KB3MMX

Some more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-l...#North_America


.

2slowcdi

It may not be zero.
I a few years ago when Texas started emissions I trained people how to do emissions and what I found was that I could smell the cars that where not going to pass.

The cars could have many things wrong with them to make them smell "Bad" not just the sulfur.

Sulfur is a rotten egg smell, nothing else smells quite like it.
The reason that sulfur was taken out due to the life shorting it has on catalytic converters.

KB3MMX

Ok, I gotcha. Yeah, you can smell differences in gas cars, some definitely smell worse than others, especially if the engine has something wrong with it.
I just hate the stink they give off in varying amounts when under a hard load..

mikapen

The other reason was acid rain, as mentioned in KB3MMX's Wikipedia reference below.

Acid rain was becoming a real problem, and reductions in acid-forming chemicals in fuel seems to have helped to reverse the trend. I'm not sure of the cost-benefit ratio, but it's a moot point because these regulations are in effect now and much of the expense is in the system already.

mikapen

Back in my time as an emissons-certified mechanic, I could identify which cars had just passed me on the highway by their "aroma." Even if they were "clean." (Gas engines.)
Ford and Nissan were the most "aromatic," and they shared many of the same odd troubleshooting steps for emissons.

isstay

Sulfur is around 50 ppm in gasoline.
All Diesel pumps in my state are required to state the minimum cetane rating for diesel fuel, so the label says "40+ minimum cetane#,” although you can fill some difference between Shell and some small gas station, but 40 is the min. I don’t know if is because of the additives or because of the age (frequent resupplying) of the fuel.
All refineries are required to add lubricity additives to meet the HFRR wear scar of no greater than 520 microns (this is the standard for U.S. ULSD). Pre-ULSD wear scar was 460 microns.
Diesel fuel comes in contact w/ cylinder liner in much smaller surface but still does and this actually has more negative effect than in gas engines, because lead to bore polish. Diesel fuel, is injected when the piston is quite close to the top dead center, directly into the combustion chamber. The available liner surface at that point is quite limited, so adsorption of any chemical from the fuel matrix that is compatible with lubricating oil could lead to a high localized concentration increase. This is the area of the liner usually displaying the highest level of bore polish.
Sulfur (is contaminant) as part of the aromatics in fuel that prevents bore polishing, thus removing it leads to lowering the amount of protective aromatics in diesel fuel, but also using low-sulfur diesel offers economic benefits beyond the obvious public health and environmental improvements. Low-sulfur diesel should reduce maintenance costs over the life of the vehicle because it reduces engine corrosion and makes engine lubricating oil less prone to acidification – this leads to longer maintenance intervals and lower maintenance costs. The U.S. EPA estimates that this will save as much as $610 million over the life of a heavy truck or urban bus.

mikapen

Thank you isstay for an excellent summary of what has been discussed at length in this thread.

I am sorry to hear that the wear standard has been relaxed by 11%. I assume that the cost of enhancing lubricity to retain the previous standard would have been high, or so the fuel lobby would have us believe.
Are there any credible estimates about how that standard will affect the life of passenger car diesels?

isstay

EMA (Engine Manufacturers Association) ask for 460 microns based on testing conducted on ULSD fuels by fuel injection equipment manufacturers. EPA adopted 520.
I did some research and I want to make a correction on what I said:
EPA Plan A from 2004 calls for adding additives to the diesel fuel at refineries, but was not accepted by them, because of possibility to cross contaminate jet fuel when they run it through the same pipelines.
EPA plan B calls for adding lubricity additives at the terminals. This will lessen the control over lubricity additives and will affect end user, because require additional equipment to be installed (pipe injection when diesel fuel is delivered at the terminal) and additional storage tanker.
After reading all that EPA crap I start praying that the terminal in my town ads correct amount of additives and does it every time.
No one knows how this standard will affect car fuel system components yet…
On top of the lower lubricity they add higher fuel system pressure to improve emissions, which led to increased wear and tear.

mi benz

The lubricity standard never was 460 micron here in the US. We didn't have a lubricity standard over here until 2004, and unfortunately it was 520 from the git-go. It probably didn't matter with s500 diesel, but certainly did when ULSD was introduced in 2006. I figured that by now we'd see the effects of 520 vs 460 micron fuel, but it isn't really obvious that there is a decrease in FI equipment longevity.

In any case I will continue to use an additive for increased lubricity and cetane, and look for the unicorn known as "premium diesel"...

isstay

I know that there was no standard for lubricity before 2005, because there was not need of one. Testing done on pre ULSD shows HFRR wear scar of 460 microns or lower, that is why EMA ask for this to be the standard, but EPA probably make a compromise between them and petroleum industry.
Lubricity standard was adopted from Europe, where they saw effects on ULSD, particularly in Sweden. Their standard for ULSD dates back to 1992 and is only up to 10 ppm of sulfur and no more than 5% aromatics with new one from 2003 that allows <1% aromatics and “zero” sulfur, California experienced seal and lubricity problems in 1993 after adopting a low-sulfur, low aromatics diesel fuel.
Sulfur reacts with the nickel content in many metal alloys to form a low melting point eutectic alloy that can increase lubricity. The change from a higher to a lower aromatics fuel can cause older seals to shrink and leak.
Severe hydrotreating not only lowers sulfur and aromatic levels in diesel fuel, it also removes the natural lubricity compounds found in diesel fuel that are needed to lubricate the fuel systems. Fuel lubricity has been an issue in other areas for years. The aviation industry dealt with it in the 1960s.
Fortunately, lubricity additives can be an effective solution; however, like medicine, if used in the wrong dosage or combination, they can be harmful. Test methods have been developed to measure fuel lubricity under conditions similar to those found in the diesel injection pump. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has adopted a lubricity specification to protect injection equipment and this is the HFRR wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. Since additive use to restore fuel lubricity is common, no field problems are expected. However, more additive will be needed in ULSD to reach the same required lubricity level so equipment will be protected if fuels from reputable and credible suppliers using the proper additive treat level are used.
Severe hydrotreating also affects the combustion properties (cetane number and energy density) of the diesel fuel. The cetane number is a measure of the ignition quality of the fuel, and it also affects cold-starting and smoke. Since the diesel engine depends on the fuel to auto-ignite in the absence of spark plugs, the higher cetane number of ULSD provides a benefit. Although it is not widely discussed, the ULSD also has a lower density than LSD, resulting in a lower energy content. Since fuel is purchased and metered in engines by volume, lower energy density lowers the fuel economy achieved using ULSD. The potential reduction in fuel economy has been estimated at 1%.
ULSD has lower sulfur levels and therefore creates lower levels of acids in the crankcase compared to LSD. Therefore, if all other conditions are held constant and equipment is switched to start with ULSD, oil drain intervals could be extended.

mi benz

The standard was not set by the inherent level of lubricity found in s500 fuel. It was set by industry leaders such as Bosch, but that was through extensive testing that determined the maximum wear scar that could be tolerated without a decrease in design life. I've seen wear scar data numbers on s500 fuel and I can assure you that they did not all meet the 460 wear scar target. I agree with you that the 520 level was probably a result of lobbying by the oil companies.

mikapen

I would guess that there is a combination of entities "setting" the standard here. As we see in the case of Premium Diesel, NCWM proposed a standard for Premium in 2000, but it wasn't completely accepted by various players in the industry until 2004. It was pretty watered down, it relied on a state-by-state adoption, and it was before ULSD.
As (if) a new standard progresses, it will be log-rolling and negotiations that will bring it to final adoption. We really can't predict how big a role science will play, or who the cost-benefit equation will benefit.
Here is a 2007 article that I think is accurate: http://www.turbodieselregister.com/a...sel/Page1.html

mi benz

Note that the NCWM definition of Pemium Diesel didn't increase lubricity above the ASTM standard.

Another thing to note is that even though the 460 micron wear scar is the maximum recommended by FI manufacturers, they really would like to see something under 400. All the more reason to continue with additive for lubricity.

isstay

Which one you are using?

mi benz

I'm using Power Service. Lubricity + cetane boost, plus it deals with any water in the fuel.

