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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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]
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
$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
$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
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
I'm not going to post anything with this header, now standing at 455 times.
RLE
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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??
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
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
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
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
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
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?
--
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
You can blame my former employer for JIT inventory management. Toyota
Motor Corporation.
Consumers are idiots!
Jeff Zedic
Toronto
87 300TD
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
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
: 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
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
That's OK...It's CONVENIENT that way...(Note the sarcasm)
Mike
- Original Message -
From: P. D. Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Maybe this will get
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 mercedes@okiebenz.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
So why were
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
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
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
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
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
mercedes@okiebenz.com
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
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
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,
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
From: P. D. Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original
And a good portion of our rail
.
Seems way cheaper and easier to copy what already works.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Rich Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
Well, the answer to any and all
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
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
]; Mercedes Discussion List
mercedes@okiebenz.com
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
: 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
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
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
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
And doesn't Ford own Volvo? Or is it only the car side?
Jeff Zedic
Toronto
87 300TD
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
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
Thanks...I've never really understood who they are.strange bunch...
Jeff Zedic
Toronto
87 300TD
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
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
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
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
75 matches
Mail list logo
