Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wrong Fuel Chokes Presidential Limo

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the so-this-doesn't-happen-only-to-my-brother dept.

Transportation 612

An anonymous reader writes "Fueling your car with the wrong type of fuel happens even to POTUS. This happens when you put gasoline instead of diesel in the tank. ...." And Yes, the presidential limo really is a diesel. What about clean, renewable solar?

cancel ×

612 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233791)

The link is to a story which says the correct fuel was used.

Re:Um... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233839)

They were so freaked out by OMG diesel!! in a car they assumed something must be wrong.

Re:Um... (5, Interesting)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233897)

I found it interesting to see that because of bad previous experience, Americans have a huge biais against diesel which is common in Europe. Meanwhile, because of bad previous experience, European have a huge biais against automatic gear shifting which is common in the US.

I guess everybody is just as biased :)

Re:Um... (5, Funny)

madhatter256 (443326) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234191)

The reason automatics rule in the US is because no one has time to use a manual. We are all busy texting, talking on the phone, eating, watching movies and sleeping. Sometimes, a few of those things at the same time... We only have two hands a knee to drive with!

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234203)

Americans don't have a "huge bias against Diesels". We just can't buy any. Thanks to our government.

If Ford, GM, or Chrysler released a compact pickup with a Diesel engine, I would go buy one immediately. I want one so bad that I'd buy a Mahindra if they could actually get them imported. My DREAM car is a 1989-1995 Toyota Hilux Diesel 4-door with a manual transmission.

And I'm not alone. Read automotive blogs and you'll see.

Why can't I have one? Because our NANNY GOVERNMENT has rigged the emissions and mileage games so that the only cars sitting in dealer lots are enormous gasoline guzzling full size trucks.

Re:Um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234399)

And I'm not alone

Yeah you are. There are already diesel options in the US. Maybe they only meet 95% of your preferred criteria instead of 100%, but they're out there. You want a small truck and it's only available in big trucks and cars. Someone else wants one in a 5 speed but it only comes in 4 speeds and automatics. The list goes on.

We all have our excuses, but the bottom line is that selection is limited because no one buys them. This includes you.

Re:Um... (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234471)

Because our NANNY GOVERNMENT has rigged the emissions and mileage games so that the only cars sitting in dealer lots are enormous gasoline guzzling full size trucks.

Not only that, Americans love having high torque at low engine revolutions, something gasoline engines are bad at but where diesel excels.

That's why all those trucks have 5-liter V8s in them where they should have a 2.5 liter TDi.

It's doubleplus-lose.

you forgot the sacasm sign. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234515)

Yes there is markup code for that. ;)

Re:Um... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234207)

Americans have an ongoing bias against diesel because there's so many smelly diesels around. If you don't maintain them well then they stink. Mine is old enough to stink until it warms up but in good enough condition to stop stinking then. Funny thing is, my car stinks less and is less toxic before warmup than all but the newest gassers.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234425)

Funny thing is, my car stinks less and is less toxic before warmup than all but the newest gassers.

De-Luuuuuuuu-Sional

Re:Um... (3, Informative)

Stargoat (658863) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234221)

I am an American. I've got a diesel VW Jetta Sportwagen with about 50,000 miles. I'm getting about 44 MPG (combined city highway) during the summer, about 39 during the winter. I do not have large batteries that will need to be recycled or tossed into a landfill next year. My pollutants spewed per mile are lower than a petrol engine.

I previously had a Hyundai Elantra (a petrol car that is not bad on fuel consumption). When I bought the new diesel, my fuel bill dropped almost in half.

The pickup on my diesel is good. Very nice torque. I did make sure to put a nice bright yellow sticker on the outside of my gas tank cover stating Diesel Only. There's another provided by VW on the inside.

I would strongly recommend anyone to buy a diesel. They are great cars.

Re:Um... (5, Insightful)

rherbert (565206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234407)

I doubt you're really an American if you use the word "petrol."

Re:Um... (1)

Stargoat (658863) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234487)

Heh. I'm about as American as they come.

