Diesel engine query

derry · 11-09-2014 11:31am

Chimaera wrote: »

Man, I could smell the stink of bull$hit off this post a mile off.

First off, the fuel standards used here are set by CEN, a body that specialises in standards. The standards are devised by CEN in consultation with governments and industrial stakeholders. In the case of fuel standards the main stakeholders are the DFIE manufacturers and the fuel suppliers.

The main changes made to fuel standards in the last 20 years have involved the removal of sulphur compounds from diesel to reduce the emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. SO2 is a significant contributor to acid rain, so its removal is a good thing.

There was a downside in that sulphur helped with the lubricity of the fuel. That lubricity had to be added back in, and the standard revision that eliminated sulphur from diesel also continued to mandate a specific level of lubricity: the fuel manufacturers had to find additives to maintain the lubricity level. Interestingly the best lubricity enhancer that can be added to diesel is biodiesel, which is mandated through the biofuels directive.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation is used to reduce combustion temperatures, which reduces the formation of NOx emissions. Again, a significant culprit for acid rain. In the past EGR was problematic because older diesel engines were sooty. This coupled with crankcase ventilation systems which routed back to the engine's intake often resulted in a gunky mess blocking up the intake. Interestingly, removing sulphur from the fuel substantially reduced soot output too.

First you claim I say is is BS and then you say the same as me in mildly different way .What you smoking . Clearly you dont understand the Chicken and egg problem. In this case the the problem was simple sulfur fuels would destroy the new particle filter the car manufactures devised to reduce soot . The governments under pressure from the environmentalists were demanding soot free cars . The solution was to remove the sulfur from the diesel . The idea that Bio diesel adds the lubrication is flawed . The original sulfur rich fuel had the best lubrication period . The bio diesel solution was sticky patch solution to problem the new sulfur deficient fuel caused . So When I say it is the motor manufactures that needed fuel formula changes and you rant sh1t about government motor manufactures and fuel suppliers it splitting hairs they all have to sing from the same song sheet to ensure the right fuels get to the right cars . In nut shell modern diesel fuels formulas in ROI and most of the EU have much less lubrication qualities and your engines will wear out faster . I dont give a rats a$$ about acid rain tripe the forest in Germany they told me 1980 would be destroyed by acid rain by ~2000 are still there and the acid rain problem was all invented crap.

Recirculation of fuel was done for getting better MPG period end of story .about 80% of fuel is still burning as it exits the engine . If this fuel continues to burn outside the engine it will waste this fuel and will also create more NOx and other bad things which in the case of petrol engine the CAT will burn up. Recirculating this still burning fuel back into the engine will help burn this fuel again and help MPG . As side effect is that NOx will be less . Some engines will recirculate the same fuel up to five times . Now if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear in the long term then your clearly not smoking my fumes from my 1993 ~300,000 kilometer 2 liter Toyota Carina many of which have done over ~500,000 miles ~800kK in the 1990 era when diesel fuel was real diesel fuel and real cars did not recirculate crappy fumes back into their inyards .

The dirty little secret of the modern diesel is they took a great technology and F****D it up on purpose to get people to replace cars more often .

Thats not counting the other harder to prove methods like softer metals in engines, rubber and plastic hoses that perish faster more corrosive brake fluid oil to eats brake pipes faster and the unnecessary extra electronics made with chips that have life times of 7 years designed to be too expensive to replace seven year later when they go AWOL .

Its not just diesels that wont go as far it petrol cars also with the many tricks they do to get cars to turn to scrap heaps at 7 years old with 100,000 kilometers on the clock

let me guess your problem you want to keep the resale of your Diesel car higher... ha ha

Ralf

Cleveland Hot Pocket · 11-09-2014 11:44am

Ok Jim Corr
TL, DR

I'm a poet
And I didn't even know it!

dgt · 11-09-2014 12:06pm

Any diesel I've had, I've disconnected the EGR. Its resulted in better MPG. Its to clean up emissions, not to save suel

Go figure

Poulgorm · 11-09-2014 7:14pm

I suspect that many of the contributors on here who are singing the praises of modern diesel engines are, either mechanics or garage owners.

George Dalton · 11-09-2014 8:03pm

Poulgorm wrote: »

I suspect that many of the contributors on here who are singing the praises of modern diesel engines are, either mechanics or garage owners.

Your point being?

ianobrien · 11-09-2014 8:25pm

I suspect that many of the problems are down to the owners through improper use and/or cheap dirty fuel.

Diesels have moved on from being able to burn any liquid fuel (diesel, kerosene, cooking oil, any flammable liquid) with the tolerances needed for that to being designed for diesel only and not the diesel/kero/water mix that can be found in some tanks. The primary users of diesels in Europe are high mileage users thus the emission control systems are designed for high mileage users (DPF regeneration for example). Given the Irish attitude to servicing ("I'm not paying €60/€80 for just the oil when I can get some for a tenner" - It's not the same spec people!) it's no wonder that engines are giving trouble for some owners/users.

