WMO in fuel

[JohnEd]

Kyle,

"consider my sources".... I do that all the time and I don't pass any of this of as my "testimony" from my experience or academic.  I can throw out something I have seen and or heard and get a lot of data flowing and that is great...at least for me and I suspect for others.  Today it has been:  1) Cummins had a rash of fuel pump failures around the time that low sulphur hit and they blamed poor engineering on the fuel.  2) That sulphur isn't a lube I already knew but I also knew that the refining process for low sulphur also inadvertently strips out the lubricants and I didn't know that any involved in D usage wasn't aware of that but this is only the fourth time I have seen it discussed at length and I am sure more tidbits will evolve from the next discussion and in this one I don't think that it was mentioned that lubes were added to low sulphur at the outset or in one of the reformulations.3)  I thought that "ALL" D engine makers had fuel pump problems when Low Sulphur(LS) was first introduced and that alt explanations for the failures, such as Cum building shoddy pumps, was started by BIG oil and maybe DD and Cat.  The "scuttlebut" I heard went something like "DD and Cat are changing out their pumps on warranty, so why won't Cum?  Another theory was that BIG oil knew that the LS was going to cause problems but "let it ride" in the hopes that the problems would back up on the "infernal regulators" or the EPA or Gummint in general.  I don't know the answer to this and it was all just chatter when I was listening with one ear.  I think the real answer could be given by a Knut that would look at the formulation of LS when it was first introduced and what into what it has evolved.  The pump problems are now a thing of the past and if that research shows that lubricants have Been added since then I think that would be a very strong indicator that the fuel was a problem at the outset cause BIG oil won't give you anything just for "the heck" of it.  That is how I would put the argument to rest with all except those that think BIG oil needs a break from us, the consumer.  anybody know how to find that out? 4)  That there are people out there that will discredit "all" DD mechanics because one made a comment so ludicrously inept as to suggest that there is no such thing as a DD 2 stroke.  Hard to believe.  Maybe it was intended as humor  5)  Now about that 6V92 being simpler than a Cummins L10 or M11....is that true?

JJ,

I have made it a point to share with everybody my mistakes.  Can't tell when you might have been the last person that some guy talked to.  I still don't agree with you for another reason....this months BCM has a section of BB answers to the question : What did you do wrong with your conversion? pages of responses.

Later,

John

[jackhartjr]

Not trying to beat a dead horse...however...the ULSD ALWAYS had plenty of lubricants added.
Not trying to be diagreeable, not trying to flame.
Not trying to make anyone mad at me.
Just wanted to clear up a misconception.  (About the lubricants not being in the ULSD to begin with!)
Jack

[JackConrad]

If I recall correctly back when they went to low sulphur, the biggest problem was not lack of lubrication, but leaks from O rings that were not compatible with the low sulphur.  I have not seen any documented problems with ULSD. Jack

[JohnEd]

Jackhart,

I answered your post and thanked you.  It didn't get sent obviously.  I also mentioned that I would rather get flamed that not find out the truth,

[JohnEd]

JackConrad,

The last sentence....is that "I haven't seen..." or is it "I have seen MANY problems with ULSD"?  Inquiring minds and all that.

John

[JackConrad]

JackConrad,
The last sentence....is that "I haven't seen..." or is it "I have seen MANY problems with ULSD"?  Inquiring minds and all that.
John

OOPS!  I quess I need to proofread a little better. I should be I have NOT seen any problems.  I made the correction.  Thanks, John.   Jack

[kyle4501]

What good is data if you can't/ won't discern the fact from fiction?
The real facts suffer when one is looking to support a conspiracy theory.
Innuendo & urban legends get told so many times they end up giving themselves credibility (especially to those who lack discernment).

Remember all the media hype about how great Biodiesel is? I find it curious that no one wants to talk about the short shelf life.

Ethanol was supposed to pave the way to energy dependence. But it too fell short of the hype.

There are no free lunches & the easy money has already been picked up.

IF adding waste oil to regular diesel fuel was a good thing, the waste oil haulers would be selling diesel fuel cheaper than anyone else.

Then there are all those that bought the 'refinery' kits to make their own fuel from wvo. Was supposed to be cheap, real cheap. I know there are those making a go with it, but I know several that have bought the kits & made a few batches. They don't now, & I don't see any of them posting why. . . .


So, spreading heresay as sound information on a bbs seems an odd way to 'gather data'.

But, that's just my opinion & it's worth less than what you paid for it. 

[Charles in SC]

I added some used motor oil to the tank of my Massey tractor one time and only once. The filters stopped up with regularity untill I drained and flushed the tank.