I read the same issue in the dental shop! You would think with all that desert (and more importantly) INTENSE sunshine, the middle east were not the GO TO PLACE for solar/wind farms, desalination H20 plants and carbon dioxide storage "bins."!!?? To the extent they are NOT, we should be: given our policy not to take advantage of God's gift to the USA - a VAST and almost incalculable repository of COAL, which can be converted to CLEAN coal products. Diesel fuel made from coal for example are sulfur free!!?? There is literally no reason why we can not be so called "energy self sufficient" !?
While I do not wish to get political, it would seem all these caldrons boiling over are in effect ,self inflicted GSW's. Our energy policies are tailor made for the ENRONS of the world and of course the current unrest in the M.E.
quote- Just as General Motors is now looking at bringing their new 2.9L diesel V-6 stateside, Subaru is now looking to add the diesel to just-released second-gen Forester and Impreza models.-end
megamike: I'll believe it when I see it. I remain skeptical. Entering the US market is far harder than most companies realize and it is getting harder ever year.
Hey, I'm with you there about "seeing is believing". But if I see, I just may buy. I don't see any other affordable Diesels comming stateside. Maybe Hondo and VW, but I bet they'll be over $30k.
It's a 12 - 18 month wait accross the board, so it will be intersting to see how the diesel market pla.ys out.
I am curious how Honda (and others) will integrate the longevity issues: both in the diesel and non diesel portions of the "mating". Honda has been known for its "reliability".
As an owner of a VW TDI (diesel) with over 100,000 miles, I am very curious about the coming crop of diesels to the US market and especially those clocking 100,000 miles plus. Also I wish to see the new (and improved) VW's. VW has garnered a reputation for having some "reliability" issues. However...
Some examples, 2003 TDI: (while some might make a case of getting the pick of the litter, statistics argue against this)
1. I have been pleasantly surprised the TDI's oem tires have clicked over 100,000 miles. The tires seem good to go @ least to 110,000 miles- if not 125,000 miles. (H rated tires, will of course use the tire depth gauge at the next rotation (110,000 miles) These oem tires come in (DEAD) last in almost every owner survey done. The only reason why it didn't come in lower was because VW used only three different oem tires!?
2. I will get my first alignment when I put on the new tires
3. The first 100,000 miles of TDI engine operations have been utterly seamless.
4. Brake pads and rotors (dare I say) look good to go for ANOTHER 100,000 miles.
5. Mileage is better now that when new (daily commute between 48-52 mpg: range between 44-62 mpg on epa of 42/49)
6. After engine break in and warranty protocols, I am running 20,000 to 25,000 mile OCI's
One observation based on the price swag of 25,000 on a 2009 VW Jetta TDI and a pp of 18,000 for the 2003 TDI. There will be a 4 percent per year average price increase. However I am lead to believe, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the MY cars.
Do you know what might be the reason VW doesn't want to bring in Passat wagon with the same engine? They sell it in Europe. It seems totally counterintuitive to me. One the one hand so many manufacturers say only big sells in the US, on the other, VW doesn't want to sell diesel Passat, and instead wants to sell smaller cars only.
It could be that the Jetta is made in Mexico and the Passat in Germany. Shipping is a big issue. With NAFTA buying a car built in Mexico saves big bucks.
... CRD will be ubiquitous. It's actually a more simple system; however the cost of the individual piezo-ceramic, wafer stack, and sophisticated solenoid injectors does not seem to be as much of a dollar factor as the emission package. My guess is that the latest gen CRD is, at best, only three to five percent more efficient than an '03 TDI. As stated (by me) the "TDI" badge will still be on the deck lid but will be CRD under the bonnet.
It could be that the Jetta is made in Mexico and the Passat in Germany. Shipping is a big issue. With NAFTA buying a car built in Mexico saves big bucks.
See, they do ship it - wagon, reasonably priced, too, just not diesel. That's what annoys me. Even when they decide to send diesels, we still cannot get the best. :confuse:
4. Brake pads and rotors (dare I say) look good to go for ANOTHER 100,000 miles.
Couldn't pay me to do that. Brake pads and shoes may appear to have plenty of lining left, but that doesn't mean they're functional. They may have glazed or cracked, and when you need to really shove the whoa pedal into the carpet, they may surprise you (and not in a good way). Rotors could be scored from small debris or may have warped slightly and caused the pads to deform to match. Get the pads changed and discs resurfaced.
Absolutely! Thanks for the tip! That is why I get the scheduled maintainance and inspections done! Pads are neither glazed nor the rotors scored. The rotors have MORE than half the mass left. (the calculations are about both the pads AND the rotors.)
I've seen several quotes in the news stating Kia will offer several diesels in the US starting with Borrego and a new model similar to the Hyundai Elantra Touring.
..."The car's environmental-ness comes from its new low-emissions 2.2-liter 16-valve turbodiesel 4-cylinder. This engine features direct injection and MIVEC (Mitsubishi Innovative Valve lift and timing Electronic Control) variable valve timing as well as a Variable Diffuser/Variable Geometry turbocharger, which help to achieve 204 bhp and 310 lb.-ft. of torque. "...
BUT I am looking forward to going to the newest VW 507.00 oil standard 5w30 (probably ELF) , after I use all my Delvac 5w40 and Mobil One 5w40 oils.
In theory, there should be a ever so slight fuel mileage improvement. When I ran CA LSD (140 ppm) I ran 20,000 miles OCI. With the implementation of ULSD (15ppm to less) I have been running 25,000 miles OCI's.
I am not looking forward to the increase in prices (5.50/qt vs 11/l ) per qt/gal, but the new oil CAN be good to go to 30,000 miles OCI's. Perhaps more longitudinal testing over at BITOG might even indicate greater than 30,000 miles.
As diesel products become more widespread, it will be interesting what oil products will become more well known.
At my consumption rate and since I bought a tad more Delvac since it was not that available and well known outside of diesel circles, it might be another 150,000 miles or so! VW might even have a newer standard by then.
While it is good to see the different oems providing diesel models, I think their attitudes are still " wait and see". Yet more oems are entering the (US) diesel markets faster and with seemingly more models and volume than they have entered the "hybrid" markets. Despite @ least 8 years of hybrid sales and HUGE regulatory sanctioning, I have read in passing, hybrid population/s is/are app 1%. Please correct this if it is incorrect.
From a baseline of less than 3% current, I would be surprised if the diesel markets are 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet at the 10-15 year mark (same as the SUV passenger vehicle fleet, pvf= 235.4 M* 9%=21.186M/15 years=1.4124 M diesel vehicles average per year). This would amount to 8.5% of yearly sales.
If too many automakers take the "wait and see" attitude toward diesels, and if others bring true plug-in hybrids to the market in the meantime, for a lot of people who mostly commute in their cars (as I do), it may become a different ballgame. At that point "wait and see" may translate into "waited and lost".
I like diesels, but I sure am not religious about them. Whoever gives me a vehicle that will cost me less to operate and (this is the biggie) send fewer of my dollars to the Middle East, will get my business.
Indeed I have always liked GASSERS, but like you, not religious. Never have liked the LACK of turbo diesel options. (since 1986) However from some of the reactions I have seen to diesel, you might come to the conclusion I am a fall off the wagon former cultist (non RUG to PUG) user :lemon:
I have always from (the naive point of view) thought that if the sound bite rhetoric were to match the realities, that alternative fuels should be a portion of the passenger vehicle fleet.
How are is the logistic system going to get off (close to 100%) use of RUG to PUG if there are not a sizeable portion of vehicles that do not use RUG TO PUG?
I stress this has been and remains naive; despite being mathematically incontrovertible. The nexus with diesel is not only is it a better engine for our roads, gets 20-40% fuel economy, costs less per mile driven (biggie for me also), R&D has been ongoing for literally decades, but it has the ability to be the short term (30-50 years) fuel of choice. It also can be ONE ALTERNATIVE fuel, generated from on going processes, i.e., oil waste streams @EVERY landfill/recycling center, food waste processes, algae growth, and literally, etc, etc, etc. That is why I say a short termdiesel target of 12-25% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
On the other hand the (operative) goal is not to lessen the use of conventional petroleum, but to increase its operating cost. Indeed a snap shot will show that even with the highest fuel standards we have ever had, the dependency on foreign oil has never been higher (percentage & volume).
