WorldWide Diesel Fuel Charter 2000

At the 3rd International Colloquium - Fuels 2001 -held in Esslingen, Germany on 17-18 January 2001, Dr. M. Gairing of DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, outlined ideas for a new version.

While the WWFC was being drawn up, discussions were already under way with both Japan and the USA, in parallel, for a new version with sulfur levels of <10ppm for both gasoline and diesel fuels. He said that it was his belief that the future was "lead-free and sulfur-free".

There is a wide range of fuel standards around the world, offering varying levels of quality. He said that we need to develop a world-wide quality for fuels because fuel is an important engineering element for all vehicles.

The discussions need to involve customers, the oil industry, the automotive industry and governments. It is his belief that emissions standards cannot be achieved without adequate fuel standards. The most important single parameter today is sulfur but all other parameters must be respected.

Dr Gairing then went on to highlight the current differences between the existing standards for diesel (EN 590) and gasoline (EN228) and the new proposals for WWFC Category 3 / 4. Dr Gairing felt that a gap of 5 points in the current Cetane No/Cetane index is too great as this has a significant influence on the noise of a diesel engine. Similarly of the density is too high then emissions will rise and if it is too low, then the power will drop. He felt that the only way to guarantee new developments is for fuels to go sulfur free.

European Carmakers Seek Emissions Cuts;

"Impossible" Says America

By 2008, all ten of Europe's carmakers intend to develop a new fleet of vehicles that emit no more than 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer. This is roughly equivalent to a car doing 41 miles/gallon.

This statement was made by Andre Rault, general secretary of the European Council of Automotive Research & Development (EUCAR) at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in Washington, DC, USA on 8 January 2001.

According to Rault, data monitoring in Europe shows that CO2 emissions from vehicles have dropped from 190g/km in 1995 to 170 g/km in 1999. In 2003, the vehicle manufacturers intend to review progress on the agreement made in 1998 with European governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So far much of the improvement has been attributable to the increased use of diesel engines and, according to Rault, "gasoline engine technology at the present time is not making the progress that it should. The EUCAR vision of the future includes diesel engines gaining an even greater share of the European market over the next decade, which will contribute to reaching pollution reduction goals. With this in mind the European Commission intends to review progress so far and then see whether it would be possible to drop the target to 120g/km."

For the Americans, Daniel Sperling of the University of California asked Rault how the European vehicle manufacturers can be so confident and comfortable about reducing CO2 emissions and increasing fuel economy while their American counterparts say it is impossible - whose European operations are co-operating in the cuts!

In response, Rault said there was a basic difference in philosophy between the two nations - energy consumption and conservation have been part of the European way of life for generations, which is not the
case in the USA. This was reinforced by John Wallace, chairman of Ford Motor Co's Innovative Technologies Division who added that "In Europe, diesel engines make up nearly 50% of the total fleet and if this was to be the case in the USA, then fuel economy could be improved instantaneously by 20%."


It appears the Americans can only dig their hole deeper and deeper?

For anyone interested, here is the World Fuel Charter that they are talking about:

http://www.acea.be/acea/WWFCharter042000.pdf


It is a 504K PDF published by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (USA), Engine Manufacturers Association(USA), and Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Great educational reading and reference material.

Here is an excerpt on the concerns regarding diesel fuel quality parameters:

COMMENTS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO DIESEL SPECIFICATION

Comment: Why is cetane requirement reduced as weather gets colder?
Action and rationale: The refining of light volatile fuels to improve cold start operation in extreme conditions can adversely affe ctcetane number. The practical considerations are that a lighter fuel to enable cold starting takes precedence over cetane number under these special conditions.

Comment: Emission changes are small in terms of g/km if higher cetane limits are achieved.
Action and rationale: As emissions regulations become more stringent, small improvements become both difficult and important. Numerically small improvements are important and translate to tons of pollutants, which is meaningful to governmental agencies and the environment.

Comment: Increasing Cetane Index Number will cost fuel economy and power. Would require refineries to add new plant equipment and reduce fuel lubricity.
Action and rationale: Diesel fuels meeting all Charter requirements need to be optimized to match vehicle requirements.

Comment: CI is redundant and inappropriate.
Action and rationale: Natural cetane (number) is pertinent to performance. Cetane Index limits cetane improver additives to reasonable levels.

Comment: Poly aromatics are the problem, not total aromatics.
Action and rationale: Poly aromatics are certainly a problem and the charter addresses this issue separately. Total aromatics have been shown to influence exhaust emissions, particularly NOx emissions from HD diesel engines.

Comment: Future technology may reduce fuel effects to the cetane number and it is too early to conclude poly aromatics
contribute to PAH in exhaust.
Action and rationale: Turnover in the diesel fleet is slow, emission improvements are needed now. Should revised cetane limits
become appropriate in the future, they will be considered. There is evidence that PAHs contribute to PM and exhaust PAH.

Comment: No need for separate T90,T95, and FBP standards.
Action and rationale: The charter states that only one of T90 and T95 must be met. FBP prevents fuel from containing highly involatile material that adds to particulate matter.

