Diesel additives..... Fyrex Ci ?

[Transporter]

Also keep in mind that the DPF doesn't infinitive number of regenerations, which means if you use lesser quality fuel. Very simply said, it will regenerate more often. For example it could regenerate every 300km-500km instead of every 1000km, and also the regeneration time could be longer when using lesser quality fuel.

Penrite DPF cleaner should help to reduce the soot amount in the DPF, which should result in shorter regeneration times, hence extending the life of the DPF even further.

What pricked my interest the most was Penrite DPF Cleaner that is added to the tank - claims to lower soot levels, enhance regen and do so at lower temps (odd, as I thought high temp was required to burn off soot?)

What it means is; that the platinum particles added to such additives will act as catalyst and convert some soot at lower temperatures without waiting for the ECU to start the regeneration cycle. So, when there is the next scheduled regeneration, the process will take much shorter time because there is less soot to actively burn off.

You can alter between Penrite DPF Cleaner and Moreys DSK.

Just a reminder that our diesel was so bad before year 2000 that not many manufacturers bothered with bringing their diesel engines to our country. The allowed sulphur level in our diesel fuel was much higher than in EU diesel fuel, it was probably as good as the Indonesian fuels.

Sulphur in diesel:
Year
1999 - 2002 average was 1300ppm and it could be as high as 6000ppm
2002 - 2005 500ppm
1.1.2006 - 2008 10ppm
1.1. 2009 10ppm

I would also question the quality of our engine oils used in VAG engines up to 2005, but I don't want to open the can of worms. Just a note that, it would be handy to know, how many dealerships in Australia can/or is using local engine oils in TDI today and why they have to use imported oil from Europe? I think I know the answer to it.

[Ryeman]

I'm wondering if we will actually get higher quality diesel when it's shipped from Singapore as opposed to the fuel from our disappearing uneconomic refineries.

[Transporter]

I'm wondering if we will actually get higher quality diesel when it's shipped from Singapore as opposed to the fuel from our disappearing uneconomic refineries.

I doubt that. It will most likely be made to our standard, just like European cars imported to Australia.

[Ryeman]

The bottom line is they closed because they couldn't justify the cost of keeping up with fuel standards eg euro 6 and beyond so its a moot point realy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Diesel_vert]

Also keep in mind that the DPF doesn't infinitive number of regenerations, which means if you use lesser quality fuel. Very simply said, it will regenerate more often. For example it could regenerate every 300km-500km instead of every 1000km, and also the regeneration time could be longer when using lesser quality fuel.

My point is that, in practice, the cetane index of automotive diesel here is not so low as to generate excessive PM emissions beyond the DPF's design parameters and impair its operation, and that sulfur content in diesel fuel has a more significant bearing on PM emissions (soot) than does the cetane value.

Just a reminder that our diesel was so bad before year 2000 that not many manufacturers bothered with bringing their diesel engines to our country. The allowed sulphur level in our diesel fuel was much higher than in EU diesel fuel, it was probably as good as the Indonesian fuels.

High as it was, the sulfur content in diesel fuel wasn't much of a concern back then, given the differences in engine design, the types of engine lubricant specified, lack of extended service intervals and the absence of stringent emissions standards or emissions devices.

The primary reason why diesel engined passenger cars weren't popular here until relatively recently is that the market for these vehicles was tiny, owing to a number of social and economic factors (very low petrol prices, little focus on fuel economy, dominance of Australian and Japanese marques, high import tariffs, uncompetitive European car prices, less sophisticated diesel engine technology, public perception of diesel, etc). Seems so long ago now, lol.

Even in Europe, the market share of diesel passenger cars only really took off from the late 90s/early 2000s (20%) to almost half (50%) by the mid 2000s, where it remains to this day (give or take).

Marques which have consistently made diesel passenger cars available here (off the top of my head) include Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot, who have being importing them for decades, but were more popular in regional or rural areas.

The bottom line is they closed because they couldn't justify the cost of keeping up with fuel standards eg euro 6 and beyond so its a moot point realy.

There already exists a Euro 6 emissions standard, but there is really no Euro 6 "fuel standard" as such. Diesel fuel here is already sulfur free (widely defined as less than 10 ppm), in line with many advanced economies.

[Transporter]

My point is that, in practice, the cetane index of automotive diesel here is not so low as to generate excessive PM emissions beyond the DPF's design parameters and impair its operation, and that sulfur content in diesel fuel has a more significant bearing on PM emissions (soot) than does the cetane value.

High as it was, the sulfur content in diesel fuel wasn't much of a concern back then, given the differences in engine design, the types of engine lubricant specified, lack of extended service intervals and the absence of stringent emissions standards or emissions devices.

Yes, it gives an indication that our fuel was/is still crap.

The primary reason why diesel engined passenger cars weren't popular here until relatively recently is that the market for these vehicles was tiny, owing to a number of social and economic factors (very low petrol prices, little focus on fuel economy, dominance of Australian and Japanese marques, high import tariffs, uncompetitive European car prices, less sophisticated diesel engine technology, public perception of diesel, etc). Seems so long ago now, lol.

I'm aware of that.
But, our diesel quality was still one of the reasons why more brands didn't bring their diesels here.

Even in Europe, the market share of diesel passenger cars only really took off from the late 90s/early 2000s (20%) to almost half (50%) by the mid 2000s, where it remains to this day (give or take).

Yes, give or take, it's a tad over 50% now for some time.

Marques which have consistently made diesel passenger cars available here (off the top of my head) include Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot, who have being importing them for decades, but were more popular in regional or rural areas.

Yes, those were the main 2 brands that maintained their diesel cars presence in Australia at all times.
Also Mazda had the 626 diesel in here towards the end of 90'.

[Skooter]

Penrite DPF cleaner should help to reduce the soot amount in the DPF, which should result in shorter regeneration times, hence extending the life of the DPF even further.



What it means is; that the platinum particles added to such additives will act as catalyst and convert some soot at lower temperatures without waiting for the ECU to start the regeneration cycle. So, when there is the next scheduled regeneration, the process will take much shorter time because there is less soot to actively burn off.

You can alter between Penrite DPF Cleaner and Moreys DSK.
1.1. 2009 10ppm

I would also question the quality of our engine oils used in VAG engines up to 2005, but I don't want to open the can of worms.

That's the advice I was hoping to get. I'll happily add stuff to my tank if a) it does something it's supposed to and b) it doesn't damage an already excellent powerplant. No doubt many things have changed in fuel and oil specs as manufacturers have sought ever more performance and better econ and emission controls from diesel engines.

Huge diff between the Scout 103TDI and my brother's Datsun diesel ute circa 1984(?): probably double the torque and power from a smaller engine. It's the outright (usable) performance and outstanding econ of the diesels today that made me really go for one. If Holden had been able to produce (or at the very least, provide) a motor that matched this (outright perf effectively equal to the US-made 3.8L V6 they use/d for about half the fuel consumption), maybe a Commode wouldn't have been such a bad idea and we'd still have a car industry.

But I know it's more complex than that ... small country/small market, cheaper imports etc etc (but look at Volvo - what's the pop of Sweden?). And a Skoda TDI was cheaper than a Mazda 6 diesel.

[Diesel_vert]

Additives are an essential component in automotive lubricants and play an important role in the delivery of fuels to the market. Without it, current advances in engine technology would not have been market feasible.

However, given what happens in practice, concerns about the Australian standard for diesel fuel, while not invalid, are overstated IMO.

Aftermarket or OTC additive products may prove useful if circumstances justify it, but consumers should also do their best to ensure they are not looking for (or persuaded to look for) solutions without a problem.

As always, ensure one's internal BS meter is kept in well working order. When to use it, I leave up to the individual.

Yes, it gives an indication that our fuel was/is still crap.

In regards to indicators of fuel quality, I don't see the correlation between any of the previous standards of diesel and the current standard of diesel that is being delivered from our fuel terminals.

Diesel fuel in Europe went through similar stages of sulfur content reduction (albeit on a faster timetable). Limits on sulfur content were not introduced until 1993, where a limit of 2000 ppm was specified and applied from 1994 onwards, and reduced further to 500 pm in 1996, 350 ppm in 2000, 50 ppm in 2005, and finally to 10 ppm from 2009.

So if past standards of fuel are truly an indication of current standards of fuel, then by extension, that argument would imply diesel fuel in Europe "was/is still crap".

[Transporter]

As always, ensure one's internal BS meter is kept in well working order. When to use it, I leave up to the individual.

In regards to indicators of fuel quality, I don't see the correlation between any of the previous standards of diesel and the current standard of diesel that is being delivered from our fuel terminals.

Diesel fuel in Europe went through similar stages of sulfur content reduction (albeit on a faster timetable). Limits on sulfur content were not introduced until 1993, where a limit of 2000 ppm was specified and applied from 1994 onwards, and reduced further to 500 pm in 1996, 350 ppm in 2000, 50 ppm in 2005, and finally to 10 ppm from 2009.

So if past standards of fuel are truly an indication of current standards of fuel, then by extension, that argument would imply diesel fuel in Europe "was/is still crap".

Really?
In Australia;
In 1999, the average sulfur content of diesel was 1300 parts per million (ppm). In December 2002, a new standard was introduced, reducing the maximum sulfur content of diesel to 500 ppm. Sulfur emissions attributed to the transport sector will be further reduced in the future. By 2008, the sulfur level in premium unleaded petrol will be 50 parts per million and, by 2009, sulfur levels in diesel will be 10 parts per million.
http://www.environment.gov.au/resour...ur-dioxide-so2

I and many as well know that there is more to the diesel quality than just the sulphur.

[Transporter]

As always, ensure one's internal BS meter is kept in well working order. When to use it, I leave up to the individual.

In regards to indicators of fuel quality, I don't see the correlation between any of the previous standards of diesel and the current standard of diesel that is being delivered from our fuel terminals.

Diesel fuel in Europe went through similar stages of sulfur content reduction (albeit on a faster timetable). Limits on sulfur content were not introduced until 1993, where a limit of 2000 ppm was specified and applied from 1994 onwards, and reduced further to 500 pm in 1996, 350 ppm in 2000, 50 ppm in 2005, and finally to 10 ppm from 2009.

So if past standards of fuel are truly an indication of current standards of fuel, then by extension, that argument would imply diesel fuel in Europe "was/is still crap".

Really?
In Australia;
In 1999, the average sulfur content of diesel was 1300 parts per million (ppm). In December 2002, a new standard was introduced, reducing the maximum sulfur content of diesel to 500 ppm. Sulfur emissions attributed to the transport sector will be further reduced in the future. By 2008, the sulfur level in premium unleaded petrol will be 50 parts per million and, by 2009, sulfur levels in diesel will be 10 parts per million.
http://www.environment.gov.au/resour...ur-dioxide-so2

I and many as well know that there is more to the diesel quality than just the sulphur.