Well put Dr SJH,
What is your area of specialty?
You appear to have some post graduate knowledge behind you.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

So you're saying that since all life on the planet is made of carbon (Yeah, I passed third grade...) then all the carbon we have dug or pumped out of the ground is not affecting anything? You see any oil in that sand you've got your head buried in?

I'll grant you that this "cap and trade" business is a scam - Wall streets next way to screw the entire economy - but denying that there is anything going on is simply foolishness. Two words - glacial retreat.

__________________
'82 300SD - Somewhere over 220k - Becoming reliable...

2,000 years ago the Romans lived *here*, they called this town Isca Dumnoniorum, they were here quite a while, one thing they imported was their grapes and vines, and they grew them, very well indeed.

2,000 years later, oh noes, global warming, disappearing glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps (s'funny, when I was younger it was global cooling and we were being warned about the next ice age coming...) and yet WE. STILL. CAN'T. GROW. THOSE. VARIETIES. OF. GRAPES. HERE.... it isn't warm enough.

My father used to say that winters were warmer and wetter than when he was a boy, which the global warming advocates pick up on as proof that their theories are right, but he also used to say that his father used to say that winters were colder and drier than when HE was a boy, and they both grew up on the same land and farmed the same crops, so they knew what they were about, but the global warming advocates simply dismiss THIS data point because it doesn't fit their models.

And let's face it, they get funded for the computer models.

The UK Met office moved to this town a few years ago, they are literally 1/2 a mile from here, their annual budget is staggering, their computing capacity is staggering.

My 50 buck LCD basic weather station (nothing more than a fancy modern aneroid barometer, with external humidity and wind and temperature sensors) is 100% accurate at short range weather forecasting.

The Met office short range forecast for this area is right maybe 50% of the time.

That doesn't mean my 50 buck weather station is "twice as accurate" as the multi-multi-million pound sterling annually Met office, it means my 50 buck weather station is accurate to any meaningful / practical level, and the Met Office is about as accurate as flipping a coin randomly, and if it is heads, report their short term forecast as is, and if it is tails, change it before reporting it and this getting the prediction wrong.

The Met office are the biggest adherents and proponents of global warming in the UK.

If the amount of carbon floating around is an issue for you, you need a time machine, one that goes back billions of years, and start tinkering with suns, because that's where all carbon comes from, dead suns.

To all meaningful levels of scientific accuracy, there is exactly the same amount of carbon on the planet today as there was when the dinosaurs were roaming the planet, (hey, the earth was warmer then too, must have been those dinosaurs riding around in their humvees eh) or when slime first crawled out of the seas.

Heres an EPA test report done on a VW TDI some years back, testing a heated VO system.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/v100_jetta_aces.html

The results were that the VO was cleaner burning generally across the board from an emissions standpoint on that vehicle.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

The linked test produces the expected results from a "fuel" that is slightly less "calorific" than pump diesel.

This DOES NOT MEAN IT IS CLEANER BURNING.

If you do a PROPER test you connect the engine to a dyno/gen head, and irrespective of fuel you do ALL your measurements with every fuel producing the same power at the same RPM in the dyno/gen head.

When you do THAT test, you will find that the VO fuels produce more emissions than the dino diesel engines.

Now, do you want an efficient diesel engine, or do you want a diesel engine that produces low amounts of NOx?

70% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, and it is converted into NOx in the presence of high energy, eg high compression and high heat. Just the conditions you want for a diesel engine that gets the most energy out of the fuel.

Thats exactly what they said they did. Did you read the article?

"The tests were conducted on an I/M 240 in conjunction with a chassis dynamometer. Three tests were run on ULSD to establish the baseline emissions for the vehicle. Another three tests were run on Canola oil (V100). The PlantDrive/VO Control Systems kit showed decreases in emissions over the entire spectrum analyzed."

All Im doing is actually posting some substantiated data, not "my friend said" and "I know a guy" statements. From your statements, it sounds like you have potential access to a very good lab, but you have yet to post some actual lab results from them that back up your comments, despite taking if for granted that we will take your statement at face value.

