In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes.
The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit
(Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is
not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses.

Jim:

Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due
to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding
needed
for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most
of the operating costs.

Not in the case of SEPTA and Amtrak! While there is some support, it is nowhere
near the level of support in Europe.

More importantly, the support is not long-term.

If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for
one
public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent
County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the
day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages.

That's because of the location and route. Try a major metro area like Philly at
rush hour.

At best, a few of our
more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for
the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close
to covering all of the essential overhead.

The same is true of other forms of transportation. Airlines don't build
airports, nor air traffic control systems, nor the weather and comm systems
needed to run them.

Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car
manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption
vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here.

Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70.

Only in small cars.

True, and that's part of the reason why diesel engines are not more common
in U.S. passenger vehicles. Partly by necessity but mainly by preference,
us Americans prefer to drive massive, heavy, inherently inefficient vehicles
such as all those 4-wheel drive SUV's being driven exclusively on perfectly
clear dry roads and highways.

I agree 100%.

If only we were a lot smarter in our choices
of vehicles, we could probably benefit from the many advantages of diesel
engines, which can now be made as "clean" as gasoline engines.

Been that way for years. My 19080 Rabbit had to meet the same emission specs as
gasoline engines.

And their
performance is not less the gas engines.

Agreed. But the first-cost is greater. And at US fuel prices, the difference
may not be worth it.

It would be if we started viewing our vehicles as the mere transportation
appliances they should be, and not as outward extensions of our personalities
or demonstrations of our wealth.

Something I've said for years.

Suppose the diesel car gets 60 MPG and the equivalent gasoline car gets 40
MPG.
And suppose the car is driven 12,000 miles per year. That's 300 gallons of
gasoline vs. 200 gallons of diesel. If both fuels cost about the same (as
they
usually do in the USA), the saving is only $150-200 per year. Compared to
the
price of the car, insurance, repairs, maintenance, etc, that's not much
saving.

Now consider a driver who must drive anywhere from 25 to 30,000 miles a
year, for business purposes or just a particularly long commute from a rural
area to the city where he/she works. Now the fuel cost savings of a diesel
start to look very attractive indeed!

Maybe. Let's see - at 30K miles per year, the diesel burns 500 gallons per year
and the gasoline car 750 gallons. That's a sayings of 250 gallons per year. At
$2 per gallon, it's still not much of savings compared to other costs.

More important, the person who drives that much (such as a certain absent
rrapper who commutes ~120 miles per day) often wants a bigger car for the
perceived comfort and safety. (Note the word "perceived").

So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into
your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE.
You know, you are filling up CHEAP.

Back in 1980 I bought a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over its 17 year lifetime, I got
43
mpg combined (I kept very accurate records). An equivalent gasoline Rabbit
would have probably done about 30 mpg.

But the diesel engine cost $900 more back then. Considering all factors, I
didn't save very much driving an oil burner.

If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic,
Toyota Corolla (my automobile!)

Toyota is the world leader in hybrid car technology. The Prius is an example.

and every other econo-box in the same
class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't
be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top.

Not exactly. The manufacturers all use different engines. The cost differential
reflectes the added manufacturing cost of the diesel.

Modern
diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for
vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling
public.

But you don't drive one!

They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of
equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of
necessity, built stronger.

They are also less tolerant of poor maintenance, bad fuel, and sloppy driving.
They also have a bad reputation in some circles due to poorly designed engines
such as were used in some GM cars 20+ years ago.

There's gotta be some reason why we aren't
using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it.

A combination of factors, but they fall into two categories: "Image" (diesels
are not perceived to be "cool" in the USA) and cost (gas is so cheap and
plentiful that most people don't worry about it much.)

73 de Larry, K3LT
2003 Toyota Corolla LE (Automatic)
Averaging 30 MPG City, 41 MPG Highway

My old car got ~41 city, ~52 highway. With late-1970s technology in a car
weighing over 2200 pounds. The modern TDI VWs do even better.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

73 de Jim, N2EY

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes.
The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit
(Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is
not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses.


