alfadriver wrote:curtis73 wrote: Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels.Who is capable of doing that? I've not heard of anyone making SULEV30 numbers without a combination of all the above listed technologies.
Or a "cheater mode" that activates during testing 
Here are the new propane-turbine series hybrid trucks from Wrightspeed and Nikola Motor Company:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/tesla-co-founder-making-electric-garbage-trucks-jet-tech-not/
http://www.gizmag.com/nikola-motor-company/43261/
I predicted this would work well before it was cool 
GameboyRMH wrote:alfadriver wrote:Or a "cheater mode" that activates during testingcurtis73 wrote: Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels.Who is capable of doing that? I've not heard of anyone making SULEV30 numbers without a combination of all the above listed technologies.
While I realize you are joking, I'm actually not aware that VW was able to get anywhere near SULEV30 even cheating.
The closest cheat data I can see is the ULEV120 target, and getting about 60-65mg/mi NMOG+NOx.
The locomotive boys are looking at LNG conversion kits. The tender is the issue right now on who will be regulating the standards. Three years ago this was hot......
In reply to Datsun310Guy:
Who? For Air EPA. OTAG in particular. It's their job to do that. What it needs to be- I don't know.
Or are you talking the safety of the tank? That, I have no idea?
We have a few depots that have CNG buses. There are a few drawbacks to running a fleet of them. Even with the giant, expensive fueling stations we have they take longer than diesel buses to fuel so you need to pay people longer to fuel the same number of buses and when the fueling stations go down the buses have to be driven to another facility bogging down their operations as well. One of the depots had a fire a few years ago and it caused problems for weeks where with diesels we could have filled them with a temporary pump and tanker truck. We only converted a few of our depots to CNG so I am assuming that it isn't saving any money over diesels.
curtis73 wrote: Before you listen to the intarwebs, talk to a fleet maintenance person. CNG and LPG trucks are absolutely DESPISED. Breakdowns, maintenance, lifespan, cost of ownership, initial purchase price... if you listen to them they are the worst thing to ever happen. I have little personal experience with them, but the word from those who actually turn wrenches on them is abysmal. Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels. But as far as CNG and LPG trucks being a win-win, no. They are a publicity stunt.
Really? I had a propane powered toyota pickup years ago. I put 200,000 trouble free kilometers on it. Not a single issue. Back then the BC government would advance you the cost of the conversion, and you paid gas prices for your propane with the difference going to pay the loan off. Win win. Took me two years and i was driving super cheap after that.
By the way, lots of heavy haul (140,000 pound) trucks around here on CNG. The peterbuilt dealer has a dedicated shop for those trucks. A friend is service manager there and he seems to think they have that technology sorted out. EgR on the diesels though not so much....
In reply to alfadriver:
Safety regulations of the tank. Federal Railroad Association and the Association of American Railroads are both working on these regulations. Given the problems with oil tankers lately and accidents the tender of LNG safety guidelines is kinda touchy along with the hoses that connect the locomotive to the tender.
Datsun310Guy wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Safety regulations of the tank. Federal Railroad Association and the Association of American Railroads are both working on these regulations. Given the problems with oil tankers lately and accidents the tender of LNG safety guidelines is kinda touchy along with the hoses that connect the locomotive to the tender.
I've actually been a little curious about that. Is it old tankers, more tankers, more accidents, or just more publicity involving accidents?
Anything on that large of scale is going to have problems, I'm just wondering if it's use related or just more public opinion swaying.
Sure I could look the numbers up, but I've found you get much more realistic answers asking people who actually are involved in these kinds of things.
In reply to Datsun310Guy:
Gotcha. Hope they can work it out- we've got such an abundance go gaseous based fuels that it seems like a good idea.
I think we were moving a lot of oil triggering a few more accidents.
GameboyRMH wrote:alfadriver wrote:Or a "cheater mode" that activates during testingcurtis73 wrote: Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels.Who is capable of doing that? I've not heard of anyone making SULEV30 numbers without a combination of all the above listed technologies.
I didn't say they don't need any of those devices, just that some have found ways of meeting EPA without some of them. And I certainly wasn't referring to SULEV30, or even ULEV anything.
Several of the new Caterpillar engines (like the CT13) have ditched the EGR cooler. Cummins is working on an ISV that doesn't use EGR at all. MWM uses CNG injection in their 610TCA diesel engines to eliminate [insert emissions control device that Curtis forgets right now]
I'll do some googles, but I'm in Canada on vacation. Long story short, the technology is driving diesels to meet EPA requirements with fewer add-ons since the 2008 strangulation.
scrambles to find links
These were all from things like Diesel Power magazine and SEMA.
