Go here for an EPA report on biodiesel in your $7500 engine. Biodiesel is not harmless to your engine. If you're lazy as I am go to page 6 and read the chart. You should also note that the test ended at 120,000 miles which the report considers the life of an engine.

http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels...pdfs/44833.pdf

 

ENGINE COMPONENT IMPACTS
CONCLUSION

"After the completion of the durability tests for the NAC and the SCR system, the engine had undergone an accelerated aging schedule representative of twice its useful life, or approximately 240,000 miles. At the conclusion of the project, the engine was disassembled and each component was carefully analyzed. All moving parts such as bearings, pistons, and piston rings were inspected and measured. None of the components of the engine, including the injectors, showed signs of excessive wear or other signs of deterioration as a result of the extended biodiesel operation. The flow characteristics of the injectors remained comparable to levels noted before the start of the durability study. Figure 5 shows several engine components after the disassembly.
The cylinder bore in the upper left corner of Figure 5 shows the honing pattern, which indicates that there was no loss in oil control for this engine. The main bearing shown below the cylinder bore showed no sign of deterioration or wear. This component is prone to wear caused by oil dilution and the resulting loss in lubricity of the engine oil. On the main journal as well as one cam, shown on the right side of the figure, no visible signs of wear were detected."


"Finally, no biodiesel-related wear and engine mechanics deterioration were found after the hardware was exposed to an accelerated aging protocol of twice the engine’s useful life"


Those statements right there dont lead me to believe that any more engine harm is done than with regular fuel.

 

I have no interest in getting into a contest with you over this, but I do wish to make a couple points then I'm out. I went back and re-read a couple sections and it was as I remembered, they tested for 120,000 miles which the testers stated were the life of a diesel engine. I'm not smart enough to have any idea how you test for 120,000 miles and declare that you aged the engine for 240,000 miles but I guess they know how to do that. Me, I'm skeptical. That may be because during my 40 year federal career I served on multiple dozens of committees and every one of them arrived at the results that the person chairing the committee favored.

So here are my two points. 1, I doubt there is anyone who bought one of these trucks expecting the engine life to be 120,000 miles. 2. There is no question that bio-diesel dilutes the oil in these engines. 3. Every state I've looked into wants the bio to go to 20% which is 15% more than the 6.4L is capable of using as stated by Ford.

yeah, that's 3, sorry.

 

im not trying to get into a pissing contest with you buddy........I almost wonder if the 120k mile mark they are referring to is the DPF/SCR technology not the engine, I read that paragraph a few times and its not really clear to me?

I am waiting on my latest UOA to come back , I will post the results when its back.

on edit here is some info that is a little outdated but if you read through you will see the did some particulate testing from the B-20 samples......

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/46592.pdf

 

Not to get political, the first negative is that the test was done by the EPA. I am having a hard time believing anything that the EPA puts out as they are the ones mainly responsible for the headaches that we are witnessing with engines today. I firmly believe they will tell you all positives but few if any negatives. We need several sources(and not a government entity) to validate these claims and to also show us what they witnessed as positive and the pitfalls. I am getting concerned with what we actually can and cannot believe.

 

Stanley for congress...

Fuel dilution into the oil no matter where it comes from is not good.

 

Here! Here!