Super Low Sulphur Diesel and Cat engines???

[Doug Engel]

Dan, I've heard similar info, but keep in mind, each brand will probably have
it's own addative, just as gasoline is right now, so effeciency of each brand
(or undbranded in my case) diesel will vary. The other fact to consider is that
as we all know, the fuel industry is in business to make money, so will their
addatives be best for our engines, or their bottom line...??? Doug Engel,
Gunnison, Co. '81 FC35SB

Dan Darst wrote: Several months ago (July or
August) I read in a magazine that an additive
would be blended into ulsd that would substitute for lost lubricity of
sulphur, and actually do a better job of it than sulphur.

dandarst86fc35rbhuntleyil.

>From: Doug Engel
>Reply-To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
>To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Super Low Sulphur Diesel and Cat engines???
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Ernie, It is my understanding that the main issue I/we have to be concerned
>about is the loss of lubricity. I have had it described as a similar
>situation that developed when we all went to unleaded gasoline. IMHO, the
>short answer is yes, your engine was designed to run on "oilier" Diesel, so
>you should add someting to bring the lubricity of the new fuel up to the
>levels you engine was designed to run on. Doug
>
>erniecarpet@... wrote: Doug- since I have a 83 model coach- is
>this low sulfur diesel going to
>affect my engine?
>
>Ernie Ekberg
>83 PT40
>Livingston, Montana
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx






---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

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

[Curt Sprenger]

Got this from the ATA site...All retail outlets selling ULSD and/or
conventional LSD are required to label their diesel fuel dispensers to
indicate which fuel is being sold from that dispenser.

Curt Sprenger 1987 PT38 8V92, Anaheim Hills, Calif.



doug_ngl wrote:

>Rob, My apologies reference stating that you are "already running"
>ULSD. While talking to our delivery driver, I found out that the
>mandate that Colorado is under has not taken effect in all areas of
>the US, (read: get your story straight Doug!) so you are probably
>right in saying that you are not currently running ULSD. In fact,
>most of you are still on just the low sulphur stuff, but in our
>travels around, we will start running into more and more ULSD, so I
>guess we all better get ready, hence the lively discussion. Doug
>
>
>
>--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Robinson"
> wrote:
>
>
>>When I start to use that Ultra Low Sulphur I'm throwing in ATF
>>
>>
>with each
>
>
>>fillup. I think someone said that two quarts per 300 gallons of
>>
>>
>fuel should
>
>
>>do it.
>>
>>On 26/10/06, doug_ngl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Howdy again, Thanks for the help with my locked safe issue.
>>>
>>>
>Now I know
>
>
>>>you just stand back and throw 450.00 at it and it will open.
>>>Now on to my next question/topic. I own and operate a gas
>>>station/tire store in Gunnison Colorado and have been talking to
>>>various fuel suppliers and addative distributors about ultra low
>>>sulphur diesel and winterizing this fuel. Most are saying that
>>>
>>>
>due to
>
>
>>>the differences in the chemical makeup, getting this fuel to
>>>
>>>
>reach a
>
>
>>>CFPP lower than -25 to -30F is going to be a problem (at lesat in
>>>Gunnison it will be). Availibility of #1 diesel to thin it is
>>>
>>>
>supposed
>
>
>>>to be a problem this winter as well, not to mention that this
>>>
>>>
>approach
>
>
>>>apparently no longer has the same favorable effect that it used
>>>
>>>
>to.
>
>
>>>So today while talking to a new rep, he mentioned the low
>>>
>>>
>lubricity
>
>
>>>of the ULSD and the problems older diesel engines, Cats were
>>>
>>>
>noted,
>
>
>>>have running this stuff. He noted injector pump failure
>>>
>>>
>specifically.
>
>
>>>Anyone have any input or experience they can share? Thanks gang,
>>>
>>>
>Doug
>
>
>>>Engel in Gunnison, Co. '81 FC35SB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Rob, Sue & Merlin Robinson
>>94 WLWB
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bruce Morris]

In all of this thread I have not seen any reference to the lubricity standard
that went into effect on Jan 2005 nor mention of the plan to add lubricity
additives to the fuel in the terminals prior to distribution for sale.

