VW No Longer Approves Biodiesel for New Models

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
how about the fact that all of the ulev etc cars are ugly, slow, and generally and gay as sh!t?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you bet. Like this one.

" Stepping up to the CLK500 nets the buyer the 5.0-liter V8 engine from the S-Class, making 306 horsepower and accelerating the snazzy coupe from 0 to 60 in just under 6 seconds. It, too, boasts a ULEV emissions rating."

0 to 60 in just under 6 seconds

 

[Lightman]

Yup, I agree. The new CLK has chrysler written all over it. UGLY POS. They shouldn't have ruined a good thing. The old E and CLK had much nicer lines and didn't look so cheap.

 

[Davin]

[ QUOTE ]
gredi said:
I have not found anywhere that says what the breakdown of "smog forming pollutants" are for the TDI's. One would think that somebody, somewhere had to test these things to be able to say they exhaust X amount of Y pollutants in Z miles. Maybe a search on google Unclesam will turn up some results. I've dealt with the FAA and know the government can hide stuff real well if they don't want it found easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Smog forming pollutants" generally refers to NOx.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm

2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.6 g/mi

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (in other words, below 0.01)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.4 g/mi

Yes, TDIs use less fuel, but for the same trip they put out more smog-forming NOx than a Hummer. Even more if you eliminate/adapt the EGR.

 

[AutoDiesel]

Carefull Davin.
That is sacrilege around here.
You'll be labled a troll for posting certified test results. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

maybe this one then....

2003 BMW 325i Sedan SULEV

 

[gredi]

Thanks for the link. Quite an eye opener to directly, apples to apples compare my Durango to a TDI, emissions wise at least. There's not as big a difference as I thought, except on NOx. Can't wait until Dodge comes out with the Cummins powered version.

 

[Weasle543]

[ QUOTE ]
Davin said
2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.6 g/mi

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (in other words, below 0.01)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.4 g/mi

Yes, TDIs use less fuel, but for the same trip they put out more smog-forming NOx than a Hummer. Even more if you eliminate/adapt the EGR.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what can be done to reduce the NOx? ULSD? ULSD bio blend? ULSD and/or ULSD bio blend with emissions equipment that can reduce the NOx?

Really stinks to think that NOx output can not be reduced on such a fuel effcient engine.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
So what can be done to reduce the NOx? ULSD? ULSD bio blend? ULSD and/or ULSD bio blend with emissions equipment that can reduce the NOx?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be done. It is just going to cost money. Anywhere from $800 to $2000 per car and ULSD must be available at every pump in the nation.
This is VW's plan.

It can be done.

 

[Weasle543]

And this would bring the NOx output down to ?g/mile?

 

[AutoDiesel]

The standards for the 2005 Euro 4 emissions are 0.25 g/km.(.016 g/mi)
Which VW has already launched a few models for that certification.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/0307vw.html
Volkswagen has launched new Euro 4 compliant diesel engines for its revised Audi A6 executive saloon and Avant ranges.
Audi’s latest four-cylinder 1.9 TDI and 2.0 TDI engines powering the A3 hatchback also comply with Euro 4.
------------------------------------------------------------

I think the new Shoran is Euro-4 compliant also.


The standards for Tier II EPA rules that go into full effect in 2007 will be a "fleet average" of .07 g/mi. But under the fleet average a certain vehicle could be certified to Tier II bin 7 of .15 g/mi.

Close to what they will have in Europe.

But the big difference is our duration requirements are for 120k miles (twice as long as in Europe) so the the basic requirement is that a vehicle new is generally is certified at about 50% of the limits because of this.

 

[Davin]

$800 to $2000 per car? wowee... why so expensive? Are the catalyst materials expensive? Or just the additional sensors, etc?

Have you heard anything recently on the urea-injection that Ford (i believe) was looking to use in the diesel Focus?

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you heard anything recently on the urea-injection that Ford (i believe) was looking to use in the diesel Focus?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is basically the same system proposed for the U.S. (and eventually for the next Euro emissions, Euro-5 in 2008 if I remember right) that VW will use eventually.

