Sulfur Reduction in Diesel Fuel

[autocrosser]

Has anyone address the comming reduction of in the fuel and the effect on the Injection pumps/injectors? I suspect the reduction has already begun with some refiners. Sulfur being one of the lubricants in the fuel what does Stanadyne recommend doing as far and additives. I have always used an addidtive but will more be needed when the full mandated reduction is in place?

[Black95TD]

Auto, Good question. I used Stanadyne Lubricity Formula in my old 95 and had good luck. At 120K when I sold it injectors seemed fine. For the lack of any better advice, I'm using it in my new truck (the DMax has had plenty of issues with injectors). Seems like the most potent lubricity out there for the price. I paid $60 for a case of 16 oz. bottles locally. This is sure to be a hot topic!

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by autocrosser:
Has anyone address the comming reduction of in the fuel and the effect on the Injection pumps/injectors? I suspect the reduction has already begun with some refiners. Sulfur being one of the lubricants in the fuel what does Stanadyne recommend doing as far and additives. I have always used an addidtive but will more be needed when the full mandated reduction is in place? I got the following from Hess when I asked them about moving to ultra low sulfur:

ULSD TRANSITION SCHEDULE
06/01/2006 -- Refiners must be on-specification for 15 ppm max sulfur for 80% of their diesel pool
07/15/2006 -- All downstream except Retail must be on-specification for 15 ppm max sulfur diesel
09/01/2006 -- Retail locations must be on- pecification for 15 ppm max sulfur diesel

I am planning to start mixing in additional lubricity to the Stanadyne Performance I usually use. I wrote to Stanadyne and they said I should not need any additional lubricity above what's in the Performance formula with ultra low sulfur but I'd rather play it safe.

Hope this helps,
Art.

[Tough Guy]

I have always doubled the tank dose with Power Service when I fill up...I currently have 200,000 miles on the IP and injectors and do not see any change in starts, hot or cold and my fuel mileage hasn't waivered at all, still getting 16-17 on winter mix and 18-19 on summer mix...

I hope the new low-sulfur fuel doesn't hurt my fuel system... :mad:

Chris

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by Tough Guy:
I have always doubled the tank dose with Power Service when I fill up...I currently have 200,000 miles on the IP and injectors and do not see any change in starts, hot or cold and my fuel mileage hasn't waivered at all, still getting 16-17 on winter mix and 18-19 on summer mix...

I hope the new low-sulfur fuel doesn't hurt my fuel system... :mad:

Chris Being in a cold climate and having 18:1, I've always wanted to ask this. How cold have you started your truck in the winter without being plugged in? Naturally I'm not nearly as cold as you are being in New Jersey. I've started the truck at or slightly below zero. Although it made a lot of noise and smoked white for about 10 seconds, it had no problem starting. If I ever had to replace my engine I debated if I should use the stock compression or go with 18:1. I have plenty of power for towing and regular driving so it would not be a performance thing for me.

Also, I personally see no difference in mileage on winter or summer mix. I'm still getting 17-18MPH. Wonder if the compression has anything to do with keeping the fuel economy stable in the winter. I'm also probably not using the same winter mix as you are. Although it does occasionally get into single digits it's probably more common to be in the 20's and 30's during a "normal" winter, maybe 30% #1?

Art.

[fastcat800]

Mine started last winter at -20 with 5-40 synthetic oil. Ran really rough and smoked, but it started. I have 2 fairly small batteries too. They were new last December before I bought the truck. They are only 630 CCA's at 0 degrees F. My city mileage drops with winter fuel from 16.5 to about 13.5 here in Mpls.

[moondoggie]

Good Day!

[i]

[Hubert]

Great info Brian.

I like reports like that nothing like data to prove a point. Dang I thought Howes ran pretty good in my truck too.

I just wonder if who make the Stanadyne formula also markets it as John Deere brand. And I wonder how a few other brands compare like Lucas and FPPT (not the polar service stuff, which is a cold weather fuel "melter" but the lubricant stuff).

Anyone know who makes the Stanadyne formula? (They are a manufacturer of parts right not a chemical company? I figure somebody like insert a name (castrol?) makes the Stanadyne formula - I kind of think Stanadyne just markets it ??)

Anybody ever seen a consumer report on additives?

[moondoggie]

Good Day!

