-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Reduced Sulfur Fuel in 2006
- Thread starter jimnance
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
- Status
Dhess the issue is only with ULSD fuel which isn't widely available yet. True, low sulfur(not Ultra low sulfur) diesel has less lubricity than the diesel 15 years ago, but our trucks are designed to run on current fuel. Once ULSD hits, manufacturers of the fuels or the refineries are supposed to additize it for lubricity - however I also will be running additives , don't like to take chances... and for an extra 3 cents per treated gallon who cares. .
"Jim, Gary ( 
) and all other nonbelievers (what reason would I have to lie?) "
I, for one, was NOT accusing you of "lying" - nor has that been the basis of ANY of my posts in this thread! That ( ) was related to *MY* use of "assumption" in my comments - "assumptions" often get us/me in trouble - whether it is related to my guesses as to where the ULSD is being refined, to the assumptions as to the consistent purity and quality we consumers will be provided with when the new stuff becomes more common...
Don't squeal UNTIL ya REALLY get hurt!
) and all other nonbelievers (what reason would I have to lie?) "I, for one, was NOT accusing you of "lying" - nor has that been the basis of ANY of my posts in this thread! That (
) was related to *MY* use of "assumption" in my comments - "assumptions" often get us/me in trouble - whether it is related to my guesses as to where the ULSD is being refined, to the assumptions as to the consistent purity and quality we consumers will be provided with when the new stuff becomes more common... Don't squeal UNTIL ya REALLY get hurt!
Last edited:
rbattelle
TDR MEMBER
jhyatt said:
Depends on what you mean by "effect". That's what we're all really discussing here... will there be any negative effects from ULSD on any engine. There are 2 schools of thought (as I see it):
1. Trust the refiners to provide additives that meet or exceed non-ULSD fuel.
2. Add your own additive package to ensure you are meeting/exceeding non-ULSD fuel.
I doubt anyone can definitively argue either way until we get some long miles on ULSD fuels.
-Ryan
Gary that 'squeal' was with a smile... just giving a little back if it was headed in my direction. Wasn't sure if it was, but I figured you were tough enough to handle a since you've been around a while
As to Rbatelle's comments - quite valid. However it's the same question you face now - how do you know that you're really getting 40 cetane minimum fuel or 35? How do you know it's 500ppm? I guess we all place a bit of trust in the manufacturers that they will meet spec. I think it's the same issue with ULSD. BP is the primary supplier of it at this point, and a trusted brand.
IMO, but not from direct personal experience , I don't think ULSD will affect the common rail whatsoever. Commonrail technology has been around Europe for a long time. Eurodiesel is 350ppm min, but many countries have had nothing but 10-15ppm ULSD for years now. Sweden has had something like 8ppm fuel for years, I think they rated highest on the diesel quality rankings. In any case, they claim the reason we haven't had HPCR diesels here in the US is because our dirty high sulfur fuel was 1. not allowing their cars to meet emissions, and 2. ruining their injectors. Apparently they're a little more sensitive than the big C
In any case, I think the trucks will run better, with significantly less oil sooting. Engines with EGR will greatly benefit with less clogging and sooting of the intake. I can't wait personally, my E300 has EGR.
back if it was headed in my direction. Wasn't sure if it was, but I figured you were tough enough to handle a since you've been around a while As to Rbatelle's comments - quite valid. However it's the same question you face now - how do you know that you're really getting 40 cetane minimum fuel or 35? How do you know it's 500ppm? I guess we all place a bit of trust in the manufacturers that they will meet spec. I think it's the same issue with ULSD. BP is the primary supplier of it at this point, and a trusted brand.
