VW TDI common rail

jorpet · May 22, 2002

Buses in Seattle are very clean and getting cleaner. They run on ULSD and are getting particulate traps and NOx catlysts. They are about as clean a technology as you can get. My neighbor worked on Metro buses until he retired. His comment is the opacity for the newest buses is somewhere between 0-5% and that at 5% they know there is a problem.

On the other hand I have watched the garbage and recycle trucks on our street emit such huge clouds of black smoke, it is disgusting.

Yesterday I was following a Puget Sound Trucking (yes they get their name published) tractor heading south on I-5. Driver tromps on the go pedal and so much black soot came out of his twin stacks that it covered all five lanes. I am sitting there thinking "hmmm, why don't more people drive diesel cars?, doh"

christi · May 22, 2002

okay, I'll put my question another way

If a rotary injection pump engine can might current US emissions regs on current US fuel, then why can't a common rail engine?

I would imagine that a common rail engine should be cleaner on a given fuel than 14 year old rotaty pump TDI technology.

okay it might have to be derated and so not give 220bhp any more, but surely 180 or 190 bhp should possible.

Chris B · May 22, 2002

There could be a few factors at work there. Firstly, it could have been an older truck. The older Mack engines were some of the dirtiest (next to the 2-stroke Detroits) on the planet. You could make an old Mack smoke like a tire fire.

Secondly, a lot of the owner/operator types like to hotrod the engines just as we do, and will turn up fuel screws until the thing is making a ton of power and smoking like it's burning soft coal.

A late model, properly running big rig is relatively clean burning. But, the European rigs are much cleaner yet. All the tractors over here have the exhaust coming out the left side ahead of the rear tire. It blows right out into the passing lane. Yet, you rarely ever see even a whiff of smoke from them (or smell them).

I can, however, make my rental Focus TD blow a little soot, but only if the sun is shining the right way so I can see it. I've yet to actually smell any exhaust, though, even in the morning after a cold start. The Premier I run in my Jetta is pretty sweet smelling, but this stuff here just doesn't smell at all.

Chris

Originally posted by jorpet:

Yesterday I was following a Puget Sound Trucking (yes they get their name published) tractor heading south on I-5. Driver tromps on the go pedal and so much black soot came out of his twin stacks that it covered all five lanes. I am sitting there thinking "hmmm, why don't more people drive diesel cars?, doh"

Boundless · May 22, 2002

Originally posted by think diesel:
I am not so sure I buy all the hype about fuel anymore. I beleive our fuel is below the european standards and I'd even believe it is A factor keeping some of these überdiesels out of this country but it is clearly not THE factor. Not the only factor.

I think the poor quality of the fuel here is overexaggerated. The 2.7 CDI in the Sprinter is the SAME engine they'd put in the C and E class. It must run OK on American fuel because IT'S HERE, What about Ford Powerstroke, that uses a HEUI system very similar to pumpe-düse I beleive and those run on American fuel as well.

One more question, that NEVER seems to get answered.

Skypup is loaded. Why the flying F***K doesn't he just import whatever diesel he wants through a registered importer and get it certified and have a 1000 gallon tank of the best diesel he can get on his ranch?

That's what I would do.

Maybe it's more fun for him to complain about how sh1tty and hopeless everything is?

So how about answering my question SP?

Geez, I'm not the only one anymore.

North Amercian diesel fuel is fine. Actually, it's wonderful. It's the laws that are only part of the situation that is impeding the expansion of diesel powered passenger diesels.

99.999495995959% of all diesel fuel in NA is consumed by industry. Industry doesn't have emissions requirements as are imposed on passenger vehicles. When legislation is passed requiring the diesel fleet, primarily the on-road transporation diesel fleet, to comply with comensurate emissions, and fuel combustion quality is necessary to achieve that emissions level and the addition of emissions equipment to the vehicle will not suffice, then fuel will change. It will take a combination of on-vehicle emissions equipment and cleaner (combusting) fuel to enable diesels meet future emissions requirements. But even then, will that help grow the passenger diesel fleet or simply get a couple cranky grouchy loudmouth panty-waist oblivious whiners a eurodiesel? No

But that on-vehicle emissions equipment is expensive and what little market there is for passenger diesel will not support that cost.

