Archived trouble starting when motor is at operating temperature

[GAmes]

No , says the guy who can read. Seems as though I remember you being the one who claimed to be in the presence of God in the weigh station,but forgot to ask how much wt. you could put on his rear axle before he got in trouble. Cerbs got you pegged.

I have you both pegged.

Yes I can read, glad you noticed. It would be nice if you gave me something to read that supports your statements. I went into a weigh station and asked the questions, sorry I didn't ask enough of them. So why don't YOU go into one and ask? Afraid the LEO won't confirm your contentions or just afraid of the LEO in general?

 

[MichaelOverfield]

Where to start? The paper is about model year diesels that were (unless they were all from CA) on the road prior to the complete change over to ULSD. As a result, there is no direct link to ULSD causing any of the failures, proven by the fact there is not ONE reference to ULSD fuel other than the notation about the HPFP with Anti Wear Package (AWP). That one reference is your proof that ULSD lacks lubricity? Good thing you added the caveat "apparently", you apparently can't link the paper with ULSD low lubricity either.
Why did Bosch coat their plungers? Good question, you'll have to ask them. But since you seem to like to play 20 questions, here's some back. Why would Bosch coat their components with some unknown substance when the technology for producing metals that are impervious to low lubricity fuel has existed for over half a century? Why not manufacture the affected parts out of the same metal used in gas turbine engine fuel controls if low lubricity was a concern? In 100 flight hours a UH-1H goes through approx 900 gallons of Jet fuel, arguably a very low lubricity fuel. That is probably more fuel than an average diesel pickup owner goes through in a year, yet fuel controls last for hundreds of flight hours and don't fail.



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Give me a link.




Really? Here's a news flash, lubricity additives were added to LSD fuel too. The same pipelines that carry diesel also carry jet fuel. No additives needed or wanted in jet fuel.

Just like your predecessor you can't come up with credible proof that ULSD has less lubricity than LSD did. Jumping to conclusions based on a salesman's pitch or an innocuous notation in a paper than has nothing to do with ULSD is laughable.

Hey, if you want to dump money into your tank for no proven gain, be my guest. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

That report WAS NHTSA! All the affected VWs were POST ULSD, and the design changes to deal with poor quality fuels are well documented.. Did you actually read it? That Bosch pump is used on many current production vehicles, the CP 4.2 is used on Ford and GM trucks. It's a fragile design with a cam roller, and frankly it was done only to reduce cost, it's literally $600 cheaper than a CP3 pump.. same people that cheated to save $300 per car. Believe whatever you want, just don't be out there decieving others. Most people will be totally fine with no additives, provided they are getting quality fuel, thus they will never know.. but to say it's all a scam is just not supported by the engineering and science involved.

 

[cerberusiam]

That isn't a study. That is an article written by a marketing guy.

Prove it. Offer one iota of proof the hundreds of articles saying the SAME thing are all written by marketing people with the intent to defraud. You offer ZERO proof of your dumpster diving opinions yet demand the opposition prove it, when it is provided you dismiss it as invalid.


What is wrong is your erroneous conclusion based on invalid premises, the science proves you wrong at every turn but the cupcake attitude continues.


Your opinions don't prove you right, just ignorant; of a lot of things. You have been categorically proven to BE the weakest link. Goodbye!

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I have you both pegged.

Yes I can read, glad you noticed. It would be nice if you gave me something to read that supports your statements. I went into a weigh station and asked the questions, sorry I didn't ask enough of them. So why don't YOU go into one and ask? Afraid the LEO won't confirm your contentions or just afraid of the LEO in general?

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2010/01/07/is-us-diesel-fuel-quality-a-concern/

 

[MichaelOverfield]

"Lubricity:
It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO
12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter
not greater than 460 microns. In addition, it is
recommended by the Diesel FIE manufacturers, that “first
fill” of the fuel tank should be with fuel with
good lubricity characteristics (HFRR < 400 μm) in orde
r to guarantee good “run-in” of
the injection system
components. The US diesel specification (ASTM D 975-
09) includes a lubricity va
lue of 520 μm maximum
(according to ASTM D 6079). It is
expected that the useful opera
ting lifetime of any mechanical
component will be adversely affected by fuel
with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns." http://www.bimmerfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FIEM_Common_Position_Statement_2009.pdf

 

[GAmes]

That report WAS NHTSA! All the affected VWs were POST ULSD, and the design changes to deal with poor quality fuels are well documented.. Did you actually read it?

