New F-150 Biodiesel Capable?

[ray101988]

I'm not sure where I read it, but I'm pretty sure that Ford said the new 4.4L would be able to run off of Biodiesel as well as regular diesel. Can anyone confirm this?

[ray101988]

Anyone out there? haha

[01FOCI]

Anyone out there? haha

 

 

any diesel can run on what is generally called "biodiesel" B20. but if your talking B100 basically crisco in your tank I doubt it as it will gel in 60 deg weather without a tank heater and grows bacteria that clog your lines. Oh and all this wonderful bio talk is misleading. Biodiesel blends while reducing CO2 emmisions increases NOx (think acid rain) on a scale of 30+%. So in reality if less CO2 does lead to less warming all the plant life will not have any more leafs...

[ray101988]

any diesel can run on what is generally called "biodiesel" B20. but if your talking B100 basically crisco in your tank I doubt it as it will gel in 60 deg weather without a tank heater and grows bacteria that clog your lines. Oh and all this wonderful bio talk is misleading. Biodiesel blends while reducing CO2 emmisions increases NOx (think acid rain) on a scale of 30+%. So in reality if less CO2 does lead to less warming all the plant life will not have any more leafs...

 

There are some new studies coming out that say the correlation between rising CO2 and rising temps aren't as related as they once thought.

[01FOCI]

There are some new studies coming out that say the correlation between rising CO2 and rising temps aren't as related as they once thought.

 

 

 

Preaching to the choir here, there is no real world evidence that actually links CO2 to rising temps, this whole THEORY is based on a statistical majority of ice cores that had a correlation between higher CO2 concentrations in thinner ice layers and lower CO2 concentrations in thicker ice layers. when it comes to the complexities of nature this "evidence" is anecdotal at best.

[ray101988]

Preaching to the choir here, there is no real world evidence that actually links CO2 to rising temps, this whole THEORY is based on a statistical majority of ice cores that had a correlation between higher CO2 concentrations in thinner ice layers and lower CO2 concentrations in thicker ice layers. when it comes to the complexities of nature this "evidence" is anecdotal at best.

 

Thats dumb. The thinner ice layers could just be due to less percipitation as opposed to warmer temps.

[01FOCI]

Thats dumb. The thinner ice layers could just be due to less percipitation as opposed to warmer temps.

 

Exactly! But do not tell that to Al Gorleone, basically all this global warming HYPE is a new religion. Hell they even want your money and to reduce your standard of living while increasing theirs!

 

And like I said its just a statistical majority, there exists(ed) ice core samples who's CO2 concentrations where reversed. Anyone who actually watched the early documentary's on the actual science behind the theory will denote the rather thin evidence (no pun intended) that actually exists. I bet most GW types would be hard pressed to actually tell you where the data comes from correlating CO2 to warming, and even harder pressed to design a statistically significant experiment.

 

And again like I said its the NEW RELIGION, it takes a leap of faith in a human to truly believe this stuff.

 

Oh and while I am at it, do you know where they take all those "official" temps showing the temp creeping upward? Well 50-60 years ago they where in rural locations away from the flux of human activity and airports in the far outskirts of town cause no one wants to live by an airport. Well guess what? The farm fields are now mall parking lots with black pavement and giant heat exchangers blowing all the hot air coming from the GW people screaming at the soccer mom in the mall outside next to the official temp guage. And many airports are now the center of town. There is a climatologist at Oregon State University who is bringing up the urbanization question who is being tossed aside as a bigot by the GW crowed. Remember reading about the Salem witch trials? Well its going to happen again, same hype new witch.

Edited February 3, 2008 by 01FOCI

[ray101988]

Exactly! But do not tell that to Al Gorleone, basically all this global warming HYPE is a new religion. Hell they even want your money and to reduce your standard of living while increasing theirs!

 

And like I said its just a statistical majority, there exists(ed) ice core samples who's CO2 concentrations where reversed. Anyone who actually watched the early documentary's on the actual science behind the theory will denote the rather thin evidence (no pun intended) that actually exists. I bet most GW types would be hard pressed to actually tell you where the data comes from correlating CO2 to warming, and even harder pressed to design a statistically significant experiment.

