bio diesel

[JonnyG]

Hi Mozzy,

Don't forget that LPG conversions use between 10 to 20% more fuel than the petrol, (see http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/lpg-and-cng )
so motoring fuel costs are not quite half that of petrol, but close - at the moment.

I am also fairly confident that if use of LPG for motive power continues to increase, the Gov't will want to offset the loss of revenue from conventional fuels, and I think they are likely to impose greater fuel duty on LPG thus eroding any cost advantage. We saw this happen with Diesel vs Petrol.

"honest john" he should be re named "old john" If you look at the vehicles he mentions Xanyia's Vectra's, that should tell you something. LPG has always been far more popular on the continent than here, and the choice of cars over there is far greater too.and yes its half the price of petrol over there too, because its classified as a "green" fuel
With today's technology, running on LPG should make no more than 10% difference in MPG at worst. so its cost/mpg advantage is still pretty huge.
Unlike the petrol/diesel scenario, which as the popularity of diesel rose so did the price, LPG still has Only a very small market share, and remember its Greener too.So tax rises of LPG are hardly likely to go the same way as Diesel did.
Its just a shame that the choice over here is so limited.

 

[JonnyG]

our local morrisons started to sell bio diesel at the pump but they removed it within 2 months saying that they had received many complaints, i was tempted after seeing it at the pump and contacted ford to see if the galaxy i had at the time would be ok it was a 2007 new style 2.0 diesel, ford said it would be ok with 5% and no more which as has already been said is pretty much what pump diesel is anyway.
the thing that worries me is i now have a ford transit with the psa derived 2.2 tdci 140 diesel fitted and it clearly states on the pump cover "do not use bio diesel" if all pump diesel has 5% bio in it then how do you avoid it.

Err who actually told you that your 2.2 tdci was a peugeot derived unit? As unless things have changed really lately the 2.2 unit is the same as fitted to my 2006 Mondeo. Which is all ford. if its cam chain driven its a puma duratorq Ford. If its cam Belt driven then its a peugeot/ford.

 

[mozzy]

ford no longer use the 2.2 puma its now using the psa

 

[littlebasher]

ford no longer use the 2.2 its now using the psa

Ha ha, don't hold back!

 

[JonnyG]

ford no longer use the 2.2 puma its now using the psa

So you can confirm can you that the transit also uses the Peugeot 2.2? or are you assumimg it does? as there seems to be nothing out there and the ads still mention it using the 2.2 puma!I instead of the renowed leaky peugeot lump

 

[mozzy]

lol i dont beat around the bush, it was not veryu refined although had plenty of grunt and would reach 200 bhp with just a remap, ford decided to move to using the psa 2.2 in 2007 which is smppther and more powerful in some applications, the mk4 new mondeo 2.2 has 175 bhp from the factory

 

[JonnyG]

lol i dont beat around the bush, it was not veryu refined although had plenty of grunt and would reach 200 bhp with just a remap, ford decided to move to using the psa 2.2 in 2007 which is smppther and more powerful in some applications, the mk4 new mondeo 2.2 has 175 bhp from the factory

!!!!!! Like hell would it reach 200bhp with just a reamp! andd please dont respond with anything along the lines of "well i know it would" Injectors are past the limits at 200 bhp. intercooler simply cannot supply the AIR needed also the trbo is at it limits too!
To get close to 200 bhp , you need a decat, larger intercooler and a reamp, and chuck in a hybrid turbo just in case and then pray the delphi injectors dont self distruct!!!!!!

 

[mozzy]

ford/ puma only ever gave 155 bhp and ceased production in 2007 it was then replaced with the 2.2 psa which came with 140 bhp and 175 bhp outputs depending on model etc.

 

[mozzy]

trust me bud, i had two st tdci mondeos, one with bluefin had 186 bhp and the other had a code red remap and pipercross panel filter and had 199 bhp and 254lb/ft i still have printouts somewhere. so basically 200 bhp when you consider it has been proven fords paper filters flow as well as uprated.

 

[JonnyG]

trust me bud, i had two st tdci mondeos, one with bluefin had 186 bhp and the other had a code red remap and pipercross panel filter and had 199 bhp and 254lb/ft i still have printouts somewhere. so basically 200 bhp when you consider it has been proven fords paper filters flow as well as uprated.

try using a proper calibrated rolling road next time! Dont wont to bust your bubble but what are you on about! I mention intercoooler you mention paper filters! do you know what you are on about? The intercoooler is what cools down the air,cool air means more power,its incapable of keeping or flowing enough air to meet the demands needed to get 200bhp!
mine runs a "real" 180 bhp properly corrected not those twist figurers the back street boys guess at.by over exaggerating power loss through the drive train! A well know classic trick!
And your torque figurers are all wrong too as the 2.2 had about 260 ft/lb of torque going up to 294 in over boost mode,so would expect to see around 285 and not 254 in a remapped version..

PS I think you will also find the transit still does use the old puma engine! just checked ford tdci wiki!

