|
|
|
View Full Version : 06 vs 07 Duramax
JasonF 07-27-2006, 04:09 PM I am looking at getting a Crew Cab Duramax 4x4 and I've foung some sweet deals on the 06's. The problem now is that money is tight and it looks like I will have to wait until next summer until I can pay off the wifes car.
My question that I have is what the major changes will be for 07 with the emissions? I know that the Classic 07 will be the same as 06 until Jan 07 but these will be in short supply I'm sure by next summer. How much will the new compliant 07's vary in MPG, performance, and price compared to equal 06's?
Thanks Jason
K5Fury 07-27-2006, 05:17 PM You can expect about a $3,000 increase on a GM diesel for model year '07 due to the extra stuff needed to make it compliant.
dozerboy 07-27-2006, 09:33 PM Also a decrease in power and/or economy is likely.
JasonF 07-28-2006, 08:09 AM I guess it will be a wait and see game. Shoot we can send men to the moon so some GM engineers should be able to make a low emission D-max perform as before.:dunno:
dozerboy 07-28-2006, 07:15 PM I'm sure they can but why if the other 2 can't, GM is just playing games with them?
Yamsi401 07-30-2006, 06:33 PM I guess it will be a wait and see game. Shoot we can send men to the moon so some GM engineers should be able to make a low emission D-max perform as before.:dunno:
In electronics, there's a tradeoff when it comes to power - you don't get something for nothing. It took alot of horsepower to send a tiny ship to the moon with VERY inefficient engines - all done without environmental concerns of the tree huggers. These are the same huggers that would rather save the Northern Spotted Wood Tick instead of allowing the Diesel industry to go more mainstream into the vehicle market saving more fuel.
In Europe, Diesels account for about 40% of new cars sold each year. Diesel fuel has higher energy content than gasoline( 18% more punch per gallon), and diesel performance is usually better in terms of engine output. These factors also mean that vehicles running on diesel put less global-warming pollution into the air. Thus, it might seem that in today's world of rising temperatures and fuel prices, diesel is ripe for a surge in popularity in North America.
LostBoy 08-08-2006, 12:22 PM ...Thus, it might seem that in today's world of rising temperatures and fuel prices, diesel is ripe for a surge in popularity in North America.
It's been ripe for a long time - the issue is most Americans hear "diesel" and have horrible visions of the loud, stinky, black cloud-emitting diesels of yesterday. In reality, they probably sit next to at least 1 modern diesel in traffic every day w/out even realizing it. Since they're never made aware of how clean & efficient modern technology has made diesels run, that general inaccurate perception changes very slowly, 1 person at a time. Automakers have to produce what the general public demands, regardless of alternative benefits.
That being said, it seems GM's really pushing the ridiculous E-85 $h!+, and with a ton of government backing I think most people will be inclined to go with that before diesel, at least until some organization or another puts out the funds to equally hype diesel w/ tv & radio commercials (by the way - all the cornfields they show in those tv commercials - I'm sure they're maintained w/ diesel tractors)
K5Kahos 08-08-2006, 12:55 PM All I know is, the surcharge is more like $5000, AND at all the diesel pumps around here have a sticker on them- " Low Sulfer 500, DO NOT RUN IN 2007 MODEL YEAR OR LATER" Written just like that. I have yet to see any pumps without it. The dealer said if you run that fuel, it will destroy your engine and void your warranty.
LostBoy 08-08-2006, 01:49 PM All I know is, the surcharge is more like $5000, AND at all the diesel pumps around here have a sticker on them- " Low Sulfer 500, DO NOT RUN IN 2007 MODEL YEAR OR LATER" Written just like that. I have yet to see any pumps without it. The dealer said if you run that fuel, it will destroy your engine and void your warranty.
In regard to folks that have an '07 truck and need to fuel it up, I think only the immortal words of Mr. T are sufficient to describe the situation: I PITY DA FOOL
No offense.
