Did you guys hear about this?

[4by4bygod]

​

Hey All

During last weeks cold snap, a bunch of school districts from PA to upstate NY had to shut down beause their buses wouldn't run.. the orange waxy stuff in the pictured filter has been called everything from fungus to gelled wax.. right now, the EPA is investigating, because nobody can say what it is for sure..

they ( fuel companies, EPA & engine manufacturers ) knew going in that this winter would be an adventure with the ULSD.. common cold flow improvers may or may not work, and ultra low sulfur kerosene wouldn't be widely available, if at all... if any of you hang out on dieselplace.com, you can read about how guys were dumping in power service at double the treat rate to no effect.. in fact, school bus operators went through the same thing..

What's interesting ( i'm thinking out loud here )is that ULSD is basically a # 2 fuel refined and processed into a # 1 fuel... which is basically kerosene.. if a predominantly keroesene fuel still does what's pictured when it's cold out, and adding more kerosene ( winter blend, power service, etc) doesn't help, that leads me to believe that there's some seriously bad juju going on with the refiners additive makeup, and the fuel composition, set off by the cold temps.. I'm interested to see what comes of the investigation..of course, I'l keep you posted..


Anyway, I keep making the point ( not just here, but everywhere I go) that the fuel companies don't know everything, the EPA knows even less, and the poor guys with the equipment are left scratching their heads when the usual solutions don't work anymore..it's a different world now..

BTW, my school buses ran strong all week. was it my stuff? was it due to a different base fuel from the affected districts? I'll take part of the credit, but I'd like to point out that whatever additive you buy is only as effective as the base fuel you start with.. anyone that claims to be a miracle cure all regardless of the crappy fuel you buy is either lying or not very knowledgeable..


Here's a link to the story where this picture came from:

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=378aa919-2d3b-47c7-9ecc-7c34884f48df​

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

​

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=378aa919-2d3b-47c7-9ecc-7c34884f48df​

 

[6.2Blazer]

Hmm, it will be interesting to see what they find out.

I work in the automotive/commercial vehicle testing market and we have been running vehicles on ULSD for years and I have never heard of any problem like this. We also have a large fleet of diesel powered trucks and equipment at work that sit outside and get fueled out a bulk tank that is now full of ULSD, and no problems even though the temperature was below zero for several days recently.

 

[rjfguitar]

​

Anyway, I keep making the point ( not just here, but everywhere I go) that the fuel companies don't know everything, the EPA knows even less, and the poor guys with the equipment are left scratching their heads when the usual solutions don't work anymore..it's a different world now..​

Basically yep. All the EPA can do is get pushed by a bunch of greeny Radicals with deep pockets (many of them work for the EPA anyway) and don't care about anything but their crazy devotion to saving the planet, no matter what the cost.

When I asked my local pollution control district what they thought about the problems that ULSD would cause, and that there is so much equipment not designed for this thin of fuel.... they told me to get with the manufacturers to make it work. VERY irrigant IMHO.

Like CAT, Cummins, John Deere is going to help every person that owns a piece of equipment they built. Besides that, what is the manufacturer supposed to do anyway, they designed and built stuff 20-30 years ago and there isn't a way to get around the design of that vintage.

 

[BKinzey]

...... don't care about anything but their crazy devotion to saving the planet, no matter what the cost.

Clarification here please. Do you mean you don't agree with their methods and/or what they think is harming the planet or do you mean even if they are right you are ok with sacraficing the planet?

 

[4by4bygod]

Basically yep. All the EPA can do is get pushed by a bunch of greeny Radicals with deep pockets (many of them work for the EPA anyway) and don't care about anything but their crazy devotion to saving the planet, no matter what the cost.

When I asked my local pollution control district what they thought about the problems that ULSD would cause, and that there is so much equipment not designed for this thin of fuel.... they told me to get with the manufacturers to make it work. VERY irrigant IMHO.

Like CAT, Cummins, John Deere is going to help every person that owns a piece of equipment they built. Besides that, what is the manufacturer supposed to do anyway, they designed and built stuff 20-30 years ago and there isn't a way to get around the design of that vintage.

