scopetone Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Its simple oil and oxygen don't mix without a bang. Run a welder tip with just oxygen across an oilly rag and see what happens. Because our atmosphere isn't pure oxygen we need compression to take what there is to ignite the oil. Biodiesel (corn oil %) will be standard soon in Canada, the Japanese came out with a radio frequency that mixes 25% water with 75%diesel. Not only do you save 25% on fuel cost it cools and atomizes the combustion better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 On the marine use/reliability thing: Fishermen routinely travel hundreds of miles offshore in boats with a single propulsion engine, which is always a diesel. Nobody in their right mind would do that with a gasoline engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reoff Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I'm neck deep in BioDiesel stuff. That is one of my other great passions. The "beneficial" part is mostly from the fact that Biodiesel's #1 emission is nitrogen. There are some not so great ones, but keep in mind this is strictly mother nature's kitchen. Not a refined fossil fuel. There are almost no harmful emissions from what amounts to cooking oil. Just because you can burn it in an engine doesn't mean it HAS to be bad. I'm off to bed for now, but there will be more to come. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archemitis Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 never seen a diesel drag racer, so in my opinion diesel sucks. its good for pulling stuff. who needs twice the torque of horsepower? our subarus have as much tourque to horsepower ratio as i want in a car. its just not that usable unless you have alot of gears. good for tanks and boats and semi trucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack in Norfolk Posted October 4, 2003 Author Share Posted October 4, 2003 Archimitis- it may not be dragging, but volvo sets records routinely outrunning performance gas boats with thier turbo diesel racing hydro planes. Snowman- I was in alaska all summer on a ship (sitka, seward, kodiak, anchoarge, homer). I did not make it to haynes although I would like to. I hear they have an awesome 4 event contest every year (surfing, snowboarding, hunting, fishing). Anyways, I was wondering how routine it really is for guys to guy way out with only one power plant? Most people I know have some sort of ack up, even if its a gas kicker outboard. Redundancy seems to be key on ships/boats i.e 2 compasses, 2 generators, two engines, props etc.... just curious. -Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setright Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 ****, my home PC died, on a borrowed computer now, no time...damn...I willl convince you all that Diesel is a bad way to motivate cars....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electryc_monk Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 A person "convinced" against their will, is of the "same opinion" Still. Just a soft reminder reminder brought to you by 'saturday morning cartoons, and 'School House Rock!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Archemitis: There are several diesel-powered swamp buggies that have successfully competed for years. That's essentially a dragster, except in mud. Nearly all the fishing boats in Haines run only one engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoahDL88 Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Diesel or Gas, what do you want it for. both engines have their benifits, and their pitfalls. you wouldn't pull a heavy load with a dragster engine and in the same token you wouldn't drag, top fuel, with a diesel. except for the cold start issues, i'd rather have a small turbo diesel to off road for the low end torque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archemitis Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 diesel is good for hauling buttloads of weight, not daily driving is all im saying. but it would be cool to run cooking oil, especially filtered used stuff from mcdonalds:drunk: . but it would be a sure fire way to make a subaru even slower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asavage Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by archemitis diesel is good for hauling buttloads of weight, not daily driving is all im saying. It's past my bedtime, but I'll stay up for this one. I'm soon getting back my '82 Datsun Maxima (yes, they were Datsuns for one year: 1982, B4 that they were 810s). Three years ago I sold it to a friend, and now he's gonna get this Loyale, once I have it sorted. Before I sold it to him, I had both it and a 300D, a really beautiful one, just stunning. And I sold it and kept the Datsun. I ran that Maxima up & down the west coast I don't know how many times. One trip I remember well, I took a friend to Spokane to look at a