DD: To diesel or not to diesel.

Urea-a crystalline nitrogenous solution in the urine of mammals. Synthesized urea is used for other purposes.

My mom drove an 86 300SD for a couple of years. No problems passing on the interstate, solid and quiet inside, and no freaking good at all for going uphill in the snow.

Trans_Maro wrote:

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: I before E except in Rammstein

FTFY

German pronunciation for "ie" or "ei" combos is easy to figure out...you pronounce the second letter. In "Diesel" you pronounce the "e". In "Ramstein" (only one "m" by the way) you pronounce the "i".

iceracer wrote: The fuel cost seems to be pretty much a wash. MPG/cost. It is the buy out and maintenance that seem to be the deal breaker.

Strongly disagree. (forgive the repetetive soapbox that no one seems to read)...

From purchase to maintenance/repair/ownership to resale value, diesels tend to win massively. Sure, you have to use more oil, the fuel is more expensive, and you need to change fuel filters....

In my experience as a fleet maintenance manager for a utility company, diesel puts WAY more money back in your pocket. You can buy a gas truck new for 20k. You can buy the same truck as a diesel for $26k. Run them for 10 years and put 300k miles on the odometer of both. Sell the gas truck for $5k if you're lucky. Sell the diesel for $15k.

Sure, $50 oil changes and $4/gallon fuel sounds terrible, but do the REAL math.

I bought a 95 Powerstroke F250 with 60k miles for $10k (plus tax). I used it to drag my 10k-lb travel trailer all over 48 states and 3 Canadian provinces for three years. My wife tore up the driver's door when she got pushed off the road, someone broke into it and stole the radio, and a lady rear-ended me at a stop light. I took the insurance checks and only repaired the radio. I sold it with 120k miles for $7000 and made money.

I don't give a flying screw about MPG/fuel cost.... Take a look at the ENTIRE cost. My experience with fleet maintenance is that diesel puts WAY more money back in your pocket than gas. People get so worried about purchase cost and maintenance cost. Take a look at resale value.

If you have the capital to invest in a better diesel, it will almost always put way more money back in your pocket than an equivalent gas vehicle.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Curtis. But you're using your real-world experience and numbers gathered over years of experience. Why wouldn't I just listen to the internet people chirping on when they have little to no knowledge or experience, but have Truth About Cars bookmarked?
I'd like to add to your above example. You talk about putting 300K onto a gas and a diesel truck and the diesel being worth more than the gasser. I'd like to add that few gas trucks will still be around after 300K. I sold my old Cummins-powered Dodge with 365,000 miles on it for the same money I paid for it when it only had 250K on it. Last I knew it was still running around. It's got to have well over 400K by now.

back in the 70's I had Chevy Diesel truck. At around 100k the engine lifted the cylinder heads and sized. We replaced the engine with a 350 Olds V-8 and, as far as I know the truck is still being driven. I once bought a Chevy Station wagon with a new GM diesel for $1100. It lasted another 90k before it died. As rust had half eaten the car I scrapped the thing. This was typical of those engines. I can only hope GM learned something from that fiasco.

If you are looking for a used diesel fueled car I suggest Mercedes or VW. If you want to spring for a new car I would try a Mazda.

Tom Suddard wrote: IMHO, go with a modern diesel or don't go diesel at all. Old diesels are slow and rough.

Best advice so far in this thread. Sure, you can squeeze great numbers out of old VW Ecodiesels, big Benzes and the like, but they are not great to drive and there isn't much of an upgrade path - and what there is tends to increase fuel consumption to gas-like levels.

The joy of modern diesels is that you can add some power and keep awesome economy and drivability.

I'd want to run biodiesel, since it's cheaper and they make it 15 minutes away from my house. I'm not a local-vore crunchy hippie, but in a town with no jobs that produces nothing but entitled dread-locked "artists," I'll throw my money at something that seems like a viable local industry.

That said, my neighbor has a newer VW TDI. He said he can only run B20, something to do with the newer injection pump or something.

So far, what I've seen in my price range is a couple 240d's (all automatics ugggh), an 80's Isuzu Pup with a brush paint job and a chicken wire grille, and an 84 Mazda truck that I think has a Perkins 4 banger.

If I were going to go old Merc, it'd have to be a W123 or older. I hate the late 80s stuff with their 47-link rear suspension that needs bushings every two weeks.

If you want to run bio-diesel, the sweet spot would be late 90's-early 2000's TDi's. They will run bio, they have no urea, or other complicated emissions stuff. Problem is that most of them are super high mileage by now.