That is what the carbimide system is with VW. Other UREA injection. Ford or any other U.S. manufacturer refuses to sell light passenger vehicles under the phase-in requirements as VW will be doing so they will not certify any clean-diesel technology until 2007. (ULSD won't be available nation wide until Sept. 2006 by law)

I've read a couple of reports by developement engineers at Ford at they don't believe the urea injection system will work in the U.S. because it will add another maintenance item required to be performed. And since it is required to maintain emission performance it will pretty much have to a "free maintenance" item for the duration of the emissions warranty. And that is going to 10yr/120k miles. It will add cost to the manufacturer.

Check out the chart for the Ford Focus TDCI (that is the advanced diesel ) in this article.
USAToday

That is in line with the price listing at Yahoo auto's for Great Britain.
15330GRP = $24,244.40 U.S. dollars.


And average regular Focus there goes for about 13000GRP or $20,551 U.S., a $3600 dollar difference.

Quite a jump.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
SkyPup said:
That's exactly right AutoDiesel, none of the new high pressure injection systems work with Biodiesel (neither the Pump Duse or the piezoelectric Common Rail). VWAG had to replace 5,000 VW TDI PD engine that destructed this past winter in Germany alone due to the increased viscosity of the BD, this has led to the ban of the use of BioDiesel in all new Audi, VW, and other newer higher pressure common rail systems.
VWAG was amazed that even with the small number of people that ever use Biodiesel, there were so many engine failures in this small population right away. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sheesh, I take a few months off, and you STILL haven't learned to read, eh? Read VW's statement - it's not an issue of the VISCOSITY of biodiesel - it's a concern over QUALITY CONTROL and quality fluctuations. In Germany, there are several large scale plants making biodiesel from tallow (animal fat), many making it from waste vegetable oil, and many making it from rapeseed. The problem is, some of those plants have poor quality control, and users don't pay attention to the differences between the fuels (i.e. tallow biodiesel has a very high cloud/gel point - so DON'T USE IT IN THE WINTER). It's quality control issues, and ignorance on the part of users that has lead to problems - NOT any inherent problem with biodiesel itself. If you PROPERLY use biodiesel of GOOD QUALITY, there should be nothing to worry about. All of the pump failures have been due to very high water contamination (i.e. 1% water - that would be 10,000 ppm), glycerin contamination, and people not being aware of the cold weather properties of the fuel they use (i.e. using 100% tallow or WVO biodiesel in the middle of winter). Read the VW/Bosch pdfs you've posted repeatedly - ALL of the issues are due to quality control - not biodiesel of good quality being incompatible with the new injection pumps.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
Davin said:
"Smog forming pollutants" generally refers to NOx.


[/ QUOTE ]
To the EPA it does, but it shouldn't. It takes two to tango - hydrocarbons and NOx create smog, in the presence of sunlight (so I guess it takes three to tango). The hydrocarbons are the limiting reagent. With no HCs, NOx actually REMOVES ground level ozone. Hydrocarbons can mostly also be used a few times each in the formation of O3 (ozone), while a NOx molecule can only be used once. The emphasis should be on cleaning up the HC emphasis as much or more so than on cleaning up NOx emissions. The greater focus on NOx emissions has lead to problems like the weekend smog formation issue in California. In parts of the country like New Hampshire, we are termed "NOx sensitive areas" since hydrocarbon pollution from other states drifts here, so that our NOx emissions create smog, rather than destroying it. The problem is, the government focuses on NOx, as if it's the only problem. If they'd start worrying more about hydrocarbon pollution, NOx emissions would actually PREVENT smog formation.

[ QUOTE ]
2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.6 g/mi

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (in other words, below 0.01)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.4 g/mi

Yes, TDIs use less fuel, but for the same trip they put out more smog-forming NOx than a Hummer. Even more if you eliminate/adapt the EGR.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, but then look at the HC's. Almost all gassers emit considerably more HCs than an equivalent diesel vehicle - especially one running on biodiesel.

Still, once the ULSD standard hits in 2006, there will no longer be a NOx issue with diesels, since NOx adsorbers can then be used.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
I've read a couple of reports by developement engineers at Ford at they don't believe the urea injection system will work in the U.S. because it will add another maintenance item required to be performed. And since it is required to maintain emission performance it will pretty much have to a "free maintenance" item for the duration of the emissions warranty. And that is going to 10yr/120k miles. It will add cost to the manufacturer.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it's simply changing the urea canister every 10-20k miles, depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. Urea is cheap, a canister can't be all that expensive, and they should easily be able to design it so it takes them all of two minutes to complete. Whoopty-do. Change oil, change canister.

