Jeff,
The cox was a glow plug engine, ran 75% methanol : 25% light oil for lube.
There were small diesels, they ran on 33% ether :33% kerosene : 33% light oil (lube).
Some tried to use Castor oil but it used to gum everything up. Just like WVO.

W124.
That is a good report!!
Problem is that 99% of the members hear will not be able to follow the maths.
Probably 100% of those on the WVO forums would not be able to follow it either.
To any one with appropriate education in combustion/reaction kinetics it is relatively simple.

__________________
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

OOOH Snap!

I ran the COX fuel in my Suzuki back then (the early '70s), ran well, blew it up three times, ... didn't learn very quickly.

Those little Cox engines were fun, 2-stroke diesels all fuel lubricated, all of their power came from RPM, little pistons with no rings and a ball-socket joint instead of a "proper" wrist pin. Do they still make them? Before battery technology became what it is today I guess it made sense for RC stuff.

It was years later when I found out that there were "real" 2-stroke diesels out there; the 71-series DD engines, made me start to think about how much I liked the compression-ignition concept, almost as much as turbines (but haven't successfully installed a turbine in a car yet) http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

On the other hand... my cars both continue to start and run and drive just fine - really well actually. This particular engine and none of the others I've converted - does seem prone to ring sticking but adding a water injection kit that mists water into the intake at 12psi boost and above solved that problem. Both cars are sitting right outside ready to go. I converted them, I fuel them, and I drive them. Internet noise, indeed... To each his own!

I've got a friend who works in pyro research, the have some test engine with tiny viewports and tons of sensors and use lasers to give live motion video of combustion events, eg they'll record 3 minutes of 1000 RPM, which means 1500 sequential ignition cycles, and then it gets number crunched by computers to create 3d models of the flame fronts.

these guys can measure tiny but intense shockwaves travelling through the combustion chamber (the speed of sound is much much faster at 500 psi...) and thanks to the lasers can do live spectrophotometry on the chemical compounds being created and destroyed, things that don't exist long enough to make it out the exhaust ports.

They also do full monitoring in the fuel injection systems themselves, eg inside the delivery pump and injectors. Both traditional and common rail high pressure with piezo injectors.

they have run all the veg oils (soy / rape / corn / coconut / etc) at one time or another and always come up with the same results, the extra double bonds in the veg oil totally alter the way it behaves as a fuel, and of course the veg oils are NOT hydrocarbons, because they contain oxygen bonded molecularly, which again screws up the chemical reactions.

they found the veg oils (unlike hydrocarbon dino diesel, which contains no oxygen, and is therefore sealed off from oxygen by the physical material of the injection system) were even reacting under the different conditions of high pressure inside the injection system, with microdiesling, carbon dumping and even (micro) spark erosion of the fuel itself.

The test runs on sardine oil produced so much "extraneous" crap that it actually damaged the test equipment in the injection equipment, not just the injection equipment, but the test equipment.

Little known fact from my pyro mate.

0.5% of all fuel injected****, IN A GOOD DIESEL ENGINE, ends up in the sump, these light dilution loads are easily dispersed by the hot engine oil, so you don't get sump dilution.

with VO, you get a carbon dump in the lube oil and the alkali loading of the lube oil falls off a cliff, and puts the lube oil properties on a par with particulate metal contamination... in his words "it ****ing kills lube oil stone dead"

**** EVERY engine has some blowby, stands to reason, since all blowby comes from the cylinder, that it is not atmospheric air, but contains a little of everything found in the cylinder, from unburnt fuel to combustion by products.

Give us some more info on the parameters of how they tested the oil. Did they do a temperature spread? or did they do it an ambient temp?

That was the big failing in the 80's tests, the oil was unheated and resulted in issues, but since then many people have demonstrated that they can put lots of miles on VO, flying in the face of those tests.

Just saying they tested oil is not good enough. Did they test it at various temps and see what happened, and how it reacted? I would find that to be a very interesting test if it was actually substantiated. Otherwise, just so much internet noise like mentioned before.

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

I was admitted to the "lab" once, I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but it was a bit like an alien starship engine room, with literally tons and hundreds of square feet of equipment all focusing on this relatively tiny single cylinder test engine. Scattered around the place are test subcomponents, eg injectors, pumps, cylinder heads, so these things get in engine real life tests, and out of engine in a simulated engine environment tests.

