so what is so great about diesel...

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:19 am

flash7210 wrote:

DarbyWalters wrote:

Diesel Engines run cooler

No to get too technical, but diesel engines run hotter.
You have to put a lot more energy (heat) into diesel fuel to make it burn
than you do gasolene. You also get a lot more energy out of the reaction
for a greater period of time and a higher overall # of BTU's. This
translates into more work being performed.

Actually Diesels run COOLER. Although Gas BTUs are ~125,000 and Diesel BTUs are ~m 147,000, the diesel will run cooler for a few reasons. Because of the extra energy in Diesel it takes less fuel and rpm to attain the same speed...hence they run cooler. EGT temps of diesels are lower than EGT temps of a similiar sized gasser. Just because compression ratios are higher in a diesel, it does not mean temps will be higher.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:40 am

cumminspilot wrote:

you are misinformed about the 6.2 diesel. Mine would have blown up twice by now according to you.
The 6.2 was designed from the ground up as a diesel.
You seem to be speaking about the 5.7 that gm built and it was a disaster.
The 6.2 and 6.5 are the same basic engine.

My experience is different I guess.
When I was a mechanic in the Army I saw lots of these motors fail at an
early age. I've seen holes burned through piston heads and lots of
cracked cylinder heads. And I still think that block and those heads are
way too similar to an Olds 400 gasser to be a coincidence.
Now, the 6.5, still pretty much the same but looks to be a lot stronger
and the turbo gets the humvee movin quick.
Now the Detroit 53T and 62T I've never had a problem with.

nix · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:01 am

Diesels, at least, emit cooler exhaust. From what I understand about our turbocharger, it could not be implemented on a gasoline powered engine. The engine heat and exhaust heat would destroy the variable nozzle parts in the turbo. Diesels can have this as their EGTs are cooler than gassers. The only Variable nozzle turbocharger available in a gasoline car is the new porsche 911 twin turbo.. but its a radically new turbo and very expensive. See http://www.autoblog.com/2005/11/27/next ... -geometry/

flash7210 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:15 am

DarbyWalters wrote:

flash7210 wrote:

DarbyWalters wrote:

Diesel Engines run cooler

No to get too technical, but diesel engines run hotter.
You have to put a lot more energy (heat) into diesel fuel to make it burn
than you do gasolene. You also get a lot more energy out of the reaction
for a greater period of time and a higher overall # of BTU's. This
translates into more work being performed.

Actually Diesels run COOLER. Although Gas BTUs are ~125,000 and Diesel BTUs are ~m 147,000, the diesel will run cooler for a few reasons. Because of the extra energy in Diesel it takes less fuel and rpm to attain the same speed...hence they run cooler. EGT temps of diesels are lower than EGT temps of a similiar sized gasser. Just because compression ratios are higher in a diesel, it does not mean temps will be higher.

Ok, you're right about the EGT's. I guess we are arguing two different
aspects of combustion. I would argue that diesel EGT is lower because of
more complete combustion and gasser EGT is higher because fuel is
still burning all the way through the exhaust stroke.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Got a couple of tangents going, and I don't want to start another, but I'd like to respond to a couple of things on biofuels...

o8k wrote:

NOT ENOUGH LAND! and ehhem, oh by the way, all the farmable land for all that nonsense is being used for somthing pretty darn important, OUR FOOD SUPPLY !

The US vastly overproduces a lot of crops, to the tune of having to spend billions every year subsidizing farmers who do not have a market for those crops (corn and wheat, in particular). No reason those surplus crops could not be converted over to soy or canola for bio-diesel production (something actually useful), than left in potatos to be plowed under, wheat to be stuck in a silo somewhere till it rots, or corn to be turned into cheap high-fructose corn syrup that makes all of our asses collectively fat

Farmers need to make a living, and I'd rather help them make a living off of producing something we need (clean, renewable fuels) than in producing something we don't (vastly more corn or wheat than America actually consumes).

