quote:

Originally posted by Bunk:
Why not just use an Oil Mate system with CJ-4 lube oil?

Ken

That is similar to what I had in mind.

Except that 100% of the fuel would be from the lubrication system.

And, I think a "dry sump" as used in race cars would be easier to manage the oil than pulling it out of the oil pan.

Then either veggie oil or biodiesel could be used for lube.

The main problem that people have run into with using veggie as lube seems a relatively short lifespan for the oil with catastrophic results if not renewed.

quote:

you would not get is the power and mileage improvements that have come with the advancements in engine controls.

bullfudge... My '89 Toyota diesel gets 26-28 MPG with NO computer controls, AND meets current emission standards. Don't believe what the marketing mavens con you into thinking.

quote:

Also, you would not get niceities like ABS, Traction control, On Star, or other creature comforts.

Gimmicks for the most part, which won't outlive the warranty.

The important features are all available pre 2000 without all the mileage robbing crap controls that this discussion is about.

AMEN!

Couldn't agree more. The only "creature comfort" that is starting to grow on me is my power windows...kinda nice to be able to open the other window from the driver seat...no way I could reach a crank window in the Dodge like I always did in my Bronco or Neon when they were my daily drivers.

john galt,

I agree with you completely on this point.

I gotta admit I love the heated seats in the Tundra...

Granted, are they needed? Nah....but man, on a cold winter morning they sure make the drive nicer!

And I'm finally learning why people like leather seats (never had those before too....kinda nice!)

But, the old Isuzu still got me from point A to point B in one piece.

I'm gonna miss that old truck!
(The emissions where I lived killed me reregistering it this year. It's gone to live a nice peaceful life in Mississippi where they aren't getting as strict as they are here. They've slowly been tightening diesel emissions in Utah--yes, John, even your '89 Toyota may one day not pass the emissions where I live. They're getting tougher each year. This year did in the Isuzu....)

-Graydon

quote:

They've slowly been tightening diesel emissions in Utah--yes, John, even your '89 Toyota may one day not pass the emissions where I live. They're getting tougher each year. This year did in the Isuzu....)

So it has to pass a level outright? I thought the standards always applied to meeting those for the vehicle's year of manufacture. So as long as you do proper upkeep, you could pass forever and ever.

There is no reason whatsoever that you cant have creature comforts and mileage.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan P.:

So it has to pass a level outright? I thought the standards always applied to meeting those for the vehicle's year of manufacture. So as long as you do proper upkeep, you could pass forever and ever.

Yep. Here in the county I live in they don't care about the year it was made. They measure opacity.

If it doesn't meet a certain maximum opacity level (ie. this year they lowered it down to no more than 20% opacity--in otherwords how dark the smoke is), then it's gone.

They throw your truck on a dyno, chain it down & do 2 tests.
Test 1: Mash the pedal to the floor & get the vehicle up to 50 MPH & take a reading
Test 2: Mash the pedal to the floor in neutral and just "let er go!" and see how much smoke it emits.

If the "cloud of smoke" you emit at ANY POINT IN TIME DURING THE TEST is more than 20% opaque, you're done.

3 years ago the standard was 40, the next year they dropped it down to 35, last year it was 30, but this year they've moved it to 20.

If you have a Turbo it's even lower (they assume Turbo's should be able to burn the fuel better, hence less smoke).

My Isuzu did really well except at one particular point on the RPM range. It'd throw a tiny black puff of smoke right at about 2700-2800 RPM and, well, that was the end of it.

It ran clean at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) and did great at 50 MPH, but during that WOT test, right at the 2700-2800 mark it always threw that black puff...and, well, the truck is in Mississippi now.

I'm sure I probably could've put new injectors in it or rebuilt the IP pump or something (it was an 84), but I really didn't want to mess with it.

The engine ran great though! The guy that got it got a real gem of a truck....

I tend to think that some of the first brew I ever made probably trashed something in the injection pump....it's the first diesel I ever ran Bio in and, well, let's just say not every batch I made years ago passed 3/27....

-Graydon

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan P.:

quote:

They've slowly been tightening diesel emissions in Utah--yes, John, even your '89 Toyota may one day not pass the emissions where I live. They're getting tougher each year. This year did in the Isuzu....)

So it has to pass a level outright? I thought the standards always applied to meeting those for the vehicle's year of manufacture. So as long as you do proper upkeep, you could pass forever and ever.

It is interesting that each city is so different.

St. Louis has actually made their requirements more lax for the "older" vehicles. But, initially there was some confusion about it.

quote:

Vehicles Exempt from Emissions Testing

All vehicles that do not contain on-board diagnostic computer equipment will be exempt from the emissions testing requirements, however a safety inspection will still be required. Safety inspections are required biennially regardless of calendar or model years. Please call 314-416-2115 for any questions not answered here regarding emissions exemptions.

Exempted vehicles include

• 1995 and older gas-powered vehicles;
  
• 1996 and older diesel-powered vehicles;
  
• New motor vehicles, not previously titled and registered, for the four-year period following their model year of manufacture, with fewer than 40,000 miles at the first required biennial safety inspection;

Personally, I think the emission and vehicle inspections are overrated.

For cars that are less than 10 years old, nearly all of them are in compliance, and very few people are tinkering with the Emission stuff (except for this troublesome DPF).

For the cars that are over 10 years old, it can be a tremendous headache to keep them in compliance, and quite a nuisance to take a $100 car, and be required to spend $1000 to bring it into compliance.

And, frankly, the minority of the cars on the road are 10+ years old, and those that are still on the road are usually driven for fewer miles.

I suppose the newer cars have better diagnostics tied to the sensors. So, if they would actually have better diagnostic modules, they might actually be able to tell you what is wrong with them rather than just flashing a "check engine" light.

quote:

They've slowly been tightening diesel emissions in Utah--yes, John, even your '89 Toyota may one day not pass the emissions where I live.

My '89 Toyota tests 1% opacity on the VO-ULSD fuel blend I use. One should be able to meet any emissions test with a biodiesel-ULSD blend. The emissions techs said my '89 was cleaner than the new computerized wonderwaggons they tested, AND it gets better MPG. There are no emissions standards here. The testing every two years when they set up the emissions clinic is voluntary.

John,
That's really good...(1%).
Yep. You'd do great here...

My Isuzu did really well except for that puff of smoke, which I really think may have been something in the IP that came loose.

I think it was IP related because it didn't matter if it had diesel or Bio in it. It still puffed at 2700-2800 RPM.

You can see it smoke here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BgL2HMva9g&feature=channel_page
(it's at around 8:00)

The kicker to have tested on your '89 would've been NOx. That was the whole reason behind the DPF's. To meet the stupid new EPA Emissions, that's how they all chose to deal with meeting the NOx issue. It doesn't have much to do with the opacity at all.

That said, a good running diesel engine really shouldn't smoke much if it's using the fuel efficiently. If it's smoking black, it's getting too much fuel somewhere in the mix.

-Graydon

Man I love the whine of that Turbo!
-Graydon

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
Man I love the whine of that Turbo!
-Graydon

You got that right. That's what makes my 3.4L 4cyl diesel pull like a V8 and get 3x the MPG.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
Now that's a cool idea!
But would that engine oil combust properly or would it just cause more problems in the DPF?

I don't have a DPF but if I did I'd try it. I don't know for sure what it would do to the DPF but I think it would be OK. I think the regen cycle frequency would increase if the burned oil was fouling the DPF. You'd have some indication of something going wrong before any damage was done. I'd rather take a chance on plugging up the DPF than wiping out the engine anyway.

The CJ-4 oil is a reduced sulfur lube oil but I don't know the exact sulfur content. I do know the CJ-4 specification was created for engines with the DPF systems because some lube oil is expected to be burned in the engine during normal operation. Each Oil Mate extraction cycle removes and replaces only 17 ml lube oil. The extracted oil is sent to the fuel tank so it is mixed with the fuel before being burned. I would set the Oil Mate system to cycle once every 12 minutes so it will burn off about one liter of oil in 12 hours of engine operation. For my typical driving and 10 quart oil system I would get an "oil change" every 6,000 miles or so. I'd start with a fresh pan of oil and send off an oil sample for analysis every 1,000 miles to start out. Six samples in 6,000 miles should be enough data to get an idea if the system is cycling often enough. The oil sample intervals and/or extraction cycles could then be adjusted to fine tune the program. With or without the Oil Mate I would still take regular oil samples and soap test every batch of fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by keelec:
That is similar to what I had in mind. Except that 100% of the fuel would be from the lubrication system. And, I think a "dry sump" as used in race cars would be easier to manage the oil than pulling it out of the oil pan. Then either veggie oil or biodiesel could be used for lube. The main problem that people have run into with using veggie as lube seems a relatively short lifespan for the oil with catastrophic results if not renewed.

I'd think common vegetable oil would polymerize under lube oil conditions inside the engine faster than you could replace it by burning it as fuel. I know it's possible to alter vegetable oils to withstand that kind of extreme heat and pressure but I'm not familiar with the process. I've seen vegetable oil based hydraulic oils so I know it can be done but it probably alters the burn characteristics. Making it cost effective is another challenge.

