Emissions system delete on LT70

[KWood255]

Hi folks, with all the emission control systems on the modern diesels and issues surrounding them, has anyone here seen any delete options? My 55hp Yanmar has not caused me any grief yet, but from what I hear it likely will eventually in the form of emission control. Seems to be many options available for diesel trucks, tractors etc. just wondering if they exist for proactive removal on the Yanmars?

While this may not be accurate, I've heard statements that the emission control features on Tier 3/4 diesels can shorten the engine lifespan by upwards of 40%. I hope that is not realistic. 

[123maxbars]

no help here on the deletion question but my local Yanmar dealer (thats who woodmizer will send you to if you ever need any major work done) told me that if you delete the emissions on one if their engines they will not work on it. Guess a man could still find a diesel mechanic if needed but something to keep in mind. 

[YellowHammer]

Yeah, I asked my Kubota dealer about it and he said the same thing, if I was to get it deleted and brought it in for repair later, he would get fined for not reporting me, and fined even more if he worked on it.  So I just gave up on the idea.  FYI, people have deleted them and gotten about 10 extra Hp.

[Peter Drouin]

So now if you are a dealer and someone does not play by the rules, you have to rat them out.   How sad

[KWood255]

Wow, thanks for the feedback Nathan and Robert. I know they take it serious with "on-road" diesels here but nobody seems to care too much about the other equipment. I'm not surprised to hear of a 10hp gain after a delete, perhaps even more. From what I read, the diesel pickups run much stronger, with improved fuel economy after going on the diet. Mine is still on warranty, so no need to consider it at this point, likewise with my Yanmar for another 18 months. 

[TimW]

no help here on the deletion question but my local Yanmar dealer (thats who woodmizer will send you to if you ever need any major work done) told me that if you delete the emissions on one if their engines they will not work on it. Guess a man could still find a diesel mechanic if needed but something to keep in mind.

The Yanmar dealer mechanics (with their fancy service computers) that worked on my Yanmar with an intermittant sputtering problem throw up there hands after $4500.  I hand my diesel truck mechanic look at it and in 5 minutes he found the problem.  Those computer guys can't find snot without a thrown code!

[YellowHammer]

I would say "if" you got it done, then save all the pieces and parts and put them back on when you sold the mill. 
 
Also, be advise that deleting emissions is a Federal crime, a violation of the Clean Air Act, so don't expect sympathy from a local judge, you'll be working with the Feds.

I'm actually very surprised mechanics are still doing it, it's a good way to lose a lot of money real quick, maybe they don't know that if one of their deleted engines gets "discovered" then the Feds will trace it back to them, and they will be aggressively prosecuted for not only the deletes they have done, but also penalized for the calculated co2 emissions they were responsible from all of their deletes combined, and for every year the engines were in service.  That can add up pretty fast.   

I used to have to run the emission calculations for our experimental engines we ran for the Army, and the Environmental guys don't play.

That's also why the Kubota dealer, who had been my buddy since we were kids, told me not just "no" but "H NO!" when I mentioned it, because as a dealer, they would get fined a hefty amount, potentially in tens of thousands of dollars per delete.  He said it's a non negotiable thing as far as he is concerned.

Have you guys heard of Sinister Diesel?  They used to sell delete programmers and kits, but in 2023 were fined a cool 1$ MILLION.

Here's a link to another who were fined $10 million.  

[KWood255]

Wow, that's crazy. I guess they aren't playing around with this stuff. North of the border doesn't seem as strict...YET, unless you are on a highway. 

Where I struggle to wrap my head around benefits of these emission systems is the extra fuel being burnt so they "run clean". My Kubota tractor goes into regen mode say every 12-15hrs because it idles around the mill yard most of its time. Seldom does the engine work hard...almost never. Then it sits running at 2200rpm for about 15-20 minutes to complete the regen, while doing nothing productive. Seems like a total waste. 