IMO, but not from direct personal experience , I don't think ULSD will affect the common rail whatsoever. Commonrail technology has been around Europe for a long time. Eurodiesel is 350ppm min, but many countries have had nothing but 10-15ppm ULSD for years now. Sweden has had something like 8ppm fuel for years, I think they rated highest on the diesel quality rankings. In any case, they claim the reason we haven't had HPCR diesels here in the US is because our dirty high sulfur fuel was 1. not allowing their cars to meet emissions, and 2. ruining their injectors. Apparently they're a little more sensitive than the big C
In any case, I think the trucks will run better, with significantly less oil sooting. Engines with EGR will greatly benefit with less clogging and sooting of the intake. I can't wait personally, my E300 has EGR."How do you know it's 500ppm? I guess we all place a bit of trust in the manufacturers that they will meet spec. "
THAT is absolutely the BASIC problem *I* have been harping on - both with current fuel, and especially the proposed newer stuff! We already have been told via several independent tests that current fuels FAIL miserably in terms of uniformity, cetane and lubricity - and based upon past/current quality, HOW can we sanely expect radical improvements NATIONWIDE in a scant 400 days or so?
The problem-prone VP-44's in trucks like mine apparently functioned just FINE as used on a number of European vehicles, where diesel fuels are far more strictly regulated and enforced. BUT, when those pumps were installed in our stateside Cummins, the vastly poorer diesel quality here just ate/eats them alive!
SO, *if* we see lots of new vehicle imports hit our shores on the assumption (there's that word again!) that our "new and wonderful" fuels will operate them in grand fashion, we MIGHT just be disappointed!AND, the test Bosch themselves did involving the quality of California diesel fuel revealed that *80%* of fuels tested FAILED their specs - that test included pictures of damage caused to injection pumps by inferior fuels similar to that found in their tests, and damage was NOT restricted to VP-44 pumps, but was also quite evident in ALL pump types, including those used in common-rail applications!
There ain't no "free lunch", and the "latest and greatest" *might" just leave a bad taste, unless radical steps are taken to provide the uniform quality we THINK we will get, but haven't been so far!
THAT is absolutely the BASIC problem *I* have been harping on - both with current fuel, and especially the proposed newer stuff! We already have been told via several independent tests that current fuels FAIL miserably in terms of uniformity, cetane and lubricity - and based upon past/current quality, HOW can we sanely expect radical improvements NATIONWIDE in a scant 400 days or so?
The problem-prone VP-44's in trucks like mine apparently functioned just FINE as used on a number of European vehicles, where diesel fuels are far more strictly regulated and enforced. BUT, when those pumps were installed in our stateside Cummins, the vastly poorer diesel quality here just ate/eats them alive!
SO, *if* we see lots of new vehicle imports hit our shores on the assumption (there's that word again!) that our "new and wonderful" fuels will operate them in grand fashion, we MIGHT just be disappointed!AND, the test Bosch themselves did involving the quality of California diesel fuel revealed that *80%* of fuels tested FAILED their specs - that test included pictures of damage caused to injection pumps by inferior fuels similar to that found in their tests, and damage was NOT restricted to VP-44 pumps, but was also quite evident in ALL pump types, including those used in common-rail applications!
There ain't no "free lunch", and the "latest and greatest" *might" just leave a bad taste, unless radical steps are taken to provide the uniform quality we THINK we will get, but haven't been so far!
Last edited:
Ahh Gary you're such a pessimist I don't think the current fuel is quite as bad as you think. I've personally done fuel analysis testing on a few local stations, and all were well within epa spec, one was actually 49 cetane and not labeled premium diesel. Sulfur was around 380.
I don't think the current fuel is quite as bad as you think. I've personally done fuel analysis testing on a few local stations, and all were well within epa spec, one was actually 49 cetane and not labeled premium diesel. Sulfur was around 380.
FASS
I had the opportunity to run past Amalgamated in Indiana reciently and talk with owner Gary Pipenger. I feel this man makes a superior product - I bought 2 5gal pails of their 'TDR' formula tested to boost cetane by a real 6 pts. , provides Cummins L-10 detergent rating, addresses Lubricity, Corrosion, Stability, Etc.
- A 1oz to 3gal dose of that and my FASS with a 3 Micron filter and I'm good to go. As far as MY truck is concerned I'll just assume the fuel is sub-standard and that it will be getting worse.
I'm obviously more interested in my truck than the ecological impact of the high sulfer fuels.
