- Status
There is some controversy
over this point. It is possible that the new ULSD fuel will have some reduced lubricity and may cause accummulated sludge in your fuel tank and lines to soften and eventually clog your filters more often. I have a 20 yr old Yanmar 2GM20F that runs very well and hope it keeps doing so. I plan to add the new fuel to the old stuff in the tank in small quantities. I also plan to increase the amount of cetane booster and lubricity additives I currently use. Finally, I plan to keep a pretty close eye on how the engine performs when I finally have to add this new fuel (it will hit truck stops in mid-Oct 2006 but may not get to offroad/marinas until next spring)and I plan to be prepared to change primary and secondary filters more frequently at the first sign of problems.
over this point. It is possible that the new ULSD fuel will have some reduced lubricity and may cause accummulated sludge in your fuel tank and lines to soften and eventually clog your filters more often. I have a 20 yr old Yanmar 2GM20F that runs very well and hope it keeps doing so. I plan to add the new fuel to the old stuff in the tank in small quantities. I also plan to increase the amount of cetane booster and lubricity additives I currently use. Finally, I plan to keep a pretty close eye on how the engine performs when I finally have to add this new fuel (it will hit truck stops in mid-Oct 2006 but may not get to offroad/marinas until next spring)and I plan to be prepared to change primary and secondary filters more frequently at the first sign of problems.
It is not an additive!
High sulphur fuels have high sulphur content because they come out of the ground that way. The fuel is the same except it just has more sulphur in it which is expensive to remove so the oil companies just leave it in. Don't think you would need to add a lubricant as diesel is an OIL Don't think you need more cetane for anti-knock as diesels operate on the pressure ignition principal. Cetane may even make it run worse as it suppresses the pressure ignition of the fuel. Course you are going to have to get by without that sulphur smell. If low sulphur fuel could hurt an engine the oil companies would be liable and they would not sell the stuff or they would have GREAT BIG SIGNS with warnings on them around the fuel pumps. Since they are selling the stuff and I have not seen any signs with warnings at the pumps I suspect the stuff is OK as is.
High sulphur fuels have high sulphur content because they come out of the ground that way. The fuel is the same except it just has more sulphur in it which is expensive to remove so the oil companies just leave it in. Don't think you would need to add a lubricant as diesel is an OIL Don't think you need more cetane for anti-knock as diesels operate on the pressure ignition principal. Cetane may even make it run worse as it suppresses the pressure ignition of the fuel. Course you are going to have to get by without that sulphur smell. If low sulphur fuel could hurt an engine the oil companies would be liable and they would not sell the stuff or they would have GREAT BIG SIGNS with warnings on them around the fuel pumps. Since they are selling the stuff and I have not seen any signs with warnings at the pumps I suspect the stuff is OK as is.
ULSD
Is not going to do anything to engines. It may however, have a significant affect on the injection pump and fuel supply pump. You may well see premature wearing on the pumps along with fuel leaks. To avoid such problems you can run your engine on #2 heating oil which will have the higher sulfur content. I just bought 550 gallons at $1.97 which should last me for over one year in my car.
Is not going to do anything to engines. It may however, have a significant affect on the injection pump and fuel supply pump. You may well see premature wearing on the pumps along with fuel leaks. To avoid such problems you can run your engine on #2 heating oil which will have the higher sulfur content. I just bought 550 gallons at $1.97 which should last me for over one year in my car.
There is a weird sign on the pumps of our local
supermarket diesel pumps. I don't understand it. I'll try to remember to take a picture but it says 'Warning! Low Sulfur diesel. Not for use in 2007 new vehicles.' Huh? Where's my camera?
supermarket diesel pumps. I don't understand it. I'll try to remember to take a picture but it says 'Warning! Low Sulfur diesel. Not for use in 2007 new vehicles.' Huh? Where's my camera?
So, what am I missing?
I thought ultra low sulfur diesel was the future. Why are new cars NOT to run it and for older, it's OK? This is the only sign like it around these parts, that I've seen anyway. Everyone ignores it. Is it a mis-print?
I thought ultra low sulfur diesel was the future. Why are new cars NOT to run it and for older, it's OK? This is the only sign like it around these parts, that I've seen anyway. Everyone ignores it. Is it a mis-print?