Now, I don't disagree with you that better emissions testing has to be done, but from the standpoint of what the EPA requires in the US, the heated VO system passes THAT test easily, and with better results than ULSD diesel.

That indicates to me that further and more comprehensive testing needs to be done, I want to know lots more information. For instance, this test was done on canola oil, I want to see peanut, olive, ect. Like I said earlier, there are a lot of different oils that will all work in a good system. Are some worse for the environment, some better, some cleaner, some dirtier? Sure, there is no doubt in my mind that thats true. But talk is just talk.

The important thing to remember here is that this is one of the ONLY tests thats been done and made public on a properly installed HEATED VO fuel system, not cold oil simply running through the stock fuel system.

The huge block to widespread VO use in the US is actually an EPA law proclaiming use of VO illegal due to "insufficient emissions data". This test indicates that initially, VO will meet emissions requirements, and its a test done BY the EPA no less.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

If that is exactly what they did, why not quote the emissions per kWh produced?

The fact is it is a vehicle rolling road emissions test, same as we have here, and those tests leave out more than they leave in, the ONLY thing they care about is what actually comes out the exhaust pipe.

A hummer getting 8mpg is not rated by these tests as being 5 times as polluting as a toyota getting 40 mpg, but that is the reality, it is 5 times as polluting.

Nor do these tests take account of two models of the same car, identical in every way, except one has a 1600cc engine and one has a 3000cc engine, each one will get a different EPA test result.

Naturally the hummer is heavier than the toyota, so it takes more fuel to do x, and naturally the 1600cc model variant is going to be slower than the 3000cc model variant.

If you drive both the 1600 and 3000 model variants on exactly the same roads at exactly the same time on exactly the same journey, convoy style, from coast to coast, suddenly that apparent difference in EPA results will vanish, because you moved the same weight of metal from one place to another and did the same work.

I will repeat, if you are testing a fuel, you do it by connecting the engine directly to a gen head dyno, and factor in kWh produced by the head/dyno, and by definition you eliminate all the other variable that any rolling road vehicle emissions test will produce.

i had a 300sd i put about 77k miles on (between 50 and 85% of it was on WVO
i drive a 1983 euro 240d that i have put probably 30k miles on same percentage WVO
and have a two tank greasecar in both, prefilter pretty well and have not had any WVO related problems.
i did put new injectors in the sd but it had 268k miles when i did and i have had to change my filters and about every three months i do a diesel purge but basically i have a good source, i preheat well, and i drive a lot for free.

Those tests were done under ideal conditions, the results they were compared with were those expected for a car running under normal conditions. I am sure that if you compared a TDI that had been running WVO for 30k miles through some home made system with a TDI that had been running diesel from new, the results would be different. I suggest that some need to go & read the book "How to Lie With Statistics", it allows you to have a more subjective view on these "tests".

I think its time that we returned to the original topic.
If the veggies want to debate their "green credentials" best they start a thread about that.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

Ok, I agree, that needs to be done. I haven't found any info on anyone doing it with a heated VO fuel system.

What I don't understand about your point of view is that with a real lack of data on what many people agree is the correct way to burn the thousands of types of VO by using it once the engine and fuel are up in temp in a diesel/VO hybrid configuration, how can you say you know it wont produce some positive emissions results?
You feel very comfortable telling everyone what you THINK, but that does not equal FACT.

I take this form of emissions test as a potentially positive result, and want to see more, good or bad. I want some REAL data.

I DON'T say that well of course this proves that this test is flawed. If I were to have posted EPA emissions data showing a poorer performance than ULSD in the same test, the first thing you would have said would be that the test proves the negative effects of VO.

Why don't you run this idea by the guy in the fancy testing lab? Ask him if they are willing to install a heated VO system on the test motor and see what it does if operated according to the system makers instructions.

You are talking about this lab extensively like you have some data in front of you and additionally congratulating yourself on your scientific prowess. Lets GET that data, see if you can get your friend to give you a copy of the test parameters and data taken from the VO tests you said were done, otherwise it might as well not have happened, and its not worth using as a counterpoint.