RevRico wrote:Datsun310Guy wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Safety regulations of the tank. Federal Railroad Association and the Association of American Railroads are both working on these regulations. Given the problems with oil tankers lately and accidents the tender of LNG safety guidelines is kinda touchy along with the hoses that connect the locomotive to the tender.I've actually been a little curious about that. Is it old tankers, more tankers, more accidents, or just more publicity involving accidents?
The standards were set up for classic crude oil, which is all but inert. So the standards are very lax.
The stuff coming from the shale and oil sands is highly volatile, owing to the solvents used in getting it out. The stuff being loaded into the tankers is upwards of 40% solvent.
However, it is called crude, so the railroad industry is still using crude oil safety standards. Which is fail.
STM317 wrote:
curtis73 wrote: I didn't say they don't need any of those devices, just that some have found ways of meeting EPA without *some* of them. And I certainly wasn't referring to SULEV30, or even ULEV anything. Several of the new Caterpillar engines (like the CT13) have ditched the EGR cooler. Cummins is working on an ISV that doesn't use EGR at all. MWM uses CNG injection in their 610TCA diesel engines to eliminate [insert emissions control device that Curtis forgets right now] I'll do some googles, but I'm in Canada on vacation. Long story short, the technology is driving diesels to meet EPA requirements with fewer add-ons since the 2008 strangulation. *scrambles to find links* These were all from things like Diesel Power magazine and SEMA.
Caterpillar hasn't made an "On-road" engine in several years because they either couldn't or didn't want to mess with meeting the tougher emissions standards for on-road engines. So using that as an example when compared to current on-road diesels is playing in a totally different ballpark. Now, as "off road" emissions standards also begin to tighten, they are being forced to add emissions control tech to their products like everybody else.
It may be in stages, but eventually the off road stuff will have the same complex emissions controls that the on road diesels currently use. And the on road standards will tighten to a point that diesel is no longer viable. That's where the CNG/LNG engines come into play. I think those developing/using CNG tech now stand to benefit greatly in the future barring a paradigm shift in emissions regulations or massive developments in diesel emissions technology.
curtis73 wrote:GameboyRMH wrote:I didn't say they don't need any of those devices, just that some have found ways of meeting EPA without *some* of them. And I certainly wasn't referring to SULEV30, or even ULEV anything. Several of the new Caterpillar engines (like the CT13) have ditched the EGR cooler. Cummins is working on an ISV that doesn't use EGR at all. MWM uses CNG injection in their 610TCA diesel engines to eliminate [insert emissions control device that Curtis forgets right now] I'll do some googles, but I'm in Canada on vacation. Long story short, the technology is driving diesels to meet EPA requirements with fewer add-ons since the 2008 strangulation. *scrambles to find links* These were all from things like Diesel Power magazine and SEMA.alfadriver wrote:Or a "cheater mode" that activates during testingcurtis73 wrote: Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels.Who is capable of doing that? I've not heard of anyone making SULEV30 numbers without a combination of all the above listed technologies.
Take your time- enjoy your vacation.
But remember that the future is going to be considerably lower than it is today. From a passenger vehicle and light duty truck standpoint, our fleet average in 2025 has to be SULEV30. For the various truck standards, I don't know specifically what they will be, but I know that they both also progress down.
And overlaying ALL of that is the reduction in CO2/ improvement to fuel economy.
There was a recent conference that brought together many of the DOE sponsored projects, and like you pointed out, many of the very doubted stretch targets look as if they are possible. Volvo has shown massive improvements, all from DOE grant money.
alfadriver wrote:curtis73 wrote:Take your time- enjoy your vacation. But remember that the future is going to be considerably lower than it is today. From a passenger vehicle and light duty truck standpoint, our fleet average in 2025 has to be SULEV30. For the various truck standards, I don't know specifically what they will be, but I know that they both also progress down. And overlaying ALL of that is the reduction in CO2/ improvement to fuel economy. There was a recent conference that brought together many of the DOE sponsored projects, and like you pointed out, many of the very doubted stretch targets look as if they are possible. Volvo has shown massive improvements, all from DOE grant money.GameboyRMH wrote:I didn't say they don't need any of those devices, just that some have found ways of meeting EPA without *some* of them. And I certainly wasn't referring to SULEV30, or even ULEV anything. Several of the new Caterpillar engines (like the CT13) have ditched the EGR cooler. Cummins is working on an ISV that doesn't use EGR at all. MWM uses CNG injection in their 610TCA diesel engines to eliminate [insert emissions control device that Curtis forgets right now] I'll do some googles, but I'm in Canada on vacation. Long story short, the technology is driving diesels to meet EPA requirements with fewer add-ons since the 2008 strangulation. *scrambles to find links* These were all from things like Diesel Power magazine and SEMA.alfadriver wrote:Or a "cheater mode" that activates during testingcurtis73 wrote: Diesel emissions are fast-approaching gasoline cleanliness. They have been equal for passenger cars since 2008. They're also doing it without Urea, EGR, DPF, and some other "tricks" on some diesels.Who is capable of doing that? I've not heard of anyone making SULEV30 numbers without a combination of all the above listed technologies.
And then there's the confusing fun of stationary diesel engines. Which the manufacturers are loving, because they get to build and sell so many more engines.
Previously, places would have an emergency diesel generator. Today, they need at least 3 to meet the various requirements. This engine for emergency power, this other engine for auxiliary power, another for peak shaving, another for load sharing, etc.
curtis73 wrote: Before you listen to the intarwebs, talk to a fleet maintenance person. CNG and LPG trucks are absolutely DESPISED. Breakdowns, maintenance, lifespan, cost of ownership, initial purchase price... if you listen to them they are the worst thing to ever happen.
I cant speak for LPG but when I ran test cells for Cummins we tested many CNG engines and like you said above, they were hated by all. they leaked a lot of oil, most had issues with not wanting to start, would never make consistent power numbers, always seemed to be fighting misfires and about 30% of the CNG engines we had in the cells would have a idle swing from ~400 to 1200 RPM for no reason. also there is a lot of moisture in CNG so when you would open the oil fill and look down into the tube you would see globs of the lovely oil-water peanut butter looking sludge down in there, first time i saw it i thought that the head gasket had blown and we were getting coolant in the oil, i was told thats just normal.
These were the most common issues, there were many, many, many more. i have no desire to ever own a CNG vehicle.
but they run clean... so there's that...
edizzle89 wrote: ...when I ran test cells for Cummins we tested many CNG engines ... they leaked a lot of oil...
Any idea why CNG caused them to leak oil? The other stuff I can understand. The oil leaking seems weird to me and I'm curious about it.
foxtrapper wrote:edizzle89 wrote: ...when I ran test cells for Cummins we tested many CNG engines ... they leaked a lot of oil...Any idea why CNG caused them to leak oil? The other stuff I can understand. The oil leaking seems weird to me and I'm curious about it.
they did use a special oil made for natural gas engines, that might have had something to do with it? i cant say for sure but the CNG engines always seemed to have more leaks with less hours then their diesel counterparts.
edizzle89 wrote:foxtrapper wrote:the did use a special oil made for natural gas engines, that might have had something to do with it? i cant say for sure but the CNG engines always seemed to have more leaks with less hours then their diesel counterparts.edizzle89 wrote: ...when I ran test cells for Cummins we tested many CNG engines ... they leaked a lot of oil...Any idea why CNG caused them to leak oil? The other stuff I can understand. The oil leaking seems weird to me and I'm curious about it.
Interesting. You caused me to go Googling around, and I found this link, which is really interesting to read regarding CNG engines, their oils, and several other things.
CNG engines also tend to have higher exhaust temps which may affect things like gaskets differently than a cooler fuel would.
in related news, the lack of CNG infrastructure is one of the biggest complaints that trucking companies have, but even that seems to be improving: http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/story/2016/07/okla-reaches-cng-fueling-milestone.aspx
cwh wrote: I see a lot of local heavy trucks touting "Clean Burning Propane Power!! Mostly trash trucks, city / county vehicles, etc. Is there a real advantage with this or is it only political correctness? They do smell better.
We were/are involved with CNG conversions of light trucks and the fuel characteristics are "similar".
The big, big, big benefit, besides being a lot cheaper per BTU than gasoline, is maintenance costs go WAY down. Plugs last a lot longer and oil changes can be stretched 2-3x longer with ease. The fuel doesn't cause nearly as much carbon deposits, tends to be easier to light, and won't wet out on the cylinder walls, you see.
STM317 wrote: in related news, the lack of CNG infrastructure is one of the biggest complaints that trucking companies have, but even that seems to be improving: http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/story/2016/07/okla-reaches-cng-fueling-milestone.aspx
There are a lot of CNG stations up and down I-71 in Ohio.
Wish there were more, we're primed and ready to do fleet conversions. The people who have done it already love 'em. Maybe it's a spark ignition vs. compression ignition thing?
In reply to Knurled:
Light gas or light diesel truck conversion?
You'll need to log in to post.