And the powerful transportation lobby doesn't want its industry to be subject to any more expenses that will be incurred as a result of emissions requirements. These expenses will be the increased purchase price of vehicles, maintenance, and fuel. When this happens, it will send shock waves through the entire world economy. The increased cost of transporting goods will have to be passed on to the ultimate consumer.

There simply is insignificant to negligible demand for passenger diesel vehicles in the US and no change in diesel fuel technical characteristics will change that. Especially a change the twill increase the cost of owning and operating a diesel. That will erode any cost benefit over the prolific gasoline passenger fleet.

If the passenger diesel vehicles had the same emissions requirements as the transportation industry, we wouldn't have EGR issues to contend with and all would be wonderful. Even on 40 Min. CN rotgut garbage truck bottom of the barrel fuel.

think diesel · May 22, 2002

I'm sorry. ULSD is not going to make a 20 year old garbage truck suddenly run like a Honda Insight.

Old diesels are always going to belch some smoke. It's the age/crudeness of their design that is at fault there. Newer more advanced diesel engines run cleaner.

A 2.7 liter Mercedes CDI seems to run just fine on American diesel. I don't doubt that it pollutes a bit more than it would running on ULSD but I bet it isn't going to self-destruct in 30,000 miles or have 20% less power.

I think most people here are simply repeating what they have been told by skypup 10,000 times.

I don't doubt that our fuel is crappy and that it is ONE factor keeping some more modern diesels out of the country, but lets stop BSing here.

Amoco Premier is not some nectar of the gods, it's probably marginally better than the crap you get at a Sheetz station in West Virginia. Great. I use it because I have a conveient source. Does my car have 10 more horsepower with Premier? No. Is there a noticeable difference? Sometimes in colder weather, yes.

I just think alot of this gets blown way out of proportion.

The lack of USLD is far from the only reason our roads are not crawling with Mercedes CDI's and Peugeot HDI's etc.. Fuel is cheap and there is little demand for diesel cars here. Why is it that we all seem to forget that?

Amercians want 350 horsepower SUV's, not 130 hp compact diesel sedans.

Supply and demand. We are talking high school economics here guys. I think USLD could bring some more diesels here, but I can tell you that a change in the emission laws and a $2 increase per gallon in the price of gasoline would do more for TDI sales than all the USLD in the world.

SkyPup · May 22, 2002

Originally posted by VelvetFoot:
Actually, the exhaust from new buses and big rigs appears quite clear to me.

If you close your eyes does the black smoke appear clear too?

How about if you hold your nose, does it stink less too?

Emperical?

SkyPup · May 22, 2002

Originally posted by Boundless:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by think diesel:
I am not so sure I buy all the hype about fuel anymore. I beleive our fuel is below the european standards and I'd even believe it is A factor keeping some of these überdiesels out of this country but it is clearly not THE factor. Not the only factor.

I think the poor quality of the fuel here is overexaggerated. The 2.7 CDI in the Sprinter is the SAME engine they'd put in the C and E class. It must run OK on American fuel because IT'S HERE, What about Ford Powerstroke, that uses a HEUI system very similar to pumpe-düse I beleive and those run on American fuel as well.

One more question, that NEVER seems to get answered.

Skypup is loaded. Why the flying F***K doesn't he just import whatever diesel he wants through a registered importer and get it certified and have a 1000 gallon tank of the best diesel he can get on his ranch?

That's what I would do.

Maybe it's more fun for him to complain about how sh1tty and hopeless everything is?

So how about answering my question SP?

Geez, I'm not the only one anymore.

North Amercian diesel fuel is fine. Actually, it's wonderful. It's the laws that are only part of the situation that is impeding the expansion of diesel powered passenger diesels.

99.999495995959% of all diesel fuel in NA is consumed by industry. Industry doesn't have emissions requirements as are imposed on passenger vehicles. When legislation is passed requiring the diesel fleet, primarily the on-road transporation diesel fleet, to comply with comensurate emissions, and fuel combustion quality is necessary to achieve that emissions level and the addition of emissions equipment to the vehicle will not suffice, then fuel will change. It will take a combination of on-vehicle emissions equipment and cleaner (combusting) fuel to enable diesels meet future emissions requirements. But even then, will that help grow the passenger diesel fleet or simply get a couple cranky grouchy loudmouth panty-waist oblivious whiners a eurodiesel? No

But that on-vehicle emissions equipment is expensive and what little market there is for passenger diesel will not support that cost.

And the powerful transportation lobby doesn't want its industry to be subject to any more expenses that will be incurred as a result of emissions requirements. These expenses will be the increased purchase price of vehicles, maintenance, and fuel. When this happens, it will send shock waves through the entire world economy. The increased cost of transporting goods will have to be passed on to the ultimate consumer.

There simply is insignificant to negligible demand for passenger diesel vehicles in the US and no change in diesel fuel technical characteristics will change that. Especially a change the twill increase the cost of owning and operating a diesel. That will erode any cost benefit over the prolific gasoline passenger fleet.

If the passenger diesel vehicles had the same emissions requirements as the transportation industry, we wouldn't have EGR issues to contend with and all would be wonderful. Even on 40 Min. CN rotgut garbage truck bottom of the barrel fuel.<hr /></blockquote>This has to be one of the most misguided riduclously stoopid posts ever made on these forums!

Nice work Boundless......about par for you.

SkyPup · May 22, 2002

Originally posted by think diesel:
I'm sorry. ULSD is not going to make a 20 year old garbage truck suddenly run like a Honda Insight.

Old diesels are always going to belch some smoke. It's the age/crudeness of their design that is at fault there. Newer more advanced diesel engines run cleaner.

A 2.7 liter Mercedes CDI seems to run just fine on American diesel. I don't doubt that it pollutes a bit more than it would running on ULSD but I bet it isn't going to self-destruct in 30,000 miles or have 20% less power.

I think most people here are simply repeating what they have been told by skypup 10,000 times.

I don't doubt that our fuel is crappy and that it is ONE factor keeping some more modern diesels out of the country, but lets stop BSing here.

Amoco Premier is not some nectar of the gods, it's probably marginally better than the crap you get at a Sheetz station in West Virginia. Great. I use it because I have a conveient source. Does my car have 10 more horsepower with Premier? No. Is there a noticeable difference? Sometimes in colder weather, yes.

I just think alot of this gets blown way out of proportion.

The lack of USLD is far from the only reason our roads are not crawling with Mercedes CDI's and Peugeot HDI's etc.. Fuel is cheap and there is little demand for diesel cars here. Why is it that we all seem to forget that?

Amercians want 350 horsepower SUV's, not 130 hp compact diesel sedans.

Supply and demand. We are talking high school economics here guys. I think USLD could bring some more diesels here, but I can tell you that a change in the emission laws and a $2 increase per gallon in the price of gasoline would do more for TDI sales than all the USLD in the world.

Who cares what you think beside Boundless and Foot? Come 2006 only ULSD will be available anyways, besides Foot is getting a BMW gasser, interesting but no kewl...

What would Ric say???

Chris B · May 22, 2002

I'm not a rocket scientist, nor a petroleum engineer. However, I *DO* know that Premier runs much better in my TDI than 42 cetane rotgut. Adding 8 oz. of Power Service Diesel Kleen or Stanadyne Perf. Formula to a tank of rotgut only marginally helps. I still get a big puff of blue even at 50 degrees when I fire it up. It doesn't rev smoothly and it is much noiser at idle.

With 50 cetane Premier, I never get any blue smoke, even below freezing, it idles smoother, and revs much more freely. It's not the "emperor's new clothes", where I WANT to feel a difference. It's easy to feel and hear. I have to believe the engine is putting out less pollution due to the cleaner, more efficient burn of the fuel.

Today, coming back from a vendor, I was merging onto the A1, and I had my foot on the floor, watching traffic, until I bounced the Focus TD off the rev. limiter, ~5K rpm. The Focus TD engine is very similar to the US TDI, but not quite as refined, IMHO. Nevertheless, on this nice 50+ cetane fuel, it reved like crazy. Smoooth.

The real issue with US fuel is the refinerys have too much of certain parts of the distillation or a barrel of crude. They try to 'hydrotreat' it and make it into more diesel fuel. It's high in aromatics, and low in cetane. Amoco Premier is refined from 'straight run' stocks - so it's naturally lower in aromatics and high in cetane, without having to add as much cetane boosting chemicals.

