HPFP maker Diesel Fuel Specification

There is really no new information here.

EU spec is better than US, first fill should be with fuel less than 400 micron wear scar, and since manufacturers do not know what's in additives, they won't recommend adding anything but 5% biodiesel.

So does anyone have any data how USA ULSD performs compared to the EU spec Diesel?

I would like to see that data for following:

USA ULSD
USA ELSD 5% bio
EU 10ppm Diesel
USA ULSD with PS white bottle additive
USA ULSD with PS grey bottle additive
USA ULSD with xx additives

IIRC, USA ULSD is federally mandated to be less than or equal to 530 HFRR, however in the couple of tests I've read USA ULSD from the pump is usually closer to 560 HFRR. I'd like to see an honest direct-from-pump reading of USA B-5 ULSD blend.

Who is to say that B5 has better lubricity than regular deisel?

If diesel fuel is required to meet a certain value, then why wouldn't the fuel producer cut back on additives when mixing in B100? After all, they only have to make a certain lubricity value upon delivery. Whether that lubricity comes from organically derived additive compounds or plant oils does not matter.

Ryephile said:

IIRC, USA ULSD is federally mandated to be less than or equal to 530 HFRR, however in the couple of tests I've read USA ULSD from the pump is usually closer to 560 HFRR. I'd like to see an honest direct-from-pump reading of USA B-5 ULSD blend.

Click to expand...

Should be quite easy for a Lawyer to Convince a Judge that:

VW is selling vehicles in a Country that has fuel that is not up to specification for said vehicles. This would be after testimony from 'professional witness's'

We don't need a 'Perry Mason' to do this,either!

Jack Frost said:

Who is to say that B5 has better lubricity than regular deisel?

If diesel fuel is required to meet a certain value, then why wouldn't the fuel producer cut back on additives when mixing in B100? After all, they only have to make a certain lubricity value upon delivery. Whether that lubricity comes from organically derived additive compounds or plant oils does not matter.

Click to expand...

I would guess that lubricity additives would be cut if biodiesel is blended into the ULSD for say B5 retail sales. ULSD delivered to the distribution terminals will run around 650 microns wear scar for lubricity. The Spicer report and other tests have shown that adding biodiesel in blends of as low as B1/B2 lowers ULSD well below 520 microns (US spec. for wear scar) and 460 microns (Canadian spec. for wear scar).

The issue is we don't know how much lubricity additive is speced to be added by each marketer of ULSD. Some may spec down to the 520 level and others lower. Most marketers will only say that the meet or exceed the lubricity spec.

All that conspiracy theory stuff about distribution pulling back on additives knowing it'll end up as B-5 means the best the normal consumer can do is put additives in the tank.

gumaku1 said:

So does anyone have any data how USA ULSD performs compared to the EU spec Diesel?

I would like to see that data for following:

USA ULSD
USA ELSD 5% bio
EU 10ppm Diesel
USA ULSD with PS white bottle additive
USA ULSD with PS grey bottle additive
USA ULSD with xx additives

Click to expand...

I suggest you read the links (and links in the threads below) and do a search on additives. I am not aware of any performance comparison of US fuel vs EU fuel or one additive vs another other than tests on lubricity.

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/documents/Diesel_Fuel_Tech_Review.pdf
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=286380
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=2794406&postcount=1

Dieselfitter said:

Should be quite easy for a Lawyer to Convince a Judge that:
VW is selling vehicles in a Country that has fuel that is not up to specification for said vehicles. This would be after testimony from 'professional witness's'
We don't need a 'Perry Mason' to do this,either!

Click to expand...

Only if we wanted to win.

The whole HPFP failure / lubricity discussion issue assumes that lack of proper lubricity in diesel fuel is causing the HPFP failures.

While I agree that inadequate lubricity is a likely suspect, and that using additives seems prudent, it's also posible that the TDI HPFP failures are not related to fuel, but are instead either a design or a manufacturing defect.

If that's the case, all the additives in the world won't stop a defective HPFP from failing.

Ok, so for an update, I talked with a well known additive maker today. They do sampling of fuel throughout the USA all throughout the year. They told me it does matter where you live and what time of the year you are buying fuel for what quality of fuel you are getting.