I agree completely that bio-fuels will not solve our oil addiction problems. However, until real solutions do come on line (like fuel cells), we have to do something. Renewable fuels like bio-diesel help a bit in reducing our overall emissions of CO2, as well as slightly reducing the demand for foreign oil. Good things. Plus it helps shift the political power a bit--politicians are more likely to endorse change when it is farmers vs. Exxon than when it is hippie environmentalists vs. Exxon.

o8k wrote:

The silly legislation on ethonol and bio-diesel forcing farmers to make it is YES jacking up the price of food, go look on google finance, kroger for example, among many other food related industries are going gang busters b/c supply is being limited due to this bio-fuel legislation,,

That's BS, as such legislation has yet to pass at the federal level. The proposals don't force farmers to produce anything. It gives farmers an option of growing fuel stock to sell at nice profit, vs. farming as they have always done. Here in Oregon, the state-level biofuels legislation gives farmers a tax break for growing canola for bio-diesel production. I don't think farmers out here switching from alfalfa (cow food) or potatoes (which they often are forced to plow under due to surplus production) is driving up the price of your green beans and tomatoes.

In 20 years, I hope I'm driving something thats running off a hydrogen fuel cell, and not a internal combustion engine at all. Until that time, though, I want to do something. Running the most fuel-efficient vehicle available that meets my needs (a Liberty CRD) is part of that. Supporting the diversification of our fuel supply, less dependence on foreign oil, and offsetting pollution by using some small amount of renewable fuel is what makes me buy bio-diesel, not the belief that it is the solution to all our oil-dependence problems.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:19 pm

Threeweight wrote:

Got a couple of tangents going, and I don't want to start another, but I'd like to respond to a couple of things on biofuels...

o8k wrote:

NOT ENOUGH LAND! and ehhem, oh by the way, all the farmable land for all that nonsense is being used for somthing pretty darn important, OUR FOOD SUPPLY !

The US vastly overproduces a lot of crops, to the tune of having to spend billions every year subsidizing farmers who do not have a market for those crops (corn and wheat, in particular). No reason those surplus crops could not be converted over to soy or canola for bio-diesel production (something actually useful), than left in potatos to be plowed under, wheat to be stuck in a silo somewhere till it rots, or corn to be turned into cheap high-fructose corn syrup that makes all of our asses collectively fat

Farmers need to make a living, and I'd rather help them make a living off of producing something we need (clean, renewable fuels) than in producing something we don't (vastly more corn or wheat than America actually consumes).

I agree completely that bio-fuels will not solve our oil addiction problems. However, until real solutions do come on line (like fuel cells), we have to do something. Renewable fuels like bio-diesel help a bit in reducing our overall emissions of CO2, as well as slightly reducing the demand for foreign oil. Good things. Plus it helps shift the political power a bit--politicians are more likely to endorse change when it is farmers vs. Exxon than when it is hippie environmentalists vs. Exxon.

o8k wrote:

The silly legislation on ethonol and bio-diesel forcing farmers to make it is YES jacking up the price of food, go look on google finance, kroger for example, among many other food related industries are going gang busters b/c supply is being limited due to this bio-fuel legislation,,

That's BS, as such legislation has yet to pass at the federal level. The proposals don't force farmers to produce anything. It gives farmers an option of growing fuel stock to sell at nice profit, vs. farming as they have always done. Here in Oregon, the state-level biofuels legislation gives farmers a tax break for growing canola for bio-diesel production. I don't think farmers out here switching from alfalfa (cow food) or potatoes (which they often are forced to plow under due to surplus production) is driving up the price of your green beans and tomatoes.

In 20 years, I hope I'm driving something thats running off a hydrogen fuel cell, and not a internal combustion engine at all. Until that time, though, I want to do something. Running the most fuel-efficient vehicle available that meets my needs (a Liberty CRD) is part of that. Supporting the diversification of our fuel supply, less dependence on foreign oil, and offsetting pollution by using some small amount of renewable fuel is what makes me buy bio-diesel, not the belief that it is the solution to all our oil-dependence problems.

