Public Apology to Jim Beam (regarding recent dieselgate vents)

This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-10, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
> This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
> that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
> out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
> I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
> there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.

Well I sure hope that you learned your lesson!

On 10/5/2015 12:42 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-10, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>> This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
>> that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
>> out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
>> I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
>> there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.
>
> Well I sure hope that you learned your lesson!

The "conspiracy" is in fact irrefutable evidence.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:24:28 -0500, "." > wrote:

>On 10/5/2015 12:42 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-10, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>>> This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
>>> that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
>>> out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
>>> I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
>>> there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.
>>
>> Well I sure hope that you learned your lesson!
>
>The "conspiracy" is in fact irrefutable evidence.

Lack of evidence of a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy because
they conspire to hide the evidence!!!

On 10/5/2015 6:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:24:28 -0500, "." > wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2015 12:42 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-10, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>>>> This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
>>>> that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
>>>> out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
>>>> I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
>>>> there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.
>
>>> Well I sure hope that you learned your lesson!
>
>> The "conspiracy" is in fact irrefutable evidence.
>
> Lack of evidence of a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy because
> they conspire to hide the evidence!!!

Not surprisingly, you've failed to understand (should you
not have been kidding): "irrefutable evidence keeps diesel
passenger cars out of the US ...". That evidence is that they
are simply too inherently dirty, but when configured to
actually meet US standards, become too underpowered
and expensive to attract an audience.

In article >, . > wrote:
>Not surprisingly, you've failed to understand (should you
>not have been kidding): "irrefutable evidence keeps diesel
>passenger cars out of the US ...". That evidence is that they
>are simply too inherently dirty, but when configured to
>actually meet US standards, become too underpowered
>and expensive to attract an audience.

Perhaps, but I think more significantly, the mind of the American consumer is
still reeling from the experience of the GM diesels of the 1970s, which were
so terrible they gave not only diesels but automobiles in general a bad name.

Ask anyone of my generation about diesel cars and they will have a story about
their neighbor who bought an oldsmobile that exploded.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 10/5/2015 1:44 PM, . wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 6:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:24:28 -0500, "." > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/5/2015 12:42 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-10, I hate front
>>>> wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>>>>> This is a public apology ot Jim Beam, whose previous assertions
>>>>> that there is a conspiracy to keep diesel passenger cars
>>>>> out of the US populace reach I was promptly ridiculing.
>>>>> I apologize to you, Sir, and now AM a believer
>>>>> there is a conspirancy against small diesels in the US of A.
>>
>>>> Well I sure hope that you learned your lesson!
>>
>>> The "conspiracy" is in fact irrefutable evidence.
>>
>> Lack of evidence of a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy because
>> they conspire to hide the evidence!!!
>
> Not surprisingly, you've failed to understand (should you
> not have been kidding): "irrefutable evidence keeps diesel
> passenger cars out of the US ...". That evidence is that they
> are simply too inherently dirty, but when configured to
> actually meet US standards, become too underpowered
> and expensive to attract an audience.

I drove a 2L turbo diesel in the UK. It was just wonderful with a big,
flat, torque curve that felt like a bigger engine. Passing at 65 MPH was
a piece of cake. It got 40 MPG too. What's not to like?

I was surprised that most people in Wales were driving diesels. OTOH,
with performance like that, who needs gas? As they say, what you can't
see can't harm you.

On 10/5/2015 7:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, . > wrote:
>> Not surprisingly, you've failed to understand (should you
>> not have been kidding): "irrefutable evidence keeps diesel
>> passenger cars out of the US ...". That evidence is that they
>> are simply too inherently dirty, but when configured to
>> actually meet US standards, become too underpowered
>> and expensive to attract an audience.
>
> Perhaps, but I think more significantly, the mind of the American consumer is
> still reeling from the experience of the GM diesels of the 1970s, which were
> so terrible they gave not only diesels but automobiles in general a bad name.

I'm not so sure, that was almost 40 years ago after all. I didn't
give a second thought to issues with cars built in the 20's when
I bought and drove vehicles in the 60's.

> Ask anyone of my generation about diesel cars and they will have a story about
> their neighbor who bought an oldsmobile that exploded.
> --scott

But the the problem wasn't the engine so much as it was
the lack of a water/fuel separator and contaminated fuel.

"." > wrote in :

> On 10/5/2015 7:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, . > wrote:
>>> Not surprisingly, you've failed to understand (should you
>>> not have been kidding): "irrefutable evidence keeps diesel
>>> passenger cars out of the US ...". That evidence is that they
>>> are simply too inherently dirty, but when configured to
>>> actually meet US standards, become too underpowered
>>> and expensive to attract an audience.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I think more significantly, the mind of the American
>> consumer is still reeling from the experience of the GM diesels of
>> the 1970s, which were so terrible they gave not only diesels but
>> automobiles in general a bad name.
>
> I'm not so sure, that was almost 40 years ago after all. I didn't
> give a second thought to issues with cars built in the 20's when
> I bought and drove vehicles in the 60's.
>
>> Ask anyone of my generation about diesel cars and they will have a
>> story about their neighbor who bought an oldsmobile that exploded.
>> --scott
>
> But the the problem wasn't the engine so much as it was
> the lack of a water/fuel separator and contaminated fuel.

no the problem was they built a diesel out of a gas eng block that
couldnt handel the pounding and by being cheep they runed the market for
many years to come. KB

On 10/6/2015 9:25 AM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> "." > wrote in :
>
>>> Ask anyone of my generation about diesel cars and they will have a
>>> story about their neighbor who bought an oldsmobile that exploded.
>>> --scott
>
>> But the the problem wasn't the engine so much as it was
>> the lack of a water/fuel separator and contaminated fuel.
>
> no the problem was they built a diesel out of a gas eng block that
> couldnt handel the pounding and by being cheep they runed the market for
> many years to come. KB

Wrong!!! Urban legend. They were purpose built. Do your homework.