ULSD 15ppm - BEWARE!! - MUST READ!!!
11-03-2006, 01:55 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULSD 15ppm - BEWARE!! - MUST READ!!!
This “new” fuel is considerably more difficult and costly to produce. The major refiners have been forced to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in order to comply with these new regulations.
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is derived through one of several processes the most common of which are known as “Severe Hydrotreating” and “Severe Hydrocracking”. In these processes sulfur is stripped from the fuel through the use of low pressure or high pressure catalytic cracking. These processes remove sulfur through molecular manipulation via catalysts. It is important to note that in addition to removing sulfur this manipulation also has several NEGATIVE consequences for the resulting fuel.
Sulfur is an Extreme Pressure (EP) lubricant. It is regularly added to lubricating oils and greases to increase the lubricity and to raise the amount of pressure that the lubricant can handle before the lubricating molecular barrier begins to break down. Sulfur has always been a vitally important factor in providing lubrication to diesel engine fuel pumps, fuel injectors, and to a lesser degree engine valves.
In 1993 the EPA forced the reduction of sulfur in on-highway diesel fuels from an unlimited amount (typically ½ to 1% (5,000 to 10,000 ppm), although occasionally as high as 2% (20,000 ppm)) to a maximum of 500 ppm (.05%). At that time, there was a 12 to 24 month period where significant problems with failures of some metallic fuel system components such as pumps and injectors due to the dramatic lowering of lubricity and with seals, gaskets, and other rubber or synthetic components due to the reduction of elasticity caused by removing the sulfur. It was nearly TWO YEARS before changes were completed in the new engines that ameliorated those problems and repairs made to older engines that controlled these problems.
The reduction now being made takes on-highway diesel from less than 500 ppm to less than 15 ppm, which for all practical purposes eliminates sulfur as a lubricant in the fuel.
In spite of what the industry would like to have you believe, diesel fuel is not a homogenous product that is always the same no matter where or who you buy it from. Today’s petroleum market is almost incomprehensibly complex with diesel is derived from a wide range of crude stock, whose chemical makeup and quality varies widely. Fuel in the US is refined in hundreds of refineries, no two of which are the same, using different methods, different equipment, and under different quality controls. A significant percentage of our fuel is no longer even refined domestically, but rather it is processed in a foreign country far away from even our mediocre quality controls and regulations.
These are some facts that many of you may not be aware of:
The Below Warning Was Issued to Gas Stations:
ULSD may be more susceptible to bacterial growth, good tank maintenance (housekeeping) practices are even more important. Routine water bottom draining and tank bottom sampling should be established to ensure a clean system and the efficacy of housekeeping measures.
* - SULFUR IS A NATURAL LUBRICANT - ULSD is further processed to remove additional sulfur, resulting in fuel that contains only 15ppm of sulfur. Diesel fuel must adequately lubricate the fuel injection system components. The additional ULSD processing removes naturally occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel.
I might be paranoid but the new ULSD reminds me of the time the EPA made pump go from LEADED to UNLEADED. All the engines that were designed to run on LEADED had exhaust valve & engine failures within 20K-50K miles.
The car manufacturers started to install different hardened valve seats to prevent this from failing. The LEAD in the gas acted as an octane booster & was a great lubricant.The ULSD has less sulfur. REMEMBER - SULFUR IS A LUBRICANT!! Now with suflur going from 500ppm to 10ppm, that is A LOT less of sulfur. The ULSD MUST ADD a lubricant to the process to protect the fuel system.
11-03-2006, 02:01 AM
#2
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks EPA! You Edited by Admin
Also -
I found this report also:
The new ULSD will hold more dissolved water than the “old” fuel causing faster formation of gums, varnishes, and carbon deposits.
This higher level of dissolved water will lead to more cold weather problems when the higher level of dissolved water freezes and comes out solution sooner causing filter plugging and blockages at higher temperatures.
This fuel with higher levels of dissolved water is more corrosive than the previous fuel.
