Vetter Fuel Challenges

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

The Hayes Diesel was advertised once at $19-20k; compare to the gas version. I did price a 900cc 3 cyl. Kubota diesel and the dealer quoted $1800.

There is no close comparison here comparing the cost of a limited production, single-purposed, diesel motorcycle designed, built and sold in numbers below one thousand, military contracted to deliver to a finite customer group over a specified short period of time, to an off-the-shelf production diesel engine that one can purchase and then do his or her own assembly and modification to build a cheaper bike. And we should remember that the Hayes bike came in as the low bidder to the U.S. Navy by a long shot for a desired diesel motorcycle, and that if Kubota had a way to have made a pile of money and meet the specs required by the Navy, they would have likely put together a package for a motorcycle engine and offered that engine to bidders or would have bid themselves with a superior design or lower price, or both than what HDT offered.

Looking at the specs of each engine, the Hayes diesel looks to me far superior in just about every way for a mid-sized mc except refinement, because that Hayes diesel is a real clatter box with no pilot injection. The Kubota is larger, heavier, more cylinders, liquid cooled, far slower revving, and around 9-10 fewer peak horses. They are both NA, but much different beyond that, and while the Kubota provides a possibility for a self-made bike that is much more reasonable from a price standpoint, if the HD bike had ever sold retail, one can't use that price figure proposed as a limited production vehicle to make a guess at what such a product would sell for as a mass production vehicle, a.k.a. a Kawasaki-sold bike. My guess is that not only is the HD a superior engine for a bike, but could also be less costly than the Kubota made in equal production runs, all else being equal.

The big spec that stick out is that the Hayes 667 single revs well over 6000 RPM, nearly as high as the rev limit on my gas-powered bike or typical car and peak hp over 30, whereas the larger, more cylinder, heavier Kubota reaches peak hp at or about 3200, which indicates its rev limit is far lower and would be much more piggish as an mc engine, and likely no more economical.

[Grant-53]

The Enfield is a fine engine that does run at a much higher rpm than a typical industrial engine. As for economy the Kubota engine is used in the Centurion kit car. One such build featured in other posts broke 200 mpg at the Green Grand Prix a few years ago. As for manufacturing costs there are a number of factors that influence finished selling price. If one is looking for a smooth cruiser then a triple is a good choice, see Triumph bikes. For more throttle response on a canyon carver a lighter, higher revving engine is preferred. Gearing will match the torque band to vehicle weight and drag.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

The Enfield is a fine engine that does run at a much higher rpm than a typical industrial engine. As for economy the Kubota engine is used in the Centurion kit car. One such build featured in other posts broke 200 mpg at the Green Grand Prix a few years ago. As for manufacturing costs there are a number of factors that influence finished selling price. If one is looking for a smooth cruiser then a triple is a good choice, see Triumph bikes. For more throttle response on a canyon carver a lighter, higher revving engine is preferred. Gearing will match the torque band to vehicle weight and drag.

I wonder how close an off-road, EPA-certified diesel engine is to meeting the requirements for an on-road motorcycle? I know motorcycles have much relaxed standards, overall, as compared to autos and light pickups, but I wonder specifically as it relates to PM and NOx (the two big diesel pollutants) how hard it would be to certify one of these Kubota's if a manufacturer took the notion of selling a Kubota bike as a production vehicle. I know that off-road equipment are going through tougher standards at this time, i.e. going to particulate filters and ULSD fuel, so I would say whether the current Kubota is at this standard or not at this particular time would have some bearing on it; and then there is the issue of NOx, which requires SCR for most applications. I don't know whether off-road applications will ever require this extensive NOx reduction or not, or even if MC on-road vehicles would ever need to get down to that ridiculous .07 gram level or not, but it doesn't seem economically feasible for either application to me.

I would think in either case, with a strict EPA certification in place and a prospect of a production diesel motorcycle; one cylinder would be far cheaper and more simple than multiple cylinders, since common rail would likely be a pre requisite, and a single cylinder wouldn't need a central fuel management system, because their only managing for one cylinder.

[sendler]

Diesels are filthy. We finally got rid of two strokes. Let's not bring back the smokers. This is a step in the wrong direction.
.
http://transportpolicy.net/index.php...les:_Emissions
.

[Grant-53]

Corning Inc. has a plant near here in Erwin, NY that make the substrates for the diesel catalytic converters. Clean diesels and clean 2 strokes are being built for a variety of applications. Check the EPA specifications for each class. GE has been working on converting diesel locomotive engines to natural gas. Bus fleets in northern Pennsylvania are using natural gas as well. There is a public natural gas fueling station in Sayre, PA.

As for cost of producing an engine there are several factors involved. Tooling, materials, and labor figure in along with the price-volume levels. Would the cost of complex dies for aluminum casting or cylinder wall coatings be more than an injector system? Only your engineers know for sure. The use of indirect injection may mitigate the need for a balance shaft at the price of a lower combustion ratio. It will be exciting to see what develops.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by sendler

Diesels are filthy. We finally got rid of two strokes. Let's not bring back the smokers. This is a step in the wrong direction.
.
EU: Motorcycles: Emissions - Transportpolicy.net
.

