Try ramming into them.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Gasoline respresents a lighter fraction of petrol, while diesel represents the heavier one. The hydrocarbons present in gasoline are primarily saturated, shorter chain kind. Those are quite harmless. The heavy fraction also contains saturated hydrocarbons (longer chain kind), but it also contains a significant fraction of aromatic hydrocarbons, and practically all of those are cancerogens, ranging from mild (e.g. benzene) to very strong (e.g. benzopyrene). Polycyclinc aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are one of the biggest single groups of cancerogens known, and unfortunately dino-diesel got them. This is further exacerbated by the fact that unsaturated hydrocarnobs in general, and aromatics in particular, are hard to burn completely -- try burning some benzene, and observe the amount of soot. The combination of soot particle clusters with PAHs absorbed on the surface is the main ingredient of "particular matter", and there's a good reason why so many people dislike it strongly. Not ALL of diesel hate is because they hate you and are ignorant to boot. Bad stuff is bad stuff, and dino-diesel exhaust is bad.

Heavy hydrocarbons is what makes diesel diesel. Gotta have them to have proper combustion and higher energy content. That said, PAHs do not have to be present (they aren't in biodiesel, for one) but if fuel is made from petrol, removing PAHs may be too hard to be practical.

I read a less dumbed-down description of the study being discussed here, and I think these guys are basically right. Their main point is not "diesel is evil" but rather "retrofit of emission control devices on old diesel engines on heavy trucks and buses should be made mandatory". However, Modern Media (I read a story on CNN), as usual, managed to distort the story enough in the process of dumbing it down/sexing it up. It's unclear how the researchers came up with the numbers they came up with. Getting an exact number for something like this is obviously impossible, some kind of a statistical approach is needed. They may or may not have gotten the numbers in the right ballpark, but I don't think anyone would argue that diesel exhaust causes some deaths, and decisionmakers want to know exactly how bad the problem is, and the authors did what they could to quantify this, however well or poorly. They are not campainging against diesel engines in general, but rather want to close the loophole in emissions control rules that allows a huge number of vehicles on the road (trucks, buses, heavy machinery) to operate basically without any functional emission control devices (EGRs don't really count). I myself cringe when I see an old Mack belch out a huge cloud of black smoke when taking off. Once ULSD is phased in, there'll be no technical reason for efficient particulate traps not to be installed on those vehicles, and it becomes a matter of economics. The authors of the study are pushing for mandatory retrofits, the trucking industry is pushing for voluntary retrofits and incentives -- the kind of debate that existed as long as emission controls themselves.

IF what I am readig is right, USLD is going to cause problems of it's own. I read that the sulfur is what will lubricate the IP and the injectors.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Rurik, I have a hard time believing that gasoline hydrocarbons are quite harmless. Why then does it always say on gas pumps not to inhale the vapors?

Other than that I share your view with regards to requiring some sort of emission control on heavy-duty diesels. I have to smog all my light-duty diesels and it's unfair that anything over 8000 lbs is exempt in my state, especially since the heavier vehicles are the ones emitting most of the pollution. I wish I could get my hands on some B100, not just because of its vastly reduced emissions but the much higher cetane as well. Cetane rules.

Aklim, sulfur doesn't lubricate anything, but it's the process of sulfur removal that causes a drop in lubricity and yes that will especially be the case with ULSD unless they add some additives to deal with it. However, judging the future by the present, most likely only the bare minimum of lubricity additives will be added to meet some federal requirement, and users will most likely have to add their own additives or use biodiesel.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I would think that when the lubricity drops and problems arise, they would have to fix it by using additives. However, what sets the federal standard? I would think that the manufacturers will want that standard raised because if their motors keep dying out, it would cause warranty and reputation problems.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

No joke.