Exactly.. what your pollution control district doesn't realize or understand is that the OEM's don't have a vested interest in making sure ULSD doesn't hurt you. they make all their money on rebuilds.

warranties will not cover any damage resulting from "improper fuel", because they don't make it and can't control the quality.. btw, improper fuel can be anything from # 2 with too much water / sediment, to out of spec biodiesel, or ULSD, or waste veggie oil.. lot's of guys don't realize this, and don't find out until it's too late that the manufacturers can't do anything for them..

 

[4by4bygod]

Clarification here please. Do you mean you don't agree with their methods and/or what they think is harming the planet or do you mean even if they are right you are ok with sacraficing the planet?

You didn't ask me this, but I wanted to take a stab at it because it's a great point you bring up.. I'm sure RJF will answer in time..

Unlike global warming, the negative health effects of diesel pollution have been pretty well proven over the years.. so, I agree that diesel emissions need to be reduced..

my problem is that I disagree with the EPA's distinct methods,( IE: mandated and funded technologies) because of their cost vs what they can actually do, and the unintended consequences for the equipment user.

The beauracracy surrounding clean air is running amok, and it's going to get worse..

 

[6.2Blazer]

Exactly.. what your pollution control district doesn't realize or understand is that the OEM's don't have a vested interest in making sure ULSD doesn't hurt you. they make all their money on rebuilds.

..

That statement is not true. If you have an individual or company with a fleet of a specific brand of trucks, equipment, tractors, etc... and now they won't run on ULSD..........do you really think those people are going to go out and buy that same brand again? Even if the new versions of that brand have no problem with running ULSD, the manufacturers are still taking a big chance that they will lose those customers to a different brand.

 

[imiceman44]

Clarification here please. Do you mean you don't agree with their methods and/or what they think is harming the planet or do you mean even if they are right you are ok with sacraficing the planet?

I will also take a stab at this:
EPA and the greenies don't know that what they do doesn't actually get them the results.
They don't look at the whole picture but focus on details.
Let's say they can make a fuel that get's 10% less polutants, but will get 20% less miles per gallon they think they achieved something.
And it's everywhere and in every thing they do.
One of MY biggest issues with the greenies though is the fact that they keep talking about impact on some areas because of all the traffic they get, and then they go and close a bunch of areas so that people have no where else to go but the few places left wich puts toio much traffic on those now and here we go again...
I care about the environment because I want to enjoy it and I want my kids to enjoy it too, and what they are doing is worse.
And it's always about the money I think because they know that the car crushing program wasn't really doing anything to help since most were inoperable and weren't producing any polution, but yet they let the big companies use it as credit so they don't have to clean up their act.

 

[rjfguitar]

Clarification here please. Do you mean you don't agree with their methods and/or what they think is harming the planet or do you mean even if they are right you are ok with sacraficing the planet?

The other guys basically summed it up, but I will still throw in what I meant.

I think most greenies are stupid, and have so much moss growing on their brain that they forget what impact certain things can have on people's LIVES, just to save something.

They don't do enough investigation or look into the effects of their so called "emmission reduction" plans.

ULSD is a perfect example, it does burn cleaner than older more potent diesel, but we are burning another 1/4 more fuel because it's less efficient. If it's cleaner, but you are burning 25% more of it how does that pencil out? It's an honest question but I can't ever seem to get an answer on an actuall test and research done on this. It's a super simple question... " does burning 4 gallons of ULSD produce more or less emmissions than burning 3 gallons of older heavier fuel?" Meanwhile, we get to pay for the lost fuel efficiency at the pump.

Greeny radicals don't care one bit about the fact that what they wan't could cause me some serious equipment problems, which could even completely ruin a farming season for me by not having the proper equipment to get my rice crops planted. Who likes to eat? I do! How much scrub does my rice do? A WHOLE freakin' bunch! (scrub: the process of crops consuming CO2 and other emmissions while giving off fresh oxygen)

Their plans look good on paper, but thats all they care about.

