You're probably right there.

Conversion tool found here:

http://www.esbconsult.com/esbunitconv.zip

Cheers,

Pensionerd.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Scott Daniel <scottdaniel@turbovans.com>wrote:

> Fuel economy is not/should not be the main reason for running a diesel.
> there are other good reasons for sure.
>
> it's more like increased fuel economy is a side benefit of having good low
> speed torque ..
> or ability to operate on non-fossile fuel,
> or other benefits and features of diesels.
>
> they also have considerable downsides in my opinion and experience.
> I am keeping just one good diesel vanagon in case gasoline gets difficult
> to get .
>
> and ...nationally the price is really dropping ..to under $ 3 a gallon for
> gasoline in some places.
> One thing about gaoline..
> we depend 1000 % on 'the system' to get that precious juice.
>
> if anything messes that up ...diesel and plant-based fuels could be very
> handy to be able to run on.
>
> gas is nice though !
> speaking of torque..
> I have read about TDI syncro vanagons that will go straight up the
> steepest dirt bank you could imagine ..
> at idle, not even touching the 'gas pedal.'  That's torque baby.
>
> I'd say this overall..
> for high speed use ..gasoline is real nice, just a bit expensive to run.
> for industrial and low speed use ...diesel has an advantage.
> and I HOPE subaru diesels don't smoke and stink like some diesel can !
>
> it's all good ..
> just don't leave the damn things sitting around running !
>
> that's what is SO NICE about gasoline engines..
> they're smooth and quiet and *people shut them off* !
>
> Scott
> honorble discharge veteran.
>
>  On 11/13/2013 2:02 PM, Al Knoll wrote:
>
> It is the shape of the graph that is important not the scales.  Send me the
> graph data and I'll make a converted graph for all to share.  Or send me a
> large scale picture 5x7 inches of the graph and I'll go from there.
>
> Diesel torque curves as you know are very different from gasoline torque
> curves.  To generate thrust, the force that pushes your vanagon down the
> road, the torque from the engine, is passed through the transmission
> reduction gearing out through the drive axles to the wheel spindles.  If
> you have 100 lbs/ft of torque at the drive axle and it is being resolved
> through a moment arm of one foot (the distance from the center of the axle
> to the ground via the wheel and tire radii) you achieve 100lbs of thrust or
> push from the contact patch of the tire to the vehicle.
>
> Adjusting the example numbers to fit the particular instance of your van is
> left as a pretty simple exercise.  I don't have your numbers but I can help
> you figure it all out.
>
> The most interesting thing is that it uses SUBARU clutch bits not some
> singlesourced specialty item that may suddenly become NLA if the fellow in
> Palmdale  or Tacomadness WA, fades away.
>
> Take a drive in a diesel vanagon of any sort and see how you like it.
> Might not be your cup of tea.
>
> It will take years to recover the cost of putting this in your van based on
> diesel vs gasoline prices.  Ask the fellow what his particular gearing is,
> what he achieves in fuel consumption on the road, then work the numbers to
> see how long it will take to recover the investment you have planned.
> Unless of course you have Tom Hanks in your pocket.
>
> EG  if the fuel cost differential is 20% more for diesel and the fuel
> consumption is 20% less than gasoline it's a fuel wash.  No gain.  Only the
> expense and problems of removing and installing a newish motor into a
> ancient diva in decline.
>
> Run the numbers, drive a diesel, a turbo if you have access to one, report
> back to the volks on the list.
>
> Happy trails.
>
> Pensionerd.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM, levi hawkins <b1levi@yahoo.com> <b1levi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> What concerns me is that this leaves so many (to me) unanswered questions.
>
> There is the ad on samba which says "everything needed" but there's no
> mention of transmission?
> Is it included? If not is an adapter needed?
>
> And that engine spec graph... In kw and nm, (fine if you're in Europe) no
> indication of what r.p.m. we're looking at. A more modern, detailed graph
>
> Dozen more questions. ...seems like there should be more attention to
> details, or is it just me?
>
>
>
>
>
>