 

And again like I said its the NEW RELIGION, it takes a leap of faith in a human to truly believe this stuff.

 

Oh and while I am at it, do you know where they take all those "official" temps showing the temp creeping upward? Well 50-60 years ago they where in rural locations away from the flux of human activity and airports in the far outskirts of town cause no one wants to live by an airport. Well guess what? The farm fields are now mall parking lots with black pavement and giant heat exchangers blowing all the hot air coming from the GW people screaming at the soccer mom in the mall outside next to the official temp guage. And many airports are now the center of town. There is a climatologist at Oregon State University who is bringing up the urbanization question who is being tossed aside as a bigot by the GW crowed. Remember reading about the Salem witch trials? Well its going to happen again, same hype new witch.

 

The recording of temps for many of the experiments started after we entered a predominantly El Nino (warming) trend. Also the way that temperatures were recorded was changed and the original data that was presented didn't account for the changes in the temp recording process.

Edited February 3, 2008 by ray101988

[Blueblood]

Try reading some actual science, and not what you heard from an oil company..

 

The nonsense in this thread is comical..

[ray101988]

Try reading some actual science, and not what you heard from an oil company..

 

The nonsense in this thread is comical..

 

Why don't you read some REAL non peer pressured science. Look around this site. You may find yourself enlightened. Don't believe everything you hear politicians say. You would think that that was a given by now.

There are numerous articles about CO2's connection with global warming (or not so connection) and other factors that actually do contribute to our WARMING TREND. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Edited February 5, 2008 by ray101988

[mettech]

any diesel can run on what is generally called "biodiesel" B20. but if your talking B100 basically crisco in your tank I doubt it as it will gel in 60 deg weather without a tank heater and grows bacteria that clog your lines. Oh and all this wonderful bio talk is misleading. Biodiesel blends while reducing CO2 emmisions increases NOx (think acid rain) on a scale of 30+%. So in reality if less CO2 does lead to less warming all the plant life will not have any more leafs...

 

 

The above statements are skewed or completely wrong.

 

Ford recommends up to B5 in the 6.0L and 6.4L engine.

 

Clouding starts at <38 deg F with B100. B5 and less blends are within a few deg F of reg diesel fuel. You do not need "tank heaters". I have used B99 at temp <35 deg F and B5 < -10 deg F with no problems.

 

There are reasons that you should not run B100 all the time.

 

The > of NOx is related to the blend %.

 

Benefits of Bio-diesel can be obtained with B2 - B5.

 

The issue bacteria is normally associated with "home brew" Bio-diesel.

 

The above recommendations assume that the fuels meet American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications. ASTM is the recognized standard-setting body for fuels and additives in the U.S. ASTM has adopted a specification for biodiesel with the designation ASTM D 6751.

[Ken F.]

Comparing B100 to Crisco is not even close to reality.

 

I had a 2003 Dodge with a 5.9 Common Rail Cummins. I ran a lot of B99 and never had any problems. But I was proactive in filter changes, and never ran it in the winter.

 

I really thought it was a good thing.

[CO_4X4]

I've been running biodiesel on and off in my 2002 7.3 L since it was new.

 

Even with high percentages, I've *never* had a gelling issue, even in the Colorado winter.

And I haven't experienced plugged filters or problems with fuel lines. The local supplier adds a winter conditioner of some kind to it.

 

The heck with politics, I use it because my truck runs quieter and better on a biodiesel blend than on straight diesel, especially that lousy diluted winter blend they sell. Biodiesel has a high cetane, and using it in a blend actually helps winter starting.

 

Almost 150,000 miles on B-20 to B-80 in a mildly hot-rodded 7.3L, over 5 years and never a biodiesel-related problem.

 

That's my bottom line.

[ray101988]

The above statements are skewed or completely wrong.

 

Ford recommends up to B5 in the 6.0L and 6.4L engine.

 

Clouding starts at <38 deg F with B100. B5 and less blends are within a few deg F of reg diesel fuel. You do not need "tank heaters". I have used B99 at temp <35 deg F and B5 < -10 deg F with no problems.

