Is there a lubricating additive to make up for ULSD?
06-22-2006, 11:31 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a lubricating additive to make up for ULSD?
I found this on a site and it concerns me ULSD may harm my engine.
Trucking fleets around Australia are reporting a rash of fuel-related seal failures linked to the recent introduction of diesel fuel with a lower sulphur and aromatics content.
Cummins engines seem to be among those hardest hit by the failures. Bob Scholtz, the director of fuel systems and electronics service engineering for Cummins Engine Company (U.S.), said that he has received "reports of rapid, almost instantaneous occurrences of throttle-shaft O-ring leakage". Although the only leak point which Cummins confirms is their fuel pump throttle shaft, U.S. national trucking companies have reported leaks at other locations on Cummins equipment, as well as with other brands of engines. Blaine Johnson, director of maintenance for Ryder Truck Rental, said "This is not just a Cummins problem, it is a seal problem. We've verified seal failures on Navistar 743 engines, Cat 3208 engines, Mack transfer pumps...in all cases it involved a few Buna-N seals."
http://www.mbm.net.au/b100/lsd.html
Trucking fleets around Australia are reporting a rash of fuel-related seal failures linked to the recent introduction of diesel fuel with a lower sulphur and aromatics content.
Cummins engines seem to be among those hardest hit by the failures. Bob Scholtz, the director of fuel systems and electronics service engineering for Cummins Engine Company (U.S.), said that he has received "reports of rapid, almost instantaneous occurrences of throttle-shaft O-ring leakage". Although the only leak point which Cummins confirms is their fuel pump throttle shaft, U.S. national trucking companies have reported leaks at other locations on Cummins equipment, as well as with other brands of engines. Blaine Johnson, director of maintenance for Ryder Truck Rental, said "This is not just a Cummins problem, it is a seal problem. We've verified seal failures on Navistar 743 engines, Cat 3208 engines, Mack transfer pumps...in all cases it involved a few Buna-N seals."
http://www.mbm.net.au/b100/lsd.html
06-22-2006, 01:15 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Glendale(Phoenix),AZ.
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bosch Rep from the Las Vegas, NV area, last year, said that running an additive that increased lubricity was a very good idea due to their experiences with damaged fuel delivery systems.
However, this year, the problem seems to have resolved itself. the problems seem to have gone away.
Much of the diesel fuel delivered to the western states comes from refineries in CA. They have been producing ULSD for quite awhile & in the past, it did not seem to have enough lubricity added. It appears they now are adding enough.
I'm running an additive just to be on the safe side. Almost any additive you could find at Walmart, truckstops, or auto parts stores, that adds lubricity, should work. Make sure it has NO alcohol, in it, though.
One of the most widely acceptable products is Stanadyne. Their "Lubricity Formula" should do the trick, for you, & is cheaper than some of their other products that address all kinds of problems.
Joe F.(Buffalo)
However, this year, the problem seems to have resolved itself. the problems seem to have gone away.
Much of the diesel fuel delivered to the western states comes from refineries in CA. They have been producing ULSD for quite awhile & in the past, it did not seem to have enough lubricity added. It appears they now are adding enough.
I'm running an additive just to be on the safe side. Almost any additive you could find at Walmart, truckstops, or auto parts stores, that adds lubricity, should work. Make sure it has NO alcohol, in it, though.
One of the most widely acceptable products is Stanadyne. Their "Lubricity Formula" should do the trick, for you, & is cheaper than some of their other products that address all kinds of problems.
Joe F.(Buffalo)
06-22-2006, 03:17 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London, Ky
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the 2 stroke oil is working well. Over the course of the last 9 monthes I have been running Schaeffer Soy Sheild. It comes out cost wise less than the 2 stroke oil and has centane booster in it as well 
06-22-2006, 03:56 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer from Cummins
Summary: Cummins==========66711 ULSD and need for lubricating additives
Solution:
Thanks for your Email message.
