diesel & LPG/propane

[Guest]

On 8 Dec 2004 at 22:15, [Email address removed] wrote:
Btw, even though I had this URL listed for some time, only now I read
that atmospheric indirect-injection/prechamber diesels are not the
best candidate....turbo direct-injection is the better way (although
I doubt they had many non-turbo direct-injectors to test that variant
too (though even Toyota has some, like the 14B that came in the
Bandeirante):
http://www.mrsharkey.com/lpg.htm
And many moons ago, I even thought it couldn't work with turbo's at
all (like headers/extractors didn't have any use on TD's)....)
Oh well, there goes the poor-man's turbo concept, need at least a
12H-T afterall....)
(want a line-pump too, for bio-diesel, darn!....way too little choice
within Toyota!)
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[Email address removed]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

 

[Guest]

"Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote
(want a line-pump too, for bio-diesel, darn!....way too little choice
within Toyota!)
Willem, I am investigating using biodiesel in my pick-up, could you please
explain what you mean by this comment, bearing in mind I am not very gifted
mechanically/technically :0)
Many thanks
Nick Dowling
New Forest UK
'96 - AUS import HZJ75 Pick Up - 4.2 dsl - manual - retro fitted turbo

 

[Guest]

Willem-Jan
I looked at this, but it was way too expensive unless something has changed. Cost around ?1800 to fit, and even if you do genuinely get a 30% improvement in fuel economy the payback period is not great. For example:
I do about 15k miles a year at ~28mpg average; that is 2432 litres costing around ?2100 at current UK diesel prices.
They claim a 30% improvement in fuel economy, running with a mixture of 30% lpg / 70% diesel. So I would now use 1.0 / 1.3 x 2432 litres = 1870 litres, of which
70% is diesel : that's 1309 litres = ?1126 @ 86p/l
30% is lpg: that's 561 litres = ?252 @ 45p/l
So my fuel cost is now ?1378, or a saving of ?722 / year.
That's nice, but we are still talking about a 2.5 year payback period even if we don't figure interest into the equation. And that's also assuming that the mpg improvement figures are a genuine average, not just the best case. When I spoke to the fitters they admitted that it was only really economic for very high fuel consumption vehicles such as buses, lorries and diesel cars doing a huge mileage; and that a payback period of 4 to 5 years would be typical for an average car. I suspect that
I don't think it's economic for an average user unless the price comes down a fair bit. Or, of course, if you are more interested in power than economy.
Christopher Bell
Devon, UK
1HD-FT (which, strangely, seems to do better on bog standard supermarket fuel than on trendy stuff)

 

[Guest]

Christopher Bell wrote:
Unless they designed the vehicle for it in the first place and then you
could use a smaller engine as well. Assuming more power isn't the desire
of course. Hearing these things often makes me wonder why manufacturers
don't try offering them as a factory fit and see if they get a
worthwhile bite. Considering everyone purports to care about consumption
and pollution.
Ian.
--
Free classifieds for anything 2 wheeled:
http://www.fud.f2s.com/classifieds/classifieds.php
Layman's ROW guide: http://www.rightsofway.net

 

[Guest]

On 9 Dec 2004 at 1:38, Nick Dowling wrote:
Line-pumps (all Cruiser diesels until 1990/1HD-T) are lubricated by
engine-oil, while distribution/rotary pumps (1HD-T & onwards) are
lubricated (and cooled!) by diesel itself....with subsequent much
higher demands for fuel quality.
Not sure what large trucks nowadays use, but it used to be quite
tricky in Australia to trust fuel stations just by the fact that
truck drivers trusted them....with line pumps, you can use much more
crappy diesel without ill effects....
And biodiesel/veggy being less viscous (thicker), that too puts a
burden on rotary pumps....
Not a nice dilemma, especially not over time....the perfect diesel
for this purpose is slowly phased out....no replacement for the
future....
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[Email address removed]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

 

[Guest]

On 9 Dec 2004 at 10:14, Christopher Bell wrote:
There's no such thing as payback time with power increase!....)
If only the eco-fascists would do the right thing, and subsidize this
concept for environmental reasons....)
It's the only way to get 350hp/850Nm from a 1HD-(F)T(E).
(probably only FT(E), since the otherwise needed high-end tricks are
designed for the FT mostly, not T (turbo, cam-shaft))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[Email address removed]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

 

[Guest]

On 10 Dec 2004 at 10:52, Julian Voelcker wrote:
Added another UK-site today (forwarded to me in the context of very
large LPG-tanks, up to 230L, didn't know such large ones existed for
automotive use (probably doesn't make much sense volume-wise, a few
smaller tanks are easier to fit into a vehicle):
http://www.lpg-kits.com/mfs.htm
http://www.lpg-kits.com/diesel.htm
Willem (wondering whether an already tweaked 1HD-T (over 200hp)
requires the first-larger (and more expensive) kit....) Jan
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[Email address removed]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]