Has anyone tried converting their 240 Diesel into a veggie oil engine? If so, how did it go?

I'm currently looking for a good used diesel engine for my 240 - if anyone in california knows where to pick one up, let me know

Regarding the whole 'green' fuel search (sorry, I have no knowledge about Volvo diesels) - I think we eventually must accept that IC engines can't be used permanently to run our primary means of transport. Assuming we want life on Earth to be around a few thousand years down the track - we must find a much more efficient means of energy conversion.

Even if every car, truck etc used only 5L/100km, we'd still be stuffed eventually, due to massive population. Forest sizes are decreasing, car ownership is increasing.

IMO, diesel cycle efficiency is great, but not a solution. Likewise for biofuels. It's just like those bloody hybrid cars - they still use an IC engine, and don't achieve the economy of cheaper (though small) diesel cars, thus they are not a solution.

I guess what irritates me is that any steps forward in IC efficiency, only delays the time when we will switch to something else, especially since politicians thrive off statistics, and often minor gains or simply statistic fiddles count for a solution to them and those who decide how we live.

Drastic as it sounds, I would be glad to hear of dwindling oil supplies - even though it would bring on a harsh transition period.

Anyone agree with any of that? Disagree?

Julian

"I think we eventually must accept that IC engines can't be used permanently "
What alternatives are there? I recently help pull a B23. It's amazing how such a small yet simple mechanism is so durable and yields so much power.

"Assuming we want life on Earth to be around a few thousand years down the track - we must find a much more efficient means of energy conversion."
With people like Clayton around, is it realistic to be thinking in terms of millenia? Forget about soylent green, in a pinch, people with their abundance may make a good fuel source. Right Clayton?

Maybe the ulitimate energy conversion would be us freeing ourselves from our mortal shells.

"Anyone agree with any of that? Disagree?"
Probably the wrong board for an in depth discussion.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

Trev,

I too am impressed by the simple and effective IC engine, but just as killing our enemies is a simple and effective solution, it (to me) is not usually the right one...

alternatives to IC engines include:
- Electric cars (probably battery powered) - this would require substantial efforts in the area of battery recycling. There are individuals who have converted they're cars, and get about 100 miles off one charge, costing 90 cents. But batteries have to be replaced every so often, and are expensive. Fuel cells form water vapour, which would be ok if the hydrogen and oxygen were derived from water in the first place.
- Better public transport systems. Whilst I gripe about rising car costs, idealy it would be better to give people a push towards other means of transport.
- Social change. At one point, i was cycling the 20 miles to uni, and getting there faster than by car. That stopped when the weather went cold, and my bags kept on breaking. If we give ourselves more time, more options are available.
- And then there's locality - trying to deal only with places close to where we work or live helps, but this is a hard issue.

Whatever happens, any steps toward sustainability will require shifts in our way of life. We can't expect to (initially) have no hardship and still achieve our goals.

As for freedom from our mortal shells, I am all for enlightenment, but that on mass would be even more unlikely than sustainable transport...

Julian

I have to jump in here, sorry. I like the idea of biodiesel. One good argument I've run across is that the crops used to produce the oil, as everyone knows, breath CO2. Therefore burning biodiesel has a lower net emmision of CO2s than is seen by measuring it at the exhaust pipe.

Wasn't the original diesel engine designed to run on veggie oil in the first place? I know I read that, I'll have to find the source.

Wow!.. This thread turned out to a fight!

Anyway - here is MY "logged in" oppinion! (get that?)

I think it's in generel a sweet idea to care! To think if you as an individual can do a difference! If you way of doing that, is converting into veggie oil engine, sell your car and start biking or whatever! - It's fine!!

To DO something, is way better than NOT to do!!

Had it ever accured to some of you, that:

The inviroment-sacret guys that buys a new car let's say every 3-4th. year, is acttually contributing (MY GUESS!) more than 3,000 times the pollution, by acting this way? Has it accured to you, that production af a car maybe exceeds the cars immission/pollutioning in thousands??

