Does anyone know anything about Fiat diesels? I'm wondering if the new partnership will result in more diesel vehicles stateside. I'm not holding my breath but the hope of another diesel Liberty or a diesel Unlimited Wrangler will not die.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/27 ... el-engine/

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/ca ... 05052.html

http://www.fiat.com.sg/default2f16.html?MenuId=296

_________________
2006 Libery Sport CRD, Lt Kakhi, nicely equipped
*****GDE Hot Tune at 38,879 miles
*****Stock TC.....for the time being!!

Thanks for the info. What are the odds Chrysler will use any of those engines?

The odds? About the same as Google hiring me for their new moonbase that is opening up next year.

Chrysler will be LUCKY if they can get one of those electric concept models to market at all, much less a diesel that the enviro-nazis will insist is dirtier than a vehicle that has to burn 3 times as much gasoline.

I've never understood that lack of logic. It is simple math. If a journey (or life of a car) is 100,000 miles, and over that journey a gas engine will burn X amount of gas and produce X^3 pollutants... How can a diesel that burns X/3 fuel produce MORE than the gas engine? Is it scooping up dirt from the side of the road and adding that to the exhaust as it goes?

If you burn less fuel, you HAVE to produce less pollution. The components are the same from any combustion... Only the individual component levels can be manipulated, the products will still be there however.

Personally, I am inclined to believe that GAS engines are the cause of the asthma problems, as they have PLENTY of particulate matter that they spew... But its all smaller than a micron. That goes DEEP into your lungs. Diesel particulates (before the stupid DPF) were VISIBLE. To your lungs' filter, that would be like trying to swallow an inflated basketball. Not gonna hurt you, and it won't stay in the air for more than a couple minutes. The tiny stuff can stay up for WEEKS, getting added to every day. (Think LA smog)

There was an EPA study that agreeded with your thinking I believe it was done in Denver. They expected 75% of the particulates to be from diesels and 25% gasoline. The actuall results were the exact reverse about then 24% diesel and about then 74% gasoline. The small odd numbers were wood buring fireplaces and the like That study got buried under the rug by the "anti diesel nazies".

I think Fiat actually developed the diesel common rail and Bosch bought the rights and prefected it

_________________
Atlantic Blue 06 CRD Limited (his)
Joined by a 2000 XJ Classic (hers)

I would bet that the most likely senario, and the least risky, would be to simply bring in existing fiat diesel models. If they have one like that little thing that would meet US emissions it would be a easy way to "test" the market. VW appears to be doing OK with their line. This could be quick and if sales indicate a demand, then look at putting the drivetrains into heritage models.

_________________
2006 Libery Sport CRD, Lt Kakhi, nicely equipped
*****GDE Hot Tune at 38,879 miles
*****Stock TC.....for the time being!!

In other words, the anti-diesel brigade has already anticipated, and through their typical faulty logic, nullified your argument. For every gallon of diesel burned, more CO2 is released into the athmosphere than gasoline. Therefore diesel is still bad.

_________________
2005 CRD Limited Flame Red w/ Renegade rock rails & light bar, AirLift 1000. 225/75R16 MT/R's on cheap black steel wheels, dual MOPAR subwoofers, Ipod kit & seat covers, Samco hoses - totaled and gone. 2008 WK Laredo 3.0L diesel - AirLift 1000, wife won't let me mess with it much. 2013 JK Sahara on order.

For every hour that the EPA or Congress is in session, have they calculated the metric TONS of CO2 that are produced into the atmosphere?

I know it is pisssing into the wind here, but we all know that CO2 is NOT a pollutant! It is the stuff that plants turn back into oxygen! The rest of the stuff, yea, that should be controlled, and already IS. But the silliness of the argument that acid rain is created... Has anyone ever SEEN acid rain outside of a controlled lab environment? The conditions have to be VERY specific for it to happen, and IF it ever occurred in nature, it hasn't happened in 20 years.

