ULSD vs Regular Diesel / Have You Noticed?

[MEXICOWANDERER]

This is a question and not a statement...

Almost all of the lube oil contamination can be traced back to soot. And in theory more soot is formed when sulfur is present in the fuel. Of course incomplete combustion enters into the fray...

But supposedly sulfur laden fuel destroys exhaust particulate filters by overwhelming them. Thus the mandate to use almost sulfur-free fuel.

It would therefore be expected that ULSD would maintain crankcase lube oil significantly cleaner over a given amount of time.

The question is directed at owners of diesel engines of similar type that have had extensive experience with both types of fuel. Low & NO.

Does oil stay cleaner longer. Soot contamination is black. My Cummins with less than 200,000 miles on it, gets changed once a year or 12,000 miles whatever comes first. It has a Luberfiner C750L bypass filter like many big rigs.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I just LOVE Political Accounting 101

It's being old and still having someone to have a deep pocket beside you to dip into when a fit of stupid overpowers you...

[JaxDad]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Spending three thousand dollars on engine repairs to save five hundred dollars in fuel costs sound like a People's Republic of California, trick.

Oh no mi amigo. Single digit IQ level thinking is not restricted to just one country’s beauracracy, and technically speaking, the $3k is a capital expenditure, the $500 is operating expense, so it IS a savings!

[BMCM]

Hey Mex,
You take Moonbeam, you gotta keep him!
rw

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Spending three thousand dollars on engine repairs to save five hundred dollars in fuel costs sound like a People's Republic of California, trick.

I am throwing a hissy fit against California when the government was STUPID enough to ban transformer battery chargers as being "Energy Inefficient" So batteries get destroyed by double-digit IQ Smart Chargers and ELIMINATING THE CHOICE for consumers is SMART? I'd like to take governor MOONBEAM on a tour of a battery manufacturing plant and show him the authentic definition of ENERGY CONSUMPTION.

[JaxDad]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I'd try using taco grease but I wouldn't care much for going a flatulent 200 mph.

You’re not far off the mark there.

The public electric commission in Toronto tried experimenting with biodiesel a few years back, before it was commercially available, the nature of the job means the trucks have to idle for many hours a day to provide PTO power for the hydraulics. It was ‘food industry sourced‘ biodiesel, aka used deep fryer oil, blended 10% bio, 90% dino.

After a 6 month trial period the verdict was in, it was going to cost them more in health insurance benefits than they’d save in fuel costs.

It seems the ‘deep fryer oil’ in the fuel meant the exhaust smelled like a fast food restaurant and the crews on those trucks were packing on the pounds because the trucks exhaust smelled like french fries and they had to stand next to it all day long so they snacked continuously because of it.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I'd try using taco grease but I wouldn't care much for going a flatulent 200 mph.

[brulaz]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Not being a student of government mandates for emission control perhaps I misunderstood the hierarchy of the importance of severe control of emissions. It read repeatedly for years the primary purpose of federal regulations is to reduce particulates in the exhaust. This has changed?

And Mother Earth News grade bio-diesel makes things worse? Has common sense fled in panic, the collective wisdom of Americans? Forgive me Gotta go. I'm late for my KUMBAYAH lesson.

Well, back in the day, pure diesels definitely had a particulate problem, more so than gas engines. You know, "rolling coal"?

But if you take care of that, there's still NOx issues, which is what all the newer urea addition technology is for. Gas engines can get away with catalytic converters alone, but not diesels.

Biodiesel can actually be good for lubricity (which low-sulfur fuel took away), and lubricity can be good for fuel pumps. Some of the earlier Bosch CP4 pumps would blow apart cause of poor fuel lubricity. However earlier engines had gasket/seal problems with high levels of biodiesel. But now all the trucks are certified for B20.

The other issue with biodiesel, with B20 in articular, is the possibility of gelling in cold weather. We don't see much B20 up here in Ontario. I'd certainly never use it in the winter.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Not being a student of government mandates for emission control perhaps I misunderstood the hierarchy of the importance of severe control of emissions. It read repeatedly for years the primary purpose of federal regulations is to reduce particulates in the exhaust. This has changed?

And Mother Earth News grade bio-diesel makes things worse? Has common sense fled in panic, the collective wisdom of Americans? Forgive me Gotta go. I'm late for my KUMBAYAH lesson.

[Kayteg1]

I have 2 Mercedes diesels DPF equipped with 170 and 180 thousands miles.
No problem with DPF and looks like they are original.
Don't think I would like to try them on Mexican diesel.
Common knowledge is that clean diesels like hot weather and long drives for regeneration. My Ford 6.7 has DPF as well, but the truck is driven on long distance all the time.
But if you drive short distance in cold weather, new diesel might give you some headaches.
As well as fact that some states sell diesel with 20% of bio, what creates additional problems

[brulaz]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Is it an issue of sulfur laden soot damaging the particulate filter or regeneration system?

Always thought it was more for NOx reduction.

Wikipedia and it's footnotes has some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel

"ULSD Fact Sheet" wrote:
EPA, the California Air Resources Board, engine manufacturers and others have completed tests and demonstration programs showing that using the advanced emissions control devices enabled by the use of ULSD fuel reduces emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (precursors of ozone), as well as particulate matter to near-zero levels.

Europe started ULSD in 1999, Canada and US by 2006.

EDIT: and by the way, in terms of soot, the exhaust tip on my Cummins is perfectly clean after 35K kms, whereas the exhaust tip on my previous F150 Ecoboost was quickly sooted. Apparently DI turbo gasoline engines are a major source of fine particulates.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Is it an issue of sulfur laden soot damaging the particulate filter or regeneration system?

[Kayteg1]

Nox sensor is before DPF.
You are comparing fumes out the tailpipe on 1 vehicle with fumes before they enter the filter on other.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

This is a problem when no one is monitoring the monitors. My toad is 22-years old and according to real-life CO, CO2, HC, and NOX it pollutes quite closely to a similar horsepower 2015 engine. How is this possible?

[abom2]

I have an 07 Ram 3500 with the 6.7L Cummins. When the VIN was checked I was told it was part of the first 300 off the assembly line of the "Clean Diesels".

With the blow by and the emissions the oil would be black in just a few hundred miles. 10 yrs later and a non-functional EGR had the oil much cleaner looking. Did not look like a bunch of soot suspended in the liquid.

Still get thinning due to blow-by of fuel. It is difficult to find where all of this emissions system is actually helping. I say this because when it is 100% operational my fuel economy average is 13.7 mpg average. With EGR unplugged fuel economy goes up by 3.1 mpg.

When it came time to change some of the exhaust pipe I ran a straight pipe from the turbo back. MPG went up to a hand calculated 20.4. I was not very excited about reinstalling the 2 cats, dpf, and plugging the egr back in.

I really wonder if there is any difference in the total amount of harmful emissions in a given set. I look at it this way. If my total harmful emissions with everything in place over 500 miles is significantly less than just running a straight pipe then I am ok with emissions system. But if I burn nearly 50% more fuel in 500 miles with the emissions system and the system only reduces my emission by 25% then I would in actuality be polluting more in 500 miles because I burn more fuel.