I find the word petrol is the easiest way of creating a strong distinction between gasoline (a word some Americans simply associate with fuel) and diesel for conversation purposes.

Also, there is a growing tendency for convergence of the English dialect and the American dialect. I imagine it will only be another decade or three before there's virtually no difference between a London and New York accent.

Re:Um... (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234537)

Europeans talk about how much they dislike automatics but they've become increasingly popular. I wish I could find the stats, but the number of automatics being purchased has grown dramatically. I'm convinced the primary reason why manuals continue to have an edge is because they're still a good deal less expensive than the automatic option. If prices were to equalize, or even reverse, as is the case in the US sometimes, there would be an immediate and dramatic shift towards automatics.

I'll always prefer a manual over an automatic, but only because it's more entertaining and satisfying to drive. There's no functional advantage whatsoever to an automatic for 98% of the driving public. The fact that some manual cars offer rev matching and hill start assist makes manual transmissions more irrelevant than ever before. At that point you're just pretending to drive stick. Might as well just embrace progress and go with an automated manual, which is actually functionally superior.

Re:Um... (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233891)

No, the story says the Secret Service says the correct fuel was used... but an Israeli official is adamant that it was the incorrect fuel... and as the second link helps establish for you that it's known the limos are diesel...

"The correct gas was used." - diesel is not gas!

Re:Um... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234035)

But then the first link claims that the limos run on gasoline.

I'm not sure I care anymore. :)

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234165)

Petrol is not a gas as you put it into the tank either...

Re:Um... (1)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234311)

Yes, gasoline doesn't come in gaseous form and petrol isn't petroleum.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234259)

Probably the wrong type of diesel. Here in the States, we use ultra-low sulfur; if the engine is designed specifically for that fuel, using "dirty" diesel will foul it up with a quickness.

Switched to diesel for my daily driver last year, and couldn't be happier. Jetta TDI with better horsepower, emissions ratings, and real MPG than any of my previous sedans. If they ever start selling the Amarok here, I'll trade in the F150, but, for now, it just sits in the driveway -- far too expensive to actually drive anywhere.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234465)

The word "gas" when used in the context of motor vehicles, simply generically means "fuel" anymore. It's not necessarily intended to mean gasoline (or "petrol" for you Brits).

Whether or not the correct type of fuel was used in the limo may not matter... since the limo is equipped with the infamous duracrap 6.6 diesel engine, well-known for its unreliability and cantankerousness.

Re:Um... (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234523)

"The correct gas was used." - diesel is not gas!

Neither is petrol at room temperature (for budding young scientists, I am not suggesting an experiment to find the boiling point of petrol).

Re:Um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234057)

Another editorial fail for Timmy. Can we get a TimmyFail tag?

Re:Um... (3, Funny)

Peristaltic (650487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234253)

#TIMMAH!

Re:Um... (1)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234327)

Timmy!

Re:Um... (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234067)

This issue is (we have been talking about this on autoblog) that the media has the story backwards, claiming that diesel was put in the tank and it is the wrong fuel. however this limo is built on the truck platform and runs the 6.7 litre diesel engine. I have seen numerous articles on the issue since yesterday all saying that its a gas engine however it is not.

in typical /. fashion I didnt RTFA, but i am assuming they have it wrong like every other article so far ive seen

Re:Um... (1)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234113)

You expected /. editors to actually look at the story before posting a summary?!?!? You must be new here.

Re:Um... (2, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234129)

Neither the submitter nor the editor read the story. And "OMG Diesel means black smoke clouds."

Idiots. Makes me sad to be an American.

Actually, a lot of things make me sad to be an American.

Happened to me (3, Informative)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233801)

Ran into this a couple of times in the Army before we eliminated all gasoline vehicles. Not fun.

So, uh... (3, Funny)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233809)

Why aren't diesel spouts square?

Re:So, uh... (3, Informative)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233827)

They're bigger than gasoline spouts. So you can't put diesel in your gasser, but you can put gas in your diesel.