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the chart for the Ford Focus TDCI (that is the advanced diesel ) in this article.
USAToday

That is in line with the price listing at Yahoo auto's for Great Britain.
15330GRP = $24,244.40 U.S. dollars.


And average regular Focus there goes for about 13000GRP or $20,551 U.S., a $3600 dollar difference.

Quite a jump.


[/ QUOTE ]
A very large percentage of that price jump is due simply to the difference in the number of diesels they're making right now. How many normal 4-cyl gas Ford FOcus's does Ford produce? Now how many diesels? Far far less. Any manufacturer of ANYTHING ends up charging considerably more for a product they make less of.

If they start selling diesels here in 2006/7, the number of diesels they'd be producing would jump considerably, and the price would drop accordingly.

 

[Davin]

[ QUOTE ]
nh mike said:
[ QUOTE ]
2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.6 g/mi

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (in other words, below 0.01)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.4 g/mi

Yes, TDIs use less fuel, but for the same trip they put out more smog-forming NOx than a Hummer. Even more if you eliminate/adapt the EGR.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, but then look at the HC's. Almost all gassers emit considerably more HCs than an equivalent diesel vehicle - especially one running on biodiesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

These are values for the "HCHO" field, which I assume is hydrocarbon output.

2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.06 g/mi (this is "HC-TOTAL", there is no "HCHO" field

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (meaning <0.001 probably given the sig digs of values for other cars)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.002 g/mi

I don't know if the above numbers can be compared, since the labels don't match (HCHO vs HC-TOTAL). Maybe someone else can look at the data (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm) and figure it out.

EDIT: OK, well those numbers definitely can't be compared. HC-TOTAL is total hydrocarbon and HCHO is just formaldehyde.

Here's numbers for NMOG (non-methane organic gas):

Hummer: 0.114 g/mi
Accord: 0.014 g/mi
Jetta TDI: 0.02 g/mi (this is HC-NM... hydrocarbon- non-methane)

So what does all this mean? Beats me. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Davin]

[ QUOTE ]
nh mike said:
But it's simply changing the urea canister every 10-20k miles, depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. Urea is cheap, a canister can't be all that expensive, and they should easily be able to design it so it takes them all of two minutes to complete. Whoopty-do. Change oil, change canister.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but unfortunately from the automaker's point of view that makes a difference. They would have to pay dealers labor plus parts... so for a car with a 80k emissions warranty we're looking at, let's say, 6 recharges. Assume 1/2 hr labor (warranty rate) and wholesale cost of $5 for the canister... $35 maybe? So $200+ per car in extra cost to be eaten by the manufacturer. That doesn't sound like much, but Detroit is WAY into the business of penny-pinching. Something that seems so small can make or break a marketing/launch decision. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

That said, I still hope that Ford starts selling diesels here eventually... the more in the market the better.

 

[goat21]

You guys should listen to NH Mike. He speaks with logic.

It is not the equipment-it is the fuel. 30% of Eurobiodiesel is not CEN. Why would anyone buy an expensive VW, use quality synthetic lubes, insure it, buy good tyres and then put home brew in it? Home brew has water, alcohol, salts, etc.

Home brew is for the older MB, GM, etc. that has a few years left anyways and who cares about methanol corrosion, filter plugging and so on in a 30 year car. I use petrodiesel to get to work and biodiesel on the weekends to make a statement.

As the English say, "horses for courses." Use CEN or DIN B20 in the VW and homebrew in the old MB.

 

[TheLongshot]

Davin,

Why would the Dealer have ot service it under warranty? The Urea tank would be a maintnence item, just like oil, tranny fluid, etc. If anything, it gives the dealer another thing to overcharge for...

Jason

 

[Davin]

AutoDiesel mentioned that it would probably be required by law for them to pay for maintenance under the federal emission warranty guideline.

