Well guys, I think I'm learning more than I want to know about the EPA and their test for light duty diesel engines. I was doing some light reading on line and came across an EPA booklet: THE IMPACT OF BIODIESEL ON LIGHT DUTY DIESEL ENGINES. A lot of it was over my head but the gist was that they had conducted these test at an EPA facility and were satisfied that Biodiesel 20% didn't hurt the engines. One of the key tests conducted was to put a truck (I guess) on a dyno and I quote "there was no excessive damage to engine componets even though the test accelerated the use on the engine to twice it's usable life, or 240,000 miles. I don't quite know what to say about that but apparantly the EPA believes a diesel engine should only last 120,000 miles. Not only that but they seemed to be comparing the results of our DPF system against the 6.7L system with urea. I found the article by using google entering "oil dilution". I'm gonna study it more later. BTW, go Falcons

 

Here's the PDF I think Stanley is referring to.


http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels...pdfs/44833.pdf

 

Yeah, that's it. cool huh? What a bunch of brain surgeons, There isn't any kind of vehicle you can buy today with an engine expectancy of less than 200,000 miles.

 

Kinda on the same subject. The EPA is trying to increase the use of ethanal country wide. Even though they know that anything before the 2008 model wise cannot handle the increase.

This is on the gas motors but still, they are pushing it down our throats even though it cost more to produce and it will ruin most of the cars on the road. Not to mention the used car market.

 

my golly such a negative nelly view of the world..

Worldwide, scientists are looking at a hundreds of different things to drive reduction in emissions that can work with the existing field supply of vehicles. Some have suggested that E80 might work. Now of course there are a bunch of technical people on both sides.. the manufacturers didn't test, so of course they are against it (mostly due to potential warranty burden), the food industry cause of the burden this could place on food pricing and availability, and the older aftermarket..
The claim of global warming and the need for some relatively immediate solution (turn over all the vehicles to a new fuel source will take 50 years minimum, maybe 100) is driving the hope of some to be able to find a silver bullet.

If you were doing really old, (like my 50's vehicles)..
you have to change the engine internals already (valve seats) due to lack of lead, so whats a gasket or two, some hose and a spark plug change? not every vehicle can be changed so easily.. but its worth looking at.. probably the ONLY silver bullet available.

and, lets be clear on one thing.. NO ONE ever said getting off oil would be less expensive. It WILL COST MORE across the board. Oil was cheaper and available at the time is was selected, now that is becoming less and less true compared to other choices and their side effects.

Sam

 

Sam, I didn't look but you must be from Iowa. They love ethanol and so do the rest of the corn growing states. I swear in Iowa they had corn growing right up to the porches on those farm houses. I thought if they could they would have planted it in the medium on the interstate highways. You hit both major objections though, harm to engines and world wide food impact. I would have to disagree on the shortage of petro though. there is no shortage of oil, there is a political unwillingness to get the oil out of the ground. Sort of what we used to call a SIW in Nam, a self inflected wound. I'm all for looking for new products but there is no need to create a false sense of urgencey. Before we blow up all our motors let's write ethanol off as the bad idea it was and look at some other stuff. In the mean time let's harvest the oil we know is there. That would have some impact on price, not a lot I admit but some and what's that other thing, oh yeah the 16% or so of real unemployment might get helped. Just MHO. On edit, well I went and looked, it's Texas. As soon as I saw it I remembered. I thought all Texans were pro oil.

 

I'm not a native texan, a northern transplant. I'm neither pro oil or any other fuel source.

I'm an engineer.. I'm into the process and delivery side mechanics.

I don't doubt your words, but disagree on the tone and approach.

lets just say you are right.. and to accomplish the objective of getting the oil out of the ground costs 5 times more than it does today (and rising at 15% cost rate), and some alternative fuel costs 3 times more than it does today (and rising at 15% cost rate). will the population settle for the higher cost curve? Oh please.. not a chance. supply and demand. business goes where the cash is.. period. and jobs follow, period.

we had the same doom and gloom over removing lead too.

Lets just say you are wrong, I put on my engineer hat and look at the impact of that drastic (sub generational) delivery mechanism change. the emotional upset we see today will be barely noise compared to the world wide disruption.

Whether you are right or wrong almost doesn't matter.. cause it looks like big change will be coming.

Sam

 

Sorry Sam, I didn't intend a bad tone, just a counter point. I agree, getting oil will cost what it cost and we will pay it here or overseas until a superior or at least acceptable alternative is found. We have no choice. There is an abundance of evidence that ethanol isn't an acceptable alternative, at least in it's present form. Yet, because of it's political supporters there are many places in this country where a government mandates that I must use ethanol even if it harms my high dollar truck. And to that I object. Those government mandates are aided by studies like the one we are discussing which, as best as I can tell reached their conclusion based on the incorrect assumption that the life of a diesel engine should be 120,000 miles. I ask, do you (or does anyone on this forum) think the life of your truck engine should be 120,000 miles? I also ask, how many diesel truck owners do you think were on the study team? I started this thread so that owners of these trucks would be made aware of the study. That's all.

 

I understand your points. I expect that those researching these issues asked the truck suppliers their intended design life.. not just making it up along the way.

Sam