Carsy

I am watching intently . Interested to see some sensible facts & debate on the forum for a change. Well done mikapen.

blowfish

i mix 10-15% of reg gas in it, it gives more oomph, make sure u mix it well, i put gas in thank then put diesel in it after.
too lazy to premix in a jug.

240D 3.0T

Let us start.

Here is your fallacy. You think that refineries have only now started making ULSD. In fact, they have been making it since 2006. What changed in 2010 was that stations are required to have their equipment certified to dispense ULSD. Stations have been selling ULSD since 2006, its only now that their equipment will not have the possibility of contaminating ULSD fuel systems with residual LSD fuel deposits.

That is false information. Sour sells for ~$35/bbl where sweet is over $90/bbl.

How convenient.

Well what done? He managed to ctrl-C a few times, well done. He has yet to understand what is being discussed let alone begin to debate with somebody that knows what they're talking about. All he has manged to do thus far is make himself look foolish for not knowing what we are talking about.

DO NOT put gasoline into diesel in any amount.

b4black

Many BP's in Virgina carry Amoco Premier diesel and it has a 47 minimum cetane number. There should be a sticker on the pump that states 47 cetane.

And there is a cetane standard for regular diesel - it's 40 minimum.

blowfish

i mix 10-15% of reg gas in it, it gives more oomph, make sure u mix it well, i put gas in thank then put diesel in it after.
too lazy to premix in a jug.
DO NOT put gasoline into diesel in any amount.

So what so bad about it?
engine blow up right away or 10 yrs later?

mikapen

Fact:
Additives can have no affect on cetane index, by definition. Cetane index is set during refining and is defined by a formula that involves such things as distillation curve, API density, and other things that an additive has no effect upon. I'm not saying that some additives can't have a beneficial effect - just that raising the actual cetane is not one of them. There may be a way to test for an "effective cetane number" that may demonstrate an additive-altered cetane, but I don't know of such an industry-recognized test. [THERE IS A WAY TO TEST FOR CETANE NUMBER - SEE b4black's POST # 36.]

See http://www.petrolplaza.com/technolog...MSYzJjEwMyY%3D for a good discussion on cetane.

mikapen

Let's try this again. Here is a link to actual crude prices in the U.S as of Jan 27, 2011: http://www.plainsallamerican.com/_fi...ry_27_2011.pdf
As most can see, the price of sour is about 80 - 90% of sweet, running about $70 - $75/bbl. If there is somewhere that it is selling at $35, let us know and we'll all get rich through arbitrage!!!

You may be confusing sulfur content with API index (light vs heavy) - many people do.

mikapen

OK, let's try this again. I provide a link for you to read: http://www.petrolplaza.com/news/indu...c0NCYmMQ%3D%3D
It is from an industry journal Petrolplaza, dated Sept 27, 2010. Here is a highlight of what they wrote:
"Currently, only 80 percent of highway diesel fuel made in the United States has ULSD, but the regulations will change that to 100 percent. Many gasoline retailers have started making the change. For example, the New Jersey Gasoline-C-Store-Automotive Association has found that around 800 of the 2,800 N.J. gasoline retailers already offer ULSD fuel."

According to this source, all stations have NOT been selling ULSD since 2006, as 240D has claimed multiple times. 240D, if you have information that refutes Petrolplaza, please present it.

No reference was made by the author (nor by me) about refineries, so 240D's "here's your fallacy" statement is a bit off target. I do agree that refineries began committing increasing portions of their production to ULSD in 2006.

mikapen

Here are a couple of my original posts and responses to them - page back to see the actual responses.
Followed by a series of "That is false information" from 240D
Followed by a series of "That is false information" from 240D----