So, with our foul, higher sulfur fuel, the automakers cannot put the sophisticated catalyst systems on our diesels that would allow them to meet the emissions regulations. The sulfur poisons the catalysts. It's no difference with gasoline. Gas today is much higher quality and lower sulfur than even 10 years ago. It has allowed the automakers to make amazingly clean and powerful gas engines. Remember the engines of the late '70s on the first unleaded fuel?? They hardly ran. Now look where they are. This is what is happening with diesels right now. We are going from the old leaded gas days to modern, sophisticated engines. The fuel must advance with the engines.

I seem to have also read somewhere that back in the early 70's, most US diesel was actually 50 cetane (and high sulfur). As the demand for diesel skyrocketed, refineries had to pull more of the barrel of crude into diesel fuel, hence my previous comments above. It's been a long, slow slide in diesel quality in the US.

Whew.

Chris

jorpet · May 22, 2002

Originally posted by think diesel:
I'm sorry. ULSD is not going to make a 20 year old garbage truck suddenly run like a Honda Insight.

Old diesels are always going to belch some smoke. It's the age/crudeness of their design that is at fault there. Newer more advanced diesel engines run cleaner.

Reducing sulfer to ULSD level will reduce Soot production by 90%. Please don't believe me when I say that look up the studies on the web. They are numerous and well documented.

Originally posted by think diesel:
A 2.7 liter Mercedes CDI seems to run just fine on American diesel. I don't doubt that it pollutes a bit more than it would running on ULSD but I bet it isn't going to self-destruct in 30,000 miles or have 20% less power.

No the engines won't self destruct. I don't believe anyone has said they would. What they also won't do is be imported by the makers due to emissions standards in this country that simply cannot be met by those diesels due to the poor fuel supply.

Originally posted by think diesel:
I think most people here are simply repeating what they have been told by skypup 10,000 times.

Sorry. I do my own research. I look for information on both sides and try to discredit that information. Whatever is left standing wins. Don't believe what Skypup says, or anyone else for that matter. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by think diesel:
The lack of USLD is far from the only reason our roads are not crawling with Mercedes CDI's and Peugeot HDI's etc.. Fuel is cheap and there is little demand for diesel cars here. Why is it that we all seem to forget that?

Amercians want 350 horsepower SUV's, not 130 hp compact diesel sedans.

Americans do want powerful cars. They don't want low mpg cars. The issue is that power currently comes with low MPG. Give people a 220 HP diesel that blows away a gasser in performance, doesn't smoke like a garbage truck and doesn't stink and you think they won't switch?

Originally posted by think diesel:
Supply and demand. We are talking high school economics here guys. I think USLD could bring some more diesels here, but I can tell you that a change in the emission laws and a $2 increase per gallon in the price of gasoline would do more for TDI sales than all the USLD in the world.

... and I am talking college level economics. People would go with diesels now if they could get the high performance they currently have in Europe and the higher mileage all from a diesel. Since the auto makers can't provide that performance with current fuel in this country they can not make the economic argument to import a car that will pass emissions.

As for the cost of retrofitting old trucks with particulate traps and catalysts. The cost is $3,000 per vehicle according to all reports I have read. Figure 75-80% of that cost is for labour. That would mean $250-$300 dollars for OEM equiped vehicles. Lets see the average Kenworth OTR costs over a quarter million. Their sound system, nav systems, satalite TV systems each cost more. Not a good arguement.

chopchop · May 22, 2002

Boundless, Velvetfoot, think diesel and fellow-travellers - You really should get out more, preferably somewhere in Europe, then you might find just how truly ill-informed you are on the whole subject of filthy American diesel fuel.

Garbage-truck fuel seems to somehow generate yet more verbal garbage!

- Richard

[ May 22, 2002, 09:35: Message edited by: chopchop ]

SkyPup · May 22, 2002

Just to show how absolutely stoopid all the BS about ULSD is:

The damn refiners are also having to reduce the Sulfur in Gasoline to the same level of ULSD at the exact same time!

DUH! You don't hear any complaints about that!

