Low sulfur fuel and additives

[mbulriss]

>Have you ever tried running a gallon of Kerosene to 15 gallons of
>diesel to prevent anti-geling in cold weather?

Seems to me if you have ever bought "winter blend" fuel in a very cold
climate, you have already done something like that. Kerosene AKA No1
Diesel AKA jet fuel is commonly blended with No2 diesel in the winter
to produce the so-called anti-gelling fuel. Course I didn't read that
in a book, I just watched them loading tankers in the winter, so I
could be wrong. However you can go read the Exxon FAQs to verify
that. Realistically, they are all part of the middle distillates
family of products. You can run your diesel on No1 and some diesels
are even designed to run only on No1, however, kerosene has less btus
of energy and less lubricity than No 2. Sounds kinda like ULSD now
that I think about it!! LOL!

Mike Bulriss
1991 WB40 "Texas Minivan"
San Antonio, TX

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "one_dusty_hoot"
wrote:
>
> Mike,
> <snip> "There are those that actually try things and those that talk
> about things, I take the former path."
>
> Have you ever tried running a gallon of Kerosene to 15 gallons of
> diesel to prevent anti-geling in cold weather?
>
> Have you pre-heated diesel piped around an exhaust system to burn in
> a carbuerator?
> Curious bob janes, greenville, sc
>
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hohnstein"
> <MHOHNSTEIN@> wrote:
> >
> > Believe what you want folks, I'm a cynic and choose to stay with
> product my simple mind can accept. On the other hand I do have a
> couple of spare engines on the pallet racking in the shop so I might
> be a little more cavalier than most. Then there is the issue of
> accepting some companies claims about a cheap readily available
> solution at the expense of their fancy proprietary snake oil. Not a
> surprise they would discredit the notion. We should remember that
> diesels were invented and developed with vegetable oil in mind as a
> fuel and they are a true multi fuel engine. There are those that
> actually try things and those that talk about things, I take the
> former path.
> > One other thing, most of the forum have 3208s or 2 stroke Detroits,
> good old engines that run on good old fuels. I like that black
> smoke. If I were using a state of the art 07emmission bad to the
> bone catalytic equipped new fangled power plant, I might be a little
> more concerned about fuel additives.
> > MH
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Warner
> > To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Low sulfur fuel and additives
> >
> >
> > Mike you are right this discussion has been around for a long
> time
> > but appears to not be based on fact. Why would anyone want to add
> > automatic transmission fluid to their expensive diesel engine
> without
> > testing to prove that it will not harm the engine in any way?
> Forum
> > members may want to read these and then decide.
> > http://www.diamonddiesel.com/fueladditives/ffaq-2.html
> >
> > Can automatic transmission fluid (ATF be added to the diesel fuel
> to
> > increase lubricity and to help clean engine deposits?
> >
> > It is not a good practice and likely will cause far more problems
> > than it could solve. Using ATF in this way is something of
> an "old
> > truckers tale" and has been used on everything from Volkswagens
> to
> > Class 8 trucks. Another erroneous strategy is to add old or new
> > engine oil for lubricity. The problem with these "additives" is
> they
> > are specifically designed to resist high temperatures and
> burning. As
> > a result, if they are added to diesel fuel they leave behind ash,
> > heavy metals, and other deposits that can easily cause costly
> damage
> > to fuel injectors and other sensitive engine components. The best
> > practice is to use quality diesel fuel additives like Stanadyne's
> > Performance Formula. They are designed to clean and lubricate
> engine
> > components without leaving behind residues that can be hazardous
> to
> > your engine's health. The bottom line is, don't add anything that
> is
> > not specifically designed to be combusted in the engine.
> >
> > http://dieselfuelsystems.com/faq.asp
> > Can I use ATF (automatic transmission fluid) as a lubricant in my
> fuel?
> > Since October 1993, some diesel end-users have tried adding
> automatic
> > transmission fluid (ATF) to diesel fuel to improve the fuel's
> > lubricity. According to the U.S. Army's quarterly fuel and
> lubricant
> > bulletin (March 1994), laboratory testing using the Ball-on-
> cylinder
> > lubricity evaluation (BOCLE) had shown that the addition of ATF
> to a
> > low sulfur fuel does not improve the fuel's lubricity rating.
> > Moreover, the presence of ATF in fuel can adversely affect other
> > performance properties of diesel fuel.
