Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
July 26, 2014, 12:18:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an E-Mag Subscription: It arrives at least two weeks before the First Class printed magazine.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 1988 vs 2007 engines  (Read 1487 times)
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6674





Ignore
« on: August 05, 2009, 01:19:36 PM »

Interesting article in Light & Medium Truck magazine on how well the smog control devices are actually working with the 2007 certified engines that are using a catalytic converter with soot particulate trap.  Actual production engines from Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, and Volvo were tested.

The EPA 2007 regulation for diesel particulate matter is 0.01 gram per horsepower-hour.  What the test engines actually registered was 0.0011g/hp-hr which is 89% below the 2007 mandated level.

Other emissions that were tested: Carbon monoxide emissions were 98% below the stardard; nonmethane hudrocarbons were 95% below the mandated level; and oxides of nitrogen (nitricoxide, nitrogen dioxide and nitrous oxide) were 10% lower than required [the hardest to reduce].

To put that in perspective, it would take 60 of today's models to have the same soot emissions as one 1988 truck/bus model.

Considering most of our buses have dirty 2 stroke engines that are in the 60's, 70's and 80's, I would venture our buses are putting out well over the equivelent of 100+ truck emissions compared to todays trucks.  When the 2010 year model engines come out with the Urea catalyst exhaust fluid, the ratio will be even higher.  The kicker is-the trucks are also getting more fuel efficient.  The 2010 trucks are going to be 5-10% more fuel efficient then todays new trucks/buses.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Lin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4528

1965 MC-5a




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2009, 01:22:17 PM »

Do we qualify for help under the Cash for Clunkers program?
Logged

You don't have to believe everything you think.
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2009, 02:42:57 PM »

Tom;

You need to compare apples to apples, no one has tested the early engines on ulsd fuel until now. We just completed testing of the new fuel with CCTS parts in a 12V71TI. There is not a four stroke that can do what we did to emissions without a dpf ( Diesel particulate filter ) or doc ( diesel oxidation catalyst ) or some type of add on emission device.

Once the numbers are released I will share with the board.

Don
Logged
Airbag
Guest

« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2009, 03:00:38 PM »

I was chugging up a hill last week in 3rd gear with the throttle backed off enough to subside the black smoke. I had a Harley pass me with the gal on the back holding her nose so I could see it. I felt bad for about a Nano second and then gave her the boo boo lip and started rubbing tears from my eyes. Now how bad could it have been for her really? If I had a loud outside PA sytem I would have yelled "get a muffler!!"
Logged
Lee Bradley
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2009, 03:27:02 PM »

Tom;

You need to compare apples to apples, no one has tested the early engines on ulsd fuel until now. We just completed testing of the new fuel with CCTS parts in a 12V71TI. There is not a four stroke that can do what we did to emissions without a dpf ( Diesel particulate filter ) or doc ( diesel oxidation catalyst ) or some type of add on emission device.

Once the numbers are released I will share with the board.

Don

I will be interested in your numbers; after all the 71/92's big brothers (EMD 2 cycle) are meeting air standards.
Logged
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2009, 03:20:22 PM »

Guy's

  I don't have the numbers back yet but I will tell you how the test went. I rebuild an 12V71TI 540hp and it was installed in a boat for run in, we needed at least 125 hours for test protocols. we put 250 hrs on it before testing. the engine was then removed from the boat it was in and transported to riverside to be put on the dyno. The engine was installed on Monday and ran to check operation. Tuesday morning 6am we started the engine to warm it up and check engine mapping. We ran the engine at preset rpm and hp according to c.a.r.b. protocol's. We had the engine running about three hours while the PH D's checked all of there equipment to make sure they were calibrated to the engine. We then set out do the emission testing, After one hour the test guys came to us and said they were not able to get enough pm to measure and they need to change from a 16;1 dilution chamber to a 4;1 after another hour they still were not get the weight to measure so they had to double there sample time for pm measurement. I asked how our NOx looked and they said it also was very low , so we spent two days on the dyno then the engine went back in the boat.

as a side note; the boat is a 126ft crew boat with three 12V71TI's and with our engine in the middle slot and the two older engines on the out side the boat picked up three knots on the top end. Our engine turns 2050 rpm, no load the other two turn 2300rpm no load and ours will turn 100rpm more under full power then the other two engines.

More when I get it

Don
Logged
DaveG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2009, 04:58:30 PM »

Don, thanks for bringing up the ULSD issue.

Sounds like the 12V is doing great...are you gonna share with us how it is built? Not that many here could shoehorn one in their buses......
Logged
DaveG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2009, 05:01:41 PM »

That Bonneville Scenicruiser would be nice with a 12V71 in it.
Logged
belfert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5391




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2009, 05:08:52 PM »

I will be interested in your numbers; after all the 71/92's big brothers (EMD 2 cycle) are meeting air standards.

Doesn't an EMD as a locomotive engine only have to meet off highway emissions standards which today are not as strict as on highway emissions standards?
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2009, 11:07:57 AM »

To the best of my knowlage  the only EMD two-stroke that meets the air standards is the 710.

I know the 567 and the 645 wont, we have been asked to see if we can help the rail road and the crew/work boats out that run these engines. I have told every body involved it only takes money and I need an engine. So the first one I am looking for is the EMD 567 I would like an 8 cylinder version and I need to borrow it for a time. I am willing to work out a deal with the company for pats once we get where we need to be.

DOn
Logged
DaveG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2009, 02:56:52 PM »

Don, what's in your bus?
Logged
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2009, 04:24:44 PM »

Dave;

My gillig has an 8V92TA DDECIII @500hp with an allison HD 4560 6sp. I think I may have a litte more hp but I have not had it on the dyno to check.

My eagle that I built the engine for is an 8V71TA @well over 500hp. I know that for a fact because it has been dynoed.

It was going to be my play toy so I put 125 injectors in it. When you step on the throttle form a dead stop it will throw you down if your not already there. You can ask boogiethecat about it.

Don
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!