The Oil Mate system doesn't pull oil from the pan. I removes a metered amount of oil from a pressurized oil passage downstream of the oil filter. If you used a combined lube/fuel oil I don't see why it couldn't be routed to the injection pump supply line instead of the return line. Or a dry sump would work.

Ken

Bunk, that thing is sounding better and better to me, do you have any idea what they cost?

I would think the oil mate would be somewhat inefficient at keeping your oil "clean". I guess it would depend on the price differential between oil and fuel.

But..

Take a 4 qt fill
Change 1 qt
And still have 3/4 sump of dirty oil.
Change 1 qt (total 2)
and still have 2 1/4 quarts of dirty oil.
Change 1 qt (total 3)
and still have 1.6875 quarts of dirty oil.
Change 1 qt (total 4)
and still have 1.3 quarts of dirty oil
Change 1 qt (total 5)
and still have .95 qts of dirty oil

Anyway, so after you've changed out more than the entire volume of oil in the sump, you still have a quart of dirty oil left in the sump.

I suppose the question would be what harm dirty oil does to the engine. "Sludge" can do nasty things, but it probably requires a full drain to get it out.

Yeah, I'm curious why fabricator likes this so much. It seems tricky, and dangerous.

Over the road trucks have been using versions of this for years, the last trucker I talked to who had a system similar to this on his truck loved it, never change the oil just add oil, it is a much more stable process, it is always changing the oil, the ONLY thing that would make me somewhat nervous is adding engine oil to B100, but I is in such minute amounts per gallon of fuel burned I dont think it would be a problem

Here's a link to some info on the EPA delete kits...I mean DPF

How it's meant to run

It's funny you mention EPA, DPF, and a link to H&S all in the same post. Here is a funny story about one aftermarket company ratting out another to the EPA and having the letter leaked to the net:



Anne Wick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2242A)
Diesel Engine Consent Decree Coordinator
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Dear Anne:

I would like to start by thanking you for speaking with Stewart Cables and myself at SEMA. You and your team did a very good job of preventing the meeting attendees from rioting!

As you may or may not be aware, ATS Diesel has been working on certain emission technologies to better our niche in the diesel community. Currently, we’re funding and developing a very expensive Diesel Particulate Filter ( DPF ) technology; this product will allow more efficient flow, resulting in better fuel mileage and lower emissions than today’s technology. ATS’ profits are funding the majority of this project’s development budget.

A serious concern that we have — and dramatically affects the development of our new high flow DPF -- is the presence of so-called “ DPF Delete Kits” on the market. Right now consumers are looking for a solution to the problematic factory DPF exhaust systems, and a few companies out there are manufacturing and/or selling these DPF delete kits for a very low margin.

As you’re aware, the main problem with DPF delete kits is this: for every illegal kit sold, research money is not invested into a real “fix” for the consumer’s problem. EPA has made it clear to the diesel manufacturing industry, in no uncertain terms, that DPF removal is illegal. However, at this time, EPA has been unable to enforce its regulations to get these illegal DPF delete kits off the street. When we spoke a few weeks ago, you mentioned that the EPA can only enforce so many of its regulations right now, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to track offenders (whether they be manufacturers, resellers, or end users).

ATS has prepared a list of the larger DPF Delete kit manufacturers and resellers, gleaned from our knowledge of the industry, for you. We’ve also included support documentation for your convenience. A few of these act as resellers (in place of manufacturers) in an attempt to hide behind a “shell corporation.” Performance Diesel, Inc. (“PDI”) in St. George, Utah is one of these companies. Jared Wittwer, the owner of PDI, is also the creator of H&S Performance, ( H & S Performance ). All of these kits are assembled at PDI in Utah and sold through PDI as though H&S Performance manufactures them. Attached is a copy of one of the receipts PDI invoices on; the part number should easily be used to help track down additional units that PDI or H&S have sold over the last year. We have been told by PDI’s manager that they sell over 100 units per month.

ATS is relying on the EPA to enforce its rules on this matter so we can generate enough revenue to properly manufacture a “fix” to the DPF problem. The word in our industry is that 1) if you don’t manufacture, you are allowed to resell, install, and use, and 2) manufacturers or resellers can hide behind the “Race Only’ labeling that the products are sold under. The fact is, and as I’m sure you know, nearly all of these kits are being used for on road trucks. Thank you for taking the time to listen.



Clint Cannon and Stewart Cables
for ATS Diesel Performance