3.0 litre powerstroke diesel...hunh?

[Rick Starr]

So I'm looking around for an economical vehicle. I search on the web. I find that some guys hauled their butts in a ranger from tiera del fuego to BrianWs summer home in a ford ranger with a ford 3.0 litre powerstroke diesel engine. How great that sounded (both the trip and the car).

A further look shows them available in Brazil as a standard item.

Anyone know anything about them?

Since I live in a duty free port I have to pay import tariffs on anything I bring in anyway, so why not go to Brazil and buy one for shipment here? or for that matter just the plant. Already have the ranger, after all. There are no emmission standards here to meet, nor are there ever likely to be any.

Simultaneously cool and frustrating.

[Rick Starr]

http://www.nav-international.com.br/files/series/8_1.jpg

Engine Model.....................Power Stroke
Emissions..........................Proconve P5 / Euro III
Configurations.....................4, in line
Valves / Cylinders................4
Displacement Comma.................3,0
Bore Stroke..........................96 x 102,5 mm
Combustion System.................Direct Injection
Injection System..................Common Rail
Aspiration......................Turbo Intercooler
Max. Revolution Power................163 hp (120 kW) @ 3800 rpm
Peak Torque....................38,7 kgfm.m (380 Nm) @ 1600 - 2200 rpm
Injection Pressure.......................1.600 bar


Dry Weight..................200 Kg

[LeeG]

It'd be great to have a 70's style Toyota pickkup with a modern fourcylinder diesel.

Maybe 3800lbs. 150hp 225lb/ft or so

[Popeye]

It'd be great to have a 70's style Toyota pickkup with a modern fourcylinder diesel.

Maybe 3800lbs. 150hp 225lb/ft or so

got that right , the landcruiser had a nice diesel some (20?) years ago

otherwise the only scant offerings in 4 cyl are the vw tdi and a daimler-c rail diesel on some of their products (might be a 5 cyl)

and diesel is waaaay cleaner now than it used to be , don't know what the holdup is

[Rick-Mi]

We can only dream and blame the ecofreaks. I wonder if they would pass emission tests outside of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

[LeeG]

Rick, the air in LA is cleaner than it was in the 60's with many more cars and many more people.

Without those advocates for clean air and emissions controls LA would be much, much worse.

Speaking as a kid who moved to LA in 1968 and used to ride my bike up the coast to Santa Monica and inland to Hollywood.

If you want the kind of air that eco freaks prevented then move to Mexico City and breathe deep.

I'm pretty sure you'll find some Republicans living in LA who wanted to see the mountains occasionally.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm

80 CA's population reached 24 million people. Total registered vehicles surpassed 17 million and vehicle miles traveled is 155 billion. Cumulative CA vehicle emissions for NOx and HC remain at 1970 levels of 1.6 million tons/year despite a rise of 45 billion in VMT over these 10 years.
1977 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were enacted. Required the review of all National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1980.
1976 The South Coast Air Quality Management District was formed. It included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
The Toxic Substances Control Act was established by Congress in response to an increasing awareness of toxic substances used by industry.
ARB limited lead in gasoline.
Volvo introduced 1977 year car billed as "Smog-Free". Featured the first three-way catalytic converter to control HC, NOx, and CO emissions.
1975 The SCAQMD's maximum one-hour ozone concentration recorded was 0.39 ppm. The area exceeded Stage 1 smog alerts (0.20 ppm) on 118 days.
The first two-way catalytic converters came into use as part of the ARB's Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association was created.
USEPA Working Group established to develop strategies for State Implementation Plan activities.
1973 OPEC oil embargo resulted in rising fuel cost, the use of smaller, more efficient automobiles, and more cost conservative use of fuel by industry and corresponding lower air emissions.
1972 CA submitted its State Implementation Plan to USEPA. It was rejected.
1971 ARB adopted the first automobile NOx standards in the nation.
USEPA promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates, photochemical oxidants (including ozone), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
ARB adopted guidelines to control agricultural burning.
1970 CA's population reached 20 million people. Total registered vehicles exceeded 12 million and vMT was 110 billion. Cumulative CA vehicle emissions for NOx and HCs were 1.6 million tons/year.
The SCAQMD's maximum one-hour ozone concentration recorded was 0.58 ppm, nearly five times greater than the health-based national standard of <0.12 ppm that would be adopted in 1971.
Backyard burning was banned in selected areas of California.
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was signed.
USEPA was created to protect all aspects of the environment.
The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970.
Federal New Source Performance Standards for opacity were published.
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 were enacted. They served as the principal source of statutory authority for controlling air pollution. Established the basic US program for controlling air pollution.

