Re: DaimlerChrysler 3.2L DOHC I-6 CDI Turbodiesel (Mercedes E320 CDI)

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: KSiroonian@xxxxxxx
" 
" Well, some more info on this, if I may- is that due to the creativity
" of our "wonderful" legislators here in the Northeast, tree huggers and
" all, they decided to have a feel good aproach to the issue and they
" just ADOPT what ever CAL emissions they have, verbatim. They just
" say-ours will be Cal's. unfortunatley, they don't require the oil
" companies to provide the same fuel here, from what I am told, just the
" emission, standards.

i believe we get rfg [reformulated gas] here, which i assumed was the
same as ca...  and it steams me up on two accounts:
1. they had to 'discover' that emissions could be improved by
   tinkering with the gas, when they knew the additives they used
   [aromatics, benzene derivatives] to replace lead don't burn well.
2. mtbe is the principal ingredient in rfg.  we up here have a large
   and growing problem with mtbe groundwater contamination.

" California emission standards are not necesarily
" better, they are different because of their unique problems of smog.

and they weren't a bad place to start -- but we couldn't band together
with ny and develop a locally-appropriate std?!?  politicians wanted
to look busy without actually doing anything.

the real fix for us in the ne is to get at the upwind smokestacks in
the rust belt, but the feds are kinda dragging their feet...

" Clean diesels are a good thing, and it was the (greedy?) oil
" companies holding out on sulphur free diesel fuel, until the gov't
" now required it.

greedy?  large faceless multinational corporations?!?  naaahhh...

the major product of any publicly-held corporation is dividends, and
what they do along the way to make them are just side effeects.

" Now the larger truck
" diesels, like the DURA-MAX 6.6 V-8,and other makes can go in vehicles
" with greater than 6200 GVW or such, and that is a emission standard I
" guess.

that's also some weight-classification breakpoint.

" So they can and are being sold here in NE in great quantities.

lighter vehicles fall under the car ban.

" In September 06 when the new sulphur standards of 5 PPM go into effect
" that should make it easier for more smaller diesel engines to be sold

i for one am really hoping!

" GM kind of ruined the diesel market with those converted gas engines
" in the 70's. 

yeah, they couldn't have done better if they'd planned...

" and of course- amc content here... the cheorkee/comanche 2.1 renault
" built turbo diesel in 85 or so. I recall ordering one at the zone to
" try as a demo, man it was so sloooooowwwww and noisey.

were all these manuals or were any automatics?  iirc the stick was an
ax5 same as gas engines, which would make repowering with a toyota
diesel easy - the L series [cf. 2500cc 2L, 2800cc 3L] use toyota
versions of the ax5.  the hardest thing should be motor mounts, then
radiator hoses.  lotsa turbo kits for 'em oughta cure the slowness too.

i've been wondering - if my xj search winds me up with a 2.5L [say
early '90s], how big a job dieselizing is and what my legal position
would be.  [for instance does the ecm run anything besides the engine,
like instruments?]

" Europe has required the low sulphur diesel for years, they used to
" have a 35% install rate, it is now over 55% I am told, as we supply
" them to many car brands, including renault, opel, honda, GM, etc.
" []
" The new diesels are quiet due to direct injection.

imho that's only part of it.  the great interest combined with the
revolution in design tools has made for tremendous progress in many
aspects of diesel performance in the last 20 years.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen

adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought