torokubota

I was just adivised to mix 1/2 quart of ATF w/ every fill up to kill algae. NEVER heard this one before. I put 463k on a '76 300D, have 401K on my 83 300DT work car. Also run a 85 300DT and a 96 E300D. Is the ATF a good idea? Been using Red Line 85 for years.-----Aloha David D

mbz805

Aloha David,
I too have been told to put ATF in the tank. However, not to kill algae but for lubrication of the injectors and pump. As a matter of fact, a client of mine told me that he puts ATF in the fuel tank of his big rig. He says be notices better power. Who knows. maybe I'll try it and post any results...

TMAllison

ULSD meets the same specs for lubricity as LSD did. No additives are needed. Most of the perceived (audible) affect of additives is a result of subtle changes in combustion charectoristics rather than incresased lubrication.

ATF contains friction modifiers that could effect your inj's/IP if used for the long term. Used ATF also has suspended clutch material and metal debris making it a bad chioce.

240D 3.0T

You were poorly advised. ATF is a lubricating/hydraulic oil, it has no place in the fuel system.

If you have an algae problem there are biocide additives specifically to alleviate it.

mi benz

Europe has had a lubrication spec (460 micron wear scar max) for well over a decade now. The US spec is not as demanding (520 micron wear scar allowed). Therefore the fuel found at US retail pumps is not required to meet the fuel spec most of our cars were designed to work with. This is why I use a lubricity additive.

I am fortunate to have quality biodiesel available and use anywhere from B2-B5 for lubricity. I would not use ATF in a fuel system.

240D 3.0T

Fuel standards when your engine was developed in 1994 were nowhere near the quality of modern ULSD. This is why additives are wasting your money.

15% is an insignificant difference, especially since your pump is lubricated by engine oil.

mi benz

i've not delved into the ip on the benz yet, but the Bosch unit in my tdi is lubricated internally by the fuel, not enigne oil. Are there no parts of the IP that rely on fuel lubrication?

The ULSD lubricity that we get here in the US does not meet the lubricity standards of the fuel in use in Europe when the pump was developed.

240D 3.0T

That is false. Its currently far better than Europe's 1974 standards when the Bosch M-Pump was designed.

mi benz

not lubricity-wise. what were they using in Europe in 1974- 5000 ppm sulfur? i'm sure lubricity was not a concern then.

what about the internals of the IP- are they lubricated by engine oil as you stated previously? doesn't appear to be by what i can see.

240D 3.0T

Yes, in every aspect.

You need to educate yourself on what Diesel fuel is and how it works. Clearly you lack some necessary knowledge on the role sulfur plays in its production and use.

The entire pump is oil lubricated.

mi benz

240D 3.0T-
Lubricity did not become a concern until they tried to greatly reduce the sulfur content of diesel. In reducing the sulfur, the natural lubrication of the fuel was also lost. This can only be made up for by adding lubricant to the fuel. I don't know what the sulfur content of diesel was in Europe in 1974 (taking your statement of the era the Bosch IP was developed at face value), but I'm willing to bet that at that time, lubricity was not a concern. Sometime shortly after the attempt at zero sulfur was made in Sweden in the early nineties, a lubricity standard for diesel was established in Europe. A maximum allowable wear scar measured after the standardized test was determined. The US lubricity standard was established around 2005 in advance of the deployment of ULSD. ASTM determined that a larger wear scar was acceptable for US fuel inspite of input from Bosch and other FI manufacturers. This is why many of us choose to use lubricity additives.

In looking at the EPCnet diagrams, I cannot see how the internals of the pump are being lubricated by engine oil. Can you help me out with that?

240D 3.0T

That is false. The process that removes the sulfur affects lubrication. Sulfur itself has zero benefits.

Which is done for you at the refinery.

See above for the answer to why such an action is a complete waste of time and money.

Did you miss the part labeled "oil supply tube"?

mi benz

I'll look again and see if mine has an oil supply tube. But even if it does, i don't see how you can have a low pressure side of the fuel supply, and a high pressure delivery side without putting certain components under significant stress, which is why you'd need adequate lubrication in the fuel.

240D 3.0T

Which is at, guess what, the refinery.

That is false information.

...from the engine oil circuit.