Two thoughts, better on the OEM's nickel than the owners? Longer term, hopefully the fix makes the situation BETTER AND not just another interval in a perpetual problem point.
The company has also received investments from Sequoia Capital, a relative newcomer to energy investments, Rockport Capital Partners and Interwest Partners. (VentureWire has a brief interview with Achates CEO James Lemke.)
Achates has not said how its engine will work, the company has three patent applications on file with the U.S. Patent Office. Two of the patents describe what's known as an opposed piston/opposed cylinder engine. In this type of engine, two pistons sit inside a single cylinder. That makes it different than most other motors where pistons have individual cylinders. (Some car makers have made engines with horizontal pistons, similar to an opposed piston engine, but they have their own cylinders.)
"The opposed-piston engine was invented by Hugo Junkers around the end of the nineteenth century," one of the patent applications states. "In 1936, the Junkers Jumo airplane engines, the most successful diesel engines to that date, were able to achieve a power density and fuel efficiency that have not been matched by any diesel engine since...Nevertheless, Junkers' basic design contains a number of deficiencies."
As a result of the deficiencies and costs, it never went mainstream. But who knows? It could now. EcoMotors, which has received investments from Khosla Ventures, is doing the same thing.
Transonic, meanwhile, has come up with a fuel injection system that increases the pressure inside of diesel engines. Putting Transonic's system into a diesel lets the engine run on regular gas (which is cleaner). Mileage also goes up to 100 miles per gallon. The system sounds similar to a technology called HCCI being tinkered on at Toyota and GM.
Achates, by the way, was in Roman mythology a close friend of Aeneas, the star of The Iliad.
The Vision GLK was shown at the NAIAS as a concept vehicle, and the press I read said that the concept diesel wouldn't make it to the US any time soon.
Mercedes website, however, prominantly lists a "Powerful 2.2 liter BLUETEC clean diesel 4-cylinder with two-stage turbocharger, delivering 168 horsepower and 369 lb-ft torque"
Any chance they'll get this on the market before VW decides to finally give is a diesel Tiquan?
Car and Drive says $35K base, $45K fully loaded, but they're also one of the ones that said it will only get gas 6 cyl engines, eventually a 6 cyl diesel:
As for the wavy lines, It is officially a "concept", so it's probably a weird design in the wood grain pattern. I wouldn't expect it on the production model.
... Speaking (or typing) of piezo-ceramic wafer stack controlled pintles I saw (probably Google News) that Delphi plans to control the huge common rail pressure pulses with sophisticated solenoids, with Bosch and Siemans going with piezo-ceramic. The Ford runs the Siemans stuff and GM will have the Delphi, with 100 million being invested in the new Tonawanda engine plant this is a can't miss deal for GM and Delphi. I believe both systems are capable of up to five pulses per combustion cycle.
You post highlights some of the extra capital investments and sometimes technology, needed in new offerings.
While I do understand there are not a lot of history in the field, I would ask from a consumers point of view, what do I need to do or can expect to do, to keep that system (and/or parts in that system) humming for 100 to 500k miles.
Using the VW Jetta TDI as an example:
@ 100,000 miles I ran a 12 oz bottle of Primerose 406 Injector Perfector cleaner. (I suspect from a cost point of view, a waste of money) So far the injectors FEEL good to go for ANOTHER 100,000 miles. But in truth they did before the treatment.
I change the fuel filter 3 times in 100,000 miles (20,000 miles interval recommended)
Glo Plugs seem to be holding out nicely.
I do run an additive-( not oem recommended -Primerose 405C 1:3000 dilution) as a cetane boost, fuel pump lubricity, and H20 emulification.