The driver for the changes to diesels are emissions, smooth torque curve with no turbo lag and power.

CJhaughey · 11-09-2014 8:25pm

Biodiesel also has bad effects on rubber components, newer cars probably have more resistant components but older machines often suffer rubber components failing from the effects of biodiesel.
I would say that modern diesels are remarkable in their ability to produce big power and torque through advanced and super high pressure injection but this comes at a price which is servicing on or before the recommended interval and with high quality oil.
Gone are the days when an old diesel could run for years with minimal maintenance, these days its service on time with high quality oil or suffer the consequences.
I am also of the opinion that diesel fuel here is of variable quality, the refinery in Whitegate is ancient and incapable of producing consistent quality fuel.
Its been losing money for years and will likely be shut down soon.

Markcheese · 11-09-2014 8:36pm

CJhaughey wrote: »

Biodiesel also has bad effects on rubber components, newer cars probably have more resistant components but older machines often suffer rubber components failing from the effects of biodiesel.
I would say that modern diesels are remarkable in their ability to produce big power and torque through advanced and super high pressure injection but this
comes at a price which is servicing on
or before the recommended interval and
with high quality oil.
Gone are the days when an old diesel could run for years with minimal maintenance, these days its service on time with high quality oil or suffer the consequences.
I am also of the opinion that diesel fuel here is of variable quality, the refinery in
Whitegate is ancient and incapable of
producing consistent quality fuel.
Its been losing money for years and will likely be shut down soon.

Was told last week it's losing around 1million a week.... So when their contract is up it won't last long (unless theirs a whacking great subsidy paid
out..) Phillis 66 recently took it off the market as well ...

Chimaera · 11-09-2014 8:40pm

derry wrote: »

First you claim I say is is BS and then you say the same as me in mildly different way .What you smoking . Clearly you dont understand the Chicken and egg problem. In this case the the problem was simple sulfur fuels would destroy the new particle filter the car manufactures devised to reduce soot . The governments under pressure from the environmentalists were demanding soot free cars . The solution was to remove the sulfur from the diesel . The idea that Bio diesel adds the lubrication is flawed . The original sulfur rich fuel had the best lubrication period . The bio diesel solution was sticky patch solution to problem the new sulfur deficient fuel caused . So When I say it is the motor manufactures that needed fuel formula changes and you rant sh1t about government motor manufactures and fuel suppliers it splitting hairs they all have to sing from the same song sheet to ensure the right fuels get to the right cars . In nut shell modern diesel fuels formulas in ROI and most of the EU have much less lubrication qualities and your engines will wear out faster . I dont give a rats a$$ about acid rain tripe the forest in Germany they told me 1980 would be destroyed by acid rain by ~2000 are still there and the acid rain problem was all invented crap.

Recirculation of fuel was done for getting better MPG period end of story .about 80% of fuel is still burning as it exits the engine . If this fuel continues to burn outside the engine it will waste this fuel and will also create more NOx and other bad things which in the case of petrol engine the CAT will burn up. Recirculating this still burning fuel back into the engine will help burn this fuel again and help MPG . As side effect is that NOx will be less . Some engines will recirculate the same fuel up to five times . Now if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear in the long term then your clearly not smoking my fumes from my 1993 ~300,000 kilometer 2 liter Toyota Carina many of which have done over ~500,000 miles ~800kK in the 1990 era when diesel fuel was real diesel fuel and real cars did not recirculate crappy fumes back into their inyards .

The dirty little secret of the modern diesel is they took a great technology and F****D it up on purpose to get people to replace cars more often .

Thats not counting the other harder to prove methods like softer metals in engines, rubber and plastic hoses that perish faster more corrosive brake fluid oil to eats brake pipes faster and the unnecessary extra electronics made with chips that have life times of 7 years designed to be too expensive to replace seven year later when they go AWOL .

Its not just diesels that wont go as far it petrol cars also with the many tricks they do to get cars to turn to scrap heaps at 7 years old with 100,000 kilometers on the clock

let me guess your problem you want to keep the resale of your Diesel car higher... ha ha

Ralf

Oh my, your persecution complex is pretty strong.

I did not repost your bilge with a mild twist. Your post was full of factual errors.

In the interests of sparing your blushes further, I've done 2 university degree theses on biofuels, biodiesel in particular. I know what I'm talking about here, you clearly don't.

Sulphur was removed from diesel due to its contribution to air pollution, acid rain in particular. The soot reduction was incidental though welcome. It was removed long before particulate filters were on sale.

Biodiesel's lubricity enhancing properties are well established. A quick search of the scientific literature will show this.

