Low sulfur fuel and additives

[Tom Warner]

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...n2006\
22.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
>
>
>

[Mike Hohnstein]

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...n2006\
22.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]

[Howard O. Truitt]

To All,
FWIW, Before retiring I was the managing partner of a food service distributor
running a fleet of 3208's. The fellow that did all our pump work highly
reccommended using Stanadyne Performance Formular.
Howard Truitt
Camilla, Ga.
86 PT40
"Under The Rainbow"

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

[Tom Warner]

Howard.................
Stanadyne http://www.stanadyne.com/new/index.aspis from
everything I read #1 in the business of injection pump technology,
test equipment and fuel additives. Maybe transmission fluid in
diesel fuel is the way to go but not in anything I own. When it comes
to putting anything in the fuel tank, engine oil, or coolant system I
rely on the experts and if it has not been tested and approved I dont
use it. Over hauling a 6V92 is not for the faint of heart or
pocketbook and I am sure as the devil not going to take a chance on
it by adding something some trucker recommends without any sense of
the consequences. I have used Stanadyne products since the 1980s when
I worked on my GM 5.7L diesels and it works and has been tested for years.

tom warner
vernon center,ny
1985 PT 40

At 07:20 AM 12/6/2006, you wrote:
>To All,
>FWIW, Before retiring I was the managing partner of a food service
>distributor running a fleet of 3208's. The fellow that did all our
>pump work highly reccommended using Stanadyne Performance Formular.
>Howard Truitt
>Camilla, Ga.
>86 PT40
>"Under The Rainbow"
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[one_dusty_hoot]

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]
>

[Mike Hohnstein]

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]

[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]
> >
>

[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]
>

[Dan Darst]

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-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/

[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]