# French fry fuel



## Eric Johnson (Jul 22, 2006)

Yesterday I found myself in a traffic jam on Route 290 near Worchester, MA, behind a guy in an old Mercedes who was apparently burning used french fry oil for fuel. Two things I noticed: 1.) the car seemed to smoke excessively, especially at low engine rpms, and 2.) that stuff really stinks!

If I ate at fast food restaurants maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but I got pretty nauseated before I was able to get around him.

It was an old Merc so maybe the engine was shot or out of adjustment, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the whole arrangement.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 22, 2006)

How old was the Mercedes?  From what I understand, the diesel ones run just about forever.  What color was the smoke?


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 22, 2006)

Probably late '70s to early '80s. The smoke was blue.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 22, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Probably late '70s to early '80s. The smoke was blue.



99 times out of a 100 blue smoke is crankcase oil either blowing by the piston rings or leaking through a valve seal.

I don't see how McDonald's cast off grease could make blue smoke. Not saying he wasn't burning Mazola Oil, but it wasn't the blue smoke maker.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 23, 2006)

Maybe the combination of burning crankcase oil and burning deep fry grease adds up to a nauseating combo.

French fried dinosaur, anyone?


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 23, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Maybe the combination of burning crankcase oil and burning deep fry grease adds up to a nauseating combo.
> 
> French fried dinosaur, anyone?



Cream gravy and mashed potatoes on the side please. Southern boy here.


----------



## begreen (Jul 23, 2006)

We have a lot of bio-diesel and french fry diesels locally. They don't smoke anymore than any other diesel. If the engine is in good shape it's usually a pleasant surprise to be stuck behind one and find that one doesn't have to roll up the windows due to diesel smell.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jul 24, 2006)

The old mercedes are smokier no matter what.
I've been burning b20 for the last couple of tanks in my Beetle.
I followed it today to work with my wife driving it.  It didn't smoke.
It does have a different aroma from the pipe than straight diesel.
Perhaps the fuel companies should just put a little perfume in diesel.


----------



## kd460 (Jul 24, 2006)

Usually veg oil and bio burners have less smoke. I'll bet that engine has seen better days. I run bio and the smell is not nearly as strong as #2 diesel.

Not being there, I'd take a guess that this guy has a whipped engine and has the new ultra low sulpher diesel that is being mandated. The ULSD is a requirement by October (I think it's oct). It has a less sulpher contet and is more envoronmentally friendly. The oil companies are producing it now and it is being added to existing diesel supplies. Some areas have it, some don't and some have anything in between. 

I know I had a tank of it as I could smell the difference, and my mileage was down a little. Slightly different color of the fuel and thinner viscosity as well. 

Another negative is the lubrication qualities. It is less than the old #2 diesel. The process of removing the sulpher also removes some of the lubrication qualities. A bummer for those who are not aware of this, as many injection pump/fuel systems only recieve lubrication of the components from the fuel. It seems that the producers have empowered the distrubutors of the fuel to add lubrication additives. We all know what the potential problem with that is.

Anybody running a diesel should be putting a lubrication additive in their tank on their own-ALWAYS, unless of course you trust an oil company/distributor.

Then again, this guy could have been running one of those "secret" fuel formulas going around that include xylene, unleaded gas, veg oil, and a couple other nasty goodies. Sound like snake oil? KD


----------



## wg_bent (Jul 24, 2006)

Will the low sulpher diesel allow for VW TDI sales again in NY?


----------



## suematteva (Jul 24, 2006)

You guys talking about the smell...reminded me of the early biodegradeable hydraulic oils...we were doing some testing for Sundstrand with it....basically canola oil going in...after it ran a couple hours whooo boy.....If you got about a teaspoon full on your hand when taking off a fitting you would stink for about 36 hrs...Rotten like eggs or load in the pants...


----------



## kd460 (Jul 25, 2006)

Hopefully, but I can't answer that. A good source for that info is here: www.tdiclub.com KD


----------



## begreen (Jul 25, 2006)

I had the dubious pleasure of following behind a Dodge diesel pickup truck yesterday on the way to the dump. Windows wide open in this heat. Not a fun trip. I'll take biodiesel any day.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jul 25, 2006)

Last I heard VW is coming out with a new engine for the 2008 model year.  It will be common rail and 50-state certifiable.  I assume a new catalytic converter at the least to take care of the NOx.
I'm nursing my Beetle 'til then!