GoldWing. He bought the bike, and we caravaned back to Renton. There is some elevation change between Spokane and Renton Traffic was heavy, a lot of folks finishing their weekend. I got in the left lane and left 'em all behind in a cloud of black. That 2.8l diesel is a honey, and I'm buying it back just for the drivetrain. Gonna put it in some old car someday. Runs like a watch. Starts in 20° without a hitch. Parts are cheap, leaks nonexistent. Long legs. Nowadays, everybody's got a diesel, but this was made back when GM was killing off all desire for diesels with that damned Olds 350ci conversion (which was actually a decent, reliable engine by the fifth iteration, in '83, but by then, who cared?). If it wasn't for the noise and particulate and stink issures, I'd be very pro-diesel. As it is, I feel they just are too dirty to promote, unless we can get everybody onto direct injection and clean up the polycyclic hydrocarbons. It may come to that, I hope so. In the meantime, the old smelly, sooty, no-NOx no-HC no-CO Maxima will be a "someday" donor car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack in Norfolk Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 wait a minute, I didnt follow your story. was the maxima a diesel, or was the 300D (a benz right?) the diesel in which you left them all behind? I didnt know nissan made a diesel, but I just assumed they must have because a naturally aspirated benz may be the only thing my old subbie GL wagon ever blew the doors off of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodaka Rider Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Anyone with negative thoughts or feelings toward diesels should go here for a bit. To prompt you: is 180-190 hp an about 300 lb-ft of torque enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDisorder Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Diesel is awsome for off-road. I'll take a duece up against any off-roader out there, and barring the width, I'll go anywhere they will. Massive torque, 18,000 lbs of truck, and 6 wheel drive baby. 6 cylinder inline turbo diesel with pistons the size of coffee cans.... The military took a Hemmt (15 ton hauling capacity) to a tractor pull in Cali a number of years ago when the hemmt first came into service. It out pulled everything the civilians could throw up against it, and then some. Virtually unstoppable. Gives entirely new meaning to the going *through* the forest. If the tree isn't at least 6" around, you just drive right over it. The only thing that would beat a hemmt would probably be a tracked recovery vehicle Here's a Hemmt: http://military.railfan.net/mv/m977.jpg Here's the HET - used to move M1's from place to place. (M1's weigh about 26 tons!): http://military.railfan.net/mv/het.jpg And here's one of my favorites - the M578 recovery tank. They use these bad mofo's to pull stuck M1's out of the goo: http://military.railfan.net/mv/m578.jpg GD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I totally agree that for offroad you can't beat a diesel. So what if it won't rev way high, you can lug it and still make power. That's why I almost bought a diesel 'Yota Land Cruiser last year. Even though having a massive military is questionable, you have to give them credit for the technology that they create. Examples being the already mentioned Hemmt, the Deuce-and-a-Half offroad truck, the Dodge Power Wagon, and the PT Boat, which all pretty much rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nug Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 My two cent... Diesels CAN haul rump roast. Banks took a dodge pickup with a heavily modified cummins 5.9 to the flats and went 200mph. Also, there was a truck somewhere they were running on the track, dual wheels, twin turbo detroit 2-stroke, running twelves, hanging the hoops to the sixty foot mark... And has anyone been to a tractor pull recently? Saw some 80 year old guy take an International turbo diesel farm tractor (145hp), modifiy it slightly (600-700, who knows) and pull a 12,500 sled past 300 foot. I don't know how high he was revving this thing, but it sounded at least like 6000rpm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 The Banks-Modified Cummins you speak of is nothing short of awesome. The kit they sell to the public can get 950 ft lbs of torque, OUT OF A 5.9!!! That's just running an improved turbo, better flowing intake and exhaust, intercooler, I beleive larger injectors, and some modifications to the computer. The best thing about modifying diesels is that unless you do it badly, they retain their reliability, unlike a gas engine. Also, when you don't have your foot to the floor, the fuel economy is usually IMPROVED by those modifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setright Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Reoff, I offer here my views against yours "1 - Diesel takes MUCH less energy to refine, and burns more efficiently than regular gas." Okay, true, the higher temperature in the Diesel "heat pump" does make for higher efficiency. HOWEVER, there is 25% more energy, per volume in Diesel, compared to petrol, so they had better have improved fuel mileage. Refine? Not much of that going on, have you seen the thick sludge some of the big ships actually run on? "2 - The lower refinement is largely responsible for the "particulate matter" that is bad for our lungs. Similar to asbestos in its effects." Sounds like an excuse, not a positive point. The high temparture also helps to promote particle formation. 