Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Robert & Tara Ludwick wrote: > Then of course, you have the problem of how do you run the trains and > maintain the rails without the taxes collected from the trucks to pay > for it? > In reality, the rail system is propped up by truck taxes I'm actually curious to see a reference for that. I know passenger rail gets big subsidies but I don't know much about freight rail. I do know the railroads have to maintain their own right-of-way, while trucks and barges get the government to do it for them. ;) > If you really want to get sick wondering why the roads are torn up, do > some digging, the federal highway taxes are the cash cow for every > politician in the country, whenever they need money for anything, they > hit up an attachment to the highway funding bill, you wouldn't believe > all the stuff thats paid for out of that. Not to mention that there are "donor states" that get fewer $ back than they give to the government in tax money. I always figured the reason our roads were so bad in MI is that we were a donor state. A good chunk of our road tax money was going to build bridges to nowhere in Alaska. Ted Stevens may not know much about the Internet, but he knows how to reel in free money for his state. Meanwhile his own citizens get the lowest tax rate in the country, not to mention the oil money checks from the government.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
That's a dangerously condescending argumentwelcome to the classless society.(?) That calls for a better educational system and less TV! I agree that your choices are ratherummm...limited shall we say. Your two parties don't look all that different from here. It seems that once one of them finds a formula that works, they stick with that forever To paraphrase Woody Allen, "What we have hereis a dead shark" Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
OTOH as I heard someone argue a few days ago, "do you really want these people voting if they care so little about their government?" It is a valid argument that those who care vote, and those who do not care do not vote. I think our system of government (or any other) requires more attention than we are willing to devote to it. I understand not being interested in voting when your choices are Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Tom Potter (who does vote anyway) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Zedic Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:27 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Tom wrote: The sad thing is that they are "elected" officials. This means that a majority of the populace wants these crooks in office. Remember, our founding fathers warned us about a democratic system of government (The Federalist Papers, Madison). The sad thing is that any other system of government has worse flaws or opportunities for abuse. One small flaw in your argument Tom. The "majority" of Americans DON'T voteand then thy have the nerve to feel disenfranchised! I think the last turn out was 37% of registered voters. And then there's the actual "system" that is used and seems to be highly problematic Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Tom wrote: The sad thing is that they are "elected" officials. This means that a majority of the populace wants these crooks in office. Remember, our founding fathers warned us about a democratic system of government (The Federalist Papers, Madison). The sad thing is that any other system of government has worse flaws or opportunities for abuse. One small flaw in your argument Tom. The "majority" of Americans DON'T voteand then thy have the nerve to feel disenfranchised! I think the last turn out was 37% of registered voters. And then there's the actual "system" that is used and seems to be highly problematic Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Earmarks is the word of the day lately and I guess on the whole I'm against
'em. I'm also against lobbyists, get rid of the whole lot of 'em.
Oh and lets throw pretty much all our current crop of elected officials in
jail where they belong. Republican democrat whatever, they're all a buncha
crooks. There was an email passed around a couple years ago, might be an urban
legend about how many members of Legislature were actual criminals, drunk
drivers or whatever. IIRC it was a pretty large percentage.
-Curt
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:47:09 -0500
From: Robert & Tara Ludwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Then of course, you have the problem of how do you run the trains and
maintain the rails without the taxes collected from the trucks to pay
for it?
In reality, the rail system is propped up by truck taxes `( aint that a
kick in the pants. back when I was an Owner Operator with a big truck
and found out that a good portion of all that insane amount of taxes I
paid every year was going to prop up the competition I felt sick ,
especially when they griped about not having enough money to fix the
roads...but they had plenty of road taxes to keep the rail system
going)
If you really want to get sick wondering why the roads are torn up, do
some digging, the federal highway taxes are the cash cow for every
politician in the country, whenever they need money for anything, they
hit up an attachment to the highway funding bill, you wouldn't believe
all the stuff thats
paid for out of that. Some I don't mind like most of the public
transit
systems are propped up by truck taxes, by the endless array of social
programs that have nothing to do with roads and cheesy things all the
way down to country club memberships a few years back for some
politicians really irks me.
--Robert
-
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 13 14:35:49 2006
Received: from smtp2.williams.com ([151.142.221.60])
by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G12I9-00023K-0C
for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:35:49 +
Received: from unknown (HELO wmshoubh01.WILLIAMS.COM) ([172.31.6.11])
by smtp2.williams.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2006 09:35:26 -0500
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AQAAA+k=
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,238,1149483600";
d="scan'208"; a="45547361:sNHT41584952"
Received: from wmshoumb01.WILLIAMS.COM ([172.31.41.244]) by
wmshoubh01.WILLIAMS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:35:26 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:35:25 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Thread-Index: Acamh8UCWKFMENv8R3Go/SwRz/u42wAAQbHw
From: "Potter, Tom E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2006 14:35:26.0271 (UTC)
FILETIME=[94BBE4F0:01C6A689]
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List
List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List
List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Archive:
List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:35:49 -
The sad thing is that they are "elected" officials. This means that a
majority of the populace wants these crooks in office. Remember, our
founding fathers warned us about a democratic system of government (The
Federalist Papers, Madison). The sad thing is that any other system of
government has worse flaws or opportunities for abuse.
My 2 pennies worth.
Tom Potter
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curt Raymond
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:20 AM
To: mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Earmarks is the word of the day lately and I guess on the whole I'm
against 'em. I'm also against lobbyists, get rid of the whole lot of
'em.
