Newer Vehicles 2006 and up

74 replies [Last post]
joel12mi's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2010

I think I read on here somewhere. That the newer diesels 2006 and up can not run veggie oil because of some kind of emissions device in the exhaust??? dont quote me just going off memory.
At some point my vehicle will need replaced. I have 180,000 miles currently. I am wondering ..if you cant use veggie in newer vehicles then what are the options?  rebuild older vehicles...buy the newer vehicle and start  making bio diesel...electric vehicles..  each one has its pro's and con's.
 
I know my vehicle has more life left in it but am trying to look down the road.
 
I am thinking about biodiesel currently. What do you do with the glycerin that is left when you make biodiesel?
 
Let me know what you think is the better option and why?

KirkH's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2008

If you make the bio-d with KOH instead of NaOH, you can compost the glycerin.  It makes beautiful compost.

__________________

2002 Powerstroke Greasecar kit, 20 plate heat exchanger, water injection, Aeroforce Scan Gauge II, ISSPro fuel pressure, trans temp, boost and EGT gauges, Cyberdyne grease and coolant temperature gauges, auxilliary coolant pump, 295,000 miles, 95,000 on grease.&nbsp

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

As diesel engines have become more "sophisticated" they have become slightly more difficult to convert with stock conversion kits. This does not mean  that they cannot be converted. However it DOES mean that those converting them must do a bit more research and fabrication on their own to adapt the available kits to the newer engines.
 
Making biodiesel is an option but you must remember that those newer engines were not designed to run on 100% biodiesel any more than they were designed to run on wvo. And contrary to what you may thik now making high quality biodiesel at home is not as simple as some claim. Using sloppily made biodiesel will shorten an engines life just as surely as will running wvo without an adequate conversion. 
 
I tend to keep vehicles a very long time. This is one reason I was originally attracted to diesel engines. Properly maintained a diesel engine can have an increadibly long lifespan. And from a purely ecnomic POV keeping a vehicle is less expensive than replacing it with a new one.  Or even a used on of uncertain condition. I have chosen to factor in the cost of good maintenence and periodic rebuilding (using local labor) to the cost of ownership of all my vehicles. There are some secondary considerations..but listing them is probably more than you want.
I suggest comparing the cost of buying a replacement vehicle with the cost (long term) of rebuilding the one you have before making the decision to replace it.

joel12mi's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2010

Kirk,
 
You are going to have to school me on the types of biodiesel????
 
Thanks
 
Joel

KirkH's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2008

You can use NaOH + methanol to perform the trans-esterfication of the oil to produce bio-d. NaOH is common household lye. KOH is a little more expensive and not as easy to find, but the glycerin created is compostable. Plants like potassium (K), but they do not like Na (sodium). You must get all the methanol out of the glycerin though. This is done by boiling the glycerin. Some people distill the methanol that boils off, and reuse it.

__________________

2002 Powerstroke Greasecar kit, 20 plate heat exchanger, water injection, Aeroforce Scan Gauge II, ISSPro fuel pressure, trans temp, boost and EGT gauges, Cyberdyne grease and coolant temperature gauges, auxilliary coolant pump, 295,000 miles, 95,000 on grease.&nbsp

1991 Jetta SVO's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/21/2004

I purchased a 2006 Jeep Liberty for my wife and it runs great on WVO.  It needed a few modifications that if probably needed to run right on diesel. She is getting 170 miles for every gallon of diesel she purchases.
It might be the ultimate grease vehicle. Good power easy to park 4X4 abiltiy, smooth and comfortable, lots of space. Mine has the spare tire removed and the veg tank mounted where it was. NIICCCE!

__________________

Two grease cars: First--2006 Jeep Liberty CRD it is nice and new and runs perfect on the grease with a custom spare tire tank 2nd frame mounted tank for a total grease volume of about 27 gallons, two greasecar valves, FPHE, and Injector Line heater mounted on the Common Rail. I have a spare tire cover that goes over the tank in the picture. Second Vehicle is a 2005 Mercedes E320 CDI with 3 greasecar valves, a 36 gallon custom tank in trunk, Comon Rail Heater and a Raw Power fuel pump.  I use all PEX line and flare fittings with pushlocks.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

There are quite a few 2006 and 2007 vehicle that will run fine on WVO.  ANd there are lots of '06s and '07s that are nice, modern, low mileage vehicles, so I think you are okay for a while.
The newest cars and trucks, it seems, will accept no WVO without some complex tricking of the computer systems.  AFIK, no one has succesfully accomplished this yet.  These newest vehicles are mostly certified for a maximum of 5% biodiesel, though some folks have reported running 20%.  Others have had problems with B20.
Nobody loves old cars and trucks more than me, but I agree with your sentiment.  They will have to be replaced.  An old car is not as reliable as a new one, and they aren't as nice for daily driving.   In most cases, not as safe  either.  Antilock brakes, numerous airbags, and electronic anti skid systems are pretty wonderful when you need them.
I figure someone (maybe the Greasecar folks) will fgure out a way around the engine management systems once a lot more of these cars are out of warranty and cheaper to fool around with.  And then there are other alternatives - I think my next vehicle will be electric or electric hybrid.

donb123's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011

I used to make bio until a neighbor in a co-op decided to let me use some of his excess.  Now I'm running WVO in a greasecar kit.  I wouldn't go back nor would I ever do bio again.  I suppose biodiesel has it's merits but if you think about it it is simply trying to do through chemicals what WVO kits do through heat.  The additional processing, cost, time, and mess doesn't seem worth it anymore to me.
 