Burning fossiles makes CO2 and other stuff yes!
- Where does the electricity to the light at the drawing table come from?
Or the welding-robot on assemply-line - does "HE" eat veggie-oil for a living?

If you really want to be sacred, buy a bike!! - If you want to be a sacred Volvo-car-driver, find a nice used one, make sure that every engine-parts are good, doing their job correct and drive it a bit "grandfather-ish" - light food on pedal, think ´n drive!!

Stop the fighting - the World is ruled by money, the only way to fight against that, is by NOT following the life tv, commercials and "money" wants you to!!

It doesn't matter at all, if you throw a rock against a politician, with a Coca Cola in your hand..


--
/Soren

"Wow!.. This thread turned out to a fight!"
Fight? What fight? Except for one person who came on a bit strong, it's been fine. (I enjoy rants.)

The thing to note is that veggie oil and alcohols are biodegradable whereas diesel/gasoline spills can pollute soil and groundwater.

The internal combustion engine is a simple yet effective motor which is here to stay. So I'm all for finding alternatives to petroleum products.

--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

Finding a good used diesel engine is going to be a good trick unless you find a wreck with a recent rebuild.
That said there is someone here on the board running a 740td very successfully with a greasecar kit http://www.greasecar.com/ i you dig around their site, you should find some pictures of his setup.

The volvo/VW diesel engines do very good on veggie.

I currently run filtered WVO with a single tank on my '82 mercedes 300sd,( I do have to blend it with diesel in the winter) it runs better than on diesel.
--
-------Robert, '93 940t, '90 240 wagon, '84 240 diesel (she's sick) , '80 245 diesel, '82 Mercedes 300SD

"Veggie Volvo"

http://www.greasecar.com/profile.cfm?profileID=1

There is no way ressurecting a twenty year old diesel with deep fat fryer oil is a good idea if you want to be "greeen". If you want to be a clean air kind of guy, buy a new Honda. Biodiesel is a biohazard.
If you do it anyways, then you deserve it.

Care to elaborate? Why is it a biohazard? You can buy it at the pump in some locations, which is of course better than making your own. I will grant you that the diesel engines in the old Volvos are questionable, from what I hear, but I'm still looking for a nice diesel rabbit to experiment with.

Stuff lives in vegetable oil. Its organic. Ask any old machinist about soluable oils they used to use. Don't cut yourself thats for sure. Stuff lives in diesel fuel even , between the water and the fuel.
Diesel is not an option for pollution, only mileage. Even then some gas cars get better fuel mileage. I don't copy the Euroweenies who like them.

wow. that's pretty deep. Definitely lots of good scientific reasons in there why this guy shouldn't do a biodiesel conversion.

Boy he sure should be appreciative of your advice.

You talking to me? Names Clayton - what's yours?
Let's see, about .000009% of the population use peanut oil and the rest use gasoline and a bit of diesel. You want to save the world, deal with gasoline.
If you are going to go to war, oil is a good reason. Most traded commodity and most valuable, on the planet.
The idea of using food to power cars is unethical and ignores the millions who are starving.

This one's for you as well Clayton.

"Let's see, about .000009% of the population use peanut oil and the rest use gasoline and a bit of diesel. You want to save the world, deal with gasoline."
Since when does more popularity make something right or best?? It doesn't. Also, using randomly generated statistics doesn't work as an argument.

"If you are going to go to war, oil is a good reason. Most traded commodity and most valuable, on the planet."
That is sick. From what you wrote it sounds like you are searching for reasons after declaration. So what if oil is big business? Judging you solely by your post, it's people like you who are in power now in business and politics, justifying MURDER for more money. (whether you aggree with the Iraq invasion or not)

"The idea of using food to power cars is unethical and ignores the millions who are starving."
This is laughable.
1 - You are saying: using food as fuel ignores the millions who are starving. Oh dear. How does BURNING 'food' help the hungry? Or to put it in a way you might understand, how does BURNING money help the poor?
2 - What is unethical about finding another fuel source? While i disagree with bio-fuels as a solution to polution, there's nothing unethical about it. Also, how can you use ethics as an argument when you have just justified WAR and DEATH using MONEY?

