Indeed it starts with the basic process that really hasn't changed much. Sure there have been efficiency tweaks. Chevron (as well as probably many to all oil companies) has technical web sites that explain the process WAY past my pay grade. (as a consumer), and ability to stay awake . Any one can google for them. I think some technical sites are purposefully vague to keep company information secret. A good point of discussion is in a barrel of oil (42 gals) 19.3 gals of RUG to PUG and 9.83 gals diesel are produced.
The thing that goes unsaid is one is the by product of the other. There are very few oil barrel products that can produce 100% of one or the other and or both. The math should be both compelling and obvious. If not fire away with any questions.
This is the real reason for me saying that diesels should be a min of 23.4% to 50.93% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
Then the bean counters arrived, and said something like this:
It would cost 13 more cents per car for additional cooling, is that really necessary? Let's cut that from the design, and give ourselves bonuses for the cost savings, it'll work out fine.
If you say you did, let's go with it. They just use the same old excuses book. So for example, the implementation of ULSD from LSD was delayed many times, and with exceptions you could literally drive a oil tanker and 747 aeroplane through.
At that time I was. I had bought a FL car new in 1978 and it was specified to run on RLG, but really had no issues running RUG. It also had ZERO issues passing the CA registration procedure.
Ummm, no. Leaded gasoline was in full use well into the 1980s; in fact, in 1979 I bought a new car which did not have a catalytic converter and which specified leaded regular gasoline for its standard fuel.
FWIW, in North America TEL in gasoline was officially banned as of the following: - - U.S.A. - 1995 - - California - 1992 - - Chicago, IL - 1984 - - Canada - 1993 - - Mexico - 2006
I am sure you have links for those time frames, and are technically correct. However, I was and am going not by official documentation, but by what was commonly available at that time (yes in CA).
I remember feeling mixed about the change over. On the one hand, it was great to (conceptually) get rid of the leaded emissions. (like it was hard to not put the additive in!!??) On the other hand, it was most likely to cause up to a lot of damage to equipment. Modification costs were not clear.
Now for ULSD, I actually looked forward to the over due change. As you know, the cars were actually designed with (European) ULSD as the fuel, and LONG before the "MANDATORY" change over.
So for example, even though officially ULSD was mandatory @ July 2006, it was tossed back to Oct 2006. I am sure that mid 2011 (5 years later) I can still get LSD somewhere.
Not that I would want to. If one did not operate their ULSD vehicles correctly using LSD, one could get up to massive intake and EGR clogging, i.e., equipment damage and costs. Compliments to the regulatory agencies !!!!!!!!
With the advent of DPF's (diesel particulate filters) circa 2009, LSD @ up to 500 ppm sufur would literally be the kiss of death.
With the exception of the Chicago city limits, leaded gasoline was generally available in the Chicago area (where I lived during virtually all of the 1980s) through the late 1980s and into the first part of the 1990s (if you knew where to look).
My last non-catalyst equipped car was stolen (my beloved 1970 Challenger) in 1990 and through that point all I needed to do to buy leaded gasoline was to head to a certain station in Naperville, IL, one town west of where I lived.
After reading that article about GDI (gasoline direct injection), I looked around and saw that early TDIs had the same issue:
Apparently, though, it's mostly from the exhaust gas recirculation. No fuel is present to act as a solvent and clean out the intakes, arguably worse on this diesel than on the GDI manifolds I've seen.
Not sure how VW resolved that issue, but it's a little ironic that their 2.0 FSI had the same issue, no? The TFSI is supposedly better.
It could be our fuel both diesel and RUG. Our gas is higher in sulfur than EU gas. And back before 2006 most of our diesel was 500 PPM sulfur. While the EU was much lower sulfur content.
Another thing. That is a Canadian engine. I would imagine they let them idle in cold weather a lot. That is hard on a diesel unless you have a device to kick the RPMs up between 1300-1600. We had those devices on all our diesel trucks in the Arctic. They sat idling all day long, about 12 hours per day. Our newer Ford Powerstroke diesels would get the engine light on about once a week. So into the shop for a computer reset. The emissions stuff did not like idlers.