As far as electric cars.. they will one day be a good option.  Electric motors are so much more reliable, can accelerate without transmissions, etc.  Electrical storage is still the problem - and battery cost.  I drove a couple hundred miles (for free) on WVO the other day for my job.  I could never do that in an electric car as they don't have that kind of range.
 
Oh, lastly, my 92 Mercedes has anti-lock brakes and air bags...

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

"The newest cars and trucks, it seems, will accept no WVO without some complex tricking of the computer systems.  AFIK, no one has succesfully accomplished this yet. "
 
Its been done..but the cost is higher than is commercially feasable (when it comes to marketing  a kit using the tec invovled).  In many cases (at least with large truck engines) the "trick" is mostly blocking signals from the fuel heat sensors or replacing the signal with one that remains constant when on (hot) vo. But even doing this involves some research and development costs that no kit vendor appears willing to invest in.  I believe this is mainly because the kit customers generally prefer "cheap" over "good".  For those willing to invest $25-$50K in a new vehicle the $400-$500 that would be added ot the cost of a more sophisticated kit seems very small.  There is in fact a LOT of VO fuel tech that has been developed but not released to the public because of lack of interest.
"An old car is not as reliable as a new one, and they aren't as nice for daily driving.   In most cases, not as safe  either. "
 
True..if a steady investment in the upkeep of a vehicle is not part of an overall plan. I used to live in an area of the country that heavily salts roads and I admit it was very difficult (expensive) to prevent some vehicles from rusting away if you let even the smallest spot "fester" or failed to seasonally prep the underside to prevent corrosion. I just consider this level of maintenance to be a smart move which not only keeps my vehicles safe ot drive but pays back in th long run.
With one exception. If the vehicle is totalled in an accident insurance companys do not pay TRUE replacement cost .. even if you have insurance that indicates they do. 
A high level of maintenance cost roughly twice as much as waiting for something to go wrong and then having it fixed. But the vehicle will last 3-5 times as long AND be safe and comfortable to drive..and look good to boot.
All the electric/hybrid  vehicles I consider cost 2-3 times as much per mile as what I currently drive inclluding the costs of a high level of maintenance.  But I have been a bussinessman most of my life and so run a ROI on EVERY investment I make including my vehicles. I find it hard to factor in the "status" value of driving a newer car. But then..a classic older car that LOOKS AND DRIVES like new (or better) has it's own status value too.
We probably all have our own opinions about this. Mine is almost completely based on the financial investment angle. But there is a ecological angle as well. Consider how wasteful it is to skimp on maintenance costs and then simply discard a vehicle when it is "beyond repair".
 
To the OP:
If you decide to buy a newer vehicle ther is probably a very short list of those whose electronic fuel management systems are  easy to "fool". Find the schematics for the fuel managment systems of potential replacement vehicles and the solution to your dillemma will become clearer. The easiest ones to properly convert will ONLY have a fuel temperature sensor input that is affected by converting to VO fuel. The output of that sensor can easily be measured and replaced with a signal generator which overides the sensor when the "switch is flipped" to change to VO fuel. I suspect that you can rent the tool to do the frst part..and that a few posts on some "electronic geek" forums will net you someone who is willing to build the signal generator for you. Have them make two so you have a spare. It should only add 15-20% to the cost. And don't skimp on the conversion. If you use a kit upgrade it to "cutting edge". For only 20% more than a relativly primitive kit you can expect a LOT more miles from your engine if you do.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

The fuel temperature sensor is NOT the problem in the newest cars, and I do not beleve anybody has found a way around the problems.
In VWs the problem is an occaisional injection of extra diesel, designed to burn off accumulations in the exhaust system.  Neither biodiesel or WVO burns properly, hte car recognizes this and throws a code or goes into limp mode.  People have talked about modifying the computer to not perform this function, or allow you to switch to diesel before preforming it, but I don't know of anyone who has.
People have been "fooling" the fuel temp sensor, with a simple resistor,  for a long time; that is not a new trick. 
As I said, we all love old vehicles.  But they will never be as safe or as reliable as a new  one. no matter how you maintain or rebuild it.
Of course it is cheaper to keep an old vehicle; that hardly requires a ROI calculation.  It will almost always be more expensiv eto buyu a new vehicle; but you do get what you pay for. 

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

"we all love old vehicles.  But they will never be as safe or as reliable as a new  one. no matter how you maintain or rebuild it."
We will have to agree to disagree on that Phil.
Unless you are talking about the availability of side curtain airbags my late 80s mrecedes is just as safe as most newer cars. It was rebuild from the top down shortly after I purchased it and upgraded whereever possible. I GUARRENTEE that I would rather be in it than a brand new VW if I ever have a major accident.  I suspect most would.
 