Jim:

Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due
to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding
needed
for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most
of the operating costs. If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for
one
public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent
County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the
day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages. At best, a few of our
more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for
the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close
to covering all of the essential overhead.

Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry:

Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the
subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core
values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!)

The use of public transit, even when subsidized by government, is a LOT
less than the amount of money that would be taken up by the construction
and maintenance of new highways that would be needed if everyone had to
use their own automobiles to get to work. These new roads would
eliminate valuable real estate from productivity, as well as the space
needed for parking the said automobiles. And guess where the money for
these new roads comes from? Taxes. Sometimes, ya just have to pay
*something*, I think.


Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car
manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption
vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here.

Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70.

Only in small cars.


True, and that's part of the reason why diesel engines are not more common
in U.S. passenger vehicles. Partly by necessity but mainly by preference,
us Americans prefer to drive massive, heavy, inherently inefficient vehicles
such as all those 4-wheel drive SUV's being driven exclusively on perfectly
clear dry roads and highways. If only we were a lot smarter in our choices
of vehicles, we could probably benefit from the many advantages of diesel
engines, which can now be made as "clean" as gasoline engines.


And their
performance is not less the gas engines.

Agreed. But the first-cost is greater. And at US fuel prices, the difference
may not be worth it.


It would be if we started viewing our vehicles as the mere transportation
appliances they should be, and not as outward extensions of our personalities
or demonstrations of our wealth.


Suppose the diesel car gets 60 MPG and the equivalent gasoline car gets 40
MPG.
And suppose the car is driven 12,000 miles per year. That's 300 gallons of
gasoline vs. 200 gallons of diesel. If both fuels cost about the same (as
they
usually do in the USA), the saving is only $150-200 per year. Compared to the
price of the car, insurance, repairs, maintenance, etc, that's not much
saving.


Now consider a driver who must drive anywhere from 25 to 30,000 miles a
year, for business purposes or just a particularly long commute from a rural
area to the city where he/she works. Now the fuel cost savings of a diesel
start to look very attractive indeed!


So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into
your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE.
You know, you are filling up CHEAP.

Back in 1980 I bought a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over its 17 year lifetime, I got 43
mpg combined (I kept very accurate records). An equivalent gasoline Rabbit
would have probably done about 30 mpg.

But the diesel engine cost $900 more back then. Considering all factors, I
didn't save very much driving an oil burner.


If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic,
Toyota Corolla (my automobile!) and every other econo-box in the same
class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't
be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top. Modern
diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for
vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling
public. They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of
equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of
necessity, built stronger. There's gotta be some reason why we aren't
using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it.

There is a particulate emission problem for diesel engines, but I
suspect that can be solved. Probably the biggest problem in the past was
the lack of available fuel where we needed it. I don't think that is a
problem anymore, and I suspect that if fuel prices continue edging
upward, diesel may make a comeback.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

My old car got ~41 city, ~52 highway. With late-1970s technology in a car
weighing over 2200 pounds. The modern TDI VWs do even better.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

How does that apply to amateur RADIO policy?

Try the automotive newsgroups on the first floor. They are chock
full of mileage gas brags.

LHA / WMD

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic,
Toyota Corolla (my automobile!) and every other econo-box in the same
class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't
be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top. Modern
diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for
vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling
public. They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of
equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of
necessity, built stronger. There's gotta be some reason why we aren't
using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it.

Hello? This isn't the automotive newsgroup is it? Why are you
babbling all that in an amateur RADIO policy newsgroup?

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic,
Toyota Corolla (my automobile!) and every other econo-box in the same
class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't
be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top. Modern
diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for
vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling
public. They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of
equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of
necessity, built stronger. There's gotta be some reason why we aren't
using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it.

Hello? This isn't the automotive newsgroup is it? Why are you
babbling all that in an amateur RADIO policy newsgroup?