I was doubly impressed by Stanadyne: 1) the naming names & actual numbers on the report, & 2) that their personnel actually told me immediately that their Lubricity Formula had ~ 4X the lubricity additive of their Performance Formula. I called expecting no answer to this question & was very pleasantly surprised.

At $0.72/ dose, it works out to $0.024/gallon of fuel treated, so I won't spend any time myself trying to find out who's making this stuff for Stanadyne.

I am presently also adding 8 oz of Performance Formula to each fill-up. They claim 3 - 8% mpg improvement. 3% would be virtually impossible to prove, even for anyone as anal about record-keeping as I am. I pencilled it out, & at $1.50/gallon for diesel & < 4% mpg improvement, the Performance Formula would pay for itself. At today's prices, it would take even less mpg improvement to pay for itself. Unfortunately, I show no improvement, so I'm going to use up my Performance Formula & then quit using it. I'll continue the Lubricity Formula until I'm ABSOLUTELY sure the B2 that we will likely be forced to buy does indeed protect my IP. Again, at $0.024/gallon of fuel treated, it'll take a lot of proving to make me quit using Lubricity.

Blessings!

(profile on previous post)

[Tough Guy]

Moondoggie writes:
"At the price of an IP exchange, I

[Tough Guy]

Being in a cold climate and having 18:1, I've always wanted to ask this. How cold have you started your truck in the winter without being plugged in? Naturally I'm not nearly as cold as you are being in New Jersey. I've started the truck at or slightly below zero. Although it made a lot of noise and smoked white for about 10 seconds, it had no problem starting. If I ever had to replace my engine I debated if I should use the stock compression or go with 18:1. I have plenty of power for towing and regular driving so it would not be a performance thing for me.

Also, I personally see no difference in mileage on winter or summer mix. I'm still getting 17-18MPH. Wonder if the compression has anything to do with keeping the fuel economy stable in the winter. I'm also probably not using the same winter mix as you are. Although it does occasionally get into single digits it's probably more common to be in the 20's and 30's during a "normal" winter, maybe 30% #1?

Art.I have started the truck at -5F @ 5000ft elevation without being plugged in....It doesn't like it, but it will start okay after a couple glow cycles...

I use Rotella T 5w-40 synthetic and a good shot of Power Service every fill-up, this combo allows easy quick starts every winter morning. I typically only plug in the truck when temps fall below 20F...

The 18:1 is more about reliability with head gaskets than anything. 200,000 miles and the basic engine has not had a wrench turned on it...

Chris

[moondoggie]

Good Day!

Sorry, Tough Guy. My comment was taken wrong, which happens a lot with the written word - the same exact sentence can be taken many different ways. I'm sorry you took offense - none was intended. :D (The Graemlins do help some.)

Blessings!

(profile in previous post)

[ 01-25-2006, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: moondoggie ]

[DmaxMaverick]

From a marketing point of view, every product is better than anyone else's. Keep in mind, Stanadyne was the company that brought us the "oh so miraculous" DS-4 in the first place, and continued to supply us (GM) with this product for years, knowing its history, and future.

Show me an independent study, and I'll show you a hidden agenda (in most cases...there are very few exceptions).

[Tough Guy]

Moondoggie-

I wasn't offended, I just wanted my info to be clear.... 200,000 miles is a fair amount of miles for injectors/IP...I credit PS for helping make that happen...Charts and graphs don't consider my experiences...

Chris

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by moondoggie:
Unfortunately, I show no improvement, so I'm going to use up my Performance Formula & then quit using it. I'll continue the Lubricity Formula until I'm ABSOLUTELY sure the B2 that we will likely be forced to buy does indeed protect my IP. Again, at $0.024/gallon of fuel treated, it'll take a lot of proving to make me quit using Lubricity.

Blessings!

(profile on previous post) What about the other properties of performance formula and other additives on the market? I agree if the goal is lubricity then using performance is not the correct choice. I use the performance formula also for the anti-gelling and making the truck a little quieter. Like I said above, I plan to also start using lubricity as well.

Art.

[moondoggie]

Good Day!

Tough Guy: Thanks for not taking offense

[JohnC]

Back around 1990 there was a major reduction in the sulphur content of Diesel. My friend had an old Diesel VW Golf. It soon started leaking around the throttle seals. A shot of Power service fixed it up. A year or so later, my '87 (ford) started leaking. Power Service fixed it up, too.