My old skidders with straight stacked 3-53's would be hard pressed to burn 10 gallons a day. Even 5 gallons would have me tired of pulling cables around and climbing into the cab. My tractor will burn 5 gallons just plowing snow from my driveway one time. 2 totally different machines I realize, but the 3-53's have a few more HP and burn much less fuel per hour. That to me sounds more reasonable for emissions reduction. I'm sure there is more of a "science" behind it, but logically it's a difficult argument. 

I have no real intention of a delete on my mill but with your respected responses, that about solidifies the end to my exploration. For now anyway! 

[barbender]

I don't know what metrics the EPA uses other than exhaust emission measurement. Are things like increased fuel consumption and shortened engine lifespan figured into emissions calculations?

For instance, some forestry equipment engines have had their service life halved. An engine that used to get you 20,000 hours will now only go 10,000. How many extra emissions are produced in making another engine, not to mention, how many emissions are produced making the $50K to pay for it? 

[Peter Drouin]

That is what happens when the libel left gets in charge of something.   

[YellowHammer]

They were not in my calculations, I did it by the engine unit, but not by acquisition or production cycle.  

It's a pretty simple process, the type of fuel used whether Diesel, MoGas, Jet A, Jp-8 or whatever is part of the inputs into a Chemical Equilibrium Code, or CEC, which is a detailed chemistry and combustion analysis software program that models the chemical, thermal, and combustion efficiency of an engine, based on measurements of fuel and airflow inputs, exhaust gas temperatures, cylinder head temperatures, pressure ratios whether piston, turbine, turbocharged, and other data, to determine what chemical compounds by volume, weight and species are coming out of the exhaust.   

A very efficient engine, or even an inefficient engine with a catalytic bed, produces mostly non harmful gases, such as water and nitrogen, while a poorly running or non catalytic bed engine produces more harmful carbon emissions and particulates (black soot.). 

The ideal operating condition of an engine to achieve 100% combustion efficiency is called running at "Stoichiometric" or at the ideal, perfect condition to fully combust the compounds in the fuel leading to "perfect" thermal efficiency.  However, almost no engine can operate at full stoichiometric balance becuase that produces temperatures that melt most metals, hence the research into ceramics.  However, the way to reduce temperature in a combustion chamber so as not to melt metal is to increase the fuel flow rate and run rich, which causes the engine to run "off design" at an Equivalence Ratio >1, and so reduces temperatures to where the metals won't melt, but then the combustion efficiency goes down and the byproducts of incomplete combustion become more prevalent.  A catalytic bed causes a reaction of these incompletely combusted compounds and "reduces" or even "oxidizes" them to more favorable ones.  

So when calculating emissions, I had to add up the emissions of each compound, by the pound or by the ton for each of my rocket motor or airbreathing engine test facilities, forward up the command chain and that's how much I was putting in the air.  Since I ran a research facility, I would get waivers. 

However the same thing would apply if I had been asked by the Feds run the numbers on any engine, (I did) calculate the amount and type of emissions, multiply by the hours or minutes of run time, and that's how much that engine polluted the air.  An engine run "on design" would put out very little harmful pollutants, while an engine run off design, or in the case of a diesel "rolling coal" the pollutants added up quickly.  

Considering the average ratio by weight carbon in diesel fuel is about 85%, then a pound of diesel could produce up the .85 pounds of carbon pollutants, in one form or another, or in other words, about 100 pounds of diesel, which is approximately 14 gallons could produce about 85 pounds of carbon gas and soot.  So a poorly performing engine could really throw out some nasty stuff.  

Then it just comes down to punishable threshold and limits. 

[doc henderson]

Carbon fuel combustion produces energy, water and carbon dioxide.  It consumes oxygen and fuel.  Incomplete or inefficient combustion also produces carbon monoxide.  Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water are not flammable, but carbon monoxide is.  it makes sense since it is not fully burned carbon fuel.  Old furnaces needed a good flu or folks could die from CO poisoning.  We found a crack in our pvc flu in a high efficiency boiler.  I was worried about it and they said that the boiler was so efficient, that it was not a big deal.  Of course we fixed it.

[Peter Drouin]

So the answer is to make a metal that won't melt at 100% combustion rate. Then, there is no catalytic bed or in this case no regen. Do I have that right YH?