----------



## saichele (Jul 25, 2006)

Nurse it hell.  We're driving our 2000 Golf TDI everywhere, by 2008 ought to be about 150K.  

The trick is the 'family car' - if the explorer holds out that long, it's a passat TDI wagon.  Otherwise we're going to have to make some ugly compromises.

Does strike me that if I went to ebay, I could trade my TDI even up for a half as old, half a driven, twice-as-expensive-when-new used explorer.  People are panicking over paying $50 (instead of 25 or 30) to fill up, and tossing thousands of dollars in 'equity' value on the vehicles.  

Steve


----------



## velvetfoot (Jul 25, 2006)

Umm... I just turned 180k on my 2000 Beetle.
We drive it everywhere too, but I do have a spare turbo and fuel injection pump (good deals) just in case.
Of course they won't break since I have the spares, knock on wood.
The car has been very reliable.
I'm hoping the common rail gets good mpgs.


----------



## saichele (Jul 25, 2006)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Umm... I just turned 180k on my 2000 Beetle.
> We drive it everywhere too, but I do have a spare turbo and fuel injection pump (good deals) just in case.
> Of course they won't break since I have the spares, knock on wood.
> The car has been very reliable.
> I'm hoping the common rail gets good mpgs.



30K/yr, very impressive.  

When they went to the PD system(2002?), they juiced the HP and the torque (to a lesser extent) but reduced the mileage.  We may well have the most efficient non-electric cars ever sold in the US - since the new emissions requirements are almost certain to take another bite out of the mileage.

Steve


----------



## Sandor (Jul 25, 2006)

I understand that VW will not import TDI's for the 2007 model year because they won't meet the new air quality standard.

They are supposed to return in 2008, I guess with the common rail.

I hear the "Dr Z" commercial saying the Chrysler/Benz will be coming next year with a "very efficient" diesel. Him being from Germany, I think he believes there is bright future for diesels in the US market.

Diesels are the future. Look at the energy content of 1 gallon of alky to 1 gallon of diesel. And compare the mileage of a Jetta/Golf TDI versus a Camry hybrid.


----------



## saichele (Jul 25, 2006)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Diesels are the future. Look at the energy content of 1 gallon of alky to 1 gallon of diesel. And compare the mileage of a Jetta/Golf TDI versus a Camry hybrid.



And the range of things you can burn inthem - veggie oil, biodiesel, and various blends of the less desireable stuff from crude oil.  And the ebergy return is considerably better than most ethanol technologies.

But we gotta increase the supply of used veggie oil. 

Probably go a long way towards helping the social security problem (shorter lifespans due to more grease).

Gentlemen, start your fryers.  Fish and chips for everyone.

Steve


----------



## kd460 (Jul 25, 2006)

The older diesels are actually more forgiving in the type of fuel you can use. My wife drives a 2005 Passat TDI, and I drive a 97 Dodge Cummins. I can just about run snake pee in the Cummins, I am careful about what goes in the Passat (warranty). We had a 2002 jetta that was  really good car as well. Sold it for the larger space that the Passat provides. So far, I have no complaints about VW products, but, service after the sale has allot to be desired. You really need to be an informed owner with this car.

I heard that Diamler-Chrysler will be buying and using the tdi engine in some of their vehicles (like they do with the Cummins). They will also start incorporating the Mercedes engines in some as well. 

I also believe diesels will be a big factor in the next few years. I personally do not see myself owning a gasser. I have no reason to when you compare them both. KD


----------



## suematteva (Jul 25, 2006)

kd460 said:
			
		

> The older diesels are actually more forgiving in the type of fuel you can use. My wife drives a 2005 Passat TDI, and I drive a 97 Dodge Cummins. I can just about run snake pee in the Cummins, I am careful about what goes in the Passat (warranty). We had a 2002 jetta that was  really good car as well. Sold it for the larger space that the Passat provides. So far, I have no complaints about VW products, but, service after the sale has allot to be desired. You really need to be an informed owner with this car.
> 
> I heard that Diamler-Chrysler will be buying and using the tdi engine in some of their vehicles (like they do with the Cummins). They will also start incorporating the Mercedes engines in some as well.
> 
> I also believe diesels will be a big factor in the next few years. I personally do not see myself owning a gasser. I have no reason to when you compare them both. KD



Would like to see one of these companies put a smaller diesel in a 1/2 ton...