I had the opportunity to run past Amalgamated in Indiana reciently and talk with owner Gary Pipenger. I feel this man makes a superior product - I bought 2 5gal pails of their 'TDR' formula tested to boost cetane by a real 6 pts. , provides Cummins L-10 detergent rating, addresses Lubricity, Corrosion, Stability, Etc.
- A 1oz to 3gal dose of that and my FASS with a 3 Micron filter and I'm good to go. As far as MY truck is concerned I'll just assume the fuel is sub-standard and that it will be getting worse.
I'm obviously more interested in my truck than the ecological impact of the high sulfer fuels.
HEY guys *I'm* not making up this stuff about poor fuel quality either - and if *I* am a "pessimist", I'm in good company - read what Bosch themselves had to say about it!
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
Be sure to read down far enough to see the effects of poor fuel quality on pumps like the VP-44 and newer common-rail pumps...
Of course, if ya don't wanna believe Bosch EITHER, well...
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
Be sure to read down far enough to see the effects of poor fuel quality on pumps like the VP-44 and newer common-rail pumps...
Of course, if ya don't wanna believe Bosch EITHER, well...
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that report is certainly biased. They are really painting a nasty picture of the fuel to try to campaign for their lubricity standards it seems. I know some of the fuel here in this country is nasty, but MOST meets spec. Granted that spec isn't great, it's what our American diesels were designed around.
"Well that report is certainly biased. They are really painting a nasty picture of the fuel to try to campaign for their lubricity standards it seems. I know some of the fuel here in this country is nasty, but MOST meets spec. Granted that spec isn't great, it's what our American diesels were designed around. "
JEEZE, and you are saying *BOSCH* is biased?
And exactly what "spec" or *new* diesel fuel quality regs do YOU suppose will be in effect a *YEAR* from now, when that dandy new low-sulphur fuel hits the pumps?
What brand shampoo do ya use after pulling yer head outta the sand?
(And in case there's the SLIGHTEST doubt, the above intended in a humorous vein, honest!)
JEEZE, and you are saying *BOSCH* is biased?
And exactly what "spec" or *new* diesel fuel quality regs do YOU suppose will be in effect a *YEAR* from now, when that dandy new low-sulphur fuel hits the pumps?
What brand shampoo do ya use after pulling yer head outta the sand?
(And in case there's the SLIGHTEST doubt, the above intended in a humorous vein, honest!)
Last edited:
Here seems to be the answer. Run biodiesel.
Diesel Systems Group, Stanadyne Automotive Corp.
92 Deerfield Road, Windsor, CT 06095-4209, USA Tel: (860) 525-0821
March 8, 2000
Ms. Joann Lee Freeborn
Kansas House Republican
District 107
Chairman, House Environment Committee
Dear Ms. Freeborn:
This letter is to express support for Kansas House Concurrent Resolution No. 5069 which encourages the use of biodiesel in low blend levels in the State of Kansas. As an introduction, I am Quality Systems Manager at Stanadyne Automotive Corp. , the leading independent U. S. manufacturer of diesel fuel injection equipment. Also, I serve as chairman of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) diesel fuel injection equipment standards committee and
chairman of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group on diesel fuel lubricity. In supporting the above mentioned resolution, I am speaking not only for Stanadyne, but for the entire worldwide diesel fuel injection equipment community. All diesel fuel injection equipment has some reliance on diesel fuel as a lubricant. Wear due to excessive friction resulting in shortened life of diesel injection pumps and injectors, has sometimes
been ascribed to lack of lubricity in the fuel. For many years, the lubricity of the diesel fuel was sufficient to provide the protection needed to maintain adequate performance. Recent changes in the composition of diesel fuel, primarily the need to reduce the sulfur level, have inadvertently caused the removal of some of the compounds that provide lubricity to the fuel. This has, in turn, given rise to concerns that today’s diesel fuels do not have sufficient lubricity to protect certain fuel injection equipment. There have been numerous examples from the field where lack of lubricity in the fuel has caused premature equipment breakdown and in some cases, catastrophic failures. This problem will be more dramatic as EPA moves to further reduce the sulfur levels in petrodiesel fuel. Through cooperation with the National Biodiesel Board, we have tested biodiesel at Stanadyne and results indicate that the inclusion of 2% biodiesel into any conventional diesel fuel will be sufficient to address the lubricity concerns that we have with these existing diesel fuels. From our standpoint, inclusion of 2% biodiesel is desirable for two reasons. First, it would eliminate the inherent variability associated with the use of other additives and whether sufficient additive was used to make the fuel fully lubricious. Second, we consider biodiesel a fuel or a fuel component--not an additive. It is possible to burn pure biodiesel in conventional diesel engines. Thus, if more biodiesel is added than required to increase lubricity, there will not be the adverse consequences that might be seen if other
lubricity additives are dosed at too high a level. For the reasons above, we fully support and encourage the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution No. 5069.