3 - A Turbo-D is usually much more efficient than a naturally aspirated diesel. I have had both, and the turbo is much better for smoke too. Yes. Diesels should always be turbocharged. At the same time though, the higher temperature creates a smaller particle size and makes the smoke even more harmful. As for smoking less: Almost all taxi's here in Denmark are Mercedes TurboDiesels, and they SMOKE, big time! Only the French Diesels don't puff large clouds, but that's because they have a tight particle filter on the exhaust, and this hurts mpg... Great idea too, once the engine is really hot, they recirculate some of the filter out particles back in to make them small enough to pass through the filter. Less visible. 4 - Power with a diesel is relative. Instead of high horsepower, you have massive amounts of torque in a narrow band. Very nice if you know what to do with it. Exactly! Like sail a ferry or drive a train. Not a car with absurdly long legged gearing. I find this blunts throttle response. 5 - There are many ways to "clean up" a diesel. In mine, I ran B-100 Biodiesel. That, of course, means 100% Biodiesel. The stuff I used was made from virgin soybean oil, and was actually beneficial to air quality. Even running B-20 cuts down on harmful emissions on a diesel by roughly 55%. That kills the "dirty" stuff. Clean up is a relative thing. Peugeot/Citroen do it best, but those NOx numbers are still high. 6 - You can add a secondary fuel system to run as much as 10% CNG in any diesel. This bumps up the efficiency even further, due to higher temps, AND lowers harmful emissions by quite a bit. I don't think so, higher temperatures only make the particles smaller, and therefore more lethal, because they can pass straight into the bloodstream across the alveoli in our lungs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asavage Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Jack wait a minute, I didnt follow your story. was the maxima a diesel, or was the 300D (a benz right?) the diesel in which you left them all behind? Sorry, I was tired and groggy and I don't do my best writing then. Yes, as you surmise, it was the Maxima. The MB five cylinder 3.0l is a dog. Their six cylinder is supposed to run much stronger, but I've never had a chance to dirve one. Even though both the Datsun and the MB have OHC, and the MB has 200cc over the LD28, the Datsun would flat run away from my 300D. Hell, the 300D was so slow that I'd have to pick which freeway onramp to use to get on I-5 in Bellingham: Iowa St. to southbound I-5 is uphill! I didnt know nissan made a diesel. . . Several, actually. They sold the LD28 (SAE 80 HP) in the 810/Maxima in '81-83 or early '84, then stopped importing them here. But I understand that that engine is a light truck engine in other countries, and that it turbos real well. I can hardly wait [rubbing hands]. Nissan also marketted a diesel four cylinder in their PU line for several years in the early/mid 80's. I don't know anything about that one, but it doesn't look much like the LD28, so it's not derivative. . . . but I just assumed they must have because a naturally aspirated benz may be the only thing my old subbie GL wagon ever blew the doors off of. You should drive a 200D (1960-68) sometime! Diesels aren't all slow. It just seems that way, because mfgrs are always and forever putting little diesels in vehicles. Imagine a 2.0l Four in a 2800 lb car: that's the 200D. Add four-speed column shift and you don't exactly have a performance platform. The Tempo diesel performs fairly well, because it's a 2.0l in a small car. The Rabbit diesel (remember the Rabbit? It preceeded the Golf, was sold through '84), if equipped with a 5-spd, runs out quite well, if you can stand the interiour noise -- I've worn out two of them, and after the last one, I swore I wouldn't buy another, but I did eventually pick up an old Jetta diesel because it had a sunroof. The Rabbit will cruise right along at 75 MPH, and still get 44 MPG. But it's a low-quality ride: the interiour noise would leave me with a headache on long trips. My former '83 G30 (1T GM van) has the 6.2l, and though it's only rated at 160 HP, it towed things very well, and got 19.1 MPG over 80k miles, not bad for a rig as aerodynamic as a shoebox and