Why aren't all the crybabies crying over the exact same process happening at the exact same time to gasoline as diesel? Dumb?

Except from some our more forward thinking folks like VelvetFoot who can't seem to notice the difference in gasoline fuels with his eyes as the exhaust comes out of the gassers????

real smart foot.....

christi · May 23, 2002

HELLO! Anyone listening? Could someone answer my question, please.

Originally posted by christi:
okay, I'll put my question another way

If a rotary injection pump engine can meet current US emissions regs on current US fuel, then why can't a common rail engine?

I would imagine that a common rail engine should be cleaner on a given fuel than 14 year old rotaty pump TDI technology.

okay it might have to be derated and so not give 220bhp any more, but surely 180 or 190 bhp should possible.

PTC · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by SkyPup:
BTW, the new AUDI V-6 with common rail is not the 180HP of the discountinued VE-44 rotary distributor pump engine, instead it is NOW 220HP!

And remember, the ONLY thing keeping this engine and all the other excellent HSDI passenger car diesel engines in Europe ILLEGAL everywhere in North America is the CRAPPY North American LOWLIFE ROTGUT CRUD DIESEL FUEL.

Understand?

Well, I was referring to the engines currently in production. I believe this new common rail isn't yet used 'cause I haven't seen it in parts catalog.

SkyPup · May 23, 2002

Christi, the emission laws are changing and getting tougher, phasing out the current 90HP TDI with the rotary injection pump, it will no longer be legal anywhere soon. Also the the crappy fuel quality issue has been undergoing legistlative and judical battles and as just the other week the fuel industry LOST to the governement, we will now have ULSD everywhere, including Alasksa and all of Canada as of 2007.

No passenger car maker wanted to enter a market where this many unknowns are happening all at once.

Had not the ULSD fuel technology been crammed down the throats of the backwards fuel industry and its backward supporters like VelvetFoot, Boundless,T-Bill, nuke, etc, there would be NO HSDI passenger cars for sale anywhere at anytime under any circumstances in North America.

It is that plain and simple.

ULSD is absolutley REQUIRED to meet the new stringent tier of emission devices that will be required on all diesel engines, otherwise the will never be sold to the public. Rotary injection or common rail has little or nothing to do with it besides the fact that common rail produces higher more even pressures amoung the cylinders contributing to somewhat lower emissions of certain pollutants. The Pump Duse does have higher lubricity requirements that would have to be addressed in order for those engines to operate too.

Remember, the US & Canada has some of the poorest diesel fuel quality anywhere in the world outside of Africa, even India and China have 50 cetane minimum, low aromatics, etc.

There are virtually NO HSDI passenger cars anywhere in North America except for the 90HP ALH A4 TDIs for sale now, that is it, only VW markets them here, no one else does.

The only reason is the crappy fuel supply and its crappy infastructure and ignorant masses of idiots who know little to nothing about anything diesel.

Boundless · May 23, 2002

think diesel,

Very good points you brought up.

To get more specific regarding the older engines and how they will still belch smoke with ULSD, that is due to the crudeness of the fuel injection system, specifically the control thereof. Those engines use a simple bellcrank to yank open the throttle rack in direct relation to the pedal position. No smoke maps to check and see if the engine can combust all that fuel being requested by the pedal position. A big truck can get full rack fuelling when pulling away from a light although the engine can barely handle fuel for just above idle operation and the turbo isn't spooled up to deliver the air the engine needs for the fundamental diesel excess air requirement. This all leads to big smoke from these engines. No excess air means big belching black smoke.

Not a chance in all of the Universe that any kind of fuel will help that situation.

What is most interesting is that diesel engines are being designed around the fuel. And that fuel is the lowest form of rotgut available. The combustion chambers, injection systems and most importantly, the control systems, are being designed to accomodate a wide range of diesel fuel characteristics. This will eliminate the perceived benefits of the "boutique" fuels. Boutique diesel fuels are a threat to the future of diesel power because they fragment the market into smaller high cost segments instead of keeping the fuel a mass produced commodity that it is, and the competition to produce such a commodity at the lowest price.