That was likely prior to clean diesel, good point. It's a 1998 model and the photo is copywritten 2004, so we're talking about fuel used some time between 1997 and 2004.
Still, interesting to see early DI issues for both types of fuel.
Actually this is a good visual for my post of msg#2957. Uphot: higher ppm sulfur in LSD was the catalyst for the goey "cookie dough type " substance you post, see . Later model turbo diesels passenger cars were and continue to be made to run on ULSD.
From 1998 (given your example) to Oct 2006, the diesel fuel commonly available was LSD @ 500 ppm sulfur, 49 state: CA state, 140 ppm. Oct 2006 was the so called "MANDATORY" cut over to ULSD standard @ 15 ppm sulfur. ULSD is nominally delivered to the pump @ 5 to 7 ppm to avoid massive EPA etc., fines and fungibility issues. Again, as you can see this is a MASSIVE reduction (-97% to -99%) in the ppm sulfur from 500 ppm sulfur, which ALMOST completely removes the scenario that causes the goo product to form.
The news on the Rug to Pug while "fair" is still NOT all together remediated. RUG to PUG during this time, continuing to this day is still 30 ppm sulfur to 90 ppm sulfur. It continues to be 2 to 18 TIMES dirtier than ULSD.
Since you can afford a Ferrari, what is the big deal about your first paragraph? PUG costs slightly less than ULSD. Just your periodic oil change probably costs more than my same period USLD fuel bill.
So for another example, not that you would put 12,000 to 15,000 miles (utilitarian) per year on your Ferrari, but the cost difference (for me) between PUG/ULSD for those miles (@ 50 mpg) would be 48 to 60 dollars more (.20 cents more per gal (Shell) . That is assuming of course there is a PUG engine that gets 50 mpg, which is a BAD assumption.
What's not to get about your never time frame? :surprise:
I might think about a diesel car when Ferrari comes out with one
Why would you want a Ferrari when Audi diesels regularly beat Ferrari at the races. Audi TDI just won overall at LeMans again. 355 laps in 24 hours. Closest Ferrari was 30 laps back. Diesel is rocking the racing world. 1-2-3 at the Dakar this year went to VW Touareg TDIs. Diesel truck racing is very popular. More power, less waste is the bottom line with diesel.
Yes it is pretty wild to think that a 3.7 L V6 replaces a rip roaring Audi V10. The V6 is supposed to put out 540 hp. While they do not rate the torque in any published specification (company propriatary?) , just using the (slug by comparison) TDI ratios, I would swag a min of 910 # ft of torque, and pushing/pulling a 2,000# vehicle !!! WOW and AW AW AW !!!
Nearest I can figure, Ferrari uses a 4.3L V8.
It is even wilder to swag what numbers a V-8 327 to 350 to 427 cubic in turbo diesel would post.
My nephew builds racing diesel trucks. His daily driver Dodge PU runs in the high 11s low 12s at the track. He started out rebuilding semi truck engines. His specialty is injectors. Then as the racing diesel got popular he is swamped with building racing PU trucks. 1000 HP Cummins are common. And Lord knows how much torque they have. They are building those semi tractors for sled pulling up to 3500 HP. Put that in a Ferrari and flatten all the tires. :shades:
Some years back, I went to a new dyno facility that just tested a truck, such as your nephew's. The issue at the time was that it maxed out the torque capacity of the (then) new equipment.
Back to durability and reliability on a 1.9 L TDI motor. I am on the fence about so called "upgrading" the fuel injectors when they are due (most gasser folks who use fuel injectors really don't even know they do "wear out" @ app 150,000 to 200,000 miles). Just a one step size upgrade (.205 from .184 and incidently what the European models are equip with) will literally put the (upgraded) torque values greater than the max capacity of the oem clutch. Sure I can baby it along, but why do a premature clutch UPGRADE when an oem clutch can go 400,000 to 500,000 miles.