Ya baby!

flash7210 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:22 pm

Threeweight wrote:

Got a couple of tangents going, and I don't want to start another, but I'd like to respond to a couple of things on biofuels...

Hey you two, come duke it out along with everyone else in Alternative fuels
discussion board.

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=94

Or are you too scared?
Check your ego's at the door, or your feelings will get hurt!

Johnboy · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:46 pm

Had been following this one for entertainment, but...

There is no corn surplus...as in, "well, what are we going to do with all this corn, I guess we will pay the farmer and throw it away" Some states produce more than they use, some states buy more than they produce...(if not in grain, definately in corn products). Agreed on the collectively fat society, but consuming nasty food like most do is a choice they make; we have much more food choices than we have fuel choices. I choose wholesome, minimally processed, fresh foodstuffs. I choose diesel for some of our machinery (several tractors, a cummins, and my brothers and my CRD's) for most of the aforementioned reasons, and the percieved increased dangle filling my dirty old blue jeans

My only point is there is not a corn surplus. Period. Livestock, human consumption (including exports) , and ethanol use what we grow. Most other industries use a negligable amount and are likely switching away from corn as the demand and price go up. Ethanol for fuel from corn is likely a temporary partial fix to the fuel problem, but for now it is providing work, incentive, or income to a large number of American citizens.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_rev ... icle4.aspx

A short, likely marginally opinionated article about corn surplus and futures (from December, so definatly not current, just a picture of how is marketed).

Lastly, anyone suggesting or more so actually plowing alphala must only have manure for brains. Hay has been selling for $10 a square bale in the mid-west (yeah, the little square bales...)

Johnboy · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:50 pm

Threeweight wrote:

Got a couple of tangents going, and I don't want to start another, but I'd like to respond to a couple of things on biofuels...

o8k wrote:

NOT ENOUGH LAND! and ehhem, oh by the way, all the farmable land for all that nonsense is being used for somthing pretty darn important, OUR FOOD SUPPLY !

The US vastly overproduces a lot of crops, to the tune of having to spend billions every year subsidizing farmers who do not have a market for those crops (corn and wheat, in particular). No reason those surplus crops could not be converted over to soy or canola for bio-diesel production (something actually useful), than left in potatos to be plowed under, wheat to be stuck in a silo somewhere till it rots, or corn to be turned into cheap high-fructose corn syrup that makes all of our asses collectively fat

Farmers need to make a living, and I'd rather help them make a living off of producing something we need (clean, renewable fuels) than in producing something we don't (vastly more corn or wheat than America actually consumes).

I agree completely that bio-fuels will not solve our oil addiction problems. However, until real solutions do come on line (like fuel cells), we have to do something. Renewable fuels like bio-diesel help a bit in reducing our overall emissions of CO2, as well as slightly reducing the demand for foreign oil. Good things. Plus it helps shift the political power a bit--politicians are more likely to endorse change when it is farmers vs. Exxon than when it is hippie environmentalists vs. Exxon.

o8k wrote:

The silly legislation on ethonol and bio-diesel forcing farmers to make it is YES jacking up the price of food, go look on google finance, kroger for example, among many other food related industries are going gang busters b/c supply is being limited due to this bio-fuel legislation,,

That's BS, as such legislation has yet to pass at the federal level. The proposals don't force farmers to produce anything. It gives farmers an option of growing fuel stock to sell at nice profit, vs. farming as they have always done. Here in Oregon, the state-level biofuels legislation gives farmers a tax break for growing canola for bio-diesel production. I don't think farmers out here switching from alfalfa (cow food) or potatoes (which they often are forced to plow under due to surplus production) is driving up the price of your green beans and tomatoes.