Comment: Lower carbon content in fuel will lead to higher carbon content in other refined products.
Action and rationale: The charter is focused on automotive fuels and does not attempt to improve the CO 2 emissions of other industries.

[This message has been edited by SkyPup (edited February 07, 2001).]

Man O' Man, with the new high quality diesel fuels containing a minimum of 50 cetane, VWOA can finally import and sell PUMP-DUSE TDI technology and meet current emissions.

Bring it on VWOA, we are patiently waiting!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyPup:
Man O' Man, with the new high quality diesel fuels containing a minimum of 50 cetane, VWOA can finally import and sell PUMP-DUSE TDI technology and meet current emissions.

Bring it on VWOA, we are patiently waiting!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, you are under the FALSE assumption that no other TDI engines are here because of fuel issues. The reality of the matter is that it is purely a MARKETING issue. It simply is not worth the trouble of bringing other model here, with having to go thru EPA Certification, etc. on such a small, small demand. Heck, we don't even have a PASSAT TDI here for the exact same reason I mentioned. Try explaining that, if you dare.

Get your head out of your a$$, SkyPup!

Believing that "improved" fuel quality will bring other TDI engines to North America is merely wishful thinking.



------------------
Ric Woodruff

1998 Jetta TDI Custom Sport



[This message has been edited by Ric Woodruff (edited February 05, 2001).]

Hey Ric, Lmao, His head is their and he's Bent over waiting on one of those Fat,Smelly,Garbage Trucks, Fat, Well mr sky pup u have all the answer's so ya say, hmmmmmmmmm, Any how do you have a Diet For those trucks to go on since their soo fat, ROFLMAO,

Roflmao, They way he gets so excited, about 50 centain Fuel, I wonder hmmmmmmm was that artical in the last Penthouse mag, Lmao i can Pic we can all pic Skypup sitting their Choking the stroker saying Omg omg were going to get 50 centain diesel,Omg huff huff pufff ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh yea yea omg, oppps. Hey Mr Fat stinkey garbage Truck driver Bring me a Towel, Chill out skypup

DD:

Maybe you don't agree with SkyPup, but is there any real good reason to berate him like that? State your reasons for disagreeing, prove your point, but why stoop to the childish bantering as displayed in your posts here?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DieselDeamon:
Roflmao, They way he gets so excited, about 50 centain Fuel, I wonder hmmmmmmm was that artical in the last Penthouse mag, Lmao i can Pic we can all pic Skypup sitting their Choking the stroker saying Omg omg were going to get 50 centain diesel,Omg huff huff pufff ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh yea yea omg, oppps. Hey Mr Fat stinkey garbage Truck driver Bring me a Towel, Chill out skypup <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks to you and Woodriff for sharing that information with us.

Fill 'er mit PRIMO

Here is a draft of the State of Texas preliminary changes to their diesel fuel regulations set to come into effect next year:

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/adoptions/pa99055a.pdf

Here is the latest law in Texas upgrading diesel fuel supplies to higher levels:

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/ad00011d.pdf

Yea i have a Good Reason and Ill say on behalf of others on here, Skypup Fill's up band with Over and over posting info, Whene it could have all been said in 2 post at the Most, and he also called USA Diesel Dorks, that sat bad on my Blood, plus he post stuff whene asked for Proof he wont post the proof

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DieselDeamon:
he post stuff whene asked for Proof he wont post the proof[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frustrating, isn't it? But then again, talk is cheap.

I only give important information to important people.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyPup:
I only give important information to important people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your sources appear to do the same.

your right, I do not count you as one of them. With nothing to give, you expect nothing to receive.

Good reads. Europe has adopted high-tech diesels as a big portion of their passenger car fleet and the USA seems to be just beginning to move in the direction of wider acceptance.

VW TDI are the only high speed light duty turbodiesel passenger cars on the market, bar none, in the USA today that meet current USEPA emission regulations.

The only reason the A4 design was able to meet Fed emissions was due to the incorporation of the VNT15 turbocharger to supercede the GT15 unit on the A3's to meet these regulations for emissions.

Mercedes Benz removed their excellent turbodiesels from the market due to the changes in emissions and the terrible low quality of diesel fuel availble in North America. Now matter how much engine engineering, they could not meet emissions withe crappy fuel supply.

Don't try to tell me they removed their outstanding turbodiesels because there was a lack of doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, bankers, oil men, yacht men, and others who would kill for a MB CDI diesel luxury sedan in the United States right now. Sorry, the market is simply crying for MB Turbodiesels to this day. MB could not meet emissions with the crappy fuel supply. However these EXACT same CDI are hauling a$$ all over Europe at this very moment on high quality premium diesel fuel with no hassles. As are plenty of BMW, AUDI, Renault, Fiat, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. to the tune of 50% of European roadcars are running turbodiesels and MEETING STRICT EMISSIONS STANDARDS.

VW will be forced to withdraw the A4 TDI from North American prior to 2006 if fuel quality is not improved as they have no hope of meeting emission standards on passenger cars without premium quality diesel fuels with current engine designs.