The main reason for using ULSD in 07s and newer (as well as the new CJ4 oil) is that sulphur will plug up the Diesel Particulate filter (DPF) that is on all on- road diesels 07 and newer and will be required on ALL diesels (off road included) in 2010. At a cost of $1500 to $5000 to replace, one doesn't want to risk using LSD. Oh, and yes you do want to use a good fuel additive that is formulated for ULSD.
_____________________________
2003 QC 3500 Dually, Automatic 2WD

 

ULSD is not directly better for the environment, although it is better for the particulate filters, catalytic converters and EGR systems on the new diesels which are supposed to lower emissions.
The sulphur-removal process during refining of the base stock concurrently reduces the amount of aromatics in #2, which reduces it's lubricity somewhat; additives are blended in before the diesel is available to pump into your vehicle's tank.

I've administered my own additives even with LSD, just in case of a bad batch of fuel and peace of mind at fuel stops everywhere!

ULSD can cause problems in older diesels - '92 and earlier, I think.

 

Sulfur is not a lubricant. The process to reduce sulfer to less than 15ppm(ULSD) also reduses the lubricity of the fuel so the refiners are having to add a lubricant to meet the lubricity standards.

 

It IS directly better for the environment. The sulfur forms sulfur compounds that contribute to acid rain. Acid rain is bad. Nitrogen exhaust compounds also contribute to acid rain. The sulfur is a poison to catalytic converters. The new ultra low sulfur content is the whole reason for having any type of better emissions. It will allow our cats to do a better job along with a 97% decrease in the amount of sulfur compounds produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel

 

No, ULSD is not directly better for the environment - certainly not in any significant way. The new fuel makes it possible for the OEMs to mass manufacture the new emissions systems so the new diesel vehicles can be even cleaner-burning than they already are.

Acid rain? Wikipedia?

... please!

 

And at the same time, get worse mileage. This is in part to the new ULSD having less stored energy than previous Diesel fuels. Also those new hippie systems dont help much.

 

Are you serious? Do you want to analyze this with chemistry? ULSD makes better emissions possible. It is directly responsible.

According to EPA estimates, with the implementation of the new fuel standards for diesel, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by 2.6 million tons each year and soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year.

Sorry, I didn't know that 110K or 2,600,000 tons of polluting matter was insignificant.

 

Not if I have anything to do with it!

 

I second that. First thing in the AM my smoke screw is bottomed out

 

That's what I keep posting - glad you agree...

Feel free to share any nuggets of info from your chemical engineering background.

 

If you can believe anything you read, we've been on ultra since Oct. 15. Personally, I don't care. ULSD, LSD, Fuel oil, coal oil, kerosene, WMO, canola oil, Biodiesel, whatever they got, I'll burn it. And my 7000 lb. behemoth still gets better mileage than most of them dumb suv's. If it's better for the environment, all the better.

 

I didn't do the chemistry yet, but my truck's start this morning was harder than normal and I put ULSD in it yesterday. I guess it either got colder than normal or it was because the fuel has less lube (which we already know).

Again, I have not done the chemistry, but I read that the ULSD has only a 1% decrease in energy content. That's hardly anything and it should not affect your mileage much - maybe a .18mpg decrease (1% of 19mpg).

Now that we have this better diesel in the US, I guess we will start seeing more diesel cars. Other countries are ahead of us on this. Need this fuel to run in their better engines.

 

Do you think that this may lead to our costs going up even higher than they already are, since there is already a global demand for product?

 

That is correct - officially, ULSD has 1% fewer BTUs than LSD, so we could expect a concurrent 1% decrease in fuel economy... though I doubt a difference of that magnitude is measurable outside of a laboratory.

 

Then why have so many reported a loss of 2-4 MPG when they started to use ULSD. My self I lost 2.2 mpg the first time I used ULSD on my vacation this summer.