I sincerely hope your posts on this topic are not an indication of your TRUE beliefs.

Julian

Here's one for you Julian,
Driving a crappy old Volvo doesn't absolve anybody from their guilt in contributing to the pollution on this planet. Using vegetable oils doens't either. North America consumes 10 million barrels of oil A DAY. All the little people like you will not make a dent in that.
Lots of big wars have been started for stupid reasons. Like the First WW. Some little mental case shoots a prince who nobody heard of and 20 million are dead in four years. Bad reason. Oil is a good reason. I did not advocate war, only that some reasons for it are better than others.
You live in the US with the rest of us? Then you know money does make the world go round. Most equitable system yet devised. The commies, who you obviously like, failed. Only the Chinese persist, and not for long. The idea that money is neither evil nor good hasn't occurred to some folks yet.
So here's what happens when you use ethanol for a fuel. YOu use arable land to grow corn - using petrochemical fertilizers and big diesel machines. You convert it to ethanol and distribute it, using more machines. While you grow food into fuel, inedible petroleum sits underground, while thousands starve to death every day. If you advocate that, you are seriously in need of help.
I said nothing about finding other energy sources as being unethical. I said growing food for fuel is unethical. Wind, solar, tide, hydro, all those sources are great and I hope to see more.
Stop insinuating things I didn't say.
Oh, and another stupid war - The one in Vietnam. Remember that one, or were you too young, and therefore you don't feel responsible? Some womanizing democratic president got us into that one. Disgusting decade all round. Stupid reason. George W. has a better reason than that one. Let me know when we get to 55,000 US deaths, and 1.2 million Iraqi deaths. Then George will have done what Kennedy did. At last count, he's a bit short of the mark. And those stats you can take to the bank.

Clayton,

I do not pretend to be absolved from causing pollution. In other posts I condemned the use of ethanol and biodiesel, because they still burn oxygen, and emit greenhouse gasses. I also said they are only good for local employment and reducing dependence on external oil sources.

"All the little people like you will not make a dent in that." - Ok, assuming I was doing something to reduce emmissions, I alone would not make a difference. But it is that attitude that makes changes take forever to happen. What would happen if more people made a difference?

You still say money is a better reason for war than the others? I say the only reason for war is to reduce death and suffering in the long run.

No I do not live in the "US like the rest of [you[". I live in Australia, where we do not have smog problems, and as such I am worried more about the long term effects of greenhouse gas emmissions, than short term NOx or other smog causes.

"The commies, who you obviously like..." Ah, that's ironic, my mates know me as quite right of center. But if the left could put up anyone worthy of a vote here, they'd get mine over Howard any day.

You use the argument that growing fuel wastes crop space that would otherwise be used for food. That doesn't work, for the following reasons. Both the US and Australia are fat nations. Not only do we consume too much, we also WASTE too much. And here's the killer point - There is EASILY enough food now, to feed the whole world's population if it were distributed evenly, which is a difficult task. Space is not so precious as you have indicated, whereby swapping one paddock to fuel production will make a dent in your McDonalds meal.

"While you grow food into fuel, inedible petroleum sits underground, while thousands starve to death every day." Those two facts aren't related.

Your argument that machines are used in biofuel production is balanced by those used in oil mining. More so because most of it comes from the Middle East, quite a way from your bowser.

Thousands die every day due to governments causing starvation and war. Not a global lack of food. And no, I do not blame your government for world poverty, I'm talking about the governments in the affected areas.

If you really want to talk more, although I don't see the point as we're both decided, you can email me at julian265(at)optusnet.com.au.

Julian

Clayton, yes, I was talking to you.

get a grip.

To ignore all but the last line of your message, you clearly have not heard about the problems associated with deep-frying fats. With every use, their chemical composition changes (have you heard of trans fatty acids? no? well, apparently they are very bad for you), so they cannot be just topped up and sold as fries.

