Low-sulfur fuel may clear road for diesel cars
#1
02-07-2006, 06:21 PM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 2,203
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low-sulfur fuel may clear road for diesel cars
Interesting FYI kind of thing.
From a SignonSanDiego article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060207-9999-1n7diesel.html
Once a dirty word among air-quality agencies, diesel is about to find redemption with a new formula that can help reduce auto emissions and improve fuel economy.
The debut of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel Sept. 1 in California will bring not just cleaner-burning commercial trucks and buses, motor homes and heavy-duty pickups, it also will mean that diesel passenger cars will be coming back.
</SCRIPT><!---------- END BIGBOXAD ---------->
The new diesel fuel goes on sale in the rest of the country in mid-October.
At last month's Detroit auto show, five automakers announced plans for advanced diesel engines in cars and trucks. They could be sold as soon as next year.
Clean diesel engines are 20 percent to 40 percent more fuel-efficient than their gasoline counterparts. And they cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 25 percent, said John Moulton, president of the powertrain division of Robert Bosch Corp., a manufacturer of automotive technology.
The diesel fuel in use now has sulfur content of up to 500 parts per million. Ultra-low-sulfur fuel must have no more than 15 ppm.
Sulfur in diesel combines with oxygen to create sulfur oxides, which are considered major air pollutants.
California has the nation's most stringent air-quality standards, but with advancements in technology, diesel passenger vehicles are capable of meeting California standards, Moulton said.
“And in meeting these regulations, diesel passenger vehicles may offer significant advantages to consumers,” he said.
For example, a 2006 Jeep Liberty with the current four-cylinder turbo diesel engine gets fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg around town and 26 on the highway, compared with 17 and 22 for the V-6 gasoline model.
A comparable gasoline-electric hybrid, the 2006 Toyota Highlander, is rated 33 mpg around town and 28 on the highway.
The timing of the new diesel fuel is good, considering President Bush's warning last week about America's addiction to foreign oil. In his State of the Union address, he called on consumers and automakers to help reduce the nation's Mideast oil imports by 75 percent by 2025.
Bush also called for an alternative fuels program, which could include biodiesel, a blend of regular diesel and soybean or other vegetable oil.
The National Biodiesel Conference, sponsored by a trade group, is being held through tomorrow at the San Diego Convention Center.
Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will address the group and view some of the new diesel cars today.
But cleaner fuel by itself won't clear the way for sales of new diesel vehicles.
Advances in automotive technology have removed some of old consumer complaints about diesel cars – clattering engine noise and higher vehicle cost.
Black or white smoke no longer pours out of tailpipes, and the engines generate much stronger acceleration than before.
The quieter engines are a combination of improvements. The injection of fuel directly into cylinders produces less-noisy combustion. And much higher injection pressure allows for more complete burning in the cylinder, which translates into more power and less tailpipe smoke.
But there is technological work still to be done.
To meet emissions standards in California and some Northeastern states, manufacturers must develop so-called after-treatment devices to further filter particulates and reduce nitrogen oxides, which contribute greatly to smog.
Effective after-treatment devices are available, so it is not a question of if, but at what cost, said Allen Schaeffer of the Diesel Technology Forum, a trade group promoting clean diesel usage.
“The diesel engine is already a premium performance technology, so it is an issue for manufacturers to find the sweet spot between selling a product people can afford and meeting the standards,” he said.
The EPA expects more diesel cars to be introduced starting next year.
“What's exciting is that diesel will be on equal footing with gasoline in this country for the first time in a long time,” said John Millett, an agency spokesman.
Before gasoline-electric hybrid cars came on the market, the EPA's top 10 list for passenger car fuel economy mostly included small two-door coupes, but also usually a Volkswagen diesel, Millett said.
“There is just more power per gallon in diesel than gasoline,” he said. “The advantage is that you are burning less fuel to travel more miles with fewer emissions, because you are burning less fuel.”
Most automakers and government agencies agree that the best long-term solution for cleaner air and reduced oil imports will be fuel-cell vehicles powered by hydrogen, which emit only water and use no petroleum fuel.
However, they also agree that the technology is at least a decade away from being commercially viable.
