6.4 Bio Diesel ???
#16
Why go to all this extra effort of additives, trying to get the premium stuff and cetance booster if it is so good?
That alone tells me just get the good stuff and stay away from it.
In addition, since at least here in the lower 48 one cannot truely expect it will be the 5% vs some other known percentage I think it best to stay away from it if possible.
That alone tells me just get the good stuff and stay away from it.
In addition, since at least here in the lower 48 one cannot truely expect it will be the 5% vs some other known percentage I think it best to stay away from it if possible.
#17
being a former 6.0 guy, I used to run bio in my 6.0 and only had 1 issue running to strong a mix in the winter( had to change my fuel filters) I wouldnt hesitate to run it....It seems that opinions run ramped on this site...... I know multiple people that run bio in 7.3's , 6.0's and 6.4's and none have had any major issues. I wouldn't hesitate to run it in my 6.4, but I dont think I would push the issue.....(b-5 that is)
#18
we were doing head studs. i would do severe duty maintenance regardless of b5 or reg diesel. i work with 4 different gas stations in the lower mainland and talk to diesel customers constantly and have never heard of b5 diesel issues. a customer that drives from bc to alberta and uses b5 diesel in his 6.4 doesnt even remember when the fuel filters were last run and his truck runs strong. now im not saying he wont have potential problems from not servicing his rig im just saying b5 isnt bad. 6.0, 7.3 and older motors have been running fine on b5. its diesel not water. and if it was so bad they wouldnt allow it to be sold to the public who knows nothing about diesels or bio blends because they could be held responsible. maybe ford recommends to do the severe package to get and extra cash grab out of people running b5 or home made blends. or its for emissions junk.. well if you havent deleted the dpf (i know most people here still have the dpf on) your truck is suffocating anyways so if you think b5 is gonna kill your motor, the dpf will beat it to it.
#19
It is worth mentioning here that the 6.4L is very different from either the 6.0 or the 7.3. The 6.4L has a DPF. Bio is harmful to a DPF equipped diesel. It enters the engine oil during the exhaust cleaning cycle and dilutes it. It is harder on the engine than regular diesel because a lot of the diesel dilution frfom regular diesel will "boil" out of the oil. The bio will not. As I said above, see the EPA report on the subject posted under my signature on December 13 to 15. It would seem to me that if the DPF has been deleted then the bio would be no harder on the 6.4 than on any other diesel.
#21
It is worth mentioning here that the 6.4L is very different from either the 6.0 or the 7.3. The 6.4L has a DPF. Bio is harmful to a DPF equipped diesel. It enters the engine oil during the exhaust cleaning cycle and dilutes it. It is harder on the engine than regular diesel because a lot of the diesel dilution frfom regular diesel will "boil" out of the oil. The bio will not. As I said above, see the EPA report on the subject posted under my signature on December 13 to 15. It would seem to me that if the DPF has been deleted then the bio would be no harder on the 6.4 than on any other diesel.
dont forget what stupid things the EPA comes up with..........I dont recall seeing any issues posted on the forum(s) about BIO causing a failure or major issue?
#23
#25
It is worth mentioning here that the 6.4L is very different from either the 6.0 or the 7.3. The 6.4L has a DPF. Bio is harmful to a DPF equipped diesel. It enters the engine oil during the exhaust cleaning cycle and dilutes it. It is harder on the engine than regular diesel because a lot of the diesel dilution frfom regular diesel will "boil" out of the oil. The bio will not. As I said above, see the EPA report on the subject posted under my signature on December 13 to 15. It would seem to me that if the DPF has been deleted then the bio would be no harder on the 6.4 than on any other diesel.
#26
I'm no chemist but the guys who did the test for the EPA are. I'm just a messenger. They did say in their final conclusion " biodiesel did not cause significant harm to the tested engines even when tested for 200,000 miles, which is twice the expected life of a diesel engine". That may not be a perfect quote but it's pretty darn close. Problem was, as I read the report data it seemed evident to me that it was causing harm. Guess it depends on your definition of harm. And, of course I've never expected any diesel to last only 100,000 miles.
#27
I'm no chemist but the guys who did the test for the EPA are. I'm just a messenger. They did say in their final conclusion " biodiesel did not cause significant harm to the tested engines even when tested for 200,000 miles, which is twice the expected life of a diesel engine". That may not be a perfect quote but it's pretty darn close. Problem was, as I read the report data it seemed evident to me that it was causing harm. Guess it depends on your definition of harm. And, of course I've never expected any diesel to last only 100,000 miles.
#28
Yep, I've often wondered how many diesel trucks I could find in the EPA employees' parking lot. The EPA was needed in the 70s and did a good job cleaning up some nasty places. I lived in Birmingham AL then and I can tell you they needed help. But, like other government programs they have to keep expanding the mission or close down. They had all the real problems taken care of 20 years ago. All they do now is find carpet tack problems and drive them with 30 pound sledge hammers.
#29
I could be wrong but I thought that someone did a somewhat scientific analysis of minor biodiesel blends which showed significantly better lubricity than just straight ULSD. If I recall the ratio was at B2. Therefore if this study is correct wouldn't it be significantly better on our engines, durability wise, to run a very low blend of bio ?