[YellowHammer]

Essentially, yes, but it needs to also be relatively immune to an oxidizing environment.  Stoichiometric combustion temperatures, depending on fuel can be in the 3,000F range, and considering the melting point of steel is less than that and even aluminum about half, then that means that anything near the combustion zone has to be able to withstand the very high temperature while maintaining its strength such as pistons, piston heads, seals, rings and exhaust systems.  In the case of spark ignited engines, spark plugs must survive, and in the case of jet engines, turbines, turbine vanes, and combustors.  It's very difficult to do while maintaining any kind of engine life, especially considering lubrication must still be delivered and used effectively.  For example, in top fuel dragsters, the engines are run so close to ideal conditions that the spark plugs melt down in the first few hundred RPM off the start line.  They turn to slag.  Pretty cool stuff, and it gives an example of just how hot it can get, and how fast.   

That's why in some chainsaws, Nikasil and chromes are used.  In high-performance military engines, we go to the expensive high temperature materials like Inconel and ceramics.   

Did anyone wonder why a chainsaw that starts to run out of fuel begins to run "better?"  We have all felt it, the engine starts to increase RPM, you can feel the increase in power and the engine starts to scream and burn through the log.  You can actually feel the increased heat coming off, and just about at that time, the fuel is gone and the engine dies.  That is because the chainsaw is running out of fuel and so is running closer to ideal condition, because remember that engines are adjusted rich to not melt.  It is not running "lean" although that's what people call it, it simply is not running rich anymore as it runs low on fuel but in actuality is operating closer "ideal" conditons, until at the end when it literally runs out of gas.  As the fuel flow rate goes down, the engine runs "less rich", and so is running closer to an equivalence ratio of 1, ideal stoichiometric conditions, and combustion efficiency is going up but so are the temps and the engine can't take it long or it will melt.  It also shows how much power is being underutilized by running an engine "rich off design" due to the inherent properties of the materials it is made of.  As materials science gets better and can withstand higher temps, the engines can produce lots more power with much less toxic emission in the exact same package.

So there are two sides to the stoichiometric condition, and is best described as "lean" or "rich" but is called equivalence ratio.  If the equivalence ratio is equal to one, the combustion is ideal or stoichiometric, and so results in max power, max temps, and so minimum combustion products.  If it is < 1, the combustion is lean with excess air, and if it is >1, then there is excess fuel.  Here is the catch, if someone wants to run an engine with an equivalence ratio of less than 1 or truly lean, to "save fuel" or increase economy while keeping the combustion temperatures down then there is more air than fuel. So the excess oxygen in the air that isn't being used in the combustion process goes through the combustion chamber exactly like excess oxygen in a an oxy/acetetalyne cutting torch and makes the metal disappear. It is called an "oxidizing" environment, and just like when you hit the oxygen lever on the cutting torch and the metal melts, the same thing happens in an engine. Too much oxygen in the air, the engine metal "oxidizes" and see ya, bye bye, pile of slag.

So the only way to keep the engine in one piece is to be on the rich side, with equivalence ratio greater than 1 to burn all the oxygen in the air, and since all the oxygen is consumed, the engine, even though it is getting more fuel, actually runs cooler because it is operating off the ideal stoichiometric equivalence ratio of 1.  That is called a "reducing" environment, and is like when a cutting torch is adjusted fuel rich or with a "reducing flame" it's actually hard to cut metal, and that is also why a reducing flame is used when brazing.  So the preferred environment for an engine is fuel rich, cooler temps, and no excess oxygen.   

Anyway, another problem is that running fuel rich decreases fuel economy.

   
             

[customsawyer]

Ole WDH would be proud of you YH. We might have to change your name to "Big Words Jr."

[YellowHammer]

Thanks, that is a great compliment!  

[barbender]

I was going to say, that Robert is way smarter than he looks!😊😊

[YellowHammer]

Thanks, but I'm just an ol Alabama country boy.

[Peter Drouin]

Thanks, YH, now I know what not to do and melt my sparkplugs in the Hot Rod.

I bet you're good at making good moonshine too.

[JD Guy]

Essentially, yes, but it needs to also be relatively immune to an oxidizing environment.  Stoichiometric combustion temperatures, depending on fuel can be in the 3,000F range, and considering the melting point of steel is less than that and even aluminum about half, then that means that anything near the combustion zone has to be able to withstand the very high temperature while maintaining its strength such as pistons, piston heads, seals, rings and exhaust systems.  In the case of spark ignited engines, spark plugs must survive, and in the case of jet engines, turbines, turbine vanes, and combustors.  It's very difficult to do while maintaining any kind of engine life, especially considering lubrication must still be delivered and used effectively.  For example, in top fuel dragsters, the engines are run so close to ideal conditions that the spark plugs melt down in the first few hundred RPM off the start line.  They turn to slag.  Pretty cool stuff, and it gives an example of just how hot it can get, and how fast. 

That's why in some chainsaws, Nikasil and chromes are used.  In high-performance military engines, we go to the expensive high temperature materials like Inconel and ceramics. 

Did anyone wonder why a chainsaw that starts to run out of fuel begins to run "better?"  We have all felt it, the engine starts to increase RPM, you can feel the increase in power and the engine starts to scream and burn through the log.  You can actually feel the increased heat coming off, and just about at that time, the fuel is gone and the engine dies.  That is because the chainsaw is running out of fuel and so is running closer to ideal condition, because remember that engines are adjusted rich to not melt.  It is not running "lean" although that's what people call it, it simply is not running rich anymore as it runs low on fuel but in actuality is operating closer "ideal" conditons, until at the end when it literally runs out of gas.  As the fuel flow rate goes down, the engine runs "less rich", and so is running closer to an equivalence ratio of 1, ideal stoichiometric conditions, and combustion efficiency is going up but so are the temps and the engine can't take it long or it will melt.  It also shows how much power is being underutilized by running an engine "rich off design" due to the inherent properties of the materials it is made of.  As materials science gets better and can withstand higher temps, the engines can produce lots more power with much less toxic emission in the exact same package.

So there are two sides to the stoichiometric condition, and is best described as "lean" or "rich" but is called equivalence ratio.  If the equivalence ratio is equal to one, the combustion is ideal or stoichiometric, and so results in max power, max temps, and so minimum combustion products.  If it is < 1, the combustion is lean with excess air, and if it is >1, then there is excess fuel.  Here is the catch, if someone wants to run an engine with an equivalence ratio of less than 1 or truly lean, to "save fuel" or increase economy while keeping the combustion temperatures down then there is more air than fuel. So the excess oxygen in the air that isn't being used in the combustion process goes through the combustion chamber exactly like excess oxygen in a an oxy/acetetalyne cutting torch and makes the metal disappear. It is called an "oxidizing" environment, and just like when you hit the oxygen lever on the cutting torch and the metal melts, the same thing happens in an engine. Too much oxygen in the air, the engine metal "oxidizes" and see ya, bye bye, pile of slag.

So the only way to keep the engine in one piece is to be on the rich side, with equivalence ratio greater than 1 to burn all the oxygen in the air, and since all the oxygen is consumed, the engine, even though it is getting more fuel, actually runs cooler because it is operating off the ideal stoichiometric equivalence ratio of 1.  That is called a "reducing" environment, and is like when a cutting torch is adjusted fuel rich or with a "reducing flame" it's actually hard to cut metal, and that is also why a reducing flame is used when brazing.  So the preferred environment for an engine is fuel rich, cooler temps, and no excess oxygen. 

Anyway, another problem is that running fuel rich decreases fuel economy.

 
           

Outstanding explanation and thanks for the education 

[jpassardi]

Further to your point: Top fuel engines burn nitromethane which is a highly oxygenated fuel. Because of this the volume of fuel they can use per cycle far exceeds gasoline. Without the xtra fuel they would torch themselves apart. They also make much more power - 10,000+ HP and engines are rebuilt every pass. 2 plugs per cylinder and based on the original Hemi.
Just some useless info but I can't help myself when it comes to race engines...