Clean diesel offers near-term oil import reduction, Moulton said. “According to a model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, if diesel vehicles make up 30 percent of the U.S. market share by 2020, the U.S. could save 350,000 barrels of oil a day,” he said.
Diesel-powered passenger cars make up 50 percent of sales in Europe, compared with 3 percent in the United States, but that U.S. number has been growing. Moulton expects market share to reach 15 percent over the next 10 years.
DaimlerChrysler is one automaker moving ahead with plans to offer more diesel-powered vehicles.
“We're enthusiastic about getting low-sulfur fuels,” spokesman Max Gates said. “But the hurdle is pretty high on some of the issues. We have to hit the California standards . . . and the new EPA programs that are coming in.
“We can't make much of a market if we can't sell diesels in California and the states that adopt that program,” he said.
DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes-Benz will introduce five diesel models next year, beginning with the E320 BlueTec sedan.
BlueTec uses an oxidizing catalytic converter and a diesel particulate filter, among other engine modifications, to minimize emissions. Combined fuel mileage rating will be 35 mpg, compared with about 22 mpg for the gasoline-powered E350 V-6.
The BlueTec engine will be the cleanest diesel in the world, the company contends, yet the E320 will not meet California emissions standards until a new technology is introduced in 2008.
The same technology will be available for other DaimlerChrysler vehicles, such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser, Jeep Liberty SUV and Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Honda, Nissan and BMW also showed diesel technology at the Detroit show.
Diesels are less complex than gasoline-electric hybrid systems and easier to install. The price premium is less, too, usually $1,000 to $1,500 for passenger cars. Diesel-electric hybrids are another consideration, but the added cost of the diesel engine with the hybrid components would likely be out of the price range of most consumers.
Manufacturers are eager to sell more diesels to help them meet or exceed the government's fuel-efficiency requirements.
The passenger car standard is 27.5 mpg. Light trucks are 21.6 mpg this year and 22.2 mpg for 2007.
However, the potential boom could fizzle if fuel costs continue to climb. In California, diesel fuel costs as much as or more than 91-octane premium gasoline. And biodiesel is 10 to 15 cents a gallon more expensive than conventional diesel.
When combined with the added cost of buying a diesel car, the value may not be worth it to some consumers, regardless of the environmental benefit.
Whether diesel or biodiesel, it's only a partial solution, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.
“There is more petroleum embodied in that gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline,” said Patricia Monahan, senior analyst for the group. “It takes about 25 percent more oil to make low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. You should still get a reduction in petroleum usage, but it's not as simple as saying that because diesel gets better fuel economy it is going to reduce petroleum use.” It will take a wide variety of fuels to get the United States to a clean future, she said. “There isn't a silver bullet.”
From a SignonSanDiego article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060207-9999-1n7diesel.html
Once a dirty word among air-quality agencies, diesel is about to find redemption with a new formula that can help reduce auto emissions and improve fuel economy.
The debut of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel Sept. 1 in California will bring not just cleaner-burning commercial trucks and buses, motor homes and heavy-duty pickups, it also will mean that diesel passenger cars will be coming back.
</SCRIPT><!---------- END BIGBOXAD ---------->
The new diesel fuel goes on sale in the rest of the country in mid-October.
At last month's Detroit auto show, five automakers announced plans for advanced diesel engines in cars and trucks. They could be sold as soon as next year.
Clean diesel engines are 20 percent to 40 percent more fuel-efficient than their gasoline counterparts. And they cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 25 percent, said John Moulton, president of the powertrain division of Robert Bosch Corp., a manufacturer of automotive technology.
The diesel fuel in use now has sulfur content of up to 500 parts per million. Ultra-low-sulfur fuel must have no more than 15 ppm.
Sulfur in diesel combines with oxygen to create sulfur oxides, which are considered major air pollutants.
California has the nation's most stringent air-quality standards, but with advancements in technology, diesel passenger vehicles are capable of meeting California standards, Moulton said.
“And in meeting these regulations, diesel passenger vehicles may offer significant advantages to consumers,” he said.
For example, a 2006 Jeep Liberty with the current four-cylinder turbo diesel engine gets fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg around town and 26 on the highway, compared with 17 and 22 for the V-6 gasoline model.