"In VWs the problem is an occaisional injection of extra diesel, designed to burn off accumulations in the exhaust system.  Neither biodiesel or WVO burns properly, hte car recognizes this and throws a code or goes into limp mode.  People have talked about modifying the computer to not perform this function, or allow you to switch to diesel before preforming it, but I don't know of anyone who has."
You are probably correct.
Not much point (or profit potential) in that.
There are other problems with VW diesels when it comes to conversion to vo as well.  I have always encouraged folks to avoid converting them. Even the OLD pre TDI VWs were poor choices for conversion if engine longevity was a concern.
The only way I know of to avoid the carbon problem when converting a VW TDI is to use a polymerized/carbonized VO solvent in the lube oil regularly AND add water/methanol injection. One takes care of the upper cylinder and valve carbon accretions ..and the other takes care of the rest. But that's just VWs.  There are quite a few other options of post 2006 vehicles the OP has to choose from if he decides to replace his current ride.
 
"Of course it is cheaper to keep an old vehicle; that hardly requires a ROI calculation.  It will almost always be more expensiv eto buyu a new vehicle; but you do get what you pay for."
And if you pay for extremely good maintenance/upgrading of a well designed and built vehicle what you GET in return  is a safe and reliable ride at a significantly lower cost than what a new one costs. If you pay more for a new(er) vehicle you may not be getting as good a value as you think.
And VALUE is what I think the OP was interested in.
Let's not forget that he said " At some point my vehicle will need replaced. I have 180,000 miles currently. I am wondering ..if you cant use veggie in newer vehicles then what are the options?  rebuild older vehicles...buy the newer vehicle and start  making bio diesel...electric vehicles..  each one has its pro's and con's.
 
I know my vehicle has more life left in it but am trying to look down the road."
He didn't tell us what his current vehicle is. And it makes a difference.
There are quite a few options even if just considering diesel engines replacements.
If his current vehicle is a 1980 VW Rabbit it is probably not worth rebuilding at this point.
On the other hand if it is a 1996 Mecedes or Dodge Ram it may be.
We could both probably be much more helpful if the OP would provide a bit more info.
Does he need a pickup? A van? A midsize SUV?
 

 

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Simply no comparison.  Your old Mercedes, as wonderful as it is, lacks airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelt tensioners, electronic anti-skid, thrid barke light, etc. It is slower, clumsier and doesn't brake as well.  It is less likely to avoid an accident, and if it is involved in an accident, you are more likely to be injured or killed.  In crash tests, old cars never fare as well as new ones, despite looking so solid.
On top of all this, they are just not as comfortable or pleasant to drive and will never be as reliable, no matter how you maintain it.  Older diesels are harder to start, pollute more and use more fuel.
As I said, they are wonderful in their own way, but new cars are better in any objective comparison.

JR3342 (not verified)
JR3342's picture

New diesels aren't worth a crap.....
2008 and up cats with dpf system constantly break down for emmision problems. 2010 cat nolonger produces engines for us truck market. Due to increased emissions systems that don't work.
2007 pete c-15 cat 630,000 miles and going strong no problems.
the most wanted truck engines are pre 2002 non egr. That's why people buy a glider kit and put rebuilt pre egr engines in them.
1992 300d 230,000 miles runs and looks great.mechanical injection pump no electronics. Easy and cheap to repair..
The 2007 pete needs occasional maintenance Wich is cheaper than $2400 per mo new truck.
92 benz paid for. And parts are cheap.
The diesels today are over enginered not as dependable as they were better off with older car for reliability.

donb123's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011

My 92 Merc does in fact have air bags and ABS and a third brake light.  It is slower than my 02 TDI to be sure but it's a big chunk of steel.  I'd much rather be in an accident in it than my fly weight TDI.  The TDI has more airbags but it's made out of paper.  My Merc is more comfortable than my TDI and doesn't have any starting problems.  It does use more fuel for sure but less than most modern gasoline vehicles.  Since most of the fuel is grease I don't care anything at all about how much it uses nor pollution.
They are both good in their own way but new cars are not necessarily better and you don't really sound objective to me given that you got a number of your facts wrong.  If we were talking regular diesel engines or even gasoline I'd opt for newer cars.  If we're talking about WVO then older.  
Right now I've got 180k on my 02 TDI and 202k on my Merc.  I'm guessing they're both pretty reliable.  Then again, my wife has 160k on her Toyota van so maybe we just have good luck or pick winners.

donb123's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2011

Oh yeah, I have run bio in my 02 TDI for several years and it never went into "limp mode" but the fuel temp sensor is throwing codes now but it runs fine.  I'm no mechanic but I don't really know how throwing extra fuel into the combusion chamber makes anything burn off.  One would think that the extra fuel wouldn't combust if it was more than could burn at any given time or it would just be extra fuel and would burn like normal and make the engine go faster - like exactly what pressing the accelator does.  I don't really understand the problem, but then some people put water/meth in their engines and diesels hate water and some people run WVO when the engine is cold... seems some cars are more forgiving than others.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

 
Sorry Phil but your claims are just to general to be valid acoss the board.
And your case would be stronger if you checked you facts about my "old mercedes" before posting..
It in fact DOES have most of the features you claim it does not. And cars rarely "avoid accidents"..people do. Any car can be pushed beyond its safe limits. Even a new one.
My "old Mercedes" is in fact very comfortable and extremely reliable, gets a little over 35 MPG at 70mph, starts easily even in sub zero weather, though it is possible it pollutes more than a newer diesel. I just don't have the data to dispute that. 
 
