06 vs 07 Duramax

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by dozerboy

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]

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.

[Yamsi401]

Originally Posted by dozerboy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by K5Kahos

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]

So after the ulsf gets here everyone with an '06 or older diesel will need to use a fuel additive to compensate?

[LostBoy]

Originally Posted by J45p3r

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]

Originally Posted by LostBoy

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]

Originally Posted by J45p3r

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]

Originally Posted by K5Fury

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]

Originally Posted by GetMore

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]

Originally Posted by dozerboy

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]

Originally Posted by GetMore

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.

[FBJR]

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]

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]

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]

Now that I've apologized, I do have to throw one more thing out for the E85 supporters.

http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=55745

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...y/3483031.html

http://www.freshpatents.com/Diesel-o...pe=description

Now try to tell us diesel's not the way to go.

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by LostBoy

Now that I've apologized, I do have to throw one more thing out for the E85 supporters.

http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=55745

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...y/3483031.html

http://www.freshpatents.com/Diesel-o...pe=description

Now try to tell us diesel's not the way to go.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GetMore

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]

That, sir, is a thorough argument. Quotes, sources, everything...