I thought their was a couple of groups doing it?..... But now things are quiet. some are waiting to see what comes down the pipeline, and are working on issues of compatibility between new and old software.

New and Old Diesel Engines Remain Compatible with Biodiesel
http://www.biodieselmagazine.c....jsp?article_id=3741
By Jennifer Weaver
From the October 2009 Issue Biodiesel Magazine
As the owner of a newer model Volkswagen Jetta TDI and a biodiesel fan, I took particular interest in concerns related to engine oil dilution in diesels using in-cylinder post-injection technology. Alarming rumors about catastrophic results from use of biodiesel blends higher than B5 have trickled through discussion forums and industry gossip.

Like many biodiesel myths, rumors about the incompatibility of biodiesel blends with new light-duty diesel vehicles’ emission control technologies are, for the most part, inaccurate. Of course, B5 blends are virtually indistinguishable from diesel fuel in terms of engine performance and compatibility with emission control systems, making all diesel engines easily compatible with blends up to at least B5.

Reports about incompatibility stem from concerns about the possibility of increased engine oil dilution that can come into play with the use of biodiesel blends higher than B10 in some of the new light-duty diesel vehicles that utilize an emissions control system with in-cylinder post-injection. This system utilizes a late in-cylinder injection of raw fuel to burn off the material collected on particulate traps required by U.S. EPA to meet stringent, new emissions standards for particulate matter. The design is predominantly limited to the light-duty diesel product offerings from Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes and BMW. While they are a small portion of the total U.S. diesel market, they are among the best known light-duty diesel passenger options in the states—my diesel Jetta included.

So I was pleased to learn that avoiding operation concerns with in-cylinder post-injection technology using higher biodiesel blends could be as easy as implementing more frequent oil changes. The fact is, some amount of oil dilution in diesel engines will occur over time with normal operation even with regular diesel fuel, leading to oil degradation and the need for oil replacement. But with use of in-cylinder post-injection, the oil dilution impacts can increase whether fueled with a biodiesel blend or petroleum diesel alone. The late injection events increase the opportunity for unburned fuel to reach the cylinder walls and, in turn, enter the lubricating oil. With conventional diesel fuel, some of it can boil out of the lube oil, lessening the long-term dilution effect. But it still occurs. This effect, however, is accentuated with biodiesel because of its higher boiling point relative to petroleum diesel, which can lead to more fuel being retained in the lube oil. The increase in oil dilution can be easily addressed with an oil change and can be further mitigated through a proactive engine oil change service interval (e.g., consider an oil change at 7,500 miles instead of 10,000 miles).

Volkswagen’s concern lies in the fact that their normal 10,000-mile service interval, which is longer than the industry standard, may allow more than the desired amount of engine oil dilution to occur. However, recent research studies by Volkswagen as well as the National Renewable Energy Lab both concluded that, despite the slightly higher dilution levels with biodiesel blends above B10, the absolute level of viscosities still remained in an uncritical range for the applied oil quality, and there were no negative impacts on vehicle emissions, engine performance, or parts wear as a result of the biodiesel use. Volkswagen and NREL are also planning further studies on this issue. Other light-, medium- and heavy-duty diesel engine manufactures do not generally use late in-cylinder injection of raw fuel and have not reported problems with B20 compatibility, or excessive engine oil dilution in their new diesel models. They have opted for systems that utilize an exhaust-stream injection of fuel to regenerate the particulate traps, therefore mitigating the risk of engine oil dilution.

Volkswagen’s warranty position on biodiesel remains in support of blends up to B5, although it is currently conducting further research on higher biodiesel blends. However, the bottom line is that with more frequent oil changes, which would still be a longer mileage span than any gas guzzler, and the responsible use of high-quality biodiesel blends meeting ASTM specifications, users can still fuel up confidently with blends up to B20 without concern for engine performance.

Look for a white paper, on “2010 Diesel Technology and Biodiesel Compatibility,” coming soon and available for NBB members a www.biodiesel.org.

Jennifer Weaver with ASG Renaissance is the OEM Outreach & Education Program Manager for NBB

I'd ask Jennifer Weaver to put B100 in that thing & drive it around for 10,000 miles and THEN check the oil.

Sorry, I really get tired of the NBB crap-o-la. Or as I call them the National Biodiesel Board of Soybean Farmers.

"B20 is all anyone ever uses...."
Yeah, right....and pigs fly!

I'd like to personally tell the NBB to take a flyin F ing leap, what we need is an International Individual Biodiesel Producers Cooperative Association (IIBPCA).

