low sulfer fuel, what's it mean for us?

[opjohnny]

low sulfur fuel, what's it mean for us?

Thoughts on this subject, pros cons? I was just wondering.

 

[JohnE]

Not getting picky, but most have been running low sulfur fuel for many years. The results were devastating until they realized the sulfur reduction process removed the natural lubricating properties of diesel fuel.

If you're referring to ULTRA low sulfur fuel or the next emission step getting phased in across NA, then results are more upbeat. The lubricity issue was addressed before the fuel went into usage.

 

[Hohn]

ULSD will only be good. -- Better lubricity, better mileage, cleaner running. ALll good things, except is will probably cost more

 

[Blakers]

I wonder how the BTU will compare to current #2?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

In any event, until I see convincing evidence there's no need, I plan to continue adding lubricity additives just as I now do...

 

[Blakers]

I think someone should do some experimenting and start adding a little #4 or #6 fuel oil to #2 to bring up the BTUs. I don't think #4 or #6 has any red dye. Anyone know?

 

[HEMI®Dart]

Anyone near Chelsea, MASS?

Burke Oil has ULSD Diesel at the pump. Maybe someone wants to try it and see how it is? I wonder if it burns real clean? The TDI guys seem to like it. Smells like jet fuel and burns CLEAN.

Burke Oil: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=689234&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1



ULSD Spec Sheet: http://www.burkeoil.com/pdf/ulsd1.pdf

 

[Blakers]

Re: Anyone near Chelsea, MASS?

Originally posted by HEMI®Dart

Smells like jet fuel and burns CLEAN.

Kerosene smells like jet fuel (it is) and burns clean. But it has low BTU, so low power and low mileage. I sure hope the low sulfur stuff is not just watered down with kerosene.

 

[JohnE]

Blake

IIRC the current ULSF is all considered #1 grade.

I've got a contact with Chevron ULSF production and will ask them Monday.



The CAT & Detroit Diesels engines that burn ULSF don't have any power reduction. Just have that annoying particulate matter trap/muffler on the back end.

-John

 

[KL]

It may also mean a lot more choices for diesel powered cars. There are a lot of diesels in Europe which run on ULSF, but are not

imported because of our low quality fuel. KL

 

[Blakers]

I don't think it's cause they won't run on our fuel. It's just our EPA is full of environmental extremists that aren't smart enough to realize the fact that diesels do not pollute as much as gas engines. I've known this for over 40 years.

 

[Big_Daddy_T]

Excluding soot of course. Unfortunately it is very visible. This is the problem. Tree huggers dont like to see pollution and would not understand that it is less damaging in the long haul.

 

[MRickard]

It is actually a good idea to REPLACE the sulfur with another lubricant because the sulfur in the fuel can cause sulfuric acid in the oil, and eat away at everything, even though it is just in low concentrations. The method of removing sulfur actually raises cetane ratings as well, about 4 points. Offroad, reg. sulfur fuel is about 40, reg #2 is about 45. In CA, there is another drop in sulfur levels due out soon but they are having another review. Sulfur is bad stuff - but there needs to be alternate, preferably better, lubricant for the fuel pump. Keep in mind that this is for pumps that need it. Some pumps like the P7100 are lubed by engine oil.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

The LOWER end of the P7100 is lubed by engine oil, but it STILL has to pump whatever grade of diesel fuel flowing thru it - and *I* would sure rather that fuel be properly high in lubricity - not much value in a P7100 with a good lower end - but shot bores and pistons...

 

[MRickard]

Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

The LOWER end of the P7100 is lubed by engine oil, but it STILL has to pump whatever grade of diesel fuel flowing thru it - and *I* would sure rather that fuel be properly high in lubricity - not much value in a P7100 with a good lower end - but shot bores and pistons...

