In news:3fd8387f snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, Huw being of bellicose mind posted:
Same thing here. Yellow for diesel #1 (off road only), green for diesel #2, and blue for "winterized" diesel #2. The sorry thing about this is 'winterized' diesel cut fuel mileage by 10-15% but ..... I could get the truck started when the normal formula would have gelled. I could always spot "polluted" fuel by looking at it during refueling. It would have a slightly India Ink hue. Can't say I noted a difference in the way the trucks performed.
In news:3fd8450b$0$28692$ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com, Dori Schmetterling being of bellicose mind posted:
DAS... AMERICA is different, starting with California. (interpret that as you will. LOL).
Ok, then you won't mind me editing the passage. That Europe's highly REGRESSIVE fuel taxes have such a profound effect on your vehicle purchases is sad.
I'll never go hoarse telling you I don't care about diesel resale value in socialist European countries. Whatever. Starting in California, we have a particular sensitivity to exhaust emissions AND a particularly foul memory of all diesel cars over the last 25 years.
Scroll up... your words "not every". Who do you think YOU are to -dictate- what people need? Get over yourself. Go ahead and tell us YOU don't need such acceleration.
DAS.... at the risk of seeming impertinent, what is your first language? :-)
Firstly start off torque needs to be 75% of that at maximum rated revs, not of absolute maximum torque. Secondly, the gearbox is almost irrelevant here unless a torque converter automatic is utilised because the start-off torque has a direct relation to the stalling behaviour of an engine with a manual box. An engine with a high start-off torque will start typically with little or no revs from a standstill whereas a low start-off torque will necessitate significant revving to get going.
I noticed in looking over
Again, how many times do I have to illustrate that a torque curve should be read from the high rev side down to make any sense. The diesel car will always have a torque curve that rises from high revs towards the point of maximum torque at lower revs. A petrol engine would also have a similar curve if it were not for inlet manifolds and cams [both adjustable on the best engines] to enhance the curve at lower revs so as not to have a very low torque at low revs. A consequence of this tuning is a torque curve that is flatter [and even may have two peaks] so as to enhance low end torque. The need for this is because the engine would otherwise and naturally peak at high revs with a steadily declining torque which would relate to very poor low end performance.
I am not amazed at all by the ignorance of so many people who think they know it all.
You cannot over rev a diesel engine which is not pushed [as in going downhill] because the governor [whether mechanical or increasingly electronic] prevents it.
Maximum torque will be produced at 1100erpm in your example. Possibly only 80% of maximum torque will be available at maximum power, although this would not be a typical modern example. More typical would be a 11litre engine which was rated at 2200erpm which produced an extra 10% of power at 2000 and only fell back to its rated horsepower again at 1800erpm. Maximum torque would indeed be at around 1100erpm and would be about 40 to 50% higher than at rated top speed. Such a positive engine characteristic is only posible by dint of the very steep torque rise as revs drop from maximum. As you know, the engine power is not measured by a dynamometer but the torque is, and it is this, in combination with engine revs which is used to compute the power at any point. An heavy hauling engine such as this would need at least 110% start up torque, calculated as explained previously, to start the load off without drama.
In a 250 cc naturally aspirated gasoline
Yes but notwithstanding the engine, lets assume 60hp, and the gearbox, the extremely low start off torque produced by such an engine would never start a 2 ton towed load off from standstill. By contrast, my
67hp landrover will happily start a 5 ton load and tow it around up hill and down dale from one day to the next. This perfectly illustrates why a gearbox will just not compensate for lack of torque in practice.
In news:3fd8d412 snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, Huw being of bellicose mind posted:
Bollocks. Do you start off in a 1:1 ratio? And where is this "75% need" written in stone? Probably a myth of your creation.
False.
There is torque multiplication via the torque converter and in 1st gear, an automatic transmission typically provides a 2.5:1 reduction ratio. Fluid clutches do not multiply torque, therefore are not used in automatics. The torque converter can be designed to limit engine rpm when the drive wheels are locked. Maximum engine effort against locked drive wheels is "stall speed." This is quite a bit higher than the 1000 rpm, 75% of maximum torque that you were just telling me about.
Ok, now we are back to a manual gearbox. So how much "revving" is significant? 200 rpm? 1000 rpm?
From the high side down towards idle or from torque peak toward the maximum horsepower peak? All you have been talking about is torque production from idle (or 1000 rpm) upward to where ever torque peaks.
Would you care to reword that in English? LOL From the way the above is worded, one should run diesels at maximum horsepower and work them down to no lower than the maximum torque rpm. This quite contradictory to commercial diesel operation.
Huw.... run any engine up to red-line and then (accidentally) downshift. That is another way engines get scattered and diesels are less forgiving. As you mentioned, exceeding the governor by using the engine as a brake. The maximum safe piston speed of diesel engines is considerably lower due primarily to high compression and secondarily the higher piston acceleration stresses of longer strokes.
