What can stop my engine?

RickB said:

I wish people didn't say such silly things. BSFC is actually lower than it could be as a result of NOx regulations.

Click to expand...

me too. anyone driving a modern vehicle has to appreciate the fact that a few years ago 100,000 was a long life for an engine and now because of stringent air pollution requirements forcing engines to be built to tighter tolerances if an engine dosent run two, three hundred thousand we are surprised. And uses much less fuel. chinka chinka, money in our pockets and that aint silly

RickB said:

I wish people didn't say such silly things. BSFC is actually lower than it could be as a result of NOx regulations.

Click to expand...

No one stated that they are as efficient as physically possible. Are you arguing that today's engines are not more reliable or more efficient than the engines of yesteryear? I believe that's what bfloyd4445's point was.

FlyWright said:

Are you arguing that today's engines are not more reliable or more efficient than the engines of yesteryear?

Click to expand...

No, just that in order to meet emissions standards we are actually consuming more fuel for the same power output.

I made a mistake when I wrote "lower BSFC" it should have read higher ...

The engines are certainly more reliable, that is a result of better manufacturing techniques and materials. They are not as efficient as they could be and the most efficient diesels are no longer permitted to operate in the manner that previously produced efficiency above 50 percent.

With exhaust post treatment to reduce NOx we may regain what was lost but at higher cost.

RickB said:

No, just that in order to meet emissions standards we are actually consuming more fuel for the same power output.

I made a mistake when I wrote "lower BSFC" it should have read higher ...

The engines are certainly more reliable, that is a result of better manufacturing techniques and materials. They are not as efficient as they could be and the most efficient diesels are no longer permitted to operate in the manner that previously produced efficiency above 50 percent.

With exhaust post treatment to reduce NOx we may regain what was lost but at higher cost.

Click to expand...

Rick, you are right in that when new technology is required to meet the new more strict pollution standard at first often more fuel is used. However, as time passes and the technology is tweaked the end result is always a more efiecent longer lasting engine that sips fuel. We went through this with gasoline engines and now we are going to have to go through it again with deisel engines. The first generation of smoged D trucks got terrible fuel economy back in 2008 and now the new generation, at least in the case of Ford, has morphed into an engine system generating higher horsepower and as good of fuel economy as pre smogged naturally aspirated D engines. Ford spent millions developing a whole new engine to overcome the shortcommings of the tweaked old design engines. Soon these new engines will be in the marine world I'm sure. When i left CARB we were in the process of looking at marine engines to see what could be done to make them cleaner running and less harmful to the environment. That means no more sooty exhaust filled with expensive uncombusted fuel to dirty your engine room the air we breath and the water we drink.

This diesel-electric powered trawler (Keliautojas) is for sale and located in the Vallejo Marina.

bfloyd4445 said:

When i left CARB we were in the process of looking at marine engines to see what could be done to make them cleaner running and less harmful to the environment. That means no more sooty exhaust filled with expensive uncombusted fuel to dirty your engine room the air we breath and the water we drink.

Click to expand...

Koombaya my brother ...

Unless and until some quantum leap in reciprocating engine technology comes along the only thing that will accomplish CARB's fantasy of sunlight on butterfly wings and thousands of children of all races and creeds singing folk songs together in Yosemite is exhaust post-treatment.

The bottom line is that all the tricks to reduce NOx involve reducing combustion chamber efficiency and performance. To restore the power lost, more fuel has to be burned. To remove NOx and particulates, heavy, large, expensive, complex, and consumables consuming systems must be added that at this stage and for the foreseeable future, cost nearly as much as the engine itself for low horsepower applications.

In keeping with the original example, no matter what kind of emissions control and exhaust treatment is used, compression ignition engines burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels will produce soot and particulates. A hole in the exhaust manifold will darken the engine room ... even in California.

They are not as efficient as they could be and the most efficient diesels are no longer permitted to operate in the manner that previously produced efficiency above 50 percent.

We all pay when a truck driving down the NJ Turnpike is required to exhaust cleaner air than it intakes.

Thanks Air Police!

FF said:

We all pay when a truck driving down the NJ Turnpike is required to exhaust cleaner air than it intakes.

Click to expand...

That is money well spent.

We all benefit and in the end we also pay less ... who do you think pays for medical costs associated with air pollution? Who pays for cleaning the filth off our buildings and clothes?

Who pays for the loss of wildlife and trees and the things that make life worth living for nearly everyone except the folks who hate every aspect of government?

Thank you Air Police, you are saving me and my children a ton of money. If it were not for you we would save 10 cents on transporting a box of Chinese made junk to a Walmart in New Jersey.

Greetings,
Air police? Mr. FF. May I suggest a trip to Shanghai...

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Air police? Mr. FF. May I suggest a trip to Shanghai...

Click to expand...