A comparable gasoline-electric hybrid, the 2006 Toyota Highlander, is rated 33 mpg around town and 28 on the highway.
The timing of the new diesel fuel is good, considering President Bush's warning last week about America's addiction to foreign oil. In his State of the Union address, he called on consumers and automakers to help reduce the nation's Mideast oil imports by 75 percent by 2025.
Bush also called for an alternative fuels program, which could include biodiesel, a blend of regular diesel and soybean or other vegetable oil.
The National Biodiesel Conference, sponsored by a trade group, is being held through tomorrow at the San Diego Convention Center.
Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will address the group and view some of the new diesel cars today.
But cleaner fuel by itself won't clear the way for sales of new diesel vehicles.
Advances in automotive technology have removed some of old consumer complaints about diesel cars – clattering engine noise and higher vehicle cost.
Black or white smoke no longer pours out of tailpipes, and the engines generate much stronger acceleration than before.
The quieter engines are a combination of improvements. The injection of fuel directly into cylinders produces less-noisy combustion. And much higher injection pressure allows for more complete burning in the cylinder, which translates into more power and less tailpipe smoke.
But there is technological work still to be done.
To meet emissions standards in California and some Northeastern states, manufacturers must develop so-called after-treatment devices to further filter particulates and reduce nitrogen oxides, which contribute greatly to smog.
Effective after-treatment devices are available, so it is not a question of if, but at what cost, said Allen Schaeffer of the Diesel Technology Forum, a trade group promoting clean diesel usage.
“The diesel engine is already a premium performance technology, so it is an issue for manufacturers to find the sweet spot between selling a product people can afford and meeting the standards,” he said.
The EPA expects more diesel cars to be introduced starting next year.
“What's exciting is that diesel will be on equal footing with gasoline in this country for the first time in a long time,” said John Millett, an agency spokesman.
Before gasoline-electric hybrid cars came on the market, the EPA's top 10 list for passenger car fuel economy mostly included small two-door coupes, but also usually a Volkswagen diesel, Millett said.
“There is just more power per gallon in diesel than gasoline,” he said. “The advantage is that you are burning less fuel to travel more miles with fewer emissions, because you are burning less fuel.”
Most automakers and government agencies agree that the best long-term solution for cleaner air and reduced oil imports will be fuel-cell vehicles powered by hydrogen, which emit only water and use no petroleum fuel.
However, they also agree that the technology is at least a decade away from being commercially viable.
Clean diesel offers near-term oil import reduction, Moulton said. “According to a model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, if diesel vehicles make up 30 percent of the U.S. market share by 2020, the U.S. could save 350,000 barrels of oil a day,” he said.
Diesel-powered passenger cars make up 50 percent of sales in Europe, compared with 3 percent in the United States, but that U.S. number has been growing. Moulton expects market share to reach 15 percent over the next 10 years.
DaimlerChrysler is one automaker moving ahead with plans to offer more diesel-powered vehicles.
“We're enthusiastic about getting low-sulfur fuels,” spokesman Max Gates said. “But the hurdle is pretty high on some of the issues. We have to hit the California standards . . . and the new EPA programs that are coming in.
“We can't make much of a market if we can't sell diesels in California and the states that adopt that program,” he said.
DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes-Benz will introduce five diesel models next year, beginning with the E320 BlueTec sedan.
BlueTec uses an oxidizing catalytic converter and a diesel particulate filter, among other engine modifications, to minimize emissions. Combined fuel mileage rating will be 35 mpg, compared with about 22 mpg for the gasoline-powered E350 V-6.
The BlueTec engine will be the cleanest diesel in the world, the company contends, yet the E320 will not meet California emissions standards until a new technology is introduced in 2008.
The same technology will be available for other DaimlerChrysler vehicles, such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser, Jeep Liberty SUV and Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Honda, Nissan and BMW also showed diesel technology at the Detroit show.
Diesels are less complex than gasoline-electric hybrid systems and easier to install. The price premium is less, too, usually $1,000 to $1,500 for passenger cars. Diesel-electric hybrids are another consideration, but the added cost of the diesel engine with the hybrid components would likely be out of the price range of most consumers.
Manufacturers are eager to sell more diesels to help them meet or exceed the government's fuel-efficiency requirements.
The passenger car standard is 27.5 mpg. Light trucks are 21.6 mpg this year and 22.2 mpg for 2007.
However, the potential boom could fizzle if fuel costs continue to climb. In California, diesel fuel costs as much as or more than 91-octane premium gasoline. And biodiesel is 10 to 15 cents a gallon more expensive than conventional diesel.
When combined with the added cost of buying a diesel car, the value may not be worth it to some consumers, regardless of the environmental benefit.
Whether diesel or biodiesel, it's only a partial solution, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.
“There is more petroleum embodied in that gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline,” said Patricia Monahan, senior analyst for the group. “It takes about 25 percent more oil to make low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. You should still get a reduction in petroleum usage, but it's not as simple as saying that because diesel gets better fuel economy it is going to reduce petroleum use.” It will take a wide variety of fuels to get the United States to a clean future, she said. “There isn't a silver bullet.”
#2
02-07-2006, 06:36 PM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 2,203
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed a couple of interesting things in the article.
One was: "The diesel fuel in use now has sulfur content of up to 500 parts per million. Ultra-low-sulfur fuel must have no more than 15 ppm."
This is interesting because I have a friend who is a broker in the fuel distribution business and he's shown me some of the tech sheets for the diesel fuel distributed here in So Cal - probably the rest of CA as well - and it is already down in the 15 PPM range for sulfer and according to him it's been that way for a while.
The other was: “There is more petroleum embodied in that gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline,” said Patricia Monahan, senior analyst for the group. “It takes about 25 percent more oil to make low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. You should still get a reduction in petroleum usage, but it's not as simple as saying that because diesel gets better fuel economy it is going to reduce petroleum use.” It will take a wide variety of fuels to get the United States to a clean future, she said. “There isn't a silver bullet.”
One of the statements that is commonly made here on the board is that it takes less petroleum to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline. The above statement directly contradicts that. Now they did say "low sulfer". I wonder if that makes a difference?
One was: "The diesel fuel in use now has sulfur content of up to 500 parts per million. Ultra-low-sulfur fuel must have no more than 15 ppm."
This is interesting because I have a friend who is a broker in the fuel distribution business and he's shown me some of the tech sheets for the diesel fuel distributed here in So Cal - probably the rest of CA as well - and it is already down in the 15 PPM range for sulfer and according to him it's been that way for a while.
The other was: “There is more petroleum embodied in that gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline,” said Patricia Monahan, senior analyst for the group. “It takes about 25 percent more oil to make low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. You should still get a reduction in petroleum usage, but it's not as simple as saying that because diesel gets better fuel economy it is going to reduce petroleum use.” It will take a wide variety of fuels to get the United States to a clean future, she said. “There isn't a silver bullet.”
One of the statements that is commonly made here on the board is that it takes less petroleum to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline. The above statement directly contradicts that. Now they did say "low sulfer". I wonder if that makes a difference?
#3
02-07-2006, 08:47 PM
Junior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
California started requiring low sulfur diesel several years ago, so your socal buddy showing you that his diesel meets 15 ppm sulfur doesn't surprise me. Low sulfur diesel is required by the rest of the country by law soon (I don't know exactly when, but it is sometime this year I believe).
Diesel can be what is called a "straight-run" fuel, meaning they don't have to do any cracking to get the right API gravity. However, they will still need to desulfurize the diesel to meet emissions standards. Depending on the crude received at the refinery, it may need to be cracked to produce diesel.
I would be skeptical about accepting Patricia Monahan's assertion that it takes 25% more oil to produce low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. Is she talking low-sulfur gasoline also (i.e., comparing apples to apples). Because, to form low-sulfur gasoline, crude generally has to be cracked, and also desulfurized. Both of these processes are fairly energy intensive, taking place at high temperatures and, for desulfurization, high pressure also.
Diesel can be what is called a "straight-run" fuel, meaning they don't have to do any cracking to get the right API gravity. However, they will still need to desulfurize the diesel to meet emissions standards. Depending on the crude received at the refinery, it may need to be cracked to produce diesel.
