B100 biodiesel in 92 Dodge Cummins
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
B100 biodiesel in 92 Dodge Cummins
I've a friend who owns a '92 Dodge Cummins pickup. He's considering making his own BD with an Appleseed processor, but isn't sure if B100 will be OK in his truck. Right now he just drives his truck for camping expeditions, about 3-5K miles a year, I would guess. However, he might start using it as a daily driver if he makes BD at 60 cents/gallon. His car gets 30 mpg, but it would still cost twice as much to run because of gas prices.
I did a search in the biodieselnow "Biodiesel Vehicles" forum and found this thread:
Bio-D in a 1993 Cummins? Ready to burn?
It basically says that B100 is OK in unmodified Dodge pickups starting with the 1992 model year. 1991 pickups are OK if you replace the nitrile fuel line. But modyinnh posted a couple of links to pertinent research papers where the University of Missouri tested B100 in '91 and '92 Dodge pickups. The first paper says:
This makes it sound like the B100 caused the lift pumps and the injection pump aneroid sensor to fail after about 50K miles. Does anybody know anything about this? I'd be especially interested in anybody who has a '92 or '93 Dodge with lots of biodiesel miles on it.
The paper does not say, but assuming that both trucks put miles on at about the same rate, it looks like they both failed about the same time. Do you suppose they both got a batch of bad fuel which caused the lift pump and aneroid sensor failure? Bear in mind that these tests were done prior to the ANSI D6751 spec, and processing was often inconsistent.
Wouldn't biodiesel degrade a rubber part at the same rate whether it is running or not? If so, number of miles really doesn't matter, it's more like the number of months the part is in contact with B100. So if these parts degrade with B100, perhaps they would fail in a few years, regardless of mileage.
I found an article that talked about the University of Idaho testing on a 1994 Dodge Cummins. I also found the Yellowstone Park Dodge Cummins biodiesel test report, but it's a 1995. My friend says the 92 and 93 trucks are about the same, but that changes were made for 94. I'm not sure what those changes are, so I don't know if tests on 94 and later pickups would be useful or not.
I'd like to give my friend good advice. He's retired and does not have a lot of money to throw around if biodiesel causes him trouble.
I have used biodiesel from about 20% to 100% (B20 to B100) in my Ford F-350 Powerstroke without any fuel-related problems. I ran B30 for about a year to test it in all weather conditions. One night I left my truck out when it was -5. The next morning it started after about 2-3 tries with lots of noises and complaining, but nothing worse than if it were running on regular diesel. I realize this doesn't really mean anything for Dodge, but perhaps you will find it interesting. You can see the details here if you want: 1997 F-350 biodiesel report (long)
Thanks!
Shoebear
I did a search in the biodieselnow "Biodiesel Vehicles" forum and found this thread:
Bio-D in a 1993 Cummins? Ready to burn?
It basically says that B100 is OK in unmodified Dodge pickups starting with the 1992 model year. 1991 pickups are OK if you replace the nitrile fuel line. But modyinnh posted a couple of links to pertinent research papers where the University of Missouri tested B100 in '91 and '92 Dodge pickups. The first paper says:
Starting in 1991, a 1991- 5.9L 6B Cummins engine and in 1992, a 1992- 5.9L 6B Cummins engine have been fueled with 100% neat biodiesel (Schumacher, et al., 1995a,d). The accumulation of wear metals has been noted in the engine lubricating oil, and the engine fuel system material compatibility, fuel economy, power, emissions, and engine durability have been monitored.
Nitrile rubber fuel lines were replaced on the 1991 Dodge because they had deteriorated due to the solvent characteristics of the biodiesel. This was not necessary for the 1992 pickup as Dodge began using an elastomer that was resistant to biodiesel. At approximately 50,000 miles (1991-55,000 miles, 1992- 47,000 miles) a 30% power loss was noted during power testing. The fuel transfer pumps were subsequently replaced. Upon inspection, the diaphragm of each fuel transfer pump had deteriorated. This prevented the fuel transfer pump from delivering a full charge of fuel to the engine. After replacing the pumps, the pickups were retested for power, but were unable to match the performance of earlier power tests. The Bosch VE pump was removed from each pickup and examined by Capitol Diesel, a diesel injection pump repair facility located near Jefferson City, Missouri. They found that the aneroid sensor of each injection pump had failed. The technician found a brown gelatin-like material in the aneroid sensor of each injection pump. The Bosch diesel fuel injectors of both engines were analyzed after approximately 50,000 miles of fueling by Bosch GmbH. Their report stated that no problems were noted and that Bosch approved of the use of 100% biodiesel in their fuel system. Approximately 100,000 miles had been logged on the 1992 pickup when the test was terminated on May 17, 1996. The engine was disassembled and examined by a team of Cummins Engine Company experts during the first week of June 1996. The draft report by Cummins indicated that the engine was wearing at a normal rate.
