Are all Deuces Multifuel?

[SasquatchSanta]

Now while I am not going to vie for either side of this argument (simply because its pointless now) I love how some of you guys will fall right in line with whatever some folks say. Just because somebody has been around a while and just because someone is "well respected" doesnt mean they know everything.

Maybe the guys that are "falling in line" are doing so because they have been around the block enough times to know from practical experience when something is right or wrong. There are things that you may "believe" and there are things that you "know"

You may "believe" something to be so after reading the manuals but you "know" what is and isn't so after you've personally lived through the steps in the manual. IMHO It's because of the practical experience factor that SS members fall in line when they read a post that is stated in absolute terms that they not only know from practical experience is flawed but is also about a subject that has been beat to death in a previous post/s.

I observation is that SS members are a friendly lot but long term, this is not a comfortable enviroment for hip shooting keyboard cowboys that tend to post in absolute terms.

There's just simply too many members on this website that have been around the block and will call someone's bluff --- political correctness be banmed.

Please note TenTires, when I say "you" I'm not referring to you personally nor do I mean to take personal issue with your post just stating MHO and how I see it.

Respectfully submitted.

 

[TenTires]

What is IMHO?

 

[doghead]

IMHO, In My Honest Opinion or, In My Humble Opinion
MHO, My Honest Opinion or, My Humble Opinion

fwiw

For What It's Worth

 

[grounded]

In My Honest Opinion

 

[Barrman]

He must have had another report to turn in at school:

"You can see that I again brought up the same subject, I again stated what I have been told repeated is a wrong view, I again argued that I was correct no matter what the facts are and I again used false data to try and prove my point. They again ganged up against me....."

Funny stuff aside. I got to thinking that maybe vocabulary is part of the problem. A normal gasoline engine has a combustion chamber that is made up of the piston top, cylinder walls and the shape of the cylinder head. Gasoline cylinder heads have come in an amazing variety of shapes over the years. So have gasoline engine pistons.

Diesel engines almost always have flat cylinder heads and flat pistons. However, the piston in a diesel is usually dished out to some extent. This is considered the combustion chamber of a diesel. The "Whisper" engine developed by MAN was different. (By the way, it seems MAN and Detroit Diesel shared the reputation of having the loudest engines known to run that don't make much power. So, when they made one that was just normal loud, they named it the "Whisper".) Continental called it the "Hypercycle." Anyway, the piston in the "hypercycle" engine has a big machined divot in the middle as pointed out in the above quote of DD. Something no other engine of any kind has to my knowledge. I do not have a non copy righted pictured of a multifuel piston to post. But, when you see a multifuel piston, you might understand that it is waaaayyyyy different than just about anything else you have ever seen. That weird piston is what allows the multifuel capability.

Yes, you can run some diesel engines on up to 40-50% used motor oil. It will smoke, but you can do it. Try thinning it with gasoline and you will burn a hole in the piston though. Assuming you are actually working the engine. Lots of things will idle along with no damage. Put a large loud on them, let the heat build and things will be different.

We should all know that the M35A2 multifuel truck was stopped from production by the EPA. We all should also know that running whatever can be poured into the tank makes a lot of smoke. The "Diesel Only" markings in my opinion were an attempt to get the EPA off their back and to present a "cleaner" image to anybody that saw a truck going down the road. We all also know that part of the Injection pump is lubricated by the fuel and part by the engines oil. There are a few points in the IP where a leaking O- ring allows fuel to get into the engine oil. Bypassing the FDC removes some of the chance for that to happen. So, after 1986 or so when the EPA was forcing policy changes, trucks that were rebuilt, especially in Toole, had the FDC bypassed and the diesel only stickers stuck everywhere. My 1971 truck went through Toole for a 1989 rebuild and has the stickers all over it. Along with a bypassed FDC. I hooked it back up just so I could "know" what was involved with that and have left it that way. Oh, I have not bought diesel for the truck yet and have put almost 1500 miles on it now. I topped it off to the brim with used oil last night matter of fact.

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

He must have had another report to turn in at school:

"You can see that I again brought up the same subject, I again stated what I have been told repeated is a wrong view, I again argued that I was correct no matter what the facts are and I again used false data to try and prove my point. They again ganged up against me....."

Funny stuff aside. I got to thinking that maybe vocabulary is part of the problem. A normal gasoline engine has a combustion chamber that is made up of the piston top, cylinder walls and the shape of the cylinder head. Gasoline cylinder heads have come in an amazing variety of shapes over the years. So have gasoline engine pistons.

Diesel engines almost always have flat cylinder heads and flat pistons. However, the piston in a diesel is usually dished out to some extent. This is considered the combustion chamber of a diesel. The "Whisper" engine developed by MAN was different. (By the way, it seems MAN and Detroit Diesel shared the reputation of having the loudest engines known to run that don't make much power. So, when they made one that was just normal loud, they named it the "Whisper".) Continental called it the "Hypercycle." Anyway, the piston in the "hypercycle" engine has a big machined divot in the middle as pointed out in the above quote of DD. Something no other engine of any kind has to my knowledge. I do not have a non copy righted pictured of a multifuel piston to post. But, when you see a multifuel piston, you might understand that it is waaaayyyyy different than just about anything else you have ever seen. That weird piston is what allows the multifuel capability.