[Rick Starr]

Rick, the air in LA is cleaner than it was in the 60's with many more cars and many more people.

Without those advocates for clean air and emissions controls LA would be much, much worse.

Speaking as a kid who moved to LA in 1968 and used to ride my bike up the coast to Santa Monica and inland to Hollywood.

If you want the kind of air that eco freaks prevented then move to Mexico City and breathe deep.

Or Caracas, leaded gas and all. BTDT and came away with a heightened respect for the air quality advocates.

[LeeG]

well maybe it's not cleaner but it's not as bad as it could be without those people concerned with breathing.

I don't think the legislators who passed the laws in the 60's-70's were eco-freaks. They were oil engineers like my dad and other folks able to add 2+2 looking to the future where increasing populations and new commuter towns in SanBernadino clearly indicated increasing air pollution levels from commuters traveling 75+miles a day.


For generations of people living on a large land mass the data showing multiple stresses on forests from air pollution is incontravertible.

http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html

Los Angeles ranked as the most polluted city in the nation for all categories in the report, even though LA’s pollution levels have dropped. Other cities ranking among the worst for ozone include several in southern California, as well as large cities in Texas and on the east coast, including Houston, Dallas, New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia

http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/index.html

clean air acts of 1955, 1963, 1970, 1990

In 1955, after many state and local governments had passed legislation dealing with air pollution, the federal government decided that this problem needed to be dealt with on a national level. This was the year Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, the nation's first piece of federal legislation on this issue. The language of the bill identified air pollution as a national problem and announced that research and additional steps to improve the situation needed to be taken. It was an act to make the nation more aware of this environmental hazard.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/edu/someair/parks/yose/IIC2g.html

Biological effects data show that Ponderosa (occurring between 4,500 and 5,000 feet elevation) and Jeffrey pines (occurring between 6,000 and 9,000 feet elevation) are very sensitive to ozone concentrations above 60 parts per billion. The park's ozone monitoring network has documented several times that the park has exceeded the California State ozone standard of 90 parts per million, and projections show the park will likely exceed the new federal ozone standard as well.

[Rick-Mi]

Lee, if a large metropolitian area has a problem specific to it's geographic location like LA, I don't think the entire country should be dragged into it. The vast majority of the country and our long term interests would be better off with the benefits of greatly improved fuel economy. Furthermore, if you weigh the entire ecologial impact per mile driven I'll bet these extremely fuel efficient pickups are greener than the gas hog SUV's that line our roads. Something just isn't right why these small diesels aren't available to Untited States consumers.

[Keith Wilson]

Hey, that engine already meets the Euro III standards (2000). That's not an old-style smoker, by any means. Here's a reference giving the applicable emission levels: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php

[LeeG]

Rick, California has the singular economic and political power to pull it off to meet it's standards for habitation. If LA was part of a little state like Pennsylvania then it probably would have never happened and LA would be dying like the Chesapeaks oyster population.

Regarding the popularity of highoutput gasoline engines vs high efficiency diesels that's probably more a function of the price of fuel than Californias pollutions requirments. What red-blooded American from Michigan is going to buy a pansy assed small displacement diesel when you can get 250hp cars for under $25k?

Fuel, gas or diesel, isn't expensive enough to encourage people to buy diesel cars. Sorry, it's not. That has nothing to do with California.

Blaming California for the lack of small displacement diesels is misplaced. It's a false argument that we have to live in sh*t in order to live efficiently.

Which is part of the reason why the Chesapeake will continue to die from effluent up stream as there isn't one state surrounding it's watershed.

[LeeG]

Furthermore, if you weigh the entire ecologial impact per mile driven I'll bet these extremely fuel efficient pickups are greener than the gas hog SUV's that line our roads. Something just isn't right why these small diesels aren't available to Untited States consumers.

that makes no sense. The SUVs and extremely fuel efficient pickups are the same damn vehicles.

Here's a solution. Make gas $7/gal and you'll see less pollution and more small diesels.