The ULSD has been used since 2000 in some large fleets with no obvious problems.

If all this is true, what is the problem? It seems to me that we have little to
worry about.

Bruce Morris (919)872-7635 Raleigh, NC
Webmaster - WOO (http://www.wanderlodge.us)
1983 WL FC35RB

FMCA: 7142s Ham Radio: KI4ME
Vietnam Vet - 1966-67 'Doc' (Navy Corpsman) 3rd MarDiv
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Engel
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Super Low Sulphur Diesel and Cat engines???


Ernie, It is my understanding that the main issue I/we have to be concerned
about is the loss of lubricity. I have had it described as a similar situation
that developed when we all went to unleaded gasoline. IMHO, the short answer is
yes, your engine was designed to run on "oilier" Diesel, so you should add
someting to bring the lubricity of the new fuel up to the levels you engine was
designed to run on. Doug

erniecarpet@... wrote: Doug- since I have a 83 model coach- is this low
sulfur diesel going to
affect my engine?

Ernie Ekberg
83 PT40
Livingston, Montana

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


---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

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





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

[Mike Hohnstein]

Some choose not to believe every thing that is proclaimed. Obviously most large
fleets use late model rolling stock, not relevant to most of the forums
participants.
I suggest that every one suit themselves.
MH
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Morris
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Super Low Sulphur Diesel and Cat engines???


In all of this thread I have not seen any reference to the lubricity standard
that went into effect on Jan 2005 nor mention of the plan to add lubricity
additives to the fuel in the terminals prior to distribution for sale.

The ULSD has been used since 2000 in some large fleets with no obvious
problems.

If all this is true, what is the problem? It seems to me that we have little
to worry about.

Bruce Morris (919)872-7635 Raleigh, NC
Webmaster - WOO (http://www.wanderlodge.us)
1983 WL FC35RB

FMCA: 7142s Ham Radio: KI4ME
Vietnam Vet - 1966-67 'Doc' (Navy Corpsman) 3rd MarDiv
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Engel
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Super Low Sulphur Diesel and Cat engines???

Ernie, It is my understanding that the main issue I/we have to be concerned
about is the loss of lubricity. I have had it described as a similar situation
that developed when we all went to unleaded gasoline. IMHO, the short answer is
yes, your engine was designed to run on "oilier" Diesel, so you should add
someting to bring the lubricity of the new fuel up to the levels you engine was
designed to run on. Doug

erniecarpet@... wrote: Doug- since I have a 83 model coach- is this low
sulfur diesel going to
affect my engine?

Ernie Ekberg
83 PT40
Livingston, Montana

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

---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

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

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





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

[birdshill123]

It is amazing how a thread can change. Now we have conspiracy theories
as to why they changed the fuel ??? Bruce Morris: Where did you read
that ULSD was being used for the last 6 years in some fleets.?It is my
understanding that until 2006 there were no refineries capable of
producing this fuel. Unless they brought it from Europe. Please correct
me if I am wrong. As for the posts about biodiesel: If you were to
really invetsigate how much energy is expended to gather the oil and
truck it to a refinery and then have to truck it to the stations one
would soon see that it is a waste of energy. It cannot enter the
pipelines. Same thing applies to Corn Fuel in the Midwest. One big
hoax. It does nothing to save energy as it contains less BTU's and you
burn more fuel!!

Bruce
1988 FC35

[erniecarpet@...]

I have heard of trucks being stopped- but a motorhome, abiding by the road
laws- perhaps the highway patrol has other things to look for~

Ernie Ekberg
83 PT40
Livingston, Montana



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

[Scott]

With all the speculation about the ULSF and the fact that we are
going to have to run it, I spoke to a CAT engineer at the FMCA rally.
Most of the guys from CAT were sales guys but I went back 4 times
looking for the engineer to discuss this very issue.