I would be skeptical about accepting Patricia Monahan's assertion that it takes 25% more oil to produce low-sulfur diesel than gasoline. Is she talking low-sulfur gasoline also (i.e., comparing apples to apples). Because, to form low-sulfur gasoline, crude generally has to be cracked, and also desulfurized. Both of these processes are fairly energy intensive, taking place at high temperatures and, for desulfurization, high pressure also.
#4
02-07-2006, 08:51 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Huntsville
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#5
02-07-2006, 10:55 PM
#7
02-08-2006, 12:35 AM
The amount of oil required to produce a gallon of gasoline or diesel is dependendant upon the specific type of crude oil a refinery runs. Some crudes produce more distiallates than others. Likewise, some crudes contain far more sulfur than others. Also, gasoline yields vs. distallite yields depend on how a a particluar reinery is configured. Most are configured to maximize gasoline yileds as historically, this has been the highest demand product with some exceptions.
I suspect the reason your friend has been seeing 15 ppm sulfur could be your state has a boutique fuel lrequirement, meaning it's different than other states and more stringent than the Federal rules. It's been a while since I was involved with this but I seem to remember that California had special CARB II or is it III rules that governed this. I may have the acronym screwed up, agian it's been a while.
The rest of the country is supposed to come on line with 15ppm sulfur diesel effetive 6/1/06 if I remember correctly. This was the result of an EPA edict to reduce emmisisons. Automakers wanted 5ppm sulfur and oil companies wanted 50ppm. It had been 500ppm for on-road and 1500ppm for off-road. The EPA decided it would be 15ppm and nobody was happy. BTW, these decision were made back in 1999/2000 and oil companies hav pumped billions of dollars into the equipment necessary to procude the lower sulfur diesel. Unfortunatey, new chemical reactors are one of the tiems required to make the ULS diesel. This means high dollar catalyst changeouts which are a perpetual cost that must constantly be recovered as well as the initial capital outlay.
Also, the logistics invovled with shipping the two grades of diesel and product value losses invovled with contamination of ULS diesel from higher sulfer diesel have caused most shippers to go with only the ULS diesel and forgoe the 50ppm stuff.
The ULS requirement is also one reason you have seen diesel prices remain higher than gasoline prices. Many refineries that in the past supplied diesel will no longer be able to do so because they have not invested in the equipment required to produce the ULS diesel. This has reduced diesel capacity and consequently prices have increased. Supply form overseas is not available to make up this difference because Europe consumes most of the non-US diesel production.
I suspect the reason your friend has been seeing 15 ppm sulfur could be your state has a boutique fuel lrequirement, meaning it's different than other states and more stringent than the Federal rules. It's been a while since I was involved with this but I seem to remember that California had special CARB II or is it III rules that governed this. I may have the acronym screwed up, agian it's been a while.
The rest of the country is supposed to come on line with 15ppm sulfur diesel effetive 6/1/06 if I remember correctly. This was the result of an EPA edict to reduce emmisisons. Automakers wanted 5ppm sulfur and oil companies wanted 50ppm. It had been 500ppm for on-road and 1500ppm for off-road. The EPA decided it would be 15ppm and nobody was happy. BTW, these decision were made back in 1999/2000 and oil companies hav pumped billions of dollars into the equipment necessary to procude the lower sulfur diesel. Unfortunatey, new chemical reactors are one of the tiems required to make the ULS diesel. This means high dollar catalyst changeouts which are a perpetual cost that must constantly be recovered as well as the initial capital outlay.
Also, the logistics invovled with shipping the two grades of diesel and product value losses invovled with contamination of ULS diesel from higher sulfer diesel have caused most shippers to go with only the ULS diesel and forgoe the 50ppm stuff.
The ULS requirement is also one reason you have seen diesel prices remain higher than gasoline prices. Many refineries that in the past supplied diesel will no longer be able to do so because they have not invested in the equipment required to produce the ULS diesel. This has reduced diesel capacity and consequently prices have increased. Supply form overseas is not available to make up this difference because Europe consumes most of the non-US diesel production.
Last edited by texan2004; 02-08-2006 at 12:37 AM.
Trending Topics
#9
02-08-2006, 09:25 AM
Does anyone know that with low-sulfur fuel if we need to add more diesel fuel additives (DFA's) to our fuel?
Most or all available brands were produced or formulated with the higher sulfur content in mind. With the low-sulfur content comming... should we use more to make up for the lower lubricity? Seems resonable... but it just ocurred to me after reading Daryl's post.
When I called and started a thread on the different DFA's, double dosing was preferred as it gave enough additional benefits to off-set the cost... but now with ultra-low sulfur fuel, I wonder if we should triple-treat to add back lubricity... as our motors were designed with low-sulfur in mind rather than ultra-low.
Any ideas... or I guess I could just call those companies again.
Most or all available brands were produced or formulated with the higher sulfur content in mind. With the low-sulfur content comming... should we use more to make up for the lower lubricity? Seems resonable... but it just ocurred to me after reading Daryl's post.
When I called and started a thread on the different DFA's, double dosing was preferred as it gave enough additional benefits to off-set the cost... but now with ultra-low sulfur fuel, I wonder if we should triple-treat to add back lubricity... as our motors were designed with low-sulfur in mind rather than ultra-low.
Any ideas... or I guess I could just call those companies again.
#10
02-08-2006, 09:47 AM
OK... just took my own advice.
I called PowerService and spoke with Brian Wilson in their technical department. Even with ultra-low sulfur fuel, the lubricity has to be maintained between a certain range... however, to save money they will always be at the minimum... so using PowerService or any other major brand additive is still required or preferred.
Single treating will give one the needed benefits for lubricity. Double traeting benefits will give cetane boost and detergency... but not more lubricity.
So... forget my post above and continue to single or double treat at every fill-up and enjoy your truck.. whether an older truck or a newer one designed for ultra-low sulfur fuel.
Brian Wilson at PowerService seems to really know his stuff and what is going on with all brands and within the diesel marketplace. I do not want to give out his number, but you can look it up on their website and ask for him.
Jeff
I called PowerService and spoke with Brian Wilson in their technical department. Even with ultra-low sulfur fuel, the lubricity has to be maintained between a certain range... however, to save money they will always be at the minimum... so using PowerService or any other major brand additive is still required or preferred.
Single treating will give one the needed benefits for lubricity. Double traeting benefits will give cetane boost and detergency... but not more lubricity.
So... forget my post above and continue to single or double treat at every fill-up and enjoy your truck.. whether an older truck or a newer one designed for ultra-low sulfur fuel.
Brian Wilson at PowerService seems to really know his stuff and what is going on with all brands and within the diesel marketplace. I do not want to give out his number, but you can look it up on their website and ask for him.
Jeff
#11
02-08-2006, 09:50 AM
#12
02-08-2006, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by kw5413
The last I read...which was few months ago...The Fed's were a little slow in approving the lubricity additives (for the refineries) to make up for the advent of the ultra low sulfur. Not sure where that stands now.
The guy at PowerService can answer all your questions... he did for me, but much of the technical stuff went over my head.
Where have you been KW???
#13
02-08-2006, 01:51 PM
Been a busy time with remodel, work travel, Plus tis the season for my youngest daughter's (14) dance team competitions. Defending National Champs.
Trying to keep up with some FTE stuff. Missed your other little deal completely...til yesterday. After it was done.
It looks like DFA's are going to be increasingly more important. I am not confident that the refinery boys will keep our new fuel slicked up as much as our trucks would like. Could sure lend itself to more shop time.
I guess those that care about overall cost vs value will have to start adding in the price / gal of after market DFAs.
Trying to keep up with some FTE stuff. Missed your other little deal completely...til yesterday. After it was done.
It looks like DFA's are going to be increasingly more important. I am not confident that the refinery boys will keep our new fuel slicked up as much as our trucks would like. Could sure lend itself to more shop time.
I guess those that care about overall cost vs value will have to start adding in the price / gal of after market DFAs.
#14
02-08-2006, 04:14 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: S.W. Michigan
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
F2504x4
Bio-diesel, Propane & Alternative Diesel Engine Fuels
2
12-01-2005 06:58 PM
TN-W124 Diesel
General NON-Automotive Conversation
2
07-29-2005 10:15 PM