Yeah. Here it goes. I've seen this before at lots of pro electric sites and forums and from pro-electric trollers commenting at new engine article comment sections. Time for a rant. Pro electric folks are hurting their own causes by disregarding other technologies and making absolute statements that are over simplified and not full truths. I root for electric technologies too, but railing against other technologies reveals a bias and is counter productive to their own cause.

I can't see the point of eliminating an entire class of alternative technologies or engine combustion types from consideration for the future of transportation. If a type, class, or technology is inferior to others or another, then it'll lose out on it's own lack of merit without the need to exaggerate weaknesses. So what is the motivation behind so many pro electric folks pushing against compression-ignition technologies as a future alternative moving forward and singling diesels out even beyond other ICE technologies and exaggerating negatives or adding in absolutes that are not full truths?

For instance, labeling diesels as "filthy" is only a partial truth, and of course, is relative. Diesels tend to have emission profiles that are superior to spark-ignition with respect to hydrocarbons and CO; but tend to have a tougher time dealing with PM and NOx, especially the latter, since it's a byproduct of lean combustion. With respect to CO, a modern diesel will fail as a suicide vehicle of choice for carbon monoxide poisoning but will work with just fine with a production spark-ignition vehicle.

Moreover, diesels can be run on pure vegetable oil derived fuel, which has the prospect of leaving them emission free, save NOx, and there is a good argument against how "bad" NOx is to public health, since NOx has to combine with other compounds in the air (compounds not emitted by diesels) to create smog; and then lastly, there is lots of work being done by engine manufacturers researching different combustion process possibilities that is leaning more towards a sort of spark-ignition / compression-ignition hybrid of an engine that could conceivably run on either type of fuel, but would technically be at least partly "diesel", since diesel doesn't designate the fuel type, but rather how it ignites combustion. Mazda is expected to bring one or more of these to market soon, but we can already see the result of this work today. Spark-ignition engines are becoming more diesel like in their designs, and diesel engines are becoming more spark-ignition like, being built lighter, lower compression, and higher revving; but if all consumers automatically disregarded ICE engine technologies today, and started assuming we should go 100% in only one direction, i.e. electric propulsion, and then all engineering halted on other possibilities for better future products using other technologies, then that would or could be a huge cost and loss to society. And statements like "diesels are filthy" is not a statement based on anything real; just a statement used to win a debate to support one's favored technology at the expense of facts, or possibly, a better future.

[sendler]

One by one all of the major car manufacturers are abandoning their diesel offerings because of the complexity of the engine controls and the chemical plant that must be installed in the exhaust system to try to tame the emissions to a level that gas cars easily meet. Reliably. And in the real world. Not just once in a while in the lab. I work as a mechanic at a Mercedes dealer. We build some of the most advanced diesel cars in the world. They are so unreliable for check engine lights that I would never recommend them to anyone. Way too complex. You think you can fit those trap oxidizers and chemistry sets onto a motorcycle?

[jkv357]

Originally Posted by sendler

One by one all of the major car manufacturers are abandoning their diesel offerings because of the complexity of the engine controls and the chemical plant that must be installed in the exhaust system to try to tame the emissions to a level that gas cars easily meet. Reliably. And in the real world. Not just once in a while in the lab. I work as a mechanic at a Mercedes dealer. We build some of the most advanced diesel cars in the world. They are so unreliable for check engine lights that I would never recommend them to anyone. Way too complex. You think you can fit those trap oxidizers and chemistry sets onto a motorcycle?

That's surprising.

MB has been building diesel autos long before anyone even considered it was feasible (in the U.S. anyway).

You'd think if anyone could get it right they could.

[sendler]

It is just too complex to keep everything working well enough to be clean. Not worth it for passenger vehicles. A vestige of a fading legacy technology. Way too much equipment to pack onto a motorcycle.

[Grant-53]

The cost of meeting emission standards was never easy. Trucks, farm tractors, and construction equipment are the primary use of diesel engines. Worked selling parts for fifteen years between NAPA and Case IH. I built and raced slot cars starting in 1966 so I am familiar with electric motors and got a two year degree in Computer Integrated Manufacturing. What gets measured gets improved. If emissions is the weakness of automotive diesels then battery technology is the weakness of electric vehicles. Vegetable oil fuels benefit from additives and are renewable but not pollution free. Motorcycles are most sensitive to power to weight comparisons. Right now I am looking at rebuilding a pair of 50cc Honda scooters for my boys. I will look at improving torque, reducing smoke, and streamlining on these antique (30 yr) machines.

gregsfc: If you have the chance ask Fred Hayes or one of the other riders what the price and availability of a diesel crate engine would be. My guess is around $6000 USD delivered. Hope you have a good experience at Mid Ohio.