Sincerely,
Paul Henderson
Manager, Quality Management Systems
Diesel Systems Group, Stanadyne Automotive Corp.
92 Deerfield Road, Windsor, CT 06095-4209, USA Tel: (860) 525-0821
Diesel Systems Group, Stanadyne Automotive Corp.
92 Deerfield Road, Windsor, CT 06095-4209, USA Tel: (860) 525-0821
March 8, 2000
Ms. Joann Lee Freeborn
Kansas House Republican
District 107
Chairman, House Environment Committee
Dear Ms. Freeborn:
This letter is to express support for Kansas House Concurrent Resolution No. 5069 which encourages the use of biodiesel in low blend levels in the State of Kansas. As an introduction, I am Quality Systems Manager at Stanadyne Automotive Corp. , the leading independent U. S. manufacturer of diesel fuel injection equipment. Also, I serve as chairman of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) diesel fuel injection equipment standards committee and
chairman of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group on diesel fuel lubricity. In supporting the above mentioned resolution, I am speaking not only for Stanadyne, but for the entire worldwide diesel fuel injection equipment community. All diesel fuel injection equipment has some reliance on diesel fuel as a lubricant. Wear due to excessive friction resulting in shortened life of diesel injection pumps and injectors, has sometimes
been ascribed to lack of lubricity in the fuel. For many years, the lubricity of the diesel fuel was sufficient to provide the protection needed to maintain adequate performance. Recent changes in the composition of diesel fuel, primarily the need to reduce the sulfur level, have inadvertently caused the removal of some of the compounds that provide lubricity to the fuel. This has, in turn, given rise to concerns that today’s diesel fuels do not have sufficient lubricity to protect certain fuel injection equipment. There have been numerous examples from the field where lack of lubricity in the fuel has caused premature equipment breakdown and in some cases, catastrophic failures. This problem will be more dramatic as EPA moves to further reduce the sulfur levels in petrodiesel fuel. Through cooperation with the National Biodiesel Board, we have tested biodiesel at Stanadyne and results indicate that the inclusion of 2% biodiesel into any conventional diesel fuel will be sufficient to address the lubricity concerns that we have with these existing diesel fuels. From our standpoint, inclusion of 2% biodiesel is desirable for two reasons. First, it would eliminate the inherent variability associated with the use of other additives and whether sufficient additive was used to make the fuel fully lubricious. Second, we consider biodiesel a fuel or a fuel component--not an additive. It is possible to burn pure biodiesel in conventional diesel engines. Thus, if more biodiesel is added than required to increase lubricity, there will not be the adverse consequences that might be seen if other
lubricity additives are dosed at too high a level. For the reasons above, we fully support and encourage the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution No. 5069.
Sincerely,
Paul Henderson
Manager, Quality Management Systems
Diesel Systems Group, Stanadyne Automotive Corp.
92 Deerfield Road, Windsor, CT 06095-4209, USA Tel: (860) 525-0821
WE, and the refiners, are still dancing around the REAL issue!
There is NO real argument that low sulphur desel fuels WILL be in our future.
There is NO real argument that the de-sulphurization process reduces the natural lubricity of diesel fuels.
There is no REAL argument that refiners CAN restore that loss of lubricity prior to use by the consumer.
There is no disagreement that addition of biodiesel can overcome diesel lubricty lost in the refning process...
The PROBLEM IS, that some states have NO standards at all for diesel fuels sold inside their borders - and MOST states have precious FEW, and rarely enforce those they *DO* have!