Sorry. I thought you were referencing some other NHTSA paper, something that actually had something to do with diesel fuel quality. I don't care that there were some failures of Volkswagons. I'd like to have two of them, one to cover with steaming horse manure, the other to cover it with.

Post ULSD??? You better check the history of the changeover. It wasn't completed until Dec 2010 and the study was performed "based on 160 complaints to ODI and Volkswagen involving HPFP failures in MY 2009 through 2010". Sure the paper was opened three months after the changeover, but it wasn't about post ULSD complaints. So did you read actually read it ??????????:-laf

Design changes are about money and the EPA. If Bosch produced a poor product it has nothing to do with fuel quality.

Believe whatever you want, just don't be out there decieving others.

I'm deceiving others? How is that? I've pumped diesel into my tank from nearly every state and four or five Canadian provinces. My IP has 1.3 million miles on it. My injectors perform as designed for 400+ thousand miles. I spend a lot of time in truck stops. Commercial O/Os aren't dumping additives into their tanks, nor are fleet truck drivers. A recognized subject expert on the Sirius trucking channel has no use for additives, either for lubricity or mileage gains. Sorry pal, it is you and your ilk that are trying to deceive others.

 

[GAmes]

"Lubricity:
It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO
12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter
not greater than 460 microns. In addition, it is
recommended by the Diesel FIE manufacturers, that “first
fill” of the fuel tank should be with fuel with
good lubricity characteristics (HFRR < 400 μm) in orde
r to guarantee good “run-in” of
the injection system
components. The US diesel specification (ASTM D 975-
09) includes a lubricity va
lue of 520 μm maximum
(according to ASTM D 6079). It is
expected that the useful opera
ting lifetime of any mechanical
component will be adversely affected by fuel
with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns." http://www.bimmerfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FIEM_Common_Position_Statement_2009.pdf

Once again, no where is there any statement that pump fuel requires an additional additive.

 

[GAmes]

Prove it. Offer one iota of proof the hundreds of articles saying the SAME thing are all written by marketing people with the intent to defraud. You offer ZERO proof of your dumpster diving opinions yet demand the opposition prove it, when it is provided you dismiss it as invalid.


What is wrong is your erroneous conclusion based on invalid premises, the science proves you wrong at every turn but the cupcake attitude continues.


Your opinions don't prove you right, just ignorant; of a lot of things. You have been categorically proven to BE the weakest link. Goodbye!

Take a step back and read the stuff you have linked. Which one states that ULSD from a pump is lacking in sufficient lubricity? By posting the marketing articles you only reinforce my position, and do nothing to reinforce yours. You, nor any one else, has posted a valid science backed paper or article that confirms your paranoia. Stooping to name calling only illustrates your character, or lack of it.

If you had a valid argument, you have had plenty of opportunities to present it.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

Sorry. I thought you were referencing some other NHTSA paper, something that actually had something to do with diesel fuel quality. I don't care that there were some failures of Volkswagons. I'd like to have two of them, one to cover with steaming horse manure, the other to cover it with.

Post ULSD??? You better check the history of the changeover. It wasn't completed until Dec 2010 and the study was performed "based on 160 complaints to ODI and Volkswagen involving HPFP failures in MY 2009 through 2010". Sure the paper was opened three months after the changeover, but it wasn't about post ULSD complaints. So did you read actually read it ??????????:-laf

Design changes are about money and the EPA. If Bosch produced a poor product it has nothing to do with fuel quality.



I'm deceiving others? How is that? I've pumped diesel into my tank from nearly every state and four or five Canadian provinces. My IP has 1.3 million miles on it. My injectors perform as designed for 400+ thousand miles. I spend a lot of time in truck stops. Commercial O/Os aren't dumping additives into their tanks, nor are fleet truck drivers. A recognized subject expert on the Sirius trucking channel has no use for additives, either for lubricity or mileage gains. Sorry pal, it is you and your ilk that are trying to deceive others.

