|
Speaking of cleaner diesel fuel ...
I've noticed a big difference since the recent introduction of the Ultra Low
Sulfur (15 ppm) fuel in this area of the county. With the older fuel (Low
Sulfur - 500 ppm), my F-350 would occasionally give up a whiff of diesel
exhaust, especially when cold, and the tailpipe tip would be pretty much
soot covered between washings.The new ULS fuel yields absolutely no diesel exhaust smell at all ... and I
noticed yesterday that although the truck had not been washed in several
weeks, the exhaust tip was still relatively clean. I think ... (not exactly sure) that the 15 ppm fuel will be required for
marine engines in 2008 or 2010. I am convinced it will reduce transom
washing much more than any magical magnetic device. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Jan 30
|
|
If the new fuel is truly suited for all diesels regardless of age then
it's a great thing. If it in't, then owners of older engines may want
to consider adding sulfur to their fuel but the rest of us diesel
owners will be able to burn cleaner than ever. That's a good thing,
and as the old engines eventually go the way of all old engines the
issue will be moot. Now, on to more bio-diesel. Better to grow our own than enrich our on-
again, off-again "friends" in the middle east. |
Chuck
Jan 31
|
| At what point does it become more economical to replace a diesel versus
a rebuild? |
Reginald
Jan 31
|
| On Jan 31, 10:04?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" |
Chuck
Jan 31
|
| Sorta depends on what's wrong with it. Many diesels have replaceable
cylinder sleeves, so when the engine "wears out" the sleeves can be
replaced ... often without removing the engine from the boat and at a
fraction of the cost of new engines. Other engines ... the Cat 3208 V8 (I believe) do not have replaceable
sleeves and, although they are good engines, are considered by some to be
"throw aways" when the time comes for rebuilding. The DD 67-1 series (non turbo) live forever with occasional bolt-on
component replacements. I have a friend with a pair in his old Hatteras.
They've had injectors replaced, cracked manifolds fixed, but they still chug
along with over 10,000 hours on them. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Jan 31
|
| Have you noticed any appreciable performance issues with the new fuel? |
JimH
Jan 30
|
| I have not, other than the lack of any diesel smell upon start-up and no
smoke when cold. The engine seems to run smoother, but that might be my
imagination. Some people are reporting a slight decrease in MPG, but I haven't noticed
it. I've been using it since October. Winter blend diesel fuel gets slightly less MPG than the summer blend
anyway. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Jan 30
|
| You need a new nose. The damn things still pollute and stink to all hell. |
Paul
Jan 30
|
| You better get used to it. (but you are wrong) http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_future.html Ford recently tested the emissions of it's new 6.4L diesel (scheduled to
replace the current 6.0L).
In the city the tests were conducted, the exhaust of the engine was cleaner
than the ambient air entering the engine. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Jan 30
|
| Not too many years ago, it was common to see sulfur additives sold for
use with these low sulfur fuels. It was interesting that my Perkins
dealer recommended the sulfur additive for my original engine (1982
model). After the disaster with the breach in the exhaust manifold and
the resulting hydrolock created a need to repower with the new Perkins/
Sabre I was told the sulfur additive was no longer needed. Something
to do with the valves, IIRC. I guess that most highway engines wear out before they get to be 20
years old, but I wonder if the ultra low sulfur fuel is entirely
suitable for some of the marine engines that are 20 years old, have
2000 hours, and very well might serve another 10-15 years before
replacement.? |
Chuck
Jan 30
|
| Not too many years ago, it was common to see sulfur additives sold for
use with these low sulfur fuels. It was interesting that my Perkins
dealer recommended the sulfur additive for my original engine (1982
model). After the disaster with the breach in the exhaust manifold and
the resulting hydrolock created a need to repower with the new Perkins/
Sabre I was told the sulfur additive was no longer needed. Something
to do with the valves, IIRC. I guess that most highway engines wear out before they get to be 20
years old, but I wonder if the ultra low sulfur fuel is entirely
suitable for some of the marine engines that are 20 years old, have
2000 hours, and very well might serve another 10-15 years before
replacement.? I think the new fuel has some additives to replace the sulfur. Used as a
lubricant. |
Calif
Jan 31
|
| The reading I've done on the subject indicates that the new, ULS fuel blend
does indeed contain additives to substitute as lubricants for the reduced
sulfur content. Also, the specifications given for the ULS fuel includes a
requirement that it be suitable for use in all diesel engines, regardless of
age. It burns cleaner and more completely. That *has* to be a good thing.
Many diesel engine problems, particularly newer, turbo equipped engines, are
caused by excessive buildup of soot and unburned contaminants. The service
techs for both diesel powered boats that I have owned, one with Volvos and
the other with Cats, both recommended a full power (WOT) run for 15 minutes
or so after cruising to "blow out" the crap in the engines. The Ford
dealership where I have the F-350 serviced recommended the same thing ....
run it hard once in a while. In fact, they told me I was not running it
hard enough which, according to them, led to a premature turbo failure.
This was all before the introduction of the 15 ppm ULS fuel. Eisboch |
Eisboch
Jan 31
|
|
|
Disclaimer: This is a computer-generated and formatted feed of current postings to a public
Internet forum. We do not control the information delivered, nor do we endorse or monitor its
content. Internet forums may carry offensive, harmful, inaccurate, and otherwise inappropriate material.
|
|