EGR is an emissions reduction technology. It tends to reduce fuel economy since it moves the engine away from its maximum efficiency.

While we're talking about efficiency, diesel engines are about 40 % efficient i.e. about 40 % of the fuel's energy is converted into mechanical power. The rest is lost as heat (as the second law of thermodynamics demands). Theoretical maximum efficiency for a diesel cycle is less than 60 % so we do pretty well.

And no, I'm not trying to preserve the value of a modern diesel car - I'm driving a '99 Passat TDI. What I am trying to do is tackle ignorance and misleading information. There are reasons to be wary of modern diesel fuel and diesel engines, but making stuff up doesn't help the discussion.

ianobrien · 11-09-2014 9:38pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Was told last week it's losing around 1million a week.... So when their contract is up it won't last long (unless theirs a whacking great subsidy paid
out..) Phillis 66 recently took it off the market as well ...

It's a long time since I worked there in the labs.......

debabyjesus · 11-09-2014 10:40pm

dgt wrote: »

Any diesel I've had, I've disconnected the EGR. Its resulted in better MPG. Its to clean up emissions, not to save suel

Go figure

Same here clean everthing out then blank that fcuker off. Whats the point in intercoolers if you pump hot exhaust back in at the end.

Afn and xud best diesels going. Vag afn being my favourite, easy mod, great mpg, ultra reliable.

dr.fuzzenstein · 11-09-2014 10:55pm

corglass wrote: »

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 Toyota diesel (1993-1997)
2.0 TD Toyota (1997-2001)
1.9 VAG (pre 2001)
1.9 TDI (post 2001)
2.0 TDI (post 2005)
Any other contenders?

Ford 1.8 (previously 1.6) diesel engine.
Between the 1980's 1.6 up to my current '06 1.8 and many inbetween I drove many hundreds of thousands of kilometers and never had a single issue with that engine. Had two of the 1980's 1.6 VAG diesel engines and they fell apart and where pissing every fluid at the end as well as burning gallons of oil.
The Ford unit burns next to none, less than a liter in 20k km. The current one has done 300k km and, apart from a leaky fuel line, never gone wrong or missed a beat.

CJhaughey · 11-09-2014 11:53pm

corglass wrote: »

Best diesel engine of the last 20 years guys? All things (mpg, reliability, ease of maintenance, power etc.)

2.0 Toyota diesel (1993-1997)
2.0 TD Toyota (1997-2001)
1.9 VAG (pre 2001)
1.9 TDI (post 2001)
2.0 TDI (post 2005)
Any other contenders?

Toyota 12-HT
Probably the best diesel engine Toyota ever fitted to the Landcruiser.

JohnBoy26 · 12-09-2014 4:25am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ford 1.8 (previously 1.6) diesel engine.
Between the 1980's 1.6 up to my current '06 1.8 and many inbetween I drove many hundreds of thousands of kilometers and never had a single issue with that engine. Had two of the 1980's 1.6 VAG diesel engines and they fell apart and where pissing every fluid at the end as well as burning gallons of oil.
The Ford unit burns next to none, less than a liter in 20k km. The current one has done 300k km and, apart from a leaky fuel line, never gone wrong or missed a beat.

You must of had 2 poorly maintained, abused engines with very high miles because those old vag diesels were excellent where reliability was concerned.

jimgoose · 12-09-2014 7:52am

debabyjesus wrote: »

Same here clean everthing out then blank that fcuker off. Whats the point in intercoolers if you pump hot exhaust back in at the end...

I believe the idea is to actually lower combustion temperatures thus emitting less nitrogen oxides. The modern ones use coolers on the recirculated gas.

jimgoose · 12-09-2014 7:56am

derry wrote: »

...if you think putting burning fuel back into a engine will not have detrimental effects to the engine wear...

I'd say burning fuel is something engine internals are just going to have to put up with for another while! Granted this is relative new on the induction side, but I would imagine the modern turbo diesel use similar high-temp alloys for inlet valves as well as exhaust valves, not to mention manifolds, to cope with the modern EGR setup.

dr.fuzzenstein · 12-09-2014 8:26am

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You must of had 2 poorly maintained, abused engines with very high miles because those old vag diesels were excellent where reliability was concerned.

I did buy them with high mileage already on them, not sure about the maintenance. The one thing I'd say about them, they where overstressed in a VW T3 Transporter.
Having said that, I would like to try VAG diesels in the future, wouldn't mind owning a Passat or A4 estate with the 1.9 diesel and see what they're like.