Other commenters were correct, it's a waste of time discussing anything with you it seems. The first use of USA ULSD was MY 2007, all 2007.5 and up auto diesels and light trucks required ONLY ULSD, and that was ALL the VW's in this report, with the introduction of DPF, which REQUIRES ULSD! My 2007 Duramax REQUIRED ULSD. It was not required for ALL highway use, and pumps until 2010. This is a proven FACT. The reasons VW gave, for the BOSCH pump failures was in part due to inconsistencies in lubricity for USA ULSD, with a specification that was worse than was required, this was dumb on their part to put those cars on the US roads (but with the cheat, why should that be a surprise). I have not said, and I don't recall any person on this thread saying additives are a MUST, but you seem to say the are worthless, and that is what we have issue with. IF one is getting quality fuel that has already had additives put in for lubricity, the clearly adding more is NOT needed and won't do much, but HOW DO YOU KNOW? In that is the question. I don't normally add any additives for my 2 cars, because the fuel station I've long used is a known and I have long used it, and don't concern myself with it's quality, but on travel, there are times when I do add some additives, just in case. You have said there is no issue with ULSD and lubricity, that is ONLY if the distributor is taking care of it, the FACT is ULSD did create problems, that if the suppliers are doing the they should, they have solved before you ever put it in your tank, but it is an issue, just not one ANY of us should have to deal with, if those additives are ALREADY there.. so if you trust others to always do it right, then never bother with additives, that is your choice, you may get lucky.. but you are not running a CP4.x pump.. others who do might want to consider being conservative, I personally would look to replace that CP4.x pump it at all possible, as an engineer that looked at the design, I frankly would not trust it.. I don't think you are driving any vehicle with that sensitive pump.. but for you to say it was not, nor never has been an issue is where you are just flat out WRONG..

 

[MichaelOverfield]

https://www.epa.gov/diesel-fuel-standards/diesel-fuel-standards-and-rulemakings

 

[GAmes]

double post

 

[GAmes]

You are correct, I totally forgot that diesel engines from 2007 and forward were supposed to only have ULSD put into the tank. Since so many had gasoline poured in what makes you think that none of the owners bought LSD? It doesn't matter anyway, the report doesn't identify low lubricity diesel of either type as the cause, never once. If you are hanging your hat on a IP failure issue with Volkswagons, from nearly a decade ago, you are clearly grasping at straws.

Yes I am tenacious. If I were to state that ULSD has been reported to have low lubricity I would provide a link to a reputable source. All that have been provided only allude to low lubricity, none of them actually say it. Ya know why? Because that would put the writer on the spot to prove it. A popular marketing "report" that used to circulate said in the text that ULSD was low in lubricity (one time), but didn't provide a reference. They then went on to test their product on raw, untreated diesel to show how superior it is to the other brands. As a red herring they threw in 2 cycle oil. The result was thousands of fools pouring 2 cycle oil into their tanks. Amazing. I'm sure that wasn't their desired outcome. The thing was, supposedly they had the actual machinery to test pump fuel lubricity. Now that would have been something I could sink my teeth into. Lubricity tests of fuel actually taken from 10 or 20 (or more) different pumps and brands. Could it be that they did test a few samples and found the fuel was well within spec? We'll never know, but that certainly would have put a damper on their marketing campaign.

So that is all I'm asking for. Something to justify dealing with the stink, mess and cost of diesel additives. A scientific analysis of failed IPs, a real lubricity report that shows pump fuel is lacking. There are none so far. Just a lot of bluster, hot air and insults because their flimsy evidence doesn't pass the smell test.

One last thing. You said " I don't recall any person on this thread saying additives are a MUST, but you seem to say the are worthless"
So Cerb isn't saying they are a "must"? Fooled me. And I never said they are worthless, I said they aren't needed. Real diesel additives won't harm anything except your wallet. Thinking they will increase mileage ( I busted that myth a couple years ago right here on this forum) enough to pay for themselves isn't true and we have already covered the myth that ULSD lacks adequate lubricity.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

You are correct, I totally forgot that diesel engines from 2007 and forward were supposed to only have ULSD put into the tank. Since so many had gasoline poured in what makes you think that none of the owners bought LSD? It doesn't matter anyway, the report doesn't identify low lubricity diesel of either type as the cause, never once. If you are hanging your hat on a IP failure issue with Volkswagons, from nearly a decade ago, you are clearly grasping at straws.

