Denali wrote:Great replies..thanks to all..
I used the word "diesel" in the broad sense following somewhat the loose terminology being used by the manufacturers. I think the service and repair, when needed, could turn into a nightmare. especially in a remote location. In a tough SHTF situation in a remote location, a low compression carb equipped mogas powered engine in an experimental seems to give the most flexibility and least number of headaches.
Funny, I was at an airshow today and talking to a guy at the NTSB table. He personally owns an old Bonanza with a 6 cylinder fuel injected engine. One of the injectors went bad while flying over water in Alaska. He made it to Ketchikan, engine stumbling all the way, running it rich, and it scared the hell out of him he said. It turned out to be mosquito or something in the gas that had been in the tanks for a long time . It caused clogging of the injector. This gentleman was an NTSB guy that has investigated a lot of GA crashes. I spent about 45 minutes at the table learning a lot and getting the BeeJesus scared out of me.
YMMV.
Couple of thoughts before quickly dismissing fuel injection. There was a previous post on BCP of someone that found debris in their carburetor bowl; the difference was a complete loss of power rather than a rough running "5" cylinder engine. While a carb is simple, so is the continuous flow fuel injection in most aircraft engines and neither system is fail/fool proof, so it may not be accurate to assume the fuel injection is more likely to fail. And if it does, is it more likely to have a complete power loss? I'm not an engine guy, so not really trying to say one way or the other, just food for thought.
c170pete wrote:Zzz wrote:I heard Volkswagen is bringing one to market in the US soon. [emoji48]
Grrrr... Freakin great car, my '14 Passat TDI. It will be anyway until CARB castrates it with a software patch.
I thought my 09 Jetta TDI was a great car until VW denied warranty coverage for the high pressure fuel pump that recently exploded. Only a $6k repair bill. Turns out in a random sampling of diesel from gas stations (by the NTSB), 6.2% of the sampled stations had fuel that fails to meet lubricity specs (<520 um), so when the test of the fuel in my car came back at 523 um, they denied covered because of contamination. To which I say, of course the fuel is contaminated, it has a few million tiny pieces of metal that used to be my fuel pump in it. 4 weeks into the saga and counting, but I guess they have bigger issues to worry about than 1 loyal customer. Sorry, I digress. This rant is related to this post only in that if the fuel does need additives, the cost is relatively low when you factor in the improved efficiency. Does that make it not BC suitable, i don't know, but combined with the cheaper fuel and improved efficiency, cost wise you'll still be way ahead even if you do use additives.