for about $4000 less i would probably buy it 
for about $4000 less i would probably buy it
In reply to edizzle89:
No... he's correct that the engine alone is worth a fair amount. $5000 is a strong price, but it gives him room to drop without losing too much.
Yes, the ALH TDi is not a particularly "green" engine as far as emissions go. While it does have a catalytic converter and EGR system, the emissions controls are primitive compared to gas engines of the same era.
patgizz wrote: kill with fire after taking rims off
I dunno, you could probably make a better interior out of thin plywood and carpet compared to what GM did in the 70s, and you might get 50 bucks for scrapping the VW engine. Put something that doesn't absolutely suck under the hood and replace the nose and tail with pre-'72 pieces and you might have something cool.
In reply to Knurled:
You buy it and I'll give you $50 for that VW engine!
Knurled wrote:patgizz wrote: kill with fire after taking rims offI dunno, you could probably make a better interior out of thin plywood and carpet compared to what GM did in the 70s, and you might get 50 bucks for scrapping the VW engine. Put something that doesn't absolutely suck under the hood and replace the nose and tail with pre-'72 pieces and you might have something cool.
Replacing the nose and tail with chrome is not an easy task as it requires completely different body work.
Ian F wrote: In reply to Knurled: You buy it and I'll give you $50 for that VW engine!
Nah, if it's a 1.9 block, then I have some 79.5mm gasoline engine pistons that could use the home.
I think the thing on top of the engine is a surge tank. Dunno if fuel or coolant.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to The_Jed: I read that story a while ago- and while it's interesting, I really don't like that motor- while it's "green" with respect to CO2, it's very, very, very not green in all other measurements of pollution. Whereas this TDI engine was certified for a car in 2002- which says that if you can get it to run, it will be better overall. edit- a quick check at the EPA says that the TDI was certified as Tier 1. Not amazingly great, but much better than a unregulated diesel, like the Kubota. Drives me nuts when people paint themselves as an environmentalist only to be that way in a very tiny manner. And almost anti environmentalist in others.
I don't know enough about emissions, but does the veggie oil diet help at all?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/green-transportation/100-mpg-max-gets-smogged.aspx
How exactly should the actual 'Tier 1' emissions from an ALH compare? Is there anything special about the 'Tier 1' emissions equipment that would be overly difficult to achieve similar results on the other types of harmful emissions with something like a Kubota, if one were so inclined?
Also, has he ever actually 'painted' this experiment as being about anything more than simply trying to prove a point, that it doesn't take mega-millions of dollars to break the 100mpg barrier?
In reply to Driven5:
No, veggie oil does not significantly lower NOx. And not really particulates, too.
Could the Kuboda be made more friendly, sure. Tier 1 isn't hard, but it's not free, either.
It still bugs me that a web page calling itself "motherearthnews" puts this project in the green territory. Sure, one can call CO2 bad for the earth in the long run, but it's easier to show that NOx is bad for humans in the short term. Which is why it was addressed from the beginning for air quality.
Having read that article you posted- not sure what they were testing that it could have passed. It didn't have any standards that it had to meet, and the two parts that diesels have problems with were not even measured. The writer makes it seem as if it's trivial to pass emissions- well, if you have a test like that, sure, it's easy- that test is there to find the gross polluters, not the ones that are clean.
I don't find the VW particularly good, but put head to head against that Kubota, I'm sure it's a whole lot better.
alfadriver wrote: It still bugs me that a web page calling itself "motherearthnews" puts this project in the green territory.
...Kind of like using the term "Eco" to market engines that are widely reported to over-promise and under-deliver on real world fuel economy.
I believe much of the eco thought with regards to burning veggie oil is not so much that it reduces CO2 emissions, but that they are "net-zero" emissions - the idea the plant products grown to produce the oil absorbed the CO2 and thus will again.
In reply to Driven5:
Details... 
Ian F wrote: I believe much of the eco thought with regards to burning veggie oil is not so much that it reduces CO2 emissions, but that they are "net-zero" emissions - the idea the plant products grown to produce the oil absorbed the CO2 and thus will again.
Right, they are net zero with respect to CO2. I'm fine with that.
But they are not zero or even low with regards to NOx and PM, or even HC's.
I'm OK with the argument that CO2 can be harmful to the environment in the long term. But NOx and PM is both bad for the environment AND to your health today. Again, that's why it was addressed back with the original air quality rules.
In other words, it's worse for the environment than CO2 is.
Exactly. People get hung up on CO2 because modern cars emit so little of the HC/CO/NOx triumvirate that people forget how bad it could be.
HC and CO are the results of incomplete combustion. They make smog. NOx is the result of extremely hot combustion. It also makes smog. CO2 is the result of perfect combustion, the only way to reduce that is to reduce the amount of fuel you burn in the first place. But reducing CO2 a little while increasing the three big baddies is several major steps backward.
Oh you don't have to convince me. I'm one of those weird people who actually wants to add a catalytic converter to my old cars so the exhaust doesn't stink so much. And I know from personal experience the exhaust from an ALH is bad stuff, especially by modern car standards.
You'll need to log in to post.
