Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:05:13 -0500
Reply-To: Mike Collum <collum@VERIZON.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Mike Collum <collum@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Re: Diesel Subaru Conversions
In-Reply-To: <000401c644b5$c1744630$6400a8c0@masterpc>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
With this being an international list ... the octane discussion gets
confused.
1 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane. (RON + MON)/2 = CLC octane
number. This is the number that you will find printed on a yellow label
on gas pumps in the United States.
The RON (Research Octane Number) is used outside the United States.
Mike
Dennis Haynes wrote:
> Your Vanagon does not need 91 pump octane fuels. That sticker is for
> another, older rating system. 87 ROZ/RON is fine unless something is
> wrong or the ignition timing is over advanced.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
> Of Christopher Gronski
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:42 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Diesel Subaru Conversions
>
> I disagree with your calculation for two reasons:
>
> 1) A lot of people do conversions because they need a new engine
> anyway, so for many the calculation needs to be done on the "premium"
> charged for a diesel conversion over a rebuild of their 1.9 or 2.1
>
> 2) My 2.1 syncro lists the gasoline requirement as 91 octane right
> next to the filler neck, so I have to burn premium gas. In Canada this
> generally means paying $0.07 to $0.10 MORE per litre for diesel.
>
> The math still probably works out against the diesel but when I do it,
> it will likely be for eco reasons and added (mostly flat) torque.
>
> Chris
>
> On 3/10/06, Pensioner <al_knoll@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Musing over conversions, one of my many talents, brings me to consider
>
> the
>
>>cost-benefit scenarios. Let's postulate that we drive 10000 miles per
>
> year
>
>>just to use easy numbers. Discounting the normal maintenance for both
>
> a
>
>>converted vanagon and a non-converted vanagon, the costs of conversion
>
> seem
>
>>to range from ~$14000 (not a misprint) in my case to perhaps $3000 for
>
> an
>
>>average of $5000 (high but we have to start somewhere).
>>
>>If fuel costs over time are the principal reason for going to diesel
>
> (not
>
>>fuel availability, or the desire to side with Willie on the BioDiesel
>>concert) then it makes sense to look at the fuel savings one would
>
> enjoy
>
>>over that 10000 miles per year. Diesel currently costs about %10 more
>
> than
>
>>87 Octane and is likely to stay that way. For $2.50/gallon 87 octane
>
> let's
>
>>say and vanagon average fuel efficiency of 17 miles per gallon. The
>
> gallons
>
>>per year is easily found to be ~588 gallons times $2.50 gives $1470
>
> per year
>
>>fuel cost before conversion. If you go with diesel the fuel
>
> consumption
>
>>will probably be on the order of 25 miles per gallon. For the same
>
> 10000
>
>>miles per year you'll pay $1100 in fuel costs including the %10 higher
>
> price
>
>>for diesel. You will get additional range between fuel stops but
>
> you'll
>
>>need it as not all fuel services feature diesel.
>>
>>In summary you'll save $370 per year in fuel costs for 10000 miles per
>
> year.
>
>>How many years to break even on the installation is left as an
>
> excercise for
>
>>the reader.
>>
>>Seems to be over ten years if your previously owned motor lasts that
>
> long.
>
>>FTSOE let's say it does. You will have saved $3700 towards the motor
>>replacement.
>>
>>The above example is to be considered a conservative estimate process,
>
> your
>
>>mileage, tolerance, costs, will no doubt be different.
>>
>>"If a man professes knowledge but cannot express that knowledge in
>
> numbers,
>
>>then that knowledge is of a meagre and insufficient kind" -- Lord
>
> Kelvin
>
>>Numbers rule!
>>
>
>
| 