I thought you would never ask......
First- What you are missing Fred is that the sticker is for Low Sulphur Diesel, not ULTRA Low Sulphur Diesel. The ULSD is for cars from 2007 and beyond. They should not use the LSD because the extra sulphur will damage the catalytic converter just like leaded fuel will damage the present gasoline catalytic converters. I just researched and wrote an article for my Sail & Power Squadron. I have appended the text from the article below. The bottom line is that the sulphur in the fuel is a lubricant and the ULSD may not play well with all of our older engines. The operative words here are "may not" and "all". Some people may have no problems at all. Others may experience leaking seals in the fuel system or failures due to lower lubricity. A new grade of engine oil will be available for the newer engines, and I am not clear as to whether or not that oil will be required in our older engines. In my reading I've seen where there are additives that will improve the lubricity and possibly the cetane as well. Anyway the article follows...... ------------------------------------------------- Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) How will you be affected? In 2004 the EPA initiated the latest regulations in a continuing quest to reduce the emissions from diesel engines. These regulations require new diesel engines (2007 and later) to be capable of using diesel fuel that will contain much lower sulfur content than the fuel that is sold today. The need for new engines and the lower sulfur fuel will be to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) pollution. The reduction of sulfur will allow the development of emission control systems to this end. Years ago we used leaded gasoline in our cars, but because the leaded gasoline would foul the catalytic converters in new cars, unleaded gasoline was developed. Similarly, high sulfur content would be detrimental to new diesel emission systems. These regulations cover both highway and non-highway uses. Currently, the EPA Tier 3 regulations for highway use also apply to off-road diesels that are 50hp (37KW) or smaller. These sized engines are typically used in our auxiliary sailboats. Standards for new engines will be phased in starting with the smallest engines in 2007 until all but the very largest diesel engines meet both NOx and PM standards in 2014. Some of the largest engines, 750+ horsepower, will have one additional year to meet the emissions standards. Diesel fuel currently contains about 3,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur. The new rule will cut that to 500 ppm in 2007 and 15 ppm by 2010. This rule will reduce non-road diesel fuel sulfur levels in two steps. First, starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in non-road diesel fuel will be limited to a maximum of 500 ppm, the same as for current highway diesel fuel. Second, starting in 2010, fuel sulfur levels in most non-road diesel fuel will be reduced to 15 ppm. This ultra-low sulfur fuel will create immediate public health benefits and will make it possible for engine manufacturers to use advanced emission-control systems that will dramatically reduce both PM and NOx emissions. In the case of marine diesel fuel, this second step will occur in 2012. What does this all mean? The use of ULSD fuel has two currently identified drawbacks. First, the sulfur in the fuel enhances it’s lubricity and the new fuel with ultra-low sulfur may not adequately lubricate older engines. Thus the current diesel oils that are designated as API CI-4 or CI-4 Plus should not be used in engines using the ULSD fuel. New oils meeting the higher lubricity and other specifications are developed and are designated as category API CJ-4. The second drawback, according to the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance industrial group, is that some engines may require preventative maintenance to upgrade certain engine and fuel system seals that may not perform well with ULSD and could leak. They believe that based upon fleet testing, this problem is not exclusive to any particular engine type or geographical region. They anticipate that only a small fraction of engines would be affected. A leak in your fuel system can be dangerous, potentially causing fires to occur if diesel fuel comes in contact with hot engine parts. It is recommended that you consult with your manufacturer for advice about maintaining or replacing the fuel system seals in your engine. How can you tell what you are buying? The EPA has required that one of the colored stickers below be affixed to the pumps to indicate the sulfur content. Labels shall be on the upper two-thirds of the pump in a location where they are clearly visible and pumps must be labeled by June 1, 2006. <snip graphics of the labels for this post> For more information check the following websites: Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance (industry Web site): www.clean-diesel.org Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site for clean diesel: www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel P/C Richard Stidger, SN Editor, Berkshire Log ----------------------------------------------------------
