Low sulfur fuel and additives

[one_dusty_hoot]

Mike, Dan, That would be a 30% mix for the winter blend.
I doubt that the winter blend went South, maybe, I doubt it.
I just used it when the temps were in the teens which was
not often and if so for a short time. My mix was only around
7%, but it worked.

If you "slide" diesel or kerosene between your fingers, the
diesel, #2, felt slipreer (more slipery) Before Gunk we would
use kerosene in a pump sprayer to act as solvent to clean
grease off a motor, water hose spray down.

bob janes, greenville, sc

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Darst"
wrote:
>
> Yes Mike. After 23 years in the industry (Unocal 76) with a company
that had
> a few truckstops (100), I can vouch what you said. We blended 30%
#1 with
> 70% #2 to make winter blend. Mileage went down due to the lower Btu
of #1.
>
> dandarst86fc35rbhuntleyil.
>
> >From: "mbulriss" <mbulriss@...>
> >Reply-To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> >To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Low sulfur fuel and additives
> >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:35:45 -0000
> >
> > >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-collections/gen-
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]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> WIN up to $10,000 in cash or prizes – enter the Microsoft Office
Live
> Sweepstakes http://clk..atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub00500015...direct/01/
>