The severe hydrodesulphurization also reduces aromatics that will likely cause harder starting and longer warm-up periods, particularly in cold weather.
The “new” fuel has lower antioxidant properties, meaning it will degrade or breakdown more quickly than the previous fuels.
The “new” fuel has poor thermal stability, meaning that as the fuel is recirculated by the engine the engine heat will tend to break the fuel down quicker leading to more deposits and the resulting problems.
The “new” fuel is less viscous than the previous fuel; this will have an effect primarily on older engines in that they will have more internal leakage and less ability to “cushion” wearing parts. These “older” engines may not atomize fuel as efficiently resulting in lower mpg and higher emissions.
These “new” fuels will likely have what is referred to as a narrower boiling range and will produce larger, irregularly shaped wax crystals. These larger crystals tend to lock together more readily causing the fuel to gel at a higher temperature. The traditional cold flow improvers (Antigels) used in High and Low Sulfur Diesel are far less effective with these larger misshapen wax crystals. Therefore newly developed cold flow modifiers are required to protect from cold weather gelling. Most current cold flow improvers (anti-gels) are still using the old technology.
Beyond Lubricity there are other examples of specifications set for diesel that differ significantly from the generally available fuels.
If you look at the engine operating manual, most manufacturers suggest or require a Cetane rating of between 45 and 50 (depending on the manufacturer). Yet the ASTM specification for Cetane in the US is only 40. I have been involved in several cases where a manufacturer attempted to deny a warranty claim based on low Cetane (40) fuel. The manufacture knows that 40 Cetane fuel is what is generally available, yet they have set their specifications well above that.
Also -
I found this report also:
The new ULSD will hold more dissolved water than the “old” fuel causing faster formation of gums, varnishes, and carbon deposits.
This higher level of dissolved water will lead to more cold weather problems when the higher level of dissolved water freezes and comes out solution sooner causing filter plugging and blockages at higher temperatures.
This fuel with higher levels of dissolved water is more corrosive than the previous fuel.
The severe hydrodesulphurization also reduces aromatics that will likely cause harder starting and longer warm-up periods, particularly in cold weather.
The “new” fuel has lower antioxidant properties, meaning it will degrade or breakdown more quickly than the previous fuels.
The “new” fuel has poor thermal stability, meaning that as the fuel is recirculated by the engine the engine heat will tend to break the fuel down quicker leading to more deposits and the resulting problems.
The “new” fuel is less viscous than the previous fuel; this will have an effect primarily on older engines in that they will have more internal leakage and less ability to “cushion” wearing parts. These “older” engines may not atomize fuel as efficiently resulting in lower mpg and higher emissions.
These “new” fuels will likely have what is referred to as a narrower boiling range and will produce larger, irregularly shaped wax crystals. These larger crystals tend to lock together more readily causing the fuel to gel at a higher temperature. The traditional cold flow improvers (Antigels) used in High and Low Sulfur Diesel are far less effective with these larger misshapen wax crystals. Therefore newly developed cold flow modifiers are required to protect from cold weather gelling. Most current cold flow improvers (anti-gels) are still using the old technology.
Beyond Lubricity there are other examples of specifications set for diesel that differ significantly from the generally available fuels.
If you look at the engine operating manual, most manufacturers suggest or require a Cetane rating of between 45 and 50 (depending on the manufacturer). Yet the ASTM specification for Cetane in the US is only 40. I have been involved in several cases where a manufacturer attempted to deny a warranty claim based on low Cetane (40) fuel. The manufacture knows that 40 Cetane fuel is what is generally available, yet they have set their specifications well above that.
11-03-2006, 02:03 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like I will be running Power Service & Marvel Mystery in EACH AND EVERY tank. It is NOT worth the risk in destroying my fuel system or engine. Cheap insurance for me....
11-03-2006, 05:57 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how the european countries that are using 7 ppm sulfur are holding up? I think it was sweden or finland.