pushing 5,800 lbs with me and 33 gals of fuel. It has proper gearing for the engine, and if you stomp it from a stop, it moves (for a big box on wheels, that is). [later] Forgot to mention: the old (head-gasket-blowing) Rabbit diesel engine, 1.6l, is a "high RPM diesel": it's governed to only 4400 RPM! The G30 would top out (with 175k on it) at 86 MPH. It would go faster, except the damned 700-R4 would not stay in overdrive at full-throttle, and in 3rd gear (direct), 86 MPH is bumping the 6.2l's governor! When I'd back off 1/8th, the 700-R4 would upshift to OD, and I could sometimes creep up to 89 MPH. I asked, but nobody had a trans valve body mod for the 700-R4 for a reasonable price, that would allow OD and full throttle at the same time. Not bad for the frontal area of a Peterbuilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setright Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Well, it seems I am not just talking out of my behind, just found this on Mobil's website, seems they agree with me on the soot question: "Modern high output, low emission diesel engines generate higher levels of soot and run hotter than older naturally aspirated engines which significantly increases the demands on engine lubricants." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asavage Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Originally posted by Setright Well, it seems I am not just talking out of my behind, just found this on Mobil's website, seems they agree with me on the soot question: "Modern high output, low emission diesel engines generate higher levels of soot and run hotter than older naturally aspirated engines which significantly increases the demands on engine lubricants." Please post the reference address of this quote. I think this is a misleading, out-of-context quote. If I'm correct, this would read, " . . . higher levels of soot [/i]in the lubricating oil[/i] . . . ". Modern diesels utilize a different EGR control system that can significanty increase soot in the oil, not in the exhaust stream. This is a challenge for the oil filtering system for a modern diesel. I'm on my way out the door, but I can find a couple of refs for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostWater Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Chevettes had a 1.8 l diesel for a while, I belive that was an Isuzu, but Slow. I had a Diesel escort, 1984 with what I remember as a Mazda diesel 2.0L. That sucker could fly and get 40-45 mph, but anything less than 2/5 of a tank of fuel and the dam preheater shut off clogging the passages. Put more fuel in it and the preheater magically came back on. I cooked the stinking thing, overheated and warped the head. We hired my mom's cousin to put another escort diesel in there, and sure enuf, my sis fried that one too. The rangers and bronco II's came with a 2.7L V6 diesel for a while. Now that would be an engine I would like to try in my van. Kennedy makes an adaptor for the escort engine and the ranger engine, so that leads me to believe they would allow use of the diesel counterparts too. The diesel vw's (golf, rabbit, vanagon) were great in the cars, but at 15deg in the vanagon, they sukked. On my conversion groups, people convert their diesel vanagons (and the ****ty wasserboxer) to Subaru ej22 2.2. In fact, Kennedy has it CARB certified! Anyways, someone give me a 2.7 mazda diesel and I will try it in my 78 auto bus. BTW, I have a 99 Turbo diesel 7.3 F 250, and the booger NEVER gets over 17 mpg, and only 14 when towing the horse trailer. Jack, u sure about yer buddy's claims? Well, thats better than 10-12 mpg when empty gas engine (6-9mpg) towing. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nug Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 http://www.bankspower.com/sidewinder-dragrace.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electryc_monk Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 drive down to Texas from Michigan empty(basicly) return with a cb900 disassembled and alot of my stuff in the "shell-inclosed" fullsized bed and towing the GL-10 turbo on a dolly. Diesel gas mileage was just over 20 on the drive down and on the drive back it was 18-22mpg model: 2001 250 superduty quadcab 4WD 5+1spd 7.3L (or was it the 7.1L) turbo intercooled diesel speeds below 70 MPH garnered over 22MPG AVG. not bad for the 12K lbs 'family sports car' (family inside joke nickname) on the hardpacked dirt roads in the upper part of the "mitten" where they live we took it out and i got 4-wheel scratch in 1st and second gears. (admittedly the 2nd gear was for maybe 1-3 feet before it lurched forward.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnW Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 There was a post about future Subaru models in the newer generation forum and there was mention of a Diesel Legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now