Now we are facing another sulphur reduction, but I can't help but wonder if it won't be insignificant compared to the first one, as far as lubricity goes. Anyone know for sure?

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by JohnC:
Back around 1990 there was a major reduction in the sulphur content of Diesel. My friend had an old Diesel VW Golf. It soon started leaking around the throttle seals. A shot of Power service fixed it up. A year or so later, my '87 (ford) started leaking. Power Service fixed it up, too.

Now we are facing another sulphur reduction, but I can't help but wonder if it won't be insignificant compared to the first one, as far as lubricity goes. Anyone know for sure? I don't think it's going to be as big a deal as the one in the early 90's. I think they learned something then. When I was emailing back the forth with Hess I mentioned the reduction in lubricity. They knew all about it and said that the diesel manufacturers were going to have to add some lubricity back in. Knowing this maybe why Stanadyne said I would not need to add additional lubricity above the Performance Formula I'm using now. Personally, I'm adding lubricity anyway, better safe than $1100 sorry...

Art.

[ToddMeister]

One important thing to note about the Stanadyne test was that the most commonly used Power Service additive was not in the group of tested items, i.e. Power Service Diesel Fuel Supplement + Cetane Boost.

Hmmmmmmm.......wonder why????? :confused:

[Turbine Doc]

Test reports can always be skewed to a particular result which is why you have blind tests, it doesn't say one way or other how the test was run, but my alarm bells are ringing loud with Stanadyne funding the test.

For a true independent test would have included multiple labs, and then the data form the different labs coalated for test findings, also the lab should not know one samples origin should be formula A, vs, B, vs, C etc. and then publish result, not saying it wasn't conducted that way but ususally blind studies are very up front with that piece of info, saying a lab is independent can be misleading, so just be cautious with info presented.

I run FPPF total power in mine that wasn't on the test list either, at 110K from 37K when I bought the tuck it works well for me, this was a Kennedy recommendation working so far.

I think bottom line is like so many subjective questions which is best? there is no definative answer you somtimes have to just go with your gut from info provided.

Recognize that fuel alone isn't condusive to long life, it's getting worse, and some sort of additive is required.

I think Doc Lee adds 2 cycle oil for lubricity, if you want to bump cetane use one that adds cetane,

FPPF Total Power adds to the 4 ones most mentioned, anti-gel, cetane, lubricity, & cleaner, does it work I think so at least in mine it does.

Power service is Tough Guy's choice works for him, so really IMO probably any will work, with exception of ones with alcohol water disbursants are only ones I've seen in various forums folks say emphatically to not use.

[ 01-28-2006, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: tbogemirep ]

[Barry Nave]

Over the years Power Service has changed some what. They now have "with SLICKDIESEL" What ever that is. Winter I'll run the white bottle(anti-gell) and after the cold spell go with the gray bottle, DIESEL KLEEN+Cetane Boost. As noted this has always work for me and can be found any where. Auto Pars,Truck Stops,Wallmart ect.

[Black95TD]

I bought a bottle of Power Service when I ran out of Lubricity Formula. I downloaded the MSDS sheets for Lubricity and just "ordered" the sheets for several Power Service products. Maybe that will shed some light on the various compounds in this stuff. My truck seems to be running very well on the PS Fuel Supplement and Centane Boost. No noticable increase in fuel mileage. Last tank 16.6 local/highway mix and winter. I'm not complaining.

[damork]

Southwest Research Institute (SWI) ran tests on some diesel fuel additives and Stanadyne did very well - here's a link:

http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156

SWI is an independent test facility.

[Turbine Doc]

Originally posted by damork:
Southwest Research Institute (SWI) ran tests on some diesel fuel additives and Stanadyne did very well - here's a link:

http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156

SWI is an independent test facility. I wasn't saying isn't independent, but the test if I read correctly was funded by Stanadyne so that is where I have my reservations; and only certain formulas were tested against the Stanadyne one, who made the selections for comparison.

It's all great data I just question if any data skewing for advertising purpose is going on, it is a great advertising bullet. I would like to see the same study and multiple independent labs results with all formulas most use as part of the tests makeup. For me not enough data here to represent Stanadynes formula is THE BEST one to use, what I see is data that shows that the Stanadyne formula in THIS TEST outperformed the others in the same single sample set