Quieter engine on SVO is not better

For discussing the modifications needed for diesel vehicles to run with 2 tank veggie oil conversions.

Moderators: SunWizard, coachgeo

Postby coachgeo » Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:24 pm

came across this on Infopop

Originally posted by Johann Cape Town:
... Retard timing on petro-diesel and the the motor will also run quieter.


Interesting. Anyone got a chance to verify this?
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby David » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:11 pm

I think it is pretty obvious that if you retard the timing, any motor will run quieter... It will also run with reduced power and efficiency and in some cases with petrol engines at least, will also reduce fuel consumption somewhat but in other cases may raise it.

I wouldn't reduce an engines efficiency just to make it quieter unless there was some really good reason to do it. personally I want all the power I can get out of my old car and doing that is going to cause it to make more racket that what mucking up the timing ever would ever quiet it down. The noise a diesel engine makes in a lot of ways is tied to the way it is designed to work so if you don't hear a clatter it really means the thing isn't working as it should.
_____________________

I don't give a damn about what might or could happen until a significant group of people can tell me it HAS happened to them.
Until then, it's just more endless gloom and doom Veg folk law.
David
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:12 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby SunWizard » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:28 pm

coachgeo wrote:came across this on Infopop

Originally posted by Johann Cape Town:
... Retard timing on petro-diesel and the the motor will also run quieter.


Interesting. Anyone got a chance to verify this?

Yes read the posts by crossbones linked earlier in this thread he is an expert about timing. But you shouldn't do it since you get lower power and MPG, higher emissions.
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby rackley » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:41 am

David wrote:I was of the impression that computer controlled engines were easy to change timing on by just adding a chip and plugging into a laptop.


I'll dispel that myth right now - it is more difficult to electronically tune an engine management system (correctly) than it is to mechanically adjust timing.

Here is why:

With a mechanical adjustment, you usually make one adjustment and it applies across the whole RPM/load spectrum.

With a computer controlled adjustment, there are a myrid of factors that can modify or adjust the actual timing being delivered to the engine. These are unique to every manufacturer and usually different across models/years as well. You can have 2D (think Excel) or 3D maps that show relationships between RPM, load, timing, etc. Each cell or point is usually much more precisely tuned than a mechanically controller equivalent so there is less "slop" or room for error. It is a very complex and time consuming process to come up with new maps, and that is only possible if 1) the stock ECU can be reprogrammed or 2) you replace the stock ECU with an aftermarket ECU (which can introduce a whole new set of complications).

In short, it's not as simple as pressing the "Easy Button" and burning a new chip. You have to re-engineer the fuel delivery for the engine - which is something that usually takes a team of full-time engineers to do.
rackley
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:48 pm

Postby rackley » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:22 pm

coachgeo wrote:
denson wrote:I have heard somwhere that newer computer controlled engines can advance or retard timing based on fuel temp. sensors. Does anyone know if this is true?
I have heard this too. Think I've read some fool this sinsor on VW's to change timing.


Yes they do. Albq Alt Energies (now POP Diesel), Plantdrive and I conducted emissions testing on that VW and found that once fuel temps in the IP crossed a magical temp number (I forget what that number was offhand) it caused it to massively retard the timing and screw up the emissions.

Reference here: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02 ... _aces.html

I'm sure other PCMs (powertrain control modules) do the same thing, but it's very difficult to "look inside the black box" to see what it is programmed to do.
rackley
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:48 pm

Cetane & mapped timing

Postby HoldOnTight » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:55 am

The 2 or 3D maps are set up for different cetane values by different manufacturers. Most assume a cetane value of 52, which is higher than normally experienced with diesel. So, yes, this is a difficult thing to adjust in an ECU controlled engine if you truly want it optimized for VO.
Late 99 Ford F-250, Designed and installed at home, 30 kMi on VO. WVO temp at solenoid valve is 185-195+F, winter-summer.
HoldOnTight
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:40 pm
Location: Dayton OH

Postby Burbarian » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:39 am

As an experiment, I started using increasing percentages of hydrogen peroxide in the water injection system. It is the rather mild and commonly available 3% solution (97% water) that can be purchased at stores as a disinfectant. Mixed with regular distilled water (normal water injection solution) which brings effective h202 concentration down. At 40% (~1.2% h2o2) there is a noticeable increase in 'diesel clatter', and at 60%, subjective impression from my uncalibrated ear says it sounds like it's running on standard diesel. This is with a V80K20 blend, and injection rate of 1gal/hr at WOT on a 300TD. However, considering the stuff costs $1 a litre retail, it does not appear to be economical. No power increase was observed.
1987 GMC Suburban 6.2L V8 IDI
1985 Merc 300TD
1968 CAT D4D 3304 dozer
1971 Waldon 4100 loader
1981 IHI 30F excavator
1995 Changfa 195 w/ ST 10kw genset
Burbarian
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Vermont

Postby 240Volvo » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:42 am

SO, at 60% that works out to an effective concentration of 1.8%. Would it be cheaper to add a concentrate (100%) and use much less?

Why are you adding it, to raise Oxygen level?
1984 Volvo 240 diesel with a single tank Elsbett conversion: electric fuel filter heater, FPHE, glow plugs, and injectors. Also injector line heaters and block heater, running 20%kero/80%WVO winter blend.
240Volvo
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:34 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby Burbarian » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:39 am

Concentrations up to 30% can be acquired from commercial suppliers. Above that concentration it is regulated as special handling hazmat due to propensities for spontaneous explosive decomposition. Certain metals also act to cause rapid decomposition into high temperature steam and oxygen.