Here's an interesting observation: Last Friday, when we were in the parking garage and the locksmith was working on SWMBO's car, I spotted CO sensors positioned around the structure. One of them just happened to be positoned between the locksmith's van and Lilly. After grinding on the lock for 30-40 minutes, he started the van to make sure the battery didn't go dead from the inverter use. That van (a mid-80s Chevy gasser) only ran about 5 minutes before the CO sensor showed a warning indication and after a short time it apparently started the garage's exhaust fans. After a while he shut the van down and shortly afterwards the fans quit too. Later, after we had gotten Lilly unlocked and started her, I realized that she had been sitting there idling more than 20 minutes without triggering the CO sensor or starting the exhaust fans.

Dirty diesels...yeah right.

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.

That is an inaccurate test. Totally inaccurate.

If the sensors had gone off with Lily and the truck running, what does it prove? That one emmits more CO than the other? Absoultely not. It proves that the 2 cars make too much CO. Would Lily or the other car have triggered the sensor alone? Who can say? That is fast falling in the category of "Junk Science" at best or stright out prejudice at worse. To tell accurately you need some sort of sniffer. Maybe his exhaust is pointed one way and dissipates CO better or worse. All hard to say without a properly controlled test.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

One thing to remember is that there is a difference between the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that gasoline vapors produce (the stuff you aren't supposed to huff while filling your gasser's tank), and the Total Hydrocarbon output (THCs) from the emissions test. Diesel produces very little VOC, and gasoline produces quite a bit. Diesel and Gas both produce THC output, but of a different category. The larger and more complex hydrocarbons (the ones found in petroleum diesel, which consists of larger molecules in general) are the most dangerous. That isn't to say that the THC output from gasoline ISN'T dangerous, just that petroleum diesel contains some unique polycyclic (poly = many, cyclic = carbon rings, many rings = bigger molecules) hydrocarbons that have a special danger all their own.

Biodiesel of course has none of those polycyclic aromatics.

And again, THC output is only one of many emissions factors, and must be looked at as a part of the whole.

CO is a poison, of course, but when spread over a large area it is probably not the most toxic thing you'll be breathing. We are more worried about the hydrocarbon-coated particulates that stick around for a long time and can be highly carcinogenic.

I'm always in favor of more emissions control. I don't 'blame' diesels, but we could do more as a country to limit emissions from the vehicles that produce the most. Once ULSD is introduced that should remove the technical barrier to those measures, and retrofitting older diesels is a 'low hanging fruit' in the emissions control world.

peace,
sam

__________________
"That f***in' biodiesel is makin' me hungry."

1982 300TD Astral Silver w/ 250k (BIO BNZ)
2001 Aprilia SR50 Corsa Red w/ 5.5k (>100 MPG)

Manufacturers only care about their engines lasting long enough to get through the warranty period. For people like me who prefer the older cars or those who like to keep their cars a lot longer, lubricity is an important issue.

Phidauex, diesels may emit more of the dangerous type of hydrocarbons, but isn't their total hydrocarbon output a lot lower than that of gasoline vehicles? At least that's what I've been reading. Similarly, diesels produce more particulates, but I've read that gassers produce more of the super tiny particulates, PM1 if I remember correctly, which have a higher tendency to stay in the lungs.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

That may be. However, when diesel rigs start having more problems, manufacturers will get concerned because those engines have to stay longer in service than most cars and work under harder conditons too.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Well my impression of the ASTM standard is that it's the bare minimum to ensure "adequate" performance, I think that's actually the word that's used in the definition. You decide whether it's adequate for you. There's only one biodiesel station in my town and I don't see many people using it, but when I do see someone it's almost always a small commercial truck. Apparently at least some fleet managers have decided that the slightly higher fuel price is worth the lower maintenance cost. Wait, that belongs in the other thread.

Back on topic, don't fool yourself about CO. R Leo's observation may not be scientifically reliable, but it's a well documented fact that gassers produce many times the amount of CO compared to diesel engines. That's because diesel engines usually have excess air running through the engine, whereas gassers need a precise mixture and frequently they run a little on the rich side. This also causes the increased hydrocarbon output.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Yeah I realize that there's ZERO scientific process involved in what happened...that's why I called it an 'observation' and not a test. Jeez.