Anyone that does not believe in the EPA and what they have done needs to spend a couple of days in south China. I was there just a couple of weeks ago and it reminded me of the steel mills in Ohio when I was young. We didn't know any better and didn't know that the reason we had a sore throat was the crap in the air that so bad when it rained it washed off of the side of the houses in red streaks.

When I was there this last time it was even bad in Beijing. But in Suzhou it smelled like smoke all day long. Reminded me of the Coke plant in Campbell OH in 1960.

RickB said:

Koombaya my brother ...

Unless and until some quantum leap in reciprocating engine technology comes along the only thing that will accomplish CARB's fantasy of sunlight on butterfly wings and thousands of children of all races and creeds singing folk songs together in Yosemite is exhaust post-treatment.

The bottom line is that all the tricks to reduce NOx involve reducing combustion chamber efficiency and performance. To restore the power lost, more fuel has to be burned. To remove NOx and particulates, heavy, large, expensive, complex, and consumables consuming systems must be added that at this stage and for the foreseeable future, cost nearly as much as the engine itself for low horsepower applications.

In keeping with the original example, no matter what kind of emissions control and exhaust treatment is used, compression ignition engines burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels will produce soot and particulates. A hole in the exhaust manifold will darken the engine room ... even in California.

Click to expand...

not fantasy, but the reality of life if you wish to be able to breath the air. Fact of life there are just too many of us polluting the world so unless u wish to stop making babies then you will have to pay the price for cleaning up after yourself. You are wrong about nox, what u are right about is that the previous generation of engine systems did result in a decrease in efficency....thought i explained all this in a previous posting?

Since the thread has drifted to air polution, here is a suggestion from T. Boone Pickens.

"Since propane is a very portable fuel, it can help replace gasoline in some of the worst polluting engines -- the small engines used for garden equipment, lawnmowers and generators. These small gasoline-powered engines release many times more harmful air emissions per hour of use than the typical automobile. In fact, some cities restrict their use during smog alerts. New propane-powered alternatives are coming to market that will meet federal (and soon, California's) air-quality standards, permitting their continued use even during periods of heavy smog."

I understand he also suggests we switch our big rig trucks to propane.

HopCar said:

Since the thread has drifted to air polution, here is a suggestion from T. Boone Pickens.

"Since propane is a very portable fuel, it can help replace gasoline in some of the worst polluting engines -- the small engines used for garden equipment, lawnmowers and generators. These small gasoline-powered engines release many times more harmful air emissions per hour of use than the typical automobile. In fact, some cities restrict their use during smog alerts. New propane-powered alternatives are coming to market that will meet federal (and soon, California's) air-quality standards, permitting their continued use even during periods of heavy smog."

I understand he also suggests we switch our big rig trucks to propane.

Click to expand...

C3H8 is great for lite loads but for a heavy truck application it does not have enough energy. It burns very clean and the engine oil dosent turn black as fast as with other fuels. D is the fuel of work for a reason, its energy density is twenty percent greater than gasoline so it can do more work on fewer gallons. C3H8 in our test vehicles resulted in about a 30% decrease in fuel economy as compared to gasoline. Natural gas is even worse but is clean burning.

Natural gas is even worse but is clean burning.

However IF it costs 1/5 the price , the only question will be how much time is wasted on frequent refills.

The range issue doomed early gas transit buses in La La Land ,

as too many had to be towed back for fuel, even with 2 huge tanks bolted on the roof and well established routes..

FF said:

Natural gas is even worse but is clean burning.

However IF it costs 1/5 the price , the only question will be how much time is wasted on frequent refills.

The range issue doomed early gas transit buses in La La Land ,

as too many had to be towed back for fuel, even with 2 huge tanks bolted on the roof and well established routes..

Click to expand...

chuckle....yep, that was our experiance with test vehicles. Our test vehicle were natural gas or gasoline so towing wasnt necessary in most cases

Who pays for the loss of wildlife and trees and the things that make life worth living for nearly everyone except the folks who hate every aspect of government?

So Government created trees , wildlife and the things that make life worth living for nearly everyone?

WOW ! No wonder you love the DEAD HAND so much!

And I guess the fact that there are more trees in the USA today than when Chris Columbus wandered over is due to government?

WOW , I guess reality is what you make it.

FF said:

Who pays for the loss of wildlife and trees and the things that make life worth living for nearly everyone except the folks who hate every aspect of government?

So Government created trees , wildlife and the things that make life worth living for nearly everyone?

WOW ! No wonder you love the DEAD HAND so much!

And I guess the fact that there are more trees in the USA today than when Chris Columbus wandered over is due to government?

WOW , I guess reality is what you make it.

Click to expand...

thats funny. But in Oregon the goverment does create trees of one species. In Oregon its required you replant after harvesting trees and they only replant one kind of tree which has turned our forests into tree plantations that resemble corn fields with the resulting losss of wildlife