DrBoost wrote: Urea is whizz that goes in a second tank to spray in as an after-treatment to clean up emissions. That's an over simplification that some will jump on me for, that's fine.

That's more or less it, yes

There's two ways to reduce NOx in the catalyst. Inject a small amount of urea at a cost of a gallon or two every oil change maybe, or inject extra fuel during the exhaust stroke at a cost of 30-70% more fuel consumption. What's more expensive?

Or they could just derate the engines so they don't need the urea. Not too many people would be thrilled about 100hp 1-ton pickups though.

(I have to mix two-stroke oil in my fuel at a cost of maybe $8 per quart, every 400-500 miles, so I really get a kick about diesel guys whining about DEF. And you can find DEF at any truck stop in the country, in bottles or sometimes with their own separate pump at the pump island. Oddly enough most truck stops do not carry 2-stroke oil for some reason)

DrBoost wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah Curtis. But you're using your real-world experience and numbers gathered over years of experience. Why wouldn't I just listen to the internet people chirping on when they have little to no knowledge or experience, but have Truth About Cars bookmarked? I'd like to add to your above example. You talk about putting 300K onto a gas and a diesel truck and the diesel being worth more than the gasser. I'd like to add that few gas trucks will still be around after 300K. I sold my old Cummins-powered Dodge with 365,000 miles on it for the same money I paid for it when it only had 250K on it. Last I knew it was still running around. It's got to have well over 400K by now.

Agreed. Not every diesel is wonderful, but even the worst is often better at keeping money in your pocket than a comparable gas engine.

GregW1 wrote: back in the 70's I had Chevy Diesel truck. At around 100k the engine lifted the cylinder heads and sized. We replaced the engine with a 350 Olds V-8 and, as far as I know the truck is still being driven. I once bought a Chevy Station wagon with a new GM diesel for $1100. It lasted another 90k before it died. As rust had half eaten the car I scrapped the thing. This was typical of those engines. I can only hope GM learned something from that fiasco.

They did, fortunately. The next diesel they used was designed by Detroit

The Olds 350 diesel actually wasn't as bad as many think. The combination of black smoke, noise, low power, and their reputation for head gaskets made a massive mountain out of a molehill. People were unsure of diesel, and then when it showed frequent failures, the rumors and lore would forever haunt it. Then GM further screwed themselves with the repair procedures. The factory bolts were inadequate which caused the initial problem. Then to compound things, the factory repair manual instructed techs to resurface the head (further spiking the already 22:1 compression) and re-use the original head bolts.

If they simply used better/larger bolts, or studs instead, it wouldn't have been an issue.

I know a guy with a 350 diesel in an S10 with 18:1 compression and 40 psi of turbo. He has logged thousands of trouble-free miles partly due to a ringed deck and ARP studs. The olds 350 diesel engine was not just a converted gas engine, it was its own, beefier casting. The fact that it shared similar architecture and rotating assemblies with the gas version was just so they didn't have to do a clean-slate design.

IMO, diesel is a hands-down win in almost every situation except racing... and even better in some racing.

Diesels don't pop and crackle when coasting. That's the biggest turn-off for me. That and the smell, diesel exhaust makes me gag. And the lack of revviness, that's pretty bad too. Throttle response like you're communicating via telegram.

The biggest thing in favor, I feel, is that if you are running a hugely force fed engine, you don't have to worry about a tank of bad fuel wrecking the engine, or even just fuel sloch in the tank causing a momentary hiccup in fuel delivery. It just makes less power.

Old diesels don't have to pass any ind of emissions here, just like any car more than 15 years old.

Knurled wrote: Diesels don't pop and crackle when coasting. That's the biggest turn-off for me. That and the smell, diesel exhaust makes me gag. And the lack of revviness, that's pretty bad too. Throttle response like you're communicating via telegram. The biggest thing in favor, I feel, is that if you are running a hugely force fed engine, you don't have to worry about a tank of bad fuel wrecking the engine, or even just fuel sloch in the tank causing a momentary hiccup in fuel delivery. It just makes less power.

Yeah, the lack or rev-ability is there, but with so much torques there isn't as much of a need.

Not arguing, just talking about the other side of the coin.

DrBoost wrote:

Knurled wrote: Diesels don't pop and crackle when coasting. That's the biggest turn-off for me. That and the smell, diesel exhaust makes me gag. And the lack of revviness, that's pretty bad too. Throttle response like you're communicating via telegram. The biggest thing in favor, I feel, is that if you are running a hugely force fed engine, you don't have to worry about a tank of bad fuel wrecking the engine, or even just fuel sloch in the tank causing a momentary hiccup in fuel delivery. It just makes less power.

