WMO in fuel

[JohnEd]

On the GM busnuts board there is a post by Jim with a 4905.  He is running a 15% mix and recently climbed out of, and back into, Denver.  11,000 ft passes at 7% grade.  He experienced no power problems either way but did have to DOWN SHIFT.

When "low sulphur" first arrived it was discovered that refining it out lowered the lubricity of the fuel.  The new engines had a lot of fuel pump failures due that missing magic ingredient.  I am not a trucker but I remember they talked about adding motor oil to the fuel to prevent fuel pump failure and also that they said that the BioD 10% didn't fail cause the Bio was a lube.

Armed with all the testimony from farmers and truckers and industry types that they have been diluting their fuel for 30 years, I don't see how this can still be a bone of contension as a sound practice among "manual" injection owners.  Really I don't.  Guess that just means that there will be more WMO for the rest of us.

John The Diluted

[TomC]

The new 15ppm sulphur Diesel requires NO additives to it.  This is one of the reasons it is so much more expensive, is because of the sophisticated mix of additives to keep Diesel injectors happy.  Rest assured that our mechanical injectors on the 2 stroke engines are sloppy in comparison to the new electronic injectors out now.  If they can survive alright, I think we'll be alright also.  I have an '84 Mercedes turbo Diesel, a '79 Olds Cutlass 5.7 Diesel, an Onan 6.0 air cooled Diesel gen set, my bus with 8V-71TATAAC, Kubota Diesel genset in it, and my '85 KW with 3406B Caterpillar-of which none runs Diesel fuel additive and none have had any problems with fuel injection.  Good Luck, TomC

[kyle4501]

Do what you want, but I'm not gonna burn waste motor oil in my engine. There is stuff in it that ain't good to be burning - like the metals worn off the sliding parts. Then there is the trash in it that leads to more frequent filter changes - kinda puts a damper on the "savings" somewhat.

I'm not a huge fan of the EPA, but they have a point concerning the air we breathe.

Just 'cause someone else got away with it doesn't mean much to me, especially when I am gambling MY engine on the heresay of others. Good lab reports show lots more detail than bubba's claim that he has done it fer years.

(I've seen some of the stuff farmers & truckers have done . . . . . . )

But you go right ahead with the process of doing it your own way.

[JohnEd]

Tom,

I did say "when low sulphur first arrived".  I know the stuff must be OK now.  You aren't saying that there was never a problem with it are you?

kyle,

As far as the EPA is concerned....I am more of a fan than a detractor...as long as they aren't just "not enforcing" law.  We tried letting the factories and such police themselves and we got the Love Canal problem, acid rain and such.  Proper disposal of WMO is law and I support that fully.  Seems that the EPA does support the combustion of WMO as in heating and air conditioning fuel.  They also have no problem with our burning the stuff in an internal combustion engine.  I am pretty much clueless as to what is in it from a chemists standpoint so I will have to take the word of the scientists with all that book larn'n and no "praktickal esperience".  The ones whose Moms and Dads scraped up every cent and the tax payers paid dearly to contribute to the national repository of knowledge and wisdom.  Those guys.  The ones whose families never shirk from answering the question "how did soandso turn out".  Now I am not the man to ever discount experience...my own or others.  Great teacher and it has a way of indelling its lessons on ones mind but if that is the only way you can learn you will be one battered and bruised son of a gun by the time you reach an early age and you won't survive answering the question "is that stuff really poison".

Sounds like I am hot, huh?    I am not and thank you very much for asking.    I have never asked anybody to burn anything except Wifey and that concerned "hi test".  My first experience with motor oil in fuel was when I worked at a filling station.  Had no diesel pumps but a trucker came in late at closing and asked for some kerosene in his tanks.  I complied as he had 100 miles to go before he would find fuel.   As I was putting the K in he went into the cab and came out with a couple cans of oil that he poured in the tank.  He said "the only difference between diesel and K is an added quart of oil for every 10 gallons or some such ratio.  I know, I know...it wasn't drain oil.  But it was "experience" and what would a trucker with an expensive engine under the hood know anyway?  I have never heard a single soul say I put some oil in my fuel and destroyed a $15 thousand dollar engine.  Never!  Now lets hear from them.....right now....speak up.

It is a fun topic, fuel, but I fear that it has now been beat to death.

