Caltex vortex premium diesel

[Transporter]

Maybe try look up why the biodiesel is not good for the DPF and for the engine oil in the sump. The concentration of the biodiesel in the petrodiesel aside, because if it's not good for todays TDI's, then it doesn't matter how little you put in.

[Diesel_vert]

In line with European practice, Australian diesel allows up to 5% of biodiesel without the need for labelling on the pump. And as bluey points out, the Europeans increased this limit to 7%.

European vehicle manufacturers have approved the use of diesel that contains up to 7% biodiesel, so assuming the biodiesel component meets all the required standards (no home grown stuff unless quality can be verified in a lab, etc.) I see no reason why a biodiesel content of just 2% would cause any appreciable problems.

However, they also make it quite clear that blends higher than 7%, especially B20 which are becoming common place, are not automatically approved and have conditions placed upon their usage (especially if equipped with a DPF), if permitted at all.

[Transporter]

Just analysing here what are the known facts, nothing personal.

VW says for their diesel engines, the fuel must meet EN590 and be minimum CN51. But, according to you, our diesel, which is minimum CN46, is equal to EN590 European diesel, which is what, minimum CN51 or more?
Hmm, that's very interesting theory. But, I can see our fuel to be nowhere near to EN590. Unless you think that mixing the petro-diesel with bio would make it EN590, which sounds more like a cover up and a rip of to me.

It looks like, that VW is knowingly exporting their diesel powered cars into the countries, that don't have the right fuel, taking "a small" risk, maybe that's what they think. So, only VW should be responsible for any engine fuel related failures, incl. HPFP failures in US and some in here. To me, it looks like the base for another class action in US against VAG and another lost one, before it even started.

[Diesel_vert]

VW says for their diesel engines, the fuel must meet EN590 and be minimum CN51. But, according to you, our diesel, which is minimum CN46, is equal to EN590 European diesel, which is what, minimum CN51 or more?

I never really believed (and still don't believe) that the cetane number of Australian diesel (for on-road usage) is a major issue or something to be especially concerned about.

In regards to fuel standards, EN590 specifies a minimum cetane index of 46, which is the same for our diesel. EN590 also specifies a minimum cetane number of 51, but our diesel doesn't specify a minimum CN. Hence, it is likely that actual cetane number for our diesel hovers somewhere between 48 - 50. This in itself is no big problem IMO, and in the context of suitable biodiesel blends and a vehicle's capability to deal with biodiesel, it is not really relevant at all.

The most important aspect is that the biodiesel component of the final product meets fuel quality standards (yes, Australia has one for biodiesel).

It looks like, that VW is knowingly exporting their diesel powered cars into the countries, that don't have the right fuel, taking "a small" risk, maybe that's what they think. So, only VW should be responsible for any engine fuel related failures, incl. HPFP failures in US and some in here. To me, it looks like the base for another class action in US against VAG and another lost one, before it even started.

The issue of HPFP failures in the U.S. may or may not be related to American fuel standards in regards to lubricity, which allows a higher wear scar of 520 μm (worse). European and Australian diesel only allows a wear scar of 460 μm (better), which is what the fuel injection equipment manufacturers demand. In any case, the addition of 2% biodiesel would greatly alleviate any lubricity woes - particularly for the Americans. For us, it can act as a sort of safety buffer if you like, but one that isn't strictly necessary IMO.

So again, I see no harm in the addition of biodiesel as long as it doesn't exceed 7% (or whatever the manufacturer specifies).

[Transporter]

I never really believed (and still don't believe) that the cetane number of Australian diesel (for on-road usage) is a major issue or something to be especially concerned about.

In regards to fuel standards, EN590 specifies a minimum cetane index of 46, which is the same for our diesel. EN590 also specifies a minimum cetane number of 51, but our diesel doesn't specify a minimum CN. Hence, it is likely that actual cetane number for our diesel hovers somewhere between 48 - 50. This in itself is no big problem IMO, and in the context of suitable biodiesel blends and a vehicle's capability to deal with biodiesel, it is not really relevant at all.

The most important aspect is that the biodiesel component of the final product meets fuel quality standards (yes, Australia has one for biodiesel).