We can argue and discuss the grand properties of low-sulphur fuels, with or without biodiesel added until the cows come home - but *UNTIL* we get the same sort of controls established and ENFORCED concerning diesel fuel standards as exist in Europe, it will continue to be a crapshoot as to what we are REALLY getting at the pump!
And *THAT* is the issue!
There is NO real argument that low sulphur desel fuels WILL be in our future.
There is NO real argument that the de-sulphurization process reduces the natural lubricity of diesel fuels.
There is no REAL argument that refiners CAN restore that loss of lubricity prior to use by the consumer.
There is no disagreement that addition of biodiesel can overcome diesel lubricty lost in the refning process...
The PROBLEM IS, that some states have NO standards at all for diesel fuels sold inside their borders - and MOST states have precious FEW, and rarely enforce those they *DO* have!
We can argue and discuss the grand properties of low-sulphur fuels, with or without biodiesel added until the cows come home - but *UNTIL* we get the same sort of controls established and ENFORCED concerning diesel fuel standards as exist in Europe, it will continue to be a crapshoot as to what we are REALLY getting at the pump!
And *THAT* is the issue!
rbattelle
TDR MEMBER
JStraw said:
Amen, brother!! Oo.
I want to run bio, but they don't offer it conveniently here.
Something just occurred to me: is there any correlation between guys who have tons of mileage with original injector pumps and the state they live in? Does fuel quality vary widely between states... wide enough to make, say, trucks fueled exclusively on Ohio or Oregon sources last much longer?
-Ryan
Ryan- the country is divided into a few defined regions for fuel, called PADD regions. Don't ask me what the acronym stands for In any case, some have noteably better fuel than others, and injection equipment would last longer in the better fuel areas. By how much, I don't know. I know Ohio has some of the worst diesel in the country, however we ARE lucky enough to have access (in limited places) to BP Diesel supreme, which I run exclusively. 50 Cetane minimum low aromatic 25ppm goodness. It's got a really stout additive package, and I do trust they are providing what they say they are because I've taken a sample and had it analyzed at a lab. All three of my diesels have run noteably better compared to the 40 cetane garbage truck fuel they serve up most places near here. Bp Supreme and 20% bio? Now that's a sweet running combo.
As for the standards - we do have standards set already. NO some of them aren't as high as europe's, and it would be nice if they were. I think it's safe to say that MOST fuel in the US meets our standards, however there is a bunch of bad fuel out there too. Half of that is due to bad station tank maintenance though, and lack of changing filters, draining water, microbe contamination, etc. We'd all love better fuel.
At least in 2006 when ULSD hits with the 80/20 rule (read about the 80/20 in the above epa article) at least the folks in Minnesota will be happy. Jesse Ventura passed a bill a few years ago that goes into effect for 05 I believe - EVERY single pump in Minnesota will have 2% bio mixed in. That will be great.
In any case, some have noteably better fuel than others, and injection equipment would last longer in the better fuel areas. By how much, I don't know. I know Ohio has some of the worst diesel in the country, however we ARE lucky enough to have access (in limited places) to BP Diesel supreme, which I run exclusively. 50 Cetane minimum low aromatic 25ppm goodness. It's got a really stout additive package, and I do trust they are providing what they say they are because I've taken a sample and had it analyzed at a lab. All three of my diesels have run noteably better compared to the 40 cetane garbage truck fuel they serve up most places near here. Bp Supreme and 20% bio? Now that's a sweet running combo. As for the standards - we do have standards set already. NO some of them aren't as high as europe's, and it would be nice if they were. I think it's safe to say that MOST fuel in the US meets our standards, however there is a bunch of bad fuel out there too. Half of that is due to bad station tank maintenance though, and lack of changing filters, draining water, microbe contamination, etc. We'd all love better fuel.
At least in 2006 when ULSD hits with the 80/20 rule (read about the 80/20 in the above epa article) at least the folks in Minnesota will be happy. Jesse Ventura passed a bill a few years ago that goes into effect for 05 I believe - EVERY single pump in Minnesota will have 2% bio mixed in. That will be great.
- Status
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