 

There are reasons that you should not run B100 all the time.

 

The > of NOx is related to the blend %.

 

Benefits of Bio-diesel can be obtained with B2 - B5.

 

The issue bacteria is normally associated with "home brew" Bio-diesel.

 

The above recommendations assume that the fuels meet American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications. ASTM is the recognized standard-setting body for fuels and additives in the U.S. ASTM has adopted a specification for biodiesel with the designation ASTM D 6751.

 

Good post!! Thanks for posting.

[ray101988]

The above statements are skewed or completely wrong.

 

Ford recommends up to B5 in the 6.0L and 6.4L engine.

 

Clouding starts at <38 deg F with B100. B5 and less blends are within a few deg F of reg diesel fuel. You do not need "tank heaters". I have used B99 at temp <35 deg F and B5 < -10 deg F with no problems.

 

There are reasons that you should not run B100 all the time.

 

The > of NOx is related to the blend %.

 

Benefits of Bio-diesel can be obtained with B2 - B5.

 

The issue bacteria is normally associated with "home brew" Bio-diesel.

 

The above recommendations assume that the fuels meet American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications. ASTM is the recognized standard-setting body for fuels and additives in the U.S. ASTM has adopted a specification for biodiesel with the designation ASTM D 6751.

 

Would these blends just be available at certain gas stations?

[RichardJensen]

I've *never* had a gelling issue, even in the Colorado winter.

Ooooooohhhh!!

 

A lot of snow does not a winter make.

 

You want winters? Northern plains & Canada. I've got friends that moved to Colorado. One of them spent a few years in Fort Collins and said that the comparatively mild winters 'freaked him out' at first.

[RichardJensen]

BTW: I'm just jerkin' your chain :P

[ray101988]

Ooooooohhhh!!

 

A lot of snow does not a winter make.

 

You want winters? Northern plains & Canada. I've got friends that moved to Colorado. One of them spent a few years in Fort Collins and said that the comparatively mild winters 'freaked him out' at first.

 

On a different note...it hasnt snowed even an inch where I live in NJ...this winter sucks

[mettech]

Would these blends just be available at certain gas stations?

 

Yes.

 

You should also check with your local CO-OP.

[01FOCI]

"B100 may require certain engine modifications to prevent gelling which would cause performance problems and maintenance issues. Some conversions warm the oil preventing the oil gelling at colder temperatures. A two fuel tank system is used in many of these conversions. The smaller tank holds petroleum diesel which is used at engine start up. After the engine warms up, the B100 fuel is then warmed. At this point the driver switches to the larger primary tank holding the B100. Before the engine is shut down the driver switches back over to the smaller petroleum diesel tank purging the B100 fuel that may gel in the fuel lines when the engine cools."

 

http://www.beyondfossilfuel.com/biodiesel/

 

 

 

Biodiesel in Cold Weather

 

In cold weather situations, biodiesel and No. 2 diesel can be mixed with No. 1 diesel to reduce the temperature at which gelling will occur. Gelling, or solidification of biodiesel and No. 2 diesel, is determined by the cloud point of the fluid. The cloud point is defined as the temperature at which a cloudy appearance is observed. However, biodiesel made from various vegetable oils (soybean, canola and sunflower) have different cloud and pour points, which is due to various fatty acid contents. The cloud point and pour point temperatures for biodiesel produced from oil crops grown in North Dakota are shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1. Cold flow properties of (B100) Biodiesel (Methyl and Ethyl Esters). (The Biodiesel Handbook).

Oil Alkyl group CP (°F) PP (°F)

Canola Methyl 33.8 15.8

Canola Ethyl 30.2 21.2

Soybean Methyl 32 28.4

Soybean Ethyl 33.8 24.8

Safflower Methyl -- 21.2

Safflower Ethyl 21.2 21.2

Sunflower Methyl 35.6 26.6

Sunflower Ethyl 30.2 23

Rapeseed Methyl 28.4 15.8

Rapeseed Ethyl 28.4 5

Mustard Seed Ethyl 33.8 5

No.1 Diesel -35 -45

No.2 Diesel* Variable Variable

CP - Cloud Point; PP - Pour Point

*The cloud and pour point of the fuel varies based on the ambient (outside) temperature of where the fuel is used. This is determined and specified by the fuel supplier.