Oh and lets
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Then of course, you have the problem of how do you run the trains and maintain the rails without the taxes collected from the trucks to pay for it? In reality, the rail system is propped up by truck taxes `( aint that a kick in the pants. back when I was an Owner Operator with a big truck and found out that a good portion of all that insane amount of taxes I paid every year was going to prop up the competition I felt sick , especially when they griped about not having enough money to fix the roads...but they had plenty of road taxes to keep the rail system going) If you really want to get sick wondering why the roads are torn up, do some digging, the federal highway taxes are the cash cow for every politician in the country, whenever they need money for anything, they hit up an attachment to the highway funding bill, you wouldn't believe all the stuff thats paid for out of that. Some I don't mind like most of the public transit systems are propped up by truck taxes, by the endless array of social programs that have nothing to do with roads and cheesy things all the way down to country club memberships a few years back for some politicians really irks me. --Robert P. D. Ferguson wrote: Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. And a good portion of our rail infrastructure has been converted to bike paths--cannot haul much freight on a ten speed. US railroads are running at nearly full capacity now. Total lack of government transportation policy as our highways are torn up by eighteen wheelers. Peter Ferguson 1983 300TD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
redghost wrote: It would reduce the perceived pain felt at the pump. While up in the great white north last month, I purchased fuel at Petro Canada for a measly $1.12/liter. That is much better than the horrid price of $3.11/gal I pay at home. I have four little bridges that you really MUST buy. Each one crosses about a quarter of a river! Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
it were a joke. The fuel cost up there makes you wince. Seeing all the canucks tooling around in big gas sucking SUV things just impressed upon me that we will not cringe until fuel costs upward of $6/gal. At this point, it may be safe to assume the prices will not drop to a reasonable cost and cars will become much more efficient. On Sunday, July 9, 2006, at 08:54 AM, Russ Williams wrote: $1.12/liter equals $4.239 a US Gallon that's no Bargain in my book. But I don't live in WET Wa. State . :-) redghost wrote: It would reduce the perceived pain felt at the pump. While up in the great white north last month, I purchased fuel at Petro Canada for a measly $1.12/liter. That is much better than the horrid price of $3.11/gal I pay at home. On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 11:49 PM, Fmiser wrote: rumor has it that Jeff wrote: I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike I think the United States of America is a great country. I have seem many others, I'm glad this is home. But I do agree, Mike. The first set of world standards to adopt should be ... the SI. Back in the 70's there was a half-hearted, limp-wristed attempt to "convert", but while we led the world with a decimal currency, we can't seem to scrape together enough common sense to dump the silly inch, foot, pound, gallons, ounce mess for something that is sensible and easy to use! Until we do that, I think there is _no_ hope for our country to even understand what the standards are!! A good site is: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ -- Philip, an fan of the SI ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Whistler, in preparation for the coming winter games On Sunday, July 9, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Jeff Zedic wrote: $1.12 per litre?? They must have see you coming! I'm still paying 98.9 for diesel gold from Sunoco or Ultra diesel from shell. Jeff Zedic Toronto ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
You guys are missing the point - Clay said "perceived pain", not a true lower price. On 7/9/06, Russ Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: $1.12/liter equals $4.239 a US Gallon that's no Bargain in my book. But I don't live in WET Wa. State . :-) redghost wrote: >It would reduce the perceived pain felt at the pump. While up in the >great white north last month, I purchased fuel at Petro Canada for a >measly $1.12/liter. That is much better than the horrid price of >$3.11/gal I pay at home. > >On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 11:49 PM, Fmiser wrote: -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sir Winston Churchill '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
$1.12/liter equals $4.239 a US Gallon that's no Bargain in my book. But I don't live in WET Wa. State . :-) redghost wrote: It would reduce the perceived pain felt at the pump. While up in the great white north last month, I purchased fuel at Petro Canada for a measly $1.12/liter. That is much better than the horrid price of $3.11/gal I pay at home. On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 11:49 PM, Fmiser wrote: rumor has it that Jeff wrote: I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike I think the United States of America is a great country. I have seem many others, I'm glad this is home. But I do agree, Mike. The first set of world standards to adopt should be ... the SI. Back in the 70's there was a half-hearted, limp-wristed attempt to "convert", but while we led the world with a decimal currency, we can't seem to scrape together enough common sense to dump the silly inch, foot, pound, gallons, ounce mess for something that is sensible and easy to use! Until we do that, I think there is _no_ hope for our country to even understand what the standards are!! A good site is: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ -- Philip, an fan of the SI ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
$1.12 per litre?? They must have see you coming! I'm still paying 98.9 for diesel gold from Sunoco or Ultra diesel from shell. Jeff Zedic Toronto
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
It would reduce the perceived pain felt at the pump. While up in the great white north last month, I purchased fuel at Petro Canada for a measly $1.12/liter. That is much better than the horrid price of $3.11/gal I pay at home. On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 11:49 PM, Fmiser wrote: rumor has it that Jeff wrote: I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike I think the United States of America is a great country. I have seem many others, I'm glad this is home. But I do agree, Mike. The first set of world standards to adopt should be ... the SI. Back in the 70's there was a half-hearted, limp-wristed attempt to "convert", but while we led the world with a decimal currency, we can't seem to scrape together enough common sense to dump the silly inch, foot, pound, gallons, ounce mess for something that is sensible and easy to use! Until we do that, I think there is _no_ hope for our country to even understand what the standards are!! A good site is: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ -- Philip, an fan of the SI ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
ok, thats nice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to post anything with this header, now standing at 455 times. RLE ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK 91 300D 2.5 Turbo, 90 420SEL, 89 560SEL, 87 420SEL, 87 300SDL, 85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 190D 2.2, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D, 76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 73 280SEL 4.5, 72 250C, 69 250 http://www.striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
thats interesting dave walton wrote: The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump it as their own. I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict schedule and each terminal opens their valve at a specific time to receive a given product. Batches of different distillates are buffered in the pipe by WATER. Ever wonder why water in the fuel is such a problem? Additives are typically stored and mixed in at the Distribution Terminal. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I don't know, but it could be true. John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Luther Gulseth wrote: Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with less lubricity. But again, my point was: "It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives." From Chevron: "Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005." http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A10 So that tells me that the additives are *required* in order to meet the ASTM specifications. So why again will truckers need to add an additive package to their fuel when it is already being done at the distribution terminals? That's what I'm trying to understand. -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (235kmi WVO/diesel mix) '82 300CD (160kmi) '82 300D (74kmi needs block or engine) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK 91 300D 2.5 Turbo, 90 420SEL, 89 560SEL, 87 420SEL, 87 300SDL, 85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 190D 2.2, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D, 76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 73 280SEL 4.5, 72 250C, 69 250 http://www.striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Good, I wouldn't read it anyway. --R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not going to post anything with this header, now standing at 455 times. RLE ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I'm not going to post anything with this header, now standing at 455 times. RLE
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
rumor has it that David wrote: > Fmiser wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that the 5 main truck engine makers (Cummins, > > Caterpillar, Detroit, Mercedes, Mack, Volvo [yes, that's 6. But I'm > > remembering an article in a truck trade magazine a while back > > mentioning 5 - but I don't know who they left out...]) have engines > > that meet the requirements. Some of them have been on the road for > > at least a year now. > > > > I think Mack and Volvo are the same company now. Whoa! That one slipped past me... I'll have to check into that - but as of less than a year ago I know tha Mack was talking about the evolution of their E7 engine. But a lot can change in a year! -- Philip, now playing catch-up!