Right now, there is no persuasive cost benefit to operating a diesel powered passenger vehicle. The cost to produce ULSD will be higher than present fuel, further eroding any cost benefit between a diesel and gasser.

christi · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by SkyPup:
Christi, the emission laws are changing and getting tougher, phasing out the current 90HP TDI with the rotary injection pump, it will no longer be legal anywhere soon. Also the the crappy fuel quality issue has been undergoing legistlative and judical battles and as just the other week the fuel industry LOST to the governement, we will now have ULSD everywhere, including Alasksa and all of Canada as of 2007.

No passenger car maker wanted to enter a market where this many unknowns are happening all at once.

Had not the ULSD fuel technology been crammed down the throats of the backwards fuel industry and its backward supporters like VelvetFoot, Boundless,T-Bill, nuke, etc, there would be NO HSDI passenger cars for sale anywhere at anytime under any circumstances in North America.

It is that plain and simple.

ULSD is absolutley REQUIRED to meet the new stringent tier of emission devices that will be required on all diesel engines, otherwise the will never be sold to the public. Rotary injection or common rail has little or nothing to do with it besides the fact that common rail produces higher more even pressures amoung the cylinders contributing to somewhat lower emissions of certain pollutants. The Pump Duse does have higher lubricity requirements that would have to be addressed in order for those engines to operate too.

Remember, the US & Canada has some of the poorest diesel fuel quality anywhere in the world outside of Africa, even India and China have 50 cetane minimum, low aromatics, etc.

There are virtually NO HSDI passenger cars anywhere in North America except for the 90HP ALH A4 TDIs for sale now, that is it, only VW markets them here, no one else does.

The only reason is the crappy fuel supply and its crappy infastructure and ignorant masses of idiots who know little to nothing about anything diesel.

My point is this: if VW can successfully market a rotary pump TDI diesel in North America right now, then there is no technical or emissions reason why they could not market a common rail engine right now. In fact on the very same fuel that is being sold right now, a common rail engine would in fact be cleaner than the current offering.

True? or not?

If the above is true, then there is also no insurmountable reason why Peugeot, Ford, Renault, Volvo, Mercedes etc etc could not market common rail diesel cars in NA too.

What maybe true is that even common rail might not be a viable product in 2004 either. Thus, it would not make commercial sense to introduce a new model and only get 2 years sales out of it.

Hence, VW will stick with the technology that they are currently selling, not because it is the only option (common rail would also be an option), but because they have already paid the market introduction costs, and so they might as well sell it for two more years.

Now, when ULSD comes along (in 2006 isn't it?), any and all manufacturers, including VW, will be forced to re-engineer and re-certificate any diesel car that they might want to sell into NA. There is no guarantee that any of them will bother, VW included.

VW will have no advantage over any other European manufacturer that already sells a car in NA. i.e. Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, Ford and any number of others who have already crash tested and have a dealer network could plop their European common rail engine in and sell, if they think that the market is worth it.

Is that right? or is it wrong?

VW will have been out of the market for at least two years at that point, will not have a common rail four banger engine to put into a Golf or Jetta sized car (they are all PD in Europe, remember), and would need the same balls that they had back in 1996.

If they still have a V6 common rail in the European passat at the time, then that car might actually be the easiest to re-introduce into NA in 2006, unless 2006 NA fuel could be good enough for PD....

SkyPup · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by Boundless:
think diesel,

Very good points you brought up.

To get more specific regarding the older engines and how they will still belch smoke with ULSD, that is due to the crudeness of the fuel injection system, specifically the control thereof. Those engines use a simple bellcrank to yank open the throttle rack in direct relation to the pedal position. No smoke maps to check and see if the engine can combust all that fuel being requested by the pedal position. A big truck can get full rack fuelling when pulling away from a light although the engine can barely handle fuel for just above idle operation and the turbo isn't spooled up to deliver the air the engine needs for the fundamental diesel excess air requirement. This all leads to big smoke from these engines. No excess air means big belching black smoke.

Not a chance in all of the Universe that any kind of fuel will help that situation.

What is most interesting is that diesel engines are being designed around the fuel. And that fuel is the lowest form of rotgut available. The combustion chambers, injection systems and most importantly, the control systems, are being designed to accomodate a wide range of diesel fuel characteristics. This will eliminate the perceived benefits of the "boutique" fuels. Boutique diesel fuels are a threat to the future of diesel power because they fragment the market into smaller high cost segments instead of keeping the fuel a mass produced commodity that it is, and the competition to produce such a commodity at the lowest price.

