Engine/Transmission (1994 - 1998) gelled fuel???? or what

[Champane Flight]

Europe

Exactly. Thankyou.



It also seems that everyone has forgotten that California and Canada went to exclusive ULSD long before the rest of the U. S. There wasn't a "lubricity concern" until some internet expert (who apparently flunked high school chemistry) started the rumor that sulphur is a lubricant. It even was propagated by at least one lubricant manufacturer's web site.

Europe has higher grades of diesel than we do, our cetane standards are lower, and sulfer higher. The removal of sulfer, removes lubricity, lubricity was a great concern at the introduction of ULSD, their were more rumors of ruined fuel pumps than sulfer as a lubricant.

 

[GAmes]

Europe has higher grades of diesel than we do, our cetane standards are lower, and sulfer higher. The removal of sulfer, removes lubricity, lubricity was a great concern at the introduction of ULSD, their were more rumors of ruined fuel pumps than sulfer as a lubricant.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Are you the chemistry drop-out who thinks sulphur is a lubricant? That is the message you seem to make in post #30. What rumors of ruined fuel pumps? I haven't seen any here or on the other forum I read. I haven't read anything in the TDR magazine either. Besides, rumors mean nothing. How about some factual analysis to support the Chicken Little, sky is falling, ULSD doesn't have enough lubricity. In the last two years I've run nearly 12,000 gallons of ULSD through my engine. It still has it's original injector pump. I replaced the original injectors at 570k, they were still working fine but so much fuel had been pumped through them that the holes were visibly (as in with the naked eye) enlarged and I was getting too much smoke. How come none of the big trucking companies haven't made a big stink about the new fuel and it's supposed lack of lubricity? My fuel usage is a drop in the bucket compared to theirs.

 

[fest3er]

GA, reports of injection pumps failing due to sub-par fuel were not rumors; they were fact. It was well known that the lubricity in ULSD did not meet the specs in many parts of the country when it was fully introduced near the end of 2007 (2006??), and for some time after that. The industry was well aware of this; I will fault them for not working more closely with the distributors before the changeover. The Houston area, in particular, had a bad problem with failed p-pumps.

Lubricity could not be added by the refiner because the additive was bad for jet engines, the fuel for which is run down the same pipeline as #2 fuel. So it had to be added by the distributor. It took a while for distributors to come on line and get the mix right so that the fuel met the diesel lubricity standard. And this standard is enforced by each state to varying degrees. Some states are strict while others don't seem to care at all.

You (and the other poster(s) who mentioned it) are right in that sulphur is not a lubricant. The process of removing 99. 999% (my guess) of sulphur from #2 fuel is what breaks the lubricity. For at least 6 months, I was double-dosing my fuel just to be sure there was enough lubricity, since I can't afford to repair my p-pump. I'm now down to a single dose and still getting the same performance as before, so I'll go out on a limb and opine that fuel quality is probably fairly consistent, and good, across the country by now.

[EDIT] Oh and CF said, "the removal of sulfer, removes lubricity... . " Mainly true, except that, as worded, it could lead readers to think that sulphur is a lubricant. It would have been more correct to say, "the process of removing of sulphur greatly reduces the fuel's lubricity. "

 

[Champane Flight]

A rumor is just that...

I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Are you the chemistry drop-out who thinks sulphur is a lubricant? That is the message you seem to make in post #30. What rumors of ruined fuel pumps? I haven't seen any here or on the other forum I read. I haven't read anything in the TDR magazine either. Besides, rumors mean nothing. How about some factual analysis to support the Chicken Little, sky is falling, ULSD doesn't have enough lubricity. In the last two years I've run nearly 12,000 gallons of ULSD through my engine. It still has it's original injector pump. I replaced the original injectors at 570k, they were still working fine but so much fuel had been pumped through them that the holes were visibly (as in with the naked eye) enlarged and I was getting too much smoke. How come none of the big trucking companies haven't made a big stink about the new fuel and it's supposed lack of lubricity? My fuel usage is a drop in the bucket compared to theirs.

I really do not know what rock you have been hiding under for the last few years, but the rumors of fuel pump destruction were abundant right after the introduction of ULSD, however misguided. I have been testing fuels for the last twenty two years, employed by a major Pipeline company, I am not a chemical engineer, or profess to be one. I ran on standards and limits, is fuel in spec or not, after handling fuel that many years and operating diesels for forty years I would feel my experience and advice would be apreciated, a mistype on post 30 will be rectified, so sorry...

 

[kenny61]

I'm still trying to figure out what sulfer is?



:-laf:-laf:-laf

 

[GAmes]

The Houston area, in particular, had a bad problem with failed p-pumps.

I find that amazing since I make a point of refueling both tanks in the Houston area whenever I can. In addition, I buy fuel all over the U. S. , so I am bound to have bought fuel in other places that supposedly didn't meet standards. So, where can I find the analysis reports from the multitudes of p-pump failures from there and the other parts of the country that didn't meet lubricity standards? How many gallons of fuel (approximate) did you use in those 6 months you were adding snake oil? I'll go out on a limb and say that you don't, and never did, need to add anything.

 

[Joe G.]

I don't really want to get into the argument above but I do have some questions.

Does anyone have any numbers of P-pump failures that can be blamed on ULSD? Any description of what in the pump had failed if the failure was caused by ULSD? Any pictures of a failed P-pump that can be blamed on ULSD? If there was a P-pump failure how do you know it was caused by ULSD?

I was running ULSD here in California for about a year before other states had switched to it. So if there were any changes in the way it was made it was after that. At that time I was putting at the minimum 800 miles per week on my '95. Most of the time over 1000 miles per week. I'm not driving those kind of miles since I retired. No additives used during that time either. I tried various additives shortly after I bought this truck. I could find nothing that the additives did except lighten my wallet. I personally don't know anyone who has had a P-pump failure that can be blamed on ULSD. Maybe there are some failures. If so I would like to see the evidence.

 

[steved]

I find that amazing since I make a point of refueling both tanks in the Houston area whenever I can. In addition, I buy fuel all over the U. S. , so I am bound to have bought fuel in other places that supposedly didn't meet standards. So, where can I find the analysis reports from the multitudes of p-pump failures from there and the other parts of the country that didn't meet lubricity standards? How many gallons of fuel (approximate) did you use in those 6 months you were adding snake oil? I'll go out on a limb and say that you don't, and never did, need to add anything.

And being it was "confined" to the Houston area, one could assume it was a local refinery issue, not a ULSD thing.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Reading around the boards I haven't heard of P-pump failures attributed to fuel (when do you hear of P-pumps failing anyway)? However there were reports of VP44 trucks suddenly having a higher than usual pump failure rate shortly after ULSD hitting the market. MikeR (member here and NW Bombers) commented more than once seeing a dramatic increase in the number of trucks coming to The Power Shop in Enumclaw with VP44 failures, that was Fall & Winter of 2006-07. It may not be provable the new fuel caused the failures but it would appear ULSD was pushing borderline injection pumps over the edge.

 

[Champane Flight]

Failure..

FAQ



I have heard that removing the sulfur from diesel can cause problems in older engines. Is ULSD going to harm the engine in my pre-2007 diesel vehicle?



Some of the sulfur compounds naturally occurring in diesel fuel provide some wear protection or lubricity. To compensate for the sulfur removal in ULSD Exxon branded diesel fuel is treated with additives to improve lubricity. Customers can be confident in choosing exxon because our branded ULSD fuel meets ASTM D 975 diesel fuel specifications, which provide standards for lubricity, cetane number and other performance characteristics.

 

[GAmes]

So do I need to amend post # 40 to read at least one lubricant manufacturer AND A FUEL SUPPLIER FAQ WRITER have propagated the myth that sulphur is a lubricant? :-{}:-laf

 

[Joe G.]

I read the FAQ above. There is nothing in it that says a P-pump actually failed, or any other older pump has actually failed because of ULSD.

 

[Champane Flight]

Or?

So do I need to amend post # 40 to read at least one lubricant manufacturer AND A FUEL SUPPLIER FAQ WRITER have propagated the myth that sulphur is a lubricant? :-{}:-laf

Whatever turns your crank... :-laf

 

[Champane Flight]

Rumors...

I read the FAQ above. There is nothing in it that says a P-pump actually failed, or any other older pump has actually failed because of ULSD.

As I stated, rumors were present on the introduction of ULSD saying that failures were prevelant. .