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
rumor has it that Jeff wrote: > I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO > COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN > EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR > way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no > sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already > works. > > Mike I think the United States of America is a great country. I have seem many others, I'm glad this is home. But I do agree, Mike. The first set of world standards to adopt should be ... the SI. Back in the 70's there was a half-hearted, limp-wristed attempt to "convert", but while we led the world with a decimal currency, we can't seem to scrape together enough common sense to dump the silly inch, foot, pound, gallons, ounce mess for something that is sensible and easy to use! Until we do that, I think there is _no_ hope for our country to even understand what the standards are!! A good site is: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ -- Philip, an fan of the SI
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
See my tag line - On 7/6/06, Mike Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sir Winston Churchill '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I remember when Volvo bought White. The new trucks were made much nicer except for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] electric windshield wipers run off a single motor same as out of their cars with longer linkage arms. The arms weren't up to the extra load of the larger wipers with snow( why they ditched the air wipers , I'll never figure out ) I drove from Minnasota to salt Lake City in blizzards the whole way with the driver's window down hanging out and reaching around the windshield to clear the snow with the wiper by hand because nobody had the new parts available yet. That's a trip I wouldn't care to repeat. --Robert David Brodbeck wrote: Jeff Zedic wrote: And doesn't Ford own Volvo? Or is it only the car side? My understanding is that Ford owns Volvo's car side, but the truck side is still controlled by the Swedish Volvo group. So Ford owns Volvo, and Volvo owns Mack, but Ford does not own Mack. Confused yet? ;) White is also owned by Volvo, if I recall correctly. If you look closely at some late-1980s White semi tractors you can see that they have the same headlight assembly used on same-year Volvo 240s. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Up until the mid-late '70s it could be argued people really had no choice as there weren't particularly viable alternatives. Now the execs at GM scratch their heads and wonder why people don't want crappy GM cars. A friend of mine bought a Chevy Cavalier when he graduated from college, that'd be going on 5 years ago. Last fall I was pricing a Honda Civic. The Honda with the same options was about $2k LESS... Another friend has an Acura (which in all other countries badged a Honda) Integra he bought 2 years BEFORE the first friend bought the Cavalier. So a '99 Integra vs an '01 Cavalier, purchase price was similar, in fact I think the Integra may have been slightly less. The Cavalier is pretty much spent with around 110,000, the trans slips, its rusting and the engine smokes. By comparison the Integra is in fine shape, a little rust around the edges and a couple dents but the engine is very strong, no smoke, no oil consumption, 120,000 miles. The owner is planning on keeping it another 80,000 anyway. -Curt Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:27:09 -0400 From: Marshall Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. To: Mercedes Discussion List Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Curt Raymond wrote: > The people who run the auto industry and particularly the American auto industry are morons. Left to their own devices we'd still be driving "planned obsolescence" '70s clunkers, the ones that were intended to wear out in a couple years. There'd be no seatbelts, safety glass, collapsable steering columns, crumple zones or safety devices of any kind. Leaded gas would be the order of the day and sulpher would be pumped out of every diesel engine. > Those were precisely the cars the majority of the public BOUGHT!!! So who's the idiot? The car companies make exactly what they perceive the public will buy! Sometimes their perception is skewed by the demographers they hire to tell them what to build. Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired) - How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 06 23:09:10 2006 Received: from web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.42]) by server8.arterytc8.net with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fycy6-0001O6-5d for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:09:10 + Received: (qmail 84255 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jul 2006 23:09:00 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [71.233.183.51] by web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:09:00 PDT Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Curt Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: mercedes@okiebenz.com In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.7.cp2 Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:09:10 - Or rather than ever learn anything from anybody else rather than doing it the hard way maybe we should just round up anybody who ever complains about our country being run by halfwits, declare them "Anti-American" and have them shot. Oh wait, we're pretty much doing that already. I love my country but refusing to admit that doing stuff thats stupid in the name of some chest thumping patriotism is in itself pretty stupid and unAmerican. -Curt Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:18:40 -0500 From: Rich Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. To: Mercedes Discussion List Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Well, the answer to any and all such problems is to outsource US and state and local government and laws and taxes and regulations and procedures and and fuel blends and diesel sulfuration and Mobil1 grades and ALDA settings and whatever else to the Canadians who are smarter and
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Far less the government than our "free market" system where the manufacturers can drag their feet forever on the claim that it will either be too expensive or won't work (all evidence to the contrary excluded, of course). Money talks Peter
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Thanks...I've never really understood who they are.strange bunch... Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff Zedic wrote: > And doesn't Ford own Volvo? Or is it only the car side? > My understanding is that Ford owns Volvo's car side, but the truck side is still controlled by the Swedish Volvo group. So Ford owns Volvo, and Volvo owns Mack, but Ford does not own Mack. Confused yet? ;) White is also owned by Volvo, if I recall correctly. If you look closely at some late-1980s White semi tractors you can see that they have the same headlight assembly used on same-year Volvo 240s.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff Zedic wrote: > I always thought that libertarians were the right wing nutsos that > believe in NO government? > Those are anarchists. Libertarians believe in very limited government -- they think that government should butt out of most social and economic issues. At least that's the theory. In reality, most libertarians vote Republican because they only really care about taxes and gun control.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
And doesn't Ford own Volvo? Or is it only the car side? Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Marshall Booth wrote: > Curt Raymond wrote: > >> The people who run the auto industry and particularly the American auto >> industry are morons. Left to their own devices we'd still be driving >> "planned obsolescence" '70s clunkers, the ones that were intended to wear >> out in a couple years. There'd be no seatbelts, safety glass, collapsable >> steering columns, crumple zones or safety devices of any kind. Leaded gas >> would be the order of the day and sulpher would be pumped out of every >> diesel engine. >> >> > > Those were precisely the cars the majority of the public BOUGHT!!! The public will generally buy whatever Madison Ave. tells them to buy. Plus there were large swaths of the country where buying an import car in the 1970s was simply not socially acceptable. The UAW used to hold rallies where they would smash a Toyota with sledgehammers. To this day at most union shops you have to park in the back lot if you drive a Japanese car to work.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Fmiser wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the 5 main truck engine makers (Cummins, > Caterpillar, Detroit, Mercedes, Mack, Volvo [yes, that's 6. But I'm > remembering an article in a truck trade magazine a while back mentioning > 5 - but I don't know who they left out...]) have engines that meet the > requirements. Some of them have been on the road for at least a year > now. > I think Mack and Volvo are the same company now.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