Nitrile rubber fuel lines were replaced on the 1991 Dodge because they had deteriorated due to the solvent characteristics of the biodiesel. This was not necessary for the 1992 pickup as Dodge began using an elastomer that was resistant to biodiesel. At approximately 50,000 miles (1991-55,000 miles, 1992- 47,000 miles) a 30% power loss was noted during power testing. The fuel transfer pumps were subsequently replaced. Upon inspection, the diaphragm of each fuel transfer pump had deteriorated. This prevented the fuel transfer pump from delivering a full charge of fuel to the engine. After replacing the pumps, the pickups were retested for power, but were unable to match the performance of earlier power tests. The Bosch VE pump was removed from each pickup and examined by Capitol Diesel, a diesel injection pump repair facility located near Jefferson City, Missouri. They found that the aneroid sensor of each injection pump had failed. The technician found a brown gelatin-like material in the aneroid sensor of each injection pump. The Bosch diesel fuel injectors of both engines were analyzed after approximately 50,000 miles of fueling by Bosch GmbH. Their report stated that no problems were noted and that Bosch approved of the use of 100% biodiesel in their fuel system. Approximately 100,000 miles had been logged on the 1992 pickup when the test was terminated on May 17, 1996. The engine was disassembled and examined by a team of Cummins Engine Company experts during the first week of June 1996. The draft report by Cummins indicated that the engine was wearing at a normal rate.
The paper does not say, but assuming that both trucks put miles on at about the same rate, it looks like they both failed about the same time. Do you suppose they both got a batch of bad fuel which caused the lift pump and aneroid sensor failure? Bear in mind that these tests were done prior to the ANSI D6751 spec, and processing was often inconsistent.
Wouldn't biodiesel degrade a rubber part at the same rate whether it is running or not? If so, number of miles really doesn't matter, it's more like the number of months the part is in contact with B100. So if these parts degrade with B100, perhaps they would fail in a few years, regardless of mileage.
I found an article that talked about the University of Idaho testing on a 1994 Dodge Cummins. I also found the Yellowstone Park Dodge Cummins biodiesel test report, but it's a 1995. My friend says the 92 and 93 trucks are about the same, but that changes were made for 94. I'm not sure what those changes are, so I don't know if tests on 94 and later pickups would be useful or not.
I'd like to give my friend good advice. He's retired and does not have a lot of money to throw around if biodiesel causes him trouble.
I have used biodiesel from about 20% to 100% (B20 to B100) in my Ford F-350 Powerstroke without any fuel-related problems. I ran B30 for about a year to test it in all weather conditions. One night I left my truck out when it was -5. The next morning it started after about 2-3 tries with lots of noises and complaining, but nothing worse than if it were running on regular diesel. I realize this doesn't really mean anything for Dodge, but perhaps you will find it interesting. You can see the details here if you want: 1997 F-350 biodiesel report (long)
Thanks!
Shoebear
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 93
From: Richmond, VA
Thanks -- I found this very interesting.
The bio-diesel apparently caused the lift pump to fail -- not surpirising -- and the the "AFC" diaphragm to fail. I find that very surprising, as it should not have been coming into contact with fuel at all??
These are both pretty minor problems, and neither are very expensive to repair, even if you consider them to be wear items when using Bio-Diesel.
I do not think that a "bad batch" would have caused either of these problems as the deterioration of the rubber compounds happens over time when there is contact with the methyl compounds. If one makes ethyl esthers (harder and more expensive in most cases) instead, I believe that this is not a problem at all.
94 & up trucks have a different fuel transfer and injector pump, by the way.
The key, of course, is to keep the FFA's and glycerine out of the tank -- in other words, make sure that you are making good biodiesel.
The bio-diesel apparently caused the lift pump to fail -- not surpirising -- and the the "AFC" diaphragm to fail. I find that very surprising, as it should not have been coming into contact with fuel at all??