I try to put in a can of seafoam every tankful. so far almost 50,000 miles and no engine problems
I try to put in a can of seafoam every tankful. so far almost 50,000 miles and no engine problems
11-03-2006, 08:45 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Well I thought I lived in America, but its looking more like france every day.
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im new, what is seafoam? and where can you buy it. I run power service in every tank, but is that enough?
Freakin EPA
Freakin EPA
11-03-2006, 08:53 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if PS will be force to change their formula? Would burning say B-20 biodiesel increase the lubricity because that has always been there claim to fame?
Trending Topics
11-03-2006, 09:03 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Meadows, Idaho
Posts: 2,148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez guys it simple solution...
2 CYCLE OIL 1 QUART TO 25 GALLONS!
Check out... http://www.frontiernet.net/~mopar197..._cycle_oil.htm
So far I've been running it for about 10K miles and no problems with my VP44 pump or LP pump... Really quiets down the 2nd gen knock for me...
2 CYCLE OIL 1 QUART TO 25 GALLONS!
Check out... http://www.frontiernet.net/~mopar197..._cycle_oil.htm
So far I've been running it for about 10K miles and no problems with my VP44 pump or LP pump... Really quiets down the 2nd gen knock for me...
11-03-2006, 09:13 AM
#9
Registered User
The deterioration in lubricating qualities in ULSD is not a result of the removal of sulfur, but rather the lighter ends (aromatics) that are also removed in the ULSD refining process. From Chevron's website:
Rusty
How will diesel fuel properties, other than sulfur, change with S15 (ULSD)?
There are several diesel fuel properties other than sulfur that will change as a result of moving to S15 (ULSD).
Lubricity:
Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005.
The D975 specification is based on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) and requires a wear scar no larger than 520 microns.
Energy Content:
In general, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also reduces the aromatics content and density of diesel fuel, resulting in a reduction in energy content (BTU/gal).
The expected reduction in energy content is on the order of 1% and may affect fuel mileage.
Cetane Number:
In general, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15ppm also reduces the aromatics content resulting in an increase to the cetane number.
There are several diesel fuel properties other than sulfur that will change as a result of moving to S15 (ULSD).
Lubricity:
Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005.
The D975 specification is based on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) and requires a wear scar no larger than 520 microns.
Energy Content:
In general, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also reduces the aromatics content and density of diesel fuel, resulting in a reduction in energy content (BTU/gal).
The expected reduction in energy content is on the order of 1% and may affect fuel mileage.
Cetane Number:
In general, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15ppm also reduces the aromatics content resulting in an increase to the cetane number.
11-03-2006, 09:26 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is that the refiners are supposed to add lubricants to meet the new standards, but I wouldn't absolutely trust them to do so.
I agree with pet05 with his comment about always running an additive to protect our fuel systems. I like the PS/MMO mix that he uses, although I use Primrose instead of PS because it's more concentrated and cheaper.
Personally I would avoid using SeaFoam in every tank because it has alcohol which could be harmful to the injectors with constant use. It does a great job for occasional removal of stubborn deposits, but with regular additive use they should be minimal. Plus, SeaFoam is really pricey, so I save it for when needed.
I agree with pet05 with his comment about always running an additive to protect our fuel systems. I like the PS/MMO mix that he uses, although I use Primrose instead of PS because it's more concentrated and cheaper.
Personally I would avoid using SeaFoam in every tank because it has alcohol which could be harmful to the injectors with constant use. It does a great job for occasional removal of stubborn deposits, but with regular additive use they should be minimal. Plus, SeaFoam is really pricey, so I save it for when needed.
11-03-2006, 09:43 AM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The refiners ARE NOT adding lubricity agents to this new fuel at the refinery.
The short answer is they could, but they are NOT allowed to. Most fuel refined in the US travels by pipeline from the refinery to the distributor. These pipelines carry diesel, home heating oil, jet fuel, gasoline and various other products. There is not a separate pipeline for each product but rather a series of single pipelines carrying all of the products one at a time.