Right now, there is no persuasive cost benefit to operating a diesel powered passenger vehicle. The cost to produce ULSD will be higher than present fuel, further eroding any cost benefit between a diesel and gasser.

Total B.S. Boundless!

ULSD will cost a couple of cents more, nothing compared to the taxes placed on each gallon.

And yes, alll three "boutique" grades of gasoline will also have the exact same treatment to remove sulfur applied to them as well at the exact same time for the exact same reasons at the exact same cost.

LOL!

BOUNDLESS & HIS PEANUT GALLERY CARRY ON !!!

[ May 23, 2002, 07:06: Message edited by: SkyPup ]

christi · May 23, 2002

One can turn the fueling down even on a mechanically injection pump. They do have a "smoke map", its just that it isn't so tunable. The result is that to keep smoke down you end up with less power.

ULSD is not about reducing smoke. Smoke output has more to do with cetane rating, injector orifice size, injection pressure, and how much fuel is injected.

ULSD is about making deNOx cats viable.

No ULSD, no deNOx cat. It's that simple.

SkyPup · May 23, 2002

Christi, the problem is meeting NOx emissions and particulates, this requires cooled EGR, VNT turbo, retarded injection timing, and different sulfur sensitive catalysts in the exhaust stream and the elimination of sulfur since the sulfur molecules form the center of the particulates.

Current crappy fuel with low cetane, high aromatic content, and high sulfur eliminates all of the above due to excessive contamination, sludge, gunk, soot,particulates and other engine clogging residues crapping out the emissions systems that must be guaranteed to operate for 120,000 minimum without any attention.

VW's cooled EGR on our current 90HP ALH engines are getting gunked beyond belief at less than 40,000 miles now on our crappy diesel fuel. The ALH engine HAD to have the VNT turbo to help bring down emissions to meet current levels, the old Wastegate turbo could not do it.

No HSDI manufacturer for the passenger car market has figured out a way to meet emissions on our crappy diesel fuel, the future of HSDI in North America is 100% dependent on the changeover to ULSD. There is no alternative, in spite of what the boundless peanut gallery has to spew.

Boundless · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by christi:
One can turn the fueling down even on a mechanically injection pump. They do have a "smoke map", its just that it isn't so tunable. The result is that to keep smoke down you end up with less power.

ULSD is not about reducing smoke. Smoke output has more to do with cetane rating, injector orifice size, injection pressure, and how much fuel is injected.

ULSD is about making deNOx cats viable.

No ULSD, no deNOx cat. It's that simple.

christi,

very good!!!!! Where have you been????

Over here, particulates are a demon to be eliminated from diesel exhaust. More smoke means more particulates. Eliminate smoke, eliminate a vast source of particulates. Sulphur is a primary source of particulates, along with excess fueling that occurs when a diesel is not smoke mapped.

The heavy trucks and all other industrial dieselburners do not have to comply with emissions over here. The mechanical pumps are not "smoke mapped" over here. That's why virtually every truck belches smoke when accelerating. A direct mechanical link from the pedal to the bellcrank. Only the normal governor function in the pump. That ain't much of a smoke map. Smoke mapping controls how much fuel is injected per engine operating conditions. That capability doesn't exist here on non-passenger diesel burners. christi, we don't have a smoke map in that linkage betweeen the pedal and pump. "Acceleration Controls", also known as a smoke map, have been discussed as part of the diesel emissions being considered by our law makers.

All these wonderful HSDI engines will run just fine on the present US fuel, but the emissions will be non-compliant since there is no reliable technology to meet those emissions requirements with the present fuel.

It's all about emissions, not performance.

chopchop · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by Boundless:

....... All these wonderful HSDI engines will run just fine on the present US fuel .............

Click to expand...

LOL!

Actually, they may just about work on peanut oil, too. Catch it - by the bucketful - as it drips down from the Gallery!

- Richard

christi · May 23, 2002

Emissions and performance are linked.

The current VW TDI engine on sale in the US is basicaly the same technology as the 110bhp TDI that has been sold until very recently here in Europe.

