Who's responsible for that new ULSD cluster &&#&#%$% ?

[4by4bygod]

My 2 cents:

I think the sellers of gas/diesel have shifted the 'extra cost' of the non-diesel fuel to the price of diesel, simply to keep the whiners (gas consumers) off of their backs.

1)Diesel is much cheaper to produce than unleaded blends.
2)However, it's very expensive to produce the 40+ different blends of unleaded gas, vis-a-vis, more expensive gas.

3)More people consume unleaded than Diesel.
4)Those same people b*tch to high-heaven about the price of unleaded too .
5)Diesel starts out much cheaper; shift some cost, everyone becomes more equally screwed !


DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ONLY MY UNFOUNDED THEORY!

Hi CDA..

It's no longer true that diesel is the "less refined" fuel - desulfurization has changed all that. Actually, gasoline has become desulfurized as well. down to 30ppm, in fact..and you are 100% correct that producing all of the various blends makes for more expense.. even kerosene is subject to desulfurization..

It's only going to get worse.. all of these mandates are in response to EPA phase III emissions rules.. the "powers that be" at USEPA have designated much of the US as being "out of attainment" for particulates and ozone levels, so now they are drafting rules for " EPA phase IV", which means even tighter controls on fuels, equipment usage, etc.. then "regional haze" rules will be implemented on top of that...

As I heard an EPA rep tell a roomful of bureaucrats: " If you want job security folks, stick with us, because we're nowhere close to being done"..

Y'know what's really tragic? the EPA admits that 15ppm fuels, and the 07 engines aren't even close to being able to solve all of the problems.. they are just stepping stones.. and they will get the compliance they want, because states that have "out of attainment counties" face a loss of highway funds if they don't impose tougher controls.. anyone ready for roadside NOx testing? how about you can't operate your backhoe between the hours of 9 and 5 because it's too hot out? ready for limits on vehicle miles travelled? it's all on the table..

Tom

 

[imiceman44]

My 2 cents:

I think the sellers of gas/diesel have shifted the 'extra cost' of the non-diesel fuel to the price of diesel, simply to keep the whiners (gas consumers) off of their backs.

1)Diesel is much cheaper to produce than unleaded blends.
2)However, it's very expensive to produce the 40+ different blends of unleaded gas, vis-a-vis, more expensive gas.

3)More people consume unleaded than Diesel.
4)Those same people b*tch to high-heaven about the price of unleaded too .
5)Diesel starts out much cheaper; shift some cost, everyone becomes more equally screwed !


DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ONLY MY UNFOUNDED THEORY!

Well this has an effect but the reason they were able to raise the price of diesel was this big rush on diesel by private use trucks now that diesel LT trucks are the rage.
it's all offer and demand, when there is a big demand they can name their price.

 

[rjfguitar]

A post I made back in summer on towrig.com

I actually called my local air pollution department and fuel supplier ( I have fuel delivered) about this matter.

Air pollution said that the ULSD fuel contains .015 PPM sulfer content. Fuel that we have been used to is .05PPM. It isn't the huge drop that we saw 6-7 years ago with the CARB fuel plan (IIRC it was .20PPM sulfer content to .05PPM). Here in California it's already in the pumps. Refiners have been actually switched over to ULSD since July. I have it in my tank and didn't even relize it, as it's supposed to be officially out Sept. 1st. The greenies just can't wait to get this stuff out.

Fuel mileage and pump failures shouldn't be nearly as a problem as when CARB standards for California hit 6-7 years ago, but it's just more and more of basically sucking the "diesel" out of our diesel fuel IMHO.

What really ticks me off though, is that I have a LOT of older equipment that is designed for the original fuel before even CARB standards.

I brought up two things with my local air pollution rep.
1. " Last time CARB altered the fuel our mileage in OTR trucks dropped at least 1mpg. Going from 5.5mpg to 4.5mpg in vehicle that regularly drives 75,000 miles a year is huge. Does this new fuel save on pollution enough to compensate for the fact that we now are burning MORE of this poorer quality fuel and putting more of it back in the air?"

Answer, they have none. He did not know, along with everyone else that I have asked this question to, as no one had an answer 6-7years ago when the same question with the first CARB plan.

2. "Does anyone take into consideration of the consumer? Do they even relize or understand what impact this has on the equipment this fuel powers? Do they care that not only does this fuel cost us more since it's less effective and less efficient, that now we burn more? That also injection pump, injector, and supply pump failures have increased considerably on new fuel?"

Answer...they don't know and don't care. Air pollution reps. have no answer and have the attitude that it's our problem. They say that we need to get with the manufacturer to help make these older engines work on less efficient fuel.

Obviously they don't know a lick about mechanics. A P7100 pump is a P7100 pump. It was designed a certain way and there is no way around it's design structure.

I have gathered that they don't care about my second issue. Just as long as the greenies get their way, thats what is important, regardless how it effects everything associated with it.

How about people's livelyhood and how about some actuall hard evidence showing that this inferior fuel really does help the environment even though engines consumer more of it over old "more polluting" fuel...

 

[smalltruckbigcid]

I saw that then and think you're preaching to the choir brother
George