Then the 5 speed manual will not really be as good as a 6 speed. If I keep the 5 speed, then my 5th gear is now too low and it will make sense to do a higher 5th gear swap, etc., etc., etc. Then if I chip it, I will gain another 40-65# ft, for 80-130 # ft. Then it makes sense to upgrade the turbo (20-40 # ft)......... The chip, injector and turbo upgrades each have E/O numbers. So any to all are "certified." A clutch R/R (to upgrade 300 # ft) does not require an E/O number. (or 6 speed manual swap for that matter)
I should probably mention the most appealing thing about the (1 size up)injector upgrade is it can be tuned (independently or in tandem with a chip upgrade) for 3 to 5 mpg BETTER than the stock set up !!!!!!!! I already post 48-52 mpg commute and with no effort: so 51 to 57 mpg would almost be silly. I am sure a lot of folks who do gasser upgrades would covet this feature !!!
Well your post really illuminates the fact that modifying an engine really requires a *good plan* overall. So many folks just start bolting on parts willy-nilly and not only do they end up with reliability problems, but often the individual "improvements" end up working against one another.
Or, they end up with a lot more powerful car that is really a bit ornery to drive on the street. (which is also about "goals", as is---what am I mostly going to DO with my modified car/truck?)
What you say is true. Even the 300# ft clutch upgrade is really quite marginal (we are of course starting with a combination giving 155 to 177# ft). At comfort is really 400 to 500 # ft handling ability and now you are talking... CUSTOM............
If my goals were more performance oriented ( I mean they ARE but...) I did indeed leave out the whole topic, issue of suspension upgrades I would NEED to do. Too many brain cells already.
Ah yes....BRAKES...... the amateur race boys (as in non-professional) always say that on the track, upgraded brakes and suspension are worth at least 50 HP
This is not diesel specific, but yes, almost not much can substitute for BIGGER brake rotors and the requisite BIGGER brake pads. While at it , more pistons are probably a good up grade. Of course all the supporting parts (logically) have to change because of it, and they are normally not engineered to fit together.
So for example Corvette Z06 brakes can already pull down a 2950 # 60 mph to naught in app 109 ft. It can also do it repeatedly, which is probably more important. The nexus here is relative weight of 2950#'s to 2974#'s, Corvette being lighter. The tire size/s now has/have ballooned from 195/65/15's all around to 295's 35/18's to 265/45/17's just to keep traction and stopping power intact. I know you can see the additional problems/issues.
I've heard reports of failed injectors; just never seen one with my own eyes. Said another way, I rather doubt the vast majority of injectors are done-for after only 200,000 miles. A half of a million mile? Yeah, I might believe that.
Well it does happen on occasion for a variety of reasons...you can damage them from overheating of the engine, from bad fuel, from electrical damage/bad connections/corrosion on connectors/ weak injector springs, corrosion of the pintle, blah blah.
bosch and delphi claim longevity for one billion cycles, so that should last the life of the car---barring outside problems.
Indeed, there are any number of reasons. The issue is there are far too few machines in the field to measure and calibrate. Injectors do lose efficiency over mileage. I would submit it is not enough for the majority of folks to even notice, let alone know. While admittedly a tad arcane, here is a vendor link diesel Drivbiwire
Well it's probably similar to most drivers' reaction to worn struts--they don't notice that the strut has degraded significantly (usually at around 80,000 miles for most cars) *until* they get a new set of struts. It's the old "frog in the frying pan" analogy. (not a true story but the theory is that if you put a frog in a pan of water and heat the water in tiny increments, the frog won't notice and will boil to death, even though he could jump out---naturally this is ridiculous but it sounds logical enough for a class in "bad science" on some website).
Sorry, I don't even remotely buy that gasoline fuel injectors gradually lose efficiency to any measurable degree over the normal life of the engine. Sure there some failures, but then again there are failures of other engine components. On the whole, I've found fuel injectors run as efficiently with a quarter of a million miles as they did when they were new.