In 20 years, I hope I'm driving something thats running off a hydrogen fuel cell, and not a internal combustion engine at all. Until that time, though, I want to do something. Running the most fuel-efficient vehicle available that meets my needs (a Liberty CRD) is part of that. Supporting the diversification of our fuel supply, less dependence on foreign oil, and offsetting pollution by using some small amount of renewable fuel is what makes me buy bio-diesel, not the belief that it is the solution to all our oil-dependence problems.

I do agree with pretty much all of your post though...

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:51 pm

Discussion on alternative fuels needs to go to the appropriate thread. By past history of these discussions, they hijack the thread and stray away from the main point of the original post. A simple mention of BioFuel ect is not a problem, but once politics, economic viability, ect. rear thier heads it needs to go to the correct forum. Thanx!

dog_party · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:43 pm

Sport wrote:

so what is so great about diesel...

I love that look I get from passersby when I start it up.

Or the fuel-station attendent that comes running out to keep you from filling up with the "wrong" fuel.

Or the big redneck in the jacked-up Ford/Chevy/Dodge class 2 or 3 P/U looking over when you pull up behind him at the diesel pump.

Or the feeling you get when you're towing a 21' boat up a hill and you hit the skinny pedal and actually ACCELERATE.

Or the fact that it almost costs the same to fill up my KJs tank as it does to fill up the 10 gallon tank in my Miata.

Just love the truck and the diesel.

Sport · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:19 pm

interesting reading :shock:

Makes me feel like poo for having a gas soaking hog.

naturist · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:50 pm

At the heart of it all, the difference is in thermal efficiency, both in the engine and overall (ie, starting from the petroleum well clear to the moving vehicle). In the engine, gas engines achieve 28-32% at best. That is, 32% of the energy available in the fuel turns into power at the engine's flywheel. Diesels get at best 42-43% efficiency. That is approximately 1/3 better for the diesel over a gas engine. The efficiency advantage is even more when you consider that more energy is expended making a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of diesel fuel. This would be why there is a worldwide push to diesel engines over gas engines for the petroleum-starved future.

The argument over which runs cooler, gas or diesel revolves around point of view. Yes, diesel tends to burn hotter, part of the reason they make more NOx, formation of which is favored at higher temperatures. But the engines themselves run cooler because the higher compression ratio extracts more of the heat generated and transforms it into mechanical motion.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

DarbyWalters wrote:

Discussion on alternative fuels needs to go to the appropriate thread. By past history of these discussions, they hijack the thread and stray away from the main point of the original post. A simple mention of BioFuel ect is not a problem, but once politics, economic viability, ect. rear thier heads it needs to go to the correct forum. Thanx!

Hey now, I'm behaving, despite my twitching typing fingers...

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:31 pm

BlackLibertyCRD wrote:

My wife likes the smell of diesel. :shock:

She got a sister?

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:09 pm

Sir Sam wrote:

BlackLibertyCRD wrote:

My wife likes the smell of diesel. :shock:

She got a sister?

I'm thankful she don't. :mrgreen:

805gregg · **Posted:** Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:14 am

Diesel is $2 a gallon in Baja.

o8k · **Posted:** Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:22 pm

Threeweight wrote:

Got a couple of tangents going, and I don't want to start another, but I'd like to respond to a couple of things on biofuels...

o8k wrote:

NOT ENOUGH LAND! and ehhem, oh by the way, all the farmable land for all that nonsense is being used for somthing pretty darn important, OUR FOOD SUPPLY !

The US vastly overproduces a lot of crops, to the tune of having to spend billions every year subsidizing farmers who do not have a market for those crops (corn and wheat, in particular). No reason those surplus crops could not be converted over to soy or canola for bio-diesel production (something actually useful), than left in potatos to be plowed under, wheat to be stuck in a silo somewhere till it rots, or corn to be turned into cheap high-fructose corn syrup that makes all of our asses collectively fat

Farmers need to make a living, and I'd rather help them make a living off of producing something we need (clean, renewable fuels) than in producing something we don't (vastly more corn or wheat than America actually consumes).

