Off-Road Diesel in your 6.2???

[hmatiak]

I have ran it before in heavy equipment and dump trucks, but does anyone run it in their "trail only" trucks? Any adverse affect if you have? New to the oil burners, so be gentle. Thanks

-Heath

 

[diaric]

in almost every place these days. off road fuel is exactly the same, with dye added. the days of regular sulfer farm diesel are pretty much over. the only problem i ever see, is more water in the tanks from condesation.

 

[hmatiak]

Last time i got it was while i was working on Katrina clean up just a few months after the storms. There are a few places were i know i can still get it, local gas stations, but who knows what the mixture is.

-Heath

 

[thedrip]

I don't see offroad diesel being a problem, as my truck is currently driving around with waste tranny fluid, jet-a, offroad diesel, onroad diesel, waste engine oil, and whatever tidbits are left in the bottom of oil/lube bottles after I'm done a job.

You're more likely to see problems running the new ULSD thats at the pumps than from running offroad diesel.

 

[hmatiak]

OK, so tell me more about this mix you have floating around in your tank. Again, first diesel, so bare with me.

-Heath

 

[4by4bygod]

I have ran it before in heavy equipment and dump trucks, but does anyone run it in their "trail only" trucks? Any adverse affect if you have? New to the oil burners, so be gentle. Thanks

-Heath

Hard to find anything over 15ppm anymore, but it won't hurt your 6.2 a bit if you ran it.. the only things sulfur hurts are DPF's, and other exhaust aftertreatment devices, so if you don't have any of those, you are golden.

the only diff between on road and on road fuel is the dye used for tax purposes..the sulfur content can be in the single digits for both fuels..testing it is the only way to know for sure.

fuels used in marine and locomotive applications will have to be ULSD by 2010, so there's no reason to bother making fuels of high, low, and ultra low sulfur content - it's all one flavor from here on out, and refineries are limited to 8 -10 ppm sulfur at their "spigot", or the EPA will shut them down.

 

[hmatiak]

So if we are going to be limited to the ULSD in the near future, will that affect the way these older engines run?

-Heath

 

[4by4bygod]

So if we are going to be limited to the ULSD in the near future, will that affect the way these older engines run?

-Heath

yep..the engines are already being affected.. ULSD has a lower BTU content, so there's a mileage hit, the lack of lubricity will hurt your fuel pumps, injectors and upper cylinders, and since sulfur kept bacteria, fungus, and yeast in check, the ULSD means an increase in clogged filters.

The refineries are also prohibited from blending a lubricity additive, as the pipeline would then be contaminated.. the fuel supplier can put one in, but they are just dumping in truck stop crap which is basically kerosene mixed with polymers, metals, or solvents..

 

[diaric]

any of the fuel suppliers i loaded at in Canada , added lubricity to their fuel when it was loaded on the truck, after the pipelines.

 

[6.2Blazer]

The fuel suppliers are adding lubricity agents and whatever else is necessary to take care of any of the problems associated with the lower sulphur content. I work for an automotive testing facility and therefore we have had ULSD in stock for a long time, well before it became publicly available, and have been using it in all of our older equipment and have yet to see any issues what so ever. This ranges from trucks running 24/7 to equipment built in the 70's and 80's that only get used once a month.

 

[Drey]

The time or two that my truck has had red fuel in it, it actually runs better. Ive been looking for some sort of lubricity additive to mix in with my road fuel, but no such luck so far.

 

[MaxPF]

yep..the engines are already being affected.. ULSD has a lower BTU content, so there's a mileage hit, the lack of lubricity will hurt your fuel pumps, injectors and upper cylinders, and since sulfur kept bacteria, fungus, and yeast in check, the ULSD means an increase in clogged filters.

The refineries are also prohibited from blending a lubricity additive, as the pipeline would then be contaminated.. the fuel supplier can put one in, but they are just dumping in truck stop crap which is basically kerosene mixed with polymers, metals, or solvents..