There are many rumors circulating about the effects of sulfur being in diesel fuel or sulfur being taken out of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel without sulfur is just as good, in all respects except one, when compared with today's fuels with sulfur.
Diesel fuel, in the United States, must meet a lubricity standard. The producers adjust the lubricity before they distribute the fuel. No further additives are needed to ensure proper fuel system lubrication.
The only negative effect of taking sulfur out of fuel is that the fuel becomes more expensive, somewhat negating the inherent cost advantage of running diesel engines when compared to other fuels. As I'm certain you know, sulfur doesn't jump out of the fuel on command. It has to be removed using specialized equipment and chemical processes that add to the expense of producing the fuel.
There is an effect on diesel engines from the use of low or no sulfur fuel which we expect to be positive. The blowby gasses that normally pass through the engine crankcase will contain less or none of the chemically reactive sulfur and its compounds. This will tend to keep the engine oil cleaner during operation and allow important engine components like bushings, bearings and piston rings to live longer.
Diesel fuels containing sulfur or no sulfur each have the same specific heat, about 20,000 BTUs per pound. For that reason they give the same amounts of work for the same amount of fuel. That means the fuel economy per gallon will not be affected.
Over the years we have seen fuel economy decrease, somewhat, as diesel engine designs have been modified to meet the lower NOX limits imposed by government. This has been totally unrelated to sulfur in the fuel.
With lower sulfur fuels it is possible that some exhaust after treatment devices (catalytic converters) may be used to better effect, making it possible to further decrease harmful exhaust emissions.
Solution:
Thanks for your Email message.
There are many rumors circulating about the effects of sulfur being in diesel fuel or sulfur being taken out of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel without sulfur is just as good, in all respects except one, when compared with today's fuels with sulfur.
Diesel fuel, in the United States, must meet a lubricity standard. The producers adjust the lubricity before they distribute the fuel. No further additives are needed to ensure proper fuel system lubrication.
The only negative effect of taking sulfur out of fuel is that the fuel becomes more expensive, somewhat negating the inherent cost advantage of running diesel engines when compared to other fuels. As I'm certain you know, sulfur doesn't jump out of the fuel on command. It has to be removed using specialized equipment and chemical processes that add to the expense of producing the fuel.
There is an effect on diesel engines from the use of low or no sulfur fuel which we expect to be positive. The blowby gasses that normally pass through the engine crankcase will contain less or none of the chemically reactive sulfur and its compounds. This will tend to keep the engine oil cleaner during operation and allow important engine components like bushings, bearings and piston rings to live longer.
Diesel fuels containing sulfur or no sulfur each have the same specific heat, about 20,000 BTUs per pound. For that reason they give the same amounts of work for the same amount of fuel. That means the fuel economy per gallon will not be affected.
Over the years we have seen fuel economy decrease, somewhat, as diesel engine designs have been modified to meet the lower NOX limits imposed by government. This has been totally unrelated to sulfur in the fuel.
With lower sulfur fuels it is possible that some exhaust after treatment devices (catalytic converters) may be used to better effect, making it possible to further decrease harmful exhaust emissions.
06-22-2006, 04:52 PM
#7
Registered User
Well, I will keep an eye out on this new ULSD. In California they been using this for a while. Now next month that is all they got. So if a problem comes up, they will be the 1st test (sorry guys). I see here in Illinois they are really cranking the new stuff out, about 1/3 or total production is the 15ppm 
. They want to get all the 500 ppm purged out so by October it will all be 15 ppm here & 47 other states. Texas produces the most output in the nation and I would assume they will get to the 15ppm finish line before we do in Illinois. It sounds like a good bet to add some Stanadyne (or something for lubrication) for good measure this summer.
. They want to get all the 500 ppm purged out so by October it will all be 15 ppm here & 47 other states. Texas produces the most output in the nation and I would assume they will get to the 15ppm finish line before we do in Illinois. It sounds like a good bet to add some Stanadyne (or something for lubrication) for good measure this summer.
Trending Topics
06-22-2006, 08:54 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delo fuel additive
Has anybody tried the Delo fuel additive, I saw it on the shelf and claims to be like powersource and Stanadyne. It costs around $3.99 for 16oz. a bottle.
06-23-2006, 10:05 AM
#10
Registered User
Originally Posted by trik396
Everything I've read about ULSD has shown that it will have MORE lubricity than the diesel it is replacing. I guess time will tell... 
. I don't buy that, it takes 20 or more years of smoking cigaretts to hurt your health. 500 ppm of sulfur must be realy really bad. I bet there will be a few wrenches in the works for a while, I just want to avoid them. The dealer in Janesville has a good mechanic there, during my oil change next week, I'll ask him. All i know is additives without alcohol or acetone will be fine.
06-23-2006, 10:59 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not like these new fuel standards were put in place last week. This has been coming for years. I'm sure the people at Cummins knew about the ULSD coming before most of us.
There is no way any warranty can be voided because of the ULSD. Now, my box, that's a different story.
There is no way any warranty can be voided because of the ULSD. Now, my box, that's a different story.
06-23-2006, 11:27 AM
#12
Registered User
There sure are a lot for well informed smart people on this site. I am confident IF there is a problem with ULSD, it can be fixed. I'm not loosing sleep. 
06-23-2006, 11:58 AM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it's hard to know whether to go to the trouble or not. Seems odd only refiners and manufacturers say no biggie.
Here's a blurb from Light & Medium Truck, which monitors commercial and other fleets.
With fuel lubricity an important factor in engine wear, the lubricity of ULSD becomes critical, said Hess - especially since diesel fuel is so complex that chemists cannot identify the specific polar compounds in diesel that "provide the lubricity in diesel." All they can say is that when sulfur content is reduced, so is lubricity.
Many diesel injection system parts are machined to such tight tolerances they will not fit together when dry, added Hess. "You must wet the parts with diesel fuel to get them to fit," he said.
That could become a problem if ULSD lubricity turns out to be too low, said Hess. He noted that when Sweden first introduced ULSD with a 10-ppm sulfur content in 1989, there were field failures because of rapid wear on diesel fuel-injection components.
Tests conducted at that time by Infineum, he said, showed that when ULSD without additives was used in engines, critical injection-pump parts had unacceptably high wear after 12,000 kilometers. Also, those parts were in worse shape than identical parts with 100,000 km of wear in engines where ULSD with lubricity additives had been used.
http://www.ttnews.com/lmt/Feb06/monitor.asp
I've got alot of faith in this site's members and for my money I'll be adding a bottle of Diesel Kleen every fillup.
Here's a blurb from Light & Medium Truck, which monitors commercial and other fleets.
With fuel lubricity an important factor in engine wear, the lubricity of ULSD becomes critical, said Hess - especially since diesel fuel is so complex that chemists cannot identify the specific polar compounds in diesel that "provide the lubricity in diesel." All they can say is that when sulfur content is reduced, so is lubricity.
Many diesel injection system parts are machined to such tight tolerances they will not fit together when dry, added Hess. "You must wet the parts with diesel fuel to get them to fit," he said.
That could become a problem if ULSD lubricity turns out to be too low, said Hess. He noted that when Sweden first introduced ULSD with a 10-ppm sulfur content in 1989, there were field failures because of rapid wear on diesel fuel-injection components.
Tests conducted at that time by Infineum, he said, showed that when ULSD without additives was used in engines, critical injection-pump parts had unacceptably high wear after 12,000 kilometers. Also, those parts were in worse shape than identical parts with 100,000 km of wear in engines where ULSD with lubricity additives had been used.
http://www.ttnews.com/lmt/Feb06/monitor.asp
I've got alot of faith in this site's members and for my money I'll be adding a bottle of Diesel Kleen every fillup.
