Upgrades For Low Sulfur Diesel?

[tbryanh]

The previous (and original) owner of the 7.3 I recently picked up said when low sulfur diesel went on the market about 12 or so years ago, he received a notice from Ford advising him to do some upgrades to the engine for the new fuel. He said he thought he paid the dealer about $1500 to replace existing rubber (O-rings? fuel lines? etc.?) in the engine with a type of rubber that would work with the new fuel.

I was wondering what exactly might have been done to the engine?

 

[Wyreth]

Sounds more like an excuse for the stealership to milk money.

But then, I am SOOOOO very far from being knowledgeable on this subject.

 

[icanfixall]

Really nothing had to be done to the fuel system for the low sulpher fuel change. Sounds like someone had their wallet lightened just a bit... Damn dealer robbers....

 

[RLDSL]

There have been 2 fuel changes over the years. the first from 1500 ppm fuel to the 500 ppm low sulfur fuel that we ran for a bunch of years that the things ran so good on, then the last change to the 15ppm ultra low sulfurfuel that they run like poo on without some adjustments. We all seem to pretty regulary end up changing out return line sets as a service item, but I could easily see the dealewrship changing out the return line set due to a listed incompatibility at the time. Kits would have all been upgraded a long time ago and faded into history by now. The other main lines are all that hard plastic stuff or metal

 

[GOOSE]

Sounds like it was an excuse to rob you blind for a return line upgrade. Chances are by now that its due again. PM Russ, TYP4, and get a quality set shipped for about $50.

 

[PwrSmoke]

Yep, I can't thing of anything necessary for the changeover from HSD to LSD. I use Viton o-rings on my return lines now because I find them generally more long-lived and durable than the Buna-N (Nitrile) ones, but I don't think the low sulfur thing has anything to do with it. Back 12 years ago, they might have switched the o-rings from neoprene to Buna-N because it's a big upgrade in durability. It's possible there was an additive in LSD fuel not in HSD that attacks neoprene more strongly. Don't know. I had my truck back then and back in "the day" we had to pretty regularly reseal the return lines, but if I knew it was due to LSD, I've forgotten it now.

I didn't notice that my truck or tractors run significantly different on ULSD than LSD. I did notice that my 100 hp Farmall smoked quite a bit less on it. If there was a power loss, my "Butt Dyno" couldn't pick it up. Interestingly, though, where I lived in Colorado back when, the addition of Stanadyne Performance Formula was worth 9 RWHP on my 6.2L Blazer. I think Colorado had the worst diesel fuel in the world in the '90s because I found that on trips, in certain states my diesel trucks really woke up (and yes, I was accounting for the change in altitude). I used to check the specfiiic gravity of the fuel at the pumps to determine if it was high or low cetane but when they went to LSD, that test wasn't valid any longer. Since ULSD, I have tried Performance Formula in the 6.9L but I don't feel the "kick" I used to get from it. I have assumed that the cetane rating is where the engine likes it, so there is no gain. Been putting 2-stroke oil in my farm tank for lubricity but haven't used anything in the truck.

 

[tbryanh]

Been putting 2-stroke oil in my farm tank for lubricity but haven't used anything in the truck.

Why put lubricity in one but not the other?

How many miles with no lubricity?

 

[opusd2]

Ah these engines need a bit more lubricity than what the current "diesel" provides. There are so many different items on the market that will lighten your wallet with the hopes of keeping your engine alive longer and running better.

But if you know these engines and have a good enough ear and feel for them, you will see that some additives actually work. Now I'm one of those that has a specific mix of additives that I am either too ashamed I put all this stuff in, or I want to keep my secret recipe for myself. Well, it's both. I run a lot of extras through my diesels because to me it not only helps, but it also cheapens the operating costs of the truck. You'd be amazed what a lot of people put in but won't admit to...

But honestly, I like Howes diesel additive. Someone mentioned it here a LONG time ago, and I have used it since just because it really seems to help with the IPs noise and performance. I also like my Two Stroke oil. Though I am sitting on kegs of the stuff from when my cousins sold their motorcycle shop, I would buy it anyway. It's does it's job on two stroke motorcycles that rev into the atmosphere, so why not a diesel that just turns slower?

And an old "trick" my dad taught me when I was a kid was to run some ATF through my fuel tank (though back then I was running a Chevelle with a 327) to do a myriad of jobs.

But let's face it, the cetane level here in the states sucks. That's why we have to doctor our fuel up a little.

 

[franklin2]

The low sulphur scare is probably going to end up being the same as the unleaded fuel scare; Nothing is going to come of it, it's all speculation about bad things that are never going to happen in reality.

 

[Old Blue]

As far as wear scar tests, there is a report circulating online from '07 about lubricity additives and how much improvement they made on ULSD. IIRC, a small shot of 2% bio-diesel in the tank was best, followed by Optilube XPD which you can find online, I've never seen it sold local. I get Howes at Tractor Supply locally. American USLD fuel standards do not meet wear scar recommendations by Bosch and other injection manufacturers, so a little extra lube can't hurt in my opinion. Other than that, our fuel systems will burn just about anything it seems - it's just a matter of how long they'll do so until they need R & R.

 

[PwrSmoke]

I am not convinced there are any/many issues with ULSD and lubricity. Lotta internet babble, including me I suppose, most of which is worth about what it costs. I haven't seen any recent testing done, like that '07 test. In those days, the application of the substitute additives was spotty but I have it on good authority that the current fuel is better than what it was when first introduced. Other than occasionally, because I got some free, I've not used a lubricity additive in the 6.9L since ULSD debuted. I may not be facing many problems because I put so few miles on the truck these days (got a new "main" truck in '08) but I'm willing to stand behind my assertion that there isn't much to worry about by letting it eat up my pump (if it's going to). As to why I put 2-stroke into my farm tank and not into the truck... pure laziness. It's easy on the farm tank. When I call to get it filled, I just add the stuff and it's there when I pump it into the tractors. I bought a bunch of it on sale but when I run out, unless I'm convinced in the meantime that a problem exists (I am ALWAYS willing to have my mind changed by good information), I will probably stop.

Cetane- It's long been known, and it showed up in the tests I did years ago on my 6.2L, that there are no gains to be had with a cetane rating above 50. IIRC, correct me if that's wrong as I didn't look it up, ours were designed for a CR of 45, so I doubt you would see any gains above that on an engine set up as bone stock. On my 6.2L I bumped the CR by 2-3 points until I reached 60 but the engine stopped gaining anything between 45 and 50. It gained a lot from 40-45 (the 9 hp I mentioned earlier). You used to be able to approximate the CR by using a specific gravity tester but that doesn't work any more on the new fuels. I think it's down to how good or bad the fuel might be in your area. I know the Shell distributor in my area and he tells me the fuel he sells is between 43 and 48 cetane. I have no reason to doubt him. I add Performance Formula here and I feel no gains. When I added Performance Formula to 40 CR fuel in Colorado, I could feel a kick. I was set to do some dyno testing locally on fuel but it fell thru. I'm more in line with the idea that CR are all over the map according to locale and may be low than I am about the lubricity additives