Current CDI owners, lower mpg?
10-22-2006 | 07:20 AM
#1
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, MD / Wash. DC
Its big and Grey!
Current CDI owners, lower mpg?
Maybe I have just gotten a lead foot lately, but it seems my mpg has gone down with the new diesel fuel out. Anyone else hve the same results or am I just driving a bit more "spirited" lately?
10-22-2006 | 04:21 PM
#2
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Seems about the same. I can't be sure I'm using the new stuff other than the 15th is here. I have read the transition started awhile back but every pump is still labeled for 500 sulfur so who knows what is in my tank. Did you find your mom a upgrade module? Regards *****
10-22-2006 | 04:27 PM
#3
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, MD / Wash. DC
Its big and Grey!
Seems about the same. I can't be sure I'm using the new stuff other than the 15th is here. I have read the transition started awhile back but every pump is still labeled for 500 sulfur so who knows what is in my tank. Did you find your mom a upgrade module? Regards *****
No, noone has thrown me a lead for another kleemann module yet.
10-23-2006 | 12:04 AM
#4
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 551
Likes: 2
From: Virginia
2005 Carlsson CD32 E320 CDI Inline-6
ULSD has fewer BTU's per gallon
So you need more gallons to do the same amount of work.
What a great idea, more money for fewer BTU's.
Maybe if the EPA really wanted to cut sulfur emissions they would equip all volcanos and possible volcanos with particulate traps and low sulfur lava, thereby eliminating the one of the world's larges sources of sulfur dioxides.
1% BTU reduction, and about a 2% avg mileage reduction. 30 MPG now in the low to mid 29 MPG range.
Link to Chevron:
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...sel/ulsd.shtml
The retarded EPA probably never thought of/considered this:
If a 10,000 gallon fuel shipment now would need to be 200 gallons more to make the same energy. So, it takes 102 ULSD fuel trucks to transport the BTU's of 100 fuel trucks of 500ppm sulfur diesel. More fuel wasted transporting fuel. Or, 365 refinery days of refining work now require 372 days, all other things equal.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE POLOTION GENERATED MAKING AND TRANSPORTING THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ADDITIONAL GALLONS NEEDED TO MATCH THE ENERGY CONTENT OF 500 ppm DIESEL WITH THE ULSD EQUIVALENT?
What a great idea, more money for fewer BTU's.
Maybe if the EPA really wanted to cut sulfur emissions they would equip all volcanos and possible volcanos with particulate traps and low sulfur lava, thereby eliminating the one of the world's larges sources of sulfur dioxides.
1% BTU reduction, and about a 2% avg mileage reduction. 30 MPG now in the low to mid 29 MPG range.
Link to Chevron:
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...sel/ulsd.shtml
The retarded EPA probably never thought of/considered this:
If a 10,000 gallon fuel shipment now would need to be 200 gallons more to make the same energy. So, it takes 102 ULSD fuel trucks to transport the BTU's of 100 fuel trucks of 500ppm sulfur diesel. More fuel wasted transporting fuel. Or, 365 refinery days of refining work now require 372 days, all other things equal.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE POLOTION GENERATED MAKING AND TRANSPORTING THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ADDITIONAL GALLONS NEEDED TO MATCH THE ENERGY CONTENT OF 500 ppm DIESEL WITH THE ULSD EQUIVALENT?
Last edited by cdiken; 10-23-2006 at 12:18 AM.
10-23-2006 | 11:03 AM
#5
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY USA
05 SL500, 08 ML320CDI, 06 E320CDI, 06 BoxsterS
I have definately seen a reduction in mpg by at least 3-5 mpg. It also seems the engine is louder to me after it's fully warmed up. I had assumed that we were using ULSD for most of the summer, but now I am wondering if the tanks have been switched over much more recently, as the milage dropped in my first fill up after the 15th. I had hoped for improvements in these areas with the new fuel instead of this.