To start this supplier takes two samples from a tank farm or refinery where the fuel is dispensed to tank trucks to be delivered to your local fuel stations. So the fuel they are collecting is as good as a sample can get coming from a fuel supplier at the source.

The #'s he read off in our area were in fact a little concerning for lubricity. To give you an example, some of the high end lubricity #'s were around 725 HFRR and the lows were around 400 HFRR, average was at ~500 to 550 HFRR. Remember the specification I attached in post #1, the fuel pump maker would like to see 460 HFRR max!!!

Overall the good news is that with a good additive, the HFRR can decrease from 725 to around 410 for the one fuel and from 550 to as low at 330 for another fuel.

Just hearing that the additive can make a huge improvement (~200 to 300) in HFRR makes me fell much better for using it, it is a small cost for a large improvement.

I would recommend anyone on here to do your own research and make your own judgment. I wanted to share my result with you since this data does is not widely available and there have been many questions regarding additives.

Plus 3 Golfer said:

I would guess that lubricity additives would be cut if biodiesel is blended into the ULSD for say B5 retail sales. ULSD delivered to the distribution terminals will run around 650 microns wear scar for lubricity. The Spicer report and other tests have shown that adding biodiesel in blends of as low as B1/B2 lowers ULSD well below 520 microns (US spec. for wear scar) and 460 microns (Canadian spec. for wear scar).

The issue is we don't know how much lubricity additive is speced to be added by each marketer of ULSD. Some may spec down to the 520 level and others lower. Most marketers will only say that the meet or exceed the lubricity spec.

Click to expand...

According to the folks at 76 their diesel sold in California shall not exceed 480 and typically runs well under that.

Which is better?

Here's something to think about......
Fuel "A" from the supplier goes into your car with a wear scar of 410.
Fuel "B" from supplier with a wear scar of 480, plus (add your favorite additive), now drops to a wear scar of 410, goes into your car.
Forget about cost for this analogy. Which diesel fuel would you rather have?????? Which is truly better? I'm up for a round-table gathering with a few "lubricity experts" and discuss this over a few cold ones.

gumaku1 said:

To start this supplier takes two samples from a tank farm or refinery where the fuel is dispensed to tank trucks to be delivered to your local fuel stations. So the fuel they are collecting is as good as a sample can get coming from a fuel supplier at the source.

The #'s he read off in our area were in fact a little concerning for lubricity. To give you an example, some of the high end lubricity #'s were around 725 HFRR and the lows were around 400 HFRR, average was at ~500 to 550 HFRR. Remember the specification I attached in post #1, the fuel pump maker would like to see 460 HFRR max!!!

Click to expand...

The tank farm or refinery samples are UNADDITIZED. The fuel gets a lubricty additive at the load rack before it makes to the retail site. Additive salesman scare you with results from unadditized fuel and don't mention that fuel at retail sites is fine. Ask the salesman what the true results are for fuel from the dispenser.

The lubricity is not necessarily "fine", they have specs that do not meet the vehicle requirements.

better fuel pump

Oh, this thread turned out to be very entertaining so far I agree with the OP that fuel suppliers should be on the hook as well, and the second post clarified the root(s) of the problem pretty accurately.

But under the circumstances, a more durable and more precisely manufactured fuel pump would be a rational aftermarket upgrade to consider, particularly if the Bosch units begin to go in more significant numbers. If it cost a few hundred more, you know many of us would go for it just for the peace of mind.

Maybe Bosch has all ready implemented some changes, possibly in materials and quality control. but I wonder if/when alternative fuel pump(s) might show up ? OK, so this doesn't necessarily add performance, but I've replaced low pressure fuel pumps before (only because they failed). In this case, I'd rather not do it after failure.

Any chance of a high-tech bonded ceramic/titanium hybridized, quad cylinder low friction, low energy input pump getting manufactured for CR engines? Do "we have the technology" for heavens sake ? You know... something that could shrug off a few high ethanol gasoline mistakes, and eventually fail by failing to pump, not filling the entire system with deadly metal flakes.

Nice reading here : http://www.tdi-issues.com/problems-tac69/lubricity-of-ulsd-diesel-gap168.htm