The Next Generation Elio Engine ? (2-stroke Turbo Diesel)

[carzes]

Like everyone , I want clean air and water but it would be a stretch to call me an environmentalist . LPG is a resource that the USA has an overwhelming abundance of . Lower fuel costs equates to more middle class spending elsewhere . Which in turn elevates our GDP and creates much needed jobs .
I view LPG as a sturdy bridge to the future . As a country we jumped too quickly to electrics without any thoughtful analysis . Typical of the folks in charge .

I'd say that's pretty accurate IMHO, but from an ecological standpoint jobs and spending and production is a BAD thing. The REAL eco-agenda is about reducing all those things. Naturally you have to have a decent economy and large consumer base in order to fund and promote new ideas in efficiency, so there's the catch-22 which is so often overlooked by promoters of the limited prosperity approach to ecology.

 

[tonyspumoni]

I'm not sure that works out exactly since if diesel produces 14% more co2 and it IS typically 33% more efficient, then it should reduce co2 by 9%. Statistically. AND, your premise of Bambi-sparing conscientiousness assumes that the Diesel fuel you don't burn will be returned back down the oil well from whence it came. A barrel of oil contains both diesel and gasoline as well as other products. If you burn diesel, someone gets the gasoline. If you burn gas, someone else burns the diesel. Only way to break out is to burn neither, thereby reducing the fossil fuel demand overall.

I got the 14% number right from the EPA (I'll include the link sometime if I feel less lazy). A gallon of diesel contains 14% more carbon than a gallon of gas so burn it and you produce 14% more CO(2) per volume consumed.

My experience with diesels, limited though it is to long experience with two iterations of one model, is that they provide enhanced efficiency at cruising speeds but are a wash in town, where I do most of my driving. And you are quite right to question these assumptions. I merely meant to point out that every seemingly rigid rule is usually neither a rule nor rigid.

And I have made little secret of the fact that I am trying to buy an Elio precisely so I can reduce the amount of CO(2) I personally produce. I would love to reduce that further by buying a diesel version but I question both the wisdom of doing so from the perspective of potential efficiency gains measured in CO(2) emitted and on grounds of potential added mechanical complexity.

 

[Joshua Caldwell]

I can't speak for the crowd , but finding a fuel station that sells Diesel near my home is a factored annoyance . If I were ever tempted to veer from the convenience of gasoline , it would certainly ONLY be for LPG . Traditional engines can easily be converted to LPG and provide lower fuel costs, 20% lower CO2 emissions and no particulate emissions at all . Cleaner burning fuel reduces wear and adds additional life to your traditional engine.
So , if I have to hunt for a station to fill my vehicle , I will only hunt for a better alternative .
Side Note:
If I were in a position to make regulations , ALL US commercial vehicles would be running LPG .

View attachment 4906

? Here in North Carolina it is very easy to fiend Diesel, nearly every station offers it that I've noticed.

 

[wheaters]

I got the 14% number right from the EPA (I'll include the link sometime if I feel less lazy). A gallon of diesel contains 14% more carbon than a gallon of gas so burn it and you produce 14% more CO(2) per volume consumed.

Yes, but the energy produced in an I/C engine comes from the production of CO2. That's how internal combustion engines do their stuff! It's also where some of the extra mpg of a diesel comes from; diesel is more a concentrated fuel than petroleum is.

There's no getting away from the fact that the only way to produce less CO2 is to burn less fuel, by making vehicles need less to do the job.

The main objection/pollution of a diesel is the difficulty of converting all the available carbon to CO2, the extreme case being when visible black smoke/carbon particles are emitted from the exhaust.

 

[Snick]

I can't speak for the crowd , but finding a fuel station that sells Diesel near my home is a factored annoyance . If I were ever tempted to veer from the convenience of gasoline , it would certainly ONLY be for LPG . Traditional engines can easily be converted to LPG and provide lower fuel costs, 20% lower CO2 emissions and no particulate emissions at all . Cleaner burning fuel reduces wear and adds additional life to your traditional engine.
So , if I have to hunt for a station to fill my vehicle , I will only hunt for a better alternative .
Side Note:
If I were in a position to make regulations , ALL US commercial vehicles would be running LPG .

View attachment 4906

Having owned 3 diesels myself, this was a valid concern for me too.

For about five minutes--I then realized that since I could go several HUNDRED miles per tank longer, who fricken cared if I had to drive 4 blocks over to find diesel. The number of stations that do not have diesel is small. The number of neighborhoods that do not offer diesel? Well I don't even WANT to visit those neighborhoods. If you go to stations off a freeway, 99% will have diesel. It's really a non-problem, IMO.

 

[Snick]

• Diesel fuel contains about 7% more btu's per gallon than gasoline.
• Diesel engines in the EXACT same car get 25%-50% better mpg--YMMV as it depends HEAVILY on type of driving (city/hwy) and how heavy your foot is). NOT ONE of my diesel cars got less than 40% better mpg than it's gas engined counterpart. Both my Jetta's got 45mpg average versus the gas car getting 27mpg average. That's 67% more miles/gallon.
• Diesel cars tend to outperform EPA estimates by 5%-20% BETTER, while, gasoline cars tend to underperform EPA estimates by similar. (the tests heavily favor hype-brids and gasoline motors since that is what USA manufacturer's sell).
• Diesel fuel costs 31% more per gallon in my area (yours may differ). 6 months ago, it was only 10% more expensive.
• Currently, if I were to switch to a diesel car like a BMW 335d, it would cost me about $400/more a year in fuel, which isn't much.
• BUT, as of 2009, the emissions complexity and EXTREMELY expensive breakdowns that are not covered under warranty by most precludes me from owning one. I'm not made of money. It's sad that the EPA has tried to regulate the most efficient form of motorized people mover out of existance. At this point, the emissions regs on diesel passenger cars is PURELY punitive and has really nothing to do with clean air. It's a sneak form of tarrif, and that is all. The Burger King down the street emits more smoke, unburnt hydrocarbons, and pollutants than hundreds of diesel passenger cars that pass it in a month!

