Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: New Diesel Standards (Read 1365 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #1 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63250
I may be asleep at the switch, or not really reading what the pumps say but haven't most of us been using ULSD for a few years? I read the article and checked another part of the website cited, which said . . .
"Effective June 1, 2006, refiners and importers nationwide are now required to ensure that at least 80 percent of the volume of the highway diesel fuel they produce or import is ULSD-compliant."
If so, then 80% of what we've been using is ULSD. I also do recall many stories about the crud in fuel tanks and fuel filters, loosened up by ULSD, but these seem like reports of 1-3 years ago.

Am I wrong?
--

Lee Zaborowski

07 Intrigue 12153, Cat C-13

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #2 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63251
I know I have been asleep and not paying attention to what is on the pumps. I know when I go to Utah and fill up there my engine does run the same as the fuel I get in Oregon. Hear reports of very bad diesel in Calif. and a diesel mech. told me they had very bad fuel in Utah and surrounding states. What woke me up is what my neighbor told me yesterday of a over the road trucker out of Calif. talking to a local. He complained of milage going from 6 down to 4. He added soy oil to his diesel and within a short time his engine quitted down and his milage climbed to 8. Got me wondering what was going on and started searching on the net. Found the reason for the reports of bad fuel in the link.

More of our wonderful government at work. They some how think making all of us pay more and use more fuel will somehow, as if by magic, produce less of something.

What really got my attention is the talk of less lubrication in the diesel and the adverse effect on injections systems. As a ex-injection system rebuilder, that makes me extremely nervous. The repair cost for this non-sense can be extreme. Something we all need to be aware of and add the lubrication back into the fuel. It will be lots cheaper then the possible repair cost. How and what to add seems to be the big question at this time.

So, in short, seems different parts of the country are ahead of the Dec, 2010 deadline and the effects of the "new" fuel is being felt.

Leonard 97' Magna 5418

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #3 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63253
Hi Leonard. I can report that we've traveled around 9,000 miles since March, with no fuel problems and consistent good MPG. We try to fuel up in mostly low-tax states but did buy in - MO, MN, IL, OK, TX, NM, AZ, UT, ID, OR, MT, SD. Almost all stops were at FJs.

--

Lee Zaborowski

07 Intrigue 12153, Cat C-13

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #4 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63254
Hi Leonard. I can report that we've traveled around 9,000 miles since March, with no fuel problems and consistent good MPG. We try to fuel up in mostly low-tax states but did buy in - MO, MN, IL, OK, TX, NM, AZ, UT, ID, OR, MT, SD. Almost all stops were at FJs.

--

Lee Zaborowski

07 Intrigue 12153, Cat C-13

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #5 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63255
Interesting. Wonder if your 07 Cat may be late enough and designed for the new fuel. Seems the year of the engine is important by some of the things I came across. For example, for a 93 or earlier, bio-diesel may cause fuel hose and seal leaks.

Did not find many hard answers, but lots of hints of things. This will be an on-going story I'm sure. In my 97 I can tell loss of power when I fuel in Utah compared to Oregon. Thought it was my imagination until now. Now I understand the difference I experienced. This is something to keep in mind if next summer milage starts dropping on some units.

Leonard

97' Magna 5418

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #6 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63256
My coach was built in Fall, 2006 so the engine is definitely pre-2007. My MPG has steadily improved from 10,000 miles, when I bought it, through 35,000 miles.

Lee

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #7 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63257
My coach was built in Fall, 2006 so the engine is definitely pre-2007. My MPG has steadily improved from 10,000 miles, when I bought it, through 35,000 miles.

Lee

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #8 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63258
Your engine is not fully broke in yet. Have driven several new diesels. They all improved noticeable in performance up through 50,000 miles. Our RV had 30,000 plus when we got it. Now, 10,000 later it is improving in power. Will be fun to get over the 50,000 mark to see just what it will do. So your engine is in line with improving as it breaks in fully.

As for year, there was mention of different year engines, just not sure what it was all about. Enjoy your Cat. Sweet engines. Still the lack of lube for injection systems is the critical part of the new fuel standard. The lube is suppose to be added by the refinery but spot testing has proven it is not always the case. Plus the stories have some credibility.