As an observation, fuel mileage is as good as it has ever been. Even after 100,000 miles I am still amazed that if I push it harder than a gasser the mileage is still stellar.
I think that is one reason why the regulators try to make the emissions specifications SO tight. It requires a very high level of technology to operate. So for example, getting 40,000 gals from the (Berkeley, CA) land fill's waste stream is truly anathema to the over all system.
I knew what you meant! For me for as small a % as that is, one would think it would be fairly seamless!? Evidently it is NOT at this juncture. Indeed the discussion is more towards the second generation bio diesel over at the TDICLUB.com. This would actually plug into my post about costing more.
... Just seems like a good way to handle lubricity and forget the additive pitch. Of course I am looking at ways to go 95 plus percent with a heated tank(s) method.
I think what you wish for is currently a much more focused market. One such (vehicle) vendor dedicated to bio diesel and SVO conversions has sprung up locally. I probably should go by to see what the offerings are, since at present we are a fairly tiny slice of the (passenger vehicle fleet) diesel market.
In theory, ULSD has to meet standards with someone in the logistics systems putting in the required needed additives.
Fuel pump lubricity is an interesting subject. I would SWAG that it is not statistically definitive beyond minimum standards. . I would swag that is why the (Primrose 405C) mixture is packaged as a troika, 1.cetane boost 2. H20 emulsifier (this is debated also in the #2 diesel community) 3. fuel pump lubricity. Indeed I have NEVER had an issue with ANY of the three. I have known all along that with a 250,000 mile mileage frame, I would have/will experience little if any difference. My mileage frame however is at 500,000 miles, so it is a longer term attempt to put all the odds in my favor.
There are of course additional costs to remove sulfur from a barrel of oil to refine #2 diesel fuel to get to 5 ppm or less.
..." CONTACT: ANNE RUKAVINA 312.644.6610, ext. 3393
NEW STUDY DETERMINES MODEST COST INCREASE TO PRODUCE
LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL
CHICAGO (Nov.1, 1999) -- The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) sponsored an economic study on the refining costs associated with the desulfurization of diesel fuel. The study concludes that the incremental cost to reduce current sulfur levels in diesel fuel 90% from 500 ppm to below 50 ppm would be on average about 5-7 cents per gallon.
The report, entitled "Refining Economics of Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standards" was prepared by MathPro, Inc. and was developed with the cooperation of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) and various refinery technology vendors. The MathPro final report can be downloaded in PDF format. More interesting is that the study also found that it would cost only an additional 2 cents per gallon to go the rest of the way from 50 ppm to below 5 ppm sulfur", said Glenn Keller, EMA’s Executive Director. "Sulfur in motor vehicle fuels is known to inhibit the performance of certain emission control devices to be used on diesel engines."
A 5 ppm sulfur cap also is what emission control device manufacturers have identified as necessary to maximize the performance of their control technologies.
The US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have announced that the next generation of diesel engines will be required to achieve more than a 90% reduction in NOx and particulate emissions from 2004 product. "This emissions reduction target will require near zero levels of sulfur to enable the commercial viability of catalytic controls being developed for diesel engines," replied Keller."...
So if the goal is to further REMOVE sulfur from #2 diesel, it seems disingenuous to put obstacles in the way of diesel engines able to use biodiesel; as bio diesel has LESS than 5 ppm to ZERO sulfur content, AND at NO additional COST (of removal) . Perhaps the LACK of cost of removal is the REAL ISSUE!! As a comparison RUG to PUG has 30 ppm sulfur and of course emits exponentially more green house gasses than like model diesels. Indeed any B ratio will FURTHER decrease the sulfur ppm!!!!??? Of course this regulatory operative "ban" to real world obstacles is/are NOT sound bite able, as the current recited mantras are so called "dirty diesel" Indeed the reality is RUG to PUG is 2x DIRTIER than #2 ULSD and 30 x dirtier than bio diesel with 1 ppm. Of course ZERO ppm.... (would be mathematically structurally incalcuable).
As you probably know, use of biodiesel really puts the lubricity issue at total moot.