John

[jjrbus]

John, There is a  problem with people that go against popular wisdom and the advice and opinions they get here. If there much hyped project goes to poopies, they do not come back here and admit to everyone that they made a mistake and should have listened, we just never hear from them again
I've been on this board for years and never read " Hey you guys were right, I really should have listened, I just trashed thousands of dollars worth of material and a couple years of work, how could I be so stupid"!!!

[kyle4501]

jjr -       

John, I didn't say you shouldn't burn WMO, you go right ahead & burn what ever you want in your engine. You seem to want to believe the experience of those who have done it (nevermind there is no paper trail to document EXACTLY what was done, so how do you KNOW what they really did? Heresay? So much for repeatability.  ) I wish you luck. Please do keep good notes so we can know what works & doesn't.

BTW, as I see it, there is one heck of a difference in a 25,000 mile test & 400,000 mile life span of an engine.
But, your engine, your choice.

[kyle4501]

BTW, there is a big difference in the combustion that takes place in a furnace & that which occurs in an engine. It's much easier to control the combustion temps & air/ fuel ratios in a furnace and that equals cleaner burning which equals cleaner emmissions.

[jackhartjr]

JohnEd, you said..."When "low sulphur" first arrived it was discovered that refining it out lowered the lubricity of the fuel.  The new engines had a lot of fuel pump failures due that missing magic ingredient."
Out of all due respect that is not true.  There were a lot of wives tails going out about that, however I have read nothing that said fuel pumps failed and seals leaked and all of the other stuff that came out when the ULSD came out.

As a side note...talking about EPA...I remember prior to all of the EPA mandated crap being made to put on engines that our fleet could average 7.5 MPG at 68MPH consistanly.  That was in the eighties.  Try to get that today! 
Don't get me wrong, I am for the environment, however EPA has done some dumb things...and for some reason nobody can stop them!
Jack

[JohnEd]

Jack,

There is a truck stop a mile from my house...Am Pride or something.  can't help but talk to truckers if you eat there.  Well, can't help but listen to truckers, anyway.  Talking to them is always a choice.  I am not into fuels and or trucks but I remember the rumblings among them.  Cummins was not honoring the warranty on the injection pumps because the low sulphur was to blame.  I heard not a single trucker say that it was all bogus or that there was no problem or that pumps are not failing.  The existence of gravity was a more contentious subject among those folks and there were some that insisted that the earth really sucked.  I was an innocent bystander in that arena.  I did read some articles in the Trucker mag but all I recall is that it talked about increased maint due to low sulphur.  Like I said I was a bystander and these are not "my lies" I am repeating.  I believe someone on the board mentioned that low sulphur has been reformulated may times since it was introduced.

In the early 70's the smog laws hit with a vengeance.  Power fell off by 50% and so did MPG.  The Nips didn't do so bad but Detroit was devastated.  A lot of water has gone under that bridge since then and we now get more power from a cubic inch and three times the MPG.  ANNNND, about a millionth of the smog generation.  That sounds like a stunning success story....so far.

Now I wasn't into D in the 80's we were still proud of our DD 2 strokes.  Maybe that bus equipped with a 2 stroke did get 7.5 MPG.  Lots say they do better than that today.  The electronic controlled engines get 50% better MPG and power than the old manuals according to the head DD mech at the DD shop across from the Truck Stop near my home.  He told me the DD 2 stroke is an antique that is dirty(EPA), gets half the MPG and lasts one third the usefull life of a modern electronic.  He is certainly old enough to have learned D in a two stroke shop.  Me, I still want an 8V92 but I hear people say they get 8.5 and others say they get less than 5 in a hushed tone.  My choice from the little I have picked up on this board from people that have changed to 4 strokes is a ISM set up for 400 hp Ala Brian.  Sure wish I could get his wife to help me get the engine scooted out and the new one slid in...what a partner and what a conversion.

I don't really know squat though but i think you are not correct about MPG going down in the last 10 years or that the EPA had no positive impact.

I think the EPA basically said "you are going to smoke less and you are going to get better MPG and if you can do that and get better power they are going to color you the heavy winner.  Market forces at work and BIG gummint showed up agin.

Still love ya,

John

John

[kyle4501]

Sulphur isn't a lubricant, never was & never will be. It is the aromatic hydrocarbons that provided the lubrication.
Sulphur reacts to form nasties in the exhaust, that's why it was removed.
certain aromatic hydrocarbons also make for nasties in the exhaust, hence their required removal from the fuel.

Disposing of this removed 'stuff' isn't free. come to think of it, I'll bet removing it isn't free either.

Some time ago, I was reading a trade fuel processing magazine & mention was made that the new ultra low diesel was more highly refined than gasoline. (But since I can't quote the source, that is heresay.)

If it is true that you will get 50% more mpg with a 4 strokes, then my bus should get 15+ mpg by changing out the inefficient 8V71 that only got 10+ pulling a toad up from Fl.

FWIW, I too have listened to mechanics talk. In spite of the fundamental misunderstandings held by some, they remain employed.
(I know one 2 stroke mechanic that bypassed all the safety shutdown features because "they are for idiots" Guess what? he is rebuilding it due to it locking up when it ran too long without oil. 

What I gathered from that is you need to consider your sources carefully.

[makemineatwostroke]

John,the 4 strokes will not get 2 times the fuel mileage of a 2 stroke the older electronic 4 stroke did better but newer 4 strokes (2007) the series 60 Cummins and Cat have a tough time averaging 5 and the new fuel doesn't affect any of the engines I know about I think this all started with people selling the snake oil Cummins did have fuel pump problems but it was not the fuel that caused it as they tried to blame it on they also have problems with ISB ,ISC,ISM and the ISX throwing rod through the engine and are trying to blame that on the new engine oils.I have a 60s in my Eagle and average 6.6 mpg set on 550 hp I got 5.8 set at 600 hp fwiw

[HighTechRedneck]

FWIW, I too have listened to mechanics talk. In spite of the fundamental misunderstandings held by some, they remain employed.
(I know one 2 stroke mechanic that bypassed all the safety shutdown features because "they are for idiots" Guess what? he is rebuilding it due to it locking up when it ran too long without oil. 

What I gathered from that is you need to consider your sources carefully.

And then there are the modern DD shops.  Several busnuts have been told authoritatively by a DD shop that DD never made 2 stroke engines.  One declared that those were for only for weed eaters.  So as Kyle said, it is important to always consider the source.

I'm not disagreeing that modern diesel engines are more efficient than our old 2 strokes.  From everything I've read they definitely are.  But "better" is a big word that encompasses more than just efficiency.  For example, to me a big component of "better" is cost vs. benefit relative to my usage level.  Million mile life doesn't mean much to me since I will be unlikely to exceed 100,000 miles, perhaps not even 50,000 miles.  Considering those usage levels and that I already get 7+mpg, I couldn't really justify it on fuel savings either.

If I needed a rebuild of my 2 stroke (and could afford that) and someone gave me a repower to a new or freshly rebuilt modern 4 stroke engine at the same price as the rebuild (yeah right), I would take it.  Otherwise, I would certainly stick with what I've got since I've been pretty happy with it so far.

[jjrbus]

If I needed a rebuild of my 2 stroke (and could afford that) and someone gave me a repower to a new or freshly rebuilt modern 4 stroke engine at the same price as the rebuild (yeah right), I would take it.  Otherwise, I would certainly stick with what I've got since I've been pretty happy with it so far.
[/quote]

While the thought of flying up hills with a modern 600HP DD sounds very appealing. I would not take one, not even for free.
1st. When it is broke I could not afford a service call. Well I could afford it, but I could buy a new 6V71 for the cost of a service call!!!!

2nd. Over the years I have learned alot from you guys about my 6V71, I might be able to fix something on the side of the road. A little duct tape, a pipe plug, some bailing wire!! Try fixing a 60 series computer with duk tape!!  I also have the ultimate tool, an air card!!!  I could call on the best of the best for advice, that would be the people on this board!!

            Only my humble opinion  Jim

[Busted Knuckle]

And then there are the modern DD shops.  Several busnuts have been told authoritatively by a DD shop that DD never made 2 stroke engines.  One declared that those were for only for weed eaters.  So as Kyle said, it is important to always consider the source.

OH Yeah Baby! Can ya imagine the size of that weed eater? !LOL!
news paper add; for sale one used weed eater 8V71 DD. Bring 4-6 guys & a trailer! $100.  LOL!
  BK 

[HighTechRedneck]

And then there are the modern DD shops.  Several busnuts have been told authoritatively by a DD shop that DD never made 2 stroke engines.  One declared that those were for only for weed eaters.  So as Kyle said, it is important to always consider the source.

OH Yeah Baby! Can ya imagine the size of that weed eater? !LOL!
news paper add; for sale one used weed eater 8V71 DD. Bring 4-6 guys & a trailer! $100.  LOL!
  BK 

But can you imagine the weeds Paul Bunyan could take down with that thing?