Anyone using WMO?? - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Mojool · #61 07-23-2007, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashakor

Guys,

May i remind people that this is a WMO thread (as many of it before it has mutated into a SVO/WVO/VVO discussion!).

I will repeat that WMO is a fine combustible if you follow the same type of precautions than WVO or for that matter even VVO.

The stuff must be dewatered, pH adjusted (read deacided) filtered hot at 0.5 µm (not 5 not 10 microns but 0.5!!!!!) and injected in the engine hot (80ºC, not unlike WVO or VVO). This a time consuming, and not quite that cheap process!!

These steps are pretty much equivalent to refining it back into raw SAE30 oil (actually the refining would almost be a distillation). Then and only then you can use it as combustible (remark that these are the same steps that you are supposed to follow with industrial burners; although few do it and that why industrial burners are smoky messes!!!)

how does one go about raising the pH on WMO or WVO?
thanks

RichC · #62 07-23-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Any fuel station that sells diesel.

Carefull, ULSD does not conform to the standars of the older cars.

#63 07-23-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

So, what meets MB's recommendation for our old cars ???

ULSD or veggie oil ??

The winner is ??

veggie oil !!!

New oil, and or well processed used oil.

I guess I missed that memo from MB, I would be very interested in seeing anything from them that recommends any "fuel" other than petro-diesel or commercial B5 for use in any production engines.

As I said, ULSD meets ASTM D 975 (including the lubricity requirements), which is the correct fuel specification for these engines. When you design your own engine, you get to write your own fuel specs (and I will follow them if I buy your engine), in the mean time I'll stick to the current industry standard.

FWIW, nuclear power stations use stationary diesels for emergency power sources (usually about 3-5000 HP) and that industry is currently addressing the use of ULSD in these machines, most of which were designed in the 60/70s. This is the information that the nuclear regulatory commission distributed to U.S. power stations, I think it's a pretty fair summary of the ULSD issues:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2006/in200622.pdf

BTW, I'm not trying to tell you folks what to do, I thought I was pretty clear about that. It's your car and your money.

#64 07-23-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Carefull, ULSD does not conform to the standars of the older cars.

Please show me the standard you are referring to.

#65 07-23-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Carefull, ULSD does not conform to the standars of the older cars.

Show me where it says that in the owners manual?

RichC · #66 07-24-2007, 12:03 AM

.

Read the earlier posts in this thread.

About the fuel article in STAR magazine.

There is no way that engineers in 1977 could have known what was coming out of the pumps in 2007.

Current ASTM requirements are different now than when our cars were made.
I was not talking about current requirements.

Mercedes would not recommend veggie oil or WMO because no company is guaranteeing the qualities of the oil.

But that does not mean that quality oils are not a better fuel than the ULSD we get at the pump now.

In fact many people are warning about ULSD in older vehicles, including MB apparently. ( again, see the earlier post about the fuel article in STAR )

Here is a link to the origional thread I am refering to.
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforu...=154383&page=3

Thank You
RichC

#67 07-24-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Current ASTM requirements are different now than when our cars were made.
I was not talking about current requirements.

Please refer me to the previous standard that is not meet by the current fuel. Are you saying that the minimum required lubricity has been reduced since the standards that were in effect in 1980 (i.e., the standards have become less stringent)? I would be very curious to see that document.

#68 07-24-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

About the fuel article in STAR magazine.

Here is a good summary of that article from another forum.

Quote:

If I read it correctly, George Murphy implies that for any Diesel engine made prior to 2007 the ULSD is not safe to use due to concerns about lubricity and IP wear.

This contradicts information I was given directly from MBUSA in an email inquiry I made last spring - so who is right? Here's what MBUSA says:

Dear Mr. Doctor:

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance
Center.

The "Low-Sulfur" fuel will not negatively affect your vehicle, nor will any
additives be required for you to use. If you have further questions
regarding this matter, please speak with our Technical Advisors at 1 (800)
367-6372.

We hope this information is useful. Best wishes for future safe and
pleasant driving.

Sincerely,
Christine Dingler
Customer Relations Liaison
1-800-FOR-MERCedes x6361
www.MBUSA.com

RichC · #69 07-24-2007, 05:20 AM

.

So we need to get George Murphy from STAR magazine,
and Christine Dingler from MB Customer Relations together,
and see what they have to say to us and each other.

We have an 800 number for Christine,
Does anyone know how we can contact George ?

This is getting interesting !!

My bet is that they will either refuse further comment,
or give us something so vague it is useless.

But what the heck, we might as well try.
Is there contact information for George in the magazine ?

Thank You
RichC

.