Test engines have variable everything, cam lift, timing and duration is all programmable, not mechanical, compression ratios are variable across a vast range, "ambient" air is available at engine intakes via a ""shop air" system than provides anything from 5 pounds of vacuum to 30 pounds of boost, and shop air can be dried or 100% humidity. EGR is also continually variable and programmable from 0% to 100%.

On any given injection event, the metered dose of fuel can be delivered in programmable ways, short high volume shots, longer lower volume shots (for the same metered amount of shot) and even stuttered multiple shots... there are several injectors in the head.

The fuel can again be delivered at any temperature from sub zero to in excess of the flash point of the fuel itself.

The "fuel" is sometimes extremely wacky stuff, esoteric mixtures of compounds, sometime they experiment with pre-combustion ready fuels, fuel and oxidant together.

Lube oils and changed and analysed down to parts per billion contaminants.

Exhaust gases are collected and also analysed down to parts per billion contaminants.

I thought my mate was nuts, but everyone who works in pyro labs are nuts, safety and regulations and procedures and checklists coming out of the ass, and that is all that stops them running crazy tests, you have to sit there with these nerds and see their eyes light up and hands start waving at the idea of being allowed to run hydrazine and stuff as fuels.... I **** you not.

Strictly speaking, this is a pyro test lab, not an engine tuning shop or even an engine research lab, or even specifically a fuel test facility, these guys are gathering data on what actually happens in the combustion chamber.

When you talk to them, this is actually a problem / challenge on the scale of modelling exactly what happens, down to the molecule, in a nuclear explosion, or accurate in every detail to the cubic foot what happens in weather patters over an entire continent, from ground level to the edge of space.

technically it is just a high energy chemistry research facility, specialising in combustion, "pyro", literally...

The last time I was there they were looking (again, as computer and sensor technology and power progresses, some experiments are worth re-doing) at hydrogen as a fuel, and if my memory serves me correctly the test engine at medium speed was producing peak piston velocities of 45 fps, and from memory hydrogen flame fronts run anywhere from 70 to 170 fps, so in conditions of low flame speed the piston speed at given rpm was already too high to produce usable power, and energy not absorbed by the crankshaft goes into chemical reactions.... don't forget "air" is not a single element, but a vast variety of mixed gases, trace elements and pollutants.

Caterpillar used to make stationary single cylinder diesel engines that were specifically designed for fuel and lube testing, I forget the model numbers now.

The chap I knew who started up a small commercial bio-diesel plant had one, I love CATs generally for quality engineering, but this thing was absolutely gorgeous.

The original cox company is still going in others hands. They no longer produce model engines. Cox engine stuff is now manufactured or assembled from left over production parts by others although some newer parts are being manufactured.

What made cox stand out in my opinion years ago was their ability to machine to really close tollerances and sell the finished product cheap. Millions were sold.

Norvel engines of simular size but higher technology manufactured by an arm of the russian space industry for awhile had the market. Perhaps contributing to the demise of cox engine manufacturing.

The model diesel engine is a true two stroke diesel. Also is available in four stroke configuaration by one manufacturer I know. Since we are on fuel items these engines fuel can easily be brewed at home. One third kerosene, One third ether available as john deer engine quick start, and one third oil. Ether s used in the proccessing of cocaine so it may be hard to get other than the john deere stuff.

Replacing the kerosene with vegatable oil results in a lot of unburnt fuel in comparson to the kerosene. Videos are on u tube under model diesel engines showing them runing on different fuels.

Or i would get a sacrifical cheap 240d- when the price of operating goes up again

We 240d owners preffer to get a good turbo 5 cylinder beater for wvo. Thats if diesel goes through the roof pricewise.

Both sides have good points on this diesel/WVO debate. It's like asking the infamous question: "which motor oil is the best"... dozens of answers, theories, tests etc. Everyone has their own points and there will never harmony. All I say is: Do what YOU want to do and don't tear down others.

One point that rarely comes up is that fact that WVO is a carbon neutral burn. Some contaminants a bit higher, but overall much cleaner fuel for the environment than diesel, It's a recycled by-product (which is great!),.... and not from a depleating fossil fuel. Just too many wars over the stuff! Trust me, I know I am not changing the world here, but I feel better about it.

There is a right way to process your oil and burn it, and really bad ways I see out there. Have you ever see some of the strange and terrible set-ups on you tube?

You DO need good quality oil, filter and dewater it properly, and have a seperate heated fuel system to get the temps of the oil hot enough. The oil needs to be purged out of the injectors and IP on shut down. Too many do not do this and that will lead to issues.

