Low sulfur fuel and additives

[Doug Engel]

Sometimes I just can't help but chime in...
Here in chilly Gunnison, winter blend is 50/50 (talk about your poor power,
poor fuel economy and low lubricity), with pour point depressants (anti-gel
addatives). Typically around here, cold weeather no start situations are most
commonly caused by filter icing (read: frozen water that was trapped in the
filter), not gelled fuel. Adding #1 mostly just thins the fuel and makes it flow
better at lower temps, pour point depresssants act on a chemical (moleular)
level and keep the parrifin molecules from joining up (gelling) at ultra low
temps. FWIW, I have been told that the product sold by the name "911" will not
"un-gel" gelled ULSD. I have not witnessed this to say for sure, but that is
what the BG rep said he saw at a seminar. Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO, 1981 FC35SB
"Pokey"

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"
>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,
> > "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"
> > 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]
> > >
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
WIN up to $10,000 in cash or prizes – enter the Microsoft Office Live
Sweepstakes http://clk..atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub00500015...direct/01/




Yahoo! Groups Links






Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO. 1981 FC35SB "Pokey"

---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]