Re:So, uh... (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233931)

Which makes sense because gasoline / petrol is more common than diesel. But as I understand it, diesel in a gasoline / petrol engine is less harmful than the reverse situation - so it's all a bit unfortunate!

Re:So, uh... (4, Informative)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234393)

Actually it's the reverse.

Diesel engines actually have the broader range of fuels that can be used. Generally, as long as the engine can generate enough pressure to achieve ignition via compression heating, the fuel can be used. Putting gas in isnt actually bad for the engine; it simply lacks the ability to achieve combustion via compression pressures usually found in automotive diesel motors. Gasoline is actually "designed", so to speak, to not combust due to compression, for reasons stated below. so its not harmful, it just simply doesnt run with much power, if at all.

Technically gasoline engines can theoretically use diesel or other fuels if its volatile enough, and the proper air/fuel mixture can be achieved, but the risk is that the fuel is combusted early. ie, not by the spark plug, but the compression cycle itself before the timing cycle can light the sparkplug, which causes engine knock, power loss, and can destroy the engine cylinder eventually. So while the fuel achieves ignition, its not desireable ignition. which is why refined gasoline was developed to have a really really high heat of compression so that it wouldnt combust intil its supposed to.

"Diesel fuel" is actually simpler to produce than gasoline as well, requiring less refinement. Big marine diesels use fuel that is essentially almost basic crude. the major disadvantage is that being less refined the fuel is more prone to gelling in cold temperatures (more viscous components in the molecules).

Re:So, uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234271)

There are 2 different sizes of Diesel nozzles. One is pretty much the same size as a gasser nozzle, but is yellow. The other is the larger "High flow" nozzle for large trucks.

My VW TDI will only accept the smaller one. It's a major pain because stations don't properly label their pumps as to which are "Auto Diesel" and which are "Truck Diesel". I often swipe my card and get everything ready to pump only to pull the handle out of the pump and find it's the wrong size. Usually a problem because some gasser is blocking the only Auto Diesel nozzle.

Solar? (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233833)

The presidential limo is much heavier than a standard limo due to the extra protection it offers. There isn't enough room on the thing to get enough solar power to move it anywhere, let alone a detail like wanting to move it at night. Adding enough batteries to provide reasonable drive time would mean making it even bigger.

There are some problems that solar can't solve. You'd think an editor here would know that.

Re:Solar? (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233977)

You'd think an editor here would know that.

The editor was being witty. And you can tell he succeeded because we're laughing at the joke, not trying to pick it apart and figure out what medical or mental issues the editor may have been suffering from at the time.

Re:Solar? (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234077)

"The editor was being witty."

No, no he wasn't. It was neither quick nor inventive. It was boring, predictable and obvious.

Re:Solar? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234151)

Your sig is on topic as well.

Re:Solar? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234147)

Which is exactly the reason diesel is used. Diesel will give you much more torque than gasoline. This car is heavy due simply to the sheer size, and the extra armor on the vehicle. Given the size, it's probably more environmentally friendly to use Diesel than gas, simply because a vehicle of this size would use so much gas. Although it might be a good idea to use some sort of hybrid technology, since a lot of time it's touring around at low speeds. But it's essential that it have a diesel engine for when it needs to go at speed.

Re:Solar? (0)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234255)

Despite having a Cadillac logo on the front the presidential limo is based on a GMC truck chassis.

Re:Solar? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234377)

But it's essential that it have a diesel engine for when it needs to go at speed.

If they want it to go at speed then they can get more output for less weight than with a gas motor. However, as you say, using a diesel is more environmentally sensitive — more importantly, it provides more range. This means either not having to upgrade the fuel tank to be able to move that behemoth around over a reasonable distance, or being able to increase the fuel capacity such that it can be used to transport the president over long distances in an emergency situation. Even more important is that gasoline is far more volatile than is diesel, and if you are expecting projectiles and/or explosives and/or explosive projectiles, you'd have to be an asshole to choose gasoline over it.

