Biodiesel....SVO....WVO....???? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

probear · #31 12-07-2006, 10:50 PM

OK, simple explanation. The problem with WVO is that it needs to be heated prior to the injection pump. The viscosity is too high, otherwise. Because of the heating, a two stage system allowing startup with #2 and a final purge with #2 prior to shutdown. Once heated, WVO is not a problem. If not heated, it will also not burn properly as it will not spray correctly.

Bio-D is totally different. It can be used (and quite effectively) as a solvent. That is why it is necessary to change fuel filters. It also maintains a much higher lubrication aspect. It will gel quicker than #2, but if the weather gets too cold, a blend will usually work.

As to the residual lye and methanol, it should be gone in the wash cycle for properly made Bio-D. Some methods of cleaning the processed Bio-d will also leave the pH level out of wack. Good Bio-D will not have lye and any methanol. The mere fact that it is a solvent is the reason the hoses on older models will deteriorate.

justinperkins · #32 12-07-2006, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by probear

Uh, actually, the methanol is used in the process and the lye is the catalyst. There is a bit of recoverable methanol as the actual process only uses 18% or so of the original volume of oil, BUT in order to get a better conversion, it is suggested to use 21 or 22%. That leaves approx 4% methanol that either is evaporated or drops into the glycerin layer.

Go here http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/gettingstarted/ for more information.

Ok you guys are going way beyond what I intended with my methanol comment. I have no knowledge of the production process or post-production filtering, but if methanol is used in the production process, there is methanol in biodiesel (for all I care). Please don't misinterpret that as ignorant, I'm just saying that methanol (a fossil fuel) was consumed in the production process.

I know I'm not adding anything, but I thought I should clarify why I brought it up in the first place.

justinperkins · #33 12-07-2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbach36

The biodiesel ... is rough on your rubber hoses.

A simple act of upgrading your rubber to modern standards (rubber or something better) is the solution to this problem.

log673 · #34 12-07-2006, 11:43 PM

Replacing the rubber hoses will solve the leaky hose problem. Sometimes it is reccomended to replace them with Viton hoses.

Austin85 · #35 12-07-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrhills0146

I'd rather not get into this debate yet again, but you are wrong.

The ORIGINAL Diesel engine was indeed designed to run on peanut oil.

The 617, 616, 603, or whichever other Diesel engine in your Mercedes Benz was NOT designed to run on peanut oil. It was designed to run on #2 Diesel fuel. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Come talk to me about alternative fuels when you have reached a quarter-million miles on home-brewed fuel with no injection pump failure or clogged injectors, and I will subsequently eat my words. In other words, the proof is in the pudding.

I've been running my 300D on pudding for the last month, and so far no difference.....

probear · #36 12-08-2006, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinperkins

A simple act of upgrading your rubber to modern standards (rubber or something better) is the solution to this problem.

I'm not so sure that is not a good idea anyway, considering the 'new' ULSD fuel. The original reason that manufacturers changed the fuel lines/o-rings/etc in the early 90s was because of the switch to low sulfur diesel. I would think that the 'new' fuel might cause problems with the older models too....

#37 12-08-2006, 12:12 AM

Biodiesel/WVO/SVO is a passing fad. Once the restaurants figure out "Everyone wants it, I'm going to start charging for it so I can make some cash on the side" this fad will quickly fall out of the light. Once that happens, everyone doing it for the "free" fuel, environmentalist posers, and crowd followers, will dump their cars for g@ssers and send the old diesels to the junkyards.

Post 2002 cars/engines cannot run it without damage and warranty voiding of the expensive fuel system and possibly the engine itself.

Biglex · #38 12-08-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Biodiesel/WVO/SVO is a passing fad. Once the restaurants figure out "Everyone wants it, I'm going to start charging for it so I can make some cash on the side" this fad will quickly fall out of the light. Once that happens, everyone doing it for the "free" fuel, environmentalist posers, and crowd followers, will dump their cars for g@ssers and send the old diesels to the junkyards.

Post 2002 cars/engines cannot run it without damage and warranty voiding of the expensive fuel system and possibly the engine itself.

As much as I HOPE you are wrong, I think yu hit the nail on the head. I was fortunate that I found a place that was paying about $80 a week to have his hauled off. Maybe I should have started out only charging him $40 a week, and still had some room to negotiate to getting it for free.

probear · #39 12-08-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Biodiesel/WVO/SVO is a passing fad. Once the restaurants figure out "Everyone wants it, I'm going to start charging for it so I can make some cash on the side" this fad will quickly fall out of the light. Once that happens, everyone doing it for the "free" fuel, environmentalist posers, and crowd followers, will dump their cars for g@ssers and send the old diesels to the junkyards.

Post 2002 cars/engines cannot run it without damage and warranty voiding of the expensive fuel system and possibly the engine itself.