Stupid enviro-nazis are destroying the best SOLUTION in search of the holy grail that won't ever happen. Trying to redesign our entire transport infrastructure when we are set up for delivery of a liquid fuel at zero PSI... Is NEVER gonna happen. Any fuel based on a pressurized gas requires too many changes to the market. Liquid fuels are the direction to look in, and diesels are (of course) the best answer. Run them on biofuel derived from *gasp - the shock!* CO2 sucking plants and algae... And you have a carbon-neutral perfect circle.

THAT can be achieved in 10 years. Maybe 5. Hydrogen? Never.

Well, don't want to get into a urinating contest over this issue, but the quote above is simply wrong.

Geordi is correct that plants use CO2. They do release Oxygen as a consequence of the reaction using chlorophyll to produce energy. However, they don't "use" CO2 to produce O2.

Acid rain is a real consequence of fossil fuel combustion. Without getting into the chemistry of the reaction, which is well known and easily reproduced, sulfur dioxide and/or nitrous oxides (which are produced in the combustion process) combine with water droplets in clouds to produce sulfuric/sulfurous acid and nitric acid yielding acidic rainwater which falls to earth as acid rain. This rainwater can be very acidic and have a ph (measurement of its acidity) of 4-5 which is about the same as lemon juice.

Although the relative amount of acid rain has been reduced due to pollution controls it remains a huge problem in all down wind areas, especially in the north east US. The problem of acid rain continues to this day and did not end "20 years ago". The issue also goes beyond just making lakes and ponds acid. The acidic water interferes with the life cycle of all aquatic organisms and also effects plants and trees as it degrades the ability of green plants to use their chlorophyll properly (and thus reduces the oxygen "produced"). If you don't believe it continues to be a real problem, simply look at graves markers in New England cemeteries and see how the stone has been attacked by the acid water.

Lastly, while CO2 is not a "pollutant" in the truest sense of the word, it is a strong contributor to global warming and needs continuing control. A good comparison to the problem of over productin of CO2 is water, which is also not a "pollutant", but when there is too much and floods occur it is also a big problem.

Denying the science does not change the facts. The truth is not always pleasant, but it is still the truth

I will admit that I based my thoughts on acid rain to the fact that there used to be tons of reports in the news about it, and I haven't seen any articles for what seems like Eons. And I'm a voracious news reader, so I guess they just aren't writing about it.

On the plant idea tho... Plants are using photosynthesis to capture CO2 and expel O2... So they are stripping off the carbon to keep for themselves. In this sense, yea, they are "using" CO2. The big deal is that the carbon is being temporarily sequestered in the plant instead of floating around as a gas.

Think about it this way: The environment is a fish tank full of water. You reach in and stir up the sand at the bottom, effectively the same as "burning the stored carbon in plants" and the water clouds with fish poo that was in the sand, right? Give it a minute (time compressed from some life-size interval) and the water clears again.

Now, instead of using the material that is already in the "environment" to power your needs... You go and add to the environment something that hasn't been unearthed for countless eons. Oil, or in this example... A bottle of ink.

How long would it take for that to come out of the environment and the water clear, in relation to the fish poop?

Yea... CO2 isn't a pollutant if we can stop adding MORE to the air that wasn't there "yesterday" being captured by some plant that we just burned for fuel. Carbon neutral is the goal. The problem is that we are releasing millions of tons of sequestered carbon which is bound to the oxygen, and THAT needs to stop.

I've driven a few diesel Fiats here in Australia, namely the Fiat 500, Punto and Ritmo. What need to be made clear is that these are passenger cars and the engines are small and 'carlike'. Nothing like the 'truck' diesel in my KJ CRD.
I think even the biggest diesel in the Fiat range is for a lorry type vehicle (3L). Likely gutless tho i've never personally driven a Fiat lorry.
I.e. i don't think you'll see fiat motors (as they currently exist) powering the bigger Jeeps. Maybe all the passenger chryslers and baby Jeeps, but the bigger jeeps prob will still use the VM offering