----------



## elkimmeg (Jul 26, 2006)

Their already being manufactured but not for the USA market Iszu diesels are some of the best 4cyl made today. That's why GM bought them out


----------



## saichele (Jul 26, 2006)

Vintage 181 said:
			
		

> kd460 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems hard to believe that a vehicle like an Explorer, Durango, or Suburban that'll handle a 5+ Liter V8 wouldn;t be able to deal with 3.5L i4 or i5 diesel.  Fuel tank could be the same, maybe some of the soft lines on the fuel system would have to be upgraded, but you'd even think they could come up with one with a common backplate that would fit the stock truck trans.  I bet there'd be a market for a 'underpowered' PU that got 25mpg.

Got a 'Dodge' Sprinter van at work, and there under the hood is a nice little Mercedes diesel.  Even says Mercedes on the top.  

Steve


----------



## kd460 (Jul 26, 2006)

Actually, some really good things with diesels will be happening soon. I have heard rumor that both GM and Diamler-Chrysler will be coming out with diesels for the the 1/2 tons, the smaller pick ups, at least one mini-van from Diamler-Chrysler, as well as a few smaller "economy" sized vehicles.

As far as common diesels in America, the only options we had were the full size pick-ups, the VW's, and the Jeep Liberty. Unfortunatley, the liberty diesel is dropped due to emissions requirements. To bad, it was a nice engine. I think they will be using something different in the near future. Same reason for the change over on the VW's (as mentioned earlier). 

Honda is realy pushing a green diesel over in europe, hopefully it will make it's way here. It seems the fuel here in America was a big stumbling block. Now that we are changing over to ULSD (like europe has for some time now), we will see more and more diesels. In Europe, 50% of the vehicles on the road are diesels. I think it is like 1% or 2% in the states.

As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book. KD


----------



## Sandor (Jul 26, 2006)

kd460 said:
			
		

> Actually, some really good things with diesels will be happening soon. I have heard rumor that both GM and Diamler-Chrysler will be coming out with diesels for the the 1/2 tons, the smaller pick ups, at least one mini-van from Diamler-Chrysler, as well as a few smaller "economy" sized vehicles.
> 
> As far as common diesels in America, the only options we had were the full size pick-ups, the VW's, and the Jeep Liberty. Unfortunatley, the liberty diesel is dropped due to emissions requirements. To bad, it was a nice engine. I think they will be using something different in the near future. Same reason for the change over on the VW's (as mentioned earlier).
> 
> ...



I have been waiting for a freakin diesel half ton for at least 5 years and will jump on it when it comes out. I don't need 600 ft pounds worth of torque and a suspension that rattles your kidneys.

Give me an I5 diesel 1/2 ton that gets 30 mpg with 350 ft/pound of torque.


----------



## suematteva (Jul 26, 2006)

Sandor said:
			
		

> kd460 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly 

Can't say it better...


----------



## berlin (Jul 26, 2006)

> "As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"



well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.


----------



## saichele (Jul 26, 2006)

berlin said:
			
		

> "As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"
> 
> well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.



Not unlike with gas engines, we're sacrificing efficiency (and thus using more oil) to gain on emissions.  Europe went the other way, maxing efficiency but soft peddling emissions.  

I wonder if you release less CO2/mile in an American car with lots of fancy controls getting 20MPG, or in a stripped [old] Mini or such getting 40MPG?

Steve


----------



## suematteva (Jul 26, 2006)

berlin said:
			
		

> "As far as diesel engines, they have more torque, less maintenence, longer service life, better economy, and more fuel versatility. All winners in my book"
> 
> well, that all used to be true, with upcoming '07 emmissions it no longer is. diesels, and there related emissions components now are as complex and expensive or more so than similar gasoline engines; additionally the inherent efficiency of the diesel has far reduced, and along with that it's durability. EGR etc. on a diesel reintroduces corrosive and abrasive containing exhaust gas back in the the engine, with this there has been a rather large increase in engine wear evidenced by numerous engine oil samples across many different manufacturors that use EGR. Don't get me wrong i really like diesels, but with the reasons for buying diesel disapearing, and gasoline engines finally getting more efficient, it is not such a simple decision anymore, in the late '90s i wouldn't have hesitated to recomend hands down that a diesel, any diesel would be better, more durable, and more fuel efficient than any competing gas engine, but not now.



