I agree the old diesels were both noisy and smelly, but these new diesels are quiet and clean, and I mean really quiet and really clean. Plus, they get better fuel mileage. It would depend on the difference, but if we look to the Jetta TDI, which gets around 45 mpg and the Jetta gas which gets about 30mpg, that is a 33% improvement. Gas and diesel have been fluctuating, but if gas is $1.75, then diesel would still break even at $2.32. Currently diesel is around $2.09 in my area. This past summer gas was $4.10, and diesel was $4.60 (yikes!), but the % difference is even small, making diesel a better value. Plus, a normal diesel motor should go 300K miles (unless one of the Big 3 figures out a way to "re-engineer" them to go less). Either way, it still seems like there should at least be the option. Part of my issue with this is that I think there is more going on behind the scenes to restrict small, efficient diesels from entering the US market.

 

Years ago gasoline was the primary goal of refinerys, after that it was heating oil,jet fuel and diesel fuel, all of which were looked upon as red headed stepchildren as the greatest demand was for gasoline. Then slowly coal was considered as too much trouble and too messy for home use what with having a truck load or more per winter to heat your house and then having to take out the ashes or clinkers. Natural gas became the #1 fuel for home heating and electric power was close behind, with heating oil a distant last choice. This was mainly because gas, either natural or LP was plentiful and pretty inexpensive and so was electric power. Pump gas was about 28 to 30 cents per gallon (mid '50s to mid '60s) while diesel was usually 8 to 10 cents a gallon less if you could find it. In the '70s the western world endured an oil embargo which was brought about by our "friends" in the oil producing countries of the mid-east due mainly to the fact that the Israelis were recieving most of thier weapons from the US and other western nations. In effect they were declaring war on America and the west which was followed by the founding of OPEC and the price of fuel has been going up ever since and all fuels are raised as people try to make ends meet by switching to other less expensive fuels.
Back then, in the '70s nearly all of the japanese car makers came out with diesel trucks and cars, I had several friends and customers that had them and I never heard a word about problems of any kind. Only how hard it was to get diesel fuel. After that fuel crises passed we gradually got away from diesels and for more than 20 years exporters have been buying up the small diesel trucks and cars for export to third world countries and making a nice profit at the same time.

 

Ford came out with a couple atempts on diesels in the 80's with a diesel tempo and ranger. They didn't sell well, no one really wanted them and I still don't. I personally like my gas engines. Thats what I've raced and off roader with and have a love afair with gas. However, I believe people should have a diesel option in cars and trucks. With EPA standards constantly going up, it's like beating your head against the wall. Jeep offered a diesel in the liberty for a couple of years, then the standards went up, so they dropped it from the liberty.

 

I'd also add the GM debacle with the 5.7/6.2 offerings in the late 70's to early 80's didn't help the diesel cause. It is interesting to see that the little VW rabbit/caddy pick ups are fetching $3k-$5k on Ebay, depending on condition. These tend to get upper 40's-low 50's mpg. Seems to me like there is some type of demand.

 

i wish they would bring a diesel option back, about a 200 c.i.d. inline 4, creeper 1st manual o/d trans, manual transfer case & hubs. damn epa though, that and most people cant afford a base gas ranger right now.

 

Ford did make a Ranger Diesel and I just so happen to have one. I've been looking for parts for it forever now. Supposedly, Ranger Diesels were only made in Canada. I'm not for sure but the US Ford central office didn't even know they made them...for some reason when I called for parts. The Ranger Diesels started with prototypes in 1982 and later came out in 1984 I believe. The 1984-1986 issues of the trucks were 2.2L with no turbo until 1987 when they put a 2.3L in them with turbo which was the last year of their production. The turbo is in decent shape on my truck and the transfer case is amazing. I took the truck up a slick, muddy hillside with about a 70 degree angle and it didn't slip once. Even went over a log. The speed on the truck isn't up to par with normal vehicles but my truck has a fuel, oil, and water leak and I'm satisfied. I can't wait to get it fully restored. Anyone with parts or references to part suppliers please contact me through mcmartin11891@hotmail.com. I'll be happy to answer any questions, too, if anyone is wondering about anything concerning the truck.

 

Yeah the diesel didn't go over big in the 80's, now diesel is all you hear. People want a diesel in everything. They would get a diesel in there weed wacker if they could.

 

ive seen a diesel a.t.v. 4-wheeler, had 4wd even. a diesel weed eater? thats funny, they'ed need some gearing to make that spin the control head up considering how much slower a diesel engine spins at vs a gas engine. i wonder what the smallest diesel is?

 

the smallest diesel I've ever seen is 1.7 Opel Vectra A/B. There is lower displacement limit for diesel. Diesel with smaller then 0.4L cyl. displacement is not effective. Burnes to much fuel and overheats. That's why if someone wants to build smaller then 1.5L diesel there is only one way - 3 ore 2 cylinders. Anyway engeneers do not like to go to close to limits that's why they build 4-cyl diesels not smaller the 1.7.

2 cyl diesels are rare becouse of vibrations.

But from other viewpoint new turbines with internal geometry controll allow to get more power with the same displacement and we have diesels for small trucks from 2.0 to 3.0.

 

the smallest diesel i've seen, was one for a r.c. airplane. the glow engine head was replaced with a special one to burn diesel.
if your in a hurry for a diesel. a cummin's turbo 3.3 4bt is available in mechanical or tier 2 electronic configuations. advanced adaptors has a sae 3 bellhousing adaptor to a standard or auto tranny.
the 3.9 / 4.3 bt is the engine most people put in thier rigs as it's readily available used.
the 3.3 is about 4 inches shorter and not as long either. it uses lots of the 3.9 engine parts.
i don't have the hp/trq numbers. but they are available on the cummin's site.
the 3.3 would be a good fit in a current model of ranger.
one of my contacts blew up his 2.2 diesel ranger. turbo'ed it to 45 lbs boost. the oil seal in the turbo let go and it hydro-locked. the engine had 740,000 miles on it. it cost him about $2k to rebuild.
my '83' ranger only has about 240,000 miles on it.
the weak points on the truck is batteries (every five years), transmissions the 4 spd only last 100-150,000 miles. starters, mine is on its third, (one was defective) as you can only get rebuilt starters and transmissions. the first gen rx-7 5 speed will fit the engine. so if you want to coast down hill faster, thats an option.
i have plans on installing a turbo on my engine, with a boost limit at 5 lbs. i figure my mileage will increase 3-5 mpg. and the exhaust will be cleaner on hills.
i currently get 30-38 mpg.
if ford installed a 2.5/2.8 turbo diesel in thier new rangers, w 5 sp auto, i would give my truck to my son, and get a new one.

a 2.8 would be large enough to tow around 25-3000 lbs.
cc

 

they should disband the e.p.a. and bring back the oil-burners. theres way too much garbage on the gas engines as well. they want to eliminate pollution , just wipe china off the face of the earth, it would solve more than one problem.

 

You better look out, the PC police will be after you ha ha.

 

im a equal-oppertunity offender. lol

 

Sorry, I work for Ford and ALL non turbos in the Rangers were Mazda.

Mike.

 

Rangers were never made in Canada. Unless you include the F series.

Mike.