If you forget to change your oil, you're out an engine, but if you forget to change the canister your car suddenly puts out more pollutants... so in order for a car requiring that type of service to be approved the manufacturer would likely have to ensure (to the best of their ability... by paying for it) that the emission system maintains the correct level of performance.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
Davin said:
[ QUOTE ]
nh mike said:
Yes, TDIs use less fuel, but for the same trip they put out more smog-forming NOx than a Hummer. Even more if you eliminate/adapt the EGR.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, but then look at the HC's. Almost all gassers emit considerably more HCs than an equivalent diesel vehicle - especially one running on biodiesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

These are values for the "HCHO" field, which I assume is hydrocarbon output.

2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI 5-speed:
0.06 g/mi (this is "HC-TOTAL", there is no "HCHO" field

2003 Honda Accord 5-speed:
0 g/mi (meaning <0.001 probably given the sig digs of values for other cars)

2003 Hummer H2 Land Barge:
0.002 g/mi

[/ QUOTE ]
Where are you getting those figures from? That's completely different from all the figures I've seen. The data given by VW for the TDI (and the test data I've seen is BELOW this figure) is 0.0267 g/mile of total hydrocarbons. By comparison, a Honda Insight puts out around 0.04-0.05 g/mile in the tests I've seen.

I can't see any way that a Honda Accord puts out less than 0.001 g/mile of HCs - unless they're doing the test without the engine running, coasting downhill in neutral.

Of course, biodiesel then reduces the HC emissions compared to regular high sulfur diesel by a further 67%.

In general, diesels are cleaner on HC, CO2, and CO, while gassers are cleaner on NOx (due to lower temps) and particulate matter. Exhaust aftertreatment can clean up all of them - the main issue is that the level of sulfur in the fuel prevents some types of emissions equipment from being used - right now mostly on diesels.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the above numbers can be compared, since the labels don't match (HCHO vs HC-TOTAL). Maybe someone else can look at the data (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm) and figure it out.

EDIT: OK, well those numbers definitely can't be compared. HC-TOTAL is total hydrocarbon and HCHO is just formaldehyde.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, that makes more sense. Should read your entire post before I respond. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm too lazy to go back up and change mine though.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's numbers for NMOG (non-methane organic gas):

Hummer: 0.114 g/mi
Accord: 0.014 g/mi
Jetta TDI: 0.02 g/mi (this is HC-NM... hydrocarbon- non-methane)

[/ QUOTE ]
It would still be very surprising that an Accord is lower. Most likely it's due to the fact that right now, better emissions equipment can be used on gassers than on diesels. Without emissions equipment, diesels are lower on HC and CO, but higher on NOx and PM. Aftertreatment can do wonderful things though.

 

[AutoDiesel]

Good to see you back!

[ QUOTE ]
Where are you getting those figures from? That's completely different from all the figures I've seen. The data given by VW for the TDI (and the test data I've seen is BELOW this figure) is 0.0267 g/mile of total hydrocarbons. By comparison, a Honda Insight puts out around 0.04-0.05 g/mile in the tests I've seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta go to the source of the tests...the NREL/EPA test labs.

http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/hev_test/data_insight.shtml

The two main tests used for certification of vehicles are the FTP75 and the HWFET tests. Those are the two used for actual certifications. The figures for the Honda Insight are......
FTP75 = HC 0.023 g/mi
HWFET = HC 0.002 g/mi
These figures qualify the Insight for ULEV status for year 2000. The CVT trans Insight achieved SULEV status when it came out making it closer to the following..........

Toyota Prius
FTP75 = 0.009
HWFET = 0.001
The new 2004 Prius is 30% lower than the earlier model to meet the longer duration requirements for 2004.

The Honda Accord has been ULEV/SULEV for a few years now for the four cylinder I believe. Its' figures are achieved with the most up-to-date emission systems and engine control systems.

[ QUOTE ]
it's a concern over QUALITY CONTROL and quality fluctuations. In Germany, there are several large scale plants making biodiesel from tallow (animal fat), many making it from waste vegetable oil, and many making it from rapeseed. The problem is, some of those plants have poor quality control, and users don't pay attention to the differences between the fuels

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very correct. With the new DIN EN 14214 it allows WVO and tallow to be sold under this standard and the quality is not happening even with the strict laws and regulations they have concerning fuel quality at the pump.