That actually is a good analogy, in that AGAIN there are too few machines to actually MEASURE the degradation over time. Most know of car/truck dyno's. Some know that there are actually strut and shock absorber dyno's. It would then beg the question, how many folks have had their shocks and struts dyno'ed to get real numbers so they can base their strut and shock absorber decisions on so called "objective data" ? Do oem shop manuals even present data? I would swag not many as in less than one half of one percent and NO, oem shop manuals do not contain strut and shock absorber data.
Again, I would submit that you are corrrect, YOU probably can NOT FEEL it. Nor do I want you to "buy it." You can however (with any of the few machines, albeit costly and technical) MEASURE it.
One reason I brought it up is upgraded (BIGGER) injectors do provide very dramatic hp/torque increases (relative to normal gasser upgrades to get the same hp/torque, albeit much more costly.) at relatively lower costs. After the initial gee whiz MORE POWER, AW AW AW !!!, this might be a further and even I admi,t ARCANE optimization discussion.
My own personal take is why swap out the fuel injectors unless you can measure the differences and are the differences worth the 250-400 cost and or FEEL the failure. A bit further down the line are the variable changes do make subtle to not so subtle CHANGES.
The biggest threat to diesel engine injectors is contamination. The next I would guess is electrical issues. When you read the repair manuals say for the VW TDI, all the procedures for checking or rejecting the injectors, is electrical in nature.
I guess you can pull injectors off and test them on some kind of machine ??? Not something you'd see at a normal repair shop, of course.
Hmmm...I was just looking at the retail price of a replacement pump for a TDI -- $1150 bucks. :surprise: Man, that would wipe out a couple years of fuel cost savings.
I think the wife is sold. It looks like a go for the US market. I am getting excited. The selling point for my wife was the promise of 39 MPG and 900 mile range. Of course she has a long history with Mercedes diesels. She picked up at least 3 of them in Germany during the 70s & 80s.
2012 M-Class Gets Two Bluetec Diesels!
This fall a new Mercedes M-Class SUV will hit showrooms with not one, but two diesel engine options. The third generation M-Class has all new sheet metal on the outside and a new interior that continue the evolution of Mercedes style in a contemporary but conservative way.
I like it! I think the 250 should be more than enough. Does it have full skidplates. I couldn't quite see in the video. Kinda looks like it, and I don't think they'd encourage off-road without them.
My only complaint from the specs is the annoying "nanny-features" that control the car for you. Now it wakes me up and brakes for me?---no thanks on those, and they look "standard". I wonder if they could be dis-armed? I re-wired my MINI so that traction control is now optional on start up.
Yes and that gets to the heart of the injectors wear issue. In effect over time, the very tight tolerances on the injector's spray pattern gets "liquid blasted away. When you add the normal list of likely contaminates, so to speak it is now liquid and sand blasted away.
While that may be true in the diesel and Direct Injection gasoline world, I do not believe it is even remotely applicable to the port style injection model in the rest of the gasoline engine world.
FWIW, I've had several cars which I've owned from birth to nearly 300,000 miles, and in every case, they've returned their best apparent power and their best fuel economy when the odometer is registering north of 200,000 miles. If the fuel injectors were suffering from a slow degradation, then I would expect a gradual (and measurable) decline in fuel economy.
369 ft lbs of torque seems more than adequate to keep that baby rolling down the highway at 75 MPH both up and down the hills. It carries the same 9 second 0-60 MPH of my Seqouia V8 gas hog. The ML is at least 500lbs lighter than my Sequoia. And that 4 banger diesel has 15% more torque and a lot lower RPM. No screaming on the long hills.
I would hope they do have some kind of over ride codes or switches. I don't think I want such electronics on a slippery side hill. Though I doubt I would take the ML where I have taken, Jeeps, Dunebuggies and my old Land Cruiser.
I am thinking I will have to order to get the features I want. I don't think it will be discounted for a while after being introduced. EU delivery is a real option as I have never been there. I could enjoy 3-4 weeks exploring old castles.