Yeah, the lack or rev-ability is there, but with so much torques there isn't as much of a need. Not arguing, just talking about the other side of the coin.

Agreed. And I don't think you would really have to argue that throttle response is a big deal HERE when you're putting down 1200 hp and 1900 lb-ft to the wheels and require 7 guys to sit in the bed so you can get traction against the dyno.

Or maybe THIS Cummins that has better throttle response while loaded on the dyno than some gas engines I've driven. 2000 lb-ft measured WITH wheel spin.

This is my porn.

RoughandReady wrote: Old diesels don't have to pass any ind of emissions here, just like any car more than 15 years old.

Where do you live that they test Diesels AT ALL?

I didn't think there was anywhere that actually did emissions testing on diesels these days.

In reply to curtis73:

You are a bad, bad, bad man......

In reply to curtis73:

IIRC, they still test diesels in Ontario. The test is that the tester watches the exhaust pipe for visible smoke. Sits and stares. At idle. Silly, but that's how they do it.

And then there is the cold weather factor.

After managing a fleet of school busses and working on construction equipment, been there.

Of course modern diesels may have that handled.

Fuel still jells in the cold unless treated,

curtis73 wrote:

RoughandReady wrote: Old diesels don't have to pass any ind of emissions here, just like any car more than 15 years old.

Where do you live that they test Diesels AT ALL? I didn't think there was anywhere that actually did emissions testing on diesels these days.

They test 98+ in California too.

mistanfo wrote: IIRC, they still test diesels in Ontario. The test is that the tester watches the exhaust pipe for visible smoke. Sits and stares. At idle. Silly, but that's how they do it.

One of my customers scrapped his TDI because it failed this test. Not enough compression to get complete burn at idle, leading to raw fuel leaving the exhaust. Whitish/gray smoke, or vapors, or whichever, at idle. As valuable as TDIs are, it's still really expensive to repair at that point, because good used TDI engines are gold.

curtis73 wrote:

DrBoost wrote:

Knurled wrote: Diesels don't pop and crackle when coasting. That's the biggest turn-off for me. That and the smell, diesel exhaust makes me gag. And the lack of revviness, that's pretty bad too. Throttle response like you're communicating via telegram. The biggest thing in favor, I feel, is that if you are running a hugely force fed engine, you don't have to worry about a tank of bad fuel wrecking the engine, or even just fuel sloch in the tank causing a momentary hiccup in fuel delivery. It just makes less power.

Yeah, the lack or rev-ability is there, but with so much torques there isn't as much of a need. Not arguing, just talking about the other side of the coin.

Agreed. And I don't think you would really have to argue that throttle response is a big deal HERE when you're putting down 1200 hp and 1900 lb-ft to the wheels and require 7 guys to sit in the bed so you can get traction against the dyno. Or maybe THIS Cummins that has better throttle response while loaded on the dyno than some gas engines I've driven. 2000 lb-ft measured WITH wheel spin. This is my porn.

I thought this was the forum where people hated automatics and thought manuals were king. Why is it good to have an engine that not only does not require shifting, but actually makes it more difficult to get a good rev-match because it revs like it has a 36mm Solex and a 200lb flywheel?

OTOH, I bitch that my 13B with its 9lb flywheel and quad 42mm throttles doesn't rev quickly enough. When I downshift, I want the thing at 5k right NOW, not half a second from now. I'm not that patient

I can only give a little insight good and bad. My dad has a 2013 Jetta TDi and loves it, 6sp it is pretty fun to drive. I dont know how well they hold up as his is under warranty. I have a 94 Suburban 2500 Diesel 2wd, and while it is in the shop now getting the injection pump replaced and some other things( pump veryVERY expensive) OTOH, I average 26ish mpg in a truck that tips the scales at 7000lbs.

1150hp in a 7000 lb truck is actually pretty fast, when it's not breaking the drivetrain. That's the same power to weight ratio as a 575 hp 3500lb car. Except that it won't be anywhere near as fast after the first 4 seconds when truck aero takes over at high speeds. There's a reason even 'fast' diesel trucks tend to have pretty lackluster trap speeds compared to the dollars poured in.

As much as i like diesels, the idea of modding diesel trucks for speed is a rich man's game. It takes a huge amount of power to overcome the weight and aero of a 3/4-1ton truck. Most of the modded diesels that are under 800 hp arent even very fast. It's a niche that doesn't have much appeal to me.

I have still not owned a diesel. Just worked on other people's broken ones, which are mostly a PITA. I want a late 90s-ealry 00s TDI motor so i can put it in a light dodge.