So when did diesal get more expensive then gasoline ? and why are there not more gasoline locomotives or engines that run on ng or used fry grease
There were small gasoline switchers made outta Plymouth oh but I don't know if u can run a class 3 with them legally
Used to be some pretty big gas engines intended for heavy-duty use, look up the original Ford Super Duty engine.
We have a old 1950s trackmobile with a gas engine.
I think NS ran straight biodiesel in a bunch of locomotives for a while some years ago, it was somewhere down south where you don't have to worry about it gelling in the cold (CP ran into that problem when they tested a 5% blend up here a few years ago).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Keep in mind that diesel fuel hs more energy content per gallon than gasolene, something like 140,000 BTU/gal (diesel) vs 120,000 BTU/gal (gas). This is because diesel fuel is denser, as the BTU/lb is slightly higher for gas.
Other reasons for using diesel over gasolene is much higher flash point (less flammable), it acts as a natural lubricant and that cccompression ignition engines are more efficient that mixture (spark ignition) engines due to higher compression ratio and no throttle valve on th air intake.
ronrunner There were small gasoline switchers made outta Plymouth oh but I don't know if u can run a class 3 with them legally
Most places where you see them, they are running with no air. These critters (25-35 ton and smaller) are not as flexible as a shuttlewagon/Trackmobile type rubber-tired carmover.
Brookville-Plymouth-Porter-Whitcomb-Davenport et al made herds of them. Most were gas engined for simplicity of maintenance when diesel engines were not that common and most mechanics struggled to maintain the smaller diesel engines from Buda et al.
1939 Plymouth ML-6 #7535 spent its whole life on the Army Airbase property in La Junta, CO and now sits stuffed-and-mounted at the Otero Museum in La Junta, dwarfed by a 40' boxcar coupled to it.
There is a running critter at the Colorado Railroad Museum - Golden CO, used as a roundhouse goat
I just remember that each of the auto companies came up with a diesal passenger auto in the 1970s and early 80s. There were diesal VW RABBITS AND BMWS and AMC diesals as diesal was cheaper then gas in the oil crises era...now if they could come up with a car that ran on Bunker C fuel oil
It does seem extraordinary that anyone would want a diesel in their personal vehicle as an everyday driver, considering the price disparity at the pump. Know a few people who do, but I don't think I would want it.
I recall several years ago having to put a rebuilt engine (gas) in my personal auto, costing a few thousand dollars, and I was literally on my way home from picking it up. Paying extra special attention for any sign of trouble. And I pulled up for a stop light and it sounded like the engine had come unglued. I freaked out until the light turned green and the old Mercedes diesel sitting next to me pulled away, lol.
What's sad is around is at my work we have a few of the trucks from the 80s leftover with mechanical engines for their fuel systems. Those things are next to bulletproof as long as they've got coolant oil and fuel in the proper place in the motor they'll freaking run. The newest crap literally if it gets a hiccup in a sensor it's down for a week while they try and figure out which one broke. I know of several people around here with those old diesel Mercedes cars. They are still running while most of the newer cars are scrap metal by now.
Fuel price depends on where and when you are. In recent years in my area diesel and gasoline prices have leapfrogged each other over and over again, going up and down.
Historically diesel was cheaper than gasoline, and diesels also tended to get better mileage. As has been noted diesel engines usually have longer lifespans if taken care of properly, and this along with the better mileage made and continues to make them attractive despite the higher purchase price. Diesel-powered small cars were very popular in Europe as a result, as fuel prices tended to be a lot higher over there.
Tight emission regulations have changed the game to some extent, especially with the nuisance of adding urea, but I don't think this is as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, at least on smaller vehicles (large trucks and anything bigger are probably a different story).
A friend of mine bought a Dodge 1/2 ton pickup with a (Fiat?) diesel engine a few years ago. In his experience he has to fill the urea tank about every 10,000 km (every second oil change), and it still gets far better mileage than a gasoline-engined 1/2 ton.
Deleting the DEF system is quite popular out here, and as far as I know it is perfectly legal as we don't have any California-style anti-smog laws. Doing so does of course void the warranty.
Convicted OneI freaked out until the light turned green and the old Mercedes diesel sitting next to me pulled away, lol.
