EPA Moves To Cut Sulfur In Gasoline

[mechman600]

The entire reason of going to ultra low sulfur diesel in the fall of 2006 was because the manufacturers demanded it for EPA2007. ULSD is <15 PPM sulfur; LSD is <500 PPM.
LSD poisons the precious metal coating on DOCs/DPFs in very short order.
Stamped right on the Caterpillar DPF I was servicing the other day: "<15 PPM ULSD".

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Beau

Thank you. I have been told that the reduction in sulfer in diesel fuel caused premature pump failure, therfore some are adding additives (including TC-W3 ashless two stroke oil).

I always considered it quite strange when older folks quoted sulfur as a lube for the injection pump, complaining about low-sulfur Diesel lack of lubricity. Well, it's actually more related to the Diesel fuel getting thinner than it used to be, for example biodiesel is sulfur-free and in some lower blends such as B2 and B5 it's usually quoted as a "lube additive".

[mechman600]

The only problems I have witnessed as the result of ULSD are fuel leaks - gaskets that had swelled because of the quantity of sulfur in LSD and then shrank once they were subjected to ULSD.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

As yet unknown...sorta like when they took the lead out of gasoline, then discovered afterward that without the presence of lead, the valves were "sinking" into their head seats because previously the lead-oxide had acted like a "sponge-cushion" to prevent this from happening. An example of EPA's "Unintended Consquences" from not thoroughly investigating (understanding) the ramifications of their hasty mandates.

Myth. There was no mystery that removing the lead would remove the lubrication supposedly needed for the valve seats. Additionally, studies have shown that running an engine designed for leaded fuel with unleaded fuel under normal conditions caused no more failures than average, and could even saved the owner money since leaded fuel can be more damaging to other parts of the engine (spark plugs, exhaust system, valves). The reason to get the lead out was, of course, to allow the use of catalytic converters, as the leaded fuel would have destroyed them.

The damage to human health that the leaded fuel has caused is still being uncovered, however...

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

sorta like when they took the lead out of gasoline, then discovered afterward that without the presence of lead, the valves were "sinking" into their head seats because previously the lead-oxide had acted like a "sponge-cushion" to prevent this from happening.

Strange, then, that so many older cars seem to be able to run just fine on unleaded gas, and some have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of miles. When's this mysterious sinking valve problem supposed to show up?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

RustLugNut -- As I said, CALIFORNIA does NOT rule the United States, regardless of what *it* might think, and making everybody else suffer for their problems is neither democratic nor beneficial.

The CALIFORNIA mindset of "...what's good for US is good for YOU (whether you want or need it or not)" is self-centered and haughty.

Do what you want *IN* California, but leave the rest of us alone! Maybe we should cry to the BLM to "cut" the Colorado River water flow into Los Angles whenever Arizona (or Nevada) has a drought or water problem?

I think I have answered this more than adequately. Your answers are devolving into bar-room politics with little thought and a lot of beer. But as clarification for the reader . . .

The intensity and density of settlement, industry and agriculture in places such as California and several large metro areas such as New York and it's surrounds, has required environmental measures of equally intense resolve. Most of these measures will never see implementation outside the respective zones. California pays a high price for this. Look back on the difference between 49 state and 50 state ( California ) certified vehicles. The difference was not just technical but financial. From several hundred dollars to roughly 1500 dollars at it's peak. At a certain point, the EPA spreads select mandates to other/all regions when the overall environmental and economic benefits dictate. For the most part, they do a good job. The resurgence of the American Muscle Car is a side benefit to this. Clean, green and kick-ass Mean can co-exist together.

And so must we all. Not just because our environment is tied together, but because our economy is tied together.

Choke off the water to California and you choke off one of the worlds largest agricultural food baskets. You also choke off significant sources of Bio-tech and pharmaceuticals. We could continue with electronics and defense. On and on.

The same could be said for all regions - to a larger or smaller degree. Local uniqueness is what makes traveling worth while - the differences we have. But as we hold on to those differences, we must balance that with our larger responsibilities.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Beau

Let me phrase my question differently - other than the added expense that will result from the costs to reduce the amount of sulfer, are there negative impacts on the engine that will result from reduced sulfer content?

The sulfur coats and neutralizes the catalytic coating in the converter. This often results in a properly operating gasoline fueled engine being unable to meet emission standards well before the required 100K mile warranty runs out.

In diesel engines, sulfur provides a core during combustion for nucleation to start resulting in the large amount of smoke pouring out of old diesels of the past. Low sulfur diesel allows the DOC's and DPF's that someone else mentioned, to have a reasonable operating life between burn off purges or mechanical cleaning.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Strange, then, that so many older cars seem to be able to run just fine on unleaded gas, and some have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of miles. When's this mysterious sinking valve problem supposed to show up?

Can not speak for others, but I've had to replace valve seats in early Plymouth/Dodge 318 engines because the valves pounded themselves into the heat/seat...and personally know of similar problems happening with early Ford 6-cylinder engines...and, was TOLD (I know, 2nd hand) of similar problems with GM products.

Moreover, the private pilots were/are totally afraid of valve problems, hence their delayed transition to Low-LEAD (and NO-lead!) gasoline even now.

Today, the valve seat area of heads are inductively 'hardened' because of the loss of valve "cushioning" that lead-oxide (the end result during combustion) provided.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Strange, then, that so many older cars seem to be able to run just fine on unleaded gas, and some have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of miles. When's this mysterious sinking valve problem supposed to show up?

It happened to my 283, big time. Some of the seats receded so much the valve didn't even reciprocate anymore. At the time I too thought that since I wasn't working that engine real hard, that it would be OK. It wasn't.

To fix the older heads, hardened seats must be installed.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It happened to my 283, big time. Some of the seats receded so much the valve didn't even reciprocate anymore. At the time I too thought that since I wasn't working that engine real hard, that it would be OK. It wasn't.

To fix the older heads, hardened seats must be installed.

I'm glad my antiques don't have valves.