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.
I agree with you completely on this point.
Yokayo Biofuels Facebook page
fueling / R \ evolution since 2001
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....)
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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...
(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.
Man I love the whine of that Turbo!
You got that right. That's what makes my 3.4L 4cyl diesel pull like a V8 and get 3x the MPG.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yokayo Biofuels Facebook page
fueling / R \ evolution since 2001
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:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2242A)
Diesel Engine Consent Decree Coordinator
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
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
1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
That's a very nice letter and all but the bottom line is if the user of the truck I've shown wants to use his 50k truck this is the only current fix. Re-flashing hasn't worked, desooting the DPF hasn't worked. I'm sure when ATS or whomever develops, tests and releases their "legal" emmision components that this person will be very interested.
I heard from Bryan at ATS Diesel. He said that the letter was a rough draft that was stolen from his email and is now posted all over the forums. No letter was sent to the EPA.
I also wonder what testing if any the EPA has done on bio-diesel with the DPF. For us folks that choose to use a renewable source of energy and save our natural resources.
Is bio-diesel legal for on road use?
If it is, how are we supposed to use it with a DPF?
I'm ranting I know but these issues should have been ironed out BEFORE making us run the DPF. Us bio-dieselers should have an exemption lol.
I still say it was one of the stupidest moves on the part of the EPA to mandate this type of emission standard without doing research on what it would do to the market.
I know it's not the EPA that put the DPF's on diesels, but it was the EPA that came up with the stupid emission standard to begin with without thinking of how assenine it was going to be to meet the thing.
Would someone explain to me why slightly elevated NOx levels in diesel exhaust are a big deal anyway? Last time I'd heard, Acid Rain didn't turn out to be anywhere near as serious as some had thought it would be....
Also, my thought on the DPF Delete Kit is that it's going to happen. Like it or not, it's going to be done. People with these brand new trucks are going to do whatever it takes to get a usable truck for the money they've spent.
If some ingenious company comes up with DPF Delete kits, they're going to sell (probably pretty well too!).
Like it mentioned in the letter, the EPA doesn't have anywhere NEAR the manpower to go out & check all the diesel trucks being sold (and with the economy taking a dump and the gov't trying to bail it out, I'm kind of doubting "tracking down people with DPF delete kits on their trucks" is the #1 priority of a budget-strapped government EPA organization this coming year).
As long as there's someone that'll make a product to help truck owners get better performance & output, and as long as there's loop-holes for selling the things, they'll sell.
I've even heard of DPF Delete kits selling that LOOK like an actual DPF but there's nothing in them.
Remember, this is the horsepower capital of the world and there's one thing you don't do in the good ole USA....and that one thing is...."you don't you go messin' with my truck!" It's a religious thing here that's not completely understood elsewhere in the world. But trust me. It's real, it's here, and it's sacred. And truck owners will do whatever it takes to get the power back, EPA-be-damned or not; it WILL happen. It's part of the culture here (yes, John, I know you don't care for that culture, but you have to admit, that's just how it is...)
I'd imagine Dodge, Ford, & Chevy Dealerships are sick of these DPF's too. Heck, I'd venture to say that there's a few of them that know the phone number of the nearest performance shop willing to install a DPF Delete Kit by heart because they've given it out to so many of their customers.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33|