 

[seth1]

In the first 12months of a certain industrial engine producer releasing its current Diesel engine which is fitted with bosch common rail it had warranty claims in the uk in excess of £500k.The faults ranged from high pressure pumps,injectors stuck open,overflow valves gummed up with debris,transfer tubes blocking up.All offenders had been run on bio,to the point were the fuel tanks had to be chemically cleaned to get rid of the "fur"that was left behind from the bio.
Philspadders-you claim its not the water that does the damage,but then relate to the fact its hydroscopic?err?
Bit of the subject but the last time we had the mispleasure of putting a fuel pump on a fwd Transit,07 plate 2.2 diesel,it had a timing chain,does that mean its the talked about puma?lol

 

[seth1]

Has part of this post been deleted?

 

[Parksy]

Has part of this post been deleted?

A series of posts were temporarily 'deleted' because they had been reported to moderators by the 'Flag As Offensive' link which appears at the bottom of forum posts.
There is more about this subject Here
I edited the offensive comments this time so that the posts re-appeared but in future the posts will be deleted completely. I shouldn't have to sit here rubbing out swear words!

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi all
when I first bought the renault it definitly smelt of fish and chips while running and ran as rough as a bears tail it also had a electical fault that turned out to be a sticking EGR valve after cleaning everything out and using diesel injector cleaner added to the derv it run great and the smell disapeared so from reading the previous posts I assume the last owner ran it on home made bio fuel or similar.
if this is the case then bio fuel is not for me at any price it is just not worth all the hassle
colin

 

[JonnyG]

hi seth. yes if its got a timing chain its fords own creation, but the reason i asked icebreaker "how did he know it was a peugeot lump" was because peugeot are usually on the ball concerning running of what ever fuels, where as ford would not be as its engine is older.
Not suggesting any engine out there can run purely on Bio safely, but the French would be leaders in this field.
and as I cannot find a definitive answer to whether ford switched its transit engines over from their own to peugeot, then either checking its CC against that of the newer 2.2 ford Mondeo and if it identical then its a peugeot or seeing if it has a belt or chain seems the only way to know for sure. On a techie ford site they claim a 2009 version is fords own, in ford wiki nothing points to it having changed from being Fords own.So i would be more worried about using a bio mix on fords own than i would if it was a updated peugeot lump.

 

[Icemaker]

ford no longer use the 2.2 puma its now using the psa

So you can confirm can you that the transit also uses the Peugeot 2.2? or are you assumimg it does? as there seems to be nothing out there and the ads still mention it using the 2.2 puma!I instead of the renowed leaky peugeot lump

i can only tell you that the dealer was quite enthusiastic about telling me that the van had the same 2.2 psa derived engine that was fitted to the new galaxy and s-max, a friend has a 2007 transit that does have "duratec" written on the engine cover my van has "tdci" on the engine cover both of the engines are the bhp at 140 but mine has more torque and is much much quieter and smoother. please do not get confused with the rear wheel drive transit as i am pretty sure that still uses the older engine but my front wheel drive is according to the dealer a psa unit.

 

[JonnyG]

Cheers icemaker. God that is even more confusing if indeed Ford are using both in the Transit...

 

[Philspadders]

Seth wrote "Philspadders-you claim its not the water that does the damage,but then relate to the fact its hydroscopic?err?"

Err ? Seth , re read the post .


The water is not the main culprit, although METHANOL is hygroscopic, the WATER TRAP in the filter will REMOVE WATER from the fuel. The methanol attacks the seals ....

If you are going to quote others posts why not just copy and paste, that way the quote will be correct.

Err ? Err?

 

[seth1]

Do apologise PhilSpadders.Hydroscopic refers to the fact it attracks water.So back to water ingress again,which by the way has been proven to do the damage,and not by me either.Methanol that you refer to has been used for years in other areas of commercial vehicles containing rubber seals with no damage.(common rail injectors use viton seals)
Sadly not every vehicle is fitted with a water trap or sediment trap which is very crude and ineffective anyway especially in winter,you know frozen fuel and the like.
As said the problem with Bio besides the ratio is the chemical reaction going on inside the tank which causes a "fur" which is impossible to get rid of without major attention.
Its up to people to make their own choice at the end of the day.Really my only concern was people filling their vehicles up from 25 litre drums,not knowing what was in them before.
Getting back to the puma debate,quite easy to tell them apart,the puma is timing chain with two cam sprokets,whilst the psa uses belt with a single toothed gear wheel, and the second camshaft is geared at the rear off the first camshaft.

 

[Philspadders]

have to disagree Seth about methanol in diesel engines . Its a seal killer. My fuel never freezes in winter and its diesel, and every diesel i have had has a water trap. The chemical reacctiojn is caused not by the oil itself but simply because not enoughh of the methanol has been removed in the refining process. There are also issues with glycerin build up as methanol is often used to "wash" the veg oil to remove fatty deposits.