Basically, this is what he had to say. Lubricity is very much a
concern but there will be additives that will be blended into the
fuel and additives that can be added to the fuel. His take was the
most important issue was the crankcase oil. A new oil will hit the
market that should be used. If that oil is used along with some
lubricity then things should be ok. A guy that has an injector
rebuild shop said he uses ATF, upon filter changes he fills the fuel
filter with ATF and it will not hurt a thing. Actually good for the
seals and lubricity of the injector pump)

This is where it gets interesting. The CAT guy said that in todays
fuel there is a higher level of sulpher produced as a by product in
the engine. Some of the sulfer is exhausted through the exhaust and
some is washed into the crank case oil. Todays oil had some additive
to neutralize the sulpher (because if you add moisture you get
sulphuric acid..not too good in the engine) The NEW OIL, will not
have as much additive to remove the sulpher because there will not be
as much sulpher. He said the oil is probably the biggest issue to be
concerned with. Naturally this begs the question of "If I am using
Rotella today and it neutralizes the sulfer then why can't I continue
to use what I am happy with...he said you can (uh wait you just
explained...oh never mind.. engineers sheeesh) But todays oils will
eventually be phased out.

He also said that CAT has logged the most trial miles (over 7 million
on test vehicles) and they are probably the most prepared. Detroit
was next but way behind.

My personal take on it is that I am going to continue to use Rotella.
Use ATF in the fuel. As I do now. I have a tendency to believe
the "guys with dirt under thier finger nails" for 20+ years...they
see it from where the rubber meets the road and NOT what specs, tech
documents etc say. There are ALOT of 3208's in heavy equip, boats,
RV's and such to simply turn their back on those "existing customers"
I would not want a 2 stroke though that can be confusing.

Great topic for debate though.

Scott B
86FC35
SC


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "birdshill123"
wrote:
>
> It is amazing how a thread can change. Now we have conspiracy
theories
> as to why they changed the fuel ??? Bruce Morris: Where did you
read
> that ULSD was being used for the last 6 years in some fleets.?It is
my
> understanding that until 2006 there were no refineries capable of
> producing this fuel. Unless they brought it from Europe. Please
correct
> me if I am wrong. As for the posts about biodiesel: If you were to
> really invetsigate how much energy is expended to gather the oil
and
> truck it to a refinery and then have to truck it to the stations
one
> would soon see that it is a waste of energy. It cannot enter the
> pipelines. Same thing applies to Corn Fuel in the Midwest. One big
> hoax. It does nothing to save energy as it contains less BTU's and
you
> burn more fuel!!
>
> Bruce
> 1988 FC35
>

[erniecarpet@...]

Looks like I will be purchasing a case of ATF- whenever this low sulfur
diesel comes my way.

Ernie Ekberg
83 PT40
Livingston, Montana



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

[Al]

Can't comment on your harvest and transportation of biodiesel. All
I can tell you is it cost me $0.63 a gallon in materials and I know
my engine gets way more lubrication than the petro diesel product.
True it has less btu but I have not noticed a reduction in my
mileage. Even if I give up a mile or two, I can produce about 4
gallons to each gallon of diesel I buy. Best thing is you can mix
this with the petro based diesel product. The govt. gives blenders
up to $1.00 a gallon tax credit to do just that.

I can also tell you that biodiesel product continues to evolve. Now
it is a veg. oil based product. The future will be algea based
product. Their are several plants trying to come online in the next
few years. I think its very exciting to get a resource that is
renewable and is easier on my engine and the environment. As with
any new pioneering field, the costs are great in the beginning but
will decline as the technologies evolve to support the need.