From another site:

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines . This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it's predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very "dry"? and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #9 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63259
What would happen if we added 1 gallon of 2-cycle oil to a full tank (100gals) of diesel fuel?? Considering the fact that many 2-cycle engines run for years with no other lubrication than the 50:1 fuel/oil mix, the resulting 100:1 mix would surely give us a boost in lubricity...
I am obviously not a mechanic, so am wondering if the addition of 2-cycle oil would cause problems elsewhere in the engine...

buck

k7wn, '99magna5653

=========================================================

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #10 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63260
Quote
Will it never end?? New Diesel fuel standards will adversely effect our engines.
>http://www.clean-diesel.org/vehicle_performance.html > > Fuel additives will become something we HAVE to use. Beginning to understand the rumors of bad diesel fuel, lower milage etc. I have been hearing.

Leonard Kerns
97' Magna 5418
When did you last buy fuel that was not ULSD?
After several years of using ULSD and years of parking at ocean edge, my fuel additive has not changed. 2 quarts of new or used engine oil is added when fuel tank is filled. Oil added to fuel replaces lubricating effect of sulfur that was removed. Decreased fuel use more than pays for oil added. Winter operation in Wisconsin, MI, NH & IA has not given me any reason to add any other to ULSD fuel.
If your understanding is of only rumors, maybe you should buy the most expensive fuel additive available as a sleep aid.

--

God Bless You,

Eric Lee Elliott

5 Inspire 51321, Caterpillar C9

phone 870.613.1398

email hooyah@...
web http://ericelliott.us
Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"?. John 14

Common sense is not. NRA Life Member

Linux user #472404

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #11 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63261
Folks Before we beat the hell out of this, the point should be made, that , if you have the newer engines , built to meet the ULSD fuel , then no additives are required. The first alert sent out by Leonard , really was an old listing ( 2006 I believe ) about the change to the new fuel. I would think that there must be a lot of data about the effects of the new fuel on older engines. We should try and make our posts somewhat specific to which engine you are referring to, so that all the folks out do not have to get concerned.

Ron Baran 09 Magna 7025 ISX Cummins 650 HP

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #12 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63262
Amen, Ron. Caterpillar Corp says no additives are needed, and they hold the engine warranty!

Lee
--

Lee Zaborowski

07 Intrigue 12153, Cat C-13

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #13 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63266
Saturday I was in a major truck stop. They had selves full of diesel additive. Several different brands by the gallon. I stood and looked at how much they had on display. Thought it very interesting. Come home and find out about this "new" fuel standard. The over-the-road boys drive a lot of the latest, greatest and this truck stop had many gallons of additive on display. Makes me wonder if they know something I have not figured out yet.

Leonard Kerns
97' Magna 5418

By the way. When I was looking at this CC to buy, I noticed the mechanic pump and knew I would be running lube additives from day one with it. I also knew that it was a true 330 hp. as opposed to some of the newer engines that do not preform as well as the earlier engines. I know the problems engines had when they changed the fuel the first time. Fuel additives and cetane booster at fill up every time.

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #14 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63268
Truckstops know the additives are a profitable item. Most truckers today drive company trucks, by count of trucks on the road. Most do not use any additive.
You may want to ask the maker of your engine, i.e. Cummins, Detroit, Cat, etc what they recommend. Most do not recommend any additive. Not to short your smarts, but the engine makers would demand an additive if it helped.

Mikee

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #15 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63269
The other side of the coin. The truckers are not going to spend the money on additives unless they can see a reason for it, i.e. cost effective. With the cost of fuel and maintenance they must see a reason for the trouble and cost to pour more money into the fuel tanks. Just wonder what the pay back is they see?

