 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / September 2006Dakota Diesel
I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put into the Sprinter Van. I figure it'll give me as good or better performance (particularly towing capacity) than the old 3.9 liter v6 but with mileage in the upper 20's. Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. > I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine > and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the > subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. Typo above: Sprinter has a 2.7 liter engine. >Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the >subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. A couple of months ago I sent a letter to Dodge, Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Nissan asking for information on when they would be offering a 1/2 ton truck with a diesel engine option. Nissan didn't respond at all and the others responded with almost identical wording that said they had no 'immediate' plans to offer a diesel engine in their 1/2 ton trucks but they would 'listen' to what their customers wanted. When I posted their response on this website the general opinion was that the manufacturers are afraid to offer a diesel 1/2 ton as they would last a lot longer than a gas engine and would hurt their most profitable market. I'll be watching your post to see what folks think of your idea. > >Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the > >subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most profitable market. I'll be watching your post to see what folks think of > your idea. Thanks for the reply... the replies from the manufacturers is very interesting, and anticipated. I also had the thought that it would hurt their gas engine sales. That, plus they got us by the short hairs if we want to buy a stock diesel: Either buy a monster truck or forget about it. I really don't need a truck with a 160 inch wheelbase and 650 foot/lbs of torque. I'm not much of a mechanic: I can change oil and do minor work but an engine swap and probable transmission adapter is way over my head. What I'm going to do is, look into local shops that do custom engine work and get some price quotes. I figure it would be worth doing even if it cost 6 or 7 grand. The thing that I like about the Dak diesel concept is, it's a truck thats very efficient, very nimble and can actually be used like a TRUCK. With the right transmission and rear axle my "concept" truck will probably get around 30mpg and tow over 5000 lbs. Anyway, I'll post any updates on here as they come up. I'm in no big hurry to get this done. -GB >> >Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the >> >subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >-GB The fly in the ointment here is new NOx regs that is going to make diesel a lot less atractive and expensive to package plus rising fuel prices as they pass on costs for removing sulpher from fuel by next fall. I look for diesel to average 25 to 50 cents more a gallon than gass then and to average 75 cent to a dollar more during winter when heating oil demand increases so what are you really saving when fuel costs more and so does engine??? If they were going to put a diesel in a 1/2 ton they should have 5 years ago when regs were looser but those days are gone. BTW, they are not picking on diesels per say but they are VERY big NOx generators that have slipped through the reg cracks in the past and the crack is being sealed in 08 and they are going to have to start complying with NOx emissions like gas engines have for over 30 years now. (one diesel P/U makes about as much NOx as 5 to 7 gas trucks because it was not regulated in the past but that is ending finally. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >The fly in the ointment here is new NOx regs that is going to make >diesel a lot less atractive and expensive to package plus rising fuel >prices as they pass on costs for removing sulpher from fuel by next >fall. What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced that the 4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel but if I can't have one then I don't want to continue to support the ragheads. > >The fly in the ointment here is new NOx regs that is going to make > >diesel a lot less atractive and expensive to package plus rising fuel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel > but if I can't have one then I don't want to continue to support the ragheads. What makes you think that owning a diesel will not be supporting the ragheads?  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >What makes you think that owning a diesel will not be supporting the >ragheads? Better miles per gallon and the option of using bio-diesel which is already being sold in my area. As is E85. The more time passes...the more I'm headed to bio myself with my next truck. Cost about 70 cents/gallon to make. Already thinking of a larger tank system to make larger batches. Taking a little bit of time once a month...to save a ton of duggets is looking better and better all the time. Signature------------------------------------------ Laszlo Almasi ----Cool Toys (formerly Carolina Watercraft Works) ----Mack Daddy Trailers ----Ice Angels >>What makes you think that owning a diesel will not be supporting the >>ragheads? > > Better miles per gallon and the option of using bio-diesel