 

 

 

The cloud point is the start of crystal formation in the oil. As the temperature is lowered, the crystals continue to grow until the oil is no longer a fluid but a solid. The temperature at which flow ceases plus 4.5 F is defined as the pour point. Usually, when the fuel nears the cloud point temperature, changes will need to be made to the fuel, such as the addition of anti-gel additives or No. 1 diesel fuel. Otherwise, filters will clog and stop the engine. The addition of a fuel line heater is another excellent method to prevent gelling of biodesel fuel.

 

Commercially available (soybean) biodiesel (B100) will gel at about 30 F. Biodiesel made from other oil crops (such as canola-based biodiesel) will operate at lower temperatures.This is due to the difference in the degree of unsaturation of the fatty acids of the oil. Vegetable oils consist of numerous fatty acids. Some common examples are palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic and linolenic.

 

Mixing No.1 diesel fuel with biodiesel will help reduce most fuel gelling problems. Other measures may include the addition of fuel-line heaters or in-tank fuel heaters, along with the use of anti-gel additives. Insulating the fuel filters and fuel lines from the cold also will help. These measures should eliminate most cold-weather operational problems associated with biodiesel.

 

Research shows that biodiesel will have a storage life similar to diesel fuel, which usually is six months to one year. A two-year study completed at the University of Idaho found that biodiesel had slight deterioration and will store similarly to No.2 diesel fuel. Biodiesel mixtures of any blend should store during warm and cold months with little problem of separation of the biodiesel from the diesel fuel.

 

Two types of ester fuels can be produced. They are either a methyl or ethyl ester, and which it is depends on the alcohol that is used (either methanol or ethanol). At the current time, all commercially available biodiesel is methyl ester of soybean oil. This is because it is the most reasonably priced. Ethyl ester is made with ethanol, which is an extender for gasoline and will cost slightly more than methyl ester.

 

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ageng/machine/ae1305w.htm

Edited February 5, 2008 by 01FOCI

[Blueblood]

Why don't you read some REAL non peer pressured science. Look around this site. You may find yourself enlightened. Don't believe everything you hear politicians say. You would think that that was a given by now.

There are numerous articles about CO2's connection with global warming (or not so connection) and other factors that actually do contribute to our WARMING TREND. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

 

I have, why don't you? Icecap is a joke, there isn't a debate about GW as it's fact that is occurring all around the world, the only place it is up for "debate" is in online oil funded blogs/think tanks/media outlets.

 

I don't know why there are so many people online that find it so difficult to find credible sources for information, I found out Icecap was just another propaganda site recently..

 

They use an industry source for much of their info http://www.nam.org/s_nam/login.asp?TP=view...=527@DID=231174

 

It's very easy to find a websites true motives by looking at their sources and links, Icecap is tied to all sorts of far right wing oil company funded denial groups..

 

It's tied to the Fraser institute, let's look at who they work for..

 

* Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

* American Enterprise Institute

* Atlas Economic Research Foundation

* Bienvenidos a NewMedia

* Cato Institute

* C.D. Howe Institute

* EKOME (Society for Social and Economic Studies) (Greek)

* Free-Market.net

* Free The World

* The Heritage Foundation

* The Hudson Institute

* The Independent Institute

* Institute for Humane Studies

*Institute of Economic Affairs

* Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)

* Instituto Liberdade

* Liberales Institute der Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (German)

* Montreal Economic Institute (Institut Economique de Montreal)

* National Center for Policy Analysis

* Pacific Research Institute

* Political Economy Research Center

* Public Policy Research Centre

* Universidad Francisco Marroquin

 

 

Not exactly un-biased sources there..

 

 

If you want un-biased factual info from actual scientists you can get it here http://www.realclimate.org/

[ray101988]

I have, why don't you? Icecap is a joke, there isn't a debate about GW as it's fact that is occurring all around the world, the only place it is up for "debate" is in online oil funded blogs/think tanks/media outlets.