... There is some water in all Diesel fuel. If (IF) it is minute enough it will chemical bond with some of the fuel and pass harmlessly and un-noticed right through the engine. At some point of volume it falls out of suspension and puddles, because of surface tension it will actually not pass most filters. Therein is ninety plus percent of all water problems. Methanol additives (most all water dispersant additives are) actually "bond up" the water and again it passes through the filter(s) and engine. If you buy from a volume dealer and don't let your vehicle sit with a bunch of air in the tank(s) this is almost always enough precaution without any additive. In some high humidity areas and watercraft more precaution is necessary; however a filter with drain will take care of ninety plus percent of these problems with a quick ounce or two drain before every use.
Comments
While I do not wish to get political, it would seem all these caldrons boiling over are in effect ,self inflicted GSW's.
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/62077;_ylt=Ah2uGOWConF1jz6k7e- - GURxS7YWsA
Just as General Motors is now looking at bringing their new 2.9L diesel V-6 stateside, Subaru is now looking to add the diesel to just-released second-gen Forester and Impreza models.-end
Subaru Diesels in US
August 2008
Jetta Wagon
It's a 12 - 18 month wait accross the board, so it will be intersting to see how the diesel market pla.ys out.
As an owner of a VW TDI (diesel) with over 100,000 miles, I am very curious about the coming crop of diesels to the US market and especially those clocking 100,000 miles plus. Also I wish to see the new (and improved) VW's. VW has garnered a reputation for having some "reliability" issues. However...
Some examples, 2003 TDI: (while some might make a case of getting the pick of the litter, statistics argue against this)
1. I have been pleasantly surprised the TDI's oem tires have clicked over 100,000 miles. The tires seem good to go @ least to 110,000 miles- if not 125,000 miles. (H rated tires, will of course use the tire depth gauge at the next rotation (110,000 miles) These oem tires come in (DEAD) last in almost every owner survey done. The only reason why it didn't come in lower was because VW used only three different oem tires!?
2. I will get my first alignment when I put on the new tires
3. The first 100,000 miles of TDI engine operations have been utterly seamless.
4. Brake pads and rotors (dare I say) look good to go for ANOTHER 100,000 miles.
5. Mileage is better now that when new (daily commute between 48-52 mpg: range between 44-62 mpg on epa of 42/49)
6. After engine break in and warranty protocols, I am running 20,000 to 25,000 mile OCI's
One observation based on the price swag of 25,000 on a 2009 VW Jetta TDI and a pp of 18,000 for the 2003 TDI. There will be a 4 percent per year average price increase. However I am lead to believe, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the MY cars.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/volkswagen/passat/100912540/researchlanding.html-
See, they do ship it - wagon, reasonably priced, too, just not diesel. That's what annoys me. Even when they decide to send diesels, we still cannot get the best. :confuse:
Couldn't pay me to do that. Brake pads and shoes may appear to have plenty of lining left, but that doesn't mean they're functional. They may have glazed or cracked, and when you need to really shove the whoa pedal into the carpet, they may surprise you (and not in a good way). Rotors could be scored from small debris or may have warped slightly and caused the pads to deform to match. Get the pads changed and discs resurfaced.
kcram - Pickups Host
They will both be affordable.
link title
http://cars.uk.msn.com/Reviews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7283675
Let's hope thios finds its way to North America very soon!
In theory, there should be a ever so slight fuel mileage improvement. When I ran CA LSD (140 ppm) I ran 20,000 miles OCI. With the implementation of ULSD (15ppm to less) I have been running 25,000 miles OCI's.
I am not looking forward to the increase in prices (5.50/qt vs 11/l ) per qt/gal, but the new oil CAN be good to go to 30,000 miles OCI's. Perhaps more longitudinal testing over at BITOG might even indicate greater than 30,000 miles.
As diesel products become more widespread, it will be interesting what oil products will become more well known.
TSX diesel 2.2L
At some point in time in the next three years the Subaru diesel will be sold here in the US, until that time, here is a teaser.
From a baseline of less than 3% current, I would be surprised if the diesel markets are 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet at the 10-15 year mark (same as the SUV passenger vehicle fleet, pvf= 235.4 M* 9%=21.186M/15 years=1.4124 M diesel vehicles average per year). This would amount to 8.5% of yearly sales.
I like diesels, but I sure am not religious about them. Whoever gives me a vehicle that will cost me less to operate and (this is the biggie) send fewer of my dollars to the Middle East, will get my business.
I have always from (the naive point of view) thought that if the sound bite rhetoric were to match the realities, that alternative fuels should be a portion of the passenger vehicle fleet.
How are is the logistic system going to get off (close to 100%) use of RUG to PUG if there are not a sizeable portion of vehicles that do not use RUG TO PUG?
I stress this has been and remains naive; despite being mathematically incontrovertible. The nexus with diesel is not only is it a better engine for our roads, gets 20-40% fuel economy, costs less per mile driven (biggie for me also), R&D has been ongoing for literally decades, but it has the ability to be the short term (30-50 years) fuel of choice. It also can be ONE ALTERNATIVE fuel, generated from on going processes, i.e., oil waste streams @EVERY landfill/recycling center, food waste processes, algae growth, and literally, etc, etc, etc. That is why I say a short termdiesel target of 12-25% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
On the other hand the (operative) goal is not to lessen the use of conventional petroleum, but to increase its operating cost. Indeed a snap shot will show that even with the highest fuel standards we have ever had, the dependency on foreign oil has never been higher (percentage & volume).
I guess my only thought is "big deal. Almost every model car has some sort of recall and/or TSB."
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/14557/2008-subaru-legacy-and-outback-go-dies- el.html
San Diego's Achates Power has said on its Web site that it's creating a clean, light, fuel-efficient diesel engine.
The company has also received investments from Sequoia Capital, a relative newcomer to energy investments, Rockport Capital Partners and Interwest Partners. (VentureWire has a brief interview with Achates CEO James Lemke.)
Achates has not said how its engine will work, the company has three patent applications on file with the U.S. Patent Office. Two of the patents describe what's known as an opposed piston/opposed cylinder engine. In this type of engine, two pistons sit inside a single cylinder. That makes it different than most other motors where pistons have individual cylinders. (Some car makers have made engines with horizontal pistons, similar to an opposed piston engine, but they have their own cylinders.)
"The opposed-piston engine was invented by Hugo Junkers around the end of the nineteenth century," one of the patent applications states. "In 1936, the Junkers Jumo airplane engines, the most successful diesel engines to that date, were able to achieve a power density and fuel efficiency that have not been matched by any diesel engine since...Nevertheless, Junkers' basic design contains a number of deficiencies."
As a result of the deficiencies and costs, it never went mainstream. But who knows? It could now. EcoMotors, which has received investments from Khosla Ventures, is doing the same thing.
Transonic, meanwhile, has come up with a fuel injection system that increases the pressure inside of diesel engines. Putting Transonic's system into a diesel lets the engine run on regular gas (which is cleaner). Mileage also goes up to 100 miles per gallon. The system sounds similar to a technology called HCCI being tinkered on at Toyota and GM.
Achates, by the way, was in Roman mythology a close friend of Aeneas, the star of The Iliad.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/future/glk/index.do
The Vision GLK was shown at the NAIAS as a concept vehicle, and the press I read said that the concept diesel wouldn't make it to the US any time soon.
Mercedes website, however, prominantly lists a "Powerful 2.2 liter BLUETEC clean diesel 4-cylinder with two-stage turbocharger, delivering 168 horsepower and 369 lb-ft torque"
Any chance they'll get this on the market before VW decides to finally give is a diesel Tiquan?
BTW, what are those wavy white lines on the right side of the dashboard in this photo: http://www.mbusa.com/media/images/campaigns/glk-class-10/front.jpg :confuse:
http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshows/14483/mercedes-benz-vision-glk-freeside-co- ncept.html?al=247
As for the wavy lines, It is officially a "concept", so it's probably a weird design in the wood grain pattern. I wouldn't expect it on the production model.
No price estimate, but does say the 4 cyl diesel is intended for the US, with an arrival of January 09.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/detroit/2008/mercedesbenzvisionglkfr- eesideconcept.html
While I do understand there are not a lot of history in the field, I would ask from a consumers point of view, what do I need to do or can expect to do, to keep that system (and/or parts in that system) humming for 100 to 500k miles.
Using the VW Jetta TDI as an example:
@ 100,000 miles I ran a 12 oz bottle of Primerose 406 Injector Perfector cleaner. (I suspect from a cost point of view, a waste of money) So far the injectors FEEL good to go for ANOTHER 100,000 miles. But in truth they did before the treatment.
I change the fuel filter 3 times in 100,000 miles (20,000 miles interval recommended)
Glo Plugs seem to be holding out nicely.
I do run an additive-( not oem recommended -Primerose 405C 1:3000 dilution) as a cetane boost, fuel pump lubricity, and H20 emulification.
As an observation, fuel mileage is as good as it has ever been. Even after 100,000 miles I am still amazed that if I push it harder than a gasser the mileage is still stellar.
In theory, ULSD has to meet standards with someone in the logistics systems putting in the required needed additives.
Fuel pump lubricity is an interesting subject. I would SWAG that it is not statistically definitive beyond minimum standards. . I would swag that is why the (Primrose 405C) mixture is packaged as a troika, 1.cetane boost 2. H20 emulsifier (this is debated also in the #2 diesel community) 3. fuel pump lubricity. Indeed I have NEVER had an issue with ANY of the three. I have known all along that with a 250,000 mile mileage frame, I would have/will experience little if any difference. My mileage frame however is at 500,000 miles, so it is a longer term attempt to put all the odds in my favor.
..." CONTACT: ANNE RUKAVINA
312.644.6610, ext. 3393
NEW STUDY DETERMINES MODEST COST INCREASE TO PRODUCE
LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL
CHICAGO (Nov.1, 1999) -- The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) sponsored an economic study on the refining costs associated with the desulfurization of diesel fuel. The study concludes that the incremental cost to reduce current sulfur levels in diesel fuel 90% from 500 ppm to below 50 ppm would be on average about 5-7 cents per gallon.
The report, entitled "Refining Economics of Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standards" was prepared by MathPro, Inc. and was developed with the cooperation of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA) and various refinery technology vendors. The MathPro final report can be downloaded in PDF format. More interesting is that the study also found that it would cost only an additional 2 cents per gallon to go the rest of the way from 50 ppm to below 5 ppm sulfur", said Glenn Keller, EMA’s Executive Director. "Sulfur in motor vehicle fuels is known to inhibit the performance of certain emission control devices to be used on diesel engines."
A 5 ppm sulfur cap also is what emission control device manufacturers have identified as necessary to maximize the performance of their control technologies.
The US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have announced that the next generation of diesel engines will be required to achieve more than a 90% reduction in NOx and particulate emissions from 2004 product. "This emissions reduction target will require near zero levels of sulfur to enable the commercial viability of catalytic controls being developed for diesel engines," replied Keller."...
link title
(above bold and larger font size- MY sic)
So if the goal is to further REMOVE sulfur from #2 diesel, it seems disingenuous to put obstacles in the way of diesel engines able to use biodiesel; as bio diesel has LESS than 5 ppm to ZERO sulfur content, AND at NO additional COST (of removal) . Perhaps the LACK of cost of removal is the REAL ISSUE!! As a comparison RUG to PUG has 30 ppm sulfur and of course emits exponentially more green house gasses than like model diesels. Indeed any B ratio will FURTHER decrease the sulfur ppm!!!!??? Of course this regulatory operative "ban" to real world obstacles is/are NOT sound bite able, as the current recited mantras are so called "dirty diesel" Indeed the reality is RUG to PUG is 2x DIRTIER than #2 ULSD and 30 x dirtier than bio diesel with 1 ppm. Of course ZERO ppm.... (would be mathematically structurally incalcuable).
As you probably know, use of biodiesel really puts the lubricity issue at total moot.