Would you buy a FORD FOCUS DIESEL?

[JCH841]

The least expensive way to make low sulfer diesel (and therefore the way it is done) is to strip the sulfer out with a hydrogen treatment. This also strips out some beneficial lubricity, so older diesels have excessive injector and valve wear. Newer engines are being designed for low sulfer fuel. (Older gas engines suffered valve seat recession with lead free gas and they designed new valve seats for that.) Caterpillar is pretty much the largest diesel engine manufacturer in the world. I can't imagine them getting out of making diesel engines, not even just over the road or US engines.

[mainest]

I had an 85' TurboDiesel Jetta which I drove 250K miles, gave it to my son who drove it another 100K miles, before it rusted enough (10 Mass. winters) to fail inspection.
IMHO, with the new TDI technology, there is no reason NOT to have a diesel as a DD, even @ $4.50/gal, unless you're willing to put up with a (boring!) hybrid/auto/CVT.

[iminhell]

America isn't ready for diesel, plain and simple. You talk to virtually anyone and they relate pollution to soot from a diesel ... and because you can't see soot from a gasoline engine it must be cleaner. Right there seals the deal of why diesel will never make it in the US, lack of education of the general public.

Would I buy one?
No. Never.
I'm more inline with renewable domestically produced fuel, and if the technology ever takes off, point source fuel production. Because far as I see it just getting better mileage isn't the answer and is no where close to a cure. I want a cure.

[Stereodude]

Originally Posted by Fattie

yes , idk why we dont have em yet.

Blame GM and the Oldsmobile diesel from the late 70's / early 80's.

[Montag]

Originally Posted by JCH841

The least expensive way to make low sulfer diesel (and therefore the way it is done) is to strip the sulfer out with a hydrogen treatment. This also strips out some beneficial lubricity, so older diesels have excessive injector and valve wear. Newer engines are being designed for low sulfer fuel. (Older gas engines suffered valve seat recession with lead free gas and they designed new valve seats for that.) Caterpillar is pretty much the largest diesel engine manufacturer in the world. I can't imagine them getting out of making diesel engines, not even just over the road or US engines.

Cat is already out of the truck engine business altogether, with the exception of military trucks. But yeah, the low-sulfur explanation doesn't hold water. Their heavy equipment engines are running on it, and their military truck engines are running on JP-8, which is probably even worse. I heard they got out of commercial truck engines simply because of emissions standards. During the last few years they made truck engines, they chose to pay fines rather than meet emissions standards.

[DJ2BIG]

Originally Posted by ted429

You would never get a focus diesel at 25,000. To add a diesel power train you need to add 5000 at least. The reason europe has them is because diesel fuel is subsidized by the government and you can get some of the 5k back.

If VW can sell one for 24,000 FORD should be under $25,000

[JCH841]

Originally Posted by Montag

Cat is already out of the truck engine business altogether, with the exception of military trucks. But yeah, the low-sulfur explanation doesn't hold water. Their heavy equipment engines are running on it, and their military truck engines are running on JP-8, which is probably even worse. I heard they got out of commercial truck engines simply because of emissions standards. During the last few years they made truck engines, they chose to pay fines rather than meet emissions standards.

??

I just pulled this off the Cat website less than 5 minutes ago -
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=38840&x=7

[Hal]

No, not as long as diesel costs 40-50 cents more a gallon than 87 octane.

With the higher buy-in cost and the higher fuel cost diesel just doesn't seem like a good ideqa at this time.

[frunko1]

I want a diesel ranger/f100/f150 first. They should make a good 4 cylinder engine that they can use in multiple vehicles.

[xpeterbilt387x]

Originally Posted by Montag

Cat is already out of the truck engine business altogether, with the exception of military trucks. But yeah, the low-sulfur explanation doesn't hold water. Their heavy equipment engines are running on it, and their military truck engines are running on JP-8, which is probably even worse. I heard they got out of commercial truck engines simply because of emissions standards. During the last few years they made truck engines, they chose to pay fines rather than meet emissions standards.

agreed 100% New diesel engines run fine with it. In fact it's not "Low-Sulfur" any longer. My Freightshaker requires "Ultra-Low Sulfur" (15ppm or less) Low-Sulfur is 500ppm or less. Runs fine. All newer diesel engines run fine with it. Said that Low sulfur diesel fuel will damage the engine.