Unleaded petrol mixed with Diesel in a Chrysler 2.5CRD

IF running 3 miles on a 5:1 dilution of diesel to gasoline can ruin an
engine, then the engine was designed by MORONS and isn't worthy to be
on the road anyway.[/QUOTE]

Have to say that it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect users to run the
car on the fuel it is designed for. I suppose the alternative to
designed by morons is designed for them.

 

Oh I wish I was as happy and humerous as you, maybe I'd not have lived this
long.

 

Ahhh you're in the US.

Explains your last post - you probably think the Pontiac Aztec is good
looking too http://www.cardomain.com/ride/685037

 

My sense of humor is fine, and my blood pressure is 115/80. I'm having a
good ol' laugh at people who are so uptight and puckered that they have
to pick on the style of the car instead of answer the question.
ESPEICALLY when the car in question isn't even a PT Cruiser!

 

Adrian wrote:

The real question is the European engine in that American car. The
Cummins in the Dodge Ram is a known quantity, but I don't know very much
about whatever they shove in the European minivans and PT and how
fragile it is or is not. Mercedes diesels are as good as the big
American industrial diesel engines, so if its a corporate cousin I'd
imagine its pretty stout.

Cummins, EMD, Caterpillar, and General Electric don't seem to have much
trouble doing it in big diesels. The question is does it scale down to
2-liter class engines very well.

 

Have to say that it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect users to run the
car on the fuel it is designed for. I suppose the alternative to
designed by morons is designed for them.[/QUOTE]


You're right. But a good engineer also allows some margin in any design
for the fact that bad/dumb things happen. I wouldn't consider it
unreasonable to expect failure if we were talking about a 50% or greater
concentration of gasoline. But less than 20%? Gimme a break. ANY engine
should survive that briefly (not continuously operated that way), and
any gasoline engine should survive that much diesel in its fuel.

And it isn't just moronic owners. Delivery tank truck drivers have been
known to put the wrong fuel in storage tanks, you know.

 

Steve () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Absolutely. But why should the engine have been designed with a very
different philosophy from the rest of the damn thing?

Do they use the same fuel pressures?
Do they have the same space concerns over the pumps?

Common Rail is virtually universal in car diseasel lumps, right down to
600cc. But all are susceptible to mis-fuelling.

 

Even if I were sick enough to like the Aztek, that hardly has any
bearing on the fuel system of a diesel minivan.

Yeah, I like the PT Cruiser, so what? And I like the Mini too, hate the
new Beetle, don't care for '59 Cadillacs, but love the 1960 Chrysler
300F. You know what opinions are like.... everyone's got one and theirs
always stinks worse than your own.

 

[Snipped Text]

No. A small amount harmful over a long period, a large amount harmful
over a short period.

 

The message <>

Looks like an '87 Astra that's been squished a bit.

 

Well given they're using the same fuel system suppliers they'll have the
same issues. Not that CAT supply much common rail gear.

 

Thirded.

I don't want to go through each bollock point in turn, but the most ball
achingly (to me) bad ones are...

The "warm up" time that old diesels had, and new ones don't, being due to
some sort of integrated start up procedure. WTF? It's because new common
rails don't need glow plugs unless it's really cold.

Unlocking the doors will cause damage to the main pump. Not if it's driven
by the engine it won't. At worst you'll cause the riser pump to activate,
and circulate the mixed fuels around a bit.

"Petrol removes the pump case hardening". Noooo. Lack of lubrication can
cause wear, but petrol won't magically dissolve metal.

Pete.

 

Oh I wish I was as happy and humerous as you, maybe I'd not have lived

I don't think it's uptight and puckered - it's just a random comment. Nowt
wrong with that.

 

I've seen blue and yellow for diesel.

 

Adrian wrote:

That's my point. I don't think it IS designed with a different
philosophy.. I suspect the engine is plenty rugged and tough enough to
survive 20% gasoline.

 

Unfortunately, that article reads like a whole lot of the nonsense
published in the "automotive press" these days. Old diesel engines
"warm up" time eliminated by incorporating it into "normal starting
procedures" indeed! This doofus doesn't even understand the difference
between indirect-injection (prechamber/glow-plug) and direct-injection
(turn the key and start it) diesels, let alone the subtlties of common-rail.

 

Daniel J. Stern ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Indeed.

Which is why PSA don't sell HDi diseasels in some markets, because the fuel
has insufficient lubricity. Australia is (or certainly was) a fine example.

 

Daniel J. Stern ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Exactly. It's a fairly cheap car for it's size, with poor residuals.

But as a point of order - the OP didn't specify what Chrysler it was, just
a 2.5CRD. It's probably a Voyager or Grand Voyager, going by numbers on the
road. The PR Cruiser sells mainly on it's looks over here. Luckily, few
blind people drive, so it's a bit of a rarity on our roads.

Besides, the PT Cruiser CRD we get is a 2.2.

 

Guy King () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Have you seen the convertible? It just gets worse...

 

Johannes () gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

*EVERYWHERE*

Try your local supermarket noticeboard, newsagent window, fleaBay...