Jump to content

Injector Cleaning.


dmr

Featured Posts

30 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

I've been running my nearly 11 year old car on cheap supermarket fuel, on and off, for all that time and 113,000 miles. It still doesn't smoke at all, but then the VAG 1968cm3 turbodiesel is a very good engine indeed. 

 

 

I have always run my cars on the cheapest diesel I could legitimately buy , about 40 years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I have always run my cars on the cheapest diesel I could legitimately buy , about 40 years now.

 

I put the cheapest stuff I can get into the car, and the best stuff I can get into the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

I put the cheapest stuff I can get into the car, and the best stuff I can get into the boat.

So if you are using premium grade diesel in your boat you do think fuel additives do some good ?

 

image.png.a2bc69b1f43617f2194b15cfd5dfe857.png

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/fuel/101266/premium-fuel-explained-is-it-worth-paying-more-for-premium-diesel-or-premium-petrol

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

So if you are using premium grade diesel in your boat you do think fuel additives do some good ?

 

image.png.a2bc69b1f43617f2194b15cfd5dfe857.png

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/fuel/101266/premium-fuel-explained-is-it-worth-paying-more-for-premium-diesel-or-premium-petrol

.

 

Oh my goodness, they say never believe what you read in the papers but thats bad. High Octane Diesel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Oh my goodness, they say never believe what you read in the papers but thats bad. High Octane Diesel.

Yes that a mistake but the principle is that premium diesel has extra additives and is not necessarily higher cetane number.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes that a mistake but the principle is that premium diesel has extra additives and is not necessarily higher cetane number.

 

 

ok, when I said (in a slightly light hearted way) that I put the best stuff in the boat that I can, I did not mean premium diesel...I have yet to see a canalside fuel seller with a standard and a premium pump. For a long time I tried really hard to only use FAME free diesel but this got harder and harder to get. My next plan was to use HVO but this has also got hard to get.

Extra boaty additives are, as I said, an insurance policy and hopefully reduce the probability of getting problems (which I have had and they are expensive). Stopping diesel bug and possibly reducing the decay of FAME are two goals, cetane raising is a sort of bonus but its dimishing returns with better base fuel. Extra detergency or other cleaning is another possible bonus but its all a bit unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I quit work ,I had 'saved ' almost 1000 gallons of diesel in drums ,and I put one $15 marine biocide additive in each drum .......took six years to use all the diesel ,and there was no sign of contamination ...............the worst fuel contamination Ive ever had came from waste  aviation kerosine ,but the price was right .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried my Skoda Yeti 2.0 diesel on Shell V-Power. No noticeable improvement in power, fuel consumption, smoothness, noise or average distance between DPF regens compared to supermarket diesel.

 

Then my local garage I tried Miller Power Max Diesel additive, which he claimed is a similar but better additive to that used by the fuel companies for their "super" diesel.

 

Again, no noticeable improvements, except for the average distance between DPF regens, which virtually doubled according to my VAG DPF app.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could not expect any change in power or fuel consumption unless the calorific value of the fuel was increased by <whatever> additive, I'd have thought. And I can't think of any additive likely to have a higher energy density than the diesel it is diluting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

One could not expect any change in power or fuel consumption unless the calorific value of the fuel was increased by <whatever> additive, I'd have thought. And I can't think of any additive likely to have a higher energy density than the diesel it is diluting.

 

I suppose that IF you had very dirty injectors so they were jetting, rather than atomising, some fuel may well still be liquid when the exhaust valve opened and the combustion would produce more carbon. That means the governor would have to inject more fuel to obtain a given power output. Now, IF the additive cleaned the dirt out of the nozzle so it started atomising again it would appear that the additive stopped the smoke, gave better consumption, and it would probably reduce the diesel knock. That could persuade many that the additive produced the results directly, rather than indirectly, by cleaning the gums etc. from the injector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

One could not expect any change in power or fuel consumption unless the calorific value of the fuel was increased by <whatever> additive, I'd have thought. And I can't think of any additive likely to have a higher energy density than the diesel it is diluting.

 

Thats not totally true. An engine only turns a small part of that available energy into mechanical output, so if an additive can improve the efficiency of this then a small power gain/fuel consumption reduction is theoretically possible. A problem is that the additive sellers massively exaggerate this improvement so loose credibiity.

The cetane raising additive is most likely to give the improvement but this depends on the original cetane value of the diesel, and a slight timing adjustment might be needed to get the full benefit which most people are not willing to do (or able to on modern engines).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Thats not totally true. An engine only turns a small part of that available energy into mechanical output, so if an additive can improve the efficiency of this then a small power gain/fuel consumption reduction is theoretically possible. A problem is that the additive sellers massively exaggerate this improvement so loose credibiity.

The cetane raising additive is most likely to give the improvement but this depends on the original cetane value of the diesel, and a slight timing adjustment might be needed to get the full benefit which most people are not willing to do (or able to on modern engines).

 

 

How could an additive improve the thermal efficiency of an engine already designed and built? Does the team hold that not all the fuel injected gets burned on each combustion cycle perhaps? (Dirty or flawed injectors aside.) If it does all get ignited then I'd have thought the only improvement could come from changes to the speed of ignition, leading to slightly hotter gas pushing the piston down a bit harder and/or a bit sooner. Improvements in power are going to be in the fractions of a percent I'd have thought, but don't really know much about diesels. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

How could an additive improve the thermal efficiency of an engine already designed and built? Does the team hold that not all the fuel injected gets burned on each combustion cycle perhaps? (Dirty or flawed injectors aside.) If it does all get ignited then I'd have thought the only improvement could come from changes to the speed of ignition, leading to slightly hotter gas pushing the piston down a bit harder and/or a bit sooner. Improvements in power are going to be in the fractions of a percent I'd have thought, but don't really know much about diesels. 

 

 

 

Lets think in terms of a petrol engine, they are a bit easier to visualise. For best efficiency all the fuel should burn instantly at TDC, though in practice this would be a bit destructive. In reality some fuel is burned before TDC which opposes the rising piston, the rest is burned afterwards which does the useful work. If the fuel is burning slower than intended then speeding up combustion could improve efficiency. Note that this is a visualisation rather than a reality.

 

Diesels are harder to understand, the fuel is injected as needed and should "burn" instantly as it is injected, but in reality there are delays so if these are bigger than intended then reducing them can improve things. Cetane is a meaure of how readily the fuel burns when injected (its desire to compression ignite).

 

Modern engines like in your vans do all sorts of clever stuff, like injecting a little bit of fuel early to get things going, then injecting a whole lot of fuel a bit too late to burn really quickly without making too much NOx.

 

And thats an interesting thought, if some additives get the fuel burning too fast they could potentially increase NOx. Its interesting that modern cars have all sorts of anti-tamper restrictions, but we are still allowed to pour all kinds of unknown additives into the tank 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the problem you are having with the JD injectors is due to the modification by Beta to make the engine run slower. They are designed to tick over at 800rpm. When I was running 2 JD's in boat they ran for over 10 years without making any smoke at all. I don't know the situation now but it was possible to pick up the injectors quite cheap from the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

I believe the problem you are having with the JD injectors is due to the modification by Beta to make the engine run slower. They are designed to tick over at 800rpm. When I was running 2 JD's in boat they ran for over 10 years without making any smoke at all. I don't know the situation now but it was possible to pick up the injectors quite cheap from the US.

 

Yes, I totally agree, and Deere say do not idle the engine for more than a few minutes (at 800) and mine spends most of its life below 800 😀.

The only unknown is that I am aware of another JD3 in a narrowboat that has never smoked????.

Mine has now done 13,000 hours and is just showing a bit of bore wear so it has sort of coped with the slow running.

Its pretty much smoke free today but from past injector cleans I suspect the smoke starts to return (just a little) after about 20 hours.

New and recon injectors are available from Deere for a "reasonable" price, but cleaning is relatively easy.

There are also cheap Chinese injectors but thats not for me.

My big worry is the increasing public anti-diesel sentiment, a smokey exhaust might attract trouble...I need to get some more HVO.

 

Have thought seriously about getting a "proper" engine like a Gardner? but the JD3 fits in very well with our boat and the sort of boating that we do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dmr said:

Have thought seriously about getting a "proper" engine like a Gardner? but the JD3 fits in very well with our boat and the sort of boating that we do.

 

I think the JD 3,4 and 6 cylinder versions are about as near to a traditional engine you can get although I think the latest are common rail which you really don't want on a boat. They are easy to work on, spares are easy to get anywhere and easy to maintain. They have wet liners too so quite an easy job to change the liners and pistons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, john.k said:

There is always a certain ash content in fuel........and this ash eventually destroys the DPF by clogging the filter media............ a not inconsiderable cost for replacement .

 

Indeed. My VAG DPF app shows the accumulated ash content. In the 5 years and 40,000 miles that I've it has increased from 23% to 39%. Assuming that the DPF needs cleaning or replacing at 100% full, it should last over 175,000 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

Indeed. My VAG DPF app shows the accumulated ash content. In the 5 years and 40,000 miles that I've it has increased from 23% to 39%. Assuming that the DPF needs cleaning or replacing at 100% full, it should last over 175,000 miles.

 

 

This is curious. 

 

My ten year old Mercedes V6 has no such mention of DPF status or frequency of regeneration or ash content in any of the menus. I'm nearly up to 300k miles now on the original exhaust. 

 

Might this be because its Euro5 not 6? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

This is curious. 

 

My ten year old Mercedes V6 has no such mention of DPF status or frequency of regeneration or ash content in any of the menus. I'm nearly up to 300k miles now on the original exhaust. 

 

Might this be because its Euro5 not 6? 

 

 

 

Euro5 diesels are DPF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ash eventually chokes the DPF .......the ash is a combination of inorganic oil and fuel remnants and dust in the air the engine breathes ......it cant be removed from the DPF ,so called regeneration burns the carbonaceous material ,and in some cases melts the ash .........consequently ,if you put some additive in your fuel or oil that has a high ash content ,you may quickly block the DPF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

This is curious. 

 

My ten year old Mercedes V6 has no such mention of DPF status or frequency of regeneration or ash content in any of the menus. I'm nearly up to 300k miles now on the original exhaust. 

 

Might this be because its Euro5 not 6? 

 

 

 

I had to buy an app specifically for VAGdiesel engines for my Android phone and a Bluetooth On Board Diagnosis dongle.

 

Most car plug in diagnostic readers now show how full the DPF is but they cost more.

 

Apparently car manufacturers decided it would put people off buying cars if they fitted a simple device to show how full the DPF is and when it needs regenerating.

 

 

 

 

Screenshot_20230423-100321.png

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the scrotes dont nick DPFs only Cat converters .........used to be ads on FBook offering up to $ 500 for  cut cat converters ......yet the coppers claimed they couldnt find who was dealing in stolen ones ..........of course this is the same coppers who shot a man dead yesterday "To stop him from self harming"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, john.k said:

At least the scrotes dont nick DPFs only Cat converters .........used to be ads on FBook offering up to $ 500 for  cut cat converters ......yet the coppers claimed they couldnt find who was dealing in stolen ones ..........of course this is the same coppers who shot a man dead yesterday "To stop him from self harming"

I wonder if an alert by phone might have helped  warn him they were gonna shoot. 

 

 

sorry was a bad joke-I’m off to put me tin foil hat on. 

 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.