How about 2.78 and 3.08 gear ratios in a Chevy truck or blazer? Sure, GM thought it was good idea on paper, lowering RPM's to try and fight emmissions..... We all know how well 2.78's and 3.08's worked in our trucks... my gas mileage went UP in my K5 when I swapped the 3.08's for 3.73's.... that must mean my truck is putting out less emmissions if it's consuming less fuel now.

Great job Greenies...pushing the manufacturers to come up with bad plans to "so called save the enviroment" with what looked good on paper. Super hi gear ratios really helped didn't it...It helped eat more fuel, thats for sure.

 

[colbystephens]

hmmmm. i didn't read most of the posts, but that's interesting stuff in the original post. btw, what do y'all think of the lucas fuel additive for gasoline and diesel fuel (the bottle says it works in both fuels and will pay for itself (10bux to treat 100 gallons) in fuel economy boost). says it lubricates, which is what i'm looking for in my additives to save my IP.

 

[4by4bygod]

ULSD is a perfect example, it does burn cleaner than older more potent diesel, but we are burning another 1/4 more fuel because it's less efficient. If it's cleaner, but you are burning 25% more of it how does that pencil out? It's an honest question but I can't ever seem to get an answer on an actuall test and research done on this. It's a super simple question... " does burning 4 gallons of ULSD produce more or less emmissions than burning 3 gallons of older heavier fuel?" Meanwhile, we get to pay for the lost fuel efficiency at the pump.

You bring up a great point - and the greenies don't like answering questions like yours.. they don't like having the shortcomings of their cure alls exposed..

now, to shed some light for you, according to the EPA's own data, ulsd by itself nets a reduction in sulfuric acid emissions, and a small reduction of PM emissions, as compared to an equivalent amount of # 2 fuel.

ULSD is designed to be an "enabling technology" so that exhaust aftertreatment devices will not be poisoned by sulfur.. what the greenies don't tell you is that you need these expensive devices in order to realize any significant particulate (PM) reductions.. they advertise ULSD as a cure all, but it's only the first link in the chain..

The other emission the EPA is worried about is NOx, or oxides of nitrogen..The EPA's own data indicates that using ulsd by itself does nothing to reduce NOx, and retrofit devices also do nothing to reduce NOx..

yet ulsd and PM filters are constantly advertised as a way to solve the NOx problem.. ( btw, biodiesel and ethanol raise NOx levels.. go figure why those fuels are being pushed so hard by the greenies ).

In reality, the only retrofit device that reduces NOx is SCR, or selective catlaytic reduction.. all you are doing is spraying urine / ammonia into the exhaust.. problem is, urea freezes, you can't buy it just anywhere, and it is hyper - expensive.. this is what you see on some 2007 engines already..

All the heavy duty truck makers are using EGR, ( except cat )but that increases PMs, and pollutes your oil.. tradeoffs are everywhere, and guess who gets to pay for them..

why is any of this important? this is the coming storm:

All across the country, certain counties are designated as being " non attainment" for PM and Nox.. the states in which these counties are located are required to get these emissions under control, or face loss of federal funds for things like road construction.. this is law, set in motion by the 1990 clean air act..

some fun facts for you are these..the fuel change was step one.. now, states can do anything they see fit to lower these emissions.. any state can follow californias lead, just like texas did a few years ago.. the state agencies are in love with ideas like roadside NOx testing, limiting the hours you can run equipment, and mandatory retrofits..

think your equipment is "grandfathered"? think again.. the usepa says that states can impose any operational controls on you they see fit, or fine you out of existence..

so, while these rules would mostly affect the fleet guys, the fuel change affects everyone..sorry for the length, but I thought you guys should understand the background for what's going on..

Tom

 

[4by4bygod]

Warning - blatant sales pitch ahead

hmmmm. i didn't read most of the posts, but that's interesting stuff in the original post. btw, what do y'all think of the lucas fuel additive for gasoline and diesel fuel (the bottle says it works in both fuels and will pay for itself (10bux to treat 100 gallons) in fuel economy boost). says it lubricates, which is what i'm looking for in my additives to save my IP.

