MikeyB

Lightman,
I just checked the info on CARB diesel and you're right, the minimum cetane is 40. Guess the Texas LED is special, requiring a minimum of 48. Shell stations sells premium diesel at that same cetane range.

MikeyB

Lightman

MikeyB, the entire ULSD policy is available on the EPA's website. It stinks they're not including cetane. Several test markets have been named a few years ago, including DFW for some higher cetane fuel.

I've heard more of a recent buzz about shell premium diesel, but my guess is that it's no different than Citgo Premium diesel, Sunoco premium diesel, or Texaco premium diesel. All are fungible #2 diesel with additive packages put in at the terminals, and are then labeled premium diesel. While they may have their cetane boosted, they still start off as the same nasty high aromatic 40 cetane garbage. Basically these fuels aren't much different than you dumping a bottle of powerservice in your favorite fuel.

On the other hand, there are two REAL premium diesel fuels - meaning they dont just qualify to be called premium, meaning they actually have merit and are better than regular #2. Unfortunately they aren't available nationwide- but the few states that do get true Amoco Premier and BP Diesel Supreme are lucky. Both of these fuels start from different basestocks, are kept separate from refinery to pump the entire way, have a MINIMUM of 50 cetane, are packed with additives, and have 25ppm max sulfur. I wish all the fuel was going to be this good, unfortunately it will just be ultra low sulfur 40 cetane fuel.

As many folks know, the process for removing sulfur from the fuel also strips away a bit of the fuel's lubricity. The terminals are supposedly going to be adding a lubricity additive to combat this, however I'll bet in 2006 there is a sharp spike in people using fuel additives to fight this problem, as well as a lot of new lubricity additives marketed by the oil companies.

infidel

Regular Cenex diesel is higher cetane than average, you'll only find it in agricultural areas though. Most stations also carry 2% biodiesel. Locator here> http://www.cenex.com/?Page=locations&Path=6

Lightman

The three hess stations in florida that we tested had 48-50 cetane, due to the proximity to hess' Amerada refinery in the Carribean. Since Hess stations whether corporate or independently owned must carry hess fuel, at least in Florida, it's about the best regular diesel you can find. There are some other brands that make premium diesel, but they are limited in distribution. Some are Irving up in new england, and countrymark in the midwest.

bdramsey

I read in a post on the page before this about hydrogen fuel. What happens if a hydrogen and propane vehicle gets in a wreck? Just lose the whole city block?

ares

Lightman: This acid trip must of really burned me out you'll have to use them small words from now on... No offense intended of course.

Ill admit my statement was a little overzealous.

..."Economy and power are directly related to the BTU(energy per gallon) of the fuel . The btu's of our current LSD and the new ULSD will not be significantly changed." -Lightman

Obviously, However altering the fuel content in this manner lowers the potential btu of the fuel slightly as well as decreasing the ability of the fuel to lube components and other minor side effects. From the small amount of reading ive done this loss is generally 3-6% (depending on engine and other variables) barely worthy of mention since the end user will probably add fuel additive to replace what was lost and will be paying more because of higher fuel costs. If you factor in winterized fuels it hurts a little more. This could probably be offset a small amount if the cetane could remain in the upper 40s however that seems unlikely. If everywhere required a cetane rating of 47-52 with ULSD id probably complain less because the loss would be negligible however the use of additive would probably negate any emissions reductions thus making this endeavor pointless.

The bigger issue is agencies like carb and the epa love to add to fuel prices for minimal gains. With fuel going for $2.35-2.50 a gallon here (southern california) and the current trend of crude, I dont see how it could be necessary now or in a few years when it kicks in.

AlpineRAM

I'll throw in some Euro-cents here:

In Europe diesel is a minimum of 52 cetane, usually you get around 60. It has also got to pass a lubricity test, and has less than 10mg of sulfur per kg. (too lazy to look up the ppm)
With this kind of fuel and a correct setup for it! you will be able to build more efficient engines that will also emit less NOx and less soot.
There's a reason why in 2003 72% of all new passenger cars were diesels in Austria. Simply put because they emit about 30-40% less CO2 per km than a gasser, the fuel is cheaper and they use less of it. Diesel emissions are checked annually (same as gassers, including a technical inspection of all the safety stuff etc)
I do think that's rather reasonable, it's kind of same rights and same obligations for all. Why should one be fined for polluting with a gasser but not with a diesel? Today it's possible to build clean diesels that will emit less than gassers, so it's positive for the environment.
I'm no environmentalist or the like, but I'm running Bio and am very content with it- it works for me and has low emissions levels and is very economic.

Just some Euro cents

AlpineRAM

Lightman

Ares, I think you are greatly underestimating the gain from this sulfur reduction. I think you're way off when you try to say that using additives will offset the reduction in emissions for a wash... First of all most additives at least claim to reduce emissions by boosting cetane and improving combustion. Whether they do that or not is a different thread, however I dont think their use will do anythign close to evening out the pollution.

ULSD has been available in CA for quite some time, as well as some other test markets. People are not reporting any mpg losses, at least with the ARCO ULSD that's so common in CA. Why dont you actually try a tank Ares since you're in CA, instead of speculating? I've personally run ULSD in my 2002 TDI and aside from less smoke it ran identically.

You're right in that it might cost more. Looks like the prices have been nuts anyway these days, nothing new

crowbar

I just ran my first tank of the Low Sulfur fuel and I lost between 2-3 miles to the gallon. I just did a trip out of PA. back to Southern MD and back to PA.I didn't hand cal. but the overhead showed 18.2 average. It did show 21.2 or 3 before.
If they change it again we will get down to about where the Gas Trucks run in milage.

v8440

Wow, the last post in this before yours was almost 2 years ago! Good thread though.

rustbucket

What are these new diesel blends,going to do to older diesels? I read a article some where saying that the lube quality isn't as good,and it will be hard on older injection systems,unless you ad some kind of additive to your fuel.

infidel

This is Cummins' take on it:

"ULSD fuel is backwards compatible, and can be used in all engines."

http://list.priceweber.com/cummins/td/ulsd.html

Pre '94 engines may have seal material incompatibility issues that cause leaks but most should have already experienced this problem and ironed it out as the low sulfur diesel we have been using since 1994 caused the same problem.

bulabula

I think you mean you ran your first tank of ULTRA Low sulpher fuel (ULSD); Low Sulpher Diesel (LSD) has been available for a long time now. LSD is 500 ppm; ULSD is 15 ppm.

We haven't had any ULSD show up in our area yet, but I'm looking forward running it and see how it goes.