These are both pretty minor problems, and neither are very expensive to repair, even if you consider them to be wear items when using Bio-Diesel.
I do not think that a "bad batch" would have caused either of these problems as the deterioration of the rubber compounds happens over time when there is contact with the methyl compounds. If one makes ethyl esthers (harder and more expensive in most cases) instead, I believe that this is not a problem at all.
94 & up trucks have a different fuel transfer and injector pump, by the way.
The key, of course, is to keep the FFA's and glycerine out of the tank -- in other words, make sure that you are making good biodiesel.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Thanks for the reply. It's nice to know that both items are inexpensive and easy to replace. Suppose the original parts have nitrile (or other natural) rubber parts that were attacked by the biodiesel. I wonder if the replacement parts that you would buy today have been updated with synthetic rubber parts? In other words, perhaps you would only need to replace them once?
I couldn't speak to that, since I'm not a Cummins guy.
Right. The more I think about this, the more I really wonder if the fuel quality was to blame. Perhaps not a single bad batch, but perhaps fuel consistently contaminated with small-moderate amounts of glycerol, soaps, methanol, etc. Remember, these tests were done in the mid-90's -- about 10 years ago -- and I think the fuel processing state of the art was pretty primative back then. I only started hearing about washing fuel maybe 3-4 years ago, and only in the past year or two have homebrew people commonly known that they need to elevate the oil/methoxide mix temperature while the reaction takes place. The appleseed reactor does this and supposedly makes fuel that meets the ANSI D-6751 standard.
The aneroid sensor had a "a brown gelatin-like material" in it. This sounds like soapy glycerol to me -- a substance that might easily contaminate fuel made by early methods.
Another thing is that if biodiesel is going to attack a rubber part, it usually does so fairly rapidly, and the part usually fails within a few months to a year. The UM trucks apparently went at least a few years before failing. So this also makes me think that maybe the real culprit was a steady buildup of "glop" from sub-standard fuel.
Hmmmm . . .
I find that very surprising, as [the "AFC" diaphragm] should not have been coming into contact with fuel at all??
The key, of course, is to keep the FFA's and glycerine out of the tank -- in other words, make sure that you are making good biodiesel.
The aneroid sensor had a "a brown gelatin-like material" in it. This sounds like soapy glycerol to me -- a substance that might easily contaminate fuel made by early methods.
Another thing is that if biodiesel is going to attack a rubber part, it usually does so fairly rapidly, and the part usually fails within a few months to a year. The UM trucks apparently went at least a few years before failing. So this also makes me think that maybe the real culprit was a steady buildup of "glop" from sub-standard fuel.
Hmmmm . . .
Adminstrator-ess
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,594
Likes: 19
From: New Holland, PA
I think the problem in the AFC was due to the biodiesel attacking the seal around the AFC pin. That's the only way any kind of gunk could have gotten in there. I don't know if there are other seals in the VE pump that are vulnerable to bio but it sure seems like that one was.
It doesn't seem to me like there are any insurmountable problems, but I would definitely change the lift pump early on before it dissolved.
It doesn't seem to me like there are any insurmountable problems, but I would definitely change the lift pump early on before it dissolved.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,312
Likes: 1,063
From: Commerce, OK
B100 has a tendancy to disolve any gunk that is in your fuel system and transport it downline. This could be the source of the gelled stuff mentioned in the article. Since Bosch approves B100 in it's fuel systems, then replaceing the fuel hoses and the lift pump with B100 resistant parts should be sufficient. Everything else I've heard about Biodiesel is positive for lubrication of injector pumps and pollution except for NOX if I'm not mistaken.
Biodiesel is CO2 neutral since as much CO2 is removed by the plant/animal producing the oil as is put back in combustion. This assumes you put any stock in global warming claims which I do not.
Edwin
Biodiesel is CO2 neutral since as much CO2 is removed by the plant/animal producing the oil as is put back in combustion. This assumes you put any stock in global warming claims which I do not.
Edwin
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
From: MA USA
I have been running B100 for 4 years now but only in warm weather. So maybe 7 months each year for 4 years. I have not had any problems yet except one time I had too much bio in my tank and it was -18 degs F out and it gelled.
Dean
Dean
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
T & T
3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007
10
Apr 22, 2007 01:33 AM
Teachwood
3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007
17
Dec 11, 2004 01:34 PM