Is it all the same stuff they did to the over the road trucks?  I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin


----------



## kd460 (Jul 26, 2006)

No spark plugs, no wires, no coil, gassers have egr's  and cat convertors also. Bypass filters remove soot and egr byproducts, and mercedes is having excellent results with urea injection (piss). So the future is looking up.

You raise valid points, and it's a shame they add all this junk in the name of "environment". Modern oils are adapting and work well but people still want to use a 99 cent quart of oil. It amazes me when you consider the job that motor oil is supposed to do. Buy a good  synthetic oil, use bypass filtration, and allot of those issues go away. The diesel engine has higher compression, so the block and head needs to be stronger, so the overall platform of the engine is more durable. The introduction of ULSD, and possibly biofuels may reduce the need for % of egr duty cycle. Who knows for sure. I don't think the manufaturer's do either.

I'm still sold on diesels, to each his own. KD


----------



## begreen (Jul 27, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Not unlike with gas engines, we're sacrificing efficiency (and thus using more oil) to gain on emissions.  Europe went the other way, maxing efficiency but soft peddling emissions.
> 
> I wonder if you release less CO2/mile in an American car with lots of fancy controls getting 20MPG, or in a stripped [old] Mini or such getting 40MPG?
> 
> Steve



This chart on Edmunds might help figure that out:

http://www.edmunds.com/media/advice....would.you.go.intro/fuel.economy.combined.pdf


----------



## berlin (Jul 27, 2006)

> "I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "



yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.

yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.


----------



## Sandor (Jul 27, 2006)

berlin said:
			
		

> "I think Cat (acert) went one way and the others all went for treating the exhaust..help me berlin "
> 
> yes, they did, however acert technology leaves somthing to be desired to say the least. the fuel efficiency of cat's engines has really tanked with this acert technology.
> 
> yes, i am a diesel owner and diesel enthusiest myself, however i honestly would not purchase an '07 or later engine. Also one of the things that must be remembered (among many others) is that '07 emissions is also driving the price of these engines through the roof, even adding a few thousand to the cost of a new pickup diesel; this coupled with higher operating expenses reduced durabilty and poorer fuel economy makes the diesel vs. gas debate much less one-sided at this point in time.



How are you saying that engines that are not sold yet are going to have "reduced durability and poorer fuel economy"?. These engines are not even available yet anywhere in the world. The 2008 Jetta is not on sale yet.

Granted, they are not as simple as the older (dirtier) models, but compare reliability and longevity of cars built in 2006 versus 1969, when the PCV valve was the only piece of emission equipment.

I have watched diesel mileage go down in the 3/4 ton and up trucks because of the escalating power delivered.


----------



## saichele (Jul 27, 2006)

Sandor said:
			
		

> berlin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's still all moving in the wrong direction.  bigger, heavier, more complex.  A couple friends have 1950's and 1960's British sedans (Austin A40 Farina, Riley Imp, Mini), powered by the stock 'A' series motor (0.948L) and 3 or 4 on the floor - get high 30's (the A40 actually gets over 40 mpg) with an engine any idiot can work on, 40 or 50yrs after they were designed and built.  Similar with a Beetle (original).

But now we load everything up with bloat, from airbags to A/C to ABS, power heated seats and CD players.  Seen a new car w/o A/C recently?  All that junk is weight, complexity, and cost.  So it costs you up front, and it costs you every mile you drive it.  And you need to plug into a computer to find anything that might be wrong with the engine.  

Steve


----------



## Sandor (Jul 27, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Sandor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.


----------



## saichele (Jul 27, 2006)

Sandor said: I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.

Depends a bit on how you're measuring.  Faults inthe first 100K miles, the Camry wins.  Over a couple decades and a couple hundred K?  The Camry probably has fewer faults but they're more expensive to fix, partly because more of them require a $60/hr mechanic.  An A40 or Mini - pretty much anyone with two eyes, one ear, and most of their fingers can keep it going.  And they don't just shut down when things aren't quite right.  And remarkably, parts are cheap.  Most new parts for my MGB are cheaper than for my Explorer, and way less than for the VW.  Having driven a range of vehicles, the old ones have gotten me home (in one case sans radiator), whereas I've been stranded several times in 'modern'  vehicles because of 1) burned ECM in an Astro, 2) spontaneous shutdown in a Ford E350, 3) some little switch fell off in the automatic in my parents Ranger, and 4) a disintegrating throwout bearing in an Isuzu Rodeo.  (the last one's not quite fair, that could happen pretty much anywhere).