Best all-around car I ever had was a four-door Continental with the BMW 2.4TD and ZF in it. See if there's another vehicle that can hold 82mph on a ~2% upgrade with 3500lb of trailer behind at 28mpg indicated. With the air conditioning and stereo going...
The 140 Mercedes diesel would come close but not get that kind of mileage...
In the olden days, diesel had fewer taxes and was hence cheaper at the pump. You have to crack more of the oil to make gasoline, which made it 'technologically' more expensive, but on the other hand during winter the stock of diesel interfered with the stock of home heating oil, so there could be supply-and-demand 'shortages' running the price up then.
The excuse that kicked the pins out was ULSD restrictions (which I am incidentally a strong supporter of). I do not know the cost per gallon actually involved in extracting and using the sulfur, but from that day forward diesel was never 'as cheap'. Meanwhile states had woken up to the idea that increasing their part of the tax per gallon was cheap and easy revenue... overnight diesel went from under a dollar a gallon to 'parity with Tennessee' at all the stops in West Memphis, I believe in early 2001. Pennsylvania intentionally surcharges regular gas and diesel... I think the excuse is to make up the revenue for infrastructure maintenance that's been dropping with people driving far more fuel-efficient and smaller cars. I'd expect a similar reason why diesel stayed more expensive than gasoline for so long.
Do not get rid of the DEF! In principle it allows complete abandonment of idiotic EGR, adoption of enormously high compression ratios on the order if those in truly efficient diesel motors, and the higher peak firing temperature and greater oxygen boost mean fewer nanoparticulates even at high crank speed...
Overmod Like the old $1.35-worth-of-loose-change-in-a-coffee-can Power-Cerebrovascular-Accident idle..
That's about as good a description as there is. But to a guy who just wrote a $3000 check for a new engine, it sounded suspiciously like a death rattle.
Now, getting back to his original point about the diesel Cadillacs -- the big mistake there was trying to make them NA 5.7s derived from gas block engines. A bigger cam and tappets and a turbocharger and they might have had something... until the Cadillac owner was expected to reach down on the firewall and drain the water separator the first time...
The American industry never really got the point of luxury diesel cars in the first place. By the time Iacocca greenlighted the Lincolns, Cadillac had already figured it could run the same scam as with the original Seville... artificially pricing a Nova out in the stratosphere because they could. That was always the secret lure of the Mercedes SDLs: that everyone at the country club knew you'd paid more than $9800 extra just to get that noise. The problem was that Cadillac couldn't command that kind of respect for their product... and that was before the problems started.
What GM could have done was adapt the 6.2/6.5TD to produce actual boost and put it in the larger cars Americans so desperately still wanted... but that miserable Roger was in charge, on his way to shrinking Cadillacs to pedal-car size and wind-up toy performance.
But then... there was the coal-burning Eldorado. The coal-burning turbine Eldorado. Complete with wicked unmistakeable buzz and whoosh to affirm you'd Arrived when you pulled up.
Pulverized coal burning turbine Eldorado. I think the fuel was the consistency of printer ink (refuelling could probably get messy).
Did anyone ever find a way around the problem of abrasion wrecking the turbine blades?
Mom had a Cadillac Sedan Deville that had a trunk that could fit 5 bodies and groceries for 5 in the family ...who downsized this great line of cars and why
ronrunner Mom had a Cadillac Sedan Deville that had a trunk that could fit 5 bodies and groceries for 5 in the family ...who downsized this great line of cars and why
How do you know it could hold five bodies?
That's a rather specific number.......
SD70DudeHow do you know it could hold five bodies? That's a rather specific number.......
Perhaps odd coincidence, but I had a '94 Park Avenue, and that's exactly the way I described the trunk size, that it would hold 6 bodies. I discovered that while laying in the trunk myself, upgrading speakers. It was like "wow, I could get two more in beside me, and another layer of three stacked on top of the first". Belt driven supercharger, to boot.
SD70DudePulverized coal burning turbine Eldorado. I think the fuel was the consistency of printer ink (refuelling could probably get messy).
GM devoted considerable attention to the issue of refueling these things... mostly in principle. I think the last round of planning involved a sort of automotive equivalent of the ACE 3000's 'coal packs' -- sealed modular units that would snap into place clean and dry. Shelf life would be no worse than gasoline in containers...
