[ Shomi-1 @ 14.01.2011. 20:36 ] @
Kod nas u Crnoj Gori nema vise D2 dizela, pa me interesuje treba li da se dodaju aditivi, ili ulje kako neki kazu za auta koja su trosila D2? Na primjer za VW motore 95-98 godiste.

pozdrav
[ goat @ 14.01.2011. 21:02 ] @
pomenuti motori koriste gorivo čije specifikacije odgovaraju eurodizelu (balkanskom)....
[ bakara @ 14.01.2011. 21:05 ] @
Ako je mogao da ide na loz ulje sto ne bi na euro dizel...?
[ vaske2 @ 14.01.2011. 21:17 ] @
Drugar poseduje Golfa 1 1,6d u koga zadnjih 5 god. nije sipao nista drugo osim Euro dizela.Bos pumpa jos uvek nije otvarana...
[ Shomi-1 @ 14.01.2011. 21:42 ] @

Predpostavljao sam da ne treba. Nego znam neke sto pricaju da treba, jer je jedan masniji, drugi suvlji, posniji itd :-) Cak znam jednog bosistu sto kaze da treba ulje da se dodaje :-)

[ vladd @ 14.01.2011. 22:29 ] @
Ima manje parafina, sumpora, katrana i teskih produkata destilacije..sve se to moze dodati, pa i malo zemlje, da bi se dobio losiji kvalitet i uvecala necistoca goriva.

Ali, neki dokoni sammozvani(nicim izazvano) majstori, moraju da ispiraju usta, sa necim, recimo fantasticnim poznavanjem nekih nebitnih stvari, a najcesce pogresno...

Samo je bitno sa kakvim "autoritetom" i stavom, bupnu glupost.

Poz
[ coveceee @ 15.01.2011. 15:58 ] @
valjda je logicno da ako je gorivo cistije da moze samo bolje da bude, isto misljenje delim i po pitanju plina mada sa komsijom nikako da se objasnim jer je on pristalica toga da koristi ulje u autu iskljucivo namenjeno za automobile koji koriste gas sto po meni nema nikakve svrhe ako je motor ok a dok sam vozio dizelasa i dok je postojao obican benzin sipao sam malo obicnog u naftu i nisam siguran ali mislim na 10lit d2 1lit obicnog i tako vozio zimi.
[ vladd @ 15.01.2011. 16:14 ] @
Jeste, ali nadji ti logiku, kada polupismeni "experti" krenu da prave urbane legende, proveravajuci gorivo medj "iskusnim" prsticima

Poz
[ Milojkovic @ 15.01.2011. 17:22 ] @
Aditivi ne mogu da skode pod uslovom da se koriste po upustvu.E sad koliko pomazu pitanje je za razmatranje.
Ono jeftino smece sto se prodaje po mega marketima mislim da treba izbegavati.
Kvalitetan aditiv mora imati sertifikat neke ozbiljne kuce kao recimo TUV ili tome slicno.
[ vladd @ 15.01.2011. 17:29 ] @
Aditivi mogu da skode, ako se nepotrebno koriste, ili samo na osnovu rekla-kazala.

S obzirom da vise kostaju nego sto pomazu, pozeljno je dobro se informisati o sastavu, ogranicenjima, nacinu koriscenja i dejstva, pa onda donositi odluku.

S obzirom da je dobar deo informacija prikriven, da je sastav vrlo retko dostupan, da ne postoji korelacija delovanja aditiva medjusobno, za prosecnog korisnika je bolje da ga ne koristi.

Poz
[ Milojkovic @ 17.01.2011. 22:05 ] @
Ne bih se slozio sa tom konstatacijom.
Recimo kvalitetan aditiv za gorivo kada se koristi kako je propisano je uvek bolja solucija nego voznja bez njega.
Licno u svoje automobile i motor sipam godinama aditive i nisam imao bas nikakvih problema, a razlika se oseti kada vozim bez aditiva.
[ vladd @ 17.01.2011. 23:35 ] @
A aditiv koji koristis za gorivo je?