First- What you are missing Fred is that the sticker is for Low Sulphur Diesel, not ULTRA Low Sulphur Diesel. The ULSD is for cars from 2007 and beyond. They should not use the LSD because the extra sulphur will damage the catalytic converter just like leaded fuel will damage the present gasoline catalytic converters. I just researched and wrote an article for my Sail & Power Squadron. I have appended the text from the article below. The bottom line is that the sulphur in the fuel is a lubricant and the ULSD may not play well with all of our older engines. The operative words here are "may not" and "all". Some people may have no problems at all. Others may experience leaking seals in the fuel system or failures due to lower lubricity. A new grade of engine oil will be available for the newer engines, and I am not clear as to whether or not that oil will be required in our older engines. In my reading I've seen where there are additives that will improve the lubricity and possibly the cetane as well. Anyway the article follows...... ------------------------------------------------- Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) How will you be affected? In 2004 the EPA initiated the latest regulations in a continuing quest to reduce the emissions from diesel engines. These regulations require new diesel engines (2007 and later) to be capable of using diesel fuel that will contain much lower sulfur content than the fuel that is sold today. The need for new engines and the lower sulfur fuel will be to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) pollution. The reduction of sulfur will allow the development of emission control systems to this end. Years ago we used leaded gasoline in our cars, but because the leaded gasoline would foul the catalytic converters in new cars, unleaded gasoline was developed. Similarly, high sulfur content would be detrimental to new diesel emission systems. These regulations cover both highway and non-highway uses. Currently, the EPA Tier 3 regulations for highway use also apply to off-road diesels that are 50hp (37KW) or smaller. These sized engines are typically used in our auxiliary sailboats. Standards for new engines will be phased in starting with the smallest engines in 2007 until all but the very largest diesel engines meet both NOx and PM standards in 2014. Some of the largest engines, 750+ horsepower, will have one additional year to meet the emissions standards. Diesel fuel currently contains about 3,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur. The new rule will cut that to 500 ppm in 2007 and 15 ppm by 2010. This rule will reduce non-road diesel fuel sulfur levels in two steps. First, starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in non-road diesel fuel will be limited to a maximum of 500 ppm, the same as for current highway diesel fuel. Second, starting in 2010, fuel sulfur levels in most non-road diesel fuel will be reduced to 15 ppm. This ultra-low sulfur fuel will create immediate public health benefits and will make it possible for engine manufacturers to use advanced emission-control systems that will dramatically reduce both PM and NOx emissions. In the case of marine diesel fuel, this second step will occur in 2012. What does this all mean? The use of ULSD fuel has two currently identified drawbacks. First, the sulfur in the fuel enhances it’s lubricity and the new fuel with ultra-low sulfur may not adequately lubricate older engines. Thus the current diesel oils that are designated as API CI-4 or CI-4 Plus should not be used in engines using the ULSD fuel. New oils meeting the higher lubricity and other specifications are developed and are designated as category API CJ-4. The second drawback, according to the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance industrial group, is that some engines may require preventative maintenance to upgrade certain engine and fuel system seals that may not perform well with ULSD and could leak. They believe that based upon fleet testing, this problem is not exclusive to any particular engine type or geographical region. They anticipate that only a small fraction of engines would be affected. A leak in your fuel system can be dangerous, potentially causing fires to occur if diesel fuel comes in contact with hot engine parts. It is recommended that you consult with your manufacturer for advice about maintaining or replacing the fuel system seals in your engine. How can you tell what you are buying? The EPA has required that one of the colored stickers below be affixed to the pumps to indicate the sulfur content. Labels shall be on the upper two-thirds of the pump in a location where they are clearly visible and pumps must be labeled by June 1, 2006. <snip graphics of the labels for this post> For more information check the following websites: Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance (industry Web site): www.clean-diesel.org Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site for clean diesel: www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel P/C Richard Stidger, SN Editor, Berkshire Log ----------------------------------------------------------
Rich
Currently the only difference between #2 heating oil and diesel fuel is the color of the fuel(red dye is added to heating oil) and the fact that heating oil carries no Road Tax with it. Do you know if the EPA is requiring these new regs for #2 heating oil also?
Currently the only difference between #2 heating oil and diesel fuel is the color of the fuel(red dye is added to heating oil) and the fact that heating oil carries no Road Tax with it. Do you know if the EPA is requiring these new regs for #2 heating oil also?