J45p3r 08-08-2006, 04:43 PM That being said, it seems GM's really pushing the ridiculous E-85 $h!+, and with a ton of government backing I think most people will be inclined to go with that before diesel, at least until some organization or another puts out the funds to equally hype diesel w/ tv & radio commercials (by the way - all the cornfields they show in those tv commercials - I'm sure they're maintained w/ diesel tractors)
That E-85 "$h!+" make a lot more sense than diesel in my opinion. There's only so much oil to go around and at least E-85 is made from 85% renewable resource. On top of that, I bet a lot of those tractors run on bio-diesel or even ethanol.
dozerboy 08-08-2006, 08:25 PM I wish we could have kept diesel a secret then I would still be paying $1 gal. less for fuel over gas. Bio-diesel is probably more of a renewable resource then E85 I don't care what anyone else does I'll stick with diesels.
I bet a lot of those tractors run on bio-diesel or even ethanol.
No they don't.
If you believe the news hype, sure we are running out of oil.
We keep finding more, get it easier and more effecient.
We current reserves, just 200 years left :pow:
04CHEVYYFZ 08-08-2006, 09:16 PM I'll bet that barely any of the tractors are running bio diesel,
around here when farmers get their fuel they get a discounted
price for fuel that is not going to be used on the streets(like
an agricultural grade) I have yet to see one of those pumps with
a soy diesel sticker on it. I think that E-85 sucks, I'm all
for supporting farmers but that chit just doesnt run right. I
drove my moms new avy on a trip and filled up with E-85 on the
way there and then used premium on the way back. There was
about 4 to 5 mpg difference between the two premium being the
best. My buddy and my dad love to burn the soy diesel in their
****** b/c it seems to out perform regular diesel. When I get
out of college I will buy a diesel hands down over a gas motor.
The advantages of them are too much to list. Sorry for the long
post:judge:
edit: apparently "t r u c k s" is a bad word
J45p3r 08-09-2006, 06:29 AM If you believe the news hype, sure we are running out of oil.
We keep finding more, get it easier and more effecient.
We current reserves, just 200 years left :pow:
200 isn't that long :pow: Sure, it won't be a problem for you or me, so I guess that means we should just ignore it :rolleyes:
If oil is so plentiful and easy to get, I shouldn't be paying $3+ gallon for gasoline.
So, as much as I want a DMAX and still may get a DMAX, diesel is not a solution near or long term.
Also, I'm not saying E-85 is either, but it's a better solution than diesel, IMO.
Also, I should say that diesel DOES kick ass, but I just think we are nearing the end of it's life. Personally, I'd love to see hydrogen succeed since I think that is the ultimate solution. Who knows for sure though, I'm just some guy in backwoods downeast Maine.
LostBoy 08-09-2006, 09:51 AM Bio-Diesel is also a renewable resource, and if it should ever go mainstream, its also a form of recycling left-over organics rather than sending them to a land fill. Plus, diesel emissions are less harmful to the environment in any case - bio pollutes very little at all (except for making your truck smell like a rolling fry-cooker)
I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but here in CO the methanol level in gas from November to March is upped to about 10%, & just that small increase kills mileage by about 2 MPG or more - that's in the winter, when the air's cooler and therefore more dense, which should mean better overall performance & economy. They say it limits pollution when in reality it makes the exhaust gasses lighter so it cuts down on hanging smog in the dense air (again, I'm referring only to a 10% mixture in this case, not E85). So how does that help? Sure, you're cutting down on emissions in theory & there's less oil used for the mixture, but if you have to fill up every 3 days as opposed to every 5, doesn't that end up using more in the long run?
E-85 costs more to produce & is much less efficient than gasoline, and diesel's cheaper & easier to produce plus more efficient & causes less pollution than gasoline, so that should be the choice hands-down.
Also consider that there aren't really any studies showing the environmental impact from E85 emissions on a mass scale - how do we even know they're better? Lastly, consider the whole picture; if everybody went to E85, they'd be filling up much more frequently, so our lessened dependency on oil is slightly offset there. Then consider the increased ag equipment needed to harvest, plus the environmental impact from the increased use of pesticides & chemical fertilizers to maintain the larger crops... :soapbox: I'll get down now.
cmpcpro 08-09-2006, 10:11 AM 200 isn't that long :pow: Sure, it won't be a problem for you or me, so I guess that means we should just ignore it :rolleyes:
Sounds about right to me.
J45p3r 08-09-2006, 02:12 PM Bio-Diesel is also a renewable resource, and if it should ever go mainstream, its also a form of recycling left-over organics rather than sending them to a land fill. Plus, diesel emissions are less harmful to the environment in any case - bio pollutes very little at all (except for making your truck smell like a rolling fry-cooker)
I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but here in CO the methanol level in gas from November to March is upped to about 10%, & just that small increase kills mileage by about 2 MPG or more - that's in the winter, when the air's cooler and therefore more dense, which should mean better overall performance & economy. They say it limits pollution when in reality it makes the exhaust gasses lighter so it cuts down on hanging smog in the dense air (again, I'm referring only to a 10% mixture in this case, not E85). So how does that help? Sure, you're cutting down on emissions in theory & there's less oil used for the mixture, but if you have to fill up every 3 days as opposed to every 5, doesn't that end up using more in the long run?
E-85 costs more to produce & is much less efficient than gasoline, and diesel's cheaper & easier to produce plus more efficient & causes less pollution than gasoline, so that should be the choice hands-down.
Also consider that there aren't really any studies showing the environmental impact from E85 emissions on a mass scale - how do we even know they're better? Lastly, consider the whole picture; if everybody went to E85, they'd be filling up much more frequently, so our lessened dependency on oil is slightly offset there. Then consider the increased ag equipment needed to harvest, plus the environmental impact from the increased use of pesticides & chemical fertilizers to maintain the larger crops... :soapbox: I'll get down now.
How difficult is it to produce biodiesel in mass quantities?
J45p3r 08-09-2006, 02:12 PM Sounds about right to me.
Do you have kids or plan to have kids?
cmpcpro 08-09-2006, 03:03 PM Do you have kids or plan to have kids?
The automobile has only been around for 100 years. In the next 200 years I'm sure they won't be running off of gasoline.
dozerboy 08-09-2006, 06:29 PM How difficult is it to produce biodiesel in mass quantities?
Not very, but I don't know how it compares to petrol fuels or E-85. Diesel is the way to go just look at Europe, and you get better mileage with diesel automobile than a gas of the same make. 200 years is a hell of a long time our kids have nothing to worry about that's just liberal BS.
J45p3r 08-09-2006, 06:48 PM Not very, but I don't know how it compares to petrol fuels or E-85. Diesel is the way to go just look at Europe, and you get better mileage with diesel automobile than a gas of the same make. 200 years is a hell of a long time our kids have nothing to worry about that's just liberal BS.
My only beef is that we cannot continue to rely on oil whether there is a 200 year supply or not. Look at how much it costs us to fill up because we are relying on a non renewable resource that we use wayyyy more of than we can produce domestically.
dozerboy 08-09-2006, 10:26 PM The reason we pay so much for fuel is because the leaf lickers don't want us drilling around here. My under standing is that we have more oil here then the towel... Things will change, but you can't expect it to happen over night. And I'm so sick of people crying about fuel prices does it suck hell ya, but damn suck it up and deal with it.:deadhorse
Yamsi401 08-10-2006, 07:09 AM The reason we pay so much for fuel is because the leaf lickers don't want us drilling around here. My under standing is that we have more oil here then the towel... Things will change, but you can't expect it to happen over night. And I'm so sick of people crying about fuel prices does it such hell ya, but got damn suck it and deal with it.:deadhorse
100% correct!!! If we spent less time caring for the spotted wood tick and spent more time drilling in ANWR we'd have three times the oil produced on the domestic market. Set up wind farms to help the power grid and keep the sweet crude oil for the transportation market.
GetMore 08-13-2006, 11:27 AM All I know is, the surcharge is more like $5000, AND at all the diesel pumps around here have a sticker on them- " Low Sulfer 500, DO NOT RUN IN 2007 MODEL YEAR OR LATER" Written just like that. I have yet to see any pumps without it. The dealer said if you run that fuel, it will destroy your engine and void your warranty.
They are changing over to ULSD fuel, but that change will not be completed until October, 2006. At that point there will be two fuels available, LSD and ULSD, but most likely only ULSD will be at the pump. It'll be cheaper to have one fuel than to have two.
The changeover is happening now, but because the LSD is in the tanks and pipelines now it contaminates the ULSD, so ULSD can no longer be sold as such, and is therefore sold as LSD, carrying that warning.
2007 vehicle usable ULSD will be here for the 2007 vehicles.
K5Fury 08-14-2006, 11:38 AM So after the ulsf gets here everyone with an '06 or older diesel will need to use a fuel additive to compensate?
LostBoy 08-14-2006, 12:32 PM My only beef is that we cannot continue to rely on oil whether there is a 200 year supply or not. Look at how much it costs us to fill up because we are relying on a non renewable resource that we use wayyyy more of than we can produce domestically.
Just about everything we use in life utilizes petroleum in some way: Plastic is a good example of a petroleum by-product, as are tires. E85 isn't going to solve automotive dependency on oil as nobody's come up with an alternative to oil as a lubricant.
As far as domestic production, the US cannot currently keep up w/ the demand produced by E85, and we'd end up importing most of it from South America, so we're just shifting our foreign dependency from one product to another, and from one venue to another.
1996Silverado 08-14-2006, 12:53 PM E85 isn't going to solve automotive dependency on oil as nobody's come up with an alternative to oil as a lubricant.
Yes, they have, it's called synthetic.
Granted, this is all (mostly) new to most. Things are changing. Some will be better, some not. Most of these things mentioned here are like a remake of what everyone was arguing about in the middle and late '70 when they took lead out of gas. Bottom line, if you don't like where it looks to be heading, come up with a better idea. Put a patient on it and make yourself famous (or be the blame).
tblrk1980 08-14-2006, 01:41 PM My only beef is that we cannot continue to rely on oil whether there is a 200 year supply or not. Look at how much it costs us to fill up because we are relying on a non renewable resource that we use wayyyy more of than we can produce domestically.
nothing is going to change overnight here or anywhere in the world....so we are going to have to rely on it until the tech. produces an alternative fuel with the same energy output. We CAN produce and refine LOTS more domesticaly. It will, however, put some loser commie enviro's out of business though. We are hamstringing ourselves and complaining about it in the process....doesnt make sense. And i would rather not hear about global warming this or cooling that b/c it aint proven...and its not going to help anybody in the longrun.
GetMore 08-14-2006, 04:57 PM So after the ulsf gets here everyone with an '06 or older diesel will need to use a fuel additive to compensate?
Absolutely not! Sulfur is not a good thing to have in fuel. There is no advantage to having it there. It is quite abrasive and reactive, and is one of the major causes of soot.
The new fuel will be backwards compatible.
The only possible issue is that the new fuel also meets requirements for lower aromatics content. This can lead to old seals leaking, since aromatics swell seals. It is a potential problem, not one that is guaranteed to happen.
What happens with the seals is when they swell the push the two surfaces they seal to apart. Everything takes a set to that location. When lower aromatic fuel is used the seals can contract slightly, and you can get a leak. If you install new seals you will solve the leak and you will not have to worry about it again. It is not a case where new seal materials are needed or where the fuel is eating the seals.
Just a heads up.
1996Silverado, most (all?) synthetic oil is still petroleum based. It is just a matter of them picking and choosing the molecular strands of oil that are all the same length. They also crack some of the longer strands down to the size they have chosen. This is what makes it a synthetic oil.
I do believe we could produce oil from other stock, such as algae, but I think it would need too much energy to be worthwhile. When we come up with free, limitless energy we will be able to do away with petroleum.
dozerboy 08-14-2006, 07:24 PM Absolutely not! Sulfur is not a good thing to have in fuel. There is no advantage to having it there. It is quite abrasive and reactive, and is one of the major causes of soot.
The new fuel will be backwards compatible.
The only possible issue is that the new fuel also meets requirements for lower aromatics content. This can lead to old seals leaking, since aromatics swell seals. It is a potential problem, not one that is guaranteed to happen.
What happens with the seals is when they swell the push the two surfaces they seal to apart. Everything takes a set to that location. When lower aromatic fuel is used the seals can contract slightly, and you can get a leak. If you install new seals you will solve the leak and you will not have to worry about it again. It is not a case where new seal materials are needed or where the fuel is eating the seals.
Just a heads up.
1996Silverado, most (all?) synthetic oil is still petroleum based. It is just a matter of them picking and choosing the molecular strands of oil that are all the same length. They also crack some of the longer strands down to the size they have chosen. This is what makes it a synthetic oil.
I do believe we could produce oil from other stock, such as algae, but I think it would need too much energy to be worthwhile. When we come up with free, limitless energy we will be able to do away with petroleum.
No, sulfur is what gives diesel its lubricity. IMO you should be running an additive in your diesel right now, IIRC however they have added an additive to ULSD to compensate for removing the sulfur.
GetMore 08-14-2006, 08:06 PM No, sulfur is what gives diesel its lubricity. IMO you should be running an additive in your diesel right now, IIRC however they have added an additive to ULSD to compensate for removing the sulfur.
The sulfur does NOT add lubricity. That is 100% wrong, though it is a common misconception.
The reason people believed that is that when the refineries went from high sulfur diesel (HSD) to low sulfur diesel (LSD) the method used to remove the sulfur (hydrotreating) also happened to lower the lubricity.
Sulfur does not lubricate!
The method used now is not supposed to affect lubricity as much, but to head off any potential problems diesel fuel is now supposed to meet a minimum lubricity standard.
There is an ASTM specification for the lubricity of both LSD and ULSD, so you should not have to use an additive.
I don't know how the spec compares to current/last year's fuel or if it is still a good idea to use additive, or not, but my feeling is that the fuel is going to be just as good as last year's fuel. (I know that's not really saying much.)
dozerboy 08-15-2006, 06:58 PM The sulfur does NOT add lubricity. That is 100% wrong, though it is a common misconception.
NO it isn't 100% wrong it just not that cut and dry. The Hydro processing used to refine ULSD reduces nitrogen and aeromatic compounds, as well as sulfur and its compounds. These compounds provide lubricating qualities, so that fuel pumps don't fail, and so the injectors will not become clogged in diesels. There is no set a lubricity standard now IIRC, but there will be for ULSD.
Just like lead was good in gas. Sulpher is to deisel.
Took years to for the engine builders to build gas engines that were comfortable without lead.
I don't think we need to blow black smoke down the road. But I also don't think a little smoke is hurting anyone or thing.
JMHO
LostBoy 08-16-2006, 10:59 AM By the way - I apologize for my part in carrying on the E85 debate in a diesel forum. Couldn't have been much farther from the point of the original post.
dozerboy 08-16-2006, 07:33 PM Regardless of how bad the black smoke looks, it's not as bad on the environment as many other pollutants. It's just carbon powder messy but not deadly.
LostBoy 08-17-2006, 09:47 AM Now that I've apologized, I do have to throw one more thing out for the E85 :justin: supporters.
http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=55745
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/technology/3483031.html
http://www.freshpatents.com/Diesel-oil-from-residues-by-catalytic-depolymerization-with-energy-input-from-a-pump-agitator-system-dt20050602ptan20050115871.php?type=description
Now try to tell us diesel's not the way to go. :slap:
J45p3r 08-17-2006, 07:52 PM Now that I've apologized, I do have to throw one more thing out for the E85 :justin: supporters.
http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=55745
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/technology/3483031.html
http://www.freshpatents.com/Diesel-oil-from-residues-by-catalytic-depolymerization-with-energy-input-from-a-pump-agitator-system-dt20050602ptan20050115871.php?type=description
Now try to tell us diesel's not the way to go. :slap:
I just wanna say, I'm not a tree hugger. I ride snowmobiles and four wheelers and jet ski's etc, etc. AND I voted for Bush :X
I'll also apoligize since I got the whole thing started.
LostBoy 08-21-2006, 05:42 PM It's definitely not a bad subject for a thread, though, especially with prices on everything the way they are
Maybe a Moderator will catch this post & move all applicable to a new thread...
Yamsi401 08-22-2006, 08:51 PM The sulfur does NOT add lubricity. That is 100% wrong, though it is a common misconception.
From Wikipedia - "Sulfur acts as a lubricant in diesel, and by lowering the sulfur content there is a corresponding drop in the fuel's lubricity. This decrease in lubricating ability results in a minor decrease of energy content, about 1%. This decrease in energy content may result in reduced fuel economy. To achieve the sulfur requirements for the new fuel standards, diesel manufacturers include an additive to keep the fuel flowing smoothly, and to prevent engine damage."
From Chevron's Diesel site - "There are several diesel fuel properties other than sulfur that will change as a result of moving to S15 (ULSD).
* Lubricity: Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005."
LostBoy 08-23-2006, 10:16 AM That, sir, is a thorough argument. Quotes, sources, everything... :cheer:
05CrewZ71 08-23-2006, 05:55 PM We didnt really put men on the moon it was done in a holleywood studio and there was 2 shooters in the grassy knoll! however I wish I had a diesel more bang for your buck and so much easier to get more hp! though e85 is a idea in the right direction towards a solution! How about those 2 hippie kids on tv that drove the van across the US using old resturant grease or we could all put a food processor on our engine and hope for the same results and marty in back to the future ha ha ha
Frankenbiker 08-23-2006, 07:33 PM The big deal about sulfur in 2007-spec diesel has nothing to do with lubricity.
Sulfur in diesel KILLS the aftertreatment devices used in 2007-compliant engines. As little as one tankful of 500-ppm (LSD) will completely ruin them (but no harm to the engine itself.) It's expected that most retail fuel outlets will be selling LSD and ULSD, side-by-side at least for the first year or two, or until 2010 when ULSD will be mandated to be the only thing available.
ULSD won't harm older engines. Any change in lubricity that MIGHT have occured from the loss of sulfur content will be addressed with additives from the refiner, long before it ever reaches a retail outlet.
(I've got a bigger stake in this issue than most of the folks hanging around here... I burn 1500-2000 gallons a month, as an Owner/Operator; as such, I really feel no pity for someone who's moaning about filling his 34 gallon tank once a week. :D )
-blaine
dozerboy 08-23-2006, 09:06 PM It's expected that most retail fuel outlets will be selling LSD and ULSD, side-by-side at least for the first year or two,
No way, you may fine LSD some places but most likely not both. There not going to put aside refineries, pipe lines, or storage tanks for LSD.
Frankenbiker 08-24-2006, 09:12 PM No way, you may fine LSD some places but most likely not both. There not going to put aside refineries, pipe lines, or storage tanks for LSD.
Actually, that's exactly what most places plan on doing; at least that's what I thought I'd read at one point this summer. Here's an online version of T/A's RoadKing Magazine's article on ULSD:
http://www.roadking.com/story.php?id=705
They mention that 80% of diesel sold must be ULSD as of 10/15/06...
-blaine
LostBoy 08-25-2006, 10:25 AM No way, you may fine LSD some places but most likely not both. There not going to put aside refineries, pipe lines, or storage tanks for LSD.
I think the purpose in selling both would be that fuel stations have to meet the demand for ULSD, but they'll have to exhaust the current supply of LSD as well before they can go with only 1 type.
Yamsi401 08-25-2006, 11:24 AM I think the purpose in selling both would be that fuel stations have to meet the demand for ULSD, but they'll have to exhaust the current supply of LSD as well before they can go with only 1 type.
The infrastructure is not there in established stations to do that. You'd have to add a tank and pump for the ULSD and then retire the plumbing for the LSD when the supply is exhausted.
Most stations that suport Diesel have 4 tanks on their lot - 87, 89, 91 Octane gasolines and a single Diesel tank. If the tank holds 500 gallons I'm sure they'll drain that tank dry of LSD and then start filling it with ULSD. Too bad since that tank must have some sludge in the base and draining it will end up in pumping sludge into a vehicle's tank.
GetMore 08-25-2006, 02:07 PM Actually, what they are going to be doing is filling the LSD tanks with ULSD. Because of the sulfur left in the tanks (as part of the fuel already there) the tanks will not be considered ULSD, and are therefore LSD.
After a few refills the level of sulfur in the fuel will drop to ULSD levels, and the sticker will be placed on the pump saying it is safe for 2007 vehicles.
FWIW, some of the pumps out there are already pumping ULSD, but with slightly higher sulfur levels. Who knows when (probably just before October) they will test the fuel and give it the ULSD sticker.
dozerboy 08-25-2006, 08:19 PM X2 that the long version of what I was saying. The way I understand it they have been putting ULSD in the pipe lines but the LSD contaminates it. So they can't call it ULSD until the LSD has been flushed out of the tanks and pipe lines thoroughly.
vBulletin v3.5.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0 |