Fab I'm with ya 100%

A while back I posted a picture of a B20 pump at a Pilot station just outside Gainesville FL. B20 is the only option at that station at the auto pumps. On the way back up the road couple months back I happened to stop in there again for a fill up.. They have added a NEW sticker just below the big green B20 tag..




Found it worth another posting since it shows that Pilot is serious about biodiesel and didn't just bail on the project in fears of possible repercussions.

-Ken

quote:

Originally posted by Kenr34:

The problem with signs like that....

I'm driving a 1981 VW....

While I haven't looked specifically at the manual... I don't think I actually inherited one...

Well, anyway, I don't think it says anything in the manual about running biodiesel or methyl esters. And, the manufacturer would likely wish that the thing would just DIE.

Same thing with E85.
I'd guess that there is a very large number of cars that will run just fine on it. Whenever I can find a tankful, it goes into my '91 Ranger.

Or, if the timing needs to be changed (for 100% E85), then the majority of the cars on the road could be "converted" for a few pennies each.

Oh...
And, as far as manufactures recommendations...
This came from the VW Chilton's Manual, Page 42:

quote:

LEVEL CHECK

NOTE: Volkswagen advises that the manual transmission lubricant need never be checked or changed.

VW also recommends you entrust all transmission service to the dealer.

One has to wonder if the "official advice" is meant to be self-serving.

VW probably never bet on their cars lasting long enough to ever need the tranny fluid replaced.
Say's something about VW's own idea of life expectancy of their cars LOL!

I realize that this is a BIODIESEL thread and not a SAVE THE WORLD thread.

However, I'm disappointed by some postings which condemn emissions regulations because they make certain things more difficult. A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air. You might also gain personally by increasing your mileage by running your engine very lean, but that might increase NOx, which is undeniably a net BAD tradeoff. (BTW there's no such thing as a "LOCAL atmospheric environmental problem" unless it's in a BioDome.)

A DPF with in-cylinder post-combustion injection is an ugly, wasteful solution to the problem of soot. (It's also CHEAP, which is of course the real reason why engine mfrs did it.) Luckily it seems to be going away already, moving (back) towards in-exhaust fuel/urea injection systems for the future, which have no issues with biodiesel. The best solution to this problem of non-BD compatible emissions equipment is that no one buys vehicles with this system and carmakers come up with a better, although more expensive, solution.

In any case, no one with a conscience can deny that soot, as well as NOx, SO2 and unburned hydrocarbons are all pollutants which need to be reduced to keep our air and water clean. These are addressed holistically in engine design alongside MPG and power output.

I love WVO BD because it greatly reduces the enormous "well-to-tank" costs (economic, environmental, social, military...)of petroleum fuel sourcing and refining.

I think there's a need to be aware of the GLOBAL +/-. Yes, diesel fuel derived from renewable sources MUST be an option, and IMHO it's the unavoidable wave of the future (not just for cars, but for OTR semis, trains and planes... not gonna drive a trailer of tomatoes from LA to Chicago on Li-Ions or fuel cells). But if you're looking at that big picture, and not just on a "hobby" level, BD must be incorporated in a way that makes sense. If you're driving a newly produced 6,000lb vehicle, single occupant, with the DPF knocked out and PCM chipped, thinking you're a clever enviro-crusader because you're running B100 you brewed yourself-- I humbly disagree.

Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say. the DPF system has actually caused more harm then good. The particulates before the DPF was large enough that it would fall to the ground. Now because of DPF system it is so small it can get into the blood stream. Now is that environmentally friendly? The environmentalist would love for us to stop driving diesels, owning animals, plowing fields to grow food. Some times I wonder if their trying to make the human population become extinct! The whole Idea is madness! They have done some good but in the end we the consumer, producer, and technician pay the price!

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air.

I appreciate your post here, but I think that this statement is a little bit too black-and-white. A Jetta TDI 5-speed without these controls could get between 5-10 MPG added fuel economy, AFAIK. Using biodiesel, it already would have dramatically reduced particulates. So, the question we need to ask is, which is more important:

• the amount of overall emissions reduction from the added fuel economy without the added
controls (note: much more valid with biodiesel than diesel, obviously),

or

• the specific reduction in particulate (which would be relatively small when we're talking
about biodiesel) WITH the added controls.

Until I see the numbers, I don't really feel confident answering that question, but I'm skeptical that the DPF is "undeniably a good thing" when the vehicle is already using biodiesel and the fuel economy drop is sizable.