Yes I am tenacious. If I were to state that ULSD has been reported to have low lubricity I would provide a link to a reputable source. All that have been provided only allude to low lubricity, none of them actually say it. Ya know why? Because that would put the writer on the spot to prove it. A popular marketing "report" that used to circulate said in the text that ULSD was low in lubricity (one time), but didn't provide a reference. They then went on to test their product on raw, untreated diesel to show how superior it is to the other brands. As a red herring they threw in 2 cycle oil. The result was thousands of fools pouring 2 cycle oil into their tanks. Amazing. I'm sure that wasn't their desired outcome. The thing was, supposedly they had the actual machinery to test pump fuel lubricity. Now that would have been something I could sink my teeth into. Lubricity tests of fuel actually taken from 10 or 20 (or more) different pumps and brands. Could it be that they did test a few samples and found the fuel was well within spec? We'll never know, but that certainly would have put a damper on their marketing campaign.

So that is all I'm asking for. Something to justify dealing with the stink, mess and cost of diesel additives. A scientific analysis of failed IPs, a real lubricity report that shows pump fuel is lacking. There are none so far. Just a lot of bluster, hot air and insults because their flimsy evidence doesn't pass the smell test.

One last thing. You said " I don't recall any person on this thread saying additives are a MUST, but you seem to say the are worthless"
So Cerb isn't saying they are a "must"? Fooled me. And I never said they are worthless, I said they aren't needed. Real diesel additives won't harm anything except your wallet. Thinking they will increase mileage ( I busted that myth a couple years ago right here on this forum) enough to pay for themselves isn't true and we have already covered the myth that ULSD lacks adequate lubricity.

Marathon Petroleum is working on a myth I guess:
"The removal of sulfur in diesel lowers its lubricating qualities.
• Marathon is currently adding a lubricity agent to ULSD in order to meet ASTM
specification D975.
• All diesel fuels will meet ASTM specification D975.
• Biodiesel blending may also improve ULSD lubricity."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...iEATAQ&usg=AFQjCNF5mepkyWTR6j791JkyWoeAdpAymA

ASTM D975 is 520 mm scar, most pump OEMs want less than 460 mm scar. Yep a myth I guess.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

It's blatently false to say ULSD did not cause lubricity issues, it did, the solution was additives at the distribution level, the base stock has insufficient lubricity, period. If the distribution network is properly adding additives, it will be a non issue at the pump, if not look out, but a single tank is unlikely to cause a failure, but it will reduce component life, actual testing is done to measure this. Here is another quote: "Like Low Sulfur Diesel fuel, ULSD fuel requires good lubricity and corrosion inhibitors to prevent unacceptable engine wear. As necessary, additives to increase lubricity and to inhibit corrosion are added to ULSD fuel prior to its retail sale. With these additives, ULSD fuel performs as well as Low Sulfur Diesel fuel."
http://www.clean-diesel.org/vehicle_performance.html

Note: "Requires" additives.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I'm assuming TruckTrend is in on the conspiracy, this is the study GAmes mentioned that he believes is garbage. http://www.trucktrend.com/features/0911dp-fuel-additive-test/

 

[GAmes]

You just don't get it. Marathon has a chain of fuel stations. They put additives into the fuel they pump. No surprise there, it is pump fuel and I've used a lot of it. Your second link states " As necessary, additives to increase lubricity and to inhibit corrosion are added to ULSD fuel prior to its retail sale." Duh, no news there. The same type of additives were added to LSD also, and the same marketing BS for additional additives was happening then. The only difference I see is the height of paranoia about a internet hyped problem that doesn't exist. The proof is all around you. The highways aren't lined by broken down diesel powered vehicles even though very few people have bought into, or even heard of, the ULSD lubricity myth and subsequently poured some magical liquid into their tanks.

It is the same old, same old. None of your exhibits say anything other than what comes out of the pump is required.....ever! Not one shred of proof that not using additional additives will lead to premature failures. If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!

