Diesel Place banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OC_Dmax pointed me to a presentation from Bosch to CARB on what is needed in U.S. fuels for lubricity standard and where the U.S. stands today in terms of fuel quality.


http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf


Note that the fuel samples were taken in summer 2002; Doesn't winter blend have even lower lubricity?


jeffEdited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
This sure makes one think about premature failures and why some of these could be occuring in the high pressure systems in the Duramax and other high pressure systems.


MAYBE SOME OF THE FAILURES ARE DUE TO POOR LUBRICITY & CONTAMINATION OF TODAYS FUEL ? As you stated these are summer time fuel samples not being cut with kerosene which is providing even less lubricity.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">


This can only re-afirm lubricity and clean ( low particle count ) fuel is a must for long life high pressure injection systems.


I also noted Page #23, 4th Bullet on Page states:All high pressure fuel lubricated injection systems are excedingly lubricity sensitive and require clean fuels ( no free water and/or contamination )</BLOCKQUOTE>





Sorry for the rant
about this, but I feel fuel quality is a bigger issue than most people may believe.


Fran
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Slide #8 sums it up pretty well - down near the bottom of the slide, only 80% of the fuel samples taken in the U.S. would meet european standards for lubricity.


For those of you who are from the "right coast" - CARB is "California Air Resources Board" - Kalifornia's EPA. The rest of the country usually follows along with what they do; California was the first to mandate low sulfer fuel, etc...


jeffEdited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
I couldn't get the link to load. But bear in mind that CARB's requirements were known to GM and Bosch when they designed, produced, and sold the systems to us. They bear a responsibility to take the real world into consideration when putting products into the stream of commerce. If knowing the playing field they failed to provide the necessary filtration or whatever to ensure that their products would work as represented we ought not to be required to make it right for them, which of course we appear to be doing. Thank God for Nick and others who've stepped up to fill the void left by GM's lack of responsibility or foresight.

TC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,300 Posts
So who can test our fuel around here?

What is the lubricity of Primrose (1.6oz/25gal 405) additive when added to the fuel in our tanks?

Do we need to run an additive that removes water (demulsify)?

Can anyone test the fuel for lubricants?Edited by: problemchild
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
And yes, I agree totally that system life can be significantly extended not only by filtration but by lubricity enhancement.. There are many products on the market that fulfill that role superbly. (Primrose 405 comes to mind :) )
However, if we have dirty fuel, lubricity to the 9s will not extend injector life one iota.. The keystone of all of this is diesel fuel cleanliness, then lubricity, from my experience.. I am afraid I could write a book studies we have done regarding lubricity vs. contamination and affects on variable piston/pump/servo valve life.
That is why I was so concerned with the Bosch studies; not one mention of cleanliness standards in any of their work and yet if one fuel was a 25/23/21 vs. another fuel that was a 17/15/13, that in itself would provide significant wear data differentiations..
For Discussion....
George Morrison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I was really tired when I made my last post...


I said...


"...only 80% of the fuel samples taken in the U.S. would meet european standards for lubricity."


When I should have said...


"...80% of the fuel samples taken in the U.S. would NOT meet european standards for lubricity".


jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Well that's better
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Georgecls said:
And yes, I agree totally that system life can be significantly extended not only by filtration but by lubricity enhancement.. There are many products on the market that fulfill that role superbly. (Primrose 405 comes to mind :) )
However, if we have dirty fuel, lubricity to the 9s will not extend injector life one iota.. The keystone of all of this is diesel fuel cleanliness, then lubricity, from my experience.. I am afraid I could write a book studies we have done regarding lubricity vs. contamination and affects on variable piston/pump/servo valve life.
That is why I was so concerned with the Bosch studies; not one mention of cleanliness standards in any of their work and yet if one fuel was a 25/23/21 vs. another fuel that was a 17/15/13, that in itself would provide significant wear data differentiations..
For Discussion....
George Morrison

The Bosch presentation puts forth a lubricity standard to CARB for adoption. It shows the current state of affairs due to the lack of standardization in this area. You can bet the wear studies were apples to apples in terms of cleanliness of fuel - they are engineers, I trust them with "the little stuff"...


As a sidenote, water in emulsion washes away that higher level of lubrication that our High pressure fuel injection requires. For Discussion...


jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Jeff,
Regarding your comment "As a sidenote, water in emulsion washes away that higher level of lubrication that our High pressure fuel injection requires. For Discussion..."
No, water in emulsion that is contained, chemically bonded/surrounded by a lubricating boundary layer, does not pose a wear issue for injectors. CAT has been working on a program that utilizes a very high level of water emulsion diesel fuel for emissions control. The papers and work that have been published so far indicate that pump and injector life is good however other operational problems of concentration have prevented the emulsified fuel from becoming commercial.
Varying loads pose a significant problem in the amount of water (oxygen) that can be utilized in the burn process...
Thus, as we have discussed in the past, if we use a fuel additive which really locks up/surrounds losely emulsified water, water in normal levels does not pose a problem.
George Morrison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,300 Posts
Its too bad we cant water inject our turbos Like the Rolls Royce Merlins (P51 Mustangs) for an added 400HP.

"capable of delivering a war emergency power of 1900 hp at 20,000 feet with water/alcohol injection"

"The P-51H was an outgrowth of the experimental XP-51F and G lightweight Mustang projects of early 1944. Rather than commit the F or G versions to production, the USAAF decided instead to produce a version powered by the uprated Packard Merlin V-1659-9 engine. This engine had the Simmons automatic boost control for constant manifold pressure maintenance and was equipped with a water injection system which made it possible to overboost the engine to achieve war emergency powers in excess of 2000 hp for brief periods. North American Aviation gave the project the company designation NA 126, and it was ordered into production as the P-51H in June of 1944 even before much of the initial design work was done."

Edited by: problemchild
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Georgecls said:
Jeff,
Regarding your comment "As a sidenote, water in emulsion washes away that higher level of lubrication that our High pressure fuel injection requires. For Discussion..."
No, water in emulsion that is contained, chemically bonded/surrounded by a lubricating boundary layer, does not pose a wear issue for injectors. CAT has been working on a program that utilizes a very high level of water emulsion diesel fuel for emissions control. The papers and work that have been published so far indicate that pump and injector life is good however other operational problems of concentration have prevented the emulsified fuel from becoming commercial.
Varying loads pose a significant problem in the amount of water (oxygen) that can be utilized in the burn process...
Thus, as we have discussed in the past, if we use a fuel additive which really locks up/surrounds losely emulsified water, water in normal levels does not pose a problem.
George Morrison

Let's see - reference a paper to something that has nothing to do with our trucks (running water emulsified fuel?) - I don't think so; And then follow with "the emulsifier that I am trying to sell you is okay as long as you have water in normal levels".


If I have water in normal levels - you don't need anything!!!


If I get a load of fuel with greater than normal levels of water and I run the additive that you recommend , depending on the amount of water, I will have increased wear (at 23000 psi it is abrasive) and potentially damage the fuel injectors as this water turns to steam. And it doesn't matter how many primrose pixie fairies you have surround it - it will change state - it will expand quickly, it may make the tip of your injector blow off. Period.


This is why GM highly recommends not using an emulsifier and shell doesn't use an emulsifier in Rotella DFA. I am an engineer (started out in physics) and it makes total sense to me -> why don't you "get it". Are you an engineer? What degree do you have and from where?


jeff


Edited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Oh Oh


I will not get involved


I will not get involved


I will not get involved


I will not get involved


I will not get involved


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
dmax lover - lighten up!!!!!!!! Georgecls may or may not
have a degree, but who cares!!!!! I have 3, 2 in
engineering, and frankly I appreciate Geroge's willingness
to share his opinions, research, and information. The
fact that he sells Primrose is irrelevant, and he has
simply stated that he disagrees with GM's assertion. He
isn't the only one on this page or even out there in the
big world of engineers. I suspect the money George makes
selling Primrose is insignificant, so why climb on his [email protected]#?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Jeff, apparently are new to this site.. I am not being argumentive, only presenting the fact that water that is truly 'locked up' can in fact be utilized in high performance diesel engines safely. And that water in diesel fuel does not necessarily ring death knols for injectors. So, from my view, the CAT in formation was relevant and something you may not have been familiar with..
And I disagree with your statement that normal levels of water pose no problems. Apparently you have not seen the rusted out fuel filters from 'normal' water separation that takes place anytime diesel fuel is allowed to sit for any period of time..
I am not going to publish my CV on this site and bore everyone but suffice it to say that I have more initials following my name than I care to admit but moreover I have been involved in diesel fuel research projects for a number of years, I am published and am currently one of 600 or so STLE CLS in the world.
Most of the information I am sharing is the result of having been responsible for millions of dollars of diesel fuel equipment over a 30 year period, to include today. I work with fleets that have over 500+ Duramax and 6.5TD vehicles and have much 'real world' information that we learn from.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,262 Posts
Georgecls said:
Jeff, apparently are new to this site.. I am not being argumentive, only presenting the fact that water that is truly 'locked up' can in fact be utilized in high performance diesel engines safely. And that water in diesel fuel does not necessarily ring death knols for injectors. So, from my view, the CAT in formation was relevant and something you may not have been familiar with..
And I disagree with your statement that normal levels of water pose no problems. Apparently you have not seen the rusted out fuel filters from 'normal' water separation that takes place anytime diesel fuel is allowed to sit for any period of time..
I am not going to publish my CV on this site and bore everyone but suffice it to say that I have more initials following my name than I care to admit but moreover I have been involved in diesel fuel research projects for a number of years, I am published and am currently one of 600 or so STLE CLS in the world.
Most of the information I am sharing is the result of having been responsible for millions of dollars of diesel fuel equipment over a 30 year period, to include today. I work with fleets that have over 500+ Duramax and 6.5TD vehicles and have much 'real world' information that we learn from.
George Morrison, STLE CLS










 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
The fact that George has as much hands on experience with Diesel fuel and equipment and a 500+ DMAX lab to work with gives him the ability to have a very large base of engines to be able to see first hand and evaluate different issues with the DMAX environment. I for one really appreciate that George is willing to freely give of his knowledge on this subject. We could all be see so lucky to have a fleet, or maybe herd of DMAX's to play with. Must be like a kid in a candy store. Thanks George.


Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
George has presented himself as an industry expert and a technical expert and alot of you follow his advice.


Unfortunately, his advice is contrary to what I have seen from GM, Bosch and Shell Oil. The damage that could result from following his recommendations is significant. Those coming on this site for the first time should know all the facts prior to making a decision.


I think it is fair to question his qualifications. Becoming an STLE CLS requires passing a 150 question essay test. Should I trust George - not knowing what his complete qualifications are? Or should I trust the chemical engineers and mechanical engineers at GM, Bosch and Shell?


jeff


Edited by: dmax lover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
dmax lover - do not trust anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The diesel gremlins are out, and about. Please lighten up!! George, does not sell any type of filtration of his own design, whether fuel or oil. People do not get qualifications of the engineers from GM, Shell, etc. These are large for profit companies, why do you trust them. Second, who gives a @#$ what the qualifications for his initials are. The guy has been trusted by many on this forum, and you seem to be the only one on the slamming trip!!!!!!! If you don't like George's advice don't follow it, but why not get off the soap box, and George's butt. Frankly, I am pleased that someone will read all of the literature, test results, etc, and give us some heads up. Why the personal attack???? George continues to offer his opinion on technical matters not your or my qualifications. Why continue to thrash his????


Drive on George!!!!!!! I appreciate your input, and willingness to share opinions
Edited by: silatman
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top