I just spoke with Cummins/ULSD additives

[roperteacher]

Just an interesting note, I spoke with Cummins on the phone a minute ago and their "Official" response to the need for fuel additives for lubricity is that the new fuel meets all of their standards for lubrication. I did ask about the Valvolene product that has the cummins endorsement and they said that was for injector cleaning only and the only time they would recommend an additive is to prevent fuel gelling and if the vehicle is going to be sitting for an extended period of time... . Just FYI I guess with all the new additive talk. . I plan to keep adding a little to each tank anyway Oo.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I long ago came to the realization that "recommendations" from manufacturers were FAR more geared to cover their butts and distance themselves from liability issues than anything else - and that they RARELY endorse ANYTHING that doesn't have THEIR name on it, or somehow return $$$ to their bottom line...



Their response to your question was EXACTLY what I would have predicted from them... :-laf

 

[RustyJC]

I wouldn't have expected anything else. After all, the engine manufacturers lobbied the EPA to have the oil companies lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel in order to allow the use of particulate traps and the other devices necessary to meet Tier 3 emissions. By itself, the lower sulfur content reduces soot formation (read, opacity) as well.



So, if Cummins was one of the companies that lobbied for ULSD, would one really expect them to say that their engines are going to have problems with it? Not very likely!



Rusty

 

[roperteacher]

Thanks guys! And your probably right, why would they stick their necks out. I bet the dealer would do the same thing, tell you that you didn't need any additives... Who knows. . Just thought it was interesting...

 

[JEstes]

One thing you have to remember, is that they are still betting a 100,000 mile warranty on it though. That's got to be good for something.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

One thing you have to remember, is that they are still betting a 100,000 mile warranty on it though. That's got to be good for something.

OR, to look at that statement from the opposing perspective, IF the new fuel and associated lubes ARE as great as all the related hype insists, why hasn't that warranty been DOUBLED?

 

[bighornram]

One would still have to keep in mind that a warranty can exclude "bad fuel". That is a pretty loose term and could be interpreted to mean any time they want to blame the fuel they can & get away with it.

 

[NIsaacs]

I kinda agree with Cummins, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"





"NICK"

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

One would still have to keep in mind that a warranty can exclude "bad fuel". That is a pretty loose term and could be interpreted to mean any time they want to blame the fuel they can & get away with it.

AH, you mean exactly as they are ALREADY doing with some owners?

 

[Schlickenmeyer]

Cummins has no liability, these engines are purchased by Chrysler complete, warranty and all. Your 100k engine warranty has nothing to do with Cummins.

On the rest of their equipment, I would agree that much is lawyer driven.

 

[Edgemann55]

Cummins has no liability, these engines are purchased by Chrysler complete, warranty and all. Your 100k engine warranty has nothing to do with Cummins.

On the rest of their equipment, I would agree that much is lawyer driven.

Everything today is lawyer driven. Was looking at a New Cessna 182-Per the dealer they figure on a full IFR plane 150,000. 00 is lawyer driven!Deep Pockets is killen everything. Oh well I still luv my truck.

 

[jelag]

We have a miss understanding here... the EPA was lobbied to reduce sulphur for one reason... . with the existing fuel the engine manufacturiers couldn't meet current let alone future emission standards... . the emission standards are far more relaxed for diesels in europe... and diesel engines are in a great percentage of the cars and light trucks... OUR EPA would not bend on the rules and go along with the standards in europe... so to KEEP the engines we now have... and not have to move back to gas... and remember we're not talking cars and light trucks... we are talking class 6,7&8 those trucks that do the work in our country... . the engine guys found a way to meet the standards... that was to change the fuel and move to a trap... .



Also understand that on the last change... CAT choose not to follow the guidelines and change their engines... someone help me here but I think that was in 2000... . CAT decided to pay the cost of the fine per engine... so for the past 5 years CAT has paid millions in fines for engines delivered that did not conform to current EPA standards... they decided instead to jump ahead for the 2007 standards and push all their engines into that realm... . as these standards will cover off road earth movers as well down the road.....



These new standards are far reaching... . as you read this understand that Freightliner, and the other truck builders will deliver 2007 trucks into the first quarter with engines that have pre 2007 standards because those engines were built before 2007 and don't have to meet the standards..... the engine plants have been stockpiling engines to have them ready to sell... . building them faster then they are selling them... . the story is on a Class 8 truck the added cost over its life will be 12,000 to 15,000 in added costs, in the base price of the engine and repair costs... .



This is a huge issue for the Class 8 guys... on an engine that goes to lets say 750K miles to its first overhaul... because of the new stuff, that's like 2 cents a mile... plus all the unknowns with the new technology... . Truck sales with old engines has never been better... . its said that after all the old engines run out... that the truck manufactures might have to close a plant or two for lack of sales...



Just what I've read in industry magazines... ... .

 

[rbattelle]

Everything today is lawyer driven.

What a horrible state of affairs. And it's only getting worse.



Ryan

 

[mhenon]

OR, to look at that statement from the opposing perspective, IF the new fuel and associated lubes ARE as great as all the related hype insists, why hasn't that warranty been DOUBLED?

Because... the only claim made for ULSD was to help lower emissions. Why would that automatically equate to doubling the warranty?

Mike