TropicCat, the study is a 2007 study but does not mention ASTM 975 - are we sure the added lubrication of that standard was part of the test?
I mean to say, is this really an issue or has the industry self corrected?
And does anyone know if the fuel
at the pump
is no. 2 d s15 (15 ppm of sulfur)
or is it no. 2 d2500 (500 ppm of sulfur).
both are within the standard.
I don't even know if the no. 2 I have delivered a 'heating oil' is s15, s500 or s5000.
If you page down to the chart here http://ia700803.us.archive.org/24/it....d975.2007.pdf
it has the HFRR rating for ALL of the no. 1 thru no.2 S5000 (the old nasty version) as exactly the SAME, i.e. HFRR 520.
Let's be real clear, old fuel
with a sulfur content of 5000 ppm has the same lubricity as ULSD at 520, per the standard.
The stuff the guy used in the study for his baseline was 636 - meaning it didn't meet the standard
That tells me there is no problem, maybe just hype?