You can talk all day about "quality fuel", but VWAG obviously feels that consistent quality is not possible at the pump so they have pulled their approval for biodiesel for their Euro-4 certified vehicles. How it affects emissions is a very large issue for them also. The biodiesel sensor would work for adapting the vehicle to biodiesel but VWAG has not commited to it. At best they are planning to offer the sensor as a option package to the consumer. Thus, VWAG vehicles will no longer be biodiesel ready from the factory.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, the government focuses on NOx, as if it's the only problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

The European governments feel the same way.
Go find out why they have tax surcharges on diesels.
Only the newest Euro-4 vehicles avoid those.

Something to do with NOx and PM. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[Fubar]

Hi, folks. I stumbled across this thread after a reference in the biodieselnow.com forums. Haven't owned a VW for a long time, there were the '59 and '63 Beetles and the '71 Type III Clementine orange squareback (with gas heater!), but I suppose that's ancient history here.

I'm an electrical engineer, I own a farm and one of the members of the local Ford Powerstroke Club that's been using B-20 biodiesel for about a year now. Thanks to the efforts of the local bus companies, the University of Colorado and public support, we now have public B-20 and B-100 pumps in Boulder, CO and more on the way in the Denver metro area. There will probably be a dozen by this time next year.

I wanted to add my two cents to this discussion.. Much of the conventional "dino" diesel fuel sold in this country is miserable quality fuel, often barely meeting the federal cetane specification of 40 (Mexico's federal standard is 48!). In the winter, water contamination is commonplace. By contrast, biodiesel has a cetane anywhere from 50 to 60. I've sometimes filled my Powerstroke at a truck stop and the engine would sound awful, with greatly amplified rattling, knocking and hard starting in the morning. And I'd cure the problem by adding even a half-tank of B-20, within seconds the engine would quiet down, smooth out and run like my grandpa's watch down the highway. Bio is highly lubricious, which benefits (at least in the American diesels) the fuel pumps and injectors. There is no question that in many respects, biodiesel is not a 'substitute' fuel, it has several characteristics that make it superior to plain conventional pump diesel.

Having said that, I need to ask, "What the heck is wrong with VW and Bosch"? You don't design a vehicle or injection system and expect real-world fuel to meet 'your' specs, you design a real-world product that works on the fuel that's being sold and what people buy. My point is, this whole discussion seems bass-ackwards.

When gasohol became a reality in many parts of the USA, the auto manufacturers made minor design changes to their vehicles to accomodate the fuel. They didn't threaten to void warranties if gasohol was found to be used, and their engines didn't blow up on the slightly different fuel, either.

None of the American manufacturers of diesel engines will void warranties solely for the use of biodiesel. I spoke with a representative of Cummins only yesterday, and their official position is that they neither approve or disapprove of the use of biodiesel. The same is true with respect to Ford (which uses International-Navistar diesel engines) and Caterpillar. There isn't a single 18 wheeler out there that couldn't successfully run on B-20, and our club members collective experience is that the Fords run better, smoother, mor quietly and start easier on B-20. I get great mileage on B-20 which is no different than that on conventional diesel. The miniscule BTU/gallon difference of B-20 is offest by the engines's smoother operation on a higher-cetane, easier-igniting fuel.
The experience of a Denver-area bus company that operates a fleet of B-20 powered city busses is that oil contamination is greatly reduced, they test their oil and can go 50% longer between changes. Tailpipe smoke is greatly reduced, on a dyno emissions test one of their busses had >60% opacity due to black smoke out of the tailpipe, running on B-20 cut that in half, and B-100 to almost no visible smoke at all. Their maintenance is reduced on biodiesel, more than offsetting the slightly higher current cost of the fuel itself. Can you say, "increased engine life"?

This is all good news, no user I've ever met had anything bad to say about ATSM-certified biodiesel. No one, that is, except for VW. You've got to ask why! Who is right, Bosch-VW or the rest of the real world?

I think you VW enthusiasts should tell them that you want their vehicles to be able to run on real-world fuel and to redesign the prima-donna components of the fuel system. Anyway, that's what *I'd* be doing.

