampered public and the auto companies that cater to them haven't.

The 5.7L diesel was on the market from 78 to 85 in the whole GM line-up. I had a 78 olds diesel and a 82 caddy diesel, both with 5.7L. They also had a 4.3L V6 diesel for the smaller FWD cars. They profected the engines by 85 but it was too late and they dropped them in 85. If only GM had spent more time testing before putting them on the market. In the early to late 80's you could get diesel ford cars, jeeps, and GM cars. I feel if GM wouldn't of ruined the market we'd have more diesel powered cars today. Even Lincoln had diesel options.

Earl

Wildcat Owners from around the world. 5th wheels and TT's. A place to share your Thoughts, Mod's and Idea's.

Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

Re: Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

Re: Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

Re: Study finds diesel engines better value then gas

Re: Study finds diesel engines better value then gas