Alan, I do not know.
But I thought that home heating oil was also different in that it was not as finely filtered or that there was some *other* difference that made it less desireable for engine use. I had an Olds 5.7 liter diesel car that I did use home heating oil in for a while. I noticed that it smoked more than when using auto diesel and also seemed to have a bit less power. Also, within a year of using the heating oil, I had an injection pump failure. That could have been coincidence with 178K miles on the injector, but who knows? I wouldn't be surprised to see lower emissions required for furnesses also. After all, I use way more heating oil than diesel in my sailboat or fuel in my car.
But I thought that home heating oil was also different in that it was not as finely filtered or that there was some *other* difference that made it less desireable for engine use. I had an Olds 5.7 liter diesel car that I did use home heating oil in for a while. I noticed that it smoked more than when using auto diesel and also seemed to have a bit less power. Also, within a year of using the heating oil, I had an injection pump failure. That could have been coincidence with 178K miles on the injector, but who knows? I wouldn't be surprised to see lower emissions required for furnesses also. After all, I use way more heating oil than diesel in my sailboat or fuel in my car.
Rich
You've picked a particularly poor choice of diesel powered vehicle as your example. Those engines were a disaster from the beginning. GM lost a huge amount of money with them and really gave the diesel a bad rep. The injection pumps had an extremely high failure rate. It was bad engineering not your fuel. My Mercedes has more than 300K on the odometer. It has never had any engine or fuel injection problems. It has been running on #2 oil for more the 10 years. I add anti gel to the fuel in winter and an injection system cleaner for the entire year. She still gets 30+ miles per gallon and there are no leaks. I understand and applaud the need for cleaning up the environment but some adjustments need to be made that allow older completely functional vehicles to stay in use.
You've picked a particularly poor choice of diesel powered vehicle as your example. Those engines were a disaster from the beginning. GM lost a huge amount of money with them and really gave the diesel a bad rep. The injection pumps had an extremely high failure rate. It was bad engineering not your fuel. My Mercedes has more than 300K on the odometer. It has never had any engine or fuel injection problems. It has been running on #2 oil for more the 10 years. I add anti gel to the fuel in winter and an injection system cleaner for the entire year. She still gets 30+ miles per gallon and there are no leaks. I understand and applaud the need for cleaning up the environment but some adjustments need to be made that allow older completely functional vehicles to stay in use.
Yep, those engines were junk.
The problem with them wasn't poor engineering, it was poor application. They weren't diesels, they were converted gasoline engines. I'm surprised one ran as long as 187K miles.
As far as ultra low sulfur diesel, I have indeed read about this stuff. It's in use in other parts of the world. What I've read says that the concern with removing the sulfur is not loss of lubricity, it's the method that sulfur is removed that also lowers (removes) oil from the fuel. In other words the oil companies are sometimes too cheap to do the job right and end up removing the oil along with the sulfur. No one has shown me that sulfur is a lubricant. In its natural form it's a yellow powder. Didn't any of you guys make gun powder before? That used to be a NRA 'child brainwashing' method of insuring children grew up shooting guns. I was a victim. I could go on for hours. So, as the uncertainty of engine damage as voiced by Rich's reference is once again repeated, it really boils down to no one is quality controlling the oil companies. I'm getting tired of doing this;
The problem with them wasn't poor engineering, it was poor application. They weren't diesels, they were converted gasoline engines. I'm surprised one ran as long as 187K miles.
As far as ultra low sulfur diesel, I have indeed read about this stuff. It's in use in other parts of the world. What I've read says that the concern with removing the sulfur is not loss of lubricity, it's the method that sulfur is removed that also lowers (removes) oil from the fuel. In other words the oil companies are sometimes too cheap to do the job right and end up removing the oil along with the sulfur. No one has shown me that sulfur is a lubricant. In its natural form it's a yellow powder. Didn't any of you guys make gun powder before? That used to be a NRA 'child brainwashing' method of insuring children grew up shooting guns. I was a victim. I could go on for hours. So, as the uncertainty of engine damage as voiced by Rich's reference is once again repeated, it really boils down to no one is quality controlling the oil companies. I'm getting tired of doing this; - Status