Diesel additives

[Dusten]

Will it’s not quit stacks and there all for the same source.
I’m guessing that it’s from the the same group that’s pushing ultra low sulfur diesel.

I would be more swayed by some independent studies.

Several of the studies aren't even from a US company. Neste is a finish firm.

I've owned a diesel since 2002 so while I'm not as old as some I do have some experience.

 

[JuanJ]

981362: Lubricity of California Diesel Fuel - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Diesel fuel marketed in California has been subject to aromatic content and sulfur content standards since October 1993. Low sulfur diesel has been marketed in Southern California since 1988. To insure quality of the reformulated fuel, California Air Resources...

saemobilus.sae.org

932740: Lubricity of Low Sulfur Diesel Fuels - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The sulfur content of all highway diesel fuel was required to be reduced to a maximum of 0.05 wt % starting October 1993. This federal requirement results in further fuel processing by refineries. The hydrotreating process used to reduce fuel sulfur has the...

saemobilus.sae.org

961948: Lubricity of Reformulated Diesel Fuel - Experience in Finland - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Lubricity testing of reformulated diesel fuels (sulfur <0 005 w-%, aromatics <20 vol-%) was started in 1990. A 1000 hour in-house test rig with distributor pumps was used for testing fuels and additives. When lubricity is not adequate, excessive wear is seen in...

saemobilus.sae.org

2008-01-2386: Comparison of Select Properties and Sulfur and Nitrogen Species in Low and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Aromatics, cetane number, density, and lubricity of a large number of retail diesel fuel samples were compared before, during, and after the switch from low sulfur to ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Also, sulfur and nitrogen speciation was done on a small set of...

saemobilus.sae.org

Took all of 5 minutes.

Hello,

It is hard to argue to SAE. Nevertheless, taking things with a grain of salt is at the heart of peer reviewing.

One article mentions the usual suspects, namely thiophene, and the detail that multiple samples from different sources were tested. Another article from Europe mentions test rigs but not the sources of their fuel. Two articles mention the use of lubricity additives in low sulfur diesel from California, complete with test methods.

There is a mention of hydrotreating as a way to reduce sulfur. Since this process is also used to produce linear hydrocarbons, which are not very good lubricants, the concern about lubrication loss has a ground.

The stack, as it is presented, supplies reasonable evidence that low sulfur diesel used in California -complete with test method results- does not show changes in lubricity as a result of sulfur reduction by hydrotreating. It also says that Californian refiners used lubricity additives in low sulfur diesel.

As for the stack portion that does not mention Californian diesel specifically, the jury is out. Nice description on composition and hydrotreating, though.





Juan

 

[Dusten]

Hello,

It is hard to argue to SAE. Nevertheless, taking things with a grain of salt is at the heart of peer reviewing.

One article mentions the usual suspects, namely thiophene, and the detail that multiple samples from different sources were tested. Another article from Europe mentions test rigs but not the sources of their fuel. Two articles mention the use of lubricity additives in low sulfur diesel from California, complete with test methods.

There is a mention of hydrotreating as a way to reduce sulfur. Since this process is also used to produce linear hydrocarbons, which are not very good lubricants, the concern about lubrication loss has a ground.

The stack, as it is presented, supplies reasonable evidence that low sulfur diesel used in California -complete with test method results- does not show changes in lubricity as a result of sulfur reduction by hydrotreating. It also says that Californian refiners used lubricity additives in low sulfur diesel.

As for the stack portion that does not mention Californian diesel specifically, the jury is out. Nice description on composition and hydrotreating, though.





Juan

A grain of salt is always valid. And additives don't hurt anything. I use them on occasion. But I think the adage that just because it's low sulfur it's bad is not accurate.

 

[JuanJ]

A grain of salt is always valid. And additives don't hurt anything. I use them on occasion. But I think the adage that just because it's low sulfur it's bad is not accurate.

Hello,

At least not in California, as per the stack you supplied. And that includes the use of lubrication additives in the fuel.




Juan