Archived trouble starting when motor is at operating temperature

[MichaelOverfield]

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?



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.

Page 4, Table 3.. the list of Bosch design changes for a problem you deny exists.. again, a company willing to cheat to save $300/ car is not going to make many design changes based on fuel lubricity if it is not a problem with actual vehicles on the road. Perhaps you missed the data table that covers most of page 4? Is the problem as bad now as in 2009? Most likely no, because the distribution network and OEMs have been adding additives and biodiesel to correct this actual problem.

 

[sag2]

I don't want to get into the middle of the discussion you kids are having, but just wanted to inject some simple logic I gleaned from owner's manuals I took a quick look at online. They included Audi, BMW, and Ram. I also looked at Cummins HD info but could only find back to 2015 easily so I excluded them. What I did find was all information from the owner's manuals clearly stated #2 ULSD was the only thing required. No additives were recommended for use.
I also looked at my text books I use for class, and none suggested any additives for any manufacturer.
So in my simple mind I have come to the conclusion that at least some of the manufacturers are confident that ULSD is the only thing required to go into the fuel tank of their vehicles. As a former Technical Advisor for FCA with plenty of experience on diesel fuel systems and failures, I believe the manufacturer knows what is best for the long life and customer satisfaction of their particular product.
I also read the links provided and the way I read them I do not see anything that jumps out at me suggesting that the fuel supplied by most retailers in the US does not meet the minimum specifications for sale.
I can only speak for sure for Ram/Cummins but in all the engineering and training sessions I attended in Detroit (about 4 times per year on average for 14 years) I never recall a document or presenter ever saying anything about the longevity of the Cummins fuel systems being a concern when the change was made to ULSD. The only thing I do recall is a caution that older 12v systems might be more prone to fuel leaks as a result of the changes. But that was because of the effect of the fuel on hoses and seals in the fuel system.

 

[GAmes]

Thank you sag2. I'm done here.

 

[Missouri Mule]

i have to say you don't need to add any to the fuel. Now when my delivery valves (or something in my p7100 was ticking a additive in the fuel took care of the problem.
When ulsd came out no problem but after a quite a few years the p7100 became noisy and noisier. I asked the man running the store if they or the supplier was putting the lubricant in he said the supplier was. I finally switched where I fuel up. In about 2 weeks my pump/engine was running quiet. Talking to a customer one day about the problem I was having with the fuel. He said they had lubricants in it. They don't have the diesel tank pumped out once a year to get the water out of the tank.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I don't want to get into the middle of the discussion you kids are having, but just wanted to inject some simple logic I gleaned from owner's manuals I took a quick look at online. They included Audi, BMW, and Ram. I also looked at Cummins HD info but could only find back to 2015 easily so I excluded them. What I did find was all information from the owner's manuals clearly stated #2 ULSD was the only thing required. No additives were recommended for use.
I also looked at my text books I use for class, and none suggested any additives for any manufacturer.
So in my simple mind I have come to the conclusion that at least some of the manufacturers are confident that ULSD is the only thing required to go into the fuel tank of their vehicles. As a former Technical Advisor for FCA with plenty of experience on diesel fuel systems and failures, I believe the manufacturer knows what is best for the long life and customer satisfaction of their particular product.
I also read the links provided and the way I read them I do not see anything that jumps out at me suggesting that the fuel supplied by most retailers in the US does not meet the minimum specifications for sale.
I can only speak for sure for Ram/Cummins but in all the engineering and training sessions I attended in Detroit (about 4 times per year on average for 14 years) I never recall a document or presenter ever saying anything about the longevity of the Cummins fuel systems being a concern when the change was made to ULSD. The only thing I do recall is a caution that older 12v systems might be more prone to fuel leaks as a result of the changes. But that was because of the effect of the fuel on hoses and seals in the fuel system.

Of course the owner's manual will not recommend any additives, because if the fuel has been properly prepared with additives at the distribution level they shouldn't be needed. The main reason that OEMs won't recommend additives is the emmisions system, if an additive has sulphur it will create very expensive problems, and to say additives are recommended would be an OEM admission they did not design the vehicle correct in the first place, as WAS the case for VW. Why would they keep changing the pump design it it wasn't a problem? They cheated to save $300 per car, they are not likely to waste money on redesign pumps if there is no problem, of course they blamed the customer and misfuel, but NHTSA debunked that claim completely, most failures did not come after a misfuel, and VW cooked the numbers by a factor of ten.

 

[jhenderson]

Why does Cummins recommend Power Service?

 

[cerberusiam]

Why does Cummins recommend Power Service?

Does put a bit of crimp in all the denials that additives are not needed or appropriate, hmmm?

Cummins or Dodge has never gone so far as to recommend anything except fuel that meets a spec, that in itself is telling as they are making recommendations as far as they are able to.