If you want to provide an objective comparison you will have to begin by being objective.
I think you are more interested in arguing than helping the OP.
And I am more interested in helping the OP than arguing.
So..if the OP wants to get more specific help he (or she) shoudl probably provide a bit more info on what their vehicular needs are.  As entertaining as going round and round with you might be it is not actually productive in any real way.
 
 
"Simply no comparison.  Your old Mercedes, as wonderful as it is, lacks airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelt tensioners, electronic anti-skid, thrid barke light, etc. It is slower, clumsier and doesn't brake as well.  It is less likely to avoid an accident, and if it is involved in an accident, you are more likely to be injured or killed.  In crash tests, old cars never fare as well as new ones, despite looking so solid.
On top of all this, they are just not as comfortable or pleasant to drive and will never be as reliable, no matter how you maintain it.  Older diesels are harder to start, pollute more and use more fuel.
As I said, they are wonderful in their own way, but new cars are better in any objective comparison."

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

There is simply no comparison between old cars and new ones, reliability wise.  It is reasonable ot expect, in a new car, to go 100,000 miles without any repairs, certainly not any significant ones. You hardly need to do any mainteance in that time, if you choose. In no old car, no matter how well maintained, can you expect that.
.
An '02 VW will not go into limp mode on biodiesel; a new one will.  The fuel temp sensor throwing a code has nothing to do with biodiesel.  You probably need a new sensor or connector.
.
Dana- what year are your vehicles?  Actually, some new cars do avoid accidents.  And they make it easier for the driver to avoid one.  Dana Linscott les intersted in arguing??!!  Aren't you banned from most forums for just that?

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

Phil,
"You hardly need to do any mainteance in that time, if you choose."
I think I see why you are making this argument.
It appears we have very different concepts of the term "maintenance".
 
"Dana Linscott les intersted in arguing??!!  Aren't you banned from most forums for just that?"
This international sign that YOU think you have lost an argument is that you begin making personal attacks.
I have been banned from one forum.
For responding to trolls.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

I didn't say you shouldn't do any maintenance; I said you hardly need to. There is a difference.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement, you already admitted you were wrong so I think the argument is over, you attacked me personally and you were banned from two forums that I know of.
I think I will cease responding to your posts from now on, except when you state erroneous information or shill for your services.  Then I will point it out, to protect those new members who do not yet know you.

JR3342 (not verified)
JR3342's picture

As far new vehicles avoiding incidents don't want that system. Drove one with vorad collision avoidance system lots of fun when it read a sign as to close to a car and threw the brakes on while on ice. All this new tech creates more problems than its worth but it makes someone who makes the equipment a profit in sales and maintenance. Try a new diesel when it runs out of def and you can't find some.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

One of the reasons I prefer to invest in an "older" cars upgrading and maintenance is that (as was just highlighted) they tend to be simpler. I prefer no (or as few) computers in a vehicle as possible. The are expensive to repair/replace if anything goes wrong with them and they make conversion much more difficult and expensive. They often make doing your own maintenance or repairs more difficult or expensive (or impossible) since quite a few diognostic programs are kept proprietary.
 
I acknowledge that one must take a pro active stance on maintenance in order to keep an older vehicle (and I am talking late 80's to mid 90's) in good enough shape to consider it as reliable as a newer (2000+) vehicle.  This is not as difficult as it may initially appear mainly because it is fairly easy to predict what will need maintenance(replacement/repair) on older vehicles.  As a result one has quite a bit of lead time to budget for the cost and if neccesary find parts.
 
When ever I buy a new(er) vehicle I am taking the risk that the vehciel ahs not been well taken care of and will therefor require an unkown amount of repair for the initial 2 years of ownership. On the other hand I know within a few hundred dollars what I will likely have to invest in my own vehicle each year for the forseeable future to keep it as reliable a a new car.
This is what I base my ROI calculations on whenever I consider buying a new..or newer car. I budget  approx $1500 per year for maintenece on all my vehicles. I do about half of that maintenance myself so I remain aware of it's actual condition better than I could if I just drove them.  I also budget an addition $1500 per year (total...not per vehicle) for upgrading any system that CAN be upgraded during maintenence or repair. Those budgets are so far in the black at this point I could buy another vehicle with the balance.  But I am not going to. Instead I have decided to do a frame up restore on my Mercedes and upgrade the suspension during the process.  Phil is correct in his assessment of the handling of older mercedes...but that is a correctible condition if you can afford it.  Since by keeping the current vehicles I have and maintaining them in excellent condition only costs about 1/2 of what "trading up" to newer vehicles every 5-6 years would I have more than enoiugh to do that.
But since my mercedes 190DT is so "old" I don't have to be very inconvenienced by this upgrade. I can buy a 190 that has "lived outside the salt belt" and have the suspension and bodyworkand suspension upgrade done on that while I continue to drive the vehicle. Then when it is ready the engine/transmission can be dropped in and the interior swapped in about 4 days. That really would not be an affordable option with a newer vehicle. If I can actually find another 190DT (they are rare) I will than also have a new source of some parts to stockpile for the future.  Spare fenders/bumpers/grilles/hoods/etc can be really handy to have after one "meets a deer" on the road.