I doubt they're doing this, but they could also build a purely mechanical diesel. My Mercedes can suffer complete electrical system failure and still retain all the important features but forced kickdown, and it's got a four speed automatic transmission. Even the vehicles with automatically leveling rear suspension retain this feature, since it's hydraulically driven. Using a modern chassis makes sense whether your engine is new or old, because the alloys have been updated over time. They could use a GM6.5 as they commonly use in military vehicles, which has the miserable but fully mechanical Stanadyne DB-2 injection pump, and feed it with a traditional mechanical fuel pump. It's nothing to them to build everything with the upgraded durable hard parts.

If all they wanted was speed they could get it by stuffing a V10 in there. The V10 trucks are easily the equal if not the better of the diesels in most situations where you want a lot of output right now, especially in stock form. And the engine takes up less space (Cummins aside) because there's less stuff hanging off of it. Eight liters isn't even a lot by classic American land yacht standards. But I presume they also want range, and the ability to refuel from a military source, and that does mean diesel... but not because of output.

Re: Clean Solar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233843)

Diesel is still better than gas as far as fuel efficiency and power, so I wouldn't complain too much.

Now, if it was a diesel-electric hybrid, then there'd be something to talk about.

WTF Slashdot (0)

chris mazuc (8017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233845)

An official limousine awaiting President Barack Obama's arrival in Israel malfunctioned Wednesday but the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported.

And whats up with the trolling about solar?

Re:WTF Slashdot (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233893)

Everyone else is driving solar cars, maybe the POTUS thinks he's too good.

Re:WTF Slashdot (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234531)

Someone with a four digit UID should really be old enough to know better than to believe a government press release. I mean, even if they were barely old enough to read when they created their account, that ought to make them old enough to distrust the US government.

Not so. (5, Informative)

jewens (993139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233847)

I know I'm breaking the convention of reading before posting, however to quote TFA "the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported."

Re:Not so. (1)

cfulton (543949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234541)

And the Secret Service would never lie or obfuscate to keep secrets secret.

a joke? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233851)

I hope it was.... the limos' primary function is getting the President out of harm's way and into a safe place.... fast. Driven by what are effectively Secret Service stunt drivers.

Diesel? (1)

sosume (680416) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233855)

Perhaps diesel was selected for this particular car with a reason, e.g. better resilience against EMP attacks, or maybe the extended mileage and less danger of explosions? Or is it just a coincidence?

Re:Diesel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233985)

"better resilience against EMP attacks"

As long as the engine hasn't been encumbered by a bunch of electronic crap your not kidding. I was driving a farm tractor once upon a time and the entire electrical system shorted out, gauges, lights, radio, everything electronic was dead. The engine, power steering, hydraulics all kept running as if nothing had happened. I was told keep going until I was done with the field and then park it by the repair barn.

Re:Diesel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234059)

According to what I read, the Limo is built on a Chevrolet Kodiak chassis. That's a medium-duty truck, and almost certainly using a Diesel engine as well.

Re:Diesel? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234119)

two things you should probably know:
1) Fuel type is irrelevant regarding EMP
2) Cars are immune from EMP. Yes, yes I know. decades of bad apocalyptic movies and thos idiotic doomsayers go on and on on how EMP's would stop cars.
At worse it would make a couple of fault light come on erroneously.

Re:Diesel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234303)

Not being a smart-ass, just interested: Do you have references for #2?

Re:Diesel? (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234527)

Cars are immune from EMP

Cars *used* to be immune from EMP. Modern cars have electronic fuel injection completely controlled by solid-state microprocessors. EMP will stop them cold.

Re:Diesel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234155)

Two reasons (if true, reading the artical makes it unclear). First it is based off a commercial truck frame, it's chosen because a truck frame has no problem handling 8 tons of armor, and the truck was designed for diesel because it is far cheaper to run in a commercial situation. The other reason is the presidental limosione is operated by the US military who runs almost everything they have (except fighter jets) off of diesel/JP-8, this makes mis fueling a non problem and greatly simplifies logistics.

Worst summary ever (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233859)

Okay, the article has probably changed, but the linked story now refutes everything said in the summary, including the limo being diesel.

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

Hugh Pickens writes (1984118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233957)

Sometimes the wire services will keep the same URL but change the text in the story and even the headline as more facts become available.

I had this happen to me a few years ago on a story I submitted about Fedex misplacing some radioactive rods.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1948245/FedEx-Misplaces-Radioactive-Rods [slashdot.org]

By the time the story was posted the rods had been found and the linked story was a non-story with a new headline:

"FedEx Finds Radioactive Shipment That Vanished Between N.D. and Tenn."

Some newspapers like the NY Times will post a correction at the bottom of the story whenever something changes in the story.

Many don't.

Non-story (3, Insightful)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233867)

The first link says it wasn't the wrong fuel. The second link says they speculate it's diesel. WTF people, can't you read?

Diesel is the best choice (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233869)

Because we cannot put the range into an electric armored limosine. Diesel is far more efficient at moving heavier vehicles than gasoline. Natural gas is good, but you still have range and refueling issues.

In a national crisis when the President may have be relocated across several states via said limosine. Do you really want POTUS stranded on a highway?

TROLL (and a lame one at that)

Re:Diesel is the best choice (1)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233995)

In a national crisis when the President may have be relocated across several states via said limosine

You speak of the President like a super hero who can single-handedly save the world... we have fail safes and backups in case something happens to him. It's not like the country would go to hell because the President was stuck in Kansas.

Re:Diesel is the best choice (2)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234347)

No, but Kansas might go to hell if he couldn't leave.

Not trolling; the few times the POTUS has been here in town, traffic gets messed up all day. It's obnoxious. About 20 minutes after Air Force One is wheels-up, things are back to normal, and people can get from place to place.

umm.... (1)

netwarerip (2221204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233871)

I wonder if they realize that can cause a pretty serious explosion?
Cue presidential assassination conspiracy theorists in 3.....2.....

First line in linked article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233877)

"... the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported. "

uuhmmm.. solar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233911)

Clean renewable solar won't push that tank around.

Modern Diesel... (1)

Draque (1367509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233929)

is less polluting and more efficient than typical gas. Although 30 years ago that wasn't the case, modern chemistry has changed stuff. So step off the hate on diesel. Per mile traveled, it's better for the environment.

Re:Modern Diesel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234091)

There's also the fact that a diesel engine can burn jet fuel, which could be 'siphoned' from Air Force One or a backup plane. Plus, a small amoung of gasoline addeed to a tank of diesel doesn't kill the engine, and even a fairly large amount won't stop the engine quickly. In fact, for my old diesel the dealer recommended adding a gallon or two of gasoline to the tank when filling up every month or so in winter to absorb water.

Re:Modern Diesel... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234439)

Wrong..again.

They cost more.
They have lower Cost-effectiveness for oil reduction
Worse in tailpipe pollution

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/cleaner_fuels/cleaner-diesel/the-diesel-dilemma-diesels.html [ucsusa.org]

Tailpipe emissions:
Gasoline emissions: 8887 grams CO2 per gallon
Diesel Emissions: 10180 grams per gallon.

The Eco Cruze gets 42 MPG
8887/42 = ~211 grams of CO2 per mile.

The Cruze Diesel gets 42 MPG.
10180/42= ~242 grams of CO2 per mile.

I choose the cruse becasue there are very close in shape.

And this doesn't even get into to particulate matter and carcinogens emitted by diesel.

herp derp trolling for more pageviews! (-1, Flamebait)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233951)

timothy, you moron, in fuel efficiency and hydrocarbon pollution, diesel is actually better for the environment than regular gas.

Re:herp derp trolling for more pageviews! (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234021)

Better for the environment but not better for people. Diesel exhaust causes asthma.

Re:herp derp trolling for more pageviews! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234209)

Modern diesels have particulate filters for the soot and exhaust treatment (or EGR strategies) for the NOx emissions.

Re:herp derp trolling for more pageviews! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234401)

Any particulate exhaust can trigger asthma attacks.

That said, modern US consumer vehicles do not emit what is typically thought of as "diesel exhaust". Emissions standards in the States have necessitated a much cleaner and more refined, low-sulfur diesel fuel, and a complex system of exhaust scrubbers. Cars using these technologies typically emit cleaner air than their gasoline-powered cousins, though the exhaust systems do require more frequent maintenance.

Commercial vehicles are sometimes governed by these same restrictions, but it varies much more widely State-by-State than does the restriction on consumer vehicles. You will still see black smoke rolling out of the stacks on log- and dump-trucks, for example.

Re:herp derp trolling for more pageviews! (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234467)

Better for the environment but not better for people. Diesel exhaust causes asthma.

As it turns out, gasoline vehicles emit plenty of soot [slashdot.org] , and the soot they release is more dangerous because it is finer. The finer soot is more difficult to expel from the lungs. If you can blame asthma on transportation fuel, it's gasoline exhaust causing it. We burn more of it (on the roads, that is) and more of it is burned in poorly regulated vehicles, and finally the soot that is produced is more hazardous. Further, since gasoline is more volatile than diesel fuel, when it is sprayed into the atmosphere unburned (as all vehicles tend to do shortly after start) it is more hazardous then as well.

Signed,
Asthmatic owner of two indirectly-injected diesels, whose asthma is readily activated by gasoline vehicles, but not by diesels, as repeatedly demonstrated when I have to move my lady's Astro and one of my diesels around on the same morning.

Sigh (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233963)

Given that that's possibly the shortest Slashdot story ever, it manages to make only two assertions, both of which are confirmed as false (by the linked articles themselves, no less).

And I heard about this story about 6 hours ago on my way in to work and, honestly, didn't care then.

No longer "News for Nerds"
Now "Inaccurate insights for imbeciles".

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234469)

But it's a chance for the solar power crack because HURR DURR SOLYNDRA.

Math (1, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234001)

Math [ucsd.edu] is why the presidents limo isn't run by solar power. The idea that you power something like that by solar is absurd. Solar power cars tend to way as little as possible [globalmarket.com] . While I don't specifics any more than any other lay person the presidents limo is built on a heavy duty truck chassis, is armored and it weighs [jalopnik.com] quite a bit. These are mutually exclusive things that probably won't be resolvable for a few centuries at best.

Re:Math (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234095)

Math [ucsd.edu] is why the presidents limo isn't run by solar power.

So Paul Ryan could use a solar powered limo, since math isn't interesting to him.

Re:Math (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234497)

Solar power cars tend to way as little as possible. [globalmarket.com]

Solar power cars tend to WEIGH as little as possible ... and English is another common failure these days by politicians and an amazing (and growing) number of people.

Re:Math (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234499)

Math is why the presidents limo isn't run by solar power.

Greed is the reason why the president's limo isn't run on biofuels, which is at least much closer to solar power, temporally or physically.

Solar IS Diesel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234027)

The funny thing is, the Hebrew word for Diesel transliterates as "solar".
So maybe it actually WAS solar all along.

It will choke on it too! :-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234031)

It will choke on it too! :-D

What a horrible summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234073)

Even the submitters don't read the articles on Slashdot anymore, it seems.

Summary: Fueling your car with the wrong type of fuel happens even to POTUS.
Story: the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used

Summary: presidential limo really is a diesel.
Story: Donovan [spokesman for the Secret Service,] said the vehicle actually doesn't have a diesel engine and runs on unleaded gasoline
    also: Because the vehicle was built on a Chevrolet Kodiak chassis, whose engine runs on diesel fuel, it was believed that the limo also ran on diesel.

Summary: What about clean, renewable solar?
Story: What the hell is this even doing in your summary? It has nothing to do with the story and doesn't even make sense for what is essentially a multi-ton armored personnel carrier to use solar, a technology - at least in regards to automotive propulsion - that is still in its infancy.

Not the first time (1)

GallopingGreen (183511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234075)

Solar? (1, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234083)

I thought this was Slashdot - news for nerds and all that.

A simple back of the envelope calculation will tell you why the presidential limo (or any practical car) is not solar powered.

It *could* be battery powered, charged by a solar power station, but I'd rather not put yet another $100K - $200K of taxpayer money into the presidential limo (which already costs $300K) to add enough batteries to give that heavy car a reasonable range. Plus the presidential limo is not a good use-case for current electric power technology. It's not like the President uses it only to commute from the Whitehouse to the Capital building every day -- it's role includes the possibility of long-distance travel and every stop is a potential security risk.

Maybe Barry should try some ETHANOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234097)

After all, the swine in D.C. have rammed it down everyone
else's throat, despite the fact that it screws up fuel systems
in older cars ( of which there are many still in service ) and
reduces fuel economy.

Archer Daniels Midland : I hope you all die horribly of incurable cancer.

Re:Maybe Barry should try some ETHANOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234455)

Off the top of my head, I'd say because US gasoline fuel regulations/restrictions have jack shit to do with diesel pumps in Israel. Just a guess, though...

"What about clean, renewable solar?" (1)

sidragon.net (1238654) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234109)

Because armored cars like that weigh 10-20 times as much as regular cars.

Re:"What about clean, renewable solar?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234257)

Not to mention that even if it wasn't armored, limos are heavy on their own. And even without the armor, the presidential limo likely has a substantial communications and office suite to go along with it to give him communications access at all times. Diesel is the only thing with enough power to manage it.

Although you could go with "why not bio-diesel?" It would make a statement as environmental protection is one of his platforms.

Why oh why? (2)

leadfoot (159248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234127)

Why oh why is this a story on Slashdot?

Re:Why oh why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234219)

..because the Messiah had a bad day. It must be known!!!

Heavy Armor Needs Heavy Horsepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234131)

The presidential limo is a super-heavy rolling ten ton bomb-proof fortress, intended to defend against RPGs, and it also has to anticipate the performance needed for high-speed car chases.

Puny solar power cannot stand up to such requirements.

Don't lead by example (-1, Flamebait)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234215)

This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.

If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.

Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.

Re:Don't lead by example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234391)

This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.

Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!

Re:Don't lead by example (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234477)

This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.

Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!

Did I say that? No. I said how I think the action of a President can trickle down through the economy when it comes to goods. Did you FINISH reading what I typed or just react to the first statement?

Re:Don't lead by example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234441)

Perhaps the car that the President is transported in has more important requirements such as keeping the occupants safe, rather than making political statements. Talk about leading by rhetoric and simple-mindedness...

Amusing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234237)

but not as amusing as when this happened...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BvABn7L_So

Next story (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234241)

Next story is going to be about the failure of the military branch of government to get with the program and modify all military vehicles to run on solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells.

The environmentalist crowd won't be happy until American tanks and aircraft carriers are as environmentally friendly as possible (of-course discounting the whole "blown people up with depleted uranium shells" thing...)

Nahhh (0)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234335)

I'm sure the fact that Pres Obama has deliberately snubbed Israel several times, as well as offering perhaps the most-obviously-lukewarm support of any US president for our sole worthwhile ally in the region...has nothing at all to do with this "oops".

I've said this all along... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43234355)

He should have gone with Hertz as the Presidential Rental Car company; a bro in the business so to speak...

CAPTCHA = manager

Nice troll, Timothy (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43234389)

Diesel is as close to renewable as a liquid fuel can get. We can effectively grow it in a field, which we cannot do with standard fuel. But of course as most American consumers are still stuck in the 1970's mindset of Diesel being unreliable, unclean, and loud, this statement will draw eyeballs with minimal risk. However as slashdot is allegedly in the 21st century people who work for it should be aware of the reality of today's Diesel fuel.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?