The issue of HPFP failures in the U.S. may or may not be related to American fuel standards in regards to lubricity, which allows a higher wear scar of 520 μm (worse). European and Australian diesel only allows a wear scar of 460 μm (better), which is what the fuel injection equipment manufacturers demand. In any case, the addition of 2% biodiesel would greatly alleviate any lubricity woes - particularly for the Americans. For us, it can act as a sort of safety buffer if you like, but one that isn't strictly necessary IMO.

So again, I see no harm in the addition of biodiesel as long as it doesn't exceed 7% (or whatever the manufacturer specifies).

I'm sorry mate, but I fail to see any benefit from using the biodiesel blends.
From what I know about the biodiesel is, that it will cause the higher engine deposits formations, oxidize the engine oil and it increases the bacterial growth in the fuel. It may attack certain metals such as zinc, copper based alloys, cast iron, tin, lead, cobalt and manganese. So, why on erth I would want that in my fuel.

...and as per the CN. Simply said; higher CN has shorter ignition delay, which again reduces the soot, because the fuel has longer time to burn.

From what you said, I understand that the lower number is perfectly fine and there is no benefit to have ther right CN for the engine, which is currently 51

[Diesel_vert]

From what I know about the biodiesel is, that it will cause the higher engine deposits formations, oxidize the engine oil and it increases the bacterial growth in the fuel. It may attack certain metals such as zinc, copper based alloys, cast iron, tin, lead, cobalt and manganese. So, why on earth I would want that in my fuel.

Certainly, that's what can happen if you use poor quality biodiesel.

However, it would be incorrect to assume that is representative of all biodiesel or biodiesel blends.

I'm sorry mate, but I fail to see any benefit from using the biodiesel blends.

On a practical level, biodiesel acts as a very effective lubricity additive, as shown from the Spicer additive test (a subject which is of intense interest in America, due to their fuel quality standands).

But one can argue that it isn't really necessary for European or Australian diesel, since the lubricity requirement (460 μm) is satisfactory, but neither can it do much harm (assuming the quality of biodiesel is satisfactory) - which is the argument I'm trying to make.

...and as per the CN. Simply said; higher CN has shorter ignition delay, which again reduces the soot, because the fuel has longer time to burn.

From what you said, I understand that the lower number is perfectly fine and there is no benefit to have ther right CN for the engine, which is currently 51

My argument is it that whilst high cetane values are fine, its effect (and hence, its benefit) is not linear.

[Amalgam]

Hi All,

I have just topped up the Passat with my blend of B2 after letting the fuel gauge get down to 1/4 tank. It was a blend of 7L Gull B20 topped up with BP Ultimate.

My observations are that there is no increase in power or improved fuel consumption BUT it seems to idle a little quieter and cruise at 100km/h much quieter.

Have any other users of B2 especially those using Vortex out of Newcastle notice the same or is it wishful thinking.

Thanks

[Transporter]

Give it some time and then compare by using one tank just premium diesel without the bio content. Like I said many times before; in today's automotive world the environment comes first, engine second and the end user (consumer) pays the price.

[BottomScratcher]

Woo hoo!!! BP Ultimate Diesel is apparently available in NSW,....at last. None in Sydney though. I just did a search for BP Ultimate Diesel from my postcode, and was given the one option, BP Marina Service Center, Grafton, NSW, 500.4 Kms.

Whoopeedoo!!! I'm off to celebrate!

[bluey]

Well I would celebrate the old BP Ultimate with high cetane. The new BP Ultimate post-2000 is just petrodiesel + injector cleaner + anti-foam IIRC. Used to have cetane improver but not now since 2010. So I just use Moreys Diesel Smoke Killer (on Transporter's recommendation) which has injector cleaner, cetane improver, lubricity improver and algicide.

While the 460μm wear scar standard is acceptable, there is less wear and longer life of HPFP with better lubricity (Bosch presentation - can dig up the paper if people can't find it). I think Australian diesel is usually better than 460μm. Premature HPFP failure is a major issue in USA and a long-term concern for me as HPFP failure will take down the entire downstream fuel system with metal particles with large repair cost for HPFP, injectors, etc.