SO, NOW, Here are some supporting websites - read for yourself, but I will include excerpts. Decide for yourself if "that is false information." If you disagree, let's see your sources and let's have a discussion:

http://www.fleetguard.com/pdfs/train...l_training.pdf (Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Technology - Cummins Filtration)
p.44-
"While removing sulfur contributes to lower emissions and better exhaust after-treatment life, there are some negative aspects as well. The positive aspects of sulfur include:
•Effective lubricant for fuel system components
•Natural poison to micro-organisms
p.47-
• ULSD, due to the refining process, has lower lubricity.
• As necessary, additives to increase lubricity and inhibit corrosion are added to ULSD fuel, prior to its retail sale.
p.48-
This is the first time that ASTM has a lubricity requirement in the diesel fuel specification, which represents a key change and an important improvement to the fuel specification."
.....
and
.....
http://books.google.com/books?id=-F7...nation&f=false (The impact of sulphur-free diesel fuel on lubricity and contamination, by P.E Jenkins, Univ. of Colorado, Denver and M Tal, Tal-Solomon Consulting Services, Oklahoma City from the 2004 Proceedings of the 3rd IMechE Automobile Division Southern Centre Conference)

"Background (p. 32)
....To meet the new diesel fuel specifications, refineries are "forced" to use more severe hydro-cracking. Thus, low-sulphur and/or sulphur-free diesel fuel lacks the lubricity needed to protect fuel systems from excessive wear (such as fuel pumps, injectors, etc.) as well as the lubricity required to reduce the wear and over-heat of combustion chamber components.
…
Lubricity Impact (p. 38)
When the lower sulphur program was introduced, no questions were raised regarding the adequacy of the lubricity which was "naturally" present in the previous traditionally manufactured diesel fuel. The previous unrestricted diesel fuel manufacturing method (with higher sulphur content) resulted in providing lubricity in sufficient levels to prevent and reduce wear to the engine's fuel surface components(i.e. fuel tanks, lines, fuel pumps, injectors, valve train, cylinder liners, rings, and other combustion chamber components). This type of lubricity is believed to be a polar type of compound that absorbs itself into the alloys and forms a protective ("film"-like) coating which provide friction protection. By using more intensive hydrotreating processes (in producing lower sulphur fuel), a large portion of this polar compound is "removed" from the liquid blend components. It is believed that the sulphur present in the feedstock (prior to reaching the hydroprocessing) "binds" itself to this polar substance. Thus, removing the sulphur would also remove a substantial portion of the lubricating polar compound.
In summary, reducing the sulphur and aromatics content in diesel and jet fuel components will "automatically" reduce the lubricity quality of the finished products…."

Carsy

Good info.Thankyou.

b4black

Your link doesn't do a good job of explaining the the significance of cetane number vs index. Cetane INDEX (CI) is an approximation of cetane number using API Gravity and distillation, and yes, cannot account for additives. Cetane NUMBER (CN) is measured on an actual test engine and does response to additives. The CN is the true cetane value that is important to a diesel engine. The CN test engine is expensive and hard to find. CI is cheap and easy, so it's more common used.

Cetane Improving additives are very effective at increasing cetane number - and that's the one you care about.

You'll find a good explantion here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number (Be sure to read the Cetane Index paragraph).

mikapen

Thanks for the clarification.

So, it looks like the engine only cares about the cetane number.

Referring to the two CN test methods in your source, I suppose we should be careful about claims made by additive manufacturers, unless they specifically refer to "ASTM D-613 (ISO 5165) for the CFR engine and D-6890 for the IQT (Ignition Quality Tester)."

DubVBenz

Where's 240? He spews crap on every post but has not come back to this one?

240D 3.0T

G@soline does not mix well with diesel and it strips lubrication from anything it contacts.

Here is your fallacy. You think that refineries have only now started making ULSD. In fact, they have been making it since 2006. What changed in 2010 was that stations are required to have their equipment certified to dispense ULSD. Stations have been selling ULSD since 2006.

Personal opinion does not alter reality.

That is false information.

Key point that affect the following....

Key there, the USA has nothing f the sort here, rendering that section 100% invalid.

That is false information.
Combustion chamber components do not have contact with fuel and constantly stand combustion temperatures over 2000*f.