 

I don't know why there are so many people online that find it so difficult to find credible sources for information, I found out Icecap was just another propaganda site recently..

 

They use an industry source for much of their info http://www.nam.org/s_nam/login.asp?TP=view...=527@DID=231174

 

It's very easy to find a websites true motives by looking at their sources and links, Icecap is tied to all sorts of far right wing oil company funded denial groups..

 

It's tied to the Fraser institute, let's look at who they work for..

 

* Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

* American Enterprise Institute

* Atlas Economic Research Foundation

* Bienvenidos a NewMedia

* Cato Institute

* C.D. Howe Institute

* EKOME (Society for Social and Economic Studies) (Greek)

* Free-Market.net

* Free The World

* The Heritage Foundation

* The Hudson Institute

* The Independent Institute

* Institute for Humane Studies

*Institute of Economic Affairs

* Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)

* Instituto Liberdade

* Liberales Institute der Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (German)

* Montreal Economic Institute (Institut Economique de Montreal)

* National Center for Policy Analysis

* Pacific Research Institute

* Political Economy Research Center

* Public Policy Research Centre

* Universidad Francisco Marroquin

Not exactly un-biased sources there..

If you want un-biased factual info from actual scientists you can get it here http://www.realclimate.org/

 

Then whats your explanation for the difference in CO2 increases and temp increases? (CO2 rising and temp not rising) Yes CO2 probably has something to do with it, but I think many scientists are leaving out other pieces of the puzzle such as geothermal activity, solar cycles, lack of volcanic eruptions, the positive or negative PDO or ADO, positive or negative NAO, and other important climate factors. Also consider urbanization (more concrete and pavement, and other substances that attract/absorb heat). I think they're wrong by puttin all their cards in the its all human's fault idea. There are many other factors that seem to be getting over looked. Did you know that we have 5% more snow cover in the world this winter and the most square mileage of antartic ice ever recorded? Its not all the fault of human society. I'm not saying that if we were to change the type of energy sources we use it wouldn't help (I fully support alternative energy sources), I'm saying that there are many different aspects to this problem, just as there are to many other problems. In psychology this is know as the third variable problem. Often one thinks the cause of a problem is one variable when the problem is really caused by another variable.

 

P.S. I don't see anywhere on that site where it shows sources other than that of the scientists that write the blogosphere entries.

 

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/ca..._future_can_no/

Edited February 5, 2008 by ray101988

[ray101988]

I have, why don't you? Icecap is a joke, there isn't a debate about GW as it's fact that is occurring all around the world, the only place it is up for "debate" is in online oil funded blogs/think tanks/media outlets.

 

I don't know why there are so many people online that find it so difficult to find credible sources for information, I found out Icecap was just another propaganda site recently..

 

They use an industry source for much of their info http://www.nam.org/s_nam/login.asp?TP=view...=527@DID=231174

 

It's very easy to find a websites true motives by looking at their sources and links, Icecap is tied to all sorts of far right wing oil company funded denial groups..

 

It's tied to the Fraser institute, let's look at who they work for..

 

* Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

* American Enterprise Institute

* Atlas Economic Research Foundation

* Bienvenidos a NewMedia

* Cato Institute

* C.D. Howe Institute

* EKOME (Society for Social and Economic Studies) (Greek)

* Free-Market.net

* Free The World

* The Heritage Foundation

* The Hudson Institute

* The Independent Institute

* Institute for Humane Studies

*Institute of Economic Affairs

* Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)

* Instituto Liberdade

* Liberales Institute der Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (German)

* Montreal Economic Institute (Institut Economique de Montreal)

* National Center for Policy Analysis

* Pacific Research Institute

* Political Economy Research Center

* Public Policy Research Centre

* Universidad Francisco Marroquin

Not exactly un-biased sources there..

If you want un-biased factual info from actual scientists you can get it here http://www.realclimate.org/

 

Yeah...that site seems real unbiased....

 

P.S. It doesn't really matter...we need to be more environmently friendly anyway, so if Gobal Warming theories make people change than good for Gobal Warming theories...