Za siscenje instalacije, za nesmrzavanje dizela, za ciscenje dizni, za uklanjanje gljivica...?

To su vec cetiri razlicita aditiva, da ne racunamo na neke "carobne", sto smanjuju potrosnju, sredjuju molekule goriva...

Poz
[ Milojkovic @ 17.01.2011. 23:51 ] @
Koristim Motulove aditive i Winsove aditive i perfektno su se pokazali.
Motulov aditiv koristim za ciscenje sistema koji koristim u njihovom uredjaju za ciscenje a moze se sipati i u rezervoar.
Od Winsa koristim takodje aditiv za ciscenje i za povecanje oktanskog i cetanskog broja , aditiv za substituciju olova ( za motocikl) a za dizele se pojavio i novi aditiv sa cerijumom koji se odlicno pokazao za DPF filtere.Preko zime sipam aditive protiv stinjavanja dizel goriva, za motornu testeru koristim Brigsov aditiv za stabilizaciju smese.
[ vladd @ 18.01.2011. 11:27 ] @
Eto, ni jedan od pomenutih ne sluzi eventualnom "prilagodjenju" euro dizela "starijim" motorima, o cemu je u stvari tema, odnosno pitanje.

Uglavnom su abrazivi, ukljucujuci i zvucni (cerijum) je u stvari jak abraziv(cerijum oksid), koji sluzi za ljustenje naslaga, uz ostale osnove, razredivace(naftalene...)

Ni jedan naveden nije primenljiv da bi "odgovorio" na pitanje.

A ciscenje sistema je posebna prica, to se radi prema potrebi, a ne konstantno.

Pogodnost aditiva za DPF filtere je iluzoran podatak...za ovu temu

Poz
[ Milojkovic @ 18.01.2011. 23:41 ] @
Umesto aditiva za starije dizele u euro dizel neka dospe dvotaktnog ulja i resice problem.Nece mu skoditi da povremeno dolije i neki aditiv za ciscenje.
[ coveceee @ 19.01.2011. 07:18 ] @
ma ne trebaju coveku nikakvi aditivi niti ulja nego garaza.
[ Shomi-1 @ 19.01.2011. 17:26 ] @
Kakva bi to kazna bila svaki put na pumpi sipaj ulje prije, drz ne daj...pa malo zamastis ruke :-)

Evo sta kazu iz VW:

Citat:
Kolege iz Nemačke su nam prosledili Vaš upit vezan za vrstu goriva.

Po preporuci i tumačenju Bosch-a, savremena Euro dizel goriva imaju iste ili čak bolje mazive karakteristike od D2. Čak se ne zahteva korišćenje aditiva. Većina aditiva ne škodi motorima ali je pitanje koliko zaista koriste.

Uvreženo je mišljenje da se neki delovi slabije podmazuju i da je to razlog kvara na pumpi ili brizgaljkama dok kolege iz Boscha smatraju da su ti kvarovi zapravo posledica dotrajalosti i da Euro dizel samo može da korisiti i produži vek motora i komponenti.

Za dodatna pitanja smo Vam na raspolaganju.
[ Zarko Silic @ 19.01.2011. 17:54 ] @
Ja bih umesto aditiva radije sipao parfem.




P.S. Bar ce lepo da mirisi u garazi
[ goat @ 19.01.2011. 21:50 ] @
načitah se raznoraznih g..po..i ovde na ovu temu...

..... koje je to masno i posno dizel gorivo!?.... ko nije spavao na časovima hemije u osnovnoj školi (ako je upošte i išao u OŠ) zna pogubna svojstva sumpora na metal....kakvo "bre" podmazivanje pumpe dizel gorivom!?

PS.
1. ulje za dvotaktne motore u dizel gorivu je veoma korisno pogotovo za dizne (brizgaljke)... nih tako lepo podmaže da će i nepismen čovek pimetiti i naučiti šta je to "koksovanje"
2. aditivi (afrodizijaci) su sitne gluposti koje deluju samo u glavi čoveka, dobri su i jaki kao "andol"
[ etjen @ 19.01.2011. 22:06 ] @
ne bih baš sve aditive stavljao u isti koš.

Meni Andol često pomaže :)

Ja koristim Wurthov aditiv za common rail sisteme, tvrdim da nije placebo efekat.
[ vladd @ 19.01.2011. 22:15 ] @
Jedno su aditivi protiv smrzavanja, ili aditivi za ciscenje sistema goriva ili dizni, od aditiva za "poboljsanje" boljeg goriva.

Pre bi trebalo sipati aditive(i to sve tri vrste) u D2, nego u euro dizel.

A to "masno-posno" je vec retardirana urbana legenda, izazvana necijim razmilsljanjem nakon gajbe piva, koju su, naravno, prihvatili prodavci magle i carobnih vodica, opravdano, za razliku od onih sto preporucuju gluposti, tipa dvotaktola, kao da nikada nisu videli auspuh dvotaktnog motora, i na sta bi licile dizne i izduvni sistem jednog dizelasa nakon koriscenja ove "magije".

Naravno, majstori ulicari zdusno podrzavaju svakakvo zagadjenje motora..mora da se naplati znanje

Poz
[ Goran Mijailovic @ 19.01.2011. 23:10 ] @
Kao sto rekoh ovde u ovoj zakljucanoj temi: http://www.elitesecurity.org/t...-dodaje-dvotaktol-dizel-gorivu

"Izvinjavam se moderatoru ali sam samo zeleo da ostavim ova dva linka, sa stranih foruma kao prilog ovoj temi.

Prvi govori o coveku koji je dodao dvotaktol gorivu i radi se manje vise o pojedinacnom iskustvu, a drugi je rezultat ispitivanja aditiva lubrikanata koji se dodaju gorivu.

Added 2 Cycle Oil, now it's blowing smoke
http://www.thedieselstop.com/f...-now-its-blowing-smoke-188966/

research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177728 "

BTW imam negde .pdf fajl sa rezultatima ispitivanja

Citat:
Lubricity Additive Study Results
The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.




[Ovu poruku je menjao Goran Mijailovic dana 20.01.2011. u 00:20 GMT+1]
[ Zarko Silic @ 19.01.2011. 23:50 ] @
Citat:
Milojkovic:
Nista nece skoditi ako na 50 litara evro dizela dospes 200 ml dvotaktnog ulja.
Godinama to radim na svoja 4 automobila plus traktor i agregat i ama bas nikakvih problema nemam ,dizne su na svima ispravne kao i pumpe .Otkda se pojavio evro dizel sipam ga u sve pa cak i u traktor i nema nikakvih problema naravno u sve dodajem dvotaktno ulje i aditive.



Tvrdnja da dvotaktol koristi dizelasima potice jos sa pocetka osamdesetih (ili kraja sedamdesetih) kada je Madjarski "VOLAN", autotransportno praduzece, nekolicinu svojih vozila na dizel pogon, tretiralo ovom metodom dodavanja ulja u gorivo.

Navodno, kako su tada pisale novine, uspeli su da postignu ustedu u gorivu i da produze radni vek motora. Koliko je verovati "komunistickim pricama" pokazu je i to da je nemacki Bosch strogo zabranio takvu rabotu tako sto je ukinuo garanciju na vozila koja su tretirana dvotaktolom.

Kome verovati? Da li radnickom savetu koji je oformio komisiju za ispitivanje kamiona i autobusa, ili najvecem proizvodjacu dizel sistema na Svetu?

Obzirom na poznate mahinacije vezane za neutralizaciju crvene farbe iz loz ulja uz pomoc raznih kiselina, takodje madjarski specijalitet, ja bih se ipak odlucio za zvanicni stav Boscha.

