[Vwdiesel] Crappy fuel?

[Harmon Seaver]

> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:02:11 EST
> From: LBaird119 at aol.com
> To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> Subject: Re: [Vwdiesel] Crappy fuel? (was Touareg)
>
> In a message dated 2/22/2003 2:51:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> matt_lisa at sprynet.com writes:
>
> > because it requires clean diesel and we don't have any. Same reason
> >  > Mercedes,
> >  > Audi, Toyota, etc don't import any of there diesels to the US anymore.
> >  > VW only
> >  > imports it's 1.9TDI which they detuned just for the US market to run
> >  > on crappy fuel.
>
>   I keep seeing this argument over and over and I don't quite understand
> why, especially in this group.  The big difference is in the sulfur content
> then cetane.  Neither of these, especially the sulfur will keep the engine
> from running well.  Poor cetane ratings will give less power, performance
> and economy than a good fuel but unless it's absolute crap then the
> engine will still run a good long time.  The sulfur being the main argument
> that's generally heard has to do with emissions rather than drivability.  You
> can't use any of the fancy CAT's with sulfur content.  I believe these are
> mostly to combat NOx.

    Right, it's probably more and emission thing, but whatever, the foreign
manufacturers would have to build a special diesel model just for the US, where
they don't see a high demand for diesels anyway, so they won't do it.


    >   If I'm all wet on this I'd like to actually know, but part of what makes a
> diesel great is that it will run on quite a variety of fuels.  To call the US
> fuel garbage and non-digestible to the new diesels seems to be quite
> the overstatement to me and seems to be the result of what is broadcast
> by the "greenies" that don't like diesels.
>   Am I way off???

   It's not the "greenies" it's Mercedes, Audi, and VW, and Toyota, etc.
The bottom line is it's our crappy fuel. When they clean it up, we'll get those
other diesels -- although Mercedes is talking about sending a diesel over here
next year, maybe that's because fuel here is supposed to have lower sulfur in
2004? I'm not sure about that -- but wasn't 2004 supposed to be the first step
in lowering sulfur?


--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com