Steve


----------



## Sandor (Jul 27, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Sandor said: I really doubt anything made in Great Britain 40 years ago is more reliable than a 2006 Toyota Camry.
> 
> Depends a bit on how you're measuring.  Faults inthe first 100K miles, the Camry wins.  Over a couple decades and a couple hundred K?  The Camry probably has fewer faults but they're more expensive to fix, partly because more of them require a $60/hr mechanic.  An A40 or Mini - pretty much anyone with two eyes, one ear, and most of their fingers can keep it going.  And they don't just shut down when things aren't quite right.  And remarkably, parts are cheap.  Most new parts for my MGB are cheaper than for my Explorer, and way less than for the VW.  Having driven a range of vehicles, the old ones have gotten me home (in one case sans radiator), whereas I've been stranded several times in 'modern'  vehicles because of 1) burned ECM in an Astro, 2) spontaneous shutdown in a Ford E350, 3) some little switch fell off in the automatic in my parents Ranger, and 4) a disintegrating throwout bearing in an Isuzu Rodeo.  (the last one's not quite fair, that could happen pretty much anywhere).
> 
> Steve



Steve, I know parts for the MGB are cheaper. I did a total restoration of the last metal bumper B. Yea, bottom control arms are 10 bucks a piece, and are stamp steel crap made in china. Almost EVERY part I bought for that thing was a knockoff made in China. The chap that came from England to buy it (MGB are long gone in Britain, rust!) was tickled to death for a 10k dollar BRG MGB. 

But I guess once the wiring harness goes up in a cloud of white smoke, you can always run a hot-wire to the coil and bump start the car to get home. If you did not perish in the conflagration. MGB went out of business for reason. Well, all British manufacturers went out of business for a reason, unless rescued by Ford, BMW, China, etc.

Any manufacturer these days are very hesitant to put crap on the market, unlike GM and Ford in the 80's. Too competitive to do so.  I expect first year glitches with any car, and new clean diesel technology included.

Would you rather be stuck in traffic for an hour in 95 degree heat with no A/C behind a 2007 Jetti Diesel and 2007 Dodge Cummins , or a 1975 240D Benz and 1969 396 Impala?


----------



## saichele (Jul 27, 2006)

Sandor said:
			
		

> But I guess once the wiring harness goes up in a cloud of white smoke, you can always run a hot-wire to the coil and bump start the car to get home. If you did not perish in the conflagration. MGB went out of business for reason. Well, all British manufacturers went out of business for a reason, unless rescued by Ford, BMW, China, etc.



Jeez, you're not supposed to let the smoke leak out.

And there were quite a few reasons the Britich manufacturers went out of business, poor quality being only part of the equation.  The two main others were inept management and recalcitrant unions, a trifecta it seems we might see again.



> Any manufacturer these days are very hesitant to put crap on the market, unlike GM and Ford in the 80's. Too competitive to do so.  I expect first year glitches with any car, and new clean diesel technology included.
> 
> Would you rather be stuck in traffic for an hour in 95 degree heat with no A/C behind a 2007 Jetti Diesel and 2007 Dodge Cummins , or a 1975 240D Benz and 1969 396 Impala?



Luckily, we don't have hour long traffic jams or 95 degree heat.  This summer has pretty much sucked because we've been over 90 on 5 days.  Last summer didn't hit 90.

I see your point (and perhaps your cloud).  The issue I was addressing was not so much the cloud, although that's part of it, but the idea that the 74 240D is still out there.  Hell, they're coming out of the woodwork here.  Or my father-in-laws 1981 diesel rabbit.  I just question 1) how long we're goingto be able to keep the fancy bits of new clockwork going, and in a slightly different vein 2) whether we're better off getting better mileage or scrubbing the emissions.  We'd obviously use less oil getting better mileage, and i'm curious regarding the emissions side.   Seems like less carbon in makes less carbon out, less gas in makes less of everything out, but I don't have any good numbers on the actual emissions.  

Steve


----------



## Sandor (Jul 27, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Sandor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see your point, and I think you see mine.

Touche'


----------