Kumar,

Granted, I haven't seen the numbers either, but even WITHOUT Biodiesel use in diesel vehicles, was a DPF really that big of a gain? In most diesels that they're employed on, there's anywhere from a 15% to 30% reduction in fuel mileage because of it being there. Just so the engine doesn't spew a little black smoke here & there. Most of these newer diesels hardly smoked as it was (I've not seen a newer stock Ford, Chevy, or Dodge diesel smoke under hard acceleration, or if I did, it was mighty faint). Now, chipped & piped, that's a different story. But I still don't agree with the DPF.

To me, it seems the EPA's goal here is to kill the diesel engine from ever having any real viability in the market place at all.

"Hmmmm....let's see...if we force manufacturer's to use DPF's they'll have to restrict air flow into the engines...and then restrict air flow out of the engine....hmmm.....maybe that'll keep people from buying them when they see the fuel mileage drop & put them back into gas cars....yeah, that's the ticket! We gotta get em back into Gas Engine cars!" <sarcasm>Because, you know, Gas engine vehicle emissions are sooooo much cleaner than diesel engines.</sarcasm>

While I agree that emission controls are necessary and that they do help to clean up the air, I just don't buy the DPF one. The supposed benefit to the environment that it produces is completely negated by the consumption of more fuel to make it operate correctly.

I think the EPA went overboard on this one.

So Bandito, I humbly disagree with your take on it.

I also disagree with the folks that think farting cows are contributing to global warming too. However, one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming, Mr. Al Gore Himself (who apparently invented the Internet), is a self-admitted meat eater. Anyone else see the hypocrisy there as well?

Well, Bandito, this got me started...

Let's talk a little about the supposed holier-than-though EPA.
Apparently, even Biodiesel has succumbed to their political BS.

To make and sell Biodiesel in the US, Biodiesel had to be tested to meet the tier I & tier II Health & Human Testing Data. It was successfully tested. The NBB paid for it to be done.

So, why is it that we still have to PAY the NBB to get access to the test results that the EPA already HAS on file to be able to get certified by the EPA to sell it? How does that make sense? If Biodiesel meets ASTM D-6751-09, isn't it "Biodiesel" according to the EPA? Didn't "Biodiesel" apparently pass their standards? Why should I have to resubmit test data that WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED and that they HAVE ON FILE at the EPA? If I meet the ASTM Standard (as endorsed by the EPA), then that should be enough.

Makes about as much sense as the EPA slapping Tier II Bin 5 diesel standards on diesels in the United States. It's just another political organization that's beholden to those with the most money to help them "steer" their legislation.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Look up PM 2.5. That stands for Particulate Matter 2.5 micron and smaller. That's a size that is especially dangerous to health. Bigger particles are more visible (they're the "little black smoke here and there" mentioned above). The 2.5 micron particles aren't visible, so you can't judge their presence by eyeball. The intent of using a particle trap filter is to prevent these size particles from getting out the tailpipe and into your kids lungs.

Conventional diesel is among the greatest sources for PM 2.5. Coal power plants are another.

One SAE report I recently read pointed out that high percentages of biodiesel blends cooked-off ok on the DPF, but took longer to ignite due to a) lower exhaust temperatures and b) reduced build up of particles. This means the computer-controlled cycle is inappropriate for biodiesel use, although it would be theoretically possible to have the computer programmed for biodiesel.

A quick review did not let me find reference to particle size analysis in the health effects study the NBB owns. There is a popular belief that biodiesel exhaust is very clean and healthy, compared to diesel, but I don't know for sure if that belief holds for PM 2.5 - size particles. The PM 2.5 law was enacted in 2006, I believe, so it's probably too new to have been a consideration when the NBB conducted their tests.

I'll keep changing my oil at 3333 miles, to avoid polymerization. I'm rebuilding my VW engine to reduce the smoke as much as possible. I don't use diesel unless I have no alternatives.

Cheers,
JohnO

quote:

Originally posted by johno:
I don't use diesel unless I have no alternatives.

Rustin:
"Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say."
Haha! That's gotta be the most diplomatic way of saying "I disagree" that I've ever heard! I'm totally stealing that.

re particulates, I've also read that it's the small particles that are the really bad ones.
Some questions which need to be answered and not just "assumed" or "it seems to me"d:

1. Does an engine running on biodiesel, compared to the same engine running on D2, produce a greater absolute quantity (not proportion) of the <2.5 micron soot particles? Yes BD is supposed to be less sooty, but exactly how much, of what kind of soot, does it emit?