IN fact, your assertion is not true on level ground if the load in on pneumatic tires. One of our neighbors bought a Yamaha ATV recently. When only a week old, he used it to pull his son's old Landcruiser home (I think its an FJ60, u-joint broke).... a distance of about 1/2 mile. 660 cc's with a 1,200 towing capacity. It's all done with GEARING.
formatting link
Your illustration is not perfect. Re-read the example I gave you regarding reduction drive starters. Of course one has to input torque in order that it be multiplied. But it is precisely the gearbox reduction ratios that makes such paultry engine output capable of moving relatively heavy loads. Do you really think an 11 liter diesel making 1,300 ft/lbs torque can directly move an 80k pound semi truck? Right. Add up all the reductions from the crankshaft to the ground in any vehicle.
By the way, you don't need ANY engine to tow that 5 ton load "down dale." Gravity my friend. LOL Just don't overspeed the governor, ok.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@mail.ee, Helar Laasik being of bellicose mind posted:
Helar.... what kind of acid removes the native India Ink color of well used diesel crankcase oil (even when mixed with clean diesel fuel)? In California and much of the rest of the U.S., spot fuel contamination testing of truck stop diesel fuel is done by state government. Now... I don't recall ever seeing these same inspectors at private company truck terminals.
AAMOF, because it's often necessary to limit the torque in Diesel engines because of the transmission limitations, many Diesel engines have an almost flat torque curve. Point in case, the 2.7 and the 3.2 MB engines.
Of course.
It doesn't. But NVH is usually referred to in a group, even when only one of its components is relevant. In this case, vibration and harshness: under-square engines have worse vibrations and harshness.
Don't know what you guys use at the other end of the world but this colouring agent that Neste and Statoil use to mark the fuel can be uncoloured quite easily. There was a case where an elderly man filled the tank at a no-name gas station. After a week he went to his garage to repair the fuel system of his car because it was eaten up by the acid in the fuel (by the investigation reports later). He lost consciousness because of the vapours, fell on the pit floor and in two hours 1/3 of his body got acid burns before his wife found him (dead). The owner of the gas station got his penalties for selling bootleg fuel, not because of selling "acidized fuel".
Another method is to leave the marked fuel into the sunshine for several days. The dye loses its colour this way too.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@mail.ee, Helar Laasik being of bellicose mind posted:
Helar: Am I to accept as your answer that you do not know the specific acid that REMOVES the India Ink color of USED CRANKCASE OIL when this used engine oil is dumped into clean diesel fuel? OBVIOUSLY whatever acid is used to remove the various required dyes is detectable and I assure you is part of the fuel purity tests that 'we' run at random at truck truck stops, particularly in California.
Not alll Carlifonia oil burners are diesel,for starts.... Check out Jay Leno's 1925 Doble E-18 Not all oil burners are slow either...E-18 went from 0-100 mph in 15 sec. Not all California ideas spread from California either..Doble was a California company. Not all CARB ideas are better either E-18 passed all CARB test ,with lowest levels recorded, with stock setup until NOx was included.....but your average Californian would be talking about them dirty steamplants generating electricity.(They have higher standards than any car ever built on emissions,but you would never guess it by the political correct crowd.)
In news:nknFb.3235$ snipped-for-privacy@dfw-read.news.verio.net, Arnold Walker being of bellicose mind posted:
Arnold.... your exceptions do not disprove the rule, nor the mainstream, nor do they take into consideration that CA will not have nearly sulfur free diesel for at least another 2 years. California drivers have had ENOUGH of diesel cars and the SCAQMD and CARB are not about to revisit diesel for passenger cars to the degree that Europe has embraced oil burners.
MTBE is not only more toxic ....but has embarrassed more than a few state/fed regulators with its ability to go right thru the fiberglass tank walls that were required to clean???? up on fuel seepage and leaks.During the big service station tank swap period And has caused a bigger problem in the ground water than sulfur has in the air. The stuff is worse than the lead compound it replaced ,but then Chevron knew that when they patented its production.
Hell ,if diesels are that bad for California.Maybe all the interstate truckers and the railroad needs to get together and stop all that air plluting at the stateline. So,all the pain stricken Californians can live in peace with what is left. I think the other 47 states could use the frieght traffic,even if California can't.
In news:BUGFb.3276$ snipped-for-privacy@dfw-read.news.verio.net, Arnold Walker being of bellicose mind posted:
There is a singular difference in commercial diesel trucks vs. passenger cars. Diesel trucks are a fundamental part of every economy. Diesel cars are not. The SCAQMD and CARB with the EPA's blessing have been pushing diesel engine manufacturers to clean up their engines and the Oil Companies to clean up their fuel.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.