Is there any advantage to ULSD in out Old diesels? better mileage? I know they the ULSD can't hurt my car, but is there anything to look forward to? will they start selling Diesels in CA agian after this goes through?

__________________

the bp on rt 13 just north of delaware city has those stickers too... no problems yet

My understanding is that once the Federally mandated ULSD fuel is
available nationwide this September or October it will allow the newer 07
direct inject diesels with their partical trap filtered emission systems to comply to all states low emission requirements......California and Massachusetts included, which have the same very strict emission regulations. But it will be left up to the individual State Regulatory bodies to lift any current ban on new diesel car sales following their own tests of vehicles submitted by the manufactures that run on ULSD.

European car manufacturers including MB have been waiting for this to happen
so it opens up the entire US market. Up to this point the "United States" has not been so UNITED when it came to emissions and clean burning diesel. I don't believe the new 07 diesel vehicles could even pass the Calf. or Mass. test running on high sulfur diesel or even LSD. They need ULSD to be complient just like in Europe.

__________________
FRED

Daily Driver: 98 E300TD 199K
Hobby Car: 69 Austin Mini
Past Diesels: 84 300SD, 312K
87 300SDL, 251K
94 Chev. K-1500 6.5Ltr.TD, 373K

does anyone know how these ULSD fuels will affect the performance and efficiency of our old mercedes diesels? is it beneficial or no effect? from what i have read in some auto magazine article, that european diesel fuel are the best kind of diesel you could ever find in the world and what US diesels like what were burning, is said to be also known as "dirty diesel". so, if the ULSD fuel which has euro specs on it, and will be introduced to the US, what are its advantages aside from environment and air friendly?

__________________
'85 300D Turbo - CA Version

It is a cleaner burning fuel so you would have to assume that there would be less coking / carbon build up in the engines. Other than that I would not expect any drastic changes in performance, maintenance or economy. It was not that long ago that we went from +1500ppm sulfur diesel to 500ppm LSD...and yes everyone at the time (mostly truckers) argued that the 1000ppm drop in sulfur was "going to destroy their engines" Guess what..nothing happened!
I did not notice any detrimental change in any of my own diesel cars at the time.
Its just that no one likes change or to deal with something new. But its not NEW! Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel has been used in Europe for years in all diesels old and new with no crazy problems...

__________________
FRED

Daily Driver: 98 E300TD 199K
Hobby Car: 69 Austin Mini
Past Diesels: 84 300SD, 312K
87 300SDL, 251K
94 Chev. K-1500 6.5Ltr.TD, 373K

ULSD isn't as good a lubricant as LSD, which may or may not make a difference, if you are concerned, blend with biodiesel at a low percentage such as B2.

From what I know, by reading everything I can find, SULFUR is in the fuel as it's cracked and has to be REMOVED to lower the ppm count to comply with new reg's.

.

__________________
[http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/14/youve-got-problems-not-issues/ ]

"A liberal is someone who feels they owe a great debt to their fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

The sulphur problem with trucks in the 1970s was short lived, maybe two years at the most. Went away when the o-ring material was changed (and the o-rings changed). As I remember, which may be completely wrong, the fuel systemes with the high flow rates had the problems; i.e. Cummins and International. Can't remember a Cat having a big issue or a reefer engine, which were mostly Volvo then. O-rings on truck engines got changed on failure or at a major overhaul. Very few diesel cars in the U.S. then and don't remember any having an issue (I know daBenz didn't). Small farm tractors didn't have problems - Ford and Perkins engines were the biggies then.

The switch from low to ultra-low will be another big step change, so I'd anticipate some issues, but I wouldn't expect advance notification in today's environment. Whether the manufacturers back their product like they did in the 1970s will be the real issue, in my opinion. Time will tell, just like it did then.

__________________
daBenz - 1970 220D

Really? I've been using Valero in Wilmington and there aren't any ULSD stickers on the pump yet.

Have you noticed any economy differences?

__________________
1987 300D, arctic white/palomino--314,000 miles
1978 240D 4-speed, Euro Delivery, light ivory/bamboo--370,000 miles
2005 Jeep Liberty CRD Limited, light khaki/slate--140,000 miles
2018 Chevy Cruze diesel, 6-speed manual, satin steel metallic/kalahari--19,000 miles
1982 Peugeot 505 diesel, 4-speed manual, blue/blue, 130,000 miles
1995 S320, black/parchment--34,000 miles (Dad's car)

They've been using low sulfur diesel fuel (0.05% mass) in parts of California, beginning with south California since 1985, have there been any problems with MB diesels in that 21 year time period because of low sulfur fuel?

This is from a Chevron website, copied and pasted here, but you can read it in its entirety here, which contains additional interesting information about diesel fuel.http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L1_toc_fs.htm

Does low sulfur diesel fuel have enough lubricity?
Yes. Even though the process used to lower the sulfur in diesel can also remove some of the components that give the fuel its lubricity, reputable refiners monitor this property and use an additive, as needed, to raise the lubricity to an acceptable level.


Will low sulfur diesel or low aromatics diesel cause fuel system leaks?
The introduction of low sulfur diesel for on-road use in the U.S. was accompanied by fuel system leaks in a very small percentage of vehicles. Investigations into the cause of these leaks suggest that the problem was linked to the change in the aromatics content of the fuel and to seal material and age.
Diesel fuel systems contain "O-rings" and other parts made of elastomeric materials. These elastomers swell slightly when they contact diesel fuel, because they absorb aromatic compounds from the fuel. Exposure to a fuel with a lower aromatics content will result in some of the absorbed aromatics being leached out, causing the elastomer to shrink towards its original size. If the elastomer is still pliable, this shrinkage will not cause a leak. However, if age or service at higher-than-normal temperatures has caused the elastomer to loose its elasticity, a leak could occur. Vehicle owners should be aware that elastomeric parts have finite lives and should be replaced as necessary.

By itself, low sulfur or low aromatics diesel fuel does not cause fuel system leaks. They are caused by the combination of a change from higher to lower aromatics fuel and aged O-rings and elastomeric parts that have lost their elasticity.

__________________
'81 MB 300SD, '82 MB 300D Turbo (sold/RIP), '04 Lincoln Town Car Ultimate

Sooner or later every car falls apart, ours does it later!
-German Narrator in a MB Promotion Film about the then brand new W123.

Europe uses ULSD, the question is when did they implement this? Was ULSD available when 123/126 diesels were in production?

Vahe
240D/77 350K

I have not noticed any performance or economy differences at all. On the other hand my wife reports her 98 E300D smokes considerably less under extended full throttle acceleration. I have no idea if this is true but she does have lots of experience with full-throttle starts so I suspect she may be onto something.

The other notable thing about the ULSD fuel in Dover is the price - although ULSD was supposed to be a couple of cents per gallon higher the ULSD in Dover was selling for $2.79 a gallon. This makes it the least expensive Diesel fuel I know of in Dover.

$2.79? Wow ... the one Valero here is 2.89, which thrills me. Everywhere else is over 3.00, many as high as 3.20-3.30. The little Valero pump is my savior ... my car seems to like the stuff, too.

__________________
1987 300D, arctic white/palomino--314,000 miles
1978 240D 4-speed, Euro Delivery, light ivory/bamboo--370,000 miles
2005 Jeep Liberty CRD Limited, light khaki/slate--140,000 miles
2018 Chevy Cruze diesel, 6-speed manual, satin steel metallic/kalahari--19,000 miles
1982 Peugeot 505 diesel, 4-speed manual, blue/blue, 130,000 miles
1995 S320, black/parchment--34,000 miles (Dad's car)

I'm guessing most of our fuel comes from Delaware City - this keeps Valero transportation costs down compared to refiners from more distant locations.

if i remember correctly, they had LSD when we had high sulfur diesel. It wasnt until 1989 when europe changed to unleaded gas and LSD. So no i dont think 123/126 diesels had ULSD at the time only LSD, which is what we mostly have in the US. Dont know when they switched to ULSD though.

Southern california was required that all pumps have ULSD in 2000 or 2001, but it wasnt until just recently that northern california was switched to ULSD. From my reading on the TDIclub an article stated that all of california's pumps would require ULSD by the end of july.

__________________
Current:
05 E320 CDI
07 GL320 CDI
08 Sprinter
05 Dodge Cummins
01 Dodge Cummins

Previous
2004 E55 AMG
2002 C32 AMG (#2)
1995 E300
1978 300D
1987 300D
2002 C32 AMG(blown motor :[
1981 300SD
1983 300SD
1987 300SDL
2002 Jetta TDI
1996 S420
1995 S500
1993 190E 2.6
1992 190E 2.3
1985 190E 2.3 5-Speed