If we form a PAC can we get a slush fund?? I want to help buy weapons for an ethnic minority and help them overthrow a majority because that's how grandad did it! And then I want to go to ridiculously over-priced restaurants on K street, I think, and impress our friends. (soon to be enemies of the people) We could get some tax write-offs and then move offshore to save even more!! WOOHOO!! It's good to be powerful! (chicks dig you more) Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Because that would make far too much sense. Have you ever known that collective waste of brain tissue in washington to do anything that remotely makes sense to anything other than their own bank accounts? Personally, I can't wait for the EU to get their act together enough to where the US finally has to start paying attention to the rest of the world standards. --Robert Mike Canfield wrote: I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike - Original Message - From: "Rich Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Well, the answer to any and all such problems is to outsource US and state and local government and laws and taxes and regulations and procedures and and fuel blends and diesel sulfuration and Mobil1 grades and ALDA settings and whatever else to the Canadians who are smarter and know better than us capitalist idiots here in the USA! Or maybe just annex ourselves to Canada? Can we do that? Will Her Awesome Magnificence, Her Majesty, Her Royal Highness the Queen of England and Wales and all the British Empire allow it? I for one can't wait! Or maybe the millions of people clamoring and dying to come to the idiotic capitalist USA should just keep going right north, where everything is soo much better! --R dave walton wrote: I suspect the additives will be sulphur free - at least the good ones. I struggled for 10 years dealing with the Ohio Department of Taxation and the EPA. I can't tell you how many times they cancelled requirements after a 2-3 year phase in period, or instituted new regulations that took effect in 90 days which were impossible to meet and resulted in unbelievable fines and penalties. Here is a good example - Bulk stations that deliver home heating oil and fuel to road crews were required to mechanically stamp a ticket indicating the number of gallons delivered. Kinda like the old mechanical credit card swipers but with the addition of numbers showing total gallons before and after delivery. We participated in a pilot program to switch to digital meters. At the last minute, they cancelled the program - after we had outfitted a number of delivery trucks with the new equipment. We had something like 3 days notice. Guess what - every delivery made using the new equipment was found to be out of compliance and fined $500. Because participation in the program was voluntary, the fines were enforced. But that was nothing compared to the money wasted retrofitting the trucks, then tearing it all out again and putting in the old stuff. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Robert & Tara Ludwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, any additives, either added by the distributor, or available on the shelf will have to be 15ppm to be used in the new vehicles or they will trash the new emissions systems. What gets me is there is a big push to retrofit bus fleets etc with new emissions kits to run the new fuel, but no mention in that literature about installing new fuel storage tanks of having the old ones cleaned to spec( which costs darn near more than a new storage tank ). According to a friend with a fuel station, to sell the new stuff he was told by the officials that he would have to install new tanks or have them spotless cleaned by a certified service to sell the stuff and even the delivery tanker would only be able to carry ULSD in the chamber reserved for it to avoid contamination that would ruin the new emissions parts( which is why currently it is only being sold within trucking distance of certain terminals and not off regular pipeline distribution ) I can see the next few years until all the switchover stuff is straightened out being a real mess. -Robert dave walton wrote: The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump it as their own. I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict schedule and each terminal opens their valv
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff Wrote:<>> Hey! This sounds like the perfect opportunity to form a PAC and push for these reforms! ;-) Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . - Original Message - From: "Jeff Zedic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Robert, Why they never copied the Euro engines for decades amazes me...There's something stupid in the US industry psyche that thinks bigger is better and I'll do it alone. What if, in the 70's, we'd followed the Euro lead and had smaller engines instead of 5-7 litres driving at 55 mph?? Which of the two do you think pollutes less?? What a sad industry... imagine the US without lobbyists??? hmmm..honestly, what benefit to the American PEOPLE is there from those parasites? UGH! Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
No, not an attempt at sarcasm. If we can't annex ourselves can we send some of our "guest workers" up your way? Here in Texas there are about 3 million who would most likely enjoy a higher quality of life than what they can find in this low QoL place. Tell me when the buses are leaving, give me your phone number, and I will put the word out. They are easy to program with food, health care, and housing, no problemos amigo, and I am sure the social rewards would offset and costs. --R (done run thru spel chek) Jeff Zedic wrote: Rich, I'm sure that was an attempt at sarcasm. At least the spelling was good. If you check any of the "QUALITY of life indexes" you'll find Canada MUCH higher up than the US. In fact the Scandanavian countries have the highest quality of life followed by Japan and then Canada. (We used to be #1 for many years. No, you cannot annex yourselves to Canada as the cost of reprogramming the herd would bankrupt us. Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike Mike, I'd blame the lobbyists and special interest groups for that. They know how to hit the right buttons to make your monkeys jump. Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Rich, I'm sure that was an attempt at sarcasm. At least the spelling was good. If you check any of the "QUALITY of life indexes" you'll find Canada MUCH higher up than the US. In fact the Scandanavian countries have the highest quality of life followed by Japan and then Canada. (We used to be #1 for many years. No, you cannot annex yourselves to Canada as the cost of reprogramming the herd would bankrupt us. Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I think the biggest point of the matter is...WHY DOES THE USA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW RATHER THAN USING THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN EFFECT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? Why must we always do things OUR way? Maybe its just vanity or just plain stubborn but it makes no sense at all to me. Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works. Mike - Original Message - From: "Rich Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Well, the answer to any and all such problems is to outsource US and state and local government and laws and taxes and regulations and procedures and and fuel blends and diesel sulfuration and Mobil1 grades and ALDA settings and whatever else to the Canadians who are smarter and know better than us capitalist idiots here in the USA! Or maybe just annex ourselves to Canada? Can we do that? Will Her Awesome Magnificence, Her Majesty, Her Royal Highness the Queen of England and Wales and all the British Empire allow it? I for one can't wait! Or maybe the millions of people clamoring and dying to come to the idiotic capitalist USA should just keep going right north, where everything is soo much better! --R dave walton wrote: I suspect the additives will be sulphur free - at least the good ones. I struggled for 10 years dealing with the Ohio Department of Taxation and the EPA. I can't tell you how many times they cancelled requirements after a 2-3 year phase in period, or instituted new regulations that took effect in 90 days which were impossible to meet and resulted in unbelievable fines and penalties. Here is a good example - Bulk stations that deliver home heating oil and fuel to road crews were required to mechanically stamp a ticket indicating the number of gallons delivered. Kinda like the old mechanical credit card swipers but with the addition of numbers showing total gallons before and after delivery. We participated in a pilot program to switch to digital meters. At the last minute, they cancelled the program - after we had outfitted a number of delivery trucks with the new equipment. We had something like 3 days notice. Guess what - every delivery made using the new equipment was found to be out of compliance and fined $500. Because participation in the program was voluntary, the fines were enforced. But that was nothing compared to the money wasted retrofitting the trucks, then tearing it all out again and putting in the old stuff. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Robert & Tara Ludwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, any additives, either added by the distributor, or available on the shelf will have to be 15ppm to be used in the new vehicles or they will trash the new emissions systems. What gets me is there is a big push to retrofit bus fleets etc with new emissions kits to run the new fuel, but no mention in that literature about installing new fuel storage tanks of having the old ones cleaned to spec( which costs darn near more than a new storage tank ). According to a friend with a fuel station, to sell the new stuff he was told by the officials that he would have to install new tanks or have them spotless cleaned by a certified service to sell the stuff and even the delivery tanker would only be able to carry ULSD in the chamber reserved for it to avoid contamination that would ruin the new emissions parts( which is why currently it is only being sold within trucking distance of certain terminals and not off regular pipeline distribution ) I can see the next few years until all the switchover stuff is straightened out being a real mess. -Robert dave walton wrote: The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump it as their own. I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict schedule and each terminal opens their valve at a specific time to receive a given product. Batches of different distillates are buffered in the pipe by WATER. Ever wonder why water in the fuel is such a problem? Additives are typically stored and mixed in at the Distribution Terminal. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow addi
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