This is one app where a few % of biodiesel seems like a good idea. Of course, it still doesn't address the organism growth, but one battle at a time I suppose...

 

[4by4bygod]

This is one app where a few % of biodiesel seems like a good idea. Of course, it still doesn't address the organism growth, but one battle at a time I suppose...

Well Max,, biodiesel isn't all it's cracked up to be as far as being a fuel system lubricant, for a couple of reasons..

The ASTM test "proving" its lubricating qualities is what's called an HFRR test, or high frequency reciprocating rig, which is just a steel ball being scuffed on a steel disk, while being immersed in whatever test fuel you are working with..

the limitation of the HFRR test is that this test in no way comes close to approximating the temps you see at the injector tip, upper cylinder, lift pump, or anything else in an engine or fuel system...in reality, biodieisel cokes when it gets hot, and gums up the injector tips, and cakes your ring lands..

This has been fairly well documented in the lab, but in the field, these issues show themselves in equipment that gets run hard for three shifts a day, seven days a week, in some pretty hostile environments..for example, one underground mine we've encountered, the more biodiesel they blended in their fuel, the more injectors they tore up and replaced.. they finally gave up on the crap, and took steps to solve their issues for real..

one issue that can't be overlooked is the fact that biofuels make the fuel more viscous,so that heats everything up even more, leading to increased wear, and again, heat is the enemy of fuels and lubricants, so the coking issue is exacerbated, and the harshness of the operating environment will expose these issues sooner rather than later..

and to beat a dead horse, the components of the biodiesel that makes it do well on an HFRR test instrument are the glycerides - which are the same things that cause the gelling in cold and not so cold weather..

The HFRR test was chosen because it's cheap to perform, and ASTM was under a huge amount of pressure to adopt a lubricity standard and test method in a hurry in 2005. Up till then, there was never a lubricity standard, beause the test methods ( HFRR among them) were considered to be inaccurate for measuring lubricity..

now we all know guys running biodiesel or WVO in their pickups or whatever and aren't having any problems ( that they'll admit to anyway )..I have a theory on that:

Guys having the most success with biofuels are ( IMHO ) the pickup truck guys or OTR truckers who really aren't driving their trucks all that hard (compared to mine equipment, or a dredge or something like that ) so these issues don't affect them catastrophically - the drawbacks accrue over time.

so like fish that live in an aquarium with diminishing water quality, the truck can operate for a long time without blowing up, leading one to assume that performance hasn't diminished, when in fact it has ( when compared to day 1 new )and it's just that the operator hasn't pushed the vehicle hard enough long enough to see and feel the effects any quicker, and in a way that is catastrophic.

sorry for the length on this one - I'm feeling philosophical today..

 

[kennyw]

sorry for the length on this one - I'm feeling philosophical today..

I don't mind a bit, I know your up on the research on this subject so your experience is very well appreciated.

I would still however run bio fuels on one condition... its free to 1/2 the price of regular diesel. At todays prices the savings would add up there if you could keep it dirt cheap. But if it's going to cost as much or more than standard diesel it isn't worthwhile.

I have less than $2000 into my truck and I can buy another used 6.2L for dirt cheap 5 years down the road if it croaks. My truck already has 230K on it anyway and I have a free spare sitting on an engine stand with 37K waiting for the day it drops.

I would not however buy a brand new $40K piece of equipment and run it in that!

 

[MaxPF]

It seems to me much of the problems with biodiesel is from unconverted oil leaving mono- and diglycerides in the fuel. After all, the molecule itself is a simple paraffin with an adjoined alcohol molecule, so it should be no more (or less) prone to coking and varnishing than diesel. Unfortunately, as 4by4bygod probably knows, commercial biodiesel production doesn't seem to be held to a very high standard of quality.

My only real complaint is that food crops are used to make the fuel, and it is subsidized. If non-food sources (particularly algae, which doesn't even need arable land) are used and it is allowed to stand on it's own economy-wise, then I would be a lot more in favor of it.