New Low Sulfer Diesel in 2006 -PROBLEMS?

[SkyPup]

Yup, our Bosch VE37s have been going strong on the Low Sulfur <500ppm for quite sometime now. They will go even longer on the ULSD <15ppm as well.

Sulfur is not a lubricant, it is a bad contaminant. The severe hydrotreatment utilized in its removal also removes many of the other water soluable polar compounds that do provide lubricity. In order to correct for the lubricity compounds removed, the ULSD producers add back enough lubricity back to the refined fuel so that the lubricity remains higher than 3100 grams on the SLBOCLE (Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator) test.

BTW, those in California and Texas have been using ULSD with no problems.

 

[Soundguy]

What about the sulfur content of some ep gear lubes.. like gl-5 oils.. versus gl-1's that don't have sulfur?

Soundguy

 

[SkyPup]

That would depend upon the metallic composition of all the parts of tranny.

As you know, taking 95% of the sulfur out of diesel fuel also takes 95% of the sulfuric acid out of the diesel engine crankcase with less depletion of TBN as well removing 95% of the toxic sulfur from the exhaust stream into the atomsphere.

 

[Soundguy]

A precursory search of the internet yeilds dozens of articles on the low sulfur / poor lubricity issue, in just the first 3 pages I looked at. Everything from a military spec sheet.. to a couple oil and fuel companies websites.. to a few bio diesel websites. That's quite a bit of info to disagree with.

If this were the tetra ethyl lead issue / valve lubrication /anti-knock-pre detonation / wivestail issue.. it would be a bit easier to work out... but at least for a casual observer.. it DOES indeed look like sulfur content plays a role in diesel fuel lubricity. There is even an epa article on the subject concerning sulfer oxides and the fuel issue..

Soundguy

 

[SkyPup]

Does that mean that diesel engines in California and Texas are failing left and right from their use of ULSD and that the rest of the USA and Canada will meet the same fate in 2006?

I think not.

BTW, Europe is already using ULSD with less aromatics and much higher cetane and there are ALOT more diesels over there than there are here.

 

[BGL990]

Here's another $0.02 worth of info.

My mom just had the injection pump replaced in her GMC diesel pickup, to the tune of $2500. It is a Stanadyne pump, replaced by an authorized Stanadyne dealer/service center where I live. The pump was not worn out but had some electrical/servo control problems (it is a totally "drive-by-wire" electronically controlled unit). Anyway, on the repair order she got back there was a BIG BOLD note stating that modern low sulphur diesel fuels do not provide enough lubricity for the pump and that a good fuel additive should always be used.

I have also heard that the sulphur itself is not the lubricant but that it either contributes chemically to other compounds to increase lubricity or that it's removal involves processes that break down compounds that do provide the lubricating properties. I'm not sure which, if either of those, is true.

Personally I'm always going to use a good additive in my tractor. If it does nothing so be it, but if it helps the pump last longer then it is well worth the small cost.

 

[SkyPup]

Hmm, sounds like quite an effective marketing and sales plug for Stanadyne's own diesel fuel treatment products.....they did produce the FIE for the infamous GM diesels too....

There are not very many rotary distributor FIE pumps in North America to begin with, primarily VE30, VE34, VE 37, VE44 and the older Stanadyne units are about it for agricultural, marine, industrial, and automotive applications (the vast majority of these FIE units are all in Europe where they are running just fine on ULSD). The distributor pumps are the ones most sensitive to low lubricity.

 

[bandit67]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Most of the new diesels emit less emissions that a compact car. That was the whole reason for Ford going to the 6.0 litre over the 7.3 litre. It was all about emissions. Most of the pickups and trucks are already at and beyond govt. guidelines. )</font>

Yes, for example the 6.0L meets current gov't guidelines, but in it's current state (2003 & 2004 motors), does not meet the 2007 guidelines, as I understand it. More work, and cost is being put forth to try to meet those stricter 2007 guidelines, which they were not able to meet in time for production in 2003. I don't know if the new 2005 engines are meeting those stricter guidelines yet.

Earlier this year, the Colorado Powerstroke Club sponsored an informational event at a local diesel repair/research facility. They told us about the 2007 requirements to lower sulphur content, which would also significantly lower the lubricity properties, and that unless the refiners would be required to add back in a lubricity agent that meets some sort of set forth standard, we were ALL going to need to add something to our fuel tank at every fillup. They were very concerned about diesel motor longevity in this country if the refiners were not required to add a lubricity agent back in, as many folks will never bother to add a bottle at every fillup.

I've been hearing more talk of all diesel fuels in 2007 being required to be a 2% biodiesel blend, to get the lubricity up to par. Whether that is something that will happen or not, I have no idea, but I sure would sleep better at night knowing that every station I fill up at was providing a 2% minimum biodiesel blend. However, out here, a local ASTM certified biodiesel producer may have their B20 blend priced the same as regular diesel by that time, so some of us may have another option - right now, their B20 averages 20 cents/gallon more than regular diesel.

 

[WilliamBos]

Hi,

We have been running LSD and now Ulsd up here for 10 years!!

Take care

Will

 

[Soundguy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Does that mean that diesel engines in California and Texas are failing left and right from their )</font>

I didn't say that. Perhaps other lubricants are in use. ( I don't know ) personally.. I use power service products, etc.

It just seems that there are a couple people here that claim there are no problems.. then offer no form of proof to back that up whatsoever. then there are the rest of us here that are offering proof.. or at least doing precursory research either via web documents from credible goverment offices or private companies.. or even from the previous' message deisel pump rebuilder.. etc.

Seems like it is in black and white. Before you get bent out of shape at this message.. how about posting some equally credible date to go along with your argument.. and let the data talk... that's what this needs to be about.. data .. not opinion. So far there is credible data on the 'table' that suggests that lower sulfur fuel has less lubricity. what that entails in not certain.. but does lead many to believe that without added lubricants.. that the new fuel standards may cause problems. I for one, think the fuel industry is trying to play 'chicken' with the standards.. and hold out on extra lubricants due to the cost.. but in the end will have to fall in line and play ball, and modify the addative package to make up for the lost lubricity. Either that or products like power service are gonna be real popular, and probably sold at kiosk displays right by the pump at big diesel stations...

Soundguy