 

[GAmes]

I'm assuming TruckTrend is in on the conspiracy, this is the study GAmes mentioned that he believes is garbage. http://www.trucktrend.com/features/0911dp-fuel-additive-test/

No, that isn't it but I'm ROTFLMAO. You don't see the conflicting information in your marketing articles, but you still keep at it.

From the fuel oil news article with the good information, written by the marketing guy; "There is a misconception that sulfur is what provides the lubricity to fuel oil,........" This is on target, sulfur is a corrosive and when burned becomes poison. Yes, I took it out of context a little because the continuation of the paragraph is misleading. Anytime sulfur acts as a lubricant it does it at the expense of dissolving the surfaces it is contact with. In industrial settings the bearing races are coated with a sacrificial material. Not so in diesel engine applications, so the idea that sulfur is a lubricant is false.

From the Truck Trend piece; ".....since sulfur acts as a lubrication agent in diesel fuel,........."

 

[MichaelOverfield]

The truck trend piece is oversimplified​, it's not the sulphur, it's the long chain hydrocarbon molecules. The process of removing the sulphur breaks these long molecules and thus affects lubricity of the fuel. Your statement that lubricity is not an issue had been completely demolished. The need for additives is well documented, but they should be already added when the customer fills up at the pump. If one chooses to trust that, by all means trust that. However if one wants to be sure, some of these additives are cheap insurance. Are some over marketed? Sure! What isn't in our capitalist system, or what is left of it. That doesn't mean it's not a real potential issue. I see GAmes has an older truck, lower injection pressures.. he's not had issues, good for him, however I had metallic parts in my fuel filter from the Bosch HPFP in the VW, and while there are actual design flaws there that make that particular pump more sensitive to lubricity in the fuel, it was not a myth, it was real. The US standard for lubricity is not in line with much of the world, hence that pump had few issues in EU, but considerable issues here. VW who had a culture to cheat wanted to blame customers, the NHTSA report totally debunked that, it's a design issue the choose to take no action because they had not seen a crash caused by a failed pump.. but it's not a myth, it's real. The chemical composition of the fuel has been altered to make it ULSD. To assume that chemical change does not matter whatsoever is is frankly absurd. How has ethanol been working for you in small engines? Disaster. Don't assume these regulators are concerned that you have no issues, it's not their primary concern. That the distribution network may care is what has mitigated this, when they put additives in for us before we fill the tank. If you want to trust that completely, by all means do so, if not additives are cheap insurance.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

You just don't get it. Marathon has a chain of fuel stations. They put additives into the fuel they pump. No surprise there, it is pump fuel and I've used a lot of it. Your second link states " As necessary, additives to increase lubricity and to inhibit corrosion are added to ULSD fuel prior to its retail sale." Duh, no news there. The same type of additives were added to LSD also, and the same marketing BS for additional additives was happening then. The only difference I see is the height of paranoia about a internet hyped problem that doesn't exist. The proof is all around you. The highways aren't lined by broken down diesel powered vehicles even though very few people have bought into, or even heard of, the ULSD lubricity myth and subsequently poured some magical liquid into their tanks.

It is the same old, same old. None of your exhibits say anything other than what comes out of the pump is required.....ever! Not one shred of proof that not using additional additives will lead to premature failures. If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!

NHTSA report, already linked. HPFP failure in VW was much higher in US, and coorelation to lubricity issues by region in the US, Bosch made engineering changes to the pump to address it, it's in the report you clearly did not fully read. You skimmed it and got only what you choose to believe. Sad really. Again that pump is not just used in VWs, a 2 piston version is used in newer Ford and GM pickup trucks. You earlier had stated that lubricity issues with ULSD is a myth, it's not. It has required engineering changes and additives, mostly added at the distribution level, but it's a real issue.

 

[GAmes]

....it's in the report you clearly did not fully read.

I read every word trying to find just one reference to low lubricity diesel fuel. There is none. I did not once say the VW failures were a myth. I never once said that ULSD after being processed doesn't need additives prior to sale. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The myth is that ULSD from the pump requires additional additives. How many times do I need to repeat it?

If one chooses to trust that, by all means trust that. However if one wants to be sure, some of these additives are cheap insurance.

In other words, if one chooses to be paranoid about a fractional chance that the fuel they buy wasn't treated prior to sale they have the right to waste their money while subscribing to internet myths. I've never said anything different.