Here you go,,look at the prices of gas in these countries and tell me why they have small diesels,,the reason is something other than not being California

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html

[John Bell]

I was in Europe a couple of weeks ago where I got to ride in a couple Ford automobiles that I can't see why wouldn't sell well here in the US. One in particular was something called the S-Max, a cavernous 5-door wagon/crossover/minivan looking thing that had DI Diesel engine. It struck me as a really good fit for the US market. God only knows why they don't offer it here...

[LeeG]

for the same reason Scion made a bigger, heavier, Xb with a 2.4l engine instead of the original lighter xB with a 1.5l engine. Gas prices aren't high enough to sacrifice the ability to accelerate more weight in less time. 0-60 times in 12sec just won't sell compared to 9sec. That kind of difference is how you get a 35mpg car or a 25mpg car. Once gas gets to $5/gal people will be willing to trade some acceleration for efficiency.

[Creek6]

I was in Afghanistan in 2003-2004 and the U.S. bought a bunch of Ford 4dr, 4WD, Ranger trucks with that engine for the Afghan Army. They were great! They would go anywhere and they never broke down. I would of bought one in a minute when I came home if they were available here.

[Dan McCosh]

It's worth noting that he very stringent smog-related emmission standards in California and some other states cannot be met by even modern diesels prevelant in Europe today. Future US standards are even more stringent. There is a trade-off between fuel economy and very tight smog-related emission standards. California has opted for less smog, and poorer fuel economy than modern-day Europe and Japan. Small diesels are coming to the US, but the tuning and emission controls will reduce their potential fuel efficiency.

[John B]

the trick is in the newer common rail engines Rick. But they're higher pressure systems and require a high standard of fuel, is your fuel up to it?
I've seriously thought about the Nissan here and it may well still happen. Both the SUV and Utility model (called Pathfinder and navarra here)has a 2.4 l diesel that kicks out nearly 130 kw and 400 nm of torque for fantastic towing capacity. Very drivable.

[John Meachen]

Apart from the question about the quality of diesel fuel in the USA,a cynic might believe that the legislation will require a period of development that will enable the indigenous car producers to catch up.

[LeeG]

I don't know the data but I wonder what would happen to the price of diesel if a large number of diesel cars hit the streets, there must be a particular mix of diesel/petrol production at refineries that's developed over the decades.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

I don't know the data but I wonder what would happen to the price of diesel if a large number of diesel cars hit the streets, there must be a particular mix of diesel/petrol production at refineries that's developed over the decades.

The refineries have no particular problem in making that adjustment - but your gas stations might - short term.

[Bob (oh, THAT Bob)]

Can't wait for them to put a small diesel in the new Jeep Wrangler 4 door, with the Rubicon package. I believe the roadblocks are future 50 state emissions (would have been solved with a D-B engine but since they split with Chrysler, probably not now), and also may exceed the torque limits of the 6 speed manual transmission as the export jeeps with diesels (same engine available in the Jeep Liberty) are only available with a 5 speed.

[Rick Starr]

the trick is in the newer common rail engines Rick. But they're higher pressure systems and require a high standard of fuel, is your fuel up to it?
I've seriously thought about the Nissan here and it may well still happen. Both the SUV and Utility model (called Pathfinder and navarra here)has a 2.4 l diesel that kicks out nearly 130 kw and 400 nm of torque for fantastic towing capacity. Very drivable.

I dunno. We have the second biggest refinery in the hemisphere or some such honorific on this island, so at least it doesn't have to travel far and change hands too often. Plenty of diesel vehicles and a lot of shipping, including at times cruise ships who bunker here for the cheap fuel. Not that any of that is a testament to quality. And the're pathfinder and navarra here to by the way.

If I was to build a car from scratch, it would look like a 4-door cj7 of the old school with a smallish bed, a stout frame and tow hitch, a +/-3l diesel and a stout transmission and low ratio rearend. We have no highways, nor any reason to go over 50 for any distance, but we do have potholes, and towing things is very handy. Towing different rigs is as close to a modular vehicle as one is likely ever to need. Mileage should be 20ish empty, the more the better, but I should be able to pull 10000# up a crappy dirt road slowly but surely.

Speaking of which, I came down "the beast" the other day, so named because they run a triathalon up it. It's about a half mile of incline from water's edge to ridgetop with as much as 21.4% grade. :eek: