pet05

LEAD was a natural octane BOOSTER. When I raced my 1972 Olds 442, I ran LEADED gasoline. It brought the octane level from 93 to 103+. No to mention, like stated here already, lead was a good lubricant on both the valves but also all the fuel system.

Again, I say, there is NO WAY that Power Service, Marvel Mystery, etc., will hurt anything!! Maybe if you poured in the entire bottle, then you may have problems, but this stuff was developed and is measured on a very conservative scale.

MAYBE, you don't need to run it. From what I read, it looks like you should, but maybe we are just throwing away our money. Even if you drive you truck A LOT, how much in additives could you spend a year?? Maybe $300-$500 if you put on tens of thousands of miles a year. I look at that as a small price to pay for added protection.

I have a 1994 Olds with the notorious 3.4L DOHC motor. I always run synthetic. I believe that is what has kept it running strong, now it has 135,000+. GM NEVER stated to run synthetic BUT NOW I have read studies that showed the 3.4L engine was SUPER SENSITIVE to oil shear and conventional oil would cut engine life more than half. So, I took the gamble of running a higher priced oil (Synthetic) and it paid off.

The point is this. They engineers did NOT know (or at least reveal) the long term effects of the conventional vs. synthetic debate. NOW, after numerous engines bit the dust, they come out to say that synthetic should have been mandatory with that engine design. The same was true for LEADED vs. UNLEADED engines. The same was true for the LSD vs. ULSD. Now, can the same be true for the NEW ULSD??? I believe it is....

tacook

"You ask for proof??? Here you go....
https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/d...d.php?t=122546"

That really isn't proof............... I'm asking for proof that the ULSD fuel I'm putting into my tank has less lubricating properties than LSD did. Yes I know that the process of removing the sulfer also removes some of the lubricity, but refiners are supposed to add lubricity agents back into the fuel to match what LSD had (I think its an ASTM standard). I have yet to see anything saying you need to run additive (except the people selling additives).

pet05

WE all know that Cummins issued Warnings about switching from LSD to ULSD. You can read the official warning here:

http://www.blueridgediesel.com/CUMMI...905%5B1%5D.pdf

The European Union (EU) had set a standard of HFRR 460 for European manufacturers. Based on discussions within the manufacturers group the EMA has now set their minimum recommended standard at 460. (This information is available on the EMA website)

In the US, the primary body that sets the standards for fuels is the American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM). This is a private (non-governmental) consensus group that has members from a wide range of producer and user industry groups together with representatives from various governmental agencies. This group sets all of the specifications and standards not set by the EPA. It also generally parallels any required EPA standard with a corresponding ASTM specification.

Due to its active membership leaning towards the refiners and high volume users, many of its specifications can appear to be designed to provide the lowest cost product, rather than the best product.

In the matter of Lubricity the ASTM after many years of discussion, has set its standard at HFRR 520. This is significantly less than the EMA and its membership suggest.

While this 60 point difference is unlikely to cause catastrophic failures, it will definitely increase wear on and shorten the life of components that are lubricated by the fuel. So, in Europe they are running the ULSD but they have a HIGHER STANDARD for lubrication than the USA. That is a SIGNIFICANT reason why they may not have as many problems as we may start to encounter.

HotRodK

This is great reading guys, but it really doesnt clear up the issue for me. Like some said, I guess Ill go ahead and buy an addative for it. What can it hurt?

Apache1

It's going to interesting to see what DC puts out as their official position on using USLD in 06 and earlier trucks.

DBLR

The key words here is " the refiners are supposed to add lubricity agents back into the fuel to match what LSD had" I think we should take a look at what diesel had back in say 1970 so we can see how much has changed and not at what has changed from LSD to ULSD. The refiners will only add what lube they think they can get by with and not much more as it cost them $$ to add more lube to the fuel and we can’t hurt that 40 billion dollar profit or they will go broke. Also it will take several years before we will know if they are right or wrong and it will be a cold day in Hell before I trust any one of them this includes ASTM.

One other thing is that in the EU they have a higher Centane rating in their fuel then what we have here and yet we have more problems then they do. Even Bosch thinks our fuel system needs to have a minimum Centane rating of 50 and a 5 micron or smaller fuel filter. I have heard that the EU average Centane rating is 55 and runs as high as 60 and not the 40-42 we have here in the USA. So now why should I or anyone else trust these bunch of thieves?

ptgarcia

There's nothing they can say about it without instigating litigation, against them, the EPA, the oil companies, etc. They're better off keeping their mouths shut and riding out the storm.

pet05

DBLR -

You hit the nail on the head....

DiEseLjunKy

You're wasting your money on cetane booster. Cetane is actually higher in the new ULSD http://carsondodge.com/ulsd.htm The lubricity additive might be benificial.

Apache, dont take anyone's word for it. Do some searching on google. From what I've read my personal opinion is that additives are unnecessary. If the temp drops below 0 then its time to start dumping some anti-gelling additive barring that save your money.

DiEseLjunKy

And a gallon of Howe's costs over $20 USD They are lining up to pay twenty bucks a gallon for that crap tacook and ready to pounce on anyone who's a skeptic with the standard littany of additive industry bandwagon sales pitch.

The following on lubricity and ATSM standards for ULSD diesel fuel from the NATSO Truckers News January '07 issue:

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=57192


Lubricity
Removing the sulfur also removes parts of the fuel called aromatics that do a great job of lubricating your injection system, a characteristic called lubricity.

Lubricity is very important because only the upper parts of a unit injector or lower parts of an inline pump are lubricated by the engine oil. The fuel-handling internal parts, mainly a tiny plunger sliding up and down in a bore with a very tight fit, are lubricated by fuel alone. Injectors from 2002-2006 run at 26,000-30,000 psi, and 2007 injectors pump at 35,000 psi. Lubrication of a part that works that hard is real important for durability.

But all diesel fuel must pass the very same ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) standard for lubricity whether it is LSD or ULSD, and each batch is blended and tested individually by a petroleum distributor before it gets to you. Reports from both engine manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute are positive when it comes to lubricity. There is no significant evidence of injectors failing because of lack of lube, so far.

While the API represents refiners, the organization also communicates with truckers in order to detect trouble and alert the oil companies of a problem in the field so it can be fixed before trouble gets out of hand. When they say there is no problem with lubricity, it’s likely they are correct.

If you have any fear about using ULSD in your vehicle, ask your dealer whether or not they have heard of trouble to make sure it will work without allowing your injectors to chew themselves up. If you’re still worried after that, you can always purchase a fuel additive made by a responsible manufacturer to put extra lubricity into your tank or buy premium fuel with extra lubricity. Just make sure that if running a 2007 truck with a DPF, the additive is approved for such use. Some contain too much sulfur for use with a DPF.