That is false information as referenced by the quote three prior.

That is false information.
Diesel was restricted to 500ppm and 5000ppm prior to that.

That is false information.
The underlined items are not affected by the fuel in any way.
The bolded items have no contact with fuel, period. They cannot possibly be affected by any change in fuel lubricity.
This section leads me to believe the article was written by somebody with little/no knowledge of diesels, therefore rendering that entire source invalid.

That is false information.

Personal opinion and beliefs do not alter reality.

mikapen, I suggest you attempt to use credible sources and check your information rather than just copy-n-pasting things that appear to fall inline with your opinion.

Diesel pumps in the USA do not display cetane information.


This forum holds no priority, too many trolls such as yourself.

Carsy

Quote:
The positive aspects of sulfur include:
•Effective lubricant for fuel system components

That is false information.

240 D, Could you elaborate on that. I understood that sulphur lubricated fuel pumps & their seals. With the sulphur removed lubrication was lessened so additives were necessary.

jctevere

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.

However, I spoke with a friend of mine at Hess and he explained to me the following:
He said that the 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 so you must wet the parts with diesel fuel to get them to fit (from what I was told).

He also said 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, 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.

So the bottom line... I have no idea, I'm not a scientist, hopefully 240D will have something to say on my opinion and its validity.

mikapen

One of the standards is the ASTM standard.

Good point.

This varies somewhat as the aromatics are reduced (along with the sulfur). Also, although not part of your post, it appears that fuels with cetane INDEX greater than about 50 begin to lose BTU content more rapidly.

I have seen several articles agreeing with this statement. Both the inability to specifically describe the compounds, as well as the associated loss of lubricity.

Several papers are available that find increased wear with ULSD that has ineffective lubricity packages (or none).

b4black

OK, from you first statement, it's clear you don't know much about fuel, so I will just address your reply to my post.

Diesel pumps are not required to display cetane labels in most states, but some do require it. Virgina, the state mentioned, happens to be one that requires cetane labels. Therefore, the pump will indeed be labeled with a 47 cetane label.

And in states not requiring a label, it would be common to place one on anyway if the premium diesel does indeed have higher cetane than most.

240D 3.0T

Key. That is done at the refinery.

As is noted in the owner's manual of pre 90's Diesels, they require a shorter oil change interval when used with 5000ppm diesel.

That much is obvious.

b4black

Really? That is the best you can do, rearrange a quote? I'm disappointed.

Most of what you post is wrong and misleading. Misinformation is worse than no information.

How could you even begin to think that gasoline and diesel don't mix well?

2slowcdi

The cost was not as great as they would have people believe the refineries started taking the sulfur out of gasoline in the late 70's.
I can still smell the rotten egg smell from the gassers.

The Cetane booster from first hand does work.
My last car was a VW TDI and with the 50 or so mpg it was easy to see what worked and what did not.
I had spent almost $8k to get power out of the TDI and keep the mpg
and with VAG-COM software I could see it on the Labtop and at the pump.

KB3MMX

I wish we had a premium diesel vendor in Pa where I live, al least we have a small percentage of BioDiesel blended with our fuels here.
While travelling a while ago I filled at a Amoco station that had some premier 50 Cetane diesel , I noticed an immediate, positive difference in how well the vehicle ran on the higher Cetane fuel.

KB3MMX

I've often wondered what the sulfur content is in US Gasoline, it sure does stink terrible to be behind a GAS vehicle when they accelerate !!
Probably like everything else going on here with politics, the Gas engine gets a pass no matter what while the Diesel is made out to be the bad guy....like with the Exposed, fraudulent, California air "research" board papers.

2slowcdi

The sulfur is gone in the smell comes from a vehicle that has something wrong with their car and the check engine light on.

KB3MMX

Check engine light on... really?

But It's like every gas engine car I have to follow up a highway on ramp , up a mountain or if they're just accelerating hard though..

What is the sulfur spec in gas? I can't believe its zero