The third generation of the Mercedes-Benz M-Class sets a new benchmark in the SUV world. Its enhanced fuel consumption and emission figures are especially impressive. Across the range, fuel consumption is improved by an average of 25 per cent over the previous model. Particularly noteworthy in this respect is the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC, which has an NEDC consumption of 47.0 mpg (158 g CO2/km). Edit 39.14 MPG US
Yes but that's only anecdotal evidence...testing is really the only way to know. Injector can develop bad spray patterns, which you would probably notice as a bit of a rough idle or an irregular idle (and perhaps pay no attention to) or they can leak--which you might never notice because the only symptom would be a bit harder starting in the morning.
Anecdotal? On the surface I agree with you, however, it is in line with virtually every scientific and engineering study I've read on the subject. The claims of the gasoline additive community aside, the incidence of failed or obstructed fuel injectors since at least the late 1990s are few and far between, regardless of mileage.
In the case of our aged vehicles, the evidence borders on empirical as opposed to purely anecdotal. Why? Because I religiously track the mileage of our vehicles, and if you remember back when the whole acetone debate surfaced here in 2005 or 2006 (a debate which I seem to recall you were involved in), the only time any of our vehicles has ever significantly deviated from their typical baseline fuel efficiency for any given type of driving was when I offered up our old Dodge Grand Caravan as a guinea pig. In the case of the acetone experiment, the fuel economy dropped measurably when the acetone was added to the fuel. Said another way, from the post-engine break-in phase to just beyond the quarter of a million mile mark the fuel economy for that vehicle was quite predictable. What happened after that point? No idea, I traded the old girl in.
What I'd like to see is even a shred of empirical or scientific evidence which suggests fuel injectors become progressively less efficient after a given number of hours/cycles/miles. I don't believe you'll find anything of the sort unless you're talking about either isolated failures or old wives' tales.
I'm not saying they DO, I'm saying they CAN, for any number of reasons which may not be related directly to longevity, but rather a wide range of causes.
In other words, if you get run down by a car when you are 80 years old, that is not directly a longevity problem, but you DO still have a problem and you did, in fact, live long enough to experience the normal course of events/odds that occur in life.
So too, injectors are susceptible to corrosion, contamination, and internal defect. And that can be measured--when they aren't working right.
Indeed from a practical aspect, I think I have already acknowledged the practical aspects and arguments of what Shipo has been saying.
Indeed if one carries both the practical aspect/s and what he is saying to a host of logical conclusions, one has a lot of latitude/slack AND over many so called related/ing variables.
So for example, I just found out my TDI's oil level is on the ADD mark. and coincidently "needs" the tires to be aired up. Yet, from full oil and TP baseline, it has/has been returned/ing 49/50 mpg with almost no effort. As long as it does not fall further below the (now) ADD mark and TP does not get any lower (than it is now), WHY add oil, why top off the TP? The assumption here would be so called "proper" levels will give so called proper xyz functioning, aka, one being optimum mpg (all things being equal).
Upshot, I did both. But really, ... didn't have to. Will I get BETTER mpg due to these "USELESS" actions? I doubt it. I have already proved to myself that to get 49/50 mpg, it can be with FULL oil sump (down) to ADD oil sump !!! Of course same is true for the T/P.
Good design requires this kind of "slack". One reason the Corvair proved a nightmare is because when the tire pressure dropped, the owner sometimes DIED.
Not good. No slack.
The modern term for "fussy" cars is "narrow engineering".
Comments
The thing that goes unsaid is one is the by product of the other. There are very few oil barrel products that can produce 100% of one or the other and or both. The math should be both compelling and obvious. If not fire away with any questions.
This is the real reason for me saying that diesels should be a min of 23.4% to 50.93% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
Then the bean counters arrived, and said something like this:
It would cost 13 more cents per car for additional cooling, is that really necessary? Let's cut that from the design, and give ourselves bonuses for the cost savings, it'll work out fine.