Hi Colby!

Sorry to sound like a pesky additive salesman, but the lucas isn't different from any other store bought additive.. I've compared a lot of msds sheets in my life, and they all get pretty redundant. they are all good at being an anti - gel, but that's really it.

Did you ever see the "can demo" at the bottom of this page? you can see what happens when you light up a "distillate additive"..

http://www.americancleanenergysystems.com/products_diesel_catalyst.php

think about the goo that's left over.. what happens to it in your injector tips when you shut the truck off and it cools? how can a sticky tar be an effective lubricant? try the test yourself with the lucas.. just do it outside, and don't breathe anything..


seriously, any company that just says " they make the fuel slicker" without citing any sort of relevant test data ought to be viewed with a little suspicion..

I think I sent you the pictures from our CAT 1k test right? ( 252 hours @ wide open throttle, resulting in zero wear in the upper cylinder )

granted I know my stuff isn't the cheapest.. it also solves everything you are worried about and then some..

in some of the " shut down school bus" stories I read last week, the bus operators all said that the needed cold weather additives ( assuming they would work ) would add close to 40 cents to their per gallon fuel cost, and that's wholesale, not retail.. with my stuff, if you buy a gallon for 300 bucks ( treating 2,000 gallons ) we're just adding 15 cents to your " per gallon cost" and doing everything : fuel savings, lubricity, emissions, detergency, stability, bacteria / fungus control - the list goes on..

all I'm saying is rather than spend money on an additive that does just one thing, why not go for one that does everything, and could put some coin back in your pocket?

Tom

 

[4by4bygod]

That statement is not true. If you have an individual or company with a fleet of a specific brand of trucks, equipment, tractors, etc... and now they won't run on ULSD..........do you really think those people are going to go out and buy that same brand again? Even if the new versions of that brand have no problem with running ULSD, the manufacturers are still taking a big chance that they will lose those customers to a different brand.

Thing is though, physics is physics.. the effects of ULSD happen in every engine and fuel injection system, regardless of make or engine model year.

Tom

 

[BKinzey]

A gallon treats 2,000? Wow, how do you measure this stuff out to treat a 25 - 30 gallon tankful?

 

[4by4bygod]

A gallon treats 2,000? Wow, how do you measure this stuff out to treat a 25 - 30 gallon tankful?

When someone buys a gallon, we send a small "squeeze" bottle out with it that doles out the product in half ounce increments.. we also send out full dosing instructions..

For an individual truck, the dosage works out to be one ounce of catalyst in 15 gallons of fuel.. so two ounces would do your 30 gallon tank.

we also sell the product by pints and quarts, if a guy doesn't want to commit to a gallon, BUT the gallon is the best deal pricewise, and we want you to have enough to use it for awhile, because we're about getting your engine cleaned out, then maintaining that cleanliness for maximum efficiency and mileage benefits over time..

 

[BKinzey]

I'm not understanding the math here.

Oops! Yes I am. My mistake. Public Education!

 

[smalltruckbigcid]

ULSD is a perfect example, it does burn cleaner than older more potent diesel, but we are burning another 1/4 more fuel because it's less efficient. If it's cleaner, but you are burning 25% more of it how does that pencil out? It's an honest question but I can't ever seem to get an answer on an actuall test and research done on this. It's a super simple question... " does burning 4 gallons of ULSD produce more or less emmissions than burning 3 gallons of older heavier fuel?" Meanwhile, we get to pay for the lost fuel efficiency at the pump.

You're preaching to the choir brother. I've been asking the burning more gets me less question for years. Been getting ignored for that long too
George

 

[diesel4me]

I'm ????????????? too!..WTF????

I cant see how burning MORE "clean burning" fuel is less polluting than burning LESS fuel??..but then,I'm no chemist or engineer...

I noticed back in 1993 when "Oxogenated" gasoline became mandatory here,that my van,that WAS getting 17+ mpg,suddenly plummeted to 13 mpg!--IF I was lucky!..a trip to Nashville TN proved my theory,they had "regular" gas there,and my mileage went back up to 17-18mpg,and dropped back to 12-13 mpg when I filled up in MA on my way home..thats a clever way to sell more fuel,make it burn faster!..