When fuel containing a lubricity agent is pumped through a pipeline the lubricity agent coats the pipeline and wants to stay in place, however when the next product is pumped through the line, inevitably some of this agent comes off and is carried off in the new product. In the industry this called trailback and in most cases this very small amount would not be a problem.
There is one category of fuel however where this is a problem, Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-8, etc. The Lubricity agents are considered contaminants in Jet fuels, and due to concerns over potential liability, nearly all of the pipeline carriers have banned these agents from their pipelines.
This has forced another industry FIRST. Now fuel distributors and jobbers are being made responsible for adding the proper amount of lubricity agent to the fuel after it leaves the pipeline for local storage or when loading the delivery truck. The logistics of this process haven’t been completely worked out even now. There are legitimate concerns about relying on this new system for getting the correct dosage into each load of fuel.
The reason for this concern is that a load of fuel with no or too little lubricity additive could potentially cause engine & fuel system failures.
The short answer is they could, but they are NOT allowed to.
Most fuel refined in the US travels by pipeline from the refinery to the distributor. These pipelines carry diesel, home heating oil, jet fuel, gasoline and various other products. There is not a separate pipeline for each product but rather a series of single pipelines carrying all of the products one at a time.When fuel containing a lubricity agent is pumped through a pipeline the lubricity agent coats the pipeline and wants to stay in place, however when the next product is pumped through the line, inevitably some of this agent comes off and is carried off in the new product. In the industry this called trailback and in most cases this very small amount would not be a problem.
There is one category of fuel however where this is a problem, Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-8, etc. The Lubricity agents are considered contaminants in Jet fuels, and due to concerns over potential liability, nearly all of the pipeline carriers have banned these agents from their pipelines.
This has forced another industry FIRST. Now fuel distributors and jobbers are being made responsible for adding the proper amount of lubricity agent to the fuel after it leaves the pipeline for local storage or when loading the delivery truck. The logistics of this process haven’t been completely worked out even now. There are legitimate concerns about relying on this new system for getting the correct dosage into each load of fuel.
The reason for this concern is that a load of fuel with no or too little lubricity additive could potentially cause engine & fuel system failures.
11-03-2006, 09:49 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 3,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember ALL the engine problems when we went to unleaded gas, and YES it did appear to lessen the lifetime of the engines. After several years the fuels industry DID admit to this being a factor in the shorter engine lifespan and their comment was that they DID NOT FORSEE THE POSSIBLE PROBLEM.
For those who have been running the higher ppm fuel in the recent years past, it would only make sense that the higher ppm's and the engines, injectors, etc seem to have a compatability level of function. For those of us who have the 610's, that may not be the case, as injector failures seem to be the latest plague. Many have already had their injector warranty claims denied due to 'dirty fuel' which suggests the ppm's ARE a factor in the functional level of the injectors. The decreased lubricity issues will probably also pan out in CP3 failures as well, but we are just on the threshold of learning that lubricity could be one of the possible issues associated to pump failures.
We are all the guinnea pigs paying the bill for all of this. Injectors plug up and we need to use the Power Service as an additive to clean them. The new fuel lacks the lubricity so then we add the MMO or it's equivalent. In actuality that adds more ppm's to the fuel. Viscious circle? You bet. It won't be long before we all will be pulled off the road to have our fuel tested for illegal additives as our alterations will violate the EPA's rules and we will be personally liable for pollutions. It also won't be long before many of these additives are taken off the market to stop us from using them.
I have been adding the PS/MMO mix to my fuel and my engine is running much quieter, that first tankful made a ton of difference. I have not noticed any rise in egt's or changes in fuel pressure. Interestingly enough I did notice a slight rise in fuel economy. Regardless of all the in's and out's of the current arguments both pro and con on the new ULSD I am going to continue to use the additives until something more difinitive comes along to steer me otherwise. The additives DO assist with all the speculative issues regarding bacteria, wax, etc which to me have very heavily weighted concerns greater than just lubricity.