Al, Kathy, Alfred, Daniel Johnson
Mandeville, Louisiana
'04 VW Passat B100
'03 Dodge B100
'96 BMC B100
'93 Dodge B100
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "birdshill123"
wrote:
>
> It is amazing how a thread can change. Now we have conspiracy
theories
> as to why they changed the fuel ??? Bruce Morris: Where did you
read
> that ULSD was being used for the last 6 years in some fleets.?It
is my
> understanding that until 2006 there were no refineries capable of
> producing this fuel. Unless they brought it from Europe. Please
correct
> me if I am wrong. As for the posts about biodiesel: If you were to
> really invetsigate how much energy is expended to gather the oil
and
> truck it to a refinery and then have to truck it to the stations
one
> would soon see that it is a waste of energy. It cannot enter the
> pipelines. Same thing applies to Corn Fuel in the Midwest. One big
> hoax. It does nothing to save energy as it contains less BTU's and
you
> burn more fuel!!
>
> Bruce
> 1988 FC35
>

[Al]

Doug,
Yes you bring up good points about the scrubbing effect biodiesel
has on removing all the old petro based film that is left from
diesel fuel. I always carry spare fuel filter set when I am
travelling. Did have my aquahot filter clog on my due to the fact
that I missed changing that filter during my routine maintenence.
But generally speaking, once you convert over to bio fuel and have
run thru the tank full of fuel, your filters will again go back to
normal change intervals.

They say that biodiesel has a 6 month shelf life but I have not
seen any scientific studies. I do use my fuel as fast as I can make
it. I would think that if a person were using upto B5 ( 5% ), you
would not have problems with shelf life since you are talking about
15 gallons in a 300 gallon tank.

At the 5% ratio, I would not think you would have cold weather
problems. When you increase the ratio, you have to be cautious on
the temperture you are operating the vehicle in. But again at the
5% ratio, I think the petro based product would take care of cold
weather operation. I belong to other biodiesel forums and generally
the folks in the Northern climate will change from B100 to B50
during the winter months.

I have not had any problems with Algea with my use. I have been
running vehicles at the B100 level since Nov. '05. No problems to
report other than I had my aquahot filter clog up and my '93 Dodge
Filter clog up and engine shut down. You usually get prenty of
warning before the filter clogs. The engine will not start as fast
as it normally does. I change out my fuel filters when I do my oil
change at 5k. Better to change out in my shop then on the side of
the road is my moto. So I probably spend more money then I should
on the preventative stuff.

Al, Kathy, Alfred, Daniel Johnson
Mandeville, Louisiana
'04 VW Passat B100
'03 Dodge B100
'96 BMC B100
'93 Dodge B100

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Doug Engel
wrote:
>
> Al, thanks for the input, and I have heard similar info regarding
Bio. We have had winter problems with Bio up here, as well as
teh "scrubbing" effect it has on a fuel system (read possibility of
plugged filters, not knocking the product, just be perpared)) on the
first couple tankfulls. Another possible issue with Bio that
directly applies to many of us is a higher tendency toward bacteria
growth in stored fuel. ( I have been told, I'm sure I'll be
corrected if wrong). Nothing a good biocide can't address, just
another item to be aware of. Doug
>
> Al wrote: My understanding is that diesel
engines use sulfur content to aid in
> cooling and lubrication. When you reduce the content, your engine
is
> going to not receive the same lubrication and thus will wear
faster
> and run hotter since you are creating more friction. To what
degree,
> I could not tell you. But I do have a solution.
>
> Vehicle mfg have endorsed Biodiesel upto 5% in many of the diesel
> engines on the market. Several have gone beyond that endorsement
so I
> will just stand on the 5%. If you add, 1% Biodiesel it will
replace
> all of the lubrication lost plus is good for the enviroment and is
a
> renewable resource. I am not a tree hugger but am glad that I am
> doing something to reduce my emmissions and dependancy on foriegn
> oil. I currently run 100 % ( B100 ) in all of my vehicles with no
> problems. Not looking to get into debate about Biodiesel. Just
want
> to make sure the group has some other options.
>
> Al, Kathy, Alfred, Daniel Johnson
> Mandeville, Louisiana
> '04 VW Passat B100
> '03 Dodge B100
> '96 BMC B100
> '93 Dodge B100
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, erniecarpet@ wrote:
> >
> > Doug- since I have a 83 model coach- is this low sulfur diesel
going
> to
> > affect my engine?
> >
> > Ernie Ekberg
> > 83 PT40
> > Livingston, Montana
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>