Why does it produce 90bhp in the US from the same technology as the 110 bhp in Europe?

Because low injection levels and smaller orifice sizes were required to meet the tighter US emissions requirements.

In other words, VW were able to sacrifice some performance in order to improve emissions performance to point were they had a legal product.

On the other subject, I ran a mechanically injected diesel here in the UK for years and years. That car had to be emissions tested annually. The smoke output of it was adjustable via the max fueling screw. Same technology as those trucks in the US, but different rules as to where the screw has to be set.

You can get that old Peugeot of mine to run with similar particulate output levels as my Passat TDI, but you have to screw the max fueling in to the point were it only produces about half the power of the Passat.

I'm sure that NOx emissions were higher, but that isn't the point.

The point is that mechanical injection pumps do have a max fuel screw, which essentially is a "smoke map" of sorts. Just because it is set way too high on a particular truck, doen't mean that it isn't there.

arktiaxs · May 23, 2002

You guys are way OFF TOPIC

Perhaps go and discuss fluids in the fuel & lubricants section ?

I don't think this is the discussion the starter of the topic wanted...SEC

[ May 23, 2002, 08:33: Message edited by: arktiaxs ]

Boundless · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by christi:
Emissions and performance are linked.

Let me finish that sentence...

..... by fuel injected quantity.

And this also relates to the fuel mapping "screw".

More fuel results in more power and emissions. Use that screw to turn down fuelling, you turn down emissions and power.

But, with a true smoke mapping control sytem, it is possible to have power when the engine conditions allow complete combustion. During acceleration, the engine experiences excess fuelling. This is when true smoke mapping works. This is very different than "stop screw" smoke map.

SkyPup · May 23, 2002

Christi is 100% right and Boundless is 100% wrong.

Boundlesss' sentence is far from complete, in fact it is totally incomplete.

The fuel is 100% of the performance and the emissions and the economy, which the entire combustion chamber is designed specifically for.

So what else is new? :rollyeyes:

think diesel · May 23, 2002

So Skypup,

For the 200th time, why haven't you used some of your sizable financial endowment to buy a super euro diesel luxury car and your own 1000 gallon tank of biodiesel?

Are you that much of an assclown that it is more fun for you to complain continually about the quality of fuel in this country and berate everyone else about it?

I assume you will AGAIN ignore my question and post a stupid picture of the Muppets or something.

Again, I don't doubt that our fuel is crap here. I want better fuel as much as any of us, but don't tell us that USLD is going to make a 20 yr old dump truck run smoke free, OK?

christi · May 23, 2002

Correct me if I am wrong, but what will kill the current US market VW TDI market is NOx emissions.

VW can get the particulate emissions way down, by messing with the smoke maps, injection pressures, and orifice sizes. They might have to sacrifice some power to do it, but ultimately it is possible.

What will screw them is the NOx emissions.

As the TDI is such a lean burn engine, it produces NOx. This can be partly offset with EGR and retarded timing. However too much EGR pushes the particulates back up....

The answer is a deNOx cat.

But the sulphur in US fuel will kill the cat.

Common rail is just as viable a product in the US as the current TDI, but only for the next two years.

Particulate outputs are lower with common rail, but it doesn't help much with NOx.

You still need that deNOx cat, and hence ULSD.

QED and on topic, I believe.

chopchop · May 23, 2002

Originally posted by think diesel:
So Skypup,

For the 200th time, why haven't you used some of your sizable financial endowment to buy a super euro diesel luxury car and your own 1000 gallon tank of biodiesel?....

..... Because even with the biodiesel fuel, he still wouldn't be able to import the car! Familiarise yourself with the Trade Protectionist importation rules set by the US Government!

- Richard

SkyPup · May 23, 2002

LOL

thinksumdiesel, you need to thinkgasser.

VW TDI common rail

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

BANNED

Veteran Member

SkyPup

Guest

SkyPup

Guest

SkyPup

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

SkyPup

Guest

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

SkyPup

Guest

BANNED

Top Post Dawg

SkyPup

Guest

Top Post Dawg

SkyPup

Guest

BANNED

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

BANNED

SkyPup

Guest

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

SkyPup

Guest