Maybe they phased it out in other states earlier than that. Are you in Cali? CARB always seems to play by their own set of rules.
FWIW, in North America TEL in gasoline was officially banned as of the following:
- - U.S.A. - 1995
- - California - 1992
- - Chicago, IL - 1984
- - Canada - 1993
- - Mexico - 2006
Chicago was first, wow...
I remember feeling mixed about the change over. On the one hand, it was great to (conceptually) get rid of the leaded emissions. (like it was hard to not put the additive in!!??) On the other hand, it was most likely to cause up to a lot of damage to equipment. Modification costs were not clear.
Now for ULSD, I actually looked forward to the over due change. As you know, the cars were actually designed with (European) ULSD as the fuel, and LONG before the "MANDATORY" change over.
So for example, even though officially ULSD was mandatory @ July 2006, it was tossed back to Oct 2006. I am sure that mid 2011 (5 years later) I can still get LSD somewhere.
Not that I would want to. If one did not operate their ULSD vehicles correctly using LSD, one could get up to massive intake and EGR clogging, i.e., equipment damage and costs. Compliments to the regulatory agencies !!!!!!!!
With the advent of DPF's (diesel particulate filters) circa 2009, LSD @ up to 500 ppm sufur would literally be the kiss of death.
My last non-catalyst equipped car was stolen (my beloved 1970 Challenger) in 1990 and through that point all I needed to do to buy leaded gasoline was to head to a certain station in Naperville, IL, one town west of where I lived.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/15/mazda-cx-5-to-get-2-2-liter-turbodiesel-six-s- peed-manual/
Alas, I doubt the USA will see it. At least the gas engines are efficient.
Apparently, though, it's mostly from the exhaust gas recirculation. No fuel is present to act as a solvent and clean out the intakes, arguably worse on this diesel than on the GDI manifolds I've seen.
Not sure how VW resolved that issue, but it's a little ironic that their 2.0 FSI had the same issue, no? The TFSI is supposedly better.
Another thing. That is a Canadian engine. I would imagine they let them idle in cold weather a lot. That is hard on a diesel unless you have a device to kick the RPMs up between 1300-1600. We had those devices on all our diesel trucks in the Arctic. They sat idling all day long, about 12 hours per day. Our newer Ford Powerstroke diesels would get the engine light on about once a week. So into the shop for a computer reset. The emissions stuff did not like idlers.
Still, interesting to see early DI issues for both types of fuel.
From 1998 (given your example) to Oct 2006, the diesel fuel commonly available was LSD @ 500 ppm sulfur, 49 state: CA state, 140 ppm. Oct 2006 was the so called "MANDATORY" cut over to ULSD standard @ 15 ppm sulfur. ULSD is nominally delivered to the pump @ 5 to 7 ppm to avoid massive EPA etc., fines and fungibility issues. Again, as you can see this is a MASSIVE reduction (-97% to -99%) in the ppm sulfur from 500 ppm sulfur, which ALMOST completely removes the scenario that causes the goo product to form.
The news on the Rug to Pug while "fair" is still NOT all together remediated. RUG to PUG during this time, continuing to this day is still 30 ppm sulfur to 90 ppm sulfur. It continues to be 2 to 18 TIMES dirtier than ULSD.
Diesel Vehicle would have to cost more that gasoline powered car.
Parts and tools would have to cost the same as for gas powered cars.
I might think about a diesel car when Ferrari comes out with one
So for another example, not that you would put 12,000 to 15,000 miles (utilitarian) per year on your Ferrari, but the cost difference (for me) between PUG/ULSD for those miles (@ 50 mpg) would be 48 to 60 dollars more (.20 cents more per gal (Shell) . That is assuming of course there is a PUG engine that gets 50 mpg, which is a BAD assumption.
