[RCPlayland]

Ok...

Last time I am arguing this.

My bad on using CNG and propane as a example they are less polluting than diesel... but to retort... you state that retrofit conversions to mass produce vehicles are expensive and not cost effective. Yet you state that it would not be unless in a bigger payload.

Here is my example:

I spend $2-4k a year in fuel with my current truck (19-22mpg)
A similar truck that has a 4 cylinder turbo diesel or just diesel can get up to 40-60mpg.

So with that said. Being a buyer of small economy trucks (gas currently). I would expect a reduction of my fuel bill from $2-4k a year to $1-2 at worst. Meaning I would have $1-2k I could apply towards a higher priced truck that has a diesel in it with higher MPG ratings. The $1-2k would be for a truck that would get me 40mpg.

Now if I had a 60mpg diesel truck, I could apply even more.... I would have $1.4-$2.68 I could apply per year to a higher priced truck.

(Yes diesel costs slightly higher, but not enough to falsify my numbers above)

So your logic of cost variance and application does not make any sense to me with my described example.

I can take criticism.

But Frank Lee corrected me with "Who is Cummings".... So sorry... spelling off by one letter.

Second, he asked "Is it the government or the lack of consumer base that prevents North American small diesel pickups?"

I explained, he said ""Does that help?"- Not really.

How is it that diesel passenger cars are sold here?"

Baiting me further.... which I bit. Then after I gave my example... which is not the reason I came here ... He retorts again:

"Because certification is expensive and no manufacturer is going to spend that much if they think they won't find enough buyers?"

Which is the same thing your debating with me on.

With simple math I can show that the average S-10 (which there are still tons of them on the road, especially as work trucks), The market could handle it and charge a extra $5,000-$7,000.... and it would pay for itself with the savings from the cost of fuel economy.

I find it humorous when explained that larger payload vehicles that get 12-19mpg that are converted to 30-35mpg are economical and justify the expense of a manufacturer, And they charge accordingly with about the same ratio numbers of difference in cost.

Yet when I express my view on the economy truck with the subjects or focus on mpg, cost of conversion, buyer's market... ect. It always has to come to this.

This is why I do not argue this, especially with people who bait me only to argue which I already know to be false.

I am looking for data and resources that are factual! As libertyfrancis1 (thank you again) provided for me.

I did not realize there was a importer of non-us based engines/transmissions. Further more he helped me realize that the 4tb motors were extremely heavy.

Sorry, but I did not come here to banter about this "IF" diesel engines would be economical and a market for them. Most times it is mute point, even when shown with simple math that there would be a buyers market here. Regardless of emissions and manufacturer's costs. Otherwise, why are we all here! There is a market!

My rant is done. Geesh. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.... lol.