This is the same government that bitches about giving any money whatsoever to Amtrak but will pile all kinds of cash into the bridge to nowhere and other highway projects encouraging our dependance on oil... Continues to make no sense. -Curt Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 07:27:59 -0500 From: "P. D. Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original And a good portion of our rail infrastructure has been converted to bike paths--cannot haul much freight on a ten speed. US railroads are running at nearly full capacity now. Total lack of government transportation policy as our highways are torn up by eighteen wheelers. Peter Ferguson 1983 300TD - How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 06 17:24:48 2006 Received: from host337.ipowerweb.com ([72.22.69.22]) by server8.arterytc8.net with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FyXaq-0003nN-Cy for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:24:48 + Received: (qmail 78887 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2006 17:11:27 - Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (206.109.43.202) by host337.ipowerweb.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2006 17:11:27 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:18:40 -0500 From: Rich Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mercedes Discussion List References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.7.cp2 Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:24:48 - Well, the answer to any and all such problems is to outsource US and state and local government and laws and taxes and regulations and procedures and and fuel blends and diesel sulfuration and Mobil1 grades and ALDA settings and whatever else to the Canadians who are smarter and know better than us capitalist idiots here in the USA! Or maybe just annex ourselves to Canada? Can we do that? Will Her Awesome Magnificence, Her Majesty, Her Royal Highness the Queen of England and Wales and all the British Empire allow it? I for one can't wait! Or maybe the millions of people clamoring and dying to come to the idiotic capitalist USA should just keep going right north, where everything is soo much better! --R dave walton wrote: >I suspect the additives will be sulphur free - at least the good ones. > >I struggled for 10 years dealing with the Ohio Department of Taxation >and the EPA. I can't tell you how many times they cancelled >requirements after a 2-3 year phase in period, or instituted new >regulations that took effect in 90 days which were impossible to meet >and resulted in unbelievable fines and penalties. > >Here is a good example - Bulk stations that deliver home heating oil >and fuel to road crews were required to mechanically stamp a ticket >indicating the number of gallons delivered. Kinda like the old >mechanical credit card swipers but with the addition of numbers >showing total gallons before and after delivery. We participated in a >pilot program to switch to digital meters. At the last minute, they >cancelled the program - after we had outfitted a number of delivery >trucks with the new equipment. We had something like 3 days notice. >Guess what - every delivery made using the new equipment was found to >be out of compliance and fined $500. Because participation in the >program was voluntary, the fines were enforced. But that was nothing >compared to the money wasted retrofitting the trucks, then tearing it >all out again and putting in the old stuff. > >-Dave Walton > >On 7/6/06, Robert & Tara Ludwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I suspect the additives will be sulphur free - at least the good ones. I struggled for 10 years dealing with the Ohio Department of Taxation and the EPA. I can't tell you how many times they cancelled requirements after a 2-3 year phase in period, or instituted new regulations that took effect in 90 days which were impossible to meet and resulted in unbelievable fines and penalties. Here is a good example - Bulk stations that deliver home heating oil and fuel to road crews were required to mechanically stamp a ticket indicating the number of gallons delivered. Kinda like the old mechanical credit card swipers but with the addition of numbers showing total gallons before and after delivery. We participated in a pilot program to switch to digital meters. At the last minute, they cancelled the program - after we had outfitted a number of delivery trucks with the new equipment. We had something like 3 days notice. Guess what - every delivery made using the new equipment was found to be out of compliance and fined $500. Because participation in the program was voluntary, the fines were enforced. But that was nothing compared to the money wasted retrofitting the trucks, then tearing it all out again and putting in the old stuff. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Robert & Tara Ludwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, any additives, either added by the distributor, or available on the shelf will have to be 15ppm to be used in the new vehicles or they will trash the new emissions systems. What gets me is there is a big push to retrofit bus fleets etc with new emissions kits to run the new fuel, but no mention in that literature about installing new fuel storage tanks of having the old ones cleaned to spec( which costs darn near more than a new storage tank ). According to a friend with a fuel station, to sell the new stuff he was told by the officials that he would have to install new tanks or have them spotless cleaned by a certified service to sell the stuff and even the delivery tanker would only be able to carry ULSD in the chamber reserved for it to avoid contamination that would ruin the new emissions parts( which is why currently it is only being sold within trucking distance of certain terminals and not off regular pipeline distribution ) I can see the next few years until all the switchover stuff is straightened out being a real mess. -Robert dave walton wrote: > The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized > nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not > uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the > closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump > it as their own. > I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. > Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own > concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused > by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. > > As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are > connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE > PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict > schedule and each terminal opens their valve at a specific time to > receive a given product. Batches of different distillates are buffered > in the pipe by WATER. Ever wonder why water in the fuel is such a > problem? > > Additives are typically stored and mixed in at the Distribution Terminal. > > -Dave Walton > > On 7/6/06, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the >> pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it >> leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, >> it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I >> don't know, but it could be true. >> >> John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> >>> Luther Gulseth wrote: >>> Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel >> may >> have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? >>> Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with >>> >> less >> >>> lubricity. But again, my point was: >>> >>> "It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than >>> standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives." >>> >>> From Chevron: >>> >>> "Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the >>> various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The >>> >> processing >> >>> required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring >>> >> lubricity >> >>> agents in diesel fuel. To manage this c
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Of course, any additives, either added by the distributor, or available on the shelf will have to be 15ppm to be used in the new vehicles or they will trash the new emissions systems. What gets me is there is a big push to retrofit bus fleets etc with new emissions kits to run the new fuel, but no mention in that literature about installing new fuel storage tanks of having the old ones cleaned to spec( which costs darn near more than a new storage tank ). According to a friend with a fuel station, to sell the new stuff he was told by the officials that he would have to install new tanks or have them spotless cleaned by a certified service to sell the stuff and even the delivery tanker would only be able to carry ULSD in the chamber reserved for it to avoid contamination that would ruin the new emissions parts( which is why currently it is only being sold within trucking distance of certain terminals and not off regular pipeline distribution ) I can see the next few years until all the switchover stuff is straightened out being a real mess. -Robert dave walton wrote: The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump it as their own. I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict schedule and each terminal opens their valve at a specific time to receive a given product. Batches of different distillates are buffered in the pipe by WATER. Ever wonder why water in the fuel is such a problem? Additives are typically stored and mixed in at the Distribution Terminal. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I don't know, but it could be true. John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Luther Gulseth wrote: Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with less lubricity. But again, my point was: "It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives." From Chevron: "Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005." http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A10 So that tells me that the additives are *required* in order to meet the ASTM specifications. So why again will truckers need to add an additive package to their fuel when it is already being done at the distribution terminals? That's what I'm trying to understand. -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (235kmi WVO/diesel mix) '82 300CD (160kmi) '82 300D (74kmi needs block or engine) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/lis