I see engine failures weekly on this forum from cars running on diesel. Many of the cars we are talking about have hundreds of thousands of miles of wear on them. They are not indestructble engines. The elements and good maintinace or bad will take their toll on any engine. To say WVO will be the cause of all of the engine failures is not true. In fact, most of the time it won't be. Mine will likely be a cracked #14 head.

I have many thousands of mile on my Excursion on WVO. It is a good vegistroke system. with well filtered oil. I do my engine oil anaylsis at Blackstone labs to see what is going on with my engine. The last tests were at 202,000 and came back very good (5,000 mile run on conventional oil) Sodium and Potassium was a little higher, but not out of the range. Lubricity was still good on the existing oil. Very healthy engine.

I have invested some money in a good system and it has paid for itself big time already. I love cruising past the gas stations time and time again. Yes - I need a little diesel to start-up and purge, but not very often. Like anything, WVO systems need regular maintenance as well. What bank can you put in a few grand in and get a 100% return within a year or two? For me it was an investment....for my pocket book, the environment, etc......But it needs to be a well planned one. There is always risk! It just depends if its a calculated one. As an analogy - If you don't do research and invest in crappy stocks or gamble with penny stocks, you are more likely to get burned and loose big-time. If you do your research, pick good companies and stocks, you will have a lower chance of loosing; most likely you will make out okay.
It's the crappy systems out there that give many of the WVO'ers a bad name.

Cheers to everyones opinions- I love it!

__________________

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...

"Carbon neutral"

Oh puhleeeeeze.....

Carbon this, carbon, that, it's all smoke and mirrors bull**** for one purpose and one purpose only, control and taxation.

Look up the definition of "Organic chemistry" some time.

This is just about the control and taxation of organic chemistry.

Oh noes, global warming and greenhouse gases... yes, CO2 *is* the biggest greenhouse GAS in the atmosphere, but, it has about 1% of the effect of the biggest greenhouse COMPONENT in the atmosphere, which is water vapour.

Another thing, ever hear Star Trek talking about "carbon based life forms"? That's us folks, and dogs, and cows, and everything that walks, crawls, swims and flies.

All this carbon bull**** has absolutely **** all to do with the environment.

This statement is an opinion.

You have as much right as anyone to your opinion but it does not meet the level of scientific fact.

A funny thing has happened in the recent past. People have observed the potency of the scientific method. A very brief reminder...

1. Have a notion (hypothesis).
2. Test it empirically (experiment)
3. EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE must be able to repeat the results.
4. If ANY failure of the hypothesis is observed the theory does not rise to scientific truth.

Other disciplines became jealous of the potency of the scientific method so they started to call their disciplines scientific. There was one small problem; it did not meet the 4 criteria listed above.

The rational mind is just as capable of being deceived as the emotional or impulsive mind. It is when experimental verification guides the rational mind that mankind reaches a new level. But these new "scientific" disciplines do not rise to the level of objective truth, an ultimate goal of science,
and we have deceived ourselves into believing opinion calling itself science.

I have lived long enough that I can remember numerous "imminent catastrophes" that have been promulgated upon the public in the past 50 years. Amazingly, even when the vast majority fail to occur, people still become agitated when the next great concern appears in the press.

A review of the past 100 years reveals about 6 different times "experts", who managed to get the attention of the media, have warned of imminent climate disaster. It has usually been global cooling that causes the concern but about every 20 years someone decides that Mother Nature is about to make our lives miserable.

Carbon dioxide may be a problem. "Global warming/climate change/anything unpleasant" may be occurring, may be caused by man, may be reversible, may be worth the cost to reverse. We do not know.

Ultimately it comes down to a cost-reward analysis; what's it cost, what do I get. That cannot be done until level-headed, reasoned investigations are performed. That is not and perhaps cannot be done in the current social climate.

While organic chemistry is not my field of specialization I'm fairly comfortable stating that the chemical and physical properties of vegetable oil and a petroleum distillate are different. The difference may or may not be critical to an application. That requires detailed investigation.

So getting back to cars. WVO may be desirable alternative. It may not. If even a few of the issues mentioned by W124_E300D (how come he puts an E before the 300D but not a W before the 124?) are valid then there appear to be meaningful challenges to large scale implementation of WVO. To have a hundred people come forward and say, "Hey, it's working great for me" is fine but that's just anecdotal; technology requires a whole different level of rigor and understanding.