Thanks for your patience and take care! Thanks for letting me vent. I'm not trying to flame VW, but I think they're making a mistake in their approach here that's hurting them.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all good news, no user I've ever met had anything bad to say about ATSM-certified biodiesel. No one, that is, except for VW. You've got to ask why! Who is right, Bosch-VW or the rest of the real world?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you need to look at it in different terms.

VW sold about 30k TDi's total in the U.S. last year.
VW sold aprox. 5 million cars last year and of that aprox 40% were diesels.
Let's say about 2 million.

Now what is the "real world" of diesels as you say.
The U.S. with VW at 30K vehicles?
Or Europe with millions of diesels sold?

And who would have the most experience with passenger car diesels then?

 

[SkyPup]

None of them authorize the use of BD above 5%....

http://www.dieselforum.com/factsheet/biodiesel.pdf

 

[Fubar]

[ QUOTE ]
SkyPup said:
None of them authorize the use of BD above 5%....


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Your information is somewhat outdated.

In all cases, engine manufacturers cannot void vehicle warranties simply for the use of biodiesel fuel because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States.

Second, here are the *current* positions on biodiesel of the major American diesel engine manufacturers:

Caterpillar: Many engines approved for up to B-100. Others limited to B-5. Fuel must meet ASTM specifications.

Cummins (Dodge): All engines officially approved for B-5 in 2001. I'll repeat what I wrote in my earlier posting: I met with a representative of Cummins Rocky Mountain two days ago at a conference. I and another hundred attendees were publicly told that Cummins now "neither approves or disapprove" of the use of biodiesel in any concentration. That means if the engine runs well on it, good enough. If it can be proven to have damaged an engine, that's another. That's exactly the same position they have on warranties with respect to conventional diesel fuel. OK? Got it?

Detroit Diesel: B-20 is approved if fuel meets ASTM specs and is made from virgin oil.

International-Navistar (Ford): No official position on biodiesel. Magnuson-Moss Act solely applies. http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/International%20Letter.pdf

John Deere: All engines approved for B-5 ASTM-approved fuel in 2001. Approval of B-20 in certain engines is pending.

Collectively, these manufacturers have sold something like 20 million diesel engines over the last five years. Ford alone has sold 2 million diesel engine trucks since 1996. # 2 million rolled of the assembly line a few months ago. I don't know how many General Motors has sold, but it's safe to say another several million. Cummins has sold a million 5.9L diesels to Dodge, and biodiesel is approved in every one of them, including the ones being manufactured right now. There have been no reports of problems caused by the use of biodiesel in any. It's only Bosch that's seemingly having issues.

VW-Bosch is the *only* diesel engine manufacturer specifically prohibiting the use of biodiesel. That's my point. No more, no less. This should not be acceptable to their customers when all the other manufacturers are working in the other direction.

 

[Uncle_Dave]

Fubar,

I like your nice detailed rundown on the BioDiesel. So far I have never used it.

In a month I am going to drive from Boston to Colorado. Son just returned from Korea. Remember
driving across the country with my old Rabbit Diesel, and driving up to Yellowstone. Was I putting
out black smoke, or What?

You say that you are an Electrical Engineer. Concider all the feedback loops with their sensors to
help reduce Knock, peak temperatures, etc. Then here come all of us Hot Rods wanting to do Who
Knows What to these engines. VW must be having fits.

Here in New England they are having a Dyno Day. Would have liked to have been able to make
it, but work.... Would have loved to see the tests being run. For the good off all, one or two
engines are distoyed, or we are able to drive 1,400 on a tank. Can't help but think of the term
Evolution. Gas to Diesel, now we have the TDI with all the electronics added to the engine.

My old VW Diesel used to smell like a Thunderstorm was coming. Used to think that the Amonia
was good for helping the plants grow. The engine vibrated so much that the exaust pipe had to
be welded several times. The battery had to be replaced every year.

Used to wonder why you could not put some of the anti-polution devices on that Rabbit. Now they
have. Not just one Knock sensor but two. An EGR valve. etc.

There are lots of ideas out there. Great fun trying to sort them all out.

