Hey there. I've been switching between B100, B20 and #2 in our Ram 2500 for about 3 months now, without a problem. Being new to BD and diesel engines, DH and just I read about the ultra low sulfur issues and lack of lubricicity. The author of one article about these issues stressed the urgency of using an additive like Stanadyne Performance Fuel Additives, but didn't mention biodiesel.
Do any of you know how the ULSD issues do (or don't) relate to biodiesel usage, and if we should be using Stanadyne Performance or any other additives?
Hearing about the ULSD issues has us freaked out, we want to make sure we're taking good care of our baby. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
It's true that the straight ULSD fuel has poor lubricity. See here for details. I've yet to experiment with blending ULSD and Biodiesel, but this would be an excellent fix, assuming the two constituents can be kept homogeneous. We buy our diesel fuel with a premium package additive, which includes a lubricating agent (no idea what).
EDIT - Added italicized section for future readers.
ErikUseful Biodiesel-related linksSupport International Microbusiness - Kiva"It is sometimes necessary to choose between clarity and precision, and an enlightening clarity (without serious distortion) is to be preferred to an obfuscating precision.
Other than what I have heard, and given that I have a ford anf not a dodge, I can only tell you what I have expirienced.
When running bio, my engine runs much more smoothly. Less vibration throughout the truck, and it sounds better.
Hey thanks for your feedback, I'm glad to hear that it's nothing to get too freaked out about.
I also found lots of good feedback on ULSD in the RV.net user forums, from people hauling their rigs. Lots of positive feedback on BD results, and others have also said that their tow vehicle runs a lot quieter.
I would be pretty freaked out over running straight ULSD if I were you! The engines fuel system needs lubrication and the ULSD doesn't have it unless the fuel supplier has put it in. I don't know how many of them do. Stanadyne is an excellent additive. I've used it for years in my dodge cummins when I'm running straight D2. Infact, I wouldn't run my engine without some type of lube additive in the ULSD. (Stanadyne is a lot cheaper, too, if you buy it in the 5 gallon buckets.)
As for biodiesel, it's a better lubricant than Stanadyne performance formula. I can't find it anymore, but a few years ago I read a research paper that concluded a 5% blend of biodiesel in D2 (low sulpher) provided better lubrication then Stanadyne Performance Formula. The writer of the paper was actually one of the developers of Performance Formula!
ULSD is just BS! Sulfur is a common component in crude oil, ever heard the term between sweet crude and sour crude. How much sulfur is in bio-fuel (None)? Refineries blend in the sulfur so they don't have to pay to truck it to a disposal sites, then pay for it to be dumped, like Kettleman City as an example. Or sell the molten sulfur to manufacturing, but not many match sticks are being made anymore thanks to the Bic lighter. It's easier to blend it into fuel and have the public burn it off.
Sorry, ULSD is just a term that refineries use because they are now mandated to remove sulfur from fuel and now refineries now have to get rid of it other ways. But they are doing the same as our Government is doing by scaring you that ULSD is something to be afraid of.
As for ULSD for lubricating, fuel oil is fuel oil, Bio-diesel, no sulfur there.
So again ULSD as something I would be afraid of using, nope, just BS and a scare tactic!
"If your pretty toy runs out of gas, your left with a pretty paperweight, I don't push paperweights no matter how pretty it is!”
DieselBikeBuilder:Sorry, ULSD is just a term that refineries use because they are now mandated to remove sulfur from fuel and now refineries now have to get rid of it other ways. But they are doing the same as our Government is doing by scaring you that ULSD is something to be afraid of.
ebztz,
You’re going to have to do your own homework, and what I stated is my opinion. My opinion is based on the facts of my experience on mechanical systems and working in, on, for, or around actual refineries.
But you know as well as I how opinions are, everyone has them, also I learned in the military, don’t believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.
I’m not going to write you out my resume. Sorry
Good luck,
Dave
All of the oil company websites (and they would never lie, would they...) admit that removing sulfur removes lucricity; however, all dino diesel must meet ASTM D975 standard for lubricity. To do this, ULSD contains lubricity additives. I'm not too worried about running ULSD in my 2006 Ford 250 PSD.
That said, I would rather run a blend of at least B5 in my truck. For the lubricity, sure, but mainly for all of the other reasons people use bio. Also, my truck loves the stuff.
Thanks Pointsman - your contribution was useful. Apparently, D 975 was updated to include the lubricity section specifically because of the introduction of ULSD.
I found this - very interested what the industry is using for lubricity additives in ULSD (source):
Lubricity additives will be needed in ULSD fuel even more than they are in the current low-sulfur diesel used by heavy-duty truck engines. ULSD has virtually no lubricating capability of its own. Lubricity used to come from higher levels of sulfur in the diesel.Lubricity additives offset the lack of sulfur to protect and extend the life of the diesel engine fuel injection system, according to Philip S Korosec, MidContinental Chemical Company. Lubricity additives also should provide corrosion protection and should have the ability to shed water and function under all climate conditions.Four basic types of lubricity additives are coming to the market. Acid-based additives consist of fatty acids derived from renewable sources or synthetic acids. Ester- and amide-based products are derived from fatty acids or synthetic acids. The fourth category is polymer based.Researchers have found problems with some of the additive materials that have been tested. For instance, dimer and trimer acids have been tested but have caused problems in the field. Plugged fuel filters were the biggest problem.
