| Author | Message | ||
| doug yes (Dougg)
Registered Member Username: Dougg Post Number: 25 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 75.89.18.67 Rating: N/A |
The following is selected discussions from managers of large school bus fleets in regard to the new fuel Just food for thought: "We have been encountering MANY fuel related problems the last two months and they only seem to be getting worse. At first I thought it was just a CAT issue but now my Cummins are have issues too. The fix? Power Service Diesel Fuel Suppliment appears to be taking care of it. When I inquired with a major fuel supplier I was told that issues are cropping up across the country and until the refiners can come up with a lubricity additive that works with the EPA emission requirements, the problems will remain." IBTMech Advanced Member Posted - 04/13/2007 : 4:32:50 PM "I've been using Power Service concentrate for years now. My boss always questions it's value and I keep telling him it's worth the 2 cents a gallon to treat our tank.Could you expand on your comment about fuel problems, Brad? Several districts around us are having "issues" as well." "I've been using Stanadyne additive and I'm pretty happy with how things are going, however I believe In a very aggressive approach to fuel system maintenance. I've even installed air filters on the vent pipes in an effort to keep dirt out. Our supplier thinks I'm crazy but I can live with that." "There are all kinds of stories realting to ULSD issues. What I have gathered to this point is, the biggest issue seems to be alge and bacterial growth in the fuel tanks. It seems the sulfur (not a lubricant) also acts as an algecide and a deterant to organic growth in the fuel. The alge grows in moisture present in the fuel tanks. Make sure your suppliers deal with organic growth." "I use BG diesel fuel additive. Been using it for over 10 years. Costs about 50 dollars per gallon. I use 1.5 gallons per 1000 gallons of diesel. NEVER have had a fuel issue here." | ||
| Buswarrior (Buswarrior)
Registered Member Username: Buswarrior Post Number: 1014 Registered: 12-2000 Posted From: 74.12.75.169 Rating: N/A |
I'd like to be a believer, but there's not enough scientific method here. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough. So, I fixed the leaking, broken, thing, and started using supplements, and everything is fine now.... and why wouldn't it be, if you fixed everything? More detailed info in these testimonials, and I'll be a believer. I can't see Cat, Cummins, International, Volvo, Mack, GM, Ford and Detroit sitting still, if the fuel makers produce a product that will render their equipment non-functional, both newer and predecessor models. No way, not enough money to buy 'em all off. Fuel coach, drive coach, enjoy coach, repeat. happy coaching! buswarrior | ||
| R.C.Bishop (Chuckllb)
Registered Member Username: Chuckllb Post Number: 143 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 4.240.144.78 Rating: N/A |
BW...amen and Amen!  RCB | ||
| Jim Wilke (Pd41044039)
Registered Member Username: Pd41044039 Post Number: 144 Registered: 2-2001 Posted From: 69.77.144.142 Rating: N/A |
Well there ARE problems with the new diesel fuel. The company I work for uses several brands of diesel engine. Toyota, John Deere, Komatsu, ISM (Shibaura, the engine Ford/New Holland uses in their equipment) and Yanmar. We have seen a big upswing in deterioration of O rings that seal the fuel systems. No solution except to replace the sealing rings till the engineers come up with a different formula of O ring. Also, with our own car, have been told by a master mechanic at a Volkswagen dealership that we needed to use a fuel lubricity additive to keep from having to replace the injection pump again on our Jetta in another hundred thousand miles (used to last 5,000,000+ miles!). Sulpher is also a lubricant. BTW, engine & vehicle companies don't worry about anything over 5 years old. They won't sue anybody over something that makes YOU buy a new one and makes the next owner of your present unit buy lots of parts! And remember, they would be suing the EPA which for an engine maker is like having a cop arrested. It's like kicking a hornet's nest since the EPA has to approve their designs! Jim-Bob | ||
| Tim Hoskinson (Tdh37514151)
Registered Member Username: Tdh37514151 Post Number: 223 Registered: 9-2004 Posted From: 4.224.234.119 Rating: N/A |
Sulfur adds thermal energy to the fuel and the new fuel will reduce your hp a small amount. I don't think you will find it ever had much lubricating value. When our truck club met at Reliabuilt last year the only consern they had about the new fuel was reduced preformance. Since Reliabuilt only deals in rebuilding engines and warranting those engines I don't see where they could be looked at as wanting the engines to fail. I have been running antique diesel engines now for nearly twenty years and each time there is a change in the fuel rumors surface about o ring and seal damage. I must be living right I have never experienced any type of o ring or seal failure yet and I have never used any additives | ||
| Phil Dumpster (Phil_dumpster)
Registered Member Username: Phil_dumpster Post Number: 15 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 71.112.107.234 Rating: N/A |
The only fuel additive I've heard of that causes problems in legacy equipment is MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether, in case you wanted to know) added to gasoline as an oxygenating agent. Oil is a pretty good lubricant, and ULSD is still an oil. I would think it would only become abrasive after being contaminated with something like sand or possibly an acid. | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 135 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 69.143.43.3 Rating: N/A |
__. Please see my post in the "fuel additives" section for a discussion on how ULSD provides notably less lubrication than the old LSD fuel. I'm not sure that is will hurt the average bus engine, but it's proven fact in lab tests. __. It's not that sulfur provided much more lubrication in itself but to get the sulfur out of fuel, the refineries had to reduce "aromatic" content of diesel fuel and this has caused the lowered lubrication qualities. Lowering aromatics causes less complex chemicals in diesel exhaust and EPA likes that ;^). (Message edited by oonrahnjay on May 29, 2007) | ||
| Ron Walker (Prevost82)
Registered Member Username: Prevost82 Post Number: 296 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.181.210.47 Rating: N/A |
I have noticed a drop in HP since they came out with ULSD. In Mexico I notice a BIG increase in HP and fuel mileage from their high sulpher fuel. I have started using an additive to see if I can get some HP back. The jury is still out. Ron | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 69.143.43.3 Rating: N/A |
Ron Walker wrote: "I have noticed a drop in HP since they came out with ULSD. In Mexico I notice a BIG increase in HP and fuel mileage from their high sulpher fuel. I have started using an additive to see if I can get some HP back. The jury is still out. Ron" __. According to ASTM info, additives won't bring back the mileage (that's gone with the aromatic content) but -- if you choose the right one -- they will increase the lubricity of ULSD fuel (as well as increase cetane, take care of small amounts of water, and decrease smoke). | ||
| Ron Walker (Prevost82)
Registered Member Username: Prevost82 Post Number: 298 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.181.210.47 Rating: N/A |
Thanks for the info Bruce. I guess I just got to BUCK-UP and buy a "B" train tanker of Mexican diesel and smuggle it in to Canada... LOL Ron |