I agree completely that bio-fuels will not solve our oil addiction problems. However, until real solutions do come on line (like fuel cells), we have to do something. Renewable fuels like bio-diesel help a bit in reducing our overall emissions of CO2, as well as slightly reducing the demand for foreign oil. Good things. Plus it helps shift the political power a bit--politicians are more likely to endorse change when it is farmers vs. Exxon than when it is hippie environmentalists vs. Exxon.

o8k wrote:

The silly legislation on ethonol and bio-diesel forcing farmers to make it is YES jacking up the price of food, go look on google finance, kroger for example, among many other food related industries are going gang busters b/c supply is being limited due to this bio-fuel legislation,,

That's BS, as such legislation has yet to pass at the federal level. The proposals don't force farmers to produce anything. It gives farmers an option of growing fuel stock to sell at nice profit, vs. farming as they have always done. Here in Oregon, the state-level biofuels legislation gives farmers a tax break for growing canola for bio-diesel production. I don't think farmers out here switching from alfalfa (cow food) or potatoes (which they often are forced to plow under due to surplus production) is driving up the price of your green beans and tomatoes.

In 20 years, I hope I'm driving something thats running off a hydrogen fuel cell, and not a internal combustion engine at all. Until that time, though, I want to do something. Running the most fuel-efficient vehicle available that meets my needs (a Liberty CRD) is part of that. Supporting the diversification of our fuel supply, less dependence on foreign oil, and offsetting pollution by using some small amount of renewable fuel is what makes me buy bio-diesel, not the belief that it is the solution to all our oil-dependence problems.

I dont mind your rebute, but your tone is a bit offensive and hostile. Lets try and keep it clean ok.... First off my scope of events covers past/present/and future in realting cause and effect here, so where some of these things may not be true today right now, they will, as i blelieve i made that clear, apparently not so im sorry if you believe my future prediction is BS.....

So since you know so much please tell me just where your planning on getting the Hydrogen to run your little fuel cell car from smarty? I would love to know....

o8k · **Posted:** Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:24 pm

naturist wrote:

At the heart of it all, the difference is in thermal efficiency, both in the engine and overall (ie, starting from the petroleum well clear to the moving vehicle). In the engine, gas engines achieve 28-32% at best. That is, 32% of the energy available in the fuel turns into power at the engine's flywheel. Diesels get at best 42-43% efficiency. That is approximately 1/3 better for the diesel over a gas engine. The efficiency advantage is even more when you consider that more energy is expended making a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of diesel fuel. This would be why there is a worldwide push to diesel engines over gas engines for the petroleum-starved future.

The argument over which runs cooler, gas or diesel revolves around point of view. Yes, diesel tends to burn hotter, part of the reason they make more NOx, formation of which is favored at higher temperatures. But the engines themselves run cooler because the higher compression ratio extracts more of the heat generated and transforms it into mechanical motion.

I would add to this well put statment by simply saying more of the heat energy in combustion is transfered to mechanical energy from a diesel engine than with a gas engine.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

o8k wrote:

I dont mind your rebute, but your tone is a bit offensive and hostile. Lets try and keep it clean ok....

o8k wrote:

So since you know so much please tell me just where your planning on getting the Hydrogen to run your little fuel cell car from smarty? I would love to know....

Setting aside the humor of asking me to keep it clean then attacking me for disagreeing with you...

In 20 years time, assuming fuel cell technology has advanced to the point where mass use in transportation is possible, I'd assume we'll have also invested in hydrogen infrastructure. It would be pretty dumb to offer fuel cell cars for sale without building the fueling stations to go with them. Building the fueling stations is the easy part--we already have that technology for fueling natural gas powered vehicles (like many of your local UPS trucks). It is developing fuel cells that do not cost more than a small house that is the challenge.

We'll see what the future brings with biofuels production. I was simply pointing out that it is way off base to claim farmers are being forced to grow crops for fuel production, or that such production is currently forcing up the price of food.

so what is so great about diesel...

Who is online