ForrestGump's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/14/2005

dana must not live in the city or an apartment..that changes the whole look on buying old or new.

__________________

I am Brian Miller

slatemd's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2007

Phil:
 
Why do you bother???????????

__________________

The future of America is easy to perceive;  Just visit Mexico or South Africa!

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Good question.  I shouldn't bother with his nonsense, but I don't like to see  false information posted on here.  And the shilling might trick a few newbies into buying something from him.  Otherwise I will ignore him.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

"dana must not live in the city or an apartment..that changes the whole look on buying old or new."
 
I do live in in a city.
But not an apartment... though I have and it didn't make much difference. I don't understand how that would change the "whole look" of buying a newer replacement vehicle compared to investing enough to keep the vehicle(s) I currently have at a level that keeps them as reliable as a newer replacement would be.
Not challenging your statement..just trying to better understand what you are saying.
I understand it is easier ot work on your own vehicles when you live in the country.But living in the city (or even an apartment didn't prevent me from doing light work on vehicles and having more serious work done in a shop.
 

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

Phil,
Just because we disagree on a subject does not mean that what I post is false.
In fact a vigorous but CIVIL discussion on nearly any subject is most likely to generate good information based on very different points of view. 
 Maybe I missed something.
What exactly did I post that you think constitutes "false information"?

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

I was planning to ignore your posts, but that was a pretty civil one, so here you are.
.
Stating that the newest diesels can and have been converted to WVO, and that all it takes is tricking the fuel temp sensor.  And that the kit manufacturers (like the host of this forum) are unwilling to do the research.

It's also true that an older car, no matter how well maintained, will not be as reliable as a new one.  But that is probably a discussion for a whole other thread. 

joel12mi's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2010

Guys thanks for the great discussion.
 
I currently have a 2001 vw beetle and a 2001 dodge dakota. The dakota is not a greasecar of course.
The beetle is a grease car. It has been(and hopefully will continue to be) a good dependable car.
 
I would like to get a diesel truck and convert it at some point. Thats why I originally posted the question. I didn't want to buy a older truck
with a bunch of miles on it. I wanted to see what others are doing.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Thanks for calling it a great discussion.  I might have chosen other words.
 
I know Dodges up to '07 (some) and I believe Fords and GMs up to 07 will convert fine.  Finding one with low mileage is a bit harder - people who buy these vehicles usually use them a lot.
 
My buddy just bought an '06 Dodge.  It has about 40K, but it took him a long time to find, it was really expensive and he had to go to Colorado to get it.  That said, it is a beautiful vehicle. And he got a nice vacation out of it.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

joel,
There is no particular marque I am a fan of but I think most agree if you are looking for a truck to convert the 12v Cummins engine is one of the most desireable (as far as ease of conversion and longevity). These were available until 1997 in Dodge pickups. Clearly this is a much older truck than you appear to want. But it is currently the BEST option IMO.  Economically these trucks can be purchased and re-built, re-painted, and reupolstered (if neccesary) for far less than you could purchase one that is "half as worn" but 10 years newer. IMO they can be made as reliable as one 10 years newer with a pro-active maintenance program at a much lower cost.  If cost is not an issue I will say no more on this issue.
But if you choose to convert a newer vehicle you will have to  install a conversion that is still having the bugs worked out. One of the advantages of owning an older vehicle is that there are LOTS more test miles on them with specific conversions. and most issues for at least the first 100Kmiles are KNOWN issues that can be anticipated and dealt with before they become a critical problem. If you are ONLY interested in post 2006 vehicles I will say no more on this issue. 
If you want a post 2006 pickup you pretty much have to accept that the first group of folks who install a newly offerred kit are the folks who do the long term testing of them. If you are willing to become part of that group I don't think you have a problem. Just watch what is oferred on the forums and try to make personal contact with as many of those folks who are testing new truck conversion kits. In this way you will be able to gather enough data to make an informed descision on which kit/truck combination has the least problems and simply purchase that year/model truck and the kit with the least problems.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

phil,
I asked you to post what I have posted that is false and you responded:
"Stating that the newest diesels can and have been converted to WVO, and
that all it takes is tricking the fuel temp sensor.  And that the kit manufacturers (like the host of this forum) are unwilling to do the research."
What I ACTUALLY posted was:
"If you decide to buy a newer vehicle ther is probably a very short list of those whose
electronic fuel management systems are  easy to "fool". Find the schematics for the fuel
managment systems of potential replacement vehicles and the solution to your dillemma will
become clearer. The easiest ones to properly convert will ONLY have a fuel temperature sensor input that is affected by converting to VO fuel."
and
"Its been done..but the cost is higher than is commercially feasable(when it comes to marketing  a kit using the tech invovled). " "As diesel engines have become more "sophisticated" they have become slightly more difficult to convert with stock conversion kits. This does not mean  that they cannot be converted. However it DOES mean that those converting them must do a bit more research and fabrication on their own to adapt the available kits to the newer engines."
Nowhere in those statements does it claim that kit vendors are "unwilling to do the research", that all it takes to convert the newest diesels to VO "is tricking the fuel temp sensor".  You are simply reading more into what I say than I actually am.
As for the part about newer vehicles being converted ("it's been done") are you really claiming that no one is experimenting with converting nearly brand new veicles?
 
