> or improve the exhaust systems. Improve those and you can see an
> improvement in economy.
>> True, when people don't bother to reduce the intake restrictions (the
>> infamous silencer for example on some diesels)
>
> The silencer doesn't do a thing other than cut down on a whistle.
That's not what I've heard, but what ever. If its the venturi shaped
silencer, it's a restriction.
>> or improve the exhaust systems. Improve those and you can see an
>> improvement in economy.
>
> I'm of the belief that with regard to mileage, the makers have done pretty
> much all they can do with the Cummins and keep it epa compliant.
A diesel is going to burn "x" amount of fuel to turn the engine a certain
rpm, since rpm / power is fuel volume dependent. Engine design can be
improved and there are more efficient engines available, like the
Phillips/Sterling.
>> This is one thing I'd really like to take the EPA to task over since
>> there are many little tricks that do improve economy of an engine and the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Good points.
It does a lot of good, to a point on diesels.
Budd
> Roy
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roy

Signature
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Roy - 30 Sep 2006 01:17 GMT
>>> True, when people don't bother to reduce the intake restrictions (the
>>> infamous silencer for example on some diesels)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> That's not what I've heard, but what ever. If its the venturi shaped
> silencer, it's a restriction.
Well, it is not what I've heard, it is what I removed on my 2K. It makes
abosolutly no difference in mileage. Believe me if it did I would remove it
on this one as well.
>>> or improve the exhaust systems. Improve those and you can see an
>>> improvement in economy.
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Roy