What's not to get about your never time frame? :surprise:
Why would you want a Ferrari when Audi diesels regularly beat Ferrari at the races. Audi TDI just won overall at LeMans again. 355 laps in 24 hours. Closest Ferrari was 30 laps back. Diesel is rocking the racing world. 1-2-3 at the Dakar this year went to VW Touareg TDIs. Diesel truck racing is very popular. More power, less waste is the bottom line with diesel.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/06/pole-sitting-audi-d- iesel-wins-lemans-24-hours-corvette-wins-gte-class/1
Nearest I can figure, Ferrari uses a 4.3L V8.
It is even wilder to swag what numbers a V-8 327 to 350 to 427 cubic in turbo diesel would post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-1MTr8X_Z0&NR=1
PS
Ferrari's are just not that fast. They look great but not many can make it through a quarter of a mile in less than 13 seconds.
http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.htm
Drive a BMW 335D and get back to us about what you think a diesel can do.
Back to durability and reliability on a 1.9 L TDI motor. I am on the fence about so called "upgrading" the fuel injectors when they are due (most gasser folks who use fuel injectors really don't even know they do "wear out" @ app 150,000 to 200,000 miles). Just a one step size upgrade (.205 from .184 and incidently what the European models are equip with) will literally put the (upgraded) torque values greater than the max capacity of the oem clutch. Sure I can baby it along, but why do a premature clutch UPGRADE when an oem clutch can go 400,000 to 500,000 miles.
Then the 5 speed manual will not really be as good as a 6 speed. If I keep the 5 speed, then my 5th gear is now too low and it will make sense to do a higher 5th gear swap, etc., etc., etc. Then if I chip it, I will gain another 40-65# ft, for 80-130 # ft. Then it makes sense to upgrade the turbo (20-40 # ft)......... The chip, injector and turbo upgrades each have E/O numbers. So any to all are "certified." A clutch R/R (to upgrade 300 # ft) does not require an E/O number. (or 6 speed manual swap for that matter)
I should probably mention the most appealing thing about the (1 size up)injector upgrade is it can be tuned (independently or in tandem with a chip upgrade) for 3 to 5 mpg BETTER than the stock set up !!!!!!!! I already post 48-52 mpg commute and with no effort: so 51 to 57 mpg would almost be silly. I am sure a lot of folks who do gasser upgrades would covet this feature !!!
Or, they end up with a lot more powerful car that is really a bit ornery to drive on the street. (which is also about "goals", as is---what am I mostly going to DO with my modified car/truck?)
If my goals were more performance oriented ( I mean they ARE but...) I did indeed leave out the whole topic, issue of suspension upgrades I would NEED to do. Too many brain cells already.
So for example Corvette Z06 brakes can already pull down a 2950 # 60 mph to naught in app 109 ft. It can also do it repeatedly, which is probably more important. The nexus here is relative weight of 2950#'s to 2974#'s, Corvette being lighter. The tire size/s now has/have ballooned from 195/65/15's all around to 295's 35/18's to 265/45/17's just to keep traction and stopping power intact. I know you can see the additional problems/issues.
Interesting; I've been wrenching on cars for decades now and I've yet to see a "worn out" gasoline fuel injector, even after 300,000 miles. :confuse:
bosch and delphi claim longevity for one billion cycles, so that should last the life of the car---barring outside problems.
One reason I brought it up is upgraded (BIGGER) injectors do provide very dramatic hp/torque increases (relative to normal gasser upgrades to get the same hp/torque, albeit much more costly.) at relatively lower costs. After the initial gee whiz MORE POWER, AW AW AW !!!, this might be a further and even I admi,t ARCANE optimization discussion.
My own personal take is why swap out the fuel injectors unless you can measure the differences and are the differences worth the 250-400 cost and or FEEL the failure. A bit further down the line are the variable changes do make subtle to not so subtle CHANGES.
I guess you can pull injectors off and test them on some kind of machine ??? Not something you'd see at a normal repair shop, of course.
Hmmm...I was just looking at the retail price of a replacement pump for a TDI -- $1150 bucks. :surprise: Man, that would wipe out a couple years of fuel cost savings.
