|
|
|
|
|
#1
12-13-2006, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wsj on ulsd/?
ME & MY CAR
By JONATHAN WELSH Is the New Low-Sulfur Diesel Bad for Older Engines December 12, 2006; Page D12 Q: I have heard that the soon to be EPA-mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel is bad for my 2006 Jetta TDI. Is this true? What about older TDI's such as a 2003 and a 2001? I would appreciate your advice. -- Hart Renger, Fort Collins, Colo. A: It's a myth. I have heard similar theories, mostly pointing to the relationship between higher sulfur content and favorable lubricating properties that are vital to engine longevity. However, the new lower-sulfur fuels maintain lubricity similar to earlier formulations and can be used safely in older diesel models -- not just Volkswagens. Indeed, according to Mercedes-Benz and a newsletter for a Volkswagen TDI owners club, the older engines will log slightly better fuel economy using the new fuel. • Have a question about cars? Write to mecar@wsj.com. 
|
|
#2
12-13-2006, 05:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
We have a 2005.5 or early 2006 Jetta TDI, and of course my MB. Both have logged 2-3 mpg less on ULSD.
I have heard that some have logged better mpg, but I am not one of them. The cars are running fine, though.
__________________
RRGrassi 70's Southern Pacific #5608 Fairmont A-4 MOW car 13 VW JSW 2.0 TDI 193K, Tuned with DPF and EGR Delete. 91 W124 300D Turbo replaced, Pressure W/G actuator installed. 210K 90 Dodge D250 5.9 Cummins/5 speed. 400K
|
|
#3
12-13-2006, 05:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
WWJD for ULSD?
__________________
1979 240D- 316K miles - VGT Turbo, Intercooler, Stick Shift, Many Other Mods - Daily Driver 1982 300SD - 232K miles - Wife's Daily Driver 1986 560SL - Wife's red speed machine
|
|
#4
12-13-2006, 06:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, Robert
|
|
#5
12-13-2006, 10:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
John
__________________
John HAUL AWAY, OR CRUSHED CARS!!! HELP ME keep the cars out of the crusher! A/C Thread "as I ride with my a/c on... I have fond memories of sweaty oily saturdays and spewing R12 into the air. THANKS for all you do! My drivers: 1987 190D 2.5Turbo 1987 190D 2.5Turbo 1987 190D 2.5-5SPEED!!!  1987 300TD 1987 300TD 1994GMC 2500 6.5Turbo truck... I had to put the ladder somewhere!
|
|
#6
12-15-2006, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ULSD has about 1% less energy than LSD, but most people won't notice. Diesel is refined to an ASTM standard, which specifies lubricity, and refiners use additives to meet the standard.
ULSD can cause some seals to shrink, generally before 1993. It also acts as a stronger solvent and may dislodge deposits from the fuel system and cause filter clogging initially. New 2007 engines designed for ULSD can use a new API-spec oil that allows for longer change intervals. I work in the pleasure boat industry and this has been a concern as well, especially for those with $100,000 engines. It appears to be mostly a non-issue.
__________________
1984 300Sd 210k Former cars: 1984 300D 445k (!!) (Strider) Original (and not rebuilt) engine and transmission. Currently running on V80 ( 80% vegetable oil, 20% petroleum products). Actually not, taking a WVO break. 1993 300d 2.5 275k. Current 120/day commuter 1981 300SD 188k (Hans) Killed by a deer 
|
|
#7
12-15-2006, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a potential for leaks to develope in fuel systems not specifically designed for ULSD. Chevron acknowledges this in a paper FTB-2-1, August, 2005. They also refer to a study by a California Governor's Task Force found at ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/reports/1639.pdf.
Chevron also recommends a maintanence schedule for nitrile rubber seals and the manufacturer's experience with lower aromatics diesel. Jim W.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