Got links? Seems many states are helping Bio-D get started and there is lots of commercial efforts that are also behind it. Bio-D is not a fad, and the only reason it has not been used before is that #2 has been so cheap. Purely economics...Now, it is becoming very feasible from not only the cost aspect, but the ecological aspect.
Once commercial Bio-D starts getting a foothold, you will see a different variety of crops specifically grown for Bio-D production. As it is now, the crops grown for vegetable oil are not anywhere close to the oil-per-acre that other crops can produce.
I further do not see how you lump SVO/WVO/ and Bio-D in the same generalization with reference to fuel systems and engines. SVO/WVO and Bio-D are not the same at all.
A couple of the reasons that manufacturers state their warranty specifications is because they do not want to expend the cost of certifying fuels that the majority of people will not normally use nor do they want to widen their liability. I have not seen one article that substantiates the claim of damage to fuel systems or engines by certified Bio-D and would really like to see where you got your information.

justinperkins · #40 12-08-2006, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Post 2002 cars/engines cannot run it without damage and warranty voiding of the expensive fuel system and possibly the engine itself.

I'm with you on the warranty voiding, but don't quite get the logic behind "post 2002 cars cannot run it". I know there are manufactures out there who are endorsing small blends of biodiesel (won't void warranty). I only think more manufacturers are going to recognize this, and the blend percentage is only going to increase with time. Why would they back something that ruined engines?

#41 12-08-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by probear

Purely economics...Now, it is becoming very feasible from not only the cost aspect, but the ecological aspect.
Once commercial Bio-D starts getting a foothold, you will see a different variety of crops specifically grown for Bio-D production. As it is now, the crops grown for vegetable oil are not anywhere close to the oil-per-acre that other crops can produce.
I further do not see how you lump SVO/WVO/ and Bio-D in the same generalization with reference to fuel systems and engines. SVO/WVO and Bio-D are not the same at all.
A couple of the reasons that manufacturers state their warranty specifications is because they do not want to expend the cost of certifying fuels that the majority of people will not normally use nor do they want to widen their liability.

It is mostly about economics. For as large as Denver is, I know of only 2 fuel stations selling commercial Biodiesel at the pump. One sells B20 for the same price as petrodiesel (and only during the summer months), the other adds ~20 cents to the price per gallon.

Both use Soy as the Bio portion. IMHO, biodiesel can only become economically practical when Algae becomes the base because of it's much higher yield per acre of product.

SVO/WVO and Bio-D are not the same at all is true. But, Bio-D has the same reasoning behind it, lower emissions, (eventually) lower cost, and (eventually) reduced reliance on petroleum. I lump them together because if WVO/SVO fails, Bio-D will also loose a large percentage of it's support base. The only way Bio-D will really take off is if the government steps in and mandates it's progression/production much like it's are doing with E85 ethanol.

Manufacturers set low limits because because of the wide variance in quality and ingredients. If they allowed Bio-D in their cars, they might also be forced to include WVO/SVO in their warranty statement because of their similarities and chemical composition. It would also require that they do extensive and expensive R&D on their currently in-development cars to determine how it will effect the Bluetec emissions equipment. Like with Willies melting fuel lines, they would also be flooded with people altering and damaging their current cars to run on it and expecting it to be covered by MB.

#42 12-08-2006, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinperkins

I'm with you on the warranty voiding, but don't quite get the logic behind "post 2002 cars cannot run it". I know there are manufactures out there who consider anything up to B20 to not void their warranty. I only think more manufacturers are going to recognize this, and the blend percentage is only going to increase with time. Why would they back something that ruined engines?

When I said "it", I was mainly talking about WVO/SVO. I was thinking of large truck engines (Cat, Detroit, Cummins, etc.) when I thought of 2002 because of the emissions requirements that went into effect that year..

justinperkins · #43 12-08-2006, 01:13 AM

At least *some* manufacturers aren't afraid...
http://www.vw.com/contactus/faqs.html#5.1
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/ (International)

I'm sure there is more...

probear · #44 12-08-2006, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinperkins

At least *some* manufacturers aren't afraid...
http://www.vw.com/contactus/faqs.html#5.1
http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/ (International)

I'm sure there is more...

Some interesting reading in at least the first link (couldn't find Bio information on the second one ) . Basically VW said that production standards are the biggest hindrance in approving higher ratios. For a while, that will be the biggest problem associated with Bio-D.

greasybenz · #45 12-08-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Biodiesel/WVO/SVO is a passing fad.

If it was a fad, elsbett in germany would be in trouble. But hey they arent! 20+ years and they are still selling kits! even for the new common rail CDI's.

Secondly, germany has the standards set for biodiesel. The mandated DIN specs allow manufactures to let the car owner to run anywere from B1-B100 with no warranty voiding as the fuel is high quality because of the mandate.

The US isnt that far away from quality standards, we are still in our youth stage. Youll see, even france is required B5 at ALL diesel pumps.