 

[Mark327]

Snick-

What are your thoughts on DEF?

 

[Snick]

Snick-

What are your thoughts on DEF?

DEF? I think you're referring to Diesel Exhaust Filtration or Diesel Particulate Filtration?

If so, that is not the main problem, but does add a bit of complexity. It's the strategy of throwing RAW FUEL out the exhaust stroke (actually starts injecting late in the expansion stroke) to heat up the catalysts and as a NOx reducing agent that is the problem. This strategy is used for vehicles < ~3000 lbs, and for heavier sedans like the Passat, they prefer using Urea exhaust after-treatment as a NOx reducing agent.

Both of these strategies are STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID.

There is this AMAZING technology that is cheap and simple and proven to reduce NOx and clean up particulates. It's called Water Injection. Been working since world war II days and just keeps getting better. Why the frick the manufacturer's won't use it? Because they can't charge you for fancy water. It's a collective form of insanity, IMO.

Wartsila, a major heavy-industry manufacturer of the world's largest engines knows about water injection, as does some of the other smart money like electric utilities. I started researching and posting on WI years ago on another forum. PM me if you need a link. I also think water injection has many other benefits and easily controlled drawbacks.

 

[tonyspumoni]

• Diesel fuel contains about 7% more btu's per gallon than gasoline.
• Diesel engines in the EXACT same car get 25%-50% better mpg--YMMV as it depends HEAVILY on type of driving (city/hwy) and how heavy your foot is). NOT ONE of my diesel cars got less than 40% better mpg than it's gas engined counterpart. Both my Jetta's got 45mpg average versus the gas car getting 27mpg average. That's 67% more miles/gallon.
• Diesel cars tend to outperform EPA estimates by 5%-20% BETTER, while, gasoline cars tend to underperform EPA estimates by similar. (the tests heavily favor hype-brids and gasoline motors since that is what USA manufacturer's sell).
• Diesel fuel costs 31% more per gallon in my area (yours may differ). 6 months ago, it was only 10% more expensive.
• Currently, if I were to switch to a diesel car like a BMW 335d, it would cost me about $400/more a year in fuel, which isn't much.
• BUT, as of 2009, the emissions complexity and EXTREMELY expensive breakdowns that are not covered under warranty by most precludes me from owning one. I'm not made of money. It's sad that the EPA has tried to regulate the most efficient form of motorized people mover out of existance. At this point, the emissions regs on diesel passenger cars is PURELY punitive and has really nothing to do with clean air. It's a sneak form of tarrif, and that is all. The Burger King down the street emits more smoke, unburnt hydrocarbons, and pollutants than hundreds of diesel passenger cars that pass it in a month!

Snick,

My experience is not the same and I'm wondering if emissions systems design might account for this? Your Jetta's undoubtedly lacked a urea injection system. My BMW's had them, as do most new diesel models including the new Jetta I think. Side by side driving under the same conditions yielded 27 mpg calculated lifetime on both 335d's whereas my lifetime calculated on a WRX is I think 23, e.g. within the margin of CO2 produced for both. I also drove a 328d as a loaner and was only able to get 32 MPG for that, which isn't bad, just not the whopping bump I was expecting. To be fair, I drive urban stoplight wars and like a loon to boot, so my guess is the diesel edge plays best in steady highway driving. Though I only took a couple of highway only trips in my 335d's, both yielded exceptional mileage in highway only mode, e.g 37 - 42 mpg, which agrees with your experience with your Jetta's.

And warranty repair laws vary from state to state. In California, the entire emissions system is covered out to 70k I think.

 

[Snick]

Snick,

My experience is not the same and I'm wondering if emissions systems design might account for this? Your Jetta's undoubtedly lacked a urea injection system. My BMW's had them, as do most new diesel models including the new Jetta I think. Side by side driving under the same conditions yielded 27 mpg calculated lifetime on both 335d's whereas my lifetime calculated on a WRX is I think 23, e.g. within the margin of CO2 produced for both. I also drove a 328d as a loaner and was only able to get 32 MPG for that, which isn't bad, just not the whopping bump I was expecting. To be fair, I drive urban stoplight wars and like a loon to boot, so my guess is the diesel edge plays best in steady highway driving. Though I only took a couple of highway only trips in my 335d's, both yielded exceptional mileage in highway only mode, e.g 37 - 42 mpg, which agrees with your experience with your Jetta's.

And warranty repair laws vary from state to state. In California, the entire emissions system is covered out to 70k I think.

You must have hammered that 335d. I bet $100 I can average 34mpg on 2tanks back to back in a 335d.

You do have to drive a diesel differently for best economy. I use a Scangauge mpg computer which is a great teaching tool.