Leonard

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #16 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63271
Please don't jump all over me for stating what I believe. I've only been operating diesel MHs for about 20 years. That doesn't mean I'm defining my self as an expert but I do have some experience.
I have never added anything to my fuel and have never suffered any consequences. Having said that, by not doing so, I may have missed out on increased milage but I firmly do not believe so. The cost of the additive would probably offset the increased milage realized.
Truck drivers are just people like RV drivers. Even though driving trucks is their lively hood, they are not more knowledgable about diesel engines and additives than RV drivers. In fact, I would put my money on the RV'r. All of us are subject to advertising and what our colleagues are saying or doing. I would think if there was some additive out there that would truly improve milage and performance it would be well known by every diesel engine owner and manufacturer in the country.
One last subject, increased milage after engine break in. I have owned only one new MH so my experience is limited. This MH had a Cummins ISC 330 HP. I drove it for 7 years, traveling from coast to coast, North and South several times towing a Ford Explorer and amassed almost 70,000 miles. I recorded every gallon of diesel I purchased and calculated the per tank an accumulated milage. I started at 7.5 mpg and when I traded it off the accumulated milage was 7.5 mpg. I find it difficult to believe that anyone realizes increased milage after there engine is "broken in" if their records are accurate and use the accumulated method.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Jim

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #17 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63273
A cynical reply would be that everyone makes some money when customers buy, whether the product is needed or not. The question is the value/need!?

Lee

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #18 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63276
I have a 2000 Intrigue with a Cummins engine, and I have seen NO change in mileage switching to the new fuel. I got just under 9 before, I get just under 9 now. I think this much ado about nothing. You can go on the web and find just about anything. Show me some objective testing done by an independent lab with no axe to grind.

Al Colby

2000 Intrigue 10979

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #19 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63280
Eric,

I don't have any info to rebuke your statement that engine oil in your diesel is a substitute for the sulfur that was removed from ULSD. But I don't think it works that way. They are two different compounds and would act differently in the combustion chamber of a diesel engine.

Jim

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #21 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63284
Hey Guys & Gals, When was Lee ever cynical??
While you are thinking about the ULSD and lack of lubricity (is that even a real word), Want to bet that your Hurricane or Hydro Hot and Diesel Generator were not manufactured to meet the new fuel specs. I, like Lee, sleep well even if someone is making a litte money off me to sell me an additive. I found one that cost $47.00 a gallon but you only use one ounce per 33 gal of fuel. I have used it since 1999 in my Intrigue, cummins 350 and now my new 07 Allure (old technology engine) cummins 400. But then just like Dumbo with the magic feather maybe thats all it is. So far, no lift pump gasket failures to report. May you all sleep well tonight! I know I will. I am at home.
Good Luck continuing this thread. But please no Soy Bean Oil or 2 cycle oil.

Rob Brown 07 Allure 42 Wet. 31557

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #22 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63285
Never! Just critical! I sleep well and don't buy any of that stuff.

Say Ron, is HydroHot a diesel engine or diesel burner?

Lee
lubricity (is that even a real word)???
lubricity . . . trickiness . . . shiftiness . . . lewdness. In Latin too.

Humm.

lu·bric·ity (lo??o? bris?i t?)
nounpl.lubricities -·ties
  • slipperiness; smoothness; esp., effectiveness as a lubricant as indicated by this quality
  • trickiness; shiftiness
  • lewdness
Origin: Fr lubricitélubricitas

Related Forms:
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

lu·bric·i·ty(lo?o-br?s??-t?)
noun

The quality or condition of being lubricious.
Origin: Late Latin l?bricitÄ?s, slipperiness, from Latin l?bricus, slippery; see sleubh- in Indo-European roots.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserve

Re: New Diesel Standards

Reply #23 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63291
Hi:

I guess that I have been lucky. I have a 2007, Allure 470. It has a Cummins 400. I have had no problem with the disel to date. I travel mostly in CA and OR.

Bob

Re: New Diesel Standards (7,700 word, 17 message, in 6 hrs)

Reply #24 –
Yahoo Message Number: 63292
Have we beaten this old diesel standard (believed to have been a new standard by the original poster) to death?
Between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. today, 17 messages on this topic were posted, containing 7,700 words -- that is half of a book my wife is writing! True, I counted the words in the "replies to replies to replies to replies" left in some of the messages. The Daily Digest, which many of us use, becomes unneccesarily long.
We now have 23 messages on the mistitled topic, including 8 posted by Lee and 6 by Leonard. Sounds like they should meet somewhere for a beer.
If you want to talk about additives, start a new thread. And remember to trim your replies.

Thank you.
Herb

Forum Moderator