Low Sulfur Fuel, per Cummins

[EngineerMike]

This off the Yahoo Diesel Pusher news group today FYI:

"I sent an email to Cummins yesterday (Sunday) and inquired as to their experiences with this new fuel. I asked if they were seeing failures as the rumors were going around that there is a problem with lift pumps on their engines. Below is their reply:

====================Email from Cummins Below================

"The only negative effect of taking sulfur out of fuel is that the fuel becomes more expensive, somewhat negating the inherent cost advantage of running diesel engines when compared to other fuels. It has to be removed using specialized equipment and chemical processes that add to the expense of producing the fuel.

We have seen a very few instances where the reduced aromatic content of the fuel has resulted in slight leaks from fuel systems. This is not expected to be an issue with many engines.

Diesel fuel, in the United States, now must meet a lubricity standard.
The producers adjust the lubricity before they distribute the fuel.
No further additives are needed to ensure proper fuel system lubrication.

Basically the change to new fuel should be pretty easy for folks with the engines built prior to 2007 and for customers with the engines built in 2007 it will be necessary, for the short time it takes fuel stations to consume the remainder of the old fuel (maybe a month or two), to be certain they are not fueling with the older fuel.

There is an effect on diesel engines from the use of low or no sulfur fuel which we expect to be positive. The blowby gasses that normally pass through the engine crankcase will contain much less of the chemically reactive sulfur and its compounds. This will tend to keep the engine oil cleaner during operation and allow important engine components like bushings, bearings and piston rings to live longer.

Diesel fuels containing sulfur or no sulfur each have the same specific heat, about 20,000 BTUs per pound. For that reason they give the same amounts of work for the same amount of fuel. That means the fuel economy per gallon will not be affected.

Over the years we have seen fuel economy decrease, somewhat, as diesel engine designs have been modified to meet the lower NOX limits imposed by government. This has been totally unrelated to sulfur in the fuel.

With lower sulfur fuels it is possible that some exhaust after treatment devices (catalytic converters) may be used to better effect, making it possible to further decrease harmful exhaust emissions.

If you use diesel fuel that does not meet the new federal low sulfur requirements that are going into effect for 2007, in a 2007 vehicle that requires the new fuel, it will produce particulate matter that will cause rapid plugging of the exhaust particulate trap. We don't anticipate producing engines for such vehicles until 2007. "
================End of Email from Cummins

[EngineerMike]

This off the Yahoo Diesel Pusher news group today FYI:

"I sent an email to Cummins yesterday (Sunday) and inquired as to their experiences with this new fuel. I asked if they were seeing failures as the rumors were going around that there is a problem with lift pumps on their engines. Below is their reply:

====================Email from Cummins Below================

"The only negative effect of taking sulfur out of fuel is that the fuel becomes more expensive, somewhat negating the inherent cost advantage of running diesel engines when compared to other fuels. It has to be removed using specialized equipment and chemical processes that add to the expense of producing the fuel.

We have seen a very few instances where the reduced aromatic content of the fuel has resulted in slight leaks from fuel systems. This is not expected to be an issue with many engines.

Diesel fuel, in the United States, now must meet a lubricity standard.
The producers adjust the lubricity before they distribute the fuel.
No further additives are needed to ensure proper fuel system lubrication.

Basically the change to new fuel should be pretty easy for folks with the engines built prior to 2007 and for customers with the engines built in 2007 it will be necessary, for the short time it takes fuel stations to consume the remainder of the old fuel (maybe a month or two), to be certain they are not fueling with the older fuel.

There is an effect on diesel engines from the use of low or no sulfur fuel which we expect to be positive. The blowby gasses that normally pass through the engine crankcase will contain much less of the chemically reactive sulfur and its compounds. This will tend to keep the engine oil cleaner during operation and allow important engine components like bushings, bearings and piston rings to live longer.

Diesel fuels containing sulfur or no sulfur each have the same specific heat, about 20,000 BTUs per pound. For that reason they give the same amounts of work for the same amount of fuel. That means the fuel economy per gallon will not be affected.

Over the years we have seen fuel economy decrease, somewhat, as diesel engine designs have been modified to meet the lower NOX limits imposed by government. This has been totally unrelated to sulfur in the fuel.

With lower sulfur fuels it is possible that some exhaust after treatment devices (catalytic converters) may be used to better effect, making it possible to further decrease harmful exhaust emissions.

If you use diesel fuel that does not meet the new federal low sulfur requirements that are going into effect for 2007, in a 2007 vehicle that requires the new fuel, it will produce particulate matter that will cause rapid plugging of the exhaust particulate trap. We don't anticipate producing engines for such vehicles until 2007. "
================End of Email from Cummins

[Oregon Coyote]

That last sentence indicates that this Cummins email has been a stock reply for a long time-- probably from 2005-06 or earlier. (I wonder if Cummins knows anything newer?) It certainly infers that if you buy an Alpine with the new engine then you should fuel at a high-volume truck stop.

Norm

[Route 66]

At the Cummins engine seminar at Perry this past March, Cummins stated they have not seen a marked increase in fuel leaks.

They also stated that no additives are recommended, and ULSD should be the only fuel you use in a 2007 engine.

In addition they stated that any fuel leak thought to be caused by ULSD would be covered under warranty as long as the engine was still under warranty.

[Ted III]

Norm(alias Oregon Coyote) In your new motorhome the type of diesel fuel will be an issue. As I understand from WRV that your engine is to use rabbit t****. Although in the states it will be difficult to collect enough to go very far. It will take 2380 rabbit T**** per mile. That is per pile a mile or maybe it's mile a pile. Now I would think that you could make a tremendous deal with the Aussies. My only concern is that you would have to take an entire ship (that is ship) full. Problem then presents itself as to where to store it. It would have to be placed along your route so that you could fuel up as you go. I do understand that a mixture of rabbit, squirrel and kangaroo will suffice in a pinch. No pun intended. I think it is quite admirabile of you to become so involed in green America. I wonder who came up with that green name?

In either case we commend you on your efforts to clean up the air(hard to believe) but anyway good luck and please let us know well in advance when you are coming east.

[hrhuggie]

with all those rabbit t**** it would be hard to call it clean air!

[Oregon Coyote]

Wrong[again]Ted: You may recall my earlier post. My coach has the "old" engine I "borrowed" from Dale&Dixie's new coach. They have the "new" mule engine that runs on hay and gets 40 miles to the bale. That would be great mileage if Dale didn't need to pull a scoop-up trailer to save the green by-product-- in order to process the mule t---- into ethanol.

Now.. if we could just figure out how to process all the bull---- produced by you and I on this forum, we would no longer need to rely on foreign oil.

Oregon Coyote (FYI rabbits are tasty but hairy)

[Ted III]

Norm, WELL SAID!!!