which is > already > being sold in my area. As is E85. > The more time passes...the more I'm headed to bio myself with my > next truck. Cost about 70 cents/gallon to make. Already thinking > of a larger tank system to make larger batches. Taking a little bit of > time once a month...to save a ton of duggets is looking better and better > all the time. It costs me about $1.00 per gallon to make. The biggest single production cost for me is buying methanol at $3.50 a gallon. That doesn't include my time, electricity, reduction in mpg, fuel burned collecting and drying w.v.o., wash water, etc. Making biodiesel isn't exactly hard to do but it isn't as simple as some lead you to believe. It is very worthwhile, but it isn't ideal for everyone. If you think of it as anything more than a hobby it becomes work. SignatureKen >> What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced >> that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What makes you think that owning a diesel will not be supporting the > ragheads? Are you some king of racist? What exactly is a "raghead"? You get loopier all the time SnoIdiot. Signature"I am such a Stinky Fat Matter" - Why bother? The Odiferous Fat Matter >>> What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced >>> that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You get loopier all the time SnoIdiot. >Are you some king of racist? > >What exactly is a "raghead"? A 'raghead' is an idiot who wears a rag on his head. hence the name. An alternative term is towelhead. It depends on whether they wear a bathroom towel or just a common garage rag on their head as to whether they are properly called raghead or towelhead. There is nothing 'racist' about it, it's just an accurate description of what the moron chooses to wear. >What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced that the >4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel >but if I can't have one then I don't want to continue to support the ragheads. Tell you what, this may ruffle a few feathers but I think flex fuel is a better choice here because you will be able to run several kinds of fuel mixtures with no problem (0 to 85% alchol and new P-series fuels when they start to appear in a few years. With diesel it is just diesel. Yes there is biodiesel but "bio" is bad on NOx emissions too (worse than with pure diesel) so its long term impact my be very limited starting in 08. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >Tell you what, this may ruffle a few feathers but I think flex fuel is >a better choice here because you will be able to run several kinds of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(worse than with pure diesel) so its long term impact my be very >limited starting in 08. What are the horsepower implications of running E85 versus E15? My understanding is the E85 has a higher octane rating but has lower overall energy content. So E85 will produce lower miles per gallan but what about towing horsepower and torque? >What are the horsepower implications of running E85 versus E15? My >understanding is the E85 has a higher octane rating but has lower overall >energy content. So E85 will produce lower miles per gallan but what about >towing horsepower and torque? In theory as long as the ECM properly controls spark timing and mixture, there should be no power loss with E85 (actaully a slight possible power gain) but since it has less BTU energy per gallon you will have to burn more of it to get same power. A plus of E85 is because it has much higher octane, the engine is able to extract a bit more of the avaible BTU's in fuel because it does not have to retard the spark like it does with 87 octane so the MPG loss is not quite as bad as it could be and the 85% alchol in E85 greatly cools the intake mixture (a lot more than gas does) which results in a denser air/fuel mixture and a bit more expansion on ignition and resulting energy to harness. Honest the future may lie in cars fueled by 100% methyl alchol which can be easily made from coal but since Big Oil does not control coal it is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. If they were to do this they could build cars with 12 or 13 to one CR that would make great power and get near same MPG because of the effiecency gains from the higher CR ratios. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced that the > >4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Yes, biodiesel does produce slightly higher NOx emissions. But the trade-off is that it's much, much cleaner burning overall than #2 diesel fuel. NOx is only one small part of the emissions from diesel engines. http://www.veggiepower.org.uk/page940a.htm http://www.planetfuels.co.uk/emissions/ SignatureKen >Yes, biodiesel does produce slightly higher NOx emissions. But the >trade-off is that it's much, much cleaner burning overall than #2 >diesel fuel. NOx is only one small part of the emissions from diesel >engines. Cleaner burning with suspended particularits and CO but no less CO2 and more NOx and a trade of slightly lower CO for higher NOx is not a good trade because NOx has more reaching effect than CO. Nothing to brag about here at all. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >Yes, biodiesel does produce slightly higher NOx emissions. But the > >trade-off is that it's much, much cleaner burning overall than #2 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it (nor does the EPA), but you may think what you want. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel. Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel. SignatureKen >You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it (nor does the >EPA), but you may think what you want. Actually the EPA agrees that diesels are a REALLY big problem with emissions (bigger than gas vehicles) hence the rule change that take effect in 2008. For year the escaped restrictions on NOx and such but the loop hole is now being closed. Diesle are really bad on polution and some may quote low PPM emissions from them but the problem is the volume of emission the produce because they move a LOT of air through them and the low PPM translate to very high lbs per mile numbers when volume of air is factored in. Started in 2008 they will have to comply to emisson weight per mile and detyriot is still scrambling to meet NOx restrictions because diesels are BIG NOx generators by nature and the last thing you need is a fuel that produces even more NOx (even a small amount extra) when dealing with NOx restrictions. Had NOx restrictions been in place long ago (like they have been for gas ones for over 25 years) you would not seen the wide spread usage of them today in light trucks. Detroit exploited the loop hole in the past. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > to emisson weight per mile and detyriot is still scrambling to meet Is Detyriot where you buy the crack you smoke? JS >Is Detyriot where you buy the crack you smoke? No but it likely is yours. true emissons is grams or lbs per mile, not PPM because in a turbo diesel you can delute the PPM in exhaust while still dumping a lot of polutants volume wise but if you knew this you would not have made your "crack". Gas engine would run a lot better today if they had been allowed to skirt around most emission requirement like diesel have in the past. It will be a more level playing field starting in 2008 and it will get stricter every year for diesels until they basically catch up with gassers. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >> What's your thought on a flex fuel Dakota then? Dodge has announced that the >> 4.7L engine will be offered in flex fuel for the 07 Dakota. I want a diesel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com The "new" diesels will start coming with catalytic converters, which will do a lot of scrubbing against the NOx? Thats the biggest reason why sulfur is being eliminated - so you can actually use an effective cat. Now, if Cummins/Chrysler was just smart enough to start extracting the waste heat in the exhaust system to do something productive... BMW has managed to extract another 20-30% from exhaust heat alone. You do realize you can run a diesel on a lot more than just a diesel, right? Spray some hairspray, propane, or whatever else in a diesel's intake sometime and see what you get. Avoid 'cleaner' products as they'll wipe the lubrication right off the cylinder walls. JS >The "new" diesels will start coming with catalytic converters, which >will do a lot of scrubbing against the NOx? Thats the biggest reason >why sulfur is being eliminated - so you can actually use an effective cat. While they will start using CAT's in 08, diesels make so much NOx that they cannot controll it with CAT's alone. They are experamenting with different methods of capturing or converting NOx and one of those methods include ammonia injection in exhaust manifolds.(either from a cartridge that you must change regularly or have a seperate tank for it that you refill from time to time) If you read and researched more before you commented you would know what a serious problem NOx reduction in a diesel presents for Detriot. They are not happy that their loop hole is being closed. And it get "better" yet, California has set CO2 limits on vehicle emission that start taking effect in about 2009 which REALLY has Detriot worried and shakey in their boots. They are fighting it vigorously in court (they will not win though as legal advisors have stated from the beginning) and being that 1 out of every 5 vehicles made is sold in California, it is just a question of time before it becomes federal too. When that happens it will do what high gas prices have not been able to do yet, kill big SUV sales completely because they will have to start building them smaller and lighter so less CO2 is produced by their operation because in the scope of things, CO2 is a pollutant too that is over due regulation as well. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>The "new" diesels will start coming with catalytic converters, which >>will do a lot of scrubbing against the NOx? > > While they will start using CAT's in 08, > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Interesting...my '98 Ram 2500 4X4 Cummins has a factory CAT. It seems they've been putting CATs on those trucks for around 10 years now. SignatureRich >>>The "new" diesels will start coming with catalytic converters, which >>>will do a lot of scrubbing against the NOx? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It seems they've been putting CATs on those trucks for around 10 years > now. Cats went on the Dodges January 1, 1994 and came off Januay 1, 1998 when the 24 valve Cummins was introduced. That's when we got resonators some mistake for cats. >Interesting...my '98 Ram 2500 4X4 Cummins has a factory CAT. >It seems they've been putting CATs on those trucks for around 10 years now. Guess again, it does not have a CAT. It is a thermo reactor meant to limit suspended particulates but many call them CATs by mistake. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > Guess again, it does not have a CAT. It is a thermo reactor meant to > limit suspended particulates but many call them CATs by mistake. Do the '04.5 and newer Cummins 5.9L's come with cats today? >> Guess again, it does not have a CAT. It is a thermo reactor meant to >> limit suspended particulates but many call them CATs by mistake. > > Do the '04.5 and newer Cummins 5.9L's come with cats today? Yup, my 05 has one. Doesn't smell like a diesel anymore with it. Roy >>> Guess again, it does not have a CAT. It is a thermo reactor meant to >>> limit suspended particulates but many call them CATs by mistake. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Roy Guess again, it is still a thermo reactor because the sulpher in diesel fuel will kill a CAT (this is the reason they removed it from gas long ago) THe reason it smell different today is because of improvement in injection and the amout of sulpher being reduded for EPA mandate to require true CATS to be installed on diesels starting with 08 models. Many mistakingly call them CAT's. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>>> Guess again, it does not have a CAT. It is a thermo reactor meant to >>>> limit suspended particulates but many call them CATs by mistake. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with 08 models. Many mistakingly call them CAT's. > ----------------- Whatever ya want to call it ya can't remove it. Reduced sulfur? Would it smell different if I used red diesel? > with 08 models. Many mistakingly call them CAT's. So that "many" would include the manufacturer, because they refer to them as catalytic converters in all of their documentation. <drivel snipped> Got any other comments, troll boy? The only "Mistake" here would be listening to your BULLSHIT. Geez...why do I bother? SignatureRich >>Interesting...my '98 Ram 2500 4X4 Cummins has a factory CAT. >>It seems they've been putting CATs on those trucks for around 10 years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com It seems like dodge could put the 2.7 mercedes diesel in the dakota without much trouble.there would obviously have to be a good sized market for that in order for them to do it.maybe gas prices being what they are people may opt for the more efficient diesel.another option would seem to be the 4 cylinder version of the cummins b (i believe it is a 3.9) that is used in bread and snack trucks and the like. >>Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the >>subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of > your idea. > >Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the > >subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most profitable market. I'll be watching your post to see what folks think of > your idea. Putting a diesel in an American half ton would be a disaster. The full fuel infrastructure simply isn't there as many of the gas stations don't sell it and the ones that do usually only have it at one pump or island. This would cause long lines. The massive increase in demand would also cause a significant increase in fuel costs, especially during the winter where it would also cause a significant increase in the cost of home heating fuel. Another problem is the torque created by a diesel can be pushed way above what the drive train of most 1/2 ton trucks can handle which would either force them to heavier duty components in or deal with a lot of pissed off customers when they refuse to do warranty work due to owner modifications. Either way, the bottom line would be a significant loss of profits that they are unwilling to deal with at this time. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message <drivel snipped> Got anything else to say, troll boy? > > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message > > <drivel snipped> > > Got anything else to say, troll boy? Gee, you delete the entire post so nobody has a clue as to what you are talking about and then call me a troll??? Get a life fuckwad! SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving OK, so you have NOTHING to say! Figures! > > > > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OK, so you have NOTHING to say! Figures! I have nothing to say because I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, asswipe. Now either grow a spine and make a valid point or go crawl back into the cesspool that you came from. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I have nothing to say We can agree on that >because I don't have a clue Agreed again >as to what you are talking about, I want to put a diesel motor in a Dakota. Did I not explain myself the first time? > asswipe. Butt Munch! I could keep this up all day! > Now either grow a spine Yup, and you are so brave coming out with your REAL NAME and address! > and make a valid point or go crawl > back into the cesspool that you came from. Tell me all about cesspools, it sounds like you are an expert. > > > > > > "Electrician" <electrician@xo.com> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I want to put a diesel motor in a Dakota. Did I not explain myself the > first time? Who the hell cares what you want to do. My comment was about Dodge doing it being a huge mistake and it would be and they know it. How old are you anyway, 16? > > asswipe. > > Butt Munch! I could keep this up all day! At least that might be something that you could keep up but I doubt even that. > > Now either grow a spine > > Yup, and you are so brave coming out with your REAL NAME and address! When dealing with immature bottem feeders like yourself, using a real name is an act of stupidity and do you really expect me to believe that the name you are using is real, LOL. > > and make a valid point or go crawl > > back into the cesspool that you came from. > > Tell me all about cesspools, it sounds like you are an expert. I have sadly become one replying to people like you. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine > and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyone try this? If so, how much did it cost? Any thoughts on the > subject? I'm tired of waiting for DC to come out with a Dak diesel. Has anyone converted a Dakota to a diesel system? > > I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine > > and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Has anyone converted a Dakota to a diesel system? I guess I'll be the first =) Supposedly, they build (built) Dak Diesels in Brazil. Got a 2.5L Detrioit Diesel with 221 Ft/lb torque. This would make it comparable to my old 3.9L gas Dak. I'm in the market for around 300 Ft/lb, so the Brazilian Dak won't cut it. One of the Mercedes motors will likely do the trick for me. -GB >> Has anyone converted a Dakota to a diesel system? > > I guess I'll be the first =) I recall a site where a guy dropped a 3.9L Cummins into his Dakota. Took a bit of doing, but it came out pretty nice. Of course, there's always the Banks Sidewinder truck :) >> > I'm contemplating converting a Dak to a diesel. Pull the gas engine >> > and replace it with one of those Mercedes 2.5 liter diesels they put [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -GB have you looked at the italin made engine used in the liberty. it has the numbers your looking for. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > have you looked at the italin made engine used in the liberty. it has the > numbers your looking for. That motor is Italian made? Who makes it? > -- > ---------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. VM Motori, makes it run a google search on "Jeep Liberty diesel" and you can pull up all kinds of reviews and news articles on the truck and engine. it puts out roughly 160 hp and 300 ftlbs of torque. impressive considering the truck weighs roughly 1/4 ~ 1/2 what a lwb ram does. I believe if I was to drag race my truck against my wife's liberty id loose hands down, and my ram is no slouch. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > >> have you looked at the italin made engine used in the liberty. it has the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > VM Motori, makes it run a google search on "Jeep Liberty diesel" and you can > pull up all kinds of reviews and news articles on the truck and engine. it > puts out roughly 160 hp and 300 ftlbs of torque. impressive considering the > truck weighs roughly 1/4 ~ 1/2 what a lwb ram does. I believe if I was to > drag race my truck against my wife's liberty id loose hands down, and my ram > is no slouch. Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small one, won't cut it for me. Now, if they made a Liberty *pickup*, that would be another matter. Motori is a division of Detroit Diesel. Anyway, thanks for the link! > Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. > I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyway, thanks for the link! where did you see that they are part of Detriot Diesel? ive looked on thier site and see no such mention. although GM Daewoo appears to have leased use of 2 engine designs from them. Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > > Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. > > I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > site and see no such mention. although GM Daewoo appears to have leased use > of 2 engine designs from them. Saw it on one of the Jeep Liberty pages I googled up. > -- > ---------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/misc/rule.jsp Signature------------------------------------------ Laszlo Almasi ----Cool Toys (formerly Carolina Watercraft Works) ----Mack Daddy Trailers ----Ice Angels >> Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. >> I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > thier site and see no such mention. although GM Daewoo appears to have > leased use of 2 engine designs from them. >>Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. >> I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > site and see no such mention. although GM Daewoo appears to have leased use > of 2 engine designs from them. Read the third paragraph down on this website, Detroit Diesel acquired VM Motori in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_Motori JPH > >>Did some googling. I think the Motori motor would give me what I want. > >> I'd simply go out and buy a Liberty but an SUV, particularly a small [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > JPH It's tough to keep track of who owns who with all these buyouts. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.