| |
BUSY BOLTERS Are you one?  The Shop Area
continues to pull in the most views on the Stovebolt. In August alone there were over 22,000 views in those 13 forums.
| | Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
4 members (Shaffer's1950, Gib70, JD1, 1 invisible),
523
guests, and
2
robots. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics126,776 Posts1,039,271 Members48,100 | | Most Online2,175
Jul 21st, 2025 | | | | Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 179 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 179 | Hello boys,my daily driver is a '96 chev with a 6.5 diesel in it,With the reduction of sulpher in todays fuel,should i be putting an additive in?
Roy | | | | | Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,061 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,061 | Hy One ear dicky, the reduction of sulpher in diesel, has served to make the fuel cleaner burning, and lowered its cetane rating slightly. This has no detrimental effects on the engine that I'm aware of, hope that helps. | | | | | Joined: May 2005 Posts: 8,877 . | | . Joined: May 2005 Posts: 8,877 | There are two trains of thought on that:
1. Some say the lack of sulfur is a lack of lubricant and you have to add something back in place of it or be prepared to replace failed injection system components.
2. Some say the fuel folks add something back already and the fuel is plenty "slippery", no harm will be done, and you don't need an additive.
I believe the second choice, and have had no problems at all with my 98 Volkswagen TDI.
If the new fuel isn't as slippery or more so than the old version and it causes problems someone might be liable for the damages. I'm betting they don't take that risk and the fuel is still OK to use as is.
But there a bunch of folks who insist the first option is absolutely true..
Grigg | | |
|
|
| |
