• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Photos of combustion chambers & injectors from 2 engines running WMO

Beyond Biodiesel

Beyond Biodiesel

Active member
373
37
28
Location
Prescott, AZ
gimpyrobb said:
That is not quite right. I have had both, turbo(m35) and non turbo trucks(m109). Both ran used oils just fine. It has been stated the used oils will wear your injection pump.
Click to expand...
Thanks for more information in support of burning WMO in a deuce.
RAYZER said:
This has always been the speculation.
It seems that "IF" the increased ash in the wmo causes increased engine wear, it would be to the cylinder walls, rings, valve guides,hydraulic head plunger and mating surfaces, and injector tip internal machined plunger surfaces.
On the other hand, any of the engine internal bearing surfaces shouldn't be affected because they're not coming in direct contact with the wmo, although some small amount of extra ash will wind up In the crankcase oil just as it does when burning #2.
So, it would make sense that if exsessive wear was going to take place it would show up first in the fuel system IE the injection pump and injectors.
Now, after running various blends of filtered wmo for 3 years, I just replaced my injection pump due to an issue that I haven't figured out yet, but my injectors were all fine, in fact perfect.
So,Is 3 years and 15,000 of burning wmo blend as fuel enough time to cause exsessive wear?
Was my injection pump issue due to burning wmo? I don't know.
Did wmo have anything to do with my blown head gasket? maybe, but I don't think so.
Is the secret to burning some wmo as fuel "proper filtering" before dumping it into the fuel tank? Yes!

Disclaimer:I'm not a scientist and your results may vary.
Click to expand...
OK, so this is good analysis of engine internal working parts and whether they will be in contact with the WMO in such a way that it could cause excess wear on the engine. Rayzor's conclusion is the only place where wear is going to occur is in the fuel system, ie injectors and IP. So, if the fuel has been properly dewatered and filtered, say 1-3microns, then there should be no wear on the fuel system, because abrasive particles that small are only going to function as a polish.
oddshot said:
What is needed are photos (NOT personal testimony. Without pictures, it didn't happen.) from engines that have run #2 diesel EXCLUSIVELY for comparison.

My bet is that wmo fuel that has been filtered and thinned properly does not produce much more ash (aka coke, "crust" etc. in the local idiom) than is produced by #2 diesel fuel.

Certainly not in the amounts that the anti-wmo fuel folks predict.

Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to examine IP's and etc. from both wmo and straight diesel burning engines.
Click to expand...
I agree photos would be good of the same engine parts from a mulitifuel engine that was only run on D2; however, personal testimonies do help as long as it is not BS.

On the other hand it has been my experience that wmo fuel that has been filtered and thinned properly produces much more ash and coke on the injectors of an indirect injected non-turbo charged 6.2L. I have lots of coked injector photos to upload, if anyone is interested.

From spending a lot of time massaging my WMO to reduce the coke I have found that the coke I find on my injectors is not just carbon+ash, which the definition of coke. I found once I removed the carbon I still had coke, but it was yellow, not black. Yellow coke on injectors is going to be sulfur. Sulfur has a fairly low boiling point with respect to a combustion chamber, so it can precipitate out on the injectors in a pre-chamber in an indirect injected diesel engine. The sulfur in WMO comes from the "additive package" that boosts the lubricity of motor oil.
 
Woodsplinter

Woodsplinter

Member
723
6
18
Location
Phoenix/AZ
oddshot said:
What is needed are photos (NOT personal testimony. Without pictures, it didn't happen.) from engines that have run #2 diesel EXCLUSIVELY for comparison.

My bet is that wmo fuel that has been filtered and thinned properly does not produce much more ash (aka coke, "crust" etc. in the local idiom) than is produced by #2 diesel fuel.

Certainly not in the amounts that the anti-wmo fuel folks predict.

Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to examine IP's and etc. from both wmo and straight diesel burning engines.
Click to expand...
I was just going to ask what "straight #2 diesel" injectors look like- guess I'll have to wait. :)
 
T

Terrh

Member
147
9
18
Location
Detroit, MI
The anti WMO folks can be silenced just by the fact that I've put enough "free" fuel through my truck to buy 1.5 more trucks with, or probably 5 complete junkyard engines.

I've gotten some hilarious responses, my favourite was a guy who just flat out did not believe me and told me I was lying to him, because it was absolutely impossible for the engine to burn anything but diesel and that I'd get horrible smoke if I tried. I even offered to have him look at my fuel filter but he wasn't willing.


if I ever have to pull the injectors out of my duramax I'll post them up here.
 
T

Terrh

Member
147
9
18
Location
Detroit, MI
That was an awesome read, a bit hard to read at first with dated technical wording but excellent info. I think I learned more in the last half hour than I have all day!
 
Squirt-Truck

Squirt-Truck

Master Chief
Steel Soldiers Supporter
1,180
163
63
Location
Marietta, Georgia
The pistons were not cleaned at all, that is what they were like when the heads came off.
Gimp, The bracket on the frame rail is a clamp on base for a lifting rig to support the heads for removal and re-installation. Think of if as a mini davit crane. Reaches from the heads to past the fender. Use a small hoist and no straining in or out.
 
RAYZER

RAYZER

Well-known member
3,380
59
48
Location
sanford/florida
Squirt-Truck said:
The pistons were not cleaned at all, that is what they were like when the heads came off.
Gimp, The bracket on the frame rail is a clamp on base for a lifting rig to support the heads for removal and re-installation. Think of if as a mini davit crane. Reaches from the heads to past the fender. Use a small hoist and no straining in or out.
Click to expand...
Brilliant on the head crane!
Were the heads removed because of a blown head gasket, were the head gaskets the old style?
 
Last edited:
Squirt-Truck

Squirt-Truck

Master Chief
Steel Soldiers Supporter
1,180
163
63
Location
Marietta, Georgia
The front gasket was leaking oil at the front. All fire rings in good condition, second or third generation multi-part gasket. Original gaskets installed in 1989/90 when engine was overhauled.

Still, not sure if this is a fair comparison on the appearance of the piston tops. This is an LDS-1A with the proper ONE hole injectors. It gets run at 2300 to 2350 on the road, runs 95% minimum DF-2, has plenty of power, will run to the governor with 26,000 in the bed or 30,000 in tow, she smokes, gray at idle (unless very warm) dark to black under loads and cruising clean and clear. (Under heavy loads, 30k in tow), I was accused by Dumpster of burning coal, not fuel.
 
gimpyrobb

gimpyrobb

dumpsterlandingfromorbit!
27,786
755
113
Location
Cincy Ohio
Frank, in that technical article I posted, if you had just scanned the pics, you would have seen it!

With the 2 hole injectors, there is a "main fuel ray" and a "fuel ignition ray". Most of the fuel is sprayed down into the bowl to assist in the "swirl" created by the piston's "swirl chamber". That helps to get a good mix of air/fuel and even combustion, from what I could understand.

I am not technical by any means, and often refer to motor parts as thing-a-mabobs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
110,879members
165,311threads
2,326,185posts
2,000online users
Top