[Ovu poruku je menjao vladd dana 20.01.2011. u 11:24 GMT+1]
[ Milojkovic @ 19.01.2011. 23:58 ] @
Mislim da Bosh-u nije u interesu dugotrajnost elemenata ubrizgavanja vec profit a njega nema kad se nesto ne kvari ili je znacajno manji kad nesto traje duze .Tako da bih ja ipak verovao Madjarima i njihovom metodu ispitivanja u praksi.
Po istom tom Boshu EGR ventil ne treba iskljucivati , niti je dozvoljeno ukloniti katalizator ali praksa je pokazala da motor sa blokiranim EGR-om traje duplo duze i nema problema a onaj ko slusa BOSH obavezno ima problem sa usisnim ventilima.
[ vladd @ 20.01.2011. 00:00 ] @
Ima tu par stvari za diskusiju, mada je zakljucak da nema potrebe dramiti, bar sto se tice ove teme i konkretnog pitanja.

Prvo, Amsoil je mobilisao svoje laboratorije, mislim da su i kafe kuvarice ofarbane ratnickim bojama, ne bi li pojacali marketing, pa cak i onaj prljavi.

Kao drugo, nije ovde pitanje o bio dizelu ili ULSD gorivu, mada euro dizel ima manje sumpora, i parafina od D2.

Trece, iskrenost raznih namenskih laboratorija smo videli jos u vreme epidemije..znaci, mogu se napraviti ciljna istrazivanja. Ne kazem i netacna, samo se mogu specificno, namenski, osvetliti pojedini(cesto manje bitni) detalji, da bi ukupna slika bila sto iskrivljenija.

Sumpor u sirovoj nafti je jedno od merila kvaliteta, sto vise sumpora, to je nafta manje kvalitetna.

Na dalje, posmatrati samo jedan detalj, osvetljen sa vise strana, nije nesto sto moze i mora biti najbitnije. Kao sto minimalna razlika (ako je ima) u podmazivanju nekih delica sklopa nije najbitnija, ili recimo Amsoilov cuveni test 4 kuglice, koji sluzi vise za diskvalifikaciju protivnika, nego sto realno prikazuje potreban kvalitet ulja za motor(u motoru ima vise kontakata razlicitih metala, celik lezaj ili vodjica, nego kontakata celik-celik, i jos "tackastih", kao sto je slucaj sa kuglicama).

U "starim" dizelima, transpot goriva je solidno prost, ali ne i bez problema. A problemi su stinjavanje goriva, lose rasprsivanje, i stvaranje algi u rezervoaru.

A to, da li ce koji ppm vise sumpora "podmazati" bolje neke delove pumpe(relativno visokog pritiska, ovima sa skoro duplo vecim pritiskom ne smeta), i produziti radni vek za stotinak sati(na 3-4000 radnih sati), mislim da je skoro nebitno.

Sta "drugo" ima da podmazuje, ne znam, osim cevi, filtera...iznutra..

Poz
[ Zarko Silic @ 20.01.2011. 00:11 ] @
Ovo sa EGRom sigurno nije tacno. Enormne kilometraze se beleze samo kod vozila kod kojih sve funcionise po propisanim normama. Ukoliko nesto odstupa od propisanog, racunajuci tu i EGR motor je ugrozen i njegov radni vek se skracuje. Obasko to, sto slabije ide, sto vise trosi i sto vise zagadjuje okolis.
Zatvaranjem EGRa pribegavaju samo oni koji nemaju drugog izlaza (da ne kazem secikese).
[ Milojkovic @ 20.01.2011. 00:18 ] @
Motoru su potrebni ti prljavi izduvni gasovi isto koliko...... da ne kazem sta u dobrom rucku.
Motor koji ne usisava cadj nece imati problema sa kompresijom i trajace mnogo duze nego onaj koji je progutao tonu cadji.
Usisna grana i glava motora kojem je iskljucen egr je uvek perfektno cista za razliku od cadjave i zastopane koja radi sa egr-om.
[ Zarko Silic @ 20.01.2011. 00:40 ] @
Usisna grana je najvise ugrozena ako je na vozilu nesto neispravno. Ugrozene su i druge komponente, ne samo usisna grana. Jedan od dezurnih krivaca je i EGR ali nije jedini. Ne treba mesati neispravan rad EGRa sa funkciom EGRa. To su dva bitno razlicita pojma. Osim toga, postoje agregati kod kojih se, uslovno receno normalan rad, ne moze obezbediti ako se EGR eliminise.
Mnogo pre EGRa na povecanu kolicinu cadji utice neodgovarajuce ulje koje je vlasnik, iz neznanja ili stipsoluka, tokom radnog veka vozila, sipao ne misleci o posledicama.
[ Milojkovic @ 20.01.2011. 00:52 ] @
Uz potpuno pravilno odrzavanje i sa iskljucenim EGR-om motor radi kao sat.Poenta price je sto ljudi samoinicijativno odrade prostu blokadu egr-a sto je greska, ali kad ga majstor odradi softverski i hardverski tu operaciju nece biti problema uopste.
Egr nije stalno u funkciji i na vecini motora se potpuno iskljucuje iznad 2500 obrtaja.Cadj je pogubna za motor i tu joj mesto nije.Ekologiju neka stite tamo gde je prisutno najvece zagadjenje a ne da je forsiraju preko mog dzepa.
[ vladd @ 20.01.2011. 10:32 ] @
EGR je genijalan proizvod, ali za auto industriju.