2. What size particles does a DPF actually catch? I assumed that a DPF would reduce soot (on its face, a good thing) by catching the LARGER soot particles and actually allow the smaller, more toxic particles to go through, like a filter. Does anyone know for a fact if the process is actually more like gas chromatography, where the smaller particles have a higher relative attraction to the media, and stay in?

re "environmentalists", I don't know who is saying we shouldn't plow fields to grow crops! I consider myself an environmentalist but I sure like my wheaties, and my meat, and they definitely don't grow on trees. Plow away. And cut down trees for paper and lumber while you're at it. Sustainable land management, like crop rotation, forest management, hunting, etc is the trick. Clear cutting, strip mining, etc are short term private gains, long term public losses.

Kumar:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air.


I appreciate your post here, but I think that this statement is a little bit too black-and-white.

I think my statement is being misunderstood... I meant: "reducing particulates in the air is undeniably a good thing."

not: A DPF is undeniably a good way to reduce particulates.

A good general description of DPF's can be found here. I haven't yet found a good, general discussion or report on PM2.5 with regards to biodiesel. Some SAE abstracts hint that the catalyzed particle traps reduce PM 2.5 dramatically, and that they work equally well to reduce biodiesel particles as well, but do not say what the total load is. I'll keep looking.

A few years ago, a VW passed the CARB test for zero emissions vehicle while burning biodiesel. That's only indirect evidence that biodiesel burns clean enough to not need additional exhaust filtering. We need a direct test to know for sure.

Cheers,
JohnO

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
I think my statement is being misunderstood.

I appreciate your clarification. There ARE folks out there who would say that a DPF, even an in-cylinder post injection DPF, is undeniably a good thing, and those people, often scientists, drive me crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
Rustin:
"Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say."
Haha! That's gotta be the most diplomatic way of saying "I disagree" that I've ever heard! I'm totally stealing that.

Um... Yeah? You do that. Just so you know I don't want you to get bashed by your friends. I Vote independent and believe in a somewhat capitalistic society. Some would say I am Republican.
Where I am from the phrase "It's too bad we live in a democratic society where it's against the law to beat up a dumb #$%." Now I don't condone unjust violence, or vigilantism. Could they be right?

Be careful how you use my Phrase. You could Alienate your self from your group. and end up in.... mine? That might be a good thing! If your going to do that, You got to get rid of the gas Honda It's unbecoming, You can keep the bike!

Interesting (but old, sorry if this is a re-post) article on particulates from GASOLINE engines. More points for biodiesel, with its lower overall particulate emissions!

Gasoline cars may need particulate filters; PM emission no longer just a diesel issue
Diesel Fuel News, Sept 15, 2003 by Jack Peckham
Newport, R.I. -- Scientists taking real-world emissions samples from cars on the road and in laboratory test centers are finding that gasoline cars emit a lot more particulate matter (PM) than popularly believed.

New data show that PM number emissions from modern gasoline cars--including "normal emitters at high speed and load" and cars with "worn engines with high oil consumption"--may "equal or exceed diesel [PM] levels," according to real-world vehicle testing by University of Minnesota's renowned combustion particle scientists.

Why this could be a big problem: Gasoline PM and semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) emissions can be equally (or even more) "toxic" than diesel PM, as peer-reviewed, published science studies now show (see Diesel Fuel News 9/2/02, p1).

Citing ground-breaking, real-world vehicle emissions test results--published in the December 2002 issue of Toxicological Sciences--Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) vice-president Joe Mauderly points out that SVOC exhaust vapors can be just as "toxic" as PM emission.

In tests, rat lung reactions to these gasoline/diesel vehicle exhaust emissions (without a diesel particulate filter--DPF) included inflammation and tissue damage. Similar reactions in humans "could aggravate asthma and may cause bronchitis" Mauderly explained to the Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction (DEER) workshop here (sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy). What's more, gasoline and diesel exhaust (without a DPF) both provoked mutagenicity in bacteria, a "crude indicator of cancer hazard," he said.

Poorly-maintained "smoking" vehicles were shown to pose the worst health threats, as these put out twice as much SVOC and PM emissions as well-maintained engines. What's more, "the toxicity of those emissions are twice as toxic as those from normal vehicles--[so] you're likely causing four times the respiratory health hazard" with "smoking" vehicles, Mauderly said.