Here's a thread I started awhile back on tdiclub where I dug up some info on lubricity additives. The info I collected gives me confidence in Power Service- regardless of the famous Spicer test.

240D 3.0T

Correct.

Science. Have you ever tried it? Put the two together then let it sit for several days and see what happens.

Yeah, a few dozen million $ per refinery and shutting down operation for a week isn't that bad.

Not from anything made after the 80s or with a catalytic converter.

Yes, it works great enriching the seller of the additive.

Any "public editable" database is not a credible source of information.
FYI, there is no reference to acid rain in your link.

Incorrect.

That is false information. No additives are required to be added by any refinery and they are not tested to the unscientific benchmark you listed.

That is blatantly false information.
If liquid fuel is contacting your cylinder wall your engine is running very poorly.

That is false information.

The quoted value is for an entire fleet over a 14-year lifespan.

That is false information. Please cite your sources.

isstay, I suggest you attempt to get your facts straight and stop posting misinformation immediately.

mikapen

Thanks, isstay for some relevent information. It is clear that you have done research on these issues. Here is something about the EPA Plans A and B regarding lubricity. It's from 2004 but I don't think it has been superceded: http://www.epa.gov/diesel/presentati...cityupdate.pdf

mikapen

I agree with you here - there is a lot of information out there that needs further documentation, including 240D statements, which is why I asked you to cite your sources (see post #21 in this thread). Still waiting for that.

But Wikipedia is not useless. Most of its information is correct and provides links. I sometimes use it as a starting point to search for peer-reviewed information.
Well, yes and no. According to isstay's previous reference to EPA plan B, the industry opposed some additives being introduced prior to pipeline transport.
But the you are incorrect in referring to ASTM lubricity standards as "unscientific tests." See http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6079.htm and http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6078.htm

mikapen

Please follow closely. Diesel injector injects atomized fuel into cylinder. Therefore, raw fuel is present in the cylinder. Cylinders have cylinder walls. Raw fuel contacts cylinder wall, piston tops, upper ring(s), valves, and other parts of the combustion chamber.

Or, as isstay said, "Diesel fuel, is injected when the piston is quite close to the top dead center, directly into the combustion chamber. The available liner surface at that point is quite limited, so adsorption of any chemical from the fuel matrix that is compatible with lubricating oil could lead to a high localized concentration increase."

Even after the flame front has burned most of the fuel, some remains because combustion isn't absolute.

240D 3.0T

That is a false statement.

Correct.

Wiki's information is nothing more than copy-n-paste from other websites.

Thats why they are not required.

Incorrect. Their lab-sterile tests have no basis in real-world results.

I already know that.

That is false information.

Incorrect, unless you are referring to pre-WWII engines.

mi benz

he's getting you on a technicality. Since they went with "plan B" (additives applied downstream of refinery), then it isn't the refineries that inject the additives, it is the distribution terminal that adds them at the loading rack.

If you could pin him down he'd eventually agree that the lubricity additives are necessary for ULSD (no matter where they are added).

As for the lab tests not being representative of "real world conditions", that would be by design. Real world conditions introduce too many variables into the mix. You need to reduce variables so you can understand one aspect of the fuel (or whatever else you are testing). The HFRR test reduces the variables as much as possible so you can actually quantify wear from the fuel. The fuel injection designers and manufacturers are the ones deciding how much wear is acceptable within their designs. Here is a link to the Bosch studies showing "real world" effects of low lubricity fuel: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline...22003bosch.pdf

Discussion with 240D 3.0T is a fool's errand. You may as well join me in not engaging him any more...

isstay

So 240D
When I say that sulfur is contaminant, this is incorrect, but when you write same thing in post#13 you are right.
Please man get yourself straighten and come back for constructive talk.
Also I said that my state requires label for the cetane number. Do you know which is my home state to say that this is incorrect?

240D 3.0T

Incorrect. Please read the post while using a critical thinking process.

There are none that require it. However, there may be specific city or county ordinances that require it.

isstay

hhh.....need help here. Is there any hidden text............
Ok 240D here is some info for you:
http://www.fleetguard.com/pdfs/train...l_training.pdf
look closely at pages 9 and 37-58.

mi benz

isstay- thanks for the link.