What I like are the folks that are willing to take a chance and ride the Bleeding Edge,
and those that will put their ideas to the TEST. Personally I think that how far you
are able to go on one tank is rather a waste of effort. Overall MPG is just as
valuable a number. HOWEVER, it is a Benchmark. One number that anyone can shoot
for.

When I drive out to CO. I am going for TIME, and don't want to waste time at the pump. Pre
Pay the $10, and make it Quick.

I have one question for you, well anyone. Were is there a good point in the engine electronics
where I can get a good relative measure as to how hard the engine is working? Would like to
make some runs to try and increase the MPG. It would save a lot of time and effort if I could
get up to a Known Speed, Amount of fuel, Tire Pressure, Headwind, etc. to know if what I am
tinkering with is helping or hurting with my MPG efforts.

Uncle Dave WB1FLI

 

[Fubar]

Greetings Uncle Dave.

You know, I have always wanted a diesel Rabbit, but never got one. I live at the end of several miles of rotten dirt/gravel ranch road, I have to frequently travel for work up barely-bladed roads in the back country and a Rabbit would be quite inappropriate. My wife drives a car that goes through a set of shocks and tires every other year and even she's ready to get a more durable "truck-like" vehicle. In here case, she'll probably be getting an upcoming '05 Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option. A more appropriate vehicle and even better mileage.

While I miss the old automotive days, the merging of things electronic and mechanical has made some very cool things possible. Several members of our truck club are playing with reprogramming the ECUs, which control the engine and transmission. They're getting something like 500+ HP and over 1,000 ft/lbs out of their engines that way...And we used to pull and mill, port and polish heads, swap cams and pistons to do that sort of thing- LOL! If 26,000 PSI isn't enough injector pressure, well, jack it up!
Yup, I'm not going to be replacing a blown engine in a Beetle with hand tools in a gas station's parking lot 500 miles from home any more! Instead, I'm playing with automotive software for grins.

What you're asking...Well, it all depends on the engine technology. Many of the latest vehicles have the sensors and electronics to do a lot of what you want. You can jack a laptop computer into a diagnostic port and read parameters like fuel flow, injection pressures, manifold pressure, speed, engine RPMs, air density, cylinder balance, etc. My Ford diesel has those capabilities built-in, you can enter a diagnostic mode and read the numbers you want right on the odometer display. Many ordinary vehicles now have on-board computers that'll read out MPG based on input from those sensors. If your vehicle has the appropriate sensors, it can be done, if it doesn't, then you have to do it the traditional way with pencil, paper and calculator at your fuel stops. There are several companies that sell diagnostic tools and software that interface a laptop computer or Palm to a vehicle and let you see real-time graphs of what's going on. So it all 'depends'.

Yup, I think that diesels are going to be rocketing in popularity over the next few years, gasoline engines are so inherently inefficient by comparison, and they've wrung about all the MPG improvements that they can out of them. Unless there's some new breakthroughs out of the blue, I see us following the European model as energy prices continue their upward climb. Traditional SUVs are already dinosaurs!

I hope that you enjoy your trip out this way.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
In all cases, engine manufacturers cannot void vehicle warranties simply for the use of biodiesel fuel because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act has absolutly NOTHING to do with the type of fuel used in a vehicle.
The M-M Act only applies to replacement parts for the vehicle. Fuel has nothing to do with it.

And by the way, my brother has a brand new 2003 Dodge HO Cummins and in the owners manual it "recommends agains't" using biodiesel. (or any other fuel additives for that matter) That is for the HO version only.

That being said.
You can use it if you want to and they can't do anything about it.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
This should not be acceptable to their customers when all the other manufacturers are working in the other direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly.

Transportation Times

Biodiesel component testing begins
Work has begun on a study that will determine the impact of biodiesel on fuel injector and fuel pump wear. Because oxidized biodiesel may lead to the formation of deposits and corrosive acids , understanding the impact of this fuel on component wear is important to increasing biodiesel commercialization. The project is being co-funded by DOE/NREL and the Coordinating Research Council, an automotive/energy industry group. The work will be performed at Associated Octel in the UK and will take approximately 10 months to complete.
------------------------------------------------------------

One of the largest concerns manufactures have with the ASTM D-6751 standard is that has no oxidation standard like they do in Europe with the lastest DIN EN 14214 standard.