But as far as indestructibility is concerned, if I had to buy a car with an engine that I KNOW will get me to the ends of the earth, will do decent MPG, won't burn much oil, is powerful enough to do the job, well I already have.
1980's Ford Escort Breadvan with the 1.6 (ok, not powerful and the car was terrible), 2 '04 TDDI Focuses, 1 '00 Focus TDDI and the current '06 CMax TDCI (115 hp), I have done 100k km or more in each of them and so far, touch wood, very little has gone wrong with the cars and nothing's gone wrong with the engine.
Ford is very much the overlooked contender here.

Poulgorm · 12-09-2014 8:48am

George Dalton wrote: »

Your point being?

They make a hell of a lot more money maintaining diesels rather than petrol engines.

Gazzmonkey · 12-09-2014 9:07am

Poulgorm wrote: »

They make a hell of a lot more money maintaining diesels rather than petrol engines.

Would there be more diesels than petrols in the country? if so, then that would be one reason why!

Assuming your statement was correct that is

GTDolanator · 12-09-2014 9:23am

dgt wrote: »

XUD
Fiat/Sofim diesel
Mercedes OM series
Cummins BT series

Real diesel engines I'll probably get shot down for by dimwits who haven't a clue :rolleyes:

Yes,but how about a big durty detroit 2 stroker?

absolute filth...but i love em!

GTDolanator · 12-09-2014 9:24am

And the isuzu 1.7 that was found in the vauxhall/opel range!
that was a cracker of a little lump

Kimbot · 12-09-2014 9:25am

Well i have a 2007 1.9 TDi with 240,000 miles on the clock and not a bother on the engine at all. It will easily do a hell of alot more than that

debabyjesus · 12-09-2014 11:25am

jimgoose wrote: »

I believe the idea is to actually lower combustion temperatures thus emitting less nitrogen oxides. The modern ones use coolers on the recirculated gas.

Yes lower combustion temp by having less clean air to burn thus lower power. Im sure it works as an emissions reducer but if your doing power mods it has to go. That's my understanding anyway, if you can convince me otherwise I'll unblank it!

jimgoose · 12-09-2014 11:27am

debabyjesus wrote: »

Yes lower combustion temp by having less clean air to burn thus lower power. Im sure it works as an emissions reducer but if your doing power mods it has to go. That's my understanding anyway, if you can convince me otherwise I'll unblank it!

Do wot, John?? I agree with you 100%! :pac:

dgt · 12-09-2014 12:34pm

GTDolanator wrote: »

Yes,but how about a big durty detroit 2 stroker?

absolute filth...but i love em!

On with a jake brake and wake everyone up in the morning

One used to go past my house in the morning in a school bus, you'd never need an alarm clock :cool:

Since we're on about 2 strokes, how about the TS3.....?

JJJJNR · 12-09-2014 1:25pm

My05 2.0Tdi PD (BKD) just passed 190m and is stronger than ever, its the gift that keeps on giving havent replaced anything other than oil every 10km, timing belts, gear oil etc.. had a bit of welding done at the local car surgeon recently but all good.

More worried about the effect of non usage now as im on public transport. Hope it doesnt turn to sand.

dr.fuzzenstein · 12-09-2014 1:34pm

dgt wrote: »

On with a jake brake and wake everyone up in the morning

One used to go past my house in the morning in a school bus, you'd never need an alarm clock :cool:

Since we're on about 2 strokes, how about the TS3.....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocMoTOVn6Q

Daymn!

George Dalton · 12-09-2014 3:39pm

Poulgorm wrote: »

They make a hell of a lot more money maintaining diesels rather than petrol engines.

They also maintain hundreds if not thousands of diesel cars and therefore have pretty good idea of failure rates for turbos, DPFs, EGRs etc. They live in the real world not in the land of Google.

Honestly reading some of the scaremongering both on here and on the internet in general you would wonder how a diesel manages to complete a single journey without an expensive failure of some kind.

The reality is that the majority of diesels give reliable, cost effective service for their owners.

dr.fuzzenstein · 12-09-2014 3:47pm

George Dalton wrote: »

They also maintain hundreds if not thousands of diesel cars and therefore have pretty good idea of failure rates for turbos, DPFs, EGRs etc. They live in the real world not in the land of Google.

Honestly reading some of the scaremongering both on here and on the internet in general you would wonder how a diesel manages to complete a single journey without an expensive failure of some kind.

The reality is that the majority of diesels give reliable, cost effective service for their owners.

Like I said many hundreds of thousands of KM on many different diesel engines from VAG to Ford and that massive failure that cost me thousands has yet to materialize. A lot of pub talk and 99% of people who say "Yeah, diesels are crap and constantly go wrong, costing you thousands" don't drive a diesel for exactly that reason and so inherently are talking out of their arse.
As long as you stay away from the 520d, you'll be grand!

Markcheese · 12-09-2014 4:29pm

That may be what the bloke down the Pub is saying but the gas thing is that since 08 diesel is pretty much all they've been buying ... :-)

Diesel engine query

Comments