It is still a bit surprising that no bottoming was attempted with so much waste heat unrecuperated in the exhaust. Only a few years later BMW had a light bottoming system on the far lower exhaust waste heat of a typical automobile IC piston engine...
Overmod Now, getting back to his original point about the diesel Cadillacs -- the big mistake there was trying to make them NA 5.7s derived from gas block engines.
Now, getting back to his original point about the diesel Cadillacs -- the big mistake there was trying to make them NA 5.7s derived from gas block engines.
One mistake wrt using the 350 into a diesel was the oversquare bore/stroke, 4.00" bore and a 3.5" stroke. The IH 6.9 dismal had a 4.00" bore and a 4.2 stroke, the Cummin BT6 had about a 4" bore with about a 4.8" stroke.
GM did come up with a nice innovation for building the original 5.7l diesel - using a microwave probe inserted into the glowplug "socket" to measure where TDC occurs.
If you think that is oversquare, what about a DHT637 Toro-flow... perhaps an ideal mid-Seventies sort of potential diesel Cadillac option? You'd have to admit it would be fun of a certain kind...
I used to appraise old cars for insurance purposes. About ten years ago, I appraised a 1981 Cadillac Dedan De Ville, one of those big old gunboats. It was white, mint condtion and it was owned by an older Italian gentleman who said he only used it to drive his grandkids around. When I was done he insisted that I have several glasses of his home made wine. His garage was decorated with Italian soccer posters.
A few months later, I appraised an identical car, only this was owed by an older Greek gentleman who could have been the Italian guy's brother. Same stocky build, same white hair. The garage was decorated with Greek soccer posters and I couldn't leave until I had several glasses of his home made wine.
My only experience with the Cadillac diesel was changing the oil on one when it came to the garage where I worked. It took 7 quarts of oil and the filter was a tiny thing. The old oil was full of ash and didn't wash out of my skin for several days. I should have worn gloves, I know. But, the owner said it was totally reliable and got 30 MPG.
Erik_Mag Overmod Now, getting back to his original point about the diesel Cadillacs -- the big mistake there was trying to make them NA 5.7s derived from gas block engines. One mistake wrt using the 350 into a diesel was the oversquare bore/stroke, 4.00" bore and a 3.5" stroke. The IH 6.9 dismal had a 4.00" bore and a 4.2 stroke, the Cummin BT6 had about a 4" bore with about a 4.8" stroke. GM did come up with a nice innovation for building the original 5.7l diesel - using a microwave probe inserted into the glowplug "socket" to measure where TDC occurs.
The complaint I continually heard about the GM 'automobile diesel' was that the gasolene sourced engine block was not really up to the stresses that diesel's compression iginition created through the entire engine structure. With the gas form of the engine operating at 10:1 compression versus 16:1 or higher in the diesel. While the diesel would last through the warranty period it did not deliver the long service life people expected from diesels.
A acquaintance of mine bought a station wagon with the Old's version which had numerous admonisions on the dashboard and iconography on the trim to use diesel as fuel. I had to borrow the car and its attached trailer at a competive event when my competition/street car broke to tow the broken car back home. Being one to give borrowed equipment back to the owner in as good or better condition than I received it - I stopped to fill the tank with diesel. I got a mile or so from the fuel station and the engine sputtered and died. The owner had changed the engine from diesel to gas, but didn't changed any of the signage on the vehicle. Fortunately we weren't in the middle of nowhere - but now we had to drop the fuel tank - dispose of the diesel and reintroduce gasoline into the intake system - just what you want to do on a 100+ degree Sunday afternoon.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The blocks were fine. It was the cams that were the big point of failure. As I recall they were flat-tappet and had inadequate cross-section for the heavier spring pressure. There might have been chain stretch and wear in there, too, if I remember right (it has been a long time...)
Perhaps roller cam and a small turbo (the one on the 6.5TD was wastegated to some pathetic overpressure like 3 psi, essentially for stoich operation at altitude and acceleration overfueling, and not "boost" in the normal performance sense) would have made more of a difference. Even oversquare, a 5.7 diesel would be capable in those first-generation downsize cars.
Now if only someone could figure out how to stop the foaming and get the smell out of fabric...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.