Yes, you can run some diesel engines on up to 40-50% used motor oil. It will smoke, but you can do it. Try thinning it with gasoline and you will burn a hole in the piston though. Assuming you are actually working the engine. Lots of things will idle along with no damage. Put a large loud on them, let the heat build and things will be different.

We should all know that the M35A2 multifuel truck was stopped from production by the EPA. We all should also know that running whatever can be poured into the tank makes a lot of smoke. The "Diesel Only" markings in my opinion were an attempt to get the EPA off their back and to present a "cleaner" image to anybody that saw a truck going down the road. We all also know that part of the Injection pump is lubricated by the fuel and part by the engines oil. There are a few points in the IP where a leaking O- ring allows fuel to get into the engine oil. Bypassing the FDC removes some of the chance for that to happen. So, after 1986 or so when the EPA was forcing policy changes, trucks that were rebuilt, especially in Toole, had the FDC bypassed and the diesel only stickers stuck everywhere. My 1971 truck went through Toole for a 1989 rebuild and has the stickers all over it. Along with a bypassed FDC. I hooked it back up just so I could "know" what was involved with that and have left it that way. Oh, I have not bought diesel for the truck yet and have put almost 1500 miles on it now. I topped it off to the brim with used oil last night matter of fact.

We will see what MAN says... I've emailed them...

 

[bottleworks]

Next I am going to hear that a 6.2L diesel with a 700R4 will work perfect in a Deuce! Plenty of power! (Come on, some of you remember!)

 

[grounded]

opcorn: opcorn:
opcorn: opcorn:
opcorn: opcorn:
opcorn: opcorn:

 

[doghead]

I think I know why all our packages disappear at UPS, now.

 

[JasonS]

Diesel engines almost always have flat cylinder heads and flat pistons. However, the piston in a diesel is usually dished out to some extent. This is considered the combustion chamber of a diesel. The "Whisper" engine developed by MAN was different. (By the way, it seems MAN and Detroit Diesel shared the reputation of having the loudest engines known to run that don't make much power. So, when they made one that was just normal loud, they named it the "Whisper".) Continental called it the "Hypercycle." Anyway, the piston in the "hypercycle" engine has a big machined divot in the middle as pointed out in the above quote of DD. Something no other engine of any kind has to my knowledge. I do not have a non copy righted pictured of a multifuel piston to post. But, when you see a multifuel piston, you might understand that it is waaaayyyyy different than just about anything else you have ever seen. That weird piston is what allows the multifuel capability.

The cummins pistons that I have seen also have that "divot" in the middle. I looked through my late fifties/ early sixties motors book which is the same era as the multifuel and the early cummins have the divot, the detroit diesel has a divot, and the international diesel has a cup. It don't share the belief that the multifuel is all that novel. Maybe the only "multifuel" aspect IS the FDC?

 

[Boatcarpenter]

JasonS,
Whether or not some engines from the same time period as the Multifuel share one similar design feature is not particularly relevant. What you need to find out is whether or not those engines will (or would) have run on the same variety of fuels as the multifuel with or without the FDC, as will the MANN multifuel. We all know that the FDC helps with equalizing power output when using various fuels, but it is not simply an add on to an otherwise generic diesel engine that allows it to burn the variety of fuels that it is capable of using.
BC

 

[JasonS]

JasonS,
Whether or not some engines from the same time period as the Multifuel share one similar design feature is not particularly relevant. What you need to find out is whether or not those engines will (or would) have run on the same variety of fuels as the multifuel with or without the FDC, as will the MANN multifuel. We all know that the FDC helps with equalizing power output when using various fuels, but it is not simply an add on to an otherwise generic diesel engine that allows it to burn the variety of fuels that it is capable of using.
BC

To be clear, I did a google search for diesel pistons, all of the ones that I found had the divot. So, it isn't just the old engines. My point was that the MAN may not have been the first to think of the divot.

I disagree, it is certainly relevant IF that design feature is being credited as THE feature responsible for the multi's multifuel capability. And that is how I have interpreted the prior posts. Aside from the injection pump and combustion chamber/ piston design, what could possibly make the multi uniquely a multifuel engine? Didn't Diesel's first engine run on bio diesel (peanut oil?). Lots of folks are using soy diesel, etc. Our VP of manuf did his thesis on a diesel engine that ran on a slurry of coal dust and water. I ask again, what makes the multi uniquely a multifuel engine?