The only person that has posted false information in this discussion is you. And you posted it in the form of a personal attack in an attempt to attack my credibility when you felt you were unable to adequately support your side of the argument using logic and facts.
I am sorry you believe that I attacked YOU. That was not my intention.
But getting personal in the middle of what CAN be a good discussion (albeit one with very different POVs) usually leads to a sidetracking of the discussion and the questions of the OP not getting the atention they deserve. Let's avoid the personal attacks and try to remain civil AND help the OP get as much good discussion on the topic HE wants discussed.

 

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Its been done..but the cost is higher than is commercially feasable (when it comes to marketing  a kit using the tec invovled).  In many cases (at least with large truck engines) the "trick" is mostly blocking signals from the fuel heat sensors or replacing the signal with one that remains constant when on (hot) vo. But even doing this involves some research and development costs that no kit vendor appears willing to invest in.
 
That's a quote from your post.  You say it has been done to the newest vehicles, and that the kit manufacturers are unwilling to invest in the research. No?

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

" You say it has been done to the newest vehicles, and that the kit manufacturers are unwilling to invest in the research. No?"
 
No.
That is how you interpret what I actually posted.
What I posted is what I mean.
Which is:
"doing this involves some research and development costs that no kit vendor appears willing to invest in."
It appears that way to me but I am willing to be proven wrong.
I have no way of knowing for certain that they are not currently investing in research..only that it doesn't appear that way to me from the information I have available.
Can you link to any kits for new vehicles that don't have bugs still being worked out by customers?
That would help both the OP out AND prove the statement I made to be incorrect.
 

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

That is a direct quote.  

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

Good posts. As for me, I'll take an old IDI anyday for my WVO transportation. Been driving current MB for about a 100K with very few problems, but then again i work on my own car. Someone that had to have every little thing done at a shop would find it difficult to own such a car.
Had a 96 Tdi before this and it too did very well (and had nearly 300K on it when sold, 100K on veg)
I dislike anything newer then 03, but i realize there are a few folks doing well with PD's. I am just not a fan of PD's for various reasons.
 
I would rather hit a dear, moose, etc in my MB over the Passat with airbags.
Personal preference. I'll take an older, durable car over a newer car with all the safty bells and whistles. A nice W123 MB can be had for like $4K, and run reliably on veg forever.
I dislike new diesels for use w/WVO (06 and up). They may run fine initially after converted, but very expensive to repair when the inevitable eventually happens. $1000 injectors, $3000, exhaust systems.... Fuel quality is critical with new diesels, they are simply not designed for WVO and the risk/reward is just not there IMO.
Good luck with your Liberty, let us know how it is doing at 50K veg miles. I have been out of the loop for a while, but i have never heard of  long term success with a liberty, all I have known have ended in disaster unfortunately. I have never converted one, I used to turn them away all the time.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

"That is a direct quote."
No ... THIS is a direct quote
  "doing this involves some research and development costs that no kit vendor appears willing to invest in."
 
And this is what you claim I said and which you believe constitutes false information.
" the kit manufacturers are unwilling to invest in the research."
Look..I am not asking YOU to be accurate. I am only asking that you not claim I say something I actually have not..and then claim THAT is false.
Perhaps it would be best if you simply ignore what I post rather than getting upset when I disagree with you. People are smart enough to read multiple opinions and choose what make the most sense to them. 
 

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

I think the mfg's simply don't see the ROI, and see increased liability. Newer vehicles unforgiving and fuel quality critical. New diesels already plauged with frequent CEL with out veg conversion. It could be a tech support nightmare, ultimately resulting in dissatisfied customers
One fuel related problem can result in thousands of dollars of repairs, negating years of savings from running on veg. The risk/reward just is not there. Any vehicle can be converted, but not necessarilly worth it.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

"I think the mfg's simply don't see the ROI, and see increased liability."
 
Exactly.
The ROI for research is just not there.
The customer liability is actually pretty low unless the vendor ALSO install the conversion AND provides all the fuel for it. It WOULD be a tech support nightmare though.
 
In addition you also have to consider that unless one has an EPA waiver (and I don't think anyone else is bothering to obtain them) actually converting a vehicle for any commercial use is  a violation of federal law.  The EPA has been very helpful up to this point to those of us who are willing to do actual research in VO fuel conversion without govt funding. But that could easily change at any time.
Currently it IS technically legal to use VO (non-commercially) as fuel because (perversly) the head of the EPA has continued to maintain that VO is not "considered" fuel by the EPA.  A small loophole in the CWA is therby created allowing private use of VO fuel.
Commercial users however must obtain a specifc waiver (which typically expires in 6 to 12 months and must be continually re-applied for) inorder to do so. Legally all who test and develop VO fuel conversion systems must obtain waivers. As far as I know no one else does. Why take the risk of investing significant amounts of money when you could be out of business next week? All that would take is for the head of the EPA to revoke his current official "opinion" and a cease and desist letter to be issued. Every vendor in the US would be out of business or in court.
 
You bring up a very good point about fuel quality.
My experience has been that the newer the engine design the more critical fuel quality is. I used to believe that 300ppm of water contamination was acceptable. Now I am trying to keep H2O levels to under 150ppm to prevent rapid injector erosion on newer truck engines.  That is way drier than most home processed wvo fuel is currently.
Anyone who is considering converting a "newer" engine would be wise to first upgrade their dewatering process to allow for dependable water levels that low.... or lower.

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

Yea, this is why i am sticking with the older stuff. I just go 1 pass through 5 mic filter and settle and rack the miles on.
New cars in general just do not appeal to me, so i am biased here.  I hate CEL's.
It'll be interesting to see the '10 jetta's on veg though, who knows they may work great. I'm sure its being tried somewhere, but i have not been  following it.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Dana, You're getting silly.  That IS a direct quote from your post #8.
 
Mark P, What have you seen with Libertys?  There are not many around, but I have seen a few  succesful conversions (online).  None fo them has a lot of VO miles.  I do know Elsbett sells a kit, so there are probably a lot more in Europe. If one wants a newer 4WD vehicle, or a smaller 4WD vehicle, there are not many other choices.

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

I know, there are vitually no other EPA legal compact 4x4 choices in US which still baffles me. There are some Toyota conversion, Mitsubishi, land rovers and others that may fly under the radar, but inspection time might prove difficult. I almost bought a discovery with Isuzu 4bdt, but it is an OBD2 vehicle originally and would not pass inspection with such a conversion, except for a couple southern states I believe. Was not worth the hassle, as i do not want to deal with it every year at inspection time.
I considered a Liberty but got scared away. They have plenty of issues not related to Veg conversions, just check out a liberty CRD forum. Those converted to veg have suffered problems related to CC oil contamination, somehow due to the CC ventilation system, which resulted in engine failure. I also have heard of injection system, turbo and exhaust problems. The ones i have seen converted smoked like crazy on veg, not sure why.  Apparently there is a crankcase ventilation mod and EGR disable which prevents the problem, but i am still not aware of any converted CRD's with long term success.
I would be interested to hear of a succesful Liberty veg conversion, with over 50K on veg (for real).  I too would like a Liberty CRD, but I'm not convinced they are grease freindly. The other thing that irks me is no manual trans with the CRD.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

I also am astounded that VW has not put the TDI motor together with an AWD system.  I'm sure they would sell millions of them.  I'd probably buy two, and then there are all those folks driving Subarus who sould love to get almost twice the mileage.
 
The Lost Jeeps has a good CRD forum.  The CC ventilation is literally a five minute fix, and the EGR is even easier.  Nothing like trying to disable the EGR in an '06 VW. 
 
I know Greasecar converted one (an '05, I believe) and complained that it would smoke when pulling away from a stoplight.  I know of one in Florida recently converted that he says runs just beautifully.  Frybrid also did one, and I think it ran fine too.  Greasel did one, and would up blowing the engine, blamed on oil contamination.  I think he admitted not changing the oil.  It is pretty easy to monitor with oil analysis.  Also oil changes are very easy and relatively cheap.
 
My Jeep has run perfectly for 50,000 miles (on diesel).  It is very nice to drive, it's great in the snow and the woods but it does not get great mileage.  It is a small, heavy vehicle.  I also do not expect it to be around forever.  Like my other Chrysler product (the '99 Dodge), it is a good motor in a mediocre (at best) vehicle.  It's no VW or Mercedes.
 
Mine will soon be on grease, and I will run it as long as it goes.  If it makes it to 50,000, or doesn't, I will report back here.
 
BTW, the automatic is very good.  Better in '06 than '05.  But there are manuals in Europe, so you could conceivably put one in a Liberty.  I'm not sure it would be worth it, though.
 

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

Its crazy that VW, Audi, Volvo, Mercedes etc all have Tdi/Cdi AWD with manual transmissions (!). Volvo cross countries, quattro's, wagons, Golf 4 motions, list goes on. Brazil gets nice little ranger 4cyl PSD, Toyotas. Mitsu's etc. None here, Liberty only small 4x4 diesel.  Been down that road before and finally gave up, wife insists on AWD/manual trans so i bought a gasser (Audi). Last time I was in germany I rented a new A4 avant Tdi 6 spd, what a car!!!! and what mileage!!!!
I ended up swaping a VW diesel into my Samurai to have a small diesel 4x4, but at this point it is off road only so really a big waste of money. I need to make it street legal one of these days.
I got scared away from the Liberties in the early days, when they were new and greasing them presented problems, but perhaps that has changed. This rekindles my interest....
Newer or unproven vehicles just scare me due to possibility of expensive repairs negating years of fuel savings. Not cheap/easy to find CRD parts.
Best of luck though, keep us posted on your plans.

JR3342 (not verified)
JR3342's picture

Its amazing how many diesels are produced here for export only. For years been seeing bmw and benz suvs come off the carriers and onto the ships. Seen a few us cars go out in diesel that we only get in gas models. And all the cars and trucks go export with no egr or dpf. Ordering euro or other countries parts would remove all our headaches. And every other country but usa still gets cat truck engines.
Other sad thing big lot of classic muscle cars went out the other day to forigen lands. Plus a bunch of older mb 300's and s class. Sad to see all the good cars getting exported.
I've heard but can't confirm south america still
builds the original vw rabbits.

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

Used Liberty CRDs are available now for a pretty good price.  It might be worth looking into.  THe other advantage is that there are so many gas Liberties around that non-engine parts are cheap and plentiful.
 
The other one to look at is the '07 Grand Cherokee diesel.  I think used ones are still at least 25K, but I paid more for my Liberty.    I know Frybrid converted one, but never heard any follow up.  My buddy has one and it is very nice.  He has no WVO plans for his.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

Yet another alternative (especially for those that want a 4x4) is to convert a Jeep to diesel using a rebuilt  Mercedes OM617 engine.  I have a client that has been doing this for over 8 years for rural delivery vehicles that drive well over 30K per year and they have proven to be extremely reliable on wvo fuel. A few have over 200k on the engines with just normal  (long term oriented) maintenance.
Swapping a diesel into a non diesel vehicle is normally too much of a project for the average person. But with the kits now available it can be done at a reasonable cost by nearly any shop. In fact there are folks that will do BOTH the gas to diesel Jeep conversion AND and convert the vehicle to WVO as well.
http://mercedesdiesel4x4.com/default.aspx
If you can find a Jeep with a decent body and a worn out (or blown) engine this is one more way to have a reliable "newer" vehicle with an engine that is as reliable as a new  vehicle AND has proven one of the best engines to convert to VO. It is possible that the newer stock Jeep diesel Grand Cherokees are this reliable on WVO. But no one has reported that they have been able to acheive anywhere near that level of reliability on those new MD diesels yet. The Liberty diesels (Italian diesel engine) similarly do not have a good record on wvo.
 
Adaptor kits are also available for the same engine and Toyota 5 speed transmissions as well as GM manual transmissions.. Again ..the swap is more than the average individual is capable of..but it makes the possibility of a small 4wd converted to wvo available at a reasonable price if you can find a shop willing to do the work. Since the OP has a Dakota and said he hopes to have a converted pickup this might be the only option if he would like a diesel/wvo pickup that is not a 3/4 ton or bigger.
If you get a good body and frame and take the opportunity to have the shop "go through" the rest of the vehicle to upgrade any parts that have worn it is possible to actually end up with a vehicle that is more reliable than a "newer" vehicle at a lower cost. This not only means that you save on the initial cost...you save "down the road" on repair costs as well.

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

I looked at 617 swaps into various vehicles and there are alot of possibilities, but I don't have the time for such a swap now, i'm already in over my head with current fleet maintenace/repairs. You would have to go pre 96 to avoid OBD2 code check here (and most places as far as i know). I looked at bringing over a VM Motori powered cherokee from Europe, but too expensive. Cherokees are all over Germany, almost all diesel. My wife had an 01 cherokee with manual trans, really liked that thing, was trying to find a wrecked diesel in germany for a doner but it was just not worth the trouble.
I was told that the Cherokee's were shipped form the US to Italy with no engines, and the VM's installed there.
I need to make the samurai road legal, it is by no means practical for my family of 4, but I'd like to use the thing more then just in the woods.  I can not imagine commuting 50 miles to work with it though.
Maybe someday I'll pick up a 280GD, that would be sweet. Also some nice swapped LC's out there too.
The 01 Disco with the Isuzu 4 bdt/MT I almost bought (actually did buy but backed out, losing deposit) was very nice, but too new to fly under the radar with the diesel swap...
If the Liberty had a manual trans I would give it a try though, definitley.
 

MarkP's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2005

JR,  i am aware of the many muscle cars going over seas, crazy Huh?
I was not aware that diesels were built here for export, thats crazy. What cars and suv's?
Ford is a good american company, but it drives me crazy that the diesel focus C market car not available here, it would give the new Tdi's some serious competition! When is the last time Ford had a waiting list? ...and now Ford discontinuing the wagon for US market. WTF are they thinking?  That new Euro focus wagon is a nice car, check it out if you have not already.
 
 
 
 

Phil's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2004

I would guess the Liberty diesel could be put in a Cherokee, but I don't know if you could register it.  Are there any states left that would allow you to put a diesel in a car originally built with a gas engine?  None that I live in.

BrianMiller's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2006

yep. you can do want you want in the midwest. Mi., IL., In,. ect. we dont have inspections.

danalinscott's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/13/2004

In most states you don't have to re-register a vehicle simply because you replace the engine. 
And you don't have to notify the state that you have done so.
In a few states you might run afoul of the law since they have implemented mandatory emissions testing.  Most have not however.