LHA / WMD

Oh, and I forgot to mention -- diesel engines don't have any ignition system,
therefore, no ignition system noise. This makes it much easier to operate
mobile HF from an automobile with a diesel engine!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Oh, and I forgot to mention -- diesel engines don't have any ignition system,
therefore, no ignition system noise. This makes it much easier to operate
mobile HF from an automobile with a diesel engine!

That's generally true, Larry.

But many modern diesel engines use electronically-controlled fuel injectors.
The control circuits to these injectors can be a source of electrical noise.
But said noise can be fixed.

Another advantage we didn't mention was that diesel cars generally have
higher-capacity electrical systems, mostly because of the starting
requirements. My Rabbit's diesel engine was rated at 48 hp - and had a 2 hp
starter, 63 AH Series 24 battery and 55 amp alternator. I could jump-start
almost anything with a 12 volt electrical system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes.
The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit
(Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is
not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses.

Jim:

Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due
to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding
needed
for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most
of the operating costs. If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for
one
public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent
County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the
day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages. At best, a few of our
more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for
the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close
to covering all of the essential overhead.

Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry:

Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the
subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core
values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!)

But Mike, w/o public transit, Larry would have a hard time telling us
his "Favorite Black on the Bus..." stories.

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Oh, and I forgot to mention -- diesel engines don't have any ignition system,
therefore, no ignition system noise. This makes it much easier to operate
mobile HF from an automobile with a diesel engine!

That's generally true, Larry.

But many modern diesel engines use electronically-controlled fuel injectors.
The control circuits to these injectors can be a source of electrical noise.
But said noise can be fixed.

So can the tires. Not so sure they can be fixed.

Another advantage we didn't mention was that diesel cars generally have
higher-capacity electrical systems, mostly because of the starting
requirements. My Rabbit's diesel engine was rated at 48 hp - and had a 2 hp
starter, 63 AH Series 24 battery and 55 amp alternator. I could jump-start
almost anything with a 12 volt electrical system.

You should have helped jump start the W0EX mobile emergency station
(if any) so that he could accept Hans' invitation to a CW QSO in two
consecutive years.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Oh, and I forgot to mention -- diesel engines don't have any ignition
system,
therefore, no ignition system noise. This makes it much easier to operate
mobile HF from an automobile with a diesel engine!

That's generally true, Larry.

But many modern diesel engines use electronically-controlled fuel injectors.
The control circuits to these injectors can be a source of electrical noise.
But said noise can be fixed.

Ooops, almost forgot to mention -- if you're a lazy, whining,
Welfare-sycophant,
No-coder crybaby with your hand out waiting for code-free HF privileges, you
won't be
able to take advantage of a diesel engine powered HF mobile station!

Whew! Had to slip that in so that Lennie wouldn't be disappointed!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry:

Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the
subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core
values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!)

The use of public transit, even when subsidized by government, is a
LOT
less than the amount of money that would be taken up by the construction
and maintenance of new highways that would be needed if everyone had to
use their own automobiles to get to work. These new roads would
eliminate valuable real estate from productivity, as well as the space
needed for parking the said automobiles. And guess where the money for
these new roads comes from? Taxes. Sometimes, ya just have to pay
*something*, I think.

All valid points, Mike.

Here are some mo

- increased pollution
- decreased transportation opportunities for those unable to drive for any
reason (the disabled, poor, underage, etc.)
- increased losses (life, injury, property damage) due to increased
road/highway traffic (the most dangerous form of transportation generally
used).

There is a particulate emission problem for diesel engines, but I
suspect that can be solved.

Fixable with improved technology. The overall pollution impact of a diesel is
*less* than that of a gasoline engine of equivalent horsepower-hours.

Probably the biggest problem in the past was
the lack of available fuel where we needed it. I don't think that is a
problem anymore, and I suspect that if fuel prices continue edging
upward, diesel may make a comeback.

I drove a diesel Rabbit from February 1980 to February 1997 and never, ever had
a problem finding fuel. The car had only a 10 gallon tank, and I rarely let it
get down below 1/4 full. That meant about 400 highway/300 city miles between
fillups, which cost $10 or so.

73 de Jim, N2EY