CD
For those who have been running the higher ppm fuel in the recent years past, it would only make sense that the higher ppm's and the engines, injectors, etc seem to have a compatability level of function. For those of us who have the 610's, that may not be the case, as injector failures seem to be the latest plague. Many have already had their injector warranty claims denied due to 'dirty fuel' which suggests the ppm's ARE a factor in the functional level of the injectors. The decreased lubricity issues will probably also pan out in CP3 failures as well, but we are just on the threshold of learning that lubricity could be one of the possible issues associated to pump failures.
We are all the guinnea pigs paying the bill for all of this. Injectors plug up and we need to use the Power Service as an additive to clean them. The new fuel lacks the lubricity so then we add the MMO or it's equivalent. In actuality that adds more ppm's to the fuel. Viscious circle? You bet. It won't be long before we all will be pulled off the road to have our fuel tested for illegal additives as our alterations will violate the EPA's rules and we will be personally liable for pollutions. It also won't be long before many of these additives are taken off the market to stop us from using them.
I have been adding the PS/MMO mix to my fuel and my engine is running much quieter, that first tankful made a ton of difference. I have not noticed any rise in egt's or changes in fuel pressure. Interestingly enough I did notice a slight rise in fuel economy. Regardless of all the in's and out's of the current arguments both pro and con on the new ULSD I am going to continue to use the additives until something more difinitive comes along to steer me otherwise. The additives DO assist with all the speculative issues regarding bacteria, wax, etc which to me have very heavily weighted concerns greater than just lubricity.
CD
11-03-2006, 10:49 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weve known about this for a while now, youre trying to turn a mole hill into a mountain.
Just run an additive and youll be just fine for now.(Until they lower it once again)
There is nothing you can do about it except take care of your own truck, no amount of complaining will get them to change the sulfur content, or add more lubricants to appease the masses.
Its not a big deal. Theyve been running low sulfur in europe for quite a while now, no issues.
Just run an additive and youll be just fine for now.(Until they lower it once again)
There is nothing you can do about it except take care of your own truck, no amount of complaining will get them to change the sulfur content, or add more lubricants to appease the masses.
Its not a big deal. Theyve been running low sulfur in europe for quite a while now, no issues.
11-03-2006, 04:17 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The refiners ARE NOT adding lubricity agents to this new fuel at the refinery.
The short answer is they could, but they are NOT allowed to.These pipelines carry diesel, home heating oil, jet fuel, gasoline and various other products. When fuel containing a lubricity agent is pumped through a pipeline the lubricity agent coats the pipeline and wants to stay in place, however when the next product is pumped through the line, inevitably some of this agent comes off and is carried off in the new product. The Lubricity agents are considered contaminants in Jet fuels, and due to concerns over potential liability, nearly all of the pipeline carriers have banned these agents from their pipelines."
Help me understand something........ they wont add lubrication to the diesel because of fear of contamination in jet fuel. What percentage of additive is in the diesel. Dont you think the actual diesel or gas or whatever would contaminate the jet fuel more than the small percentage of additive? Doesn't make sense to me. Are you in the fuel business?
The short answer is they could, but they are NOT allowed to.These pipelines carry diesel, home heating oil, jet fuel, gasoline and various other products. When fuel containing a lubricity agent is pumped through a pipeline the lubricity agent coats the pipeline and wants to stay in place, however when the next product is pumped through the line, inevitably some of this agent comes off and is carried off in the new product. The Lubricity agents are considered contaminants in Jet fuels, and due to concerns over potential liability, nearly all of the pipeline carriers have banned these agents from their pipelines."
Help me understand something........ they wont add lubrication to the diesel because of fear of contamination in jet fuel. What percentage of additive is in the diesel. Dont you think the actual diesel or gas or whatever would contaminate the jet fuel more than the small percentage of additive? Doesn't make sense to me. Are you in the fuel business?