However, these facts do exist:
1) Lilly and the van were never both running at the same time
2) I was in that garage for over three hours without hearing those fans start except when the van was running
3) There was no other traffic in the garage after the first hour.

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.

Well, when you run a fleet company, you look out for different items than a single car owner. Considerations are different when you consider a passenger car vs a diesel fleet. Kinda of an apples vs oranges. If I could use this magic fluid that will save me a penny for every 10 miles, would it be worth it? Maybe not. However, in a fleet, that figure is multiplied differently so everything is different. We cannot extrapolate fleet cnsiderations to passenger car considerations. Lets say we could, it might become more trouble than it is worth because of the small volume we are using. If I used a widget every month, would it pay for me to buy widgets in bulk, buy storage property, build a storage facility? Probably not. If I were to be using it commercially, it might pay for me to buy it in bulk. I cannot say that if it is paying off for a company to buy 10000 widgets maybe I should buy it in bulk and save a few bucks too.

R. Leo's observation IS NOT scientifically reliable. It is biased and misleading. It implies that the gasser caused the sensor to trip. Well, it doesn't account for whether the gasser is up to spec (I'm sure that his car is) so that is not a consistant thing anymore. It also doesn't account for the possibility that 2 cars are more than the sensor will allow. Perhaps if his car were shut down and the gasser was well maintained and idling away and we turned his car on, it might also cause the sensor to trip. Maybe one car was ok but 2 are not? In any case, it is Junk science and more than likely biased. As such, it and scientific reliability are totally different entities.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Don't get me wrong, none of the HC emissions will make you healthier, but some will do a lot more damage than others. Pretty much all chemicals have some toxicity, but a lot depends on the dose and the delivery mechanism. Table salt is toxic, for example, if administered in a sufficient quantity. Interestingly, ethanol is one of the least toxic chemicals for oral intake... but I digress.

Short-chain liquid hydrocarbons are fairly inactive in a human body. They are not cancerogenic, and in small concentrations do no lasting damage. In a confined environment, where the concentration could be substantial, they can definitely kill you; between that and CO running your car in a garage is not a good idea. In the open air, though, they dissipate, thanks to the low boiling point, and get broken down quickly by UV. Heavy aromatics, on the other hand, are cancerogenic even in small concentrations, and furthermore particulate matter containing them ain't dissipating anywhere.

The real nasty portion of gasoline engines exhaust is not CO or hydrocarbons, it's aldehydes (and to a lesser extent other related stuff, all of it generally referred to as volatile organic compounds). That stuff will do lasting damage, although the aldehydes formed during gasoline combustion also dissipate fairly easily, so you'd have to inhale concentrated exhaust to get significant exposure. Those catalitic converters are mandatory equipment for a good reason. To be fair, no aldehyde can't even _touch_ PAHs (few chemicals can, really) in the cancerogenic department.

Manufacturers only care about their engines lasting long enough to get through the warranty period. For people like me who prefer the older cars or those who like to keep their cars a lot longer, lubricity is an important issue.

With MB's inline pumps that are lubed with engine oil lubricity is less of an issue than in rotary style pumps that are lubed solely with fuel. Newer diesels, basically anything made in the last 5 years won't have any trouble with USLD. The new IP pumps, parts, etc. are made from different materials like ceramics and such to handle the USLD. Since USLD is already the standard in Europe they already have the technology figured out. Regarding older diesels you have two options. 1) Add a lubricity additive at every fillup. Redline, Stanadyne, Howes, etc. or just some motor oil, 2cycle oil or MMO. or 2) When the injection pump is rebuilt the shop will install all of the new parts to make it USLD compatible. They already are doing this on Stanadyne pumps used in GM, Ford and other diesels. RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K