Hello Isaac Zackary,
Interesting idea. Pusher trailers have been done, so this should be possible. For emissions, you might consider adding a turbo and not turning up the fuel - no smoke, and really complete combustion to knock down the particulates and HC emissions. Add the water to knock down the NOx and you may not need the other stuff. Getting the new emissions gear to work right on such an old engine would be non-trivial, and probably more expensive than buying a wrecked donor car that has a newer engine with all the right bits already in a workable system.
If you do the math on the trips you take per year, biodiesel may be an inexpensive enough upgrade to further reduce the impact.
Do note that whatever method you choose, you will likely use a bit more fuel per mile with the pusher than just driving the diesel car as-is, given that the combination will be heavier than the car. YMMV.
As for emulsifying the fuel, the US Military did a lot of the work for you already. Search up "FRF" or "Fire Resistant Fuel". No actual name for the emulsifier, but enough information on the primary ingredient type to allow evaluating commercial surfactants for usage. ~10% water mix. Note: this *will* cause major issues in cold weather with line, injector and filter plugging. If you want to go on trips in the winter with this setup, you'll need a block heater, fuel line heater, fuel tank heater, etc. Basically adopt the same techniques that the Waste Veggie Oil folks use - have a second small tank of correct-for-weather straight petro-diesel for cold starts and shutdowns, coolant-heated lines and tank, etc. Don't switch the supply and return lines at the same time on shutdown - switch the supply first, run a while to purge the lines, then switch the return. Want to keep the petro-diesel clean.
Final report on the original FRF study.
More recent report, working on JP-8 version, referencing above.
Here's a later, much more comprehensive paper that appears to have the formulas, etc. in it.
Hello oil pan 4,
Quote:
|
A tiny amount of water will ruin the injectors and fuel pump.
|
The US Military only partially agrees with you - at least if we're talking emulsified water rather than free water.
I risk telling someone who has a heck of a lot more experience than I do with Stanadyne pumps how to suck eggs, to mangle a metaphor, with the following digressions. Please excuse if you already know all this.
If you've got countering info, I'd love to see links. Always interested in learning more!
Note: military usage is of course different than civilian usage, but digging around in the reports can yield some very useful information. Their idea of "acceptable" MTBF is on its face not something one would accept, but at least their work is really well documented and quite thorough. The appendices are excellent sources of rabbit holes of papers to go down, as well as lots of details that can give one a way to well exceed their MTBF and/or performance minimums.
Notable information from the appendices of that last report: After a 500-hour test of 10% water/6% emulsifier/balance JP-8 fuel in a Stanadyne rotary fuel pump - the type used in GM 6.2 and 6.5 IDI diesel engines, the test results were consistent with previous JP-8 testing: no fuel system failures and all injectors in good condition. A 15,000 mile HMMWV test at avg 30.5mph with a 6.5T engine had no fuel system failures and all injectors in good condition. They did find high return fuel piston wear as a cause for concern, though, which they attributed to lots of changes in throttle position during the mileage accumulation vs the 500-hour "on a stand" test.
As an addendum,
here's one of several papers the military put together about Stanadyne pumps and JP-8, fuel lubricity, etc.