The M-Pump gets its oil directly through the snout via the timing device bearings. The MW gets its oil from the same place, but via an external hose instead of the snout.

mi benz

nope. refineries distill crude oil into various petroleum products, then send the products via pipeline to distribution terminals. It is at those terminals where additives are mixed at the loading rack where it is put into tankers for delivery to retail outlets.

according to Bosch, the maximum wear scar allowed is 460 micron, and they desire no more than 400 for long life of the pump components. ASTM allows 520 micron wear scar, so that would be 'inadequate' protection. You can deny and contradict this all you want. but them's the numbers right there...

Thanks for the diagrams. I understand that the drive mechanism is lubricated by engine oil. I'm talking about the internals of the injection pump where the high pressure is made. This would be ONLY lubricated by the fuel.

240D 3.0T

Nope. They also distribute to stations all across the nation via truck.

There is your key. Manufacturers always cry about the standards being slightly worse than their desire. Its been that way for decades and even if they made a "100" standard they would still find an excuse to throw a tantrum.

They cried with "high" sulfur fuel in the 70s, low in the 90s and 06 with ultra low. Nothing has changed. The only thing that hasn't is people's irrationality towards things they don't understand.
The fact is that the whole lubricity "problem" is manufactured by people that make and sell fuel additives as a way to scare people into buying their crap.

That is false information. Its far more than adequate. The fact that hundreds of fleets operate thousands of engines using no additives with no fleet-wide problems disproves any notion that there is any kind of lubricity issues.
The lubricity is fine as-is for every diesel engine ever made.

They are lubricated by engine oil in the same manner as an engine's pistons, splash.

mi benz

Really no need to go back and forth with you on this. anyone who wants to do their homework can verify how diesel fuel is refined and distributed in the States.

They can also verify the differences between US spec and the rest of the civilized world. The wear numbers I cited above are fact.

Some additive manufacturers are selling products that have data to back up their claims of improved lubricity. I've seen data from Power Service and FPPF proving that they exceed the minimum protection desired by FI manufacturers. I use biodiesel for lubricity additive.

Either you are unwilling or unable to explain how fuel goes from being near atmosphere to a few thousand psi needed to pop open an injector. note that there is a distinction between the mechanism that drives the pump that is protected by motor oil, and the other part of the pump that only sees diesel. The latter is the part that needs adequate protection because of the tight mechanical tolerances of the parts used to create that pressure. Fuel is the only lubricant for these critical components.

240D 3.0T

Right, you lack the necessary data for a proper debate.

Except that none of it makes a difference.

PS uses alcohol in their products, its worse than normal diesel.

You obviously don't understand what this debate is about.

Oh, you mean like the part of the engine's cylinders that only see air?

mi benz

oh. we were "debating"?

you are losing credibility by the post

TMAllison

You are concerned over nothing.....ULSD has the same lubricity requirements per ASTM as LSD did previously. This is evidenced by the millions of dead diesels you don't see on the side of the road since the switch occured a few years ago. The same sky is falling arguments were made when LSD came out.

The only issue pertaining to our engines (606.9xx's) is the difference in aromatics used in the two fuels effecting the elasticity of the orings sealing the fuel system causing fuel leaks. For most, that issue showed up within a few months of the switch. For many, it never showed up at all.

To my knowledge, MB has yet to produce an engine that "requires" fuel additives.

240D 3.0T

You sure are, though its hard for you to lose that which you never had. Only 15 posts and more than half of them are here making poorly backed opinions on a topic you know little more than what you have copy-n-pasted into your posts.

Most of those were simply age and heat stress related, ULSD is/was just a convenient scapegoat. 4 years later, people are STILL blaming leaking o-rings and age-worn injectors on it!

mi benz

It's evident that you cannot support your position based on any real facts, and have now resorted to discounting my opinions based on my post count.

Good luck

240D 3.0T

I have yet to see ANY correct information from you. Please come back when you've got something relevant and accurate to post.

TMAllison

Orings do wear out so there is some truth to that. There were a rash of bad orings a few months after ULSD came out and there are published reports that the differences in addtives were a contributing factor in orings and seal loosing their elasticity.

mi benz

For anyone who cares to learn about the diesel fuel distribution system in the US and lubricity standards of our fuel, here is a well written article.