 

[JasonS]

Speaking of biofuels, the below is an important new development.

http://www.ecnmag.com/Technology-Achieves-Breakthrough-Efficiency-for-Ethanol-Engines-020609.aspx

 

[Recovry4x4]

That chamber in the piston is only one part of it. If you just spray in atomized fuel into that cup its no different. The multifuel process requires that and the specific spray patter and aim to accomplish the task. The simple chamber doesn't cut the mustard. These facts eliminate the maybe it's all in the FDC. I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain it. Rolling, emailing MAN may be a wasted effort. Continental only used their hypecycle combustion process, the rest of the system was designed by Continental engineers. You might try them but hey, you won't believe them either. DD's information came right from the military standards and communications between the gov't and continental, as well as other military communications.

 

[SasquatchSanta]

TenTires wrote:

What is IMHO?

I meant is as "In my humble opinion"

 

[m16ty]

Take a Cummins, Detroit, Cat, etc. and add a FDC off of a multifuel. Then go get you a tank full of unleaded. Please report here the results.

If you do this test you will find out that with the FDC installed it won't change a thing. Oh they will run but it could be for the last time if you run it very long.

 

[OD_Coyote]

I have not seen anyone bring up the point that the MF runs a higher compression ratio than to other common diesel engines, which gives it the ability to burn different fuels more effectively. IIRC - The MF is 22:1 and most other diesels run ~16:1 - 18:1 While the FDC is part of the system the MF would burn other fuels better than a non-MF diesel. Heck, if you could jack the compression ratio high enough, without grenading the lower end, you could probably run the MF on beer.

 

[JasonS]

Take a Cummins, Detroit, Cat, etc. and add a FDC off of a multifuel. Then go get you a tank full of unleaded. Please report here the results.

If you do this test you will find out that with the FDC installed it won't change a thing. Oh they will run but it could be for the last time if you run it very long.

Get a copy of Tayloor's The Internal-combustion Engine in Theory and Practice. It details some of the changes necessary to run on gasoline (higher compression ratio and stronger components due to the higher maximum pressure and rate of pressure rise." Specifically, it states "The fact that, given a sufficiently high compression ratio diesel engines will give acceptable operation on gasoline indicates that a high volatility and low viscosity are are not serious impediments to to good diesel operation." It also has some additional references that you can look up if interested. It referenced a General Motors multifuel diesel, not MAN? I still suspect that the multifuel capability of "standard" engines is understated.

That is "Taylor" not "Tayloor".

 

[maybefixit]

I'll admit I'm speaking totally theoretically here, and also totally stirring the pot for fun:

It may be a matter as much of reduced tolerances and lower horsepower per cubic inch, as some of the other factors. Older L-head Briggs lawnmower engines will run with very poor fuel, but they have a low compression ratio, and aren't being asked to put out a lot of power. Their basic carburetion systems will tolerate a whole lot of sediment and other junk in the fuel that would play havoc on a modern fuel injected car.

I know in theory that diesel engines will burn a great variety of fuels, as mentioned (coal slurry, kerosene, diesel, soy oil) and the original engine produced by Rudolf Diesel was demonstrated running on rotted peanut oil.

As a comparison, to another compression - ignition engine: there were a number of jet engines produced in the 50's which ran on aviation leaded gasoline. They're mounted outboard of the main piston engines on a B-36 Peacemaker bomber, and also seen on the C-123 provider cargo planes (like in the movie Air America, Con Air and the last Heroes episode). They shared the piston engines' fuel tanks so it wouldn't require dual fueling.

I doubt the engine configuration for those jets differs a whole lot from similar sized ones running Jet-A, but the fuel injectors, compression ratios, and engineering tolerances for heat were probably high on the list of modifications.

Come to think of it, isn't the timing one of the elements on a Deuce that tends to make it run a whole lot more power when turned up from stock, and also less tolerant of lower-grade fuels? I'm basically guessing that if I tuned down a modern diesel's timing, and limited the max throttle opening, I could run it on straight unleaded same as a Deuce, and not have it self-destruct within the day. (I'm purposely ignoring the lack of oiling for the IP and other effects of straight gasoline, which I think are also known to plague a Deuce if fed that diet long enough).

Like I said, no harm meant, just kicking the ideas around. Bottom line: I expect there's no one magical thing that inherently makes a Deuce a multifuel, but they've taken a number of things together to make the Deuce more billy goat than thoroughbred.

 

[m16ty]

I've seen John Deere All-fuel tractors from the 1920's. The engine was designed to run principally on petroleum distillate. These engines had higher compression than was required to burn gasoline. As advertised by John Deere it would also run on kerosene, gasoline, furnace oil, fuel oil, stove oil, and stove distillate. They made all fuel engines into the 50's. I've seen many an old Farmall setup for optional fuels also. These units had multiple fuel tanks. Usually a small one for gasoline and the larger tanks for the primary fuel of choice. I'd say the agriculture industry led the way for multifuel engines.

That's a spark ignition engine. Basicly a gas engine with low compression (not high compression) to cut down on pre-ignition on sub-standard fuels. The multifuel diesel is altogether different.

Farmall did have engines that started on gas and switched over to diesel. They had spark plugs and carb on one side of the engine and a injector pump and injectors on the other. Two different engines in one.