Prava majstorija sprege birokrate-marketing-inzenjering.

Da su sami inzenjeri zamislili EGR(iz nekog nepoznatog razloga, ekologija je farsa), oni bi deo gasova koji se vraca u usis sigurno dodatno obradili, filtrirali, talog ili krupne cestice negde sproveli...

Toliko fine filtere prave za obican vazduh, koji inace udisemo, a to djubre su pustili direktno, odnosno preko smesnog taloznika, usisnu granu.

Nema tu dobre namere za dugotrajnu ispravnost motora.

Poz
[ Zarko Silic @ 20.01.2011. 10:47 ] @
Kakve su namere ne zelim da tumacim, ali cinjenice su drugacije i govore u "prilog EGRa".

Vozila koja poseduju ovakav sistem prelaze prosecno visestruko vece kilometraze od vozila koja ga nisu posedovala i to je nepobitna cinjenica.

Vozila kod kojih je "zakljucan" EGR ili su pred generalkom, ili imaju nekakav drugi problem koji ce ih do generalke brzo dovesti.

Sve enormne kilometraze koje sam vidjao, a vidjao sam ih u poslednjo dekadi na stotine (verujem da nisam jedini) imaju ispravan "EGR sistem" i obrnuto, gotovo svi sa ugasenim EGRom su "nekoliko sati pred generalkom".

Postoje pojedini tipovi motora, da ne budem tako kategorican, koji su EGR dobili kao bozicni poklon iz marketingskih razloga i kod njih ovakva intervencija zakljucavanja EGRa najverovatnije nece prouzrokovati posledice, ali, ukoliko bih posedovao takvo vozilo, siguran sam da bi gledao da EGR bude u funkciji.
[ vladd @ 20.01.2011. 12:10 ] @
Pa ostalima nije data prilika da se pokazu, mislim na motore bez EGR-a. Administrativne zabrane, ekoloski parametri, su ih izbacili sa ulica. A podatke iz Sibira nemamo.

Delimicno, duzi vek motora se moze pripisati boljoj masinskoj obradi, detaljnijoj konstrukciji(vise analize, testiranja i modelovanja pri konstrukciji), ali su vek znacajno smanjile kojekakve ustede i zamene materijal pri izradi.

Dodatno smanjenje veka je iscedjivanje snage iz malih kubikaza.


Principijelno, uvodjenje nejasnih hemijskih produkata sagorevanja ponovo u sistem, je veoma nepouzdan zahvat, koji ni jedan inzenjer ne bi prihvatio..osim uz ekonomsku prinudu.
Bar su sa SAI sistemom delimicno"oprali" ruke, i resili se ostrih radikala, nepotpunog sagorevanja.

Ali, ionako je to sve prelazni period u eko-zamajavanju, po pitanju produkata sagorevanja najefikasnija je struja, po pitanju ostalog zagadjenja, ne bih spremno tvrdio da su akumulatori zeleni za okolinu, kao i proizvodnja struje...

Koliko vidim, EGR delete je sve popularnija aktivnost..

Poz