I'm very confused as to what brand of "Injector Cleaner" I can use SAFELY in my 6.2..my injectors have to be dirty,the truck sits for months at a time,and is now running pretty erratic at times,like one cylinder isn't firing all the time,and it's smoking like a train upon acceleration..probably needs new injectors,but I'm broke,and would like to try cleaning them "on the truck" by adding some kind of injector cleaner...

I must have spent an hour reading labels on different bottles of "Injector Cleaner" at parts stores the other day..they have very little to offer as far as diesels,all the stores carry either "STP" brand Diesel Fuel Treatment,or "Power-Kleen" brand,which I used before,and noticed NO difference!..

Auto-Zone has some "Diesel Catalyst" stuff that made all kinds of claims,but I've never seen it or heard of it before..I could buy 3 gallons of diesel for the same price!..

I was going to dump Chevron's "Techron" in it,but now the "new" bottles says NOTHING about it being used in a diesel--it used to say it was OK,now it says nothing!..I'd rather not blow my engine by adding something harmful,ya know??..I've used it in gas cars with excellent results,but am wary of using it in a diesel..

Gumout has about 6 different kinds of "Injector cleaner",but none say they can be used in diesels either.."Lucas" brand has two sizes of bottles,the larger one says "for gasoline and diesel engines",the small bottle just says "gasoline" on it!..stuff looks like the exact same thing!..????

I did some "googling",and little info is available online,as far as what can,and what should not be used in diesels!..they did say using "dry gas" or alcohol usually makes things worse,not better,and said not to use it (I have in the past! )--but none of the brands I read about said much about diesels!..

I did see that "Seafoam" says you can use it in gas and diesels,but I'm at a loss as to what to buy..I wonder what the "big rig" mechanics use??..guess I'm going to have to ask around at some truck repair shops here..one thing for sure,I cant afford 300 bucks for a gallon!--I'd buy new injectors instead...
I'm having a hard time convincing myself to spend 6 bucks on Injector Cleaner!..yes,things are THAT bad here!..

 

[4by4bygod]

You're preaching to the choir brother. I've been asking the burning more gets me less question for years. Been getting ignored for that long too
George

As to why you use more ULSD..ULSD starts life as the # 2 diesel you all know and love.. after they refine and hydrotreat the snot out of it to remove the sulfur, what you end up with is a lighter # 1 fuel, which contains less BTU ( thermal energy )per gallon ( just like bleneded winter fuel ) compared to the #2, thus the mileage hit..

on an MSDS sheet for ULSD, they come right out and say that #1 diesel and ULSD are "chemically synonymous"..They also have about three different methods for measuring cetane, some of which are more "accurate and real world" than others.. another good rule of thumb is - the higher API gravity number assigned to a fuel, the less thermal energy it contains..


Looking at the question you guys are specifically asking, the EPA isn't concerned about the fact you burn more fuel to go the same distance..that's just the cost of doing business.. to them, the real benefit of ULSD is that it enables the 2007 emissions controls to function because using the fuel by itself produces just a small amount of pollution reduction..

in other words - you see it as " I burn more of a less polluting fuel - how is that good? The epa sees it as " this fuel needs to be in place so all of our future mandates can be imposed on the motoring public"..

in other, other words - the EPA is waiting for you to get with the program, buy new 2007 trucks and stop asking questions..

 

[diesel4me]

cold day in hell!..

It'll be around 2027 before I could afford a 2007 truck!..my "antique" 1982 K20 was the only diesel truck I could buy on my budget!..by the time I ever get a "new" truck, it'll be an antique too!..

If China and all the other "third world" countries will continue to belch out unchecked emissions,why do our EPA officials think WE are going to "clean up the world" by restricting everything WE use as fuels??..I think it's retarted for one country (The USA),to be so anal about pollution,when the rest of the world does not give a rats butt !..your yard still stinks when your neighbors septic tank overflows,no matter how clean you keep your property!......