2012 M-Class Gets Two Bluetec Diesels!
This fall a new Mercedes M-Class SUV will hit showrooms with not one, but two diesel engine options. The third generation M-Class has all new sheet metal on the outside and a new interior that continue the evolution of Mercedes style in a contemporary but conservative way.
ML 250 Bluetec
This video explains why I only want an SUV with 4 wheel drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXCKeB0dOAg
My only complaint from the specs is the annoying "nanny-features" that control the car for you. Now it wakes me up and brakes for me?---no thanks on those, and they look "standard". I wonder if they could be dis-armed? I re-wired my MINI so that traction control is now optional on start up.
FWIW, I've had several cars which I've owned from birth to nearly 300,000 miles, and in every case, they've returned their best apparent power and their best fuel economy when the odometer is registering north of 200,000 miles. If the fuel injectors were suffering from a slow degradation, then I would expect a gradual (and measurable) decline in fuel economy.
I would hope they do have some kind of over ride codes or switches. I don't think I want such electronics on a slippery side hill. Though I doubt I would take the ML where I have taken, Jeeps, Dunebuggies and my old Land Cruiser.
I am thinking I will have to order to get the features I want. I don't think it will be discounted for a while after being introduced. EU delivery is a real option as I have never been there. I could enjoy 3-4 weeks exploring old castles.
The third generation of the Mercedes-Benz M-Class sets a new benchmark in the SUV world. Its enhanced fuel consumption and emission figures are especially impressive. Across the range, fuel consumption is improved by an average of 25 per cent over the previous model. Particularly noteworthy in this respect is the ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC, which has an NEDC consumption of 47.0 mpg (158 g CO2/km). Edit 39.14 MPG US
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/ecocar/Mercedes-M-Class-ML-250-BlueTEC-4MATIC.htm
I would say it will be creating excitement throughout the world. No hybrid in the class can come close. It is a tested engine from the S class MB.
In the case of our aged vehicles, the evidence borders on empirical as opposed to purely anecdotal. Why? Because I religiously track the mileage of our vehicles, and if you remember back when the whole acetone debate surfaced here in 2005 or 2006 (a debate which I seem to recall you were involved in), the only time any of our vehicles has ever significantly deviated from their typical baseline fuel efficiency for any given type of driving was when I offered up our old Dodge Grand Caravan as a guinea pig. In the case of the acetone experiment, the fuel economy dropped measurably when the acetone was added to the fuel. Said another way, from the post-engine break-in phase to just beyond the quarter of a million mile mark the fuel economy for that vehicle was quite predictable. What happened after that point? No idea, I traded the old girl in.
What I'd like to see is even a shred of empirical or scientific evidence which suggests fuel injectors become progressively less efficient after a given number of hours/cycles/miles. I don't believe you'll find anything of the sort unless you're talking about either isolated failures or old wives' tales.
In other words, if you get run down by a car when you are 80 years old, that is not directly a longevity problem, but you DO still have a problem and you did, in fact, live long enough to experience the normal course of events/odds that occur in life.
So too, injectors are susceptible to corrosion, contamination, and internal defect. And that can be measured--when they aren't working right.
Indeed if one carries both the practical aspect/s and what he is saying to a host of logical conclusions, one has a lot of latitude/slack AND over many so called related/ing variables.
So for example, I just found out my TDI's oil level is on the ADD mark. and coincidently "needs" the tires to be aired up. Yet, from full oil and TP baseline, it has/has been returned/ing 49/50 mpg with almost no effort. As long as it does not fall further below the (now) ADD mark and TP does not get any lower (than it is now), WHY add oil, why top off the TP? The assumption here would be so called "proper" levels will give so called proper xyz functioning, aka, one being optimum mpg (all things being equal).
Upshot, I did both. But really, ... didn't have to. Will I get BETTER mpg due to these "USELESS" actions? I doubt it. I have already proved to myself that to get 49/50 mpg, it can be with FULL oil sump (down) to ADD oil sump !!! Of course same is true for the T/P.
Not good. No slack.
The modern term for "fussy" cars is "narrow engineering".