The story changes considerably when you talk to Bosch shops about the damages they see to the fuel systems, it isn't even in question that ULSD posed a lot of problems from lubricity to water retention problems and the collection of deposits enhanced by the refining process. Cummins doesn't manufacture are maintain fuel system R&D, that is all outsourced to the supplier as are any recs concerning fuel quality. It is considerably different than the engine manufacturers or platform builders official stance.


None of this changes the basic premise that was stated then decried as being a huge conspiracy, the refining process to get to ULSD has removed lubricity from the fuel. The facts are clear, the science has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt to a reasonable person. Attempts to discredit this basic knowledge have been the crux of the discussion and have failed as usual. What happens to the fuel once it leaves the refinery, how it is handled and treated, and the end result in the tank does NOT change what the refining process. That has had and will continue to have the same impacts in fuel systems both old an new. The impacts vary based on a LOT of parameters but there is no denying the impacts STILL exist, no matter what some have decided is the real truth.

 

[GAmes]

The story changes considerably when you talk to Bosch shops about the damages they see to the fuel systems, it isn't even in question that ULSD posed a lot of problems from lubricity to water retention problems and the collection of deposits enhanced by the refining process.

Blaw blaw blaw. Same old rhetoric, same old lack of substance.

Once again If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!

None of this changes the basic premise that was stated then decried as being a huge conspiracy, the refining process to get to ULSD has removed lubricity from the fuel. The facts are clear, the science has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt to a reasonable person. Attempts to discredit this basic knowledge have been the crux of the discussion and have failed as usual. What happens to the fuel once it leaves the refinery, how it is handled and treated, and the end result in the tank does NOT change what the refining process. That has had and will continue to have the same impacts in fuel systems both old an new. The impacts vary based on a LOT of parameters but there is no denying the impacts STILL exist, no matter what some have decided is the real truth.

And again If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!

which again leads to 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.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

Article notes no issues with MOST trucks, but some DID have problems. Then there is this: "According to the EPA, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm does remove naturally occurring lusbricity agents in the diesel fuel.

However, the American Society for Testing and Materials adopted a new lubricity specification standard for all diesel fuels to manage the change, effective Jan. 1, 2005, EPA officials point out."
http://m.worktruckonline.com/article/985/one-year-later-the-impact-of-ulsd-on-diesel-engines

 

[MichaelOverfield]

It's interesting that even FCA is into wasted money over ULSD.. the new trucks have 2 filter separators, and sensors, and they even make a very affordable kit to retrofit older models like mine. It's amazing just how vast the conspiracy goes for a myth!

 

[cerberusiam]

Once again If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!



And again If you or anyone else has such a report, from a reputable source, bring it!

Proof has been provided multiple times, you ignore it because you cannot understand it. Proof has been provided by reputable companies, again it is ignored because it doesn't fit your view of the world.

It was suggested that proponents of lubricity were part of grand conspiracy to defraud and therefore doing something unsavory. The real question is who have YOU *****d your opinion to and how beneficial it is. Being compensated to outright lie and\or generate such ridiculous rhetoric is what is in question.

 

[GAmes]

Proof has been provided multiple times, you ignore it because you cannot understand it. Proof has been provided by reputable companies, again it is ignored because it doesn't fit your view of the world.

Nope. I guess my assumption was incorrect.

http://www.studygs.net/scimethod.htm

Common mistakes
The hypothesis is assumed
to be the "answer" and is not supported with testing
Data is ignored
that doesn't support your outcome
Beliefs/bias blind you to fatal flaws
in the testing phase
Systematic errors are not noticed
and are repeated within each experiment. These bias the outcome's standard deviation
Equipment or conditions are not adequate

 

[GAmes]

The real question is who have YOU *****d your opinion to and how beneficial it is. Being compensated to outright lie and\or generate such ridiculous rhetoric is what is in question.

That is an absurd and laughable statement.

 

[TDRAdmin4]

Folks, stop it with the personal comments.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

When I had the VW, the service department at the dealer was required to take a fuel sample on any car with a fuel system issue, if they found a fuel quality issue, that repair was on the supplier of the fuel, because it was not within specifications. All are well advised to keep all fuel receipts for this reason. The OEM does not cover damage for fuel that is out of specification, that is on the fuel supplier, read the fine details of your warranty. Of course there is no reason to be concerned, all suppliers of fuel will always provide only the best, so perhaps we should just stop the paranoid concerns and remove all our water separators and filters.. it will be fine, I'm sure. I read about a failure in AZ the made the local news, VW initially refused to cover the repairs, because that car had fuel (ULSD) that was not within specifications (not a gas misfuel). Of course this never happens, until it does... Here is a link for a similar story.. http://globalnews.ca/news/3113832/v...ad-block-after-high-pressure-fuel-pump-fails/ Then there is this.. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...es-plague-already-tainted-volkswagen-diesels/