Yes, a test to see if h202 injection can provide the same effects as mild turbocharging. In that case, the experiment appears to be a failure. No noticeable increase in power was observed, and the increased racket from the engine was unexpected.
1987 GMC Suburban 6.2L V8 IDI
1985 Merc 300TD
1968 CAT D4D 3304 dozer
1971 Waldon 4100 loader
1981 IHI 30F excavator
1995 Changfa 195 w/ ST 10kw genset
Burbarian
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Vermont

Postby John Galt » Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:14 pm

If injecting H2O2 makes the engine run more noisy, is that supposed to be a good thing re: "Quieter engine on VO is not better" ?

I'm not convinced that a quieter engine is a problem, UNLESS the condition increases unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust.
Last edited by John Galt on Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby BMW Fan » Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:44 pm

If we follow your thought, John G. then we got to increase the amount of water and the engine rattles like hell.
Better ? I'd say not.

BMW Fan

http://www.crawldog.com/klausold/
BMW Fan
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:48 am
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Postby David » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:27 pm

Burbarian wrote:
Yes, a test to see if h202 injection can provide the same effects as mild turbocharging. In that case, the experiment appears to be a failure. No noticeable increase in power was observed, and the increased racket from the engine was unexpected.


In order to see a power increase, You would have to ramp up the fuel delivery. If all the fuel is being burnt in the engine in the first place, ( as would normally occour in a diesel at anything but WOT) adding more oxygen is not going to make a difference unless it has something to work on.

This principal is the same as with Nitrous Oxide. It increases the amount of oxygen in the cylinder but in the same injector, extra fuel is added for the oxygen to burn. When looking to make power, effectively you want to burn as much fuel as possible so it has to be there in the first place.

In order to see if the peroxide worked, You would have to ramp up the fuel delivery to the point where the engine smoked pretty well and then see if the peroxide decreased the smoke and increased the power.

The theroys of engines not burning all the fuel is a load of bunk especially in a diesel. If the thing is not belching smoke, the fuel is being burned. It simply dosen't stand to reason that manufacturers would make engines that left unburned fuel be wasted and if they did the things would have never got past emissions testing in the first place.
_____________________

I don't give a damn about what might or could happen until a significant group of people can tell me it HAS happened to them.
Until then, it's just more endless gloom and doom Veg folk law.
David
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:12 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby Burbarian » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:18 pm

David wrote:In order to see a power increase, You would have to ramp up the fuel delivery. If all the fuel is being burnt in the engine in the first place, ( as would normally occour in a diesel at anything but WOT) adding more oxygen is not going to make a difference unless it has something to work on.


Burbarian wrote:This is with a V80K20 blend, and injection rate of 1gal/hr at WOT on a 300TD.


David wrote:In order to see if the peroxide worked, You would have to ramp up the fuel delivery to the point where the engine smoked pretty well and then see if the peroxide decreased the smoke and increased the power.


The Merc always smokes a bit at WOT. As previously stated, injection was initiated at WOT, and the only noticeable difference between pre and post injection was an increase in noise. I was looking for a mild boost in power which would present itself within the first 2 seconds upon commencement of h2o2 injection. The transition difference would be more noticeable and less dependent on subjective impression memory. However, no such boost was noticed. As for any decrease in smoke, that would have to be determined by a chase car.
1987 GMC Suburban 6.2L V8 IDI
1985 Merc 300TD
1968 CAT D4D 3304 dozer
1971 Waldon 4100 loader
1981 IHI 30F excavator
1995 Changfa 195 w/ ST 10kw genset
Burbarian
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Vermont

Postby WD8CDH » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:54 am

Burbarian wrote:As an experiment, I started using increasing percentages of hydrogen peroxide in the water injection system. It is the rather mild and commonly available 3% solution (97% water) that can be purchased at stores as a disinfectant. Mixed with regular distilled water (normal water injection solution) which brings effective h202 concentration down. At 40% (~1.2% h2o2) there is a noticeable increase in 'diesel clatter', and at 60%, subjective impression from my uncalibrated ear says it sounds like it's running on standard diesel. This is with a V80K20 blend, and injection rate of 1gal/hr at WOT on a 300TD. However, considering the stuff costs $1 a litre retail, it does not appear to be economical. No power increase was observed.


At that dilution, I would suspect that the results would be nearly identical to H2O injection.
Ron Schroeder
WD8CDH
'85 MB 300DT 2 Tank
Since '81 former WVO conversions:
'83 240D
'80 Audi 4000D
'83 Isuzu Pup
'86 Golf
'76 Honda Civic with Kubota engine
Prior to the cars, several generators
Kubota Tractor
WD8CDH
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 11:44 am
Location: NY

Postby Burbarian » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:54 am

Indeed that was my expectation, as I already use water/meth injection. Any gains would be modest, but indicative. Start with low concentrations, then gradually go up if the results are promising. In this case, the results were unexpected. The primary noticeable outcome was a change in the engine's sound, which this topic was about.
1987 GMC Suburban 6.2L V8 IDI
1985 Merc 300TD
1968 CAT D4D 3304 dozer
1971 Waldon 4100 loader
1981 IHI 30F excavator
1995 Changfa 195 w/ ST 10kw genset
Burbarian
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Vermont

Previous

Return to 2 Tank veggie oil conversion and General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron