Sulfur is not a lubricant. The process that removes the sulfur alters the lubrication properties.

.

Yes your correct, I did mess that one up.

and Yes you are correct, the process does reduce the lubricity of the final product, like I said.

My mistake, but the point is still valid.

.

How? There are thousands of these cars still running well with modern fuel, the majority of them using regular diesel straight from the pump.

Comparing it to oil is not a good comparison. Oil has made leaps and bounds in development while Diesel is largely the same, only cleaner burning.

I'm still waiting to see that reference. What specific standard has been revised to reduce the minimum lubricity of fuel? I know a bunch of commercial diesel fuel users that would really like like that information.

.

Here you go !

You should maybe read about things before you jump in and make asinine comments.

ASTM standard change in 2005

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/filtrexx40.cgi?U+mystore+byvc8907+-L+LUBRICITY+/usr6/htdocs/astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK5809.htm

excerpt from the above link

High sulfur No. 1 diesel fuels have been used for many years including years before the introduction of the low sulfur fuels in 1993. It always was understood that they had lower lubricity and as such, equipment on engines requiring this grade of diesel fuel were designed for lower lubricity fuels.


Detroit diesels new standards.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/OEM%20Statements/2005_DDC_Statement.pdf

More from ASTM

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/filtrexx40.cgi?U+mystore+byvc8907+-L+LUBRICITY+/usr6/htdocs/astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK2571.htm

excerpt from above link

Start with a minimum requirement that has everybody's endorsement as being necessary, but perhaps not everybody's agreement as being sufficient. Such level would be a big step forward from where we are currently which is having no requirement at all. Continue work as a group to generate additional supporting data to adjust the requirement if necessary.


Why don't you just search for yourself.
Here is a good place to start.
ASTM's web site.
http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/index.shtml?E+mystore

The guy asked if adding 2 stroke oil to the fuel in his old benz would help.
The operative word is "help"
The majority of evidence is that it will help.
Yes the car will run on the stuff at the pump.
But additives can help.

There is just no arguement room here.
You just want to take the opposite opionion of me.
No matter what I say.

Said the guy who came in 6 posts AFTER mine and didn't comment on two other additive threads!

You are just being a complete @ss now.

:singer:, rant off, I have run it for a couple days already through the system. Better, quieter starts already. The previous owner knew nothing about diesels and I am betting that along with the 20 w 50 oil i found in the crankcase :lipsrseal there will be quite a few other surprises along the way.

20W-50 is bad? That's what I use in mine...

although I am meaning to swap out for 15W-40 or something soon.

.

OK , rant switch set to off position. :argue:

Just curious, how did you know it was 20 / 50 ?
Did he leave the jug in the trunk ?
Was it gasser oil, not meant for a diesel ?

.

If your going to add oil to your fuel why use two stroke oil? Go for some straight 30 weight or other cheap motor oil. Combined with some power service the end result should be higher cetane and BTU rating as well as a boost in lubricity.

yeah 20-50 in michigan weather in the winter, not smart, you could imagine that sludge provides real good lubrication properties at 0 degrees. I had an oil analysis done on the oil where I work, they can pretty much tell who made the oil and anything thats in it. They correctly ID'ed it as some cheap ase Castrol. Yes there was a partially used jug in the trunk but I didn't tell them. Came back pretty good all things considered. I did seafoam the car when i drained the oil and wow, I have a pic of the engine sludge that did come out of it. Why two stroke? Because it is specifically meant to be burned, engine oil ISN'T, so it is ashless and won't hurt the engine mess with the injectors or valves.

20 50 might not be bad in the summer, but in the winter I use a 5 40 synthetic. If you have a 124 with a 603 in it you owe it to yourself to just try it on one oil change. You will be amazed at how much quiter the mechanicals of the engine are...

Interesting, but most of us do not run high sulfur #1 fuel in our engines. (also, if you read your own link you will see that it states that the high sulfur #1 actually had lower lubricity).

Once again, please show me where the ASTM standard was changed to reduce the minimum required lubricity for #2 fuel oil. Hint: you will not find it because it does not exist.

This subject has been very thoroughly addressed buy the manufacturers and operators of large stationary diesels that will be forced to operate on ULSD in the near future. I have not seen one manufacturer's recommendation to use fuel additives with ULSD to increase lubricity, and I have read more than a few reports on the subject.

I don't have to search, I know the answer. Please try not to post misinformation.

Look at this document: http://www.natbiogroup.com/docs/education/lubricity%20additive%20study%20results.pdf

Scroll down to the conclusion on the last page and there you'll see that 520 microns is the maximum wear scar allowed by US law, even though 460 or less was requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association. And it's not all just about lubricity. The minimum cetane required by US law is still 40 whereas MB calls for a minimum of 45 and 50 or more is really what you want for peak performance. The conclusion that any reasonable person should draw from this is that ULSD does not fully meet the requirements of all diesel engines, including ours. Don't use additives if that's how you like it, but there's no need to create the impression that using additives at the pump is controversial, because it's not.