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Curt Raymond wrote: The people who run the auto industry and particularly the American auto industry are morons. Left to their own devices we'd still be driving "planned obsolescence" '70s clunkers, the ones that were intended to wear out in a couple years. There'd be no seatbelts, safety glass, collapsable steering columns, crumple zones or safety devices of any kind. Leaded gas would be the order of the day and sulpher would be pumped out of every diesel engine. Those were precisely the cars the majority of the public BOUGHT!!! So who's the idiot? The car companies make exactly what they perceive the public will buy! Sometimes their perception is skewed by the demographers they hire to tell them what to build. Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I'm here and I have to agree.We are governed here by money and idiots. Posed a ? to a friend the other day.Is Capitalism in the USA becoming a religion? The worship of money??? Mike - Original Message - From: "Jeff Zedic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Mike wrote: Jeff, Even if they had ASKED for the advice it would take 20 years of red tape and 14 different policy amendments in order to take advice from a Canadian citizen. Mike Not just a Cancukian...anyoneEurope, the UN..God..it's known as hubris and there's an overabundace of it down there.sad really.. Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Mike wrote: Jeff, Even if they had ASKED for the advice it would take 20 years of red tape and 14 different policy amendments in order to take advice from a Canadian citizen. Mike Not just a Cancukian...anyoneEurope, the UN..God..it's known as hubris and there's an overabundace of it down there.sad really.. Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Good article. Interesting note - back when I worked in the industry, the terminal was allotted a 500 gallon per day allowance per tank for fuel losses due to evaporation. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luther Gulseth wrote: > > In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the > pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it > leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, > it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I > don't know, but it could be true. That is the concern. The terminals are responsible for the additive packages. Here's another good PDF about this: http://www.rmaworld.com/newsroom/Lubricity/Lubricity.pdf -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
The base stocks of gasoline and diesel have been standardized nationwide. The only difference is the additive package. It is not uncommon for different brands (Bp, Exxon, Shell) to all buy from the closest distribution terminal, add their own special sauce, and pump it as their own. I don't doubt that people will start selling additives to make a buck. Some may help, some may not. However, each brand will add their own concoction to the base ULSD to replace any loss of lubrication caused by removing the sulphur before it reaches the pump. As far as pipelines go, there are 2 refineries in Ohio that are connected to 14 distribution terminals by an underground pipe. ONE PIPE. Batches of distillate are sequenced through the pipe on a strict schedule and each terminal opens their valve at a specific time to receive a given product. Batches of different distillates are buffered in the pipe by WATER. Ever wonder why water in the fuel is such a problem? Additives are typically stored and mixed in at the Distribution Terminal. -Dave Walton On 7/6/06, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I don't know, but it could be true. John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Luther Gulseth wrote: > > > > Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired > > I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have > > less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the > > company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may > > have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? > > Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with less > lubricity. But again, my point was: > > "It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than > standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives." > > From Chevron: > > "Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the > various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The processing > required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity > agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing > and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 > for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005." > > http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A10 > > So that tells me that the additives are *required* in order to meet the ASTM > specifications. So why again will truckers need to add an additive package to > their fuel when it is already being done at the distribution terminals? That's > what I'm trying to understand. > > -- > John L. Ervine > 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi > 1980 300TD 180+kmi > 1980 300SD 277+kmi > 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi > 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi > 1972 220 278+kmi > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (235kmi WVO/diesel mix) '82 300CD (160kmi) '82 300D (74kmi needs block or engine) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Luther Gulseth wrote: In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I don't know, but it could be true. That is the concern. The terminals are responsible for the additive packages. Here's another good PDF about this: http://www.rmaworld.com/newsroom/Lubricity/Lubricity.pdf -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Because I suspect the expense to switch the trucking system over will be prohibitively expensive and they'll be outside the 500ppm requirements - correct? As I understand it it is all goung to ULSD 15PPM It was driven by the big truck market. Trains, ships, airplanes, and tractors are still outside these requirements, I belive. But I not sure! I don't know about Farm tractors but heavy equipment has come under regulation. Like title 5 air permits. I know that for a while now it you were lets say a big Hospital you would need an air permit. The plan for the permit would cover the entire operation. Back up generators have been switched to ultra low sulphur for a while now to help meet total requirements for a facility. I was more curious about what now is a 'truck' and what is a 'passenger car'. Twenty plus years ago when I still lived in Kalifornia there were the cars that the other 49 states got then there was the stuff we were stuck with. I know that Kalifornia has its own regulations about diesel passenger cars. I believe this has helped drive the market for petrol-powered hybrids. As I understand it in Europe there is no market for these things. Just buy a 1.4L TD (tiny)VW and get about 70 MPG. I also herd that hybrids can be driven in the HOV lane their. So a pickup truck with 8 D batteries can be classified as a hybrid and now the HOV lanes are full.. I was just hopping that the small moderately priced Euro diesel cars would be market a ble in the US now but Surprise . Surprise .. Bummer. George Larribeau Dallas, Texas 1985 300SD 190K
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
In the brief research I have done on this, I have seen people state that the pipeline folks won't allow adding lubrication to the fuel until after it leaves the pipeline. They fear it will contaminate their Jet fuel. SOOO, it's up to the folks that get it after the pipeline. Do I believe this? I don't know, but it could be true. John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Luther Gulseth wrote: > > > > Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired > > I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have > > less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the > > company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may > > have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? > > Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with less > lubricity. But again, my point was: > > "It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than > standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives." > > From Chevron: > > "Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the > various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The processing > required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity > agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing > and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 > for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005." > > http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A10 > > So that tells me that the additives are *required* in order to meet the ASTM > specifications. So why again will truckers need to add an additive package to > their fuel when it is already being done at the distribution terminals? That's > what I'm trying to understand. > > -- > John L. Ervine > 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi > 1980 300TD 180+kmi > 1980 300SD 277+kmi > 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi > 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi > 1972 220 278+kmi > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (235kmi WVO/diesel mix) '82 300CD (160kmi) '82 300D (74kmi needs block or engine)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
The people who run the auto industry and particularly the American auto industry are morons. Left to their own devices we'd still be driving "planned obsolescence" '70s clunkers, the ones that were intended to wear out in a couple years. There'd be no seatbelts, safety glass, collapsable steering columns, crumple zones or safety devices of any kind. Leaded gas would be the order of the day and sulpher would be pumped out of every diesel engine. So in my mind some legislation is good, the automakers will meet standards when they're put out, they'll grumble but in the end its good for everybody. -Curt Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:03:40 -0400 From: Jeff Zedic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. To: Mercedes Discussion List Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed So why were they crying so much?? It seems to me that they cry a lot but always manage to make it workand then 2 years late they've advance again. If left to their own devices (lobbyists again) nothing happens for years (decades) WTF??? What's wrong with these people?? Jeff Zedic Perplexed in Toronto 87 300TD - Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 06 14:12:26 2006 Received: from mail.cnsp.com ([208.3.80.17]) by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FyUaf-0003Wr-MV for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:12:25 + Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cnsp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4233D41EE for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:12:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mail.cnsp.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22544-02-41 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:12:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mccluskey.linux (208-3-82-36.cnsp.net [208.3.82.36]) by mail.cnsp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0849816B718 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:12:14 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:12:14 -0600 From: Craig McCluskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mercedes Discussion List Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at cnsp.com X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus Subject: Re: [MBZ] First Benz, was- 1972 250/8 on ebay item # 180004026029 X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:12:26 - On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 07:21:54 -0500 "OK Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The seat belts - > > On 7/5/06, Craig McCluskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:26:04 -0500 "OK Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Mine was a '70 220D - same /8 chassis. I also loved that steering > > > wheel, and the 4 on the column. The Kangols were a marvel of > > > simplicity. > > > > I had a '72 220D/8. > > > > What are Kangols? Aha! Yes, they performed admirably with no "latch" didn't they? Craig