> >
> > Tom Warner
> > vernon center,ny
> > 1985 PT 40
> >
> > At 07:06 PM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
> > >Lee,
> > >
> > >This has been discussed on many forums recently. Basically as I
> > >understand it, it summarizes as this: the new ULSD fuel has less
> > >lubricity, less aromatics and less fuel efficiency.
> > >
> > >Less lubricity for the older engines (defined in this case as
> > >pre-2007) means you *will* need to find a good additive package.
> One
> > >inexpensive way to add lubricity is to add plain old ATF
> (automatic
> > >transmission fluid) at each fill up. I have seen many different
> > >estimates of how much, everywhere from 1qt to 1gal per 100
> gallons of
> > >fuel. Mike H., one of the forum's resident diesel gurus, even
> > >mentioned up to 5% ATF, which seems pretty high to me. Check with
> > >truck stops to see if any commercial additive packages for the
> ULSD
> > >have hit their shelves yet. While there are claims that fuel
> > >manufacturers have added additional lubricity additive packages
> to the
> > >ULSD, one of our Lone Star Birds members who owns a heavy diesel
> > >repair shop has said fuel pump manufacturers were recommending
> adding
> > >lubricity additives even with the previous LSD fuel or they
> would not
> > >warrant the pumps. In any event, it seems clear that you will
> need a
> > >lubricity agent to be safe.
> > >
> > >Less aromatics means less seal swelling which may translate into
> fuel
> > >leaks on some engines. A high pressure fuel leak on a hot engine
> is
> > >something I plan to keep a good eye out for when I have to start
> > >buying the ULSD (still have LSD available around here so far in
> spite
> > >of deadlines). I have heard rumors that some Mercedes and Cummins
> > >forums have already reported fuel leaks as a problem, but that
> could
> > >be more good old internet urban legends than fact. Find a
> discussion
> > >group specific to your engine, but watch your individual engine
> to be
> > >sure.
> > >
> > >Less fuel efficiency in the neighborhood of 1.2% has been
> reported
> > >(see
> > >http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collec...comm/info-
> notices/2006/in200622.pdf)
> > > At my fuel inefficiency of about 5-5.5mpg, a 1.2% decrease
> appears to
> > >be rounding error from my standpoint and something I can't much
> fret
> > >over. Points one and two are much more significant to me in
> terms of
> > >potentially disasterous results and long term engine wear.
> > >
> > >Something that has not been reported or discussed on the forums
> is how
> > >the new EPA laws have also affected lubricating oils. The new
> > >"CJ"-rated diesel engine oil spec was specifically designed for
> the
> > >2007 ULSD engines. It also has reduced sulfur as well as
> phosphorous
> > >and sulfated ash which helps stabilize the oil's TBN (total base
> > >number), acts as a lubricity agent and provides alkalinity to
> > >counteract acid formation during combustion. My understanding is
> that
> > >oil manufacturers can not maintain the TBN with current additive
> > >packages. All of this taken together may result in reduced
> ability to
> > >neutralize blow-by which creates more sulpheric acid which in
> turn
> > >creates corrosion, more deposits which could clog piston rings
> and
> > >cause cylinder wall scuffing, less total wear protection for the
> > >engine, etc, etc...... While oil ratings are generally rated as
> > >backwards compatible (CI vs. CD, etc.), I noted some engine oil
> > >manufacturers recommending to use the CJ oils only in the new
> (2007+)
> > >heavy duty engines and stick with the older rated oils for older
> heavy
> > >duty diesel engines. In my opinion, you really need to be sure
> you
> > >are sticking with a CI rated oil for older (pre-2007) engines. As
> > >time goes on, and the over the road fleets mature into a
> predominance
> > >of 2007+ engines, the older oil formulations will probably be
> harder
> > >to come by.
> > >
> > >Just my understanding. Not a fuel or oil manufacturer, but grew
> up in
> > >the fuel distribution business and have maintained an interest
> in what
> > >is really going in my engines.
> > >
> > >FWIW, etc, etc....
> > >
> > >Mike Bulriss
> > >1991 WB40 "Texas Minivan"
> > >San Antonio, TX
> > >
> > >--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Lee Davis"
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have a 95 BMC with the 300 Cummins diesel engine. I am full
> time now
> > > > on the West Coast and of course all you can get now is the
> new fuel.
> > > > Should I be adding something when I fill up or is it OK for
> the older
> > > > engines? If I should be using an additive, what is
> recommended and
> > > > where do you get it?
> > > >
> > > > Lee Davis
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>