First, who said anything about fuel being low in lubricity;



Second, lubricity is needed most where the parts are under stress and pressure loads - go study the P7100 and you will see which parts do what. Remember that diesel oil is just that, an oil, and is a lubricant up to certain pressures and stress. It will protect against friction, not stress and pressures. It is very light so it does not take much for the need of something else. Also keep in mind that sulfur is best for high temp applications, not high stress. It just so happens to be in the fuel because it is expensive to get out, and is in the crude - go smell an oil well. It is not in there because it is great to have in there. There are much better alternatives, and remember I stated replaced in caps.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"First, who said anything about fuel being low in lubricity;"



Well, since you apparently didn't read the whole thread before replying, THIS guy:



"ULSD will only be good. -- Better lubricity,"



And THIS guy:



"The lubricity issue was addressed before the fuel went into usage. "



Then THIS guy:



"Better lubricity, better mileage, cleaner running. "



And of course, THIS guy:



"The results were devastating until they realized the sulfur reduction process removed the natural lubricating properties of diesel fuel. "



Picture getting clearer now?



Now that THAT is settled, exacty WHERE inside a P7100 do YOU suggest there is more friction and stress than right at the pistons and the bores they travel in?



OH - and for those optimists thinking all is ginger-peachy with current )and probably FUTURE fuel as well!) diesel fuel lubricity, read THIS for an eye-opener:



http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf

 

[MRickard]

Gary: Go and study a little more ... . try mechanical force conversion points. Go think about an engine: Conrod to crank not piston top and bores get stressed the most. some need oil, some need a bearing. Why???

Screw your head on and quit talking like a child. You are <i>how</i> old now? I am not going to hyjack this thread anymore. The facts are there if you read them. You even need to re-read your posts - they make little to no sense in context. I will agree that current low sulfur fuel still needs more lubricity, but it is not like what you are refering to when they first took it out and had no replacement. I know your type. Go listen to Bill Wattenburg on weekends @ 10pm on KGO - he'll teach you a thing or two. Goodbye!



(and yes, maybe I was sarcastic with the ``who said" but that was based on your reaction to my post, inwhich I concurred it was from what I said, which if you read it critically [especially the last line] you might understand. )

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Screw your head on and quit talking like a child. You are how old now? I know your type. Go listen to Bill Wattenburg on weekends @ 10pm on KGO - he'll teach you a thing or two. Goodbye!



An old standard rule of internet exchanges reads that the first in the debate who is compelled to resort to insult and personal attack LOSES!



BZZZZZT!



YOU just lost, game over, no cigar!



Pleasure doing business with you...

 

[Blakers]

I would still like to know the BTU content of this new fuel compared to the currently available #2. If they water it down with kerosene, it will reduce the power output and miles per gallon. Just look at the difference we see between summer and winter fuel. I sure hope they don't water it down in order to get the "pollution" down. If we have to burn more, we'll "pollute" more.



I hate that word "pollute". Always makes me think of some gang of dope-smoking environmental extremist hippies protesting our country. Oh yea, I guess one of those guys is running for president on the left wing side. God help us!

 

[JohnE]

Blake;

The sulfur bearing agents are in the base stock and not the parrafin which is the greatest BTU source for fuel. The reason for lowering BTU content is to reduce smoke or visible emissions. Visible emissions has very little indication on sulfer emissions.

I haven't been able to reach my contact at Chevron, but will keep trying.



MRickard;

You have things a bit off. Sulfur does not lubricate. Some of the sulfur compounds in diesel fuel do lubricate. 10 years ago when the current low sulfur fuel started they discovered the hydrogen process used in refining also stripped lubricating properties. Refineries added light base stock lubricating oil in with diesel fuel to address the problems.



Your old VE pump and even the P pump do rely on fuel to lubricate the plungers and injectors. Pop off pressures were relatively low with the later being around 260 bars or 3800 psi. Newer injection systems are much higher and fuel lubricity plays a much greater role.

HPCR pumps and injectors can and do fail from poor lubricity. I'm seeing the #1 cause of poor lubricity is running them out of fuel, not the fuel lubricity itself.



Who is Bill Wattenburg?