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
That's OK...It's CONVENIENT that way...(Note the sarcasm) Mike - Original Message - From: "P. D. Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. And a good portion of our rail infrastructure has been converted to bike paths--cannot haul much freight on a ten speed. US railroads are running at nearly full capacity now. Total lack of government transportation policy as our highways are torn up by eighteen wheelers. Peter Ferguson 1983 300TD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help? John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Luther Gulseth wrote: > > Yes. > > You want to expand on that a little then, perhaps? > > -- > John L. Ervine > 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi > 1980 300TD 180+kmi > 1980 300SD 277+kmi > 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi > 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi > 1972 220 278+kmi > > -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (235kmi WVO/diesel mix) '82 300CD (160kmi) '82 300D (74kmi needs block or engine)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff, Even if they had ASKED for the advice it would take 20 years of red tape and 14 different policy amendments in order to take advice from a Canadian citizen. Mike - Original Message - From: "Jeff Zedic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. I always thought that libertarians were the right wing nutsos that believe in NO government? I, like many Canadians, support our gov't and are AGAINST a recent tax reduction of the federal sales tax! We like our services and are willing to pay for them. The US should also get rid of the veto powers for ANYONE and stop the district redrawing every ten minutes...oh and while you're at it end the term limits too. There! Anything else I can fix? hehehe (I only wish someone had ASKED for this advice) Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD (very left wing and yet responsible fiscally) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. And a good portion of our rail infrastructure has been converted to bike paths--cannot haul much freight on a ten speed. US railroads are running at nearly full capacity now. Total lack of government transportation policy as our highways are torn up by eighteen wheelers. Peter Ferguson 1983 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Luther Gulseth wrote: Yes. You want to expand on that a little then, perhaps? -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
You can blame my former employer for JIT inventory management. Toyota Motor Corporation. Consumers are idiots! Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
rumor has it that Jeff wrote: > I think it will be the truckers that suffer the most here. > Unfortunately for them, their industry is REALLY dragging its feet on > more modern engines. I think that Volvo and Freightliner, or any > other Euro centric manufacturer will be stronger than the US based > ones. > > Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances > > like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand > that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried > > to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. Sure, rail is way more efficient - with the fuel. But it is not _time_ efficient - especially if the rails don't go to where the freight is... I don't really know who's to blame for the mess - but I surly includes the customers that require Just-In-Time delivers so the truck becomes their warehouse, the "microwave oven" (_I_ can't wait!) consumers, etc. --Philip, opinionated
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
So why were they crying so much?? It seems to me that they cry a lot but always manage to make it workand then 2 years late they've advance again. If left to their own devices (lobbyists again) nothing happens for years (decades) WTF??? What's wrong with these people?? Jeff Zedic Perplexed in Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
At some time fairly close to Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:52:55 -0400, rumor has it that LarryT wrote: > so the truckers will have to have completely seperate diesel fuel > pumps? No, _we_ "little guys" get the truck fuel. > Because I suspect the expense to switch the trucking system over will > be prohibitively expensive and they'll be outside the 500ppm > requirements - correct? It was driven by the big truck market. Trains, ships, airplanes, and tractors are still outside these requirements, I belive. But I not sure! I'm pretty sure that the 5 main truck engine makers (Cummins, Caterpillar, Detroit, Mercedes, Mack, Volvo [yes, that's 6. But I'm remembering an article in a truck trade magazine a while back mentioning 5 - but I don't know who they left out...]) have engines that meet the requirements. Some of them have been on the road for at least a year now. Yes, it was expensive! --Philip, out of the trucking industry so I'm not really keeping up with it.
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
ULSD can have as good as or better lubricity compared to #2 Diesel, particularly if it is a Biodiesel blend. See: http://www.iasoybeans.com/checkoff/biodiesel/iawkshop.pdf Slide 15 B2 has up to 66% more lubricity than #2 Diesel At 09:56 PM 7/5/2006, you wrote: Luther Gulseth wrote: > I forgot to say, all the truckers will need to do is add a lubricant to the fuel. Hrm, maybe BioDiesel? :D It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives. Is this completely off-base? -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
shortly after the warranty runs out. We rarely let them run past 500kmi before we trade them. Keeps our maintenance cost down. On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:11:08 -0500, OK Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, how often do you replace those trucks? When are they worn out, or not worth maintaining? I'll have trucks with this technology within the next few months. They are spec'ing out >the package for our 2007 model trucks due for purchase in Sep/Oct. International chassis >with a Cummins engine. -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (236 kmi) '82 300CD (160 kmi) '82 300D (74 kmi) needs MAJOR work
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff Zedic wrote: I think it will be the truckers that suffer the most here. Unfortunately for them, their industry is REALLY dragging its feet on more modern engines. I think that Volvo and Freightliner, or any other Euro centric manufacturer will be stronger than the US based ones. Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. Trucks sold starting in 2007 and later have to meet the FED emission standards and must use the ULSD (15 ppm). CAT, Cummins and all the other big engine builders have models available. Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Yes. On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:56:51 -0500, John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luther Gulseth wrote: I forgot to say, all the truckers will need to do is add a lubricant to the fuel. Hrm, maybe BioDiesel? :D It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives. Is this completely off-base? -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (236 kmi) '82 300CD (160 kmi) '82 300D (74 kmi) needs MAJOR work
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
So, how often do you replace those trucks? When are they worn out, or not worth maintaining? I'll have trucks with this technology within the next few months. They are spec'ing out >the package for our 2007 model trucks due for purchase in Sep/Oct. International chassis >with a Cummins engine. -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sir Winston Churchill '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Luther Gulseth wrote: I forgot to say, all the truckers will need to do is add a lubricant to the fuel. Hrm, maybe BioDiesel? :D It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives. Is this completely off-base? -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I forgot to say, all the truckers will need to do is add a lubricant to the fuel. Hrm, maybe BioDiesel? :D On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:54:27 -0500, Luther Gulseth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NO. The trucks will need the ULSD also. The changes are being imposed across the board on diesel engines EXCEPT for train and large boat engines. The joke at work is "Come 2007, the air leaving the tail pipe will be cleaner than the air going in". I'll have trucks with this technology within the next few months. They are spec'ing out the package for our 2007 model trucks due for purchase in Sep/Oct. International chassis with a Cummins engine. -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (236 kmi) '82 300CD (160 kmi) '82 300D (74 kmi) needs MAJOR work
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