Disposing of them is an issue too: household folk tend to pour them down the drain (a dirty habit, literally), but even tossing into the garbage in a bottle is not the best solution. Restaurants can collect large-enough quantities to make recycling feasible, and this is the best source of bio-diesel.

George Antony

Actually, you are partly wrong and partly right.

Diesel is much better in its nitrous and carbon monoxide emissions, beyond using less fuel overall due to superior thermal efficiency.

Diesel is worse in terms of particulate emissions (soot, makes smog).

George

'Stuff' lives in unleaded petrol too. So what? Petrol is organic as well, hence organic chemistry. There are a many items that i would not want to cut myself on. My God, stuff lives in your blood... Now i wouldn't want to cut mys... oh.

We have a 2.5 ton turbo diesel landrover getting 10L/100km. I'm sure the toyota landcruisers etc are doing less damage with their 20L/100km petrol consumption. HA!

The current fad with manufacturers is to claim they're green, by trying to turn more combustion products into CO2 and water using a cat. Most combustion products are those anyway. Cat's IMHO are a waste of time. (i'll put my flak suit on now, having said that)

Of course, it doesn't matter to car/oil manufacturers that both carbon dioxide and water are damn good insulators and cause global warming. Forget worrying about minor 'pollutant' emissions, if you want to be green, go ELECTRIC, and make sure your power source is 'green' too.

While I'm ranting, I might as well gripe about what the Australian pollies are talking about - ethanol for cars. Assuming it is viable, the ONLY benefits from this would be decreased dependence on external fuel suppliers, and better use of our farmers. NO improvements on emissions.

If we expect this planet to keep us alive a for a few hundred years more, combustion for mainstream transport is NOT the way, not matter how 'advanced'. Imagine if the same amount of development had gone into electric propulsion as has been for internal combustion engines. Then we'd have progress. As usual, greed is slowing everything, and thousands of people will die in years to come before any real change in the car/oil industry STARTS to occur.



jp

"ethanol for cars. Assuming it is viable, the ONLY benefits from this would be decreased dependence on external fuel suppliers, and better use of our farmers. NO improvements on emissions."
Actually alcohol is a clean burning fuel so emissions of no concern. If the alcohol is obtained from green sources rather than pulled from the ground there would be no net increase in global warming. Its the carbon that was stored in the ground for millions of years that is being added to the atmosphere.

There'd also be fewer wars and their resulting pollution (and deaths and retribution) to worry about.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans

Trev,

"Actually alcohol is a clean burning fuel so emissions of no concern. "
The vast majority of petrol burns in the same way as ethanol - forming carbon dioxide and water vapour. So how is it (ethanol) clean burning, and what does that term mean?

"If the alcohol is obtained from green sources rather than pulled from the ground there would be no net increase in global warming. Its the carbon that was stored in the ground for millions of years that is being added to the atmosphere."
It doesn't matter at all where the carbon is coming from, the fact is that it is being put into the atmosphere, regardless of what we are burning ==> Less oxygen, more CO2, more warming. If you want to get really picky, by burning bio-derived fuels we are temporarily preventing carbon from returning to the ground, not that that matters.

"There'd also be fewer wars and their resulting pollution (and deaths and retribution) to worry about."
Absolutely, but I still think this is the greatest benefit of using ethanol!

Julian

"So how is it (ethanol) clean burning, and what does that term mean?"
The more complex/large the fuel molecule is, the more likely it is that it won't be burned fully. So complex hydrocarbons do make it out the exhaust pipe as particulate matter.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question202.htm has some info and links to methanol and octane.

"It doesn't matter at all where the carbon is coming from, the fact is that it is being put into the atmosphere, regardless of what we are burning ==> Less oxygen, more CO2, more warming."
You missed my point. The increase in CO2 if from the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and stored in the ground millions of years ago and is now being re-introduced into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.

(CO2 levels in the far past were much higher and the earth and dinosaurs and related ecosystems were "suffering" from global warmth back then.)

--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans