Expected life expectancy from WMO?

[AdeV]

Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.

Which forum, I can not remember,do your own home work.

There is an old saying: Put up, or shut up...

YOU raised it, so YOU prove it. Otherwise I will assume that you're talking sh*t and will ignore it.

I am sure you could being in your work shop playing with that Lister of yours for a couple of more years 

I surely could, and surely will. What's your point?

[spencer1885]

Billswan and my self are only two people on this forum with long term use of WMO on a every day use in near neat amounts.
So you think I am talking rubbish fair enough,  is Billswan talking rubbish as well
Lets hear from the other users on this forum in the same boat as Billswan and my self.
Just a small few members with no experience keep posting asking the same questions and disregarding other peoples real life experiences.

I think the saying goes [ you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink ]

[spencer1885]

"FACT"

hmmm, i am beginning to get a clearer picture of you spencer, obviously you are a younger man.

generally as we age and become more experienced we find out just how much we don't know, and the more
we learn the more we find out just how much more there is to learn.

one thing we all learn sooner or later is the world is not a black and white place

there are all sorts of colors and shade in between.

standing on anything and proclaiming it as fact usually end's in first "disappointment", followed by embarassment,  which then leads one
to the inevitable,, "enlightenment".

of all your asserted "facts" i would agree for the most part with the last abrasive ash is bad for an engine, however not all ash is abrasive

ash that is formed by burning some of the additives such as the zinc compounds likely are not abrasive, but likely look like white ash.
some oils are very high in zinc compounds (up to 15%) while others are quite low (~1%)  and the move by the epa has been to remove all zinc compounds anyway. those zinc compounds are used as an extreme pressure additive to aide in parts in the engine that are subject to higher stresses such as cam lobe/lifter faces, brg surfaces etc.  

while burning the zinc compounds might well reform them into compounds left in the ash that is harder and more abrasive, we really don't know that until the ash is properly analyzed.

or we could simply just blindly follow Spencer and eschew wmo and go pay the oil companies for pump diesel.

how about this my friend, what are you going to do when the crapolla hits the air moving device?  what happens when there is no pump diesel to be had, and there is no ready source for veggie oil?  what happens then  are you going to then run waste motor oil if it is available?  

of course you are!

are you going to be kicking yourself in the backside for being so reticent about doing some testing with those of us here that are suggesting we do?

how are you going to feel about using up your lovely lister having to run wmo, while others run twice or more longer just because they decided to do the research and experimentation to learn how to reduce the negative aspects of the wmo?

i can tell you how you will feel,,, you will be very disappointed in yourself for having had such a closed mind.

bob g

To much reading with still no real point.
No one makes abrasive oil or puts abrasive additives in.
They only become abrasive when burnt.

Clear and to the point FACT

[spencer1885]

Could you post a link? I can't see where you referenced it & what made it a failure.

Which forum, I can not remember,do your own home work.

There is an old saying: Put up, or shut up...

YOU raised it, so YOU prove it. Otherwise I will assume that you're talking sh*t and will ignore it.

I am sure you could being in your work shop playing with that Lister of yours for a couple of more years 

I surely could, and surely will. What's your point?

Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.

[AdeV]

Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.

OK, in summary:

YOU say: "All WMO produces abrasive ash which will kill your engine in 2000 hours"
EVERYONE ELSE says "You need to do more testing before you can state that with absolute authority".

It's taken 10 pages to get that far.

[spencer1885]

Are you stupid it's all been posted ,read it lazy.

OK, in summary:

YOU say: "All WMO produces abrasive ash which will kill your engine in 2000 hours"
EVERYONE ELSE says "You need to do more testing before you can state that with absolute authority".

It's taken 10 pages to get that far.

Thanks for reading that much, but there is plenty more. 

All WMO with additives will produce ash ,fact
The ash is abrasive ,fact
The ash will wear the top end of the engine in as little as 1700 hours, I am having to repeat my self again.
Ask Billswan what he has found after 1700 hours, which is what I found with my engine at 1800 hours.
You need to start reading the complete posts and then I won't have to keep repeating my self.

[admin]

Spencer

consider this a warning and take it anyway you like

keep your remarks on topic and lose the personal comments.

my patience is wearing thin with you and your tactics

if you continue to refer to fellow members in a negative manner
using terms such as "stupid" or "lazy"

you "will" find yourself on the outside looking in.

[davidgr]

For what its worth and to all concerned, I run a Changfa S195 on WMO filtered by centrifuge. All carbon deposits, water and heavy metals are removed. I dont know how to test for the presence of salts some of you mentioned and I burn the filter WMO thinned 8% by volume with petrol.

Over 5000 hours run time nothing untoward shown up. But do remember the quality of the parts are far better than Indian Listeroid parts and the build quality is light years ahead. In particular the cylinder liner is very well made and very hard, much better than the Listeroid liner. I will have you note the Changfa has a higher compression ratio and a more efficient overall head and fuel system design, and that is my opinion from working with these engines and not a qualified opinion from an engineer. I get an average of 20% better fuel economy on the Changfa than I do with my genuine Lister CS running the same load from the same PMG.

If I had the Pope witness the engine it still wouldnt be good enough for some people, so take what ever you want from this and be happy.


David

[Tom Reed]

Spencer, you are running an original CS, many I've seen don't have an air cleaner. Does yours? If so what type are you using? How dusty is the area around your engine?

One of the things that rbodell does it to check and adjust the PH of his oil. Could acid be eroding the cylinder walls and rings? Have you checked your PH if so what is it?

[veggie]

David,

Welcome to the forum.
That's very useful information for us lovers of the "mighty Changfa".
When you get a moment, perhaps you could post a description of your system in the Changfa section.
(or even the alternative fuels WMO section).

PS: We love pictures too  

thanks for posting,
veggie

PS Is your S195 a direct injection or indirect ?

[spencer1885]

Spencer, you are running an original CS, many I've seen don't have an air cleaner. Does yours? If so what type are you using? How dusty is the area around your engine?

One of the things that rbodell does it to check and adjust the PH of his oil. Could acid be eroding the cylinder walls and rings? Have you checked your PH if so what is it?

Tom,
Filter fitted even with out one ,a constant sand storm needed to cause this much wear in so few hours
PH is only possible when water is present and motor oil a designed to neutralise acids from the combustion process.
Abrasion from ash not acid fuel which would effect the injection sytem

rbodell has only got 1700 hours only and he ran 50/50 for some of the hours, less WMO the slower the wear


Spencer

[mobile_bob]

David:

welcome aboard and thanks for your real world experience with wmo in the changfa

5000 hours on wmo, and still going strong? hmmmm

i suppose we might conclude either of two things

1. your wmo is different than that spencer uses, or

2. your changfa has more wear resistant parts than spencers original lister

(or any number of other possible explanations is possible)

5000 hours and still cranking out power certainly provides some contrast to what has been reported.

thanks again for posting

bob g

[davidgr]

BobG and other logical thinking and non blinkered, open minded posters,


My WMO comes from a farm service company, most of their oil is from engines and gearboxes. It is filtered as I mentioned already. How different its chemical composition is I cannot tell. I did run with unfiltered oil at one time but it was a bad move. Things get gummed up fast.

The Changfa engine I believe is very much under rated and has given me all these hours for the price of a head gasket that cost me a few euro to replace from a guy in Europe who carries engines and parts. I have not even heard of a Changfa engine giving major trouble whereas all the Listeroids that imported here are always trouble when you get them, or will soon develop a failure after they go into service. 'Here' is the African bush where we have no hope of power or water without an engine and the Changfa works very well for us. We have a 30hp changfa powering a digger, works very good.

We did have some Listeroids but they dont last long in service when ran on WMO and even a genuine CS imported at twice the cost of a Changfa in shipping alone, it has proven to be unworthy to be the shade of a CS when burning filtered WMO. The additional life must be attributed to better filtering and a better burn....maybe a better liner? I cannot think of any other reasons.

We have a retired aircraft designer come by once a month to help out and he did comment on the material grade and finish on the Changfa liner. He said 'huh'. And for this guy to mutter that means it met his approval. He tested some Indian valves for our Lister and said we would get better use from them if we sharpened one end and used it as a nail.

We have a neighbour 2 hours away (by light aircraft) who has 11,000 hours on his Changfa, its only ever got rings and a head gasket. All our engines are radiator cooled and no thermostat and run 1800 to 2000RPM fully loaded. Perhaps the loading helps burn the WMO better than those running slow speed engines?

David

[mobile_bob]

David

have you any pictures of your setup?

we love pictures around here, especially s195 changfa pic's!



we hear so little about these engine's, it would appear that folks buy one, put it to work
and that is the end of the story for years until it is time to pull it and swap in a new one.

we have a few reports of the little changfa making 20-25k hours with clean fuel and good maintenance
but not much info with alternative fuel usage.

i suspect there are many who would really like to learn more from your experience, i know i am.

thanks
bob g

[davidgr]

Bob,


Sorry no pics. I know every cell phone has a camera these days and there should be no excuse. But we dont have service anywhere near here for many miles. My setup is nothing special.

The guy who supplied my engine knows a lot more of the engines history and deals with people in very remote corners of the world and makes all sorts of wonderful automation gadgets for them. I had to do a lot of research before I found someone who walked the walk and had a proven track record before I bought another lemon. i.e not another damn Listeroid or variant. The Changfa engine my supplier tells me is based on a Deutz design and has been modernised by the Chinese. Both Kubota and Yanmar he says have possibly done the same thing as their engines have a similar birth as Changfa.

He has clients with Changfa engine purchased in the 1970's and are still going strong. It is testiment to how good the engine is and once you dump the fuel tank and fuel lines they are a good engine and the lack of rattling tin keeps the noise less 'entertaining'.

David