Lubricity additives will be needed in ULSD fuel even more than they are in the current low-sulfur diesel used by heavy-duty truck engines. ULSD has virtually no lubricating capability of its own. Lubricity used to come from higher levels of sulfur in the diesel.
Lubricity additives offset the lack of sulfur to protect and extend the life of the diesel engine fuel injection system, according to Philip S Korosec, MidContinental Chemical Company. Lubricity additives also should provide corrosion protection and should have the ability to shed water and function under all climate conditions.
Four basic types of lubricity additives are coming to the market. Acid-based additives consist of fatty acids derived from renewable sources or synthetic acids. Ester- and amide-based products are derived from fatty acids or synthetic acids. The fourth category is polymer based.
Researchers have found problems with some of the additive materials that have been tested. For instance, dimer and trimer acids have been tested but have caused problems in the field. Plugged fuel filters were the biggest problem.
While the refinery is the most convenient place for additive injections, it's not going to happen there for ULSD fuels. Pipeline operators said last year that they would not accept any ULSD shipments with static dissipater or lubricity additives.
Aside, the last bit is interesting. As I stated above, the ULSD we buy is blended locally with an additive package that provided the lubricating property. Apparently, this isn't the exception, but the rule.
Pipelines move many different types of fuels. A primary reason they don't move Biodiesel through pipelines is the concern over contamination of jet fuel. Needless to say, low-gel point components in jet fuel are undesirable.
The additives I mentioned are very similar to Biodiesel, and thus, may cause the same concerns. If anyone has specifics to add, please do.
ebztz: Pipelines move many different types of fuels. A primary reason they don't move Biodiesel through pipelines is the concern over contamination of jet fuel. Needless to say, low-gel point components in jet fuel are undesirable.
The Geico Caveman wants to ask, “WHAT?”
Source: Biodiesel Magazine, February 2007
Transporting biodiesel via pipeline would be cheaper and more efficient than current transportation methods. However, several issues need to be resolved before that can happen.
...
In a press release, Colonial {Pipeline} said “test shipments of biodiesel, while feasible, had raised concerns of potential contamination to other products in the pipeline, especially jet fuel.” Dwaine Shroyer, Colonial’s vice president for strategic planning and business development, added, “We will continue to work with the renewable fuels industry for solutions that both assure the quality of jet fuel and permit biodiesel shipments on the same pipeline.”
Biodiesel blends could be more quickly integrated into pipelines that don’t carry aviation fuel, such as the one used by Countrymark. “[However], if the pipeline is multi-fuel, everyone is going to be cautioned,” Nazzaro says. “Aviation carries a big stick. Every pipeline is going to look at additives or biodiesel with caution. They cannot have residue hanging on those pipes.”
DieselBikeBuilder: You’re going to have to do your own homework, and what I stated is my opinion. My opinion is based on the facts of my experience on mechanical systems and working in, on, for, or around actual refineries.
Too many individuals offer false "statements of fact" on forums. I prefer science and citations from authorities to random opines. I don't know you, but if you prove to be a reliable source for information, I'll then consider your opinions as valid.But you know as well as I how opinions are, everyone has them, also I learned in the military, don’t believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.I agree, which is why I stated the above.I’m not going to write you out my resume.I didn't expect this, though it sounds as though you've had some interesting experiences. I'll have my "Biodiesel History" posted on my site soon. I'd post my CV, but it doesn't seem appropriate here.
I’m not going to write you out my resume.
I've been running B20 (low sulphur) for about 2 years with no problems in my 2004 Dodge. I've kept records of how the vehicle was used (towing 4000# highway, city driving w/o cap...) and how it responded in terms of observed power, mpg and general performance. I am currently running on 40% low, 40% ultra low and 20% Bio in my main tank with no noticable differance. I have a 90 gallon aux tank that is 70% ultra low and 30% bio which is valved off at the moment. I want to run 400-600 miles on the main tank first so that I will be able to clearly see a difference when I switch over to the ultra blend. If that performs the same or nearly the same, and I expect it will, I'll try a 80-20 mix and note the differences I experience.
1harleytraveler:I've been running B20 (low sulphur) for about 2 years with no problems in my 2004 Dodge. I've kept records of how the vehicle was used (towing 4000# highway, city driving w/o cap...) and how it responded in terms of observed power, mpg and general performance. I am currently running on 40% low, 40% ultra low and 20% Bio in my main tank with no noticable differance. I have a 90 gallon aux tank that is 70% ultra low and 30% bio which is valved off at the moment. I want to run 400-600 miles on the main tank first so that I will be able to clearly see a difference when I switch over to the ultra blend. If that performs the same or nearly the same, and I expect it will, I'll try a 80-20 mix and note the differences I experience.