I can say all day that I have a friend in a test lab that has done extensive emissions testing and it proves that VO actually shoots sunshine and roses out the tailpipe. Thats currently just as supportable as saying a friend of yours in a test lab showed how many issues it created.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

You must be joking to post this. ONE EPA test does not represent a statistic, nor does it represent a trend, it represents a kernel of information, nothing more.
Of course I agree with you on further testing on different mileage vehicles, it could very well be that a VO TDI at 50,000 miles has 10 times the emissions as a VO TDI at 2000 miles. What does NOT exist, are the facts to back up either side, so I repeat from my earlier post to you as well, what makes you think there will automatically be a negative result?

Also, I fail to see how discussing the emissions of VO is off topic? Its all relevant to the longstanding VO debate, and has a definite impact on the discussion of reliability. The discussion has evolved to this point from the original question, lets not get off on a "veggies and green credentials" bashing tangent.
How can someone posting what happened with their personal experience be off topic from the original question?

Off topic would be devolving the discussion into a personal pissing match, which condescending to other forum members creates pretty fast.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

I agree that the efficiency of the engine is less on WVO. The flash point is lower. I get 5-10% less MPG's on WVO......but I don't care since it costs so little and is IS better for the atmosphere

It doesn't negate all the other points though....

1) WVO is a recyced by-product, renewable (2nd generation use) -
2) It is not new SVO being burnt that is using valuable resources and fuel at the farm
3) It is not taken from deep within the earth as a multi-million year old fossil fuel that cannot be replenished.
4) The amount of carbon produced during combustion is very close to the amount used by trees and plants during photsynthesis
5) You cannot say that about fossil fuel oil from a depleteing source - a greenhouse gas producer
6) I have lost family and friends in the wars over fossil fuel oil. WVO does not shed blood.(except if I hurt myself picking up the oil)

Depending on the length of travels you can travel sooo far on WVO without burning diesel. I took a trip to New Jersey and back (1100 miles) on 2 gallons of diesel! I felt good about that is so many ways.

It looks like some are only pointing to the carbon position, which is your OPINION, but other points stand true.

I still say that if you put crap in your car and don't burn it at temperature and purge correctly, you are looking for trouble. There is a right way to do things with minimal risk.

There are real facts, emotions, and philosophies here.
and the debate goes on.....oil,religion, politics...no one wins!

__________________

1987 300TD 147,000 miles- Palomino leather interior, 1995 facelift and body cladding, E350 wheels, Rebuilt suspension and sport springs, rebuilt turbo, New Monarch injection pump and injectors....and the list goes on and on...

Ever heard of stuck rings? This leads to increased emissions.
As I suggested, best get back on the topic of " WVO will inevitably damage an engine".
If you wish to debate the pros & cons of WVO use, start a thread about exactly that.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

Okay - tens of thousands of miles on My Excursion and no stuck rings or any issue. Engine oil lab work at Blackstone, and perfect running engine suggests everything is still working great! Filter, heat and purge as you should......
back on topic

__________________

1987 300TD 147,000 miles- Palomino leather interior, 1995 facelift and body cladding, E350 wheels, Rebuilt suspension and sport springs, rebuilt turbo, New Monarch injection pump and injectors....and the list goes on and on...

Pros and cons are totally relevant to the question of inevitable engine damage.
For example, in the quest of building the most powerful motor for a race, you frequently build a motor thats good for only one or two races before needing to be rebuilt.
The debate of pros and cons becomes increasingly important than in relation to creating inevitable engine damage.

If you save enough money in 10 years of VO use to rebuild your engine 10 times, then taking 100,000 miles off the longevity of the engine becomes a cost effective solution.
I am not convinced that many powerplants will see any additional wear or problems on VO, but even if damage were a guarantee, it may be cost effective or make sense for some people.
That makes the pros or cons of running it a definite contributing factor when considering the question of "inevitable engine damage."

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.