NO. The trucks will need the ULSD also. The changes are being imposed across the board on diesel engines EXCEPT for train and large boat engines. The joke at work is "Come 2007, the air leaving the tail pipe will be cleaner than the air going in". I'll have trucks with this technology within the next few months. They are spec'ing out the package for our 2007 model trucks due for purchase in Sep/Oct. International chassis with a Cummins engine. On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:52:55 -0500, LarryT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: so the truckers will have to have completely seperate diesel fuel pumps? Because I suspect the expense to switch the trucking system over will be prohibitively expensive and they'll be outside the 500ppm requirements - correct? This new law (or regulation created by some nameless bureaucrat?) sounds as though it will make the use of diesel fuel in passenger cars *more* difficult, rather then less so - correct? I guess it depends on how much the makers of small diesels are willing to foot the bill and introduce cars that will accept the new fuel - all for the North American market only - IMHO. This all sounds like a bad way to go about cleaning up the diesel fuel system in this country - seems like it'd be better to gradually implement this system -- but I'm not sure - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . -- Luther KB5QHU Alma, Ark '83 300SD (236 kmi) '82 300CD (160 kmi) '82 300D (74 kmi) needs MAJOR work
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I think it will be the truckers that suffer the most here. Unfortunately for them, their industry is REALLY dragging its feet on more modern engines. I think that Volvo and Freightliner, or any other Euro centric manufacturer will be stronger than the US based ones. Maybe this will get us back to having freight delivered long distances like it should beby RAIL! Vastly more efficient but I understand that the problem in the past was the idiots running the railways tried to be smart guys and ruined the game for everyone. Jeff Zedic Alive & ranting in Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
I always thought that libertarians were the right wing nutsos that believe in NO government? I, like many Canadians, support our gov't and are AGAINST a recent tax reduction of the federal sales tax! We like our services and are willing to pay for them. The US should also get rid of the veto powers for ANYONE and stop the district redrawing every ten minutes...oh and while you're at it end the term limits too. There! Anything else I can fix? hehehe (I only wish someone had ASKED for this advice) Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD (very left wing and yet responsible fiscally)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Spoken like a true Libertarian. Jeff, are you sure you can prove you are a Canuck? At 08:41 PM 7/5/2006, you wrote: imagine the US without lobbyists??? hmmm..honestly, what benefit to the American PEOPLE is there from those parasites? UGH! Jeff Zedic Toronto
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Robert, Why they never copied the Euro engines for decades amazes me...There's something stupid in the US industry psyche that thinks bigger is better and I'll do it alone. What if, in the 70's, we'd followed the Euro lead and had smaller engines instead of 5-7 litres driving at 55 mph?? Which of the two do you think pollutes less?? What a sad industry... imagine the US without lobbyists??? hmmm..honestly, what benefit to the American PEOPLE is there from those parasites? UGH! Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
LarryT wrote: so the truckers will have to have completely seperate diesel fuel pumps? Because I suspect the expense to switch the trucking system over will be prohibitively expensive and they'll be outside the 500ppm requirements - correct? This new law (or regulation created by some nameless bureaucrat?) sounds as though it will make the use of diesel fuel in passenger cars *more* difficult, rather then less so - correct? I guess it depends on how much the makers of small diesels are willing to foot the bill and introduce cars that will accept the new fuel - all for the North American market only - IMHO. This all sounds like a bad way to go about cleaning up the diesel fuel system in this country - seems like it'd be better to gradually implement this system -- but I'm not sure - Europe has been using this "new" fuel in cars and trucks for years - without serious problems! Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Jeff Zedic wrote: Now is that before the bluetec arrives?? I thought that the Bluetec engine surpassed the EPA's requirements?? If I'm not mistaken, Bluetec is 50-state legal on emissions, isn't it? -- John L. Ervine 1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi 1980 300TD 180+kmi 1980 300SD 277+kmi 1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi 1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi 1972 220 278+kmi
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
This kind of rot amazes me. All the Americans had to to is copy what the Europeans already have to the letter and the whole world would be efficient, low emissionsand compatible. but of course, our gvmt has to always re-invent the wheel, instead of using the existing, proven technology just to make everything more expensive and confusing. -Robert Jeff Zedic wrote: Larry, What you don't realise is that North America is behind the rest of the world, well almost all of the rest, in the quality of their fuel. European countries and manufacturers have had this fuel for YEARS!! As per usual, the US auto industry/market is holding us up. The new regs coming in in 2007 (?) are tougher tan the Euro regs but they can be met with current technology, it's just that once again American and technology seem to be mutually exclusive terms in the automotive industry. Ever wonder what that rotten egg smell is from when you get passed on th highway? Our shitty gasoline! Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD (been using ULSD for years here too) ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Larry, What you don't realise is that North America is behind the rest of the world, well almost all of the rest, in the quality of their fuel. European countries and manufacturers have had this fuel for YEARS!! As per usual, the US auto industry/market is holding us up. The new regs coming in in 2007 (?) are tougher tan the Euro regs but they can be met with current technology, it's just that once again American and technology seem to be mutually exclusive terms in the automotive industry. Ever wonder what that rotten egg smell is from when you get passed on th highway? Our shitty gasoline! Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD (been using ULSD for years here too)
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
so the truckers will have to have completely seperate diesel fuel pumps? Because I suspect the expense to switch the trucking system over will be prohibitively expensive and they'll be outside the 500ppm requirements - correct? This new law (or regulation created by some nameless bureaucrat?) sounds as though it will make the use of diesel fuel in passenger cars *more* difficult, rather then less so - correct? I guess it depends on how much the makers of small diesels are willing to foot the bill and introduce cars that will accept the new fuel - all for the North American market only - IMHO. This all sounds like a bad way to go about cleaning up the diesel fuel system in this country - seems like it'd be better to gradually implement this system -- but I'm not sure - Larry T (67 MGB, 74 911, 78 240D, 91 300D) www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs Porsche Road Test http://members.rennlist.com/roadtest/ . - Original Message - From: "Peter Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur .. The sulfur will usually fry the nitrogen oxide reduction systems, and/or the catalytic soot reduction converter. The 2007 engines are designed around the ultra-low sulfur fuel, and using 500 ppm sulfur may indeed damage injection system parts and/or pollution control systems. The emission requirements are a large burden for diesel automotive makers. Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
The sulfur will usually fry the nitrogen oxide reduction systems, and/or the catalytic soot reduction converter. The 2007 engines are designed around the ultra-low sulfur fuel, and using 500 ppm sulfur may indeed damage injection system parts and/or pollution control systems. The emission requirements are a large burden for diesel automotive makers. Peter
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Marshall Booth wrote: George Larribeau wrote: Label on fuel station pump, low sulphur diesel 500 PPM illegal for use in 2007 motor vehicles. I thought this was strange but must be related to ultra low sulphur 15 PPM. As I started 'googling on the label text I found discussions on the ending of the diesel Jeep Liberty (covered here in depth). The introduction of the MB powered Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3.0-liter common rail turbo diesel and the demise of all Volkswagen diesel 'TDI' cars in the USA. The VW does not meet the 2007 Nox rules. I have found more than one reference as to what constitutes a 'truck' and that 2007 rules require tighter standards on 'lighter vehicles' and an implication that there might be a dividing line between the Grand Cherokee and the Liberty. Are there going to be any cars in 2007 that will meet the new EPA rules ?? Mercedes will offer a diesel "E" class car that meets FED EPA regulations (but not those of several states as I understand it - and I may not). Marshall Now is that before the bluetec arrives?? I thought that the Bluetec engine surpassed the EPA's requirements?? Jeff Zedic Toronto 87 300TD
Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
George Larribeau wrote: Label on fuel station pump, low sulphur diesel 500 PPM illegal for use in 2007 motor vehicles. I thought this was strange but must be related to ultra low sulphur 15 PPM. As I started 'googling on the label text I found discussions on the ending of the diesel Jeep Liberty (covered here in depth). The introduction of the MB powered Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3.0-liter common rail turbo diesel and the demise of all Volkswagen diesel 'TDI' cars in the USA. The VW does not meet the 2007 Nox rules. I have found more than one reference as to what constitutes a 'truck' and that 2007 rules require tighter standards on 'lighter vehicles' and an implication that there might be a dividing line between the Grand Cherokee and the Liberty. Are there going to be any cars in 2007 that will meet the new EPA rules ?? Mercedes will offer a diesel "E" class car that meets FED EPA regulations (but not those of several states as I understand it - and I may not). Marshall -- Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions) "der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] '87 300TD 182Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 237kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi (retired)
