Low sulfur fuel and additives

[one_dusty_hoot]

Yes Mike, totally old, gas was $.10 a gallon and
it was too high, had to find a cheaper alternative.
WWII Blackouts, sugar rationing, stamps for food,
everthing was rationed. Later in life I learned
heating changed the flash point to make it burn.

DeSoto's, Nash, Henry J's, Studebaker, Packhard
all 6 volt systems of cars in the past. I believe
the DeSoto had a fluid clutch.

Now walking the road to 72.
bob janes, greenville, sc






--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hohnstein"
<MHOHNSTEIN@...> wrote:
>
> Dude, you must be really old, my Dad told me about doing such
